Mining, the Environment and Your Pocketbook
Written on December 16, 2009 – 5:28 am | by xingxin8p6
Welcome! Click here and subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Partner Arttrav publish aspects relative to “off the beaten track Sardinia”, this time on the Monteveccio and Ingurtosu mines. In their words, ‘the article highlights a desolate area on the west side of Sardinia where it still is possible to enjoy history, peace and quiet, and unspoiled nature.’
Ingurtosu mine building ruins, by ezioman
The Monteveccio mines were first discovered by the Romans and used for the extraction of zinc. Having stayed open since ancient times, a village was also built in the 1800’s and eventually the mines closed as uneconomical. However, both the mines and the village were recently restored and the few euro entry fee is well justified to admire and explore both.
The Ingurtosu (bearded vulture) mines are a few kilometres away, and they had previously yielded zinc, silver and lead. The area around the Ingurtosu mines is genuinely both remote and beautiful, with a unique atmosphere.
Both mines and mining villages have been declared UNESCO World Heritage sites.
The natural beauty of Sardinia may well be fast dissappearing (see our article on Sardinia: give it a chance!) Therefore, a visit to these remote and gorgeous locations may be very worthwhile before they are changed for ever.
Many people are troubled that Barack Obama flew to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize so soon after escalating the war in Afghanistan. He is now more than doubling the number of troops there when George W. Bush left office.
The irony was not lost on the president and he tried to address it in his Nobel acceptance speech. "I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land," he said. "Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other."
Granted, there's a gap here between the rhetoric and the reality. But there's always been something askew about the Nobel Peace Prize, in no small part because it's given in the name of the man who invented dynamite, one of the most powerful and destructive weapons in the human arsenal. It was rumored that after Alfred Nobel brought his version of Frankenstein into the world, he was torn by guilt over his creation, his shame said to have intensified when a French newspaper prematurely ran his obituary with the headline, "The Merchant of Death Is Dead." The article vilified him as a man "who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before."
What's more, until the end of his life he corresponded with a woman named Bertha von Suttner, who had briefly worked as his secretary. Many believe that Nobel was moved by a powerful antiwar book she had written titled "Lay Down Your Arms." Whatever his reasons, when his will created the Nobel Prizes he specifically included among them a prize for peace. Von Suttner became one of its first recipients.
After Nobel's death, events turned grim, as if to mock him further. The arms race exploded beyond anything he could have imagined. From the coupling of science and the military came ever more ingenious weapons of destruction that would take even more lives in ever more horrible ways. One of the most insidious was the land mine, that small, explosive device filled with shrapnel that burns or blinds, maims or kills. Triggered by the touch of a foot or movement or even sound, more often than not it's the innocent who are its victims – 75 to 80 percent of the time, in fact.
As a weapon, variations of land mines have been around since perhaps as early as the 13th century, but it was not until World War I that the technology was more or less perfected, if that can be said of weapons that mangle and mutilate the human body, and their use became common. The United States has not actively used land mines since the first Gulf War in 1991, but we still possess some 10 million to 15 million of them, making us the third largest stockpiler in the world, behind China and Russia. Like those two countries, we have refused to sign an international agreement banning the manufacture, stockpiling and use of land mines. Since 1987, 156 other nations have signed it, including every country in NATO. Amongst that 156, more than 40 million mines have been destroyed. Just days before Obama flew to Oslo to make his Nobel Peace Prize speech, an international summit conference was held in Cartagena, Colombia, to review the progress of the treaty. The United States sent representatives and the State Department says our government has begun a comprehensive review of its current policy.
Last year 5,000 people were killed or wounded by land mines, often placed in the ground years before, during wars long since over. They kill or blow away the limbs of a farmer or child as indiscriminately as they do a soldier. But still we refuse to sign, citing security commitments to our friends and allies, such as South Korea, where a million mines fill the demilitarized zone between it and North Korea. Twelve years ago, at the time the treaty was first put into place, the Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Jody Williams, an activist from Vermont who believes that by organizing into a movement, ordinary people can matter. She proved it, despite the stubborn refusal of her own country's government to do the right thing.
Last week, Jody Williams condemned America's continuing refusal to sign the treaty as "a slap in the face to land mine survivors, their families, and affected communities everywhere."
The Nobel Committee said that part of the reason it was giving the Peace Prize to President Obama was for his respect of international law and his efforts at disarmament. And twice in his Nobel lecture, the president spoke of how often more civilians than soldiers die in a war. Then he said this: "I believe that all nations, strong and weak alike, must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I, like any head of state, reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don't." And still the land mine treaty goes unsigned by the government he leads. Go figure.
nhl jersey,
discount mlb jerseys
Our global economy thrives on natural resources obtained from mines throughout the United States and mining technology has moved from the pick and shovel to land moving and digging equipment but our mining laws still basically revolve around the General Mining Act of 1872. The result has been a tremendous loss of money for U.S. taxpayers. In the United States, “private mining companies haven't paid royalties to taxpayers for an estimated $245 billion dollars worth of minerals extracted from public lands in 135 years” (Miller, 2007). In fact, even the National Mining Association supports reform of the outdated Act. “A representative of the U.S. mineral mining industry told a congressional panel today that essential reforms of the 1872 Mining Law must ensure a fair return to taxpayers and to mining investors” (NMA, 2007).
Images
Conjure up an image of a mine and most people think of huge trenches in the Earth that are dug out for resources like coal. In reality, “approximately two-thirds of today's coal production results from surface rather than underground mining” (NMA, 2007). Most people do not realize it but minerals are in every product that we use in our daily routine. For example, “A television requires 35 different minerals, and more than 30 minerals are needed to make a computer” (NMA, 2007). Each of these minerals must be mined in some manner from publicly controlled lands before it is turned over to a company for mining.
Royalties
Various companies pay royalties and other fees to mine minerals from the ground. “In 2005, the mining industry paid approximately $21.3 billion in taxes, royalties and fees to federal, state and local governments combined” (NMA, 2007). How much companies should be paying is open to debate because statistics in this area often conflict with economic data. “NMA spokesman Luke Popovich added, “Royalties are not the only way and maybe not the best way to ensure that the public receives fair market value for its resources.” (Straub, 2007). In fact, “Rep. Stevan Pearce, R-N.M., ranking Republican on the minerals subcommittee, said raising the cost of business only drives jobs overseas” (Straub, 2007). For example, cheap royalties and land may help companies pay workers more money and invest more money in worker safety. Higher royalties may decrease profits and result in less on-the-job protection for workers. How can royalties, taxes and fees be set so that taxpayers benefit while Mining companies still retain a fair profit?
Highest and Best Use
The central problem under the 1872 Act is that mining is determined to be the highest and best use of the land under the provisions of the law. “The act elevates mining's importance above other uses of public land, making it difficult for agencies like the U.S. Forest Service to deny any mine applications” (Miller, 2007). The result is dangerous surface and pit mines spread all over the country with Mining Companies claiming they are not responsible for cleanup, despite being required to set aside funds for such programs to do so. “Mining companies argue they comply with the existing federal law, as well as state regulations, and say many existing mines have set aside adequate bonds worth millions to cover responsible cleanup and reclamation once their operations are shuttered” (Miller, 2007).
Calls for reform have increased since renewed safety and environmental issues have come to light in recent years and Democrats have retaken control of the congress with promises to reform the act. “Industry problems, including abandoned mines that leak cyanide and heavy metals, make the timing right for change, critics say” (Miller, 2007).
Changes
There are several other aspects of the law that also need reform and many attempts have been made to amend the law. In 2001, President Bush and his Cabinet suggested a reform of the Act. “Without giving details, Norton indicated she wants to tackle the biggest points of contention over the General Mining Law of 1872: Making mining companies pay for minerals they take; and increasing the prices mining firms pay to privatize public land containing gold, silver, platinum and other precious metals. Currently they pay the government $2.50 to $5 an acre” (McClure, 2001). In 2007, a new group called the “Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining launched a media and grassroots campaign on May 10th to foster public support for legislation that would reform mining laws” (McKenna, 2007).
Debate over changes in the law range from balancing between cheap mineral rights to claims on land. Various mining associations want stronger title rights to claims if they are to pay more in royalties and fees. “A bill should provide certainty by ensuring title from the time of location through reclamation” (Straub, 2007).
Changes created by Election results and several recent mining disasters have fueled calls for change in the industry. “Amazingly enough, a change has also taken place in the attitudes of the proponents and the opponents of HR 2262, who now actually discuss compromise and working together, rather than beating each other to a bloody pulp in the arena of public opinion. Hardrock mining's ever-loyal opposition, EARTHWORKS, has been awfully quiet after the introduction of HR 2262, but then again, so have the very politically activist members of the Northwest Mining Association” (Kosich, 2007).
The Big Winner
Reform of the Mining Act of 1872 seems possible within Congress this year but President Bush seems unlikely to sign the bill if it does reach his desk. However, the reform efforts are unique in that the public – for the first time – will become more involved in the mining claims process under proposed sections of the bill. ” For the first time, the Mining Law would mandate public participation requirements, and allows any person to commence a civil action against any person alleged to have violated any provisions of the act. Administrative and judicial review of the mining law is included in the legislation along with the ability to impose fines on those who don't comply with provisions of the mining law.” (Kosich, 2007).
References:
Kosic, D. (2007). First U S Mining Law Reform Hearing Kicks Off Today MineWeb retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://www.mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page60?oid=24072&sn=Detail
McClure, J. (2001). Overhaul of Mining Law Called Sham Reform Seattle PI retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/44264_mine26.shtml
McKenna, T. (2007). New Group Campaigns for Reform of 1872 Mining Act PR WEEK retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www.prweek.com/us/news/article/658347/New-group-campaigns-reform-1872-mining-act/
Miller, J. (2007). Time to Clean Up the 1872 Mining Act Associated Press published in theMedford Mail Tribune on Sunday, July 22, 2007.
Miller , J. (2007) Fight Brews over revamp of 1872 Mining Law retrieved August 12, 2007 from http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070720/1872_mining_reform.html?.v=1
National Mining Association (2007). NMA Official Supports Careful Reform of 1872 Mining Law retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://nma.org/
Rickert, E. (2007). Can Congress Drag the 1872 Mining Bill into the 21st Century? High Country News retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17025#
Straub, N (2007). Bill Targets Mining Law StarTribune.net retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/05/12/news/wyoming/647277d147f3a208872572d800001087.txt
discount nfl jerseys,nfl jerseys
Tags: petroleum, petroleum coke, petroleum company, petroleum engineering, petroleum gas, petroleum industry, Petroleum Oil, petroleum production, petroleum products, petroleum refinery, petroleum refining, pipeline petroleum