Slashdot Mirror


$1 Trillion In Minerals Found In Afghanistan

clustro writes "American geologists working with the Pentagon have discovered deposits of iron, copper, cobalt, gold, and lithium of incredible bounty, amounting to nearly $1 trillion. In fact, the lithium deposits are so vast, an internal Pentagon memo has stated that Afghanistan could become the 'Saudi Arabia of lithium.' The wealth of the deposits completely flattens the current GDP of Afghanistan, estimated at about $12 billion. Mining would completely transform the economy of Afghanistan, which presently is propped up by the opium trade and foreign aid. However, it could take decades for extraction to reach its full potential due to the war, the lack of heavy industry in the country, and a corrupt national government."

36 of 688 comments (clear)

  1. That's Great But... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely. Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations. The taxpayers and the government will never see any of that money.

    1. Re:That's Great But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely. Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations. The taxpayers and the government will never see any of that money.

      Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.

      Also, do you think mining is going to be a nonprofit organization? They'll pay taxes to the government.

      This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.

    2. Re:That's Great But... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.

      Yes, but which taxpayers will benefit: Afghani or USA ones ?

      The wealth should be for the Afghanis, not the western powers who will now try to put in ''development teams'' -- who, in reality, will try to get as much of the profits into western coffers.

    3. Re:That's Great But... by pmontra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.

      My understanding is that US citizens must pay taxes in the USA even if they work abroad, but that's not the case for every other nationalities. So part of these salaries will go to the USA and part not.

      Also, do you think mining is going to be a nonprofit organization? They'll pay taxes to the government.

      Of which country? Corporations have proven to be very good at paying taxes where they cost them less money. Check this for an example.

      This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.

      That's exactly what happened everywhere oil or minerals have been discovered around the world. Middle East currently enjoys highest standard of living than the rest of the world thanks to half a century of massive oil extraction. Oh wait...

    4. Re:That's Great But... by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      i've heard this tired argument time and time again, painting mining companies as the devil who sneaks in and steals the wealth and gives nothing back.

      it's FUD. mining companies pump bulk cash into economies and employ 10,000's of people. if you want to know who the real villains are, take a look at where all the royalties go - government coffers. corrupt government are the problem not mining companies. companies are neither good nor evil, they just want to do business.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:That's Great But... by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Afghanis should get rich, but the wealth extraction requires expertise they don't have (killing each other has been more fun down the centuries).

      Expect leases to go up for bid as in Iraq. This is probably for the best, as competing major nations can buy in rather than fight over the nasty little place.

      Absent international intervention, what we know would happen is that the Taliban would take over and we'd have "rich Taliban". Money wouldn't turn these people into secular freethinkers overnight, they'd just be rich peasants.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:That's Great But... by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama has already promised that America will be out of Afghanistan by 2011

      ...except for a minimal peacekeeping force of a few hundred thousand military advisors.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:That's Great But... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I call this the Switzerland/Nigeria dichotomy: would you rather be a citizen of Switzerland, whose wealth is in the labor of its people, or Nigeria, whose wealth comes out of the ground?

      It isn't that we're going to end up staying there indefinitely. It's that when we leave there will be a government that values the people little more than it would a spade for digging stuff out of the ground, and that will suit us fine.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:That's Great But... by f3rret · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We used to be 'rich peasants' too, we used to be fundamentalists too (Recall the Catholic church in the dark ages and later on various forms of cultural fundamentalism), then we got rich by trade and various forms of mineral wealth.

      Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.

      It has always bothered me that we in the developed world seem to have this idea that we can 'fix' the world, we seem to have this idea that we can just swoop in to a country which has a culture and history which is radically different from ours and impose our cultural values of 'freedom' on them.
      We used to be brutal and fundamentalist here in the western world and no-one came here to tell us how to live, instead we killed each other and did any number of horrible things and then eventually got tired of doing those things and settled down into what we known as the modern world.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    9. Re:That's Great But... by talcite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This development may actually be the worst thing possible for the people of Afghanistan.

      The discovery of oil or abundant mineral wealth in many African states has caused severe corruption, wars, and generally speaking, bad times for those citizens. Specifically, Nigeria -> oil -> widespread government corruption and little development of general population. Congo -> diamonds -> civil war that's lasted for decades.

      If those states are any hint of what happens when lots of valuables are discovered in a weakly governed state, then there's going to be trouble in Afghanistan.

    10. Re:That's Great But... by Shin-LaC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.

      That was Clinton's big idea back when he promoted China's entry into WTO, wasn't it? But what actually happened is that they just got rich, yet they are not any more democratic than before. I think they did get more nationalistic, though, so that's something.

    11. Re:That's Great But... by f3rret · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would they need to be democratic? They're obviously doing just fine without democracy.
      That's my point though, democracy does not equal freedom; in fact freedom is completely separate from democracy.
      Democracy is a way of making a functioning state, not a way of ensuring the freedoms of people in that state.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    12. Re:That's Great But... by C0L0PH0N · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We used to be 'rich peasants' too, we used to be fundamentalists too (Recall the Catholic church in the dark ages and later on various forms of cultural fundamentalism), then we got rich by trade and various forms of mineral wealth.

      Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge."


      You are forgetting Saudi Arabia, made an incredibly wealthy country by any standard due to its recently found oil minerals, yet one of the most repressive fundamentalist regimes on the planet, source of the 9/11 terrorists, and source of the extreme Wahabi sect of Islam which promotes Sharia law in Western countries including the US, and which with Saudi Arabia's wealth, is being paid for world wide. Another Saudi Arabia, under the Taliban, would be frightening.

    13. Re:That's Great But... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reunification != becoming part of North Korea...

    14. Re:That's Great But... by metageek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There has never been any country that became rich based on large mineral resources. The countries that have the largest mineral resources, like Brazil, Nigeria, Angola, etc. don't just became rich because of this. Rich countries are rich because they have know-how, not because they have resources (some do, but that is not why they're rich)

      --
      metageek
    15. Re:That's Great But... by wannabgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.

      I have two words for you: Saudi Arabia
      How long have they been rich? How freer are they now than before?

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    16. Re:That's Great But... by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.

      The percentage of a corporation's revenue that ends up in the hands of any of it's workers not having a CxO title is very small, especially in non-service industries (such as mining).

      Corporations don't increase salaries just because they're making more money, just like they don't decrease product prices just because labour/inputs costs went down. Both markets are set by the offer-vs-demand balance, not by a specific company's success.

      It's more likelly that the additional wealth from mining in Afghanistan would end up in:
      - Extra bonuses for CxOs and directors
      - Extra dividends/stock price increases for shareholder
      - Money misdirected to some "big men" in the Afghanistani administration
      - Protection money for the local warlords
      - Extra profits for weapons dealers for the weapons bought by the Afghanistani government and the local warlords so that the above-mentioned "big men" and warlords can hold on to the new wealth generating mining areas.

    17. Re:That's Great But... by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like how everyone always says that the Chinese population are deceived by their government into a state of blissful ignorance. The USA has to have the best (or worst, depending on your perspective) "everything is fine, trust us" government in history. National debt stands at almost 90% of GDP. The US government will *never* be able to retire this debt, not in the lifetime of anyone alive today. Yet, it manages to still sell bonds on the bond market. It still funds public works through borrowing. It still bails out the very corporate sector that holds the majority of its debt. The US population still spends large amounts of credit card "money" on idiotic items that they don't need.

      And nobody asks questions about a war that deepens this debt significantly every year.

      How does nobody notice that the house you just built is on a train track and the freight train just appeared around the bend?

      The mind boggles.

      --
      I hate printers.
    18. Re:That's Great But... by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How exactly is throwing different nouns in the same sentence absent any contextual connection an argument?

      Comparing Southerners to Afghans, or throwing the very country that's compared into the comparison sentence, or comparing US Christians to Middle-Eastern Islamics, or the poor people of the Middle East to the poor people of the US is just ridiculous. In the context we're discussing, they're simply not comparable. If you think they are, that would explain why you make such a poor argument.

      Also, how exactly is 100 years of GDP in wealth not of great worth? You don't think that will change a country? Really? $1 Trillion of found wealth would be a huge thing for the US, for Afghanistan it's an absolute game-changer. They will never, ever get the big countries fingers out of there now, and should be planning how to survive being the towel between two dogs. Somebody savvy enough could turn that into as much profit as the minerals themselves are worth, somebody foolish will practically pack it up and ship it out at their own cost just trying to curry favor.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    19. Re:That's Great But... by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was exactly my thought.......how much oil revenue from Iraq has gone back to Iraq? George Bush doesnt seem to be starving or living in poverty does he. The easy way to find out who benfits is to see which members of the US government have investments in mining corps and bingo......the benficiary is there....oh yeah and their off shore bank accounts. Im not saying the current government is as corrupt as the last but????????? And another thought........why have the Pentagon been prospecting in a country that isnt their own and they are at war there......isnt that illegal.

      Interesting viewpoints.

      how much oil revenue from Iraq has gone back to Iraq?

      Quite a bit; they've set up oil leasing much like the USA. The companies involved keep quite a bit of the profits, but my understanding is that the profits from oil is running a lot of Iraq's social programs.

      why have the Pentagon been prospecting in a country that isnt their own and they are at war there......isnt that illegal.

      No, it isn't illegal, and prospecting is one way to help the Afghani economy, which is one of the primary things we're trying to rebuild there. It's simple enough, in my mind: Somebody with a full time job and a future to look forward to isn't likely to become an insurgent.

      You start training/hiring Afghanis to be miners, the Miners will marry, have children, send their kids to school, buy clothing, build houses, etc... It becomes a positive circle.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    20. Re:That's Great But... by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps it is possible that the following statements can both be true at the same time:

      1. The Chinese are governed by a totalitarian state that oppresses individual freedom and is corrupt, and this isn't right.

      2. The US Government is losing its democratic ideals and suffers from corruption, and this also isn't right.

      This isn't a who-is-better-us-or-them contest. The fact that the US needs reform doesn't mean that China does not.

    21. Re:That's Great But... by Myopic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The UK is "still paying off" debt from WWII, and in fact still has some debts on the books from before the Napoleonic wars.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

      Why? Because despite your not understanding it, the smart people who run the UK government know that it is better to roll over that debt than to pay it off. I won't explain it to you; get an economics textbook.

      So saying that debt will not be paid off in our lifetime is insufficient cause for alarm. I don't know how long your threshold is for when things aren't "fine", but if things can be projected out for two hundred years, I think it's reasonable to say that things are "fine". There MAY BE OTHER very good reasons to be concerned, but you didn't list any of them.

    22. Re:That's Great But... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Rich peasants isn't a problem, rich rulers and poor peasants is. The problem with most historical cases of raw material resource discovery in countries that don't already have a stable and representative government is that the money goes to the existing oligarchs. Look at what happened in any of the former British colonies, for example. Most of the money went to taxes in Britain (not the colony), to companies like the East India Company, and to the individuals in charge. Compare this with something like the North Sea or Alaskan oil reserves, both of which were used to fund government spending in the areas containing them.

      If this money is used to do what the USA should have done when the USSR collapsed - invest in education and development of Afghanistan - then it's great. If it's used to make tribal leaders and foreign investors rich, not so great.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:That's Great But... by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "National debt stands at almost 90% of GDP."

      My current personal debt is approximately 220% if my gross yearly income. About 70% of it is secured by tangible assets.

      Our government does have a debt near 90% of GDP, but if it started selling off assets, even less tangible assets such mineral rights, they might be able to secure as much as 30% of that.

      So by the numbers, I am way worse off than my government. Except that I have income, and I can direct my income to pay off my debt. My government shows little inclination to pay down the debt, and in fact is increasing it at an alarming rate.

      This is the problem.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  2. And if you by EEPROMS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    think China and Russia are just going to sit on the side lines and let the USA get first pick on the mineral resources they better go put their flack jackets back on.

  3. They're fucked now. by alister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. They're fucked. Their best hope was that all the dopes would get bored and get out. Now there's not a chance in hell of that happening.

    1. Re:They're fucked now. by mike260 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More to the point, they no longer have any chance at becoming a healthy democracy now that the incentives for corruption are so huge.

    2. Re:They're fucked now. by gsslay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. Pretty much.

      For a country and its people to benefit from that kind or resource they need a good government and structurally sound society right from the start. Otherwise the big corporations and foreign governments are going pitch up in the vacuum and carve up the riches for themselves.

      What the Afghans need more than anything is for everyone else to butt out and leave them alone.

  4. Re:CNN said this could make it the saudi arabia by kevinbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Saudi Arabia is poor, because the downstream value of the oil is lost. The sales values goes to the corrupt ruling family, the ordinary Saudi lives in poverty.

    It will be the same in Afghanistan. The raw material will be ripped out at the lowest cost (lowest cost meaning maximum pollution) and the real wealth of downstream value add will take place out of Afghanistan.

    Just like the raw opium.

  5. Sad comments by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It appears that nobody is interested whatsoever in what will happen to Afghanistan - the only posts here so far are people projecting their fears and prejudices on this new phenomenon. Let me get in the mood - looks like Halliburton is going to have to fire up their earthquake machine again!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  6. Re:Great! Maybe now we can make our money back. by mike260 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's the going rate for a dead soldier again?

    I'd guess its' the cost of recruiting and training his replacement, plus death benefits. I'm sure that death is responsible for only a very small fraction of personnel turnover, so the replacement cost is probably a drop in the bucket. That leaves death benefits which appear to be $100k per KIA.

    So if the US got their hands on, say, 10% of the estimated $1 trillion, that could pay for around 1 million dead soldiers. Now obviously the cost of recruiting replacements would skyrocket before the death-toll got anywhere near 1 million, but you can get around that with a draft.

    Hang on, were you being rhetorical?

  7. They're never was anyway by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Afghanistan isn't really a proper country. Its a load of seperate tribal areas with a border drawn around then that really represents where the surrounding countries end rather than where afghanistan starts. Is effectively ungovernable and has been throughout recorded history. The tribes come together against any outside aggressors but as soon as they're gone they turn in on themselves and the inter tribal conflicts start again. I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

  8. Re:Handy by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What did you expect? The Soviets had a quarter of the country and had effective control of the industrial heartland of east-central Europe in Poland-Czechoslovakia-East Germany. Communism was on the march in Greece and Italy. It was in no way insane to think that the Soviets planned to push all of Germany into their camp and eventually dominate Europe.

    Given the relative wealth and GDP of East and West, I'd say it worked out pretty well for the population at large. But be assured: the US spent a lot of money making sure that the Nazis were defeated, and it was going to get its payback.

  9. Re:Exactly NONE of it is leaving Asia by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're confused. You seem to think the point of having troops in Afghanistan is to achieve some lofty goal, like ridding them of the Taliban (impossible) or "bringing Democracy to them" (laughable, see the history of how well the soviets did "bringing Socialism to them.")

    No. The reason we're there - the only reason - is so that the money pump can operate transferring cash from USG coffers into the pockets of the military industrial complex. That's the whole thing, right there. Everything else is purest propaganda. We're not being "saved" from terrorism, the Afghanis have zero interest in our culture, the Taliban (if not by name, then certainly by culture) has a complete and utter lock on the region and the more we beat on them, the more sympathy they get. Which works great, because then we pump more dollars into the war, and the beat goes on.

    The Afghan war represents the longest single conflict the US has actively been involved in (that means actually fighting.) The cost (profit) of the Afghan war so far has been 277,444,750,000 as I write this, it's more now by quite a bit. Follow the link, take a look. Remember: Every dollar spent goes into someone's pocket. They're not burning up, being lost or otherwise leaving the economy. They go directly from the US government into the pockets of the military and those that supply the military. Primarily the latter.

    And what does the average person on the street here in the US benefit from this nearly 300 billion dollar corporate welfare program? Well, if you're employed by the defense industry, quite a bit. Otherwise, nothing. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are much more likely to produce terrorists now than they were before. Which, from the point of view of the MIC, is good, because that means more -- more wars, more airport scanners, more "security", etc. From the POV of the politicians, it means more erosion of the constitution ("emergencies", y'know), and more and more power focused in federal hands.

    Our society has become the world's poison pill. I wish it weren't; I wish we had managed to make a constitutional republic work, it does seem like the optimum model, but we never really got close, and now... now I think it's too late. There is so little of either an honest republic, or a constitutional basis underlying what does exist... and our "democracy" is so twisted into a two-parties-not-of-the-people model... I can't see how we can pull back from the brink here.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  10. Civilization Ho! Firesign Theatre by oakwine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By George $1 trillion is a lot of money! And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg! Imagine how much more the geologists could find if they were not dodging bullets all the time. Now let us be practical and reasonable. Extraction will be much easier if the country is uninhabited. It is time to declare the native population surplus and obsolete and zero them out. Well ... perhaps not all ... We will put the "good ones" on reservations. Plenty of firewater. They will be happy.

  11. We are never leaving Afghanistan by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no president, not Obama, not his successor, that will extract us from Afghanistan now. Now it's about real money. To leave would be to cede everything to the Chinese, who would march in *tomorrow* and annex Afghanistan as "West China." And there would be *fuck all* anyone would be able to do about it. And the Taliban would not survive either. The Chinese will not give quarter/tolerate that bullshit. They will not play fair.

    The Great Game never died.

    --
    BMO