This account of the General Mining Law in the US is not materially objective. All of the supposed weaknesses of the law, as specified by the Dems (especially US Rep. Grijalva) and NGOs like Earthworks, have long been addressed by various ordinary statutory and regulatory 'workarounds'. In view of the existence and action of all of these precautionary buffers, conducting initial mineral exploration (the work required to definitively measure the extent and economics of subsurface mineralization) alone is comparatively difficult to accomplish on public lands in the US. Actually obtaining the subsequent regulatory approvals and clearances necessary to develop and operate a mine on US public land is quite problematic, uncertain, and takes much, much more time, effort, and expenditure than that initial staking of mining claims.
By the way, the number of claim posts required to stake a mining claim varies by state. This glib 'put up four posts and the resource is yours' description of the US claim-staking process under the US General Mining Law I think is indicative of the facile degree of comprehension many outsider opponents to US mining and US mining law hold regarding those subjects.
Hi Larry, thanks for the comment. Mining regulation does seem complicated in the US. This piece is meant to highlight that people in and around public lands have no rights under current laws to determine the use for that land, a principle which has been pushed as a global standard (FPIC) among all sorts of development projects around the world. The 1872 law, however, doesn't allow FPIC in its current form and interpretation. That has been considered a 'weakness' in the law that has continued since 1872, in addition to no royalties and no reclamation fee. US law itself, it seems, does not seek to achieve objectivity in determining land use. Feel free to post links to criticisms of mining law reform!
Ian -- you didn't understand my comment very thoroughly, I think. People in and around public lands DO have rights under current laws (and regulations) to determine the use for that land, and in fact actively do so. Those rights are effected through the statutory and regulatory 'workarounds' I was referring to. I, for example, had to abruptly change planned locations of several exploration drill holes on a mineral exploration project some 30 miles west of an Indian reservation to meet the wishes of that particular tribe -- all under the ongoing arrangement the local US forest service district had with the tribe to confer with them on such matters. That sort of arrangement was certainly not in the original US Mining Law.
What you are talking about with this global standard stuff is importing external 'model' law into the US, a country that is already using its own laws and regulations to accomplish the same thing. There's no special merit to the model laws of others, I think, if the same ends are eventually accomplished with standing practices, laws, and regulations.
No reclamation fee? Where does this strange urban environmentalist myth come from? All exploration and mining project operators working on public lands post reclamation bonds that are only returnable after completion of any needed reclamation work -- per the considered judgment of federal land managers. It is true this was not the practice in the late 1800s, but it is certainly so now.
No royalties? You are referring, I think, to federal royalties on mineral production. While it is true mining companies in the US west working on locatable ground do not pay federal royalties on mineral production, but they do pay corporate taxes and severance taxes on that production. Mineral production from leased federal ground in the upper Midwest and points east are subject to federal mineral royalties, however -- and severance and corporate taxes as well.
As to whether mining companies themselves have solid and firm rights under the US 1872 General Mining Law and those later workarounds I mention -- the answer is a definite no. Numerous mining companies, for example, spent 3-4 years conducting uranium exploration work on mining claims in Northern Arizona over the 2005-2009 period but then got summarily thrown off their claims and out of the state when the federal government decided there MIGHT be a long run environmental impact on the Grand Canyon region due to EVENTUAL uranium mining in the area. Note here, that it is believed by the USGS and others that about 80% of the total US uranium resource exists in Northern Arizona.
Like I said in essence in my first comment above, opponents of US mining law and mining in the US tend to see what they want to see, and disregard the rest. Sort of an early expression of the modern day's 'cancel culture'.
This account of the General Mining Law in the US is not materially objective. All of the supposed weaknesses of the law, as specified by the Dems (especially US Rep. Grijalva) and NGOs like Earthworks, have long been addressed by various ordinary statutory and regulatory 'workarounds'. In view of the existence and action of all of these precautionary buffers, conducting initial mineral exploration (the work required to definitively measure the extent and economics of subsurface mineralization) alone is comparatively difficult to accomplish on public lands in the US. Actually obtaining the subsequent regulatory approvals and clearances necessary to develop and operate a mine on US public land is quite problematic, uncertain, and takes much, much more time, effort, and expenditure than that initial staking of mining claims.
By the way, the number of claim posts required to stake a mining claim varies by state. This glib 'put up four posts and the resource is yours' description of the US claim-staking process under the US General Mining Law I think is indicative of the facile degree of comprehension many outsider opponents to US mining and US mining law hold regarding those subjects.
Hi Larry, thanks for the comment. Mining regulation does seem complicated in the US. This piece is meant to highlight that people in and around public lands have no rights under current laws to determine the use for that land, a principle which has been pushed as a global standard (FPIC) among all sorts of development projects around the world. The 1872 law, however, doesn't allow FPIC in its current form and interpretation. That has been considered a 'weakness' in the law that has continued since 1872, in addition to no royalties and no reclamation fee. US law itself, it seems, does not seek to achieve objectivity in determining land use. Feel free to post links to criticisms of mining law reform!
Ian -- you didn't understand my comment very thoroughly, I think. People in and around public lands DO have rights under current laws (and regulations) to determine the use for that land, and in fact actively do so. Those rights are effected through the statutory and regulatory 'workarounds' I was referring to. I, for example, had to abruptly change planned locations of several exploration drill holes on a mineral exploration project some 30 miles west of an Indian reservation to meet the wishes of that particular tribe -- all under the ongoing arrangement the local US forest service district had with the tribe to confer with them on such matters. That sort of arrangement was certainly not in the original US Mining Law.
What you are talking about with this global standard stuff is importing external 'model' law into the US, a country that is already using its own laws and regulations to accomplish the same thing. There's no special merit to the model laws of others, I think, if the same ends are eventually accomplished with standing practices, laws, and regulations.
No reclamation fee? Where does this strange urban environmentalist myth come from? All exploration and mining project operators working on public lands post reclamation bonds that are only returnable after completion of any needed reclamation work -- per the considered judgment of federal land managers. It is true this was not the practice in the late 1800s, but it is certainly so now.
No royalties? You are referring, I think, to federal royalties on mineral production. While it is true mining companies in the US west working on locatable ground do not pay federal royalties on mineral production, but they do pay corporate taxes and severance taxes on that production. Mineral production from leased federal ground in the upper Midwest and points east are subject to federal mineral royalties, however -- and severance and corporate taxes as well.
As to whether mining companies themselves have solid and firm rights under the US 1872 General Mining Law and those later workarounds I mention -- the answer is a definite no. Numerous mining companies, for example, spent 3-4 years conducting uranium exploration work on mining claims in Northern Arizona over the 2005-2009 period but then got summarily thrown off their claims and out of the state when the federal government decided there MIGHT be a long run environmental impact on the Grand Canyon region due to EVENTUAL uranium mining in the area. Note here, that it is believed by the USGS and others that about 80% of the total US uranium resource exists in Northern Arizona.
Like I said in essence in my first comment above, opponents of US mining law and mining in the US tend to see what they want to see, and disregard the rest. Sort of an early expression of the modern day's 'cancel culture'.
Grant also waged war against slavery. Just sayin.