Buried in a piece on Harry Reid...
Some exceptionally important information for every American:
The mineral mining industry, also an important force in Arizona, Utah and other largely Western states, has benefited from a law that has not changed with the times. Unlike with coal, oil or gas, the industry doesn't pay federal royalties on minerals it extracts. There are few environmental protections or reviews. The law allows public lands to be sold cheaply for mining, though Congress has annually imposed a moratorium on that.Rahall would impose a series of environmental requirements, give more power to federal land managers to deny mining applications, and impose an 8 percent royalty fee that would go into a fund to clean up abandoned mine sites, among other changes.
Source: NYTimes.
These minerals are on, or under, federal and Indian land, and yet the hardrock mining industries get to mine them for free? WTF? American taxpayers should be up in arms over this, especially as most metals have seen immense increases in value in the past few years.
Reid should be rung over the coals if he continues to balk on royalties.
Comments
Test.
Posted by: MBW | May 10, 2007 06:48 PM
Wait, Indians screwed out of mineral rights? Say it ain't so!
Posted by: The Local Crank | May 11, 2007 11:03 PM
The source is actually Associated Press; this only appeared on the NYTimes web site, not in the paper. I also wonder who wrote it; this is an analysis piece, not event reporting; those kinds of pieces need bylines.
Posted by: Nell | May 12, 2007 01:29 PM
I wouldn't characterize the important information you highlight as 'buried' in the story, either. The excerpt you quote is further down, but it elaborates on this, the third sentence in the story:
Because of this law, mineral mining on federal land is exempt from paying royalties and from many environmental reviews, unlike coal mining or oil and gas drilling.
Posted by: Nell | May 12, 2007 01:34 PM
What does go completely unstated in the story, and I'd completely agree about the characterization as 'buried' if it's so, is that the law in question applies to Indian land. Can you point me to documentation that it does?
Posted by: Nell | May 12, 2007 01:38 PM