Slashdot Mirror


Rare Earth Deposit Discovered In US

s31523 writes "With China having 97% of the market share of rare earth elements, many countries are nervous about being able to get supplies of key elements needed for high tech gear. Quantum Rare Earths Developments Corp. has reported they have discovered a potential huge source of rare earth elements, right in the middle of the U.S. While the USGS reports that the U.S. has an estimated 13 million metric tonnes available for mining (about 1/3 of China's reserves), finding another regular source is crucial to global stability. The potential yield of the deposit, found in Nebraska, could be the world's largest source for Niobium and other rare earth elements. Could this be the next gold rush?"

338 comments

  1. The U.S. is notoriously bad by poet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At stewarding its own resources, preferring instead to buy resources from other countries that do not have the level of regulation we have. We have plenty of oil, gas, rate earth metals etc... we just don't go after it.

    --
    Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
    1. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At stewarding its own resources, preferring instead to buy resources from other countries that do not have the level of regulation we have. We have plenty of oil, gas, rate earth metals etc... we just don't go after it.

      That sounds like stewarding them well to me. What would be so great about digging up today resources that can be left for tomorrow, given that they can be cost effectively obtained elsewhere for now?

    2. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And why should we? If someone else wants to sell it to us cheap while we're allowed to preserve our own resources, great! When they run out of oil, minerals, etc, we'll still have some left.

    3. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by ThorGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At stewarding its own resources, preferring instead to buy resources from other countries that do not have the level of regulation we have. We have plenty of oil, gas, rate earth metals etc... we just don't go after it.

      That sounds like stewarding them well to me. What would be so great about digging up today resources that can be left for tomorrow, given that they can be cost effectively obtained elsewhere for now?

      Bingo! Leaving it in the ground (or, better, undiscovered) until later represents future income. Dollar saved, dollar earned, and all that.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    4. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. The best possible stewardship of a NON-RENEWABLE resource is to not consume it at all.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    5. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, we buy everyone else's raw materials while they are cheap. When those start to go scarce or the price goes up, we tap into our own resources.

      Part of it is strategy, part of it is economics.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    6. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stewarding our own resources might be be the correct term. More appropriate would be stewarding our own industry.

    7. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      We get most of our gas (90%) and coal (we are an exporter) locally. The US does not have plenty of oil, nowhere does really, and the rare-earth discovery is in fact new, but with a huge land area, and a few different types of geology in the country it shouldn't be shocking that it was found.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by punker · · Score: 2

      This is not worth going after, because the ore grades are too low to pull out in an economically viable way. This is a common problem in mining for precious metals and rare earths. For a find to be viable, you need a higher material density or a second valuable mineral (iron, copper, phosphate, etc).

      Also, regarding the regulations, those are probably good. Many chemicals used in mining are pretty nasty (arsenic for example). Keeping them controlled is just part of the price the public puts on anyone who wants to develop the resource.

    9. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by icebike · · Score: 1

      Um, not using a resource makes it not a resource.

      Holding out till the market is desperate and prices are so high you have no hope of intelligent management of the scarce resource hasn't always worked out the way people expect either.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by swan5566 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Even though shale oil endeavors (converting a not-yet-ripe version of oil to the oil we know and love) has been a bust repeated times, once the price of oil goes up high enough, the US (particularly Colorado - having the highest concentration of it in the world) will be the world's leading oil source and producer.

      --
      In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
    11. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by PRMan · · Score: 2

      It does when you are the most powerful nation on earth...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    12. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is renewable with the proper technology.

    13. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. China is doing quite well at it.

    14. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      I'd rather buy oil from the middle east for now. Let them drive gold plated Bentleys and build indoor ski resorts. In a couple of generations, when it's really important, they'll be back in tents and we'll still have energy resources.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    15. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Pray tell, where is that abundance of oil? Distributed over the all those stripper wells putting out a couple of barrels a day?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    16. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by joebok · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that is "good stewardship". It is certainly economically efficient. I would say it isn't good stewardship in that "stewardship" usually has a positive connotation of balancing economic value with environmental value. Paying other countries (with less regulation) to dig up their minerals (and presumably doing damage to their environment) isn't, in my opinion, "stewardship" at all.

    17. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      source of that info?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    18. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I would think the best stewardship is to try to ensure it's put to the best possible uses (and recycled, if possible)?

      I mean, I believe REEs are important for things like medical equipment, and I believe some chemical processes used to create pharmaceutical drugs, which help increase people's health.

      Would it be better stewardship to NOT USE the resource at all, or to use it for something important like medicine?

    19. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Targon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More like dollar saved, 2,000 earned since as global supplies go down, the value goes up.

    20. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by blair1q · · Score: 1

      That used to be exactly the reverse. One of our greatest strengths was our lack of reliance on others for natural resources, and our ability to sell them.

      Of course, that was back before a few corporations owned them all...

    21. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Finding other sources of rare earths has never been a problem. We know plenty of good mine locations everywhere. The problem is the separation process for the individual rare earths, which is very poisonously polluting. China is currently the only place which is unconcerned about the pollution poisoning the environment and citizens.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    22. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this story is about the US, a hollow shell of a country, totally corrupt, inept and bankrupt.

    23. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it is called strategy. When we use up all of the Middle East "cheap" oil, then the US will have it's own untapped reserves to fall back on. Right now we can buy it for a lot cheaper than we can produce and refine it ourselves. Nothing to do with "tree huggers". More to do with the fact that if the US tapped all their oil reserves right now, we would still be dependent on oil from the Middle East for at least 10 more years. Do some research - most of the US oil reserves are shale oil. Not as easy to extract, and can have very bad effects on the environment.

    24. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Which is why people are scared of China (and not the U.S.A.)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    25. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Holding out till the market is desperate and prices are so high you have no hope of intelligent management of the scarce resource hasn't always worked out the way people expect either.

      I don't know about that. Once petroleum costs too much, someone will want to buy my whale oil again, and if I sell it before whalers increase in number, I'll be a rich man...

    26. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until technology passes you by and your riches in the ground turns back into useless dirt.

    27. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Renewable is a function of feasibility, not possibility.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    28. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Use everything we can get from other people first, when they're out, or try to strongarm us by refusing to sell whatever important resource it is we have, say, "oh look here! We have stuff! Fuck off!"

      It's an excellent example of long-term planning. Y'know, the stuff people are always wishing we'd do?

    29. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by ah.clem · · Score: 1

      It does when you are the most powerful nation on earth...

      You really should do some research before blindly parroting jingoistic platitudes.
      http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/

      --
      "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
    30. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      They spend years destroying their own environment, and as a result, their descendants are too sick to come invade us and take ours once they run out.

    31. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree, but that is NOT what the poster I was replying to said. You're responding to something I didn't say.

      He said the best stewardship was not consuming the resource at all. Buying it from China is still consuming.

    32. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      fair enough.

    33. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      It does when you are the most powerful nation on earth...

      You really should do some research before blindly parroting jingoistic platitudes.
      http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/

      Was there a particular chart on there you're referring to?

      I was admittedly too lazy to go beyond the first page of them, but I did discover that the US is quite dominant when it comes to cheese, and is also the world's largest cinnamon importer.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    34. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but if ever there were a time to tap into rare-earth metals, it would be now. The US could definitely use the domestic cash flow and would be one of two nations supplying the rest of the world with a large amount of it.

    35. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]It does when you are the most powerful nation on earth...{/quote]

      China isn't the most powerful yet, but they're working on it...

    36. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Everything is renewable with sufficient energy.

    37. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by arth1 · · Score: 1

      but I did discover that the US is quite dominant when it comes to cheese, and is also the world's largest cinnamon importer.

      They are? You can hardly find cinnamon in the US. They use the much cheaper cassia bark, which they sell as cinnamon.

    38. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Bartles · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I've never won a game of Starcraft by conserving my minerals.

    39. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by peragrin · · Score: 1

      even better is that we will have their resources and our resources too, as we will not only have natural mines but artificial ones made from our trash heaps.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    40. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      importer, not exporter.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    41. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      It's not totally corrupt. If we replaced the government and got rid of their symbiotic business cartels, we'd find there are lots of decent people here.

      Yeah, we're screwed.

    42. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Everything is renewable with sufficient energy.

      Except energy.

    43. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up. The best possible stewardship of a NON-RENEWABLE resource is to not consume it at all.

      Says the guy using a computer that depends on the very same resources he's saying WE shouldn't consume.

      Bravo!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    44. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Oh well hell, maybe we should get Obama playing Starcraft... or not. Goddamn idiot.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    45. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      Um, not using a resource makes it not a resource.

      Holding out till the market is desperate and prices are so high you have no hope of intelligent management of the scarce resource hasn't always worked out the way people expect either.

      It may be unexpected to the countries choosing to rapidly exploit their resources (be they rare earth metals, oil, gas, uranium ore, military might, or comfortable beaches) that once they are out of their resource they face a world that is at once no longer willing to send them money and eager to charge a hefty premium for said resource... But it won't be unexpected for us*!

      *for certain values of us

    46. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. The US is far stronger both militarily and economically than China will be for at least a decade, maybe longer.

      And China knows it.

      Even after that decade has past... we'll still be able to reach out and ruin YOUR day.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    47. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Marc+Madness · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what definition of importer you're using, but if the US was a big importer of cinnamon, wouldn't it be more widely used than cassia bark? That is of course unless cinnamon is one of those rare-earth elements we're referring to.

    48. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I suppose I may have misunderstood.

      When I read:

      You can hardly find cinnamon in the US

      I was thinking of it in the sense of it be locally (ie, non-imported) available.

      On re-read I can see a more likely meaning for that.

      The very brief research I've done to this point suggests that cassia bark might be counted as a variety of cinnamon, so perhaps the US is more accurately the world's largest cassia bark importer, but I'm really just speculating.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    49. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. This site isn't even new. It is a carbonatite intrusion that was discovered years ago. But REE prices were low then, and it didn't proceed to development. The deposit has sat there until REE prices have risen. This isn't poor stewardship, it's market forces.

      There is quite a bit of background in the PDF document on the company's website, including the fact that the initial discovery of the carbonatite intrusion was due to the Nebraska Geological Survey and the US Bureau of Mines in the 1970s, when they drilled a borehole to determine the cause for a gravity anomaly detected in regional geophysical mapping (i.e. it was your tax dollars at work that first found it). This was followed up by a company called Molycorp in the 1970s to 1980s, who did a program of 106 drillholes and chemical analyses to figure out what REE concentration and volume was there (carbonatites are well known for exotic and sometimes valuable minerals). A bunch of their maps and geochemical data are scanned in and available from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Molycorp found decent amounts of some REE elements, especially niobium, but not enough to be profitable at the 200m-or-so depth of the intrusion, which is eroded and buried beneath younger sediments. There is no surface expression. It's fairly flat farmland. Based on the map at the company's website, the center of the intrusion is about here, just to the SW of Elk Creek, which is a tiny town SE of Lincoln, Nebraska. The company cited in the press releases has bought out the company that previously held the exploration rights in this area. They've re-done analyses from the cores drilled by Molycorp. It is probably only because of the increased market prices for REE that they have become interested.

      This is a very different type of deposit from the ones in China -- a "hard rock" deposit. That would probably make it more expensive to mine than the REE-rich clays found in China, even leaving aside the difference in labor costs and concerns about environmental impact. It's tough to compete when you're talking about crushing up solid rock 200m+ below the surface versus scraping up clay on a dry lake bottom. Concentrations will have to be correspondingly higher.

      It's also an exaggeration to say that the US has "plenty" of oil. The US produces about half of what it uses, and US production has been in decline since the 1970s not due to regulations or "not going after it", but because practically all the big deposits on land have already been found and the only big deposits left are offshore where it is 10x as expensive to find and develop them. Most of the production onshore is from old fields late in their production history, hence the decline in rates. There may be quite a bit left, but it's like squeezing the last bit of water out of a sponge -- a lot slower.

      The basic problem whether oil, gas, or REE deposits is the fact that they are non-renewable and the US has already thoroughly explored for the easy/large deposits and depleted them. Natural gas isn't so bad because of recent technological improvements that have opened new areas to exploration (e.g., coal-bed methane and shale gas), but even for that the US imports a lot of the natural gas it uses from Canada.

      The basic story is: the easy stuff is already found and depleted. There's plenty left in some senses, but it is lower grade and more expensive to develop even if you ignore issues like regulation. It's not as if you could reverse the decline in oil production in the US by dropping regulations, for example. It's the geology and the normal behavior of non-renewable resources that limits

    50. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by corbettw · · Score: 1

      We're bad at stewarding our own resources, because we leave in the ground and buy equivalent items cheaply from other countries? I think you misunderstand what "stewarding" means in this context, and what it means to be either good or bad at it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    51. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by tombeard · · Score: 1

      And what genius is to conceive this master plan? Will he implement it using government force? No thanks, I would much prefer a free market solution, as long as we are asking for the impossible.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    52. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the US has plenty of cash, we just need to raise taxes and jump start actual economic activity instead of letting the wealthy further concentrate the fruits of everyone's labor into their pockets

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    53. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Well, if statecraft were Starcraft, the entire UN would have been completely pwned in the Korean War. So, I guess that's not the case.

      Although it's an interesting analogy, isn't it? Complete with infantry rushes in the early game, resource build-up, and then a scripted NPC army add.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    54. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      China isn't afraid of us. We'd run out of bullets before they ran out of people.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    55. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would much prefer a free market solution

      that would be an exercise in applied stupidity, the free market is a mythical thing, sort of like santa clause, the easter bunny, and jesus christ

    56. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullets. How very quaint.

    57. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by magarity · · Score: 1

      Pray tell, where is that abundance of oil? Distributed over the all those stripper wells putting out a couple of barrels a day?

      Alaska's North Slope and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil fields. Both contain many tens of billions of barrels. The Gulf of Mexico is no slouch either.

    58. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      If you've got rare resources, you don't want to be the first to sell. You want to be the last. Imagine what the last barrel of oil will cost.

    59. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      They are? You can hardly find cinnamon in the US. They use the much cheaper cassia bark, which they sell as cinnamon.

      They probably are talking about cassia bark rather than true cinnamon in that graph. Most Americans probably wouldn't recognize true cinnamon as cinnamon by flavor, and would probably prefer cassia.

    60. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you up for that. What currently passes for a "free market" solution would be: 1) The government sells Nasty Corp. the mineral right for $1. 2) Nasty Corp. destroys an area the size of Connecticut while digging it up and dumps large quantities of arsenic, lead, mercury, and cyanide compounds into the nearest river. 3) Nasty Corp. pays its executives exorbitant amounts, but doesn't pay dividends to the shareholders. 4) When the mine closes, Nasty Corp. declares bankruptcy and leaves the mess for the "free market" to clean up.

    61. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the North Slope and ANWR may have enough oil to supply our needs for a whole year. Unless the economy recovers, that is.

    62. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Everything is renewable with sufficient energy.

      Except energy.

      Why not energy? All one has to do is convert some mass to energy. If you run low on mass, just convert some energy to mass.

      See? Simple! :P

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    63. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Or until it becomes obsolete and possibly a liability.

      It reminds me of a guy I know of who used to stockpile old car batteries. The price of lead kept increasing and he figured he had saved a fortune. By the time he was ready to sell them they were considered hazardous waste. He had to pay to dispose of them. Since then, they've gone back to positive value.

      Our resources aren't worth a damn if we don't use them at the right times. We incur debt to other countries while we put our own people out of work.

    64. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Yep. Rare earths are not rare, but they are nearly chemically indistinguishable, making the separation difficult. For most steelmaking purposes, a mixture of the metals ("mischmetal", also used in lighter flints) works fine. But for magnets, phosphors, superconductors etc, single elements are required, which makes a lot of nasty chemical waste. Also, there are often nearly unmarketable nasties such as thorium in the tailings, at least in monazite sands.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    65. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "given that they can be cost effectively obtained elsewhere for now?"

      And if it can't, and you NEED it, you better have your own sources.

      We are fools if we allow China to supply us with everything, since that makes us dependent. We have no business being dependent on a communist nation for anything. We have no business being dependent on any other nation, if it can be avoided.

    66. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "represents future income."

      Has it escaped everyone else that we are broke now?

    67. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      First of all, we'd run out of planet to live on. NBC weapons take care of that really well.

    68. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Energy is renewable with sufficient mass.

    69. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Powerful"...

      I do not thing that means what you think it means.

    70. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, just bunch em all up in cities, we'll take care of the rest.

    71. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      How about instead of raising taxes, we abolish patents? This will let smaller businesses be more competitive without fear of lawsuits as well as opening up opportunities int he third word to industrialize.

    72. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trivia question:

      Worlds second largest economy in 1880?

      Clue:

      It begins with a "Ch" and ends with "ina".

    73. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      If you're referring to the Republican-created financial crisis we just narrowly averted, well, I rest my point. Oh, and I suggest we immediately revert all taxes to pre-Bush rates. Clinton must have had spending and revenue correct since he had us headed for a surplus.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    74. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by tpstigers · · Score: 1

      Um, not using a resource makes it not a resource.

      Really? Cause I'm pretty sure the money in my savings account falls under the heading of 'resource'.

    75. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This is not worth going after right now, because the ore grades are too low to pull out in an economically viable way.

      There fixed that for you.
       

      For a find to be viable, you need a higher material density or a second valuable mineral (iron, copper, phosphate, etc).

      No - for a find to viable, the cost of extraction and processing has to be less than the market will pay for the refined material.

    76. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by EdIII · · Score: 1

      This is all well and good, but there are other things to consider here.

      Let's say I have 2 million pounds of quantum frozen food and liquids (can't go bad - kind of like that movie that reconstituted it with a laser). There are no associated costs of storage, since I store it in a Bag of Holding I picked up from the Quickie Mart.

      To eat everyday... I drive down to the really really really fucked up side of town where I can food and water. Some people are nice there.... but quite a bit of them don't like me. I am either tolerated, abused, and rarely treated well. Even the ones that treat me well find fault with my character. Additionally, there are a significant number of people that want to travel to my side of town and kill me and others. Furthermore, there is even more significant number of people that won't go as far as killing me, but will sympathize, protect, or support those that will kill me and others.

      Looking forward into the future I can see that their food and water will run out and that I won't need to travel there, or pay others to do so. I will be perfectly fine because I have been sitting on those resources for so long.

      However, for decades, I have been giving the people that want to kill me the resources to do so, and the reasons for wanting them to do so.

      That does not sound very forward thinking to me. It sounds dangerous and ill advised. Let's also add that I am big fat ass and that I consume 4 times what I need to consume, and that if I just wanted to do so in the past few decades I could have reduced my food consumption by minimum 50%.

      How about a different situation?

      Let's say I can get a widget made on my side of town for $10. The widget will be made professionally, to rigorous standards, and that health and safety for people and the environment is carefully considered and monitored. On that other side of town I can get it made for $3 without any real standards, and all of the ill effects from production are Not.In.My.Back.Yard.

      At some point though, it will spill over and start affecting me, but NOT TODAY.

      Also, dangerous, shortsighted and ill advised. Especially, when it causes some people on my side of town to be less fortunate than they could be because I am not purchasing it from them. They make less money, and as a whole, we all start losing our skills and knowledge on how to make the widgets in the first place.

      So on my side of town... there are some people that are doing very well. They have figured it out and know exactly how to get into the "bad" neighborhoods and, some may say, exploit them so that we can live better than them in the meantime. However, most of us on the "good" side of town do just okay. We get by. A very few get to live like kings and queens.

      So although it is great that we have all these resources on our side of town, and it really is pretty damn good (and maybe convenient) that we found more rare resources, it might be a better idea to consider the whole picture.

      We have not been doing that since day one, and are some pretty shortsighted and greedy people on our side of town aren't we?

      Why take the extra effort today when we can just push the consequences of our actions out till tomorrow?

      When those "bad" neighborhoods are so fucked up they can't be available to us either, I seriously question if we will still have the skills and knowledge to make a difference anyways.

      Purely hypothetical, but let's say the rest of the "neighborhoods" either died, or mutually agreed, to lock us out. Just how quickly could we actually get back up to speed processing our own resources and creating our own goods and services again? Maybe... there might be a delay.... and that delay.. would be quite stressful. Just possibly.

    77. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One round of buckshot, I assume.

    78. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      ... until every other nation with rare earth deposits also bring their mines back on line, at which point there is a price crash.

      Classic mining industry boom-bust economics. The Romans had the same problem. Fuck, the Cro Magnons in North Wales probalby had the same problem.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    79. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by bronney · · Score: 1

      5 APM, 12 Harvesters :P nah just kidding I actually like him compared to the last one.

    80. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you import minerals from the other players, right?

    81. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The Bush Tax Cuts would be worth an additional $130 billion to $300 billion in extra income. The deficit is $1,650 billion. IOW, it ain't the Bush Tax Cuts that are doing this, it is the egregious spending that is doing this. We have to stop the spending. And Clinton had the onset of a recession in progress before GWB was even sworn in - this was December 2000, so... I'm not really impressed. Clinton just had the benefit of a tech bubblem which imploded. Plus there were a few events that necessitated an expensive military response, in spite of the unrealistic attitude that we could somehow just sit here and not respond, and absorb however many attacks the enemy cared to send our way just to save the money it takes to go kick their a****, and dismantle their terrorist organizations.

    82. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      source of that info?

      Email chain-letter.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    83. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Chili-71 · · Score: 1

      Here's the deal if you want to rule the world. Do not use up your own resources until all the worlds resources except yours have been depleted. Then when no one has anything left, except you of course, you can rule the world with an iron fist and demand whatever price you want for stuff you have that no one else does.

      Why do you think the government is willing to let us pay $4.00/gal for gas? We're not squandering our own resources and when everyone else has depleted all the worlds gas and oil resources, the U.S. can charge $1,000/gal to other countries if they want. Remember the 'golden rule': Who ever has the gold, makes the rules.

    84. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by magarity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the North Slope and ANWR may have enough oil to supply our needs for a whole year. Unless the economy recovers, that is.

      What? The US averages just under 20 million barrels per day which comes to less than 8 billion per year. So that's 7 to 12 years provided by an estimated 50 to 100 billion barrels in Alaska, and that's just by itself.

    85. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Lashat · · Score: 1

      The grocery store almost ALWAYS has cinnamon when I shop.

      --
      For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    86. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The grocery store almost ALWAYS has cinnamon when I shop.

      Really? Here (in Connecticut), they have something labelled cinnamon, but it always turns out to be cheaper cassia.
      The easy test for sticks: If you can't crunch them with your fingers, it's cassia. For powder, you have to go with the taste, which is rather different if you taste them side by side, and colour (less reliable - cassia tends to be more orange-brown than cinnamon-tan, but it varies, and cassia can be bleached).
      IMO, It's just as dishonest as selling marjoram as oregano or sweet potatoes as yams. Both of which isn't uncommon in the US, being that there's not much consumer protection here.

    87. Re:The U.S. is notoriously bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very insightful. Thanks!

  2. What we really have....is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    that the US has no shortage of rare earth deposits...we have shortage of rare earth refining....

    1. Re:What we really have....is by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Factual.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    2. Re:What we really have....is by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      +1. Even with the spike in rare earth prices recently, it's still cheaper to get it from China than to source it locally.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:What we really have....is by NevarMore · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up. Factual.

      Citation needed. If you got facts, please share them!

    4. Re:What we really have....is by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Informative
      http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2642

      It's all over the place for a while, especially on /.. A ten second search would turn up enough stuff to study for some time. We still have our old REE mines as well as newly discovered ones. it's not that China has them all, but more that they can extract them cheaply due to labor and environmental costs as doing so usually involves lots of harsh solvents and left overs.

    5. Re:What we really have....is by real-modo · · Score: 1

      In December 2010, Molycorp announced that it secured all the environmental permits needed to begin construction of a new ore processing plant at the mine; construction will begin in January 2011, and is expected to be completed by the end of 2012.[17]

      ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine#Current_activity

      /facts-from-me.

    6. Re:What we really have....is by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      No, it is not. The fact is, that if we pulled ore from china vs. from here, it would be cheaper here. California pass is starting up because of this. Our problem is that refining was shut down here because reagan pushed us to GIVE the tech to China. Now China has dumped on the market and destroyed our refining capability (well, that as California environmental nuts). But, the refining is coming.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  3. next gold rush? by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

    next gold rush? nah the land, or at least the mineral rights will be bought by corporate interests who will make a ton of money and you won't see any individuals making it big off the rare metals, unless they happened to own the land and the mineral rights to it.

    1. Re:next gold rush? by inviolet · · Score: 1

      next gold rush? nah the land, or at least the mineral rights will be bought by corporate interests who will make a ton of money and you won't see any individuals making it big off the rare metals, unless they happened to own the land and the mineral rights to it.

      It is not important who takes the risk, who holds the paper, who makes the money, off this deposit. Handing the title over to John Q. Public will not produce a better or worse outcome than signing it over to Alcoa. They will both seek maximum profit vis-a-vis the market's price.

      What is important, is that this deposit is geographically located within our borders. That means that although the price will still follow the market, it will not be practical for the mine's output to be blockaded by Beijing if we got into a shoving match.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    2. Re:next gold rush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a very good reason for this. Rare earths aren't really that rare. What makes them "rare" (or I should say scarce) is how difficult it is to process them into their raw oxide. This is not an easy process. You can't just dig them out of the ground and sell the dirt to a laser making company.

      So the next company that will be coming online is the Australian Lynas Corp with their processing plant in Malaysia and the worlds largest single rare earth deposit in Western Australia. The Malaysian processing plant is costing a lot of money to build - not the sort of capital an individual has.

      Check this out:

      http://www.lynascorp.com/page.asp?category_id=1&page_id=25

      That gives you an idea of how rare earths have outpaced gold in the last 2 years.

      Next I believe is USA's Molycorp (I may be wrong on that but I think that is right).

    3. Re:next gold rush? by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      Correct. And this article is old news. Quantum announced their acquisition of the rights in this general area a bit over a year ago. Development of the resource will be tricky; for example, disposing of tailings from mining and milling so that neither surface nor ground water is contaminated will be a challenge.

    4. Re:next gold rush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not! Because the only people at the dig sites are the executives and fat cat bankers...oh, wait, they'll need people to operate the machinery? And managers and engineers to design the mines? And the mechanics fixing the equipment? and the construction workers and electricians who will build the processing plants? And the myriad of other people who are needed to actually *run* a business once you've got the funding?
      And consumers won't benefit from lower prices as a result of increased supply?
      Nah, of course not. Economics simply doesn't work that way!

    5. Re:next gold rush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the salary for an educated miner in the US again?

    6. Re:next gold rush? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Is it really so hard to make clickable links?

    7. Re:next gold rush? by NevarMore · · Score: 3, Funny

      a href="http://www.lynascorp.com/page.asp?category_id=1&page_id=25">yes/

    8. Re:next gold rush? by eepok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "rush" isn't in the resources itself, but the stocks of the company. If you do a GoogleNews search for "rare earth" and "nebraska", you'll find that them majority of the reports are through "market" sources. It's hype so that day traders will invest thus allowing original investors to sell at higher prices, get out, and watch it deflate because they all know that rare-earth mining and smelting is such a dirty business that the EPA won't allow it.

    9. Re:next gold rush? by hedgemage · · Score: 1

      One 'positive' is that the deposit is in Nebraska which is: A) not heavily populated, and B) not known for its natural beauty. I imagine that these factors alone will account for less public outcry regarding environmental concerns. Whether that is good or bad, I can't say.

    10. Re:next gold rush? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      They are not even that hard to process. The problem isn't processing it is that you get other things out of the process. Mainly Thorium which is radioactive. Of course if we built Thorium cycle reactors then it because a bonus. China doesn't have the environmental laws of the US so they don't have a problem with processing them and selling them. The other problem is that it is risky to invest in producing them. China can just start dumping them on the market at a low cost and blame your investment is gone. You go out of the rare earth market and China raises prices. Odds are you will not jump in again.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:next gold rush? by magarity · · Score: 1

      next gold rush? nah the land, or at least the mineral rights will be bought by corporate interests who will make a ton of money and you won't see any individuals making it big off the rare metals, unless they happened to own the land and the mineral rights to it.

      Corporations don't own themselves; individuals own them in lots of little pieces. Open an account at Scottrade/etrade/ameritrade and you too can be a "corporate interest".

    12. Re:next gold rush? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      nah. They will just buy some republican pols and get them to write laws to skip that part.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:next gold rush? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      The Fear of a Toxic Rerun
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/business/global/30rare.html?pagewanted=all

      A $230 million refinery being built here in an effort to break China's global chokehold on rare earth metals is plagued by environmentally hazardous construction and design problems, according to internal memos and current and former engineers on the project.
      ...
      But the construction and design may have serious flaws, according to the engineers, who also provided memos, e-mail messages and photos from Lynas and its contractors. The engineers said they felt a professional duty to voice their safety concerns, but insisted on anonymity to avoid the risk of becoming industry outcasts.

      TFA goes into detail about all the problems that have been discovered and some of the corners that have been cut.
      I sure as hell wouldn't want the future superfund site that's described in TFA to be in my State.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    14. Re:next gold rush? by Savantissimo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These are not minor problems - they are building a plant that handles 90C slightly-radioactive acid-abrasive slurry on a reclaimed swamp out of regular concrete, with no moisture barrier between the ground and the concrete, with cracks and voids in the walls of the already inadequate concrete, and connecting these tanks with pipes made out of regular non-corrosion resistant steel. The moisture from the ground is going to crumble the concrete, the slurry is going to eat through the pipes, and then go right into the ground. Not good.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    15. Re:next gold rush? by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      $40-$60K for hard rock machine operators, about double that for any kind of "engineer" geologist" or even "foreman".

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    16. Re:next gold rush? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      There's also the fact that the Australian company that is sending Australian mined minerals to South East Asia for processing by cheap labour is refusing to take their radioactive waste back to Australia where they have a huge fscking desert to hide it in, instead leaving it to overpopulated Asian nations to find somewhere to put it (nothing a bit of money under the table won't solve in this part of the world).

  4. Gold is the next gold rush by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    with the ever increasing price per ounce of gold, Gold is the next gold rush ;-)

    1. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You misspelled bubble.

    2. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Going to be a long drawn out bubble, the Fed is already planning QE3. Part two of Double dip recession already getting started. If it lasts for five years or more, who cares if it's a "bubble".

    3. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by gemtech · · Score: 2

      no, it is copper

      --
      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
    4. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      It is only a bubble if you assume that what goes down must come up.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    5. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      There are only two possible outcomes. Price falls as it is a bubble and no one will buy it at that price or economy gets really bad and lots of people are forced to sell which again bursts the bubble.

    6. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by smelch · · Score: 1

      The people that buy gold in 4.9 years. Then all the money they spent to get the gold will be gone for nothing and they'll say "What happened to all my money? I need government assistance!" as banks and investment funds begin to falter. Sound familiar? Bubble and bust is not insignificant.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    7. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      Prices of gold are rising because people are losing faith in the dollar. If the dollar crashes completely, people will trade in gold (and silver). You are assuming that the dollar will return from a crash. I'm not claiming it won't, just pointing out that there is an assumption being made. This is not a 'bubble' in the same sense that the stock or real estate markets were bubbles.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    8. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      People will not trade in gold or silver, they will trade in a foreign currency. For evidence of this check out impoverished nations like Zimbabwe. For a gold ring you might get a couple eggs, for 1 USD you would get the same amount. Paper gold, the stuff most people "invest" in would be totally worthless in such a scenario.

    9. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      This doesn't create an opportunity to take a few chickens to Zimbabwe and return with gold rings or loads of US dollars, so I'm not sure you have laid out all the parameters on which your premise is based.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by trout007 · · Score: 2

      You have it backwards. You are witnessing the dollar bubble popping. Gold is just sitting there being worth what it always is worth.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    11. Re:Gold is the next gold rush by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      The foreign currencies will inflate at nearly the same rate as the dollar due to their central banks having a large % of reserves in the dollar and not wanting to have their currencies appreciate against the dollar, as that would put their exports at a disadvantage.

      Trading in gold and silver seems for everyday needs unlikely, but it is possible that this is not as big a price bubble as it appears. Nearly all commodities have risen quite a bit, which indicates that a large portion of the rise in precious metals is due to the real weakness of the dollar (not that I'd buy gold or silver now, but it's likely better than treasuries, at least.) For the real SHTF scenarios, even bags of silver coins may not be as good for trading as liquor and ammo, or as valuable as a good water filter. T

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  5. We knew this... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We already knew that the USA had large deposits of rare earth elements.

    It is just cheaper to buy them from China than to mine and process what is available domestically.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    1. Re:We knew this... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Boo-hoo, the "captains of industry" shoulda thought of that before they decided to treat their workers like shit. They had their chance.

      Also don't you think that the high risk of the job should count for something?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:We knew this... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the cost of labor is miniscule next to the costs imposed by liberal tree hugging ecoterrorists that get all pissy when you dump all your toxic mine tailings and acidic processing wastes in the local river rather than burying them back underground where you got them.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:We knew this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will change. Canada has always had great sources of oil, but was always to expensive to extract (oil sands).
      With the price of oil up, it makes financial sense to extract and sell the oil.

      Same will happen with the US rare earth minerals.

    4. Re:We knew this... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ya, rare earths are well... not rare. Some of them are rare in specific cases, but generally they aren't.

      One can argue about the need for a certain production capacity being outside of china, simply because, but that is more of a security cost than anything else. and paying people to extract stuff from the ground that there isn't a market for (since demand is already met by china) is just going to waste a pile of money, whether that is worth it is another matter.

      Since demand for rare earths is increasing there's a legitimate business interest in expanding production, but they would probably go with india or brazil rather than US production.

    5. Re:We knew this... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A couple of years ago I would have smirked at that. Now I humbly ask you for confirmation that this actually was sarcasm as I hope, as too many retards run around truly believing not being able to dump your shit into the local river is GUBBERMINT OPPRESSION....

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    6. Re:We knew this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to consider ducking a bit lower next time you post..... Try reading that last one again with your sarcasm detector on this time.

    7. Re:We knew this... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "It is just cheaper to buy them from China than to mine and process what is available domestically, due to regulations and NIMBYs"

      FTFY

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:We knew this... by Pope · · Score: 1

      Feel free to go move in next to a metal processing plant.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    9. Re:We knew this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With China you don't have to worry about workers. "Wah, my lungs are black." "Wah, I want to feed my family."

      Damned U.S. workers and unions chased good businesses out of the country.

    10. Re:We knew this... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Dude, poes law. My friend sent me a rather tongue in cheek paper he wrote for a class, something to do with logging, he was saying that the forests were part of America and should be pulling their own weight and making a profit. I told him it was a little over the top, but then the next day i read this...

      “We cannot elevate nature above people,” said Edna Mattos, 63, leader of the Citrus County Tea Party Patriots, in an interview. “That’s against the Bible and the Bill of Rights.”>

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    11. Re:We knew this... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Dude, poes law.

      Yeah, Poe's Law is about how you can never have a satire of an extremist so extreme that it can't be matched by the real thing.

      However you can have a satire of an extremist that reveals its nature by being less extreme. For example a real "Screw the enviro-hippie-terrorists" post (or Poe's-Law-invoking satire) would have downplayed the nature of the mining byproducts instead of emphasizing "toxic", "acidic", and "dumping in the local river".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:We knew this... by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      There are untapped rare earth deposits in Mongolia (a part of the former Soviet Union, not China).

      According to a Y 2009 estimation by the US Geological Survey, Mongolia has 31M tons of Rare Earth reserves, or 16.77% of the total Global reserves, making it the 2nd biggest holder in the world after China.

      http://www.business-mongolia.com/mongolia/2011/04/20/first-mongolian-rare-earth-sold-to-south-korea/

      Undersea deposits have also been recently found in the Pacific.

      An area of one square kilometer (0.4 square miles) near one sample site in the central North Pacific could fulfill 20% of the world’s annual demand, estimated earth scientist Yasuhiro Kato, a member of the research team.

      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/07/05/researchers-find-rare-earths-in-pacific-ocean-mud/

      China has cornered the market because they produce these materials so cheaply. Cost and pollution are driving factors.

      Although they are dubbed “rare,” these resources are not in fact all that scarce. A lot of countries have these elements. China’s reserves are just 40% of the total global reserves. The fact that they are rare in other places is because other countries are unwilling to extract them because of the high cost.

      There are a number of reasons China controls the export of rare earth materials. Contrary to what most Western analysts claim, "political motivation" is not one of them. China's market dominance can instead be explained by the fact that the exploitation and processing of rare earth cause serious air, surface water and soil pollution. Over the past dozen years, the supply of rare earth has exceeded demand. The Chinese supplier had no control over its pricing, thus the price has been very low.

      Rare earth minerals are going to be available. They're just going to cost more.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    13. Re:We knew this... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, much better to have the Chinese do that huh?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:We knew this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a thought.. the population density in the US is very low. How about the people who live next to the plant GTFO? As long as the deposit isn't under like downtown Boston or something what's the problem?

      Oh booo 500 years ago Native Americans hunted here!

      Oh boooo my grand daddy owned a plantation here!

      It's disgusting. People are so goddamned self-entitled in this country.

    15. Re:We knew this... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes. Most of the pollution from these is local. It won't travel around the globe like air pollution, so having some other country do it is the right solution.

    16. Re:We knew this... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Mongolia was not a part of the former Soviet Union.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  6. EUREKA! by d.the.duck · · Score: 1

    So Nebraska has something worthwhile! That is news!

    --
    Where does the signature go?
    1. Re:EUREKA! by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So Nebraska has something worthwhile! That is news!

      With the price of corn these days, I'd say they have something else that's worthwhile.

    2. Re:EUREKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also have uranium mines, oil wells, and coal.. We don't need the rest of the states, we're seceding!!

    3. Re:EUREKA! by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      I'm asking out of ignorance—is corn much higher lately? I know it's a little higher because I could only get 3 ears for a dollar at the store instead of four.

      That could very easily be fuel prices. Costs more to the get the same corn for the same corn price to the store because of diesel being so damn expensive.

    4. Re:EUREKA! by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      I'm asking out of ignorance—is corn much higher lately? I know it's a little higher because I could only get 3 ears for a dollar at the store instead of four.

      I live in the Washington DC area, so I'm not exactly close to "corn country". But just a few years ago corn was normally 12 ears for a $1. And was often on sale for even less.

    5. Re:EUREKA! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Corn is about double what it was 5 years ago, around $7/bushel now. That's over a hundred ears typically, so the farmer is getting maybe a dime per ear as opposed to a nickel 5 years ago.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    6. Re:EUREKA! by need4mospd · · Score: 1
      In July 2010 corn was ~165 US dollars per metric ton. It's over 300 currently.

      It's not just corn that higher now either. ALL commodities are skyrocketing while the value of the dollar is plummeting.

      Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/

    7. Re:EUREKA! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      [C]ommodities are skyrocketing while the value of the dollar is plummeting.

      Can you really measure both of these as the same time? Doesn't one of these have to be a dependent variable?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:EUREKA! by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Can you really measure both of these as the same time? Doesn't one of these have to be a dependent variable?

      There isn't anything that has a stable value, so it's hard to immediately tell whether the increases in corn prices are reduced supply and increased demand, or whether, since the demand is international, there's a substantial weak dollar component. Then again, it could just be speculators manipulating the futures market again.

    9. Re:EUREKA! by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Well, for commodity corn (not the same kind) it's gone from about $3.75/bushel to $6.65 year over year. It's mostly weather related, but also fuel and correlation with other commodities (dollar going down in value).

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    10. Re:EUREKA! by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, corn about doubled in the last 5 years, but also nearly doubled in the last year, too. Corn has nearly tripled in the last 6 years, and the cost was much more stable in 2000-2005.

        Bushels of commodity corn are in dried, cob-free form. 1 bushel maize = 56 lb = 25.4kg which would be much more than 100 ears, likely around 400 to 500 ears. But sweet corn comes from different strains, grown on a smaller scale has to be picked at the right time and delivered promptly, so the cost is completely different - there's really no telling what the farmer's price per ear is, and it will vary a lot depending where they are, but the percent difference over the period should be similar.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    11. Re:EUREKA! by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      Around here, corn goes on sale for $1.50 an ear.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  7. In my pants! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have rare earth deposits in my pants!

    1. Re:In my pants! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell your mom to change your diaper then.

  8. ...Canadian company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article mentions a Canadian company coming in and doing the work.
    Not that I have a problem with Canadians, but you know, with jobs dying as they are, why couldn't we put this in the hands of some US workers?

    1. Re:...Canadian company? by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      Because maybe they are the ones we're going to sell it to? *shrug*

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    2. Re:...Canadian company? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Just because it's a foreign company doesn't mean they won't hire a lot of local employees.

    3. Re:...Canadian company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh.... Yeah. It pretty much does, Canadian here to point out that as far as mining operations these companies will cooperate with the local government and create a small work program to hire unskilled local labor, meanwhile shipping in hundreds of H-1Bs to live in the nearby community. The net result will be much higher costs of living in that community and a handful of low paying jobs for locals. The vast majority of the money will be funneled out of the local economy any and every way possible.

  9. The name isn't helping by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    After the last James Bond movie I'm slightly worried about any company called "Quantum" having control over a lot of resources in a specific area. I do have to say getting a monopoly on niobium is a lot more Bond-villainy than trying to charge a higher price for water in a poor South American country (seriously, lamest Bond villain scheme everrrr.)

    More substantially, I'm not completely sure this sort of discover is a good thing in the long term. We need to get better at making advanced electronics without relying on these elements or we need to get much better at recycling electronics (preferably both). This sort of thing is good in the short-term but is to some extent delaying the inevitable. On the other hand, maybe it will give us more time to develop alternatives.

    Note that TFA mentions the Mountain Pass Mine as shut-down for environmental concerns. However, that mine is undergoing renovation and modernization. It is suppose to resume operating soon. I'm not sure this new site has any intrinsic advantage over Mountain Pass, especially given that the estimates for this new site are still not strongly confirmed. The estimates discussed in the summary TFA may be quite optimistic.

    1. Re:The name isn't helping by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      You're worried about this because you saw a fictional company in a fictional movie that did bad things?

      You need therapy. Jesus, what is wrong with you?

    2. Re:The name isn't helping by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      You're worried about this because you saw a fictional company in a fictional movie that did bad things?

      You need therapy. Jesus, what is wrong with you?

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/joke may help answer that question.

    3. Re:The name isn't helping by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:The name isn't helping by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      You need therapy. Jesus, what is wrong with you?

      Physician, heal thyself.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:The name isn't helping by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I noticed that the initials are QRED, which would fit right into any dystopian cyberpunk novel. You could even call their employees "reds" for short.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:The name isn't helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And atheists act all rational and shit...

      Havent seen one yet...

    7. Re:The name isn't helping by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I agree about the recycling. I for one almost always rip apart my old disks to pilfer the magnets. The coil magnets are fantastic. I'd like to think that drives at least could get the magnet recycled somehow. If rare earths are not that rare, and its really the processing, maybe add a deposit of a couple of bucks on all drives so you could turn them in like aluminum cans and get your deposit back. The average household now has a few drives so it might make a lot of sense. Cell phones could have the same strategy as they have magic sauce in them too.

  10. So... by black+soap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can we refine them here and export the waste to China for 'disposal,' or do we only get to ignore the environmental problem if they produce the waste themselves?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a rhetorical question? Mine certainly is.

    2. Re:So... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it is illegal to export waste for disposal in ways that are not legal here, but with creative use of shell corporations you can minimize financial losses when caught

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 (sadly) insightful

    4. Re:So... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      The whole point of moving the world's manufacturing to China is so that We (collectively) get to ignore the environmental and human rights problems that result.

      Of course if You (collectively) continue to buy Made in China then You are just as much part of the problem as anyone else.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:So... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      So we can buy the same end products from places that dispose of waste in ways that are not legal here, we just can't compete with them. Anti-environmentalists who talk about regulations killing business are right. The laws don't make any sense.

    6. Re:So... by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And if we don't export the production far enough, we actually have to re-import the waste along with the products. See "maquiladoras" in border region of Mexico, and the La Paz Agreement. If US companies move production just across the border, they still have to^w^w "are supposed to" bring the waste back to the US for disposal, but if the US companies move production farther away, they have no requirement.

    7. Re:So... by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      In a tragedy of the commons situation it is not in the best interest of anyone to rebel. The problem will not go away unless the law is changed, i.e. changing the game.

  11. hardly a by nimbius · · Score: 1

    day goes by where slashdot isnt comparing something to china.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:hardly a by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      day goes by where slashdot isnt comparing something to china.

      Makes a nice alternative to Hitler and Nazis.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:hardly a by smelch · · Score: 1

      My god, it's almost as if the economis of the US and China are globally important, intertwined and affecting all of us every day.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    3. Re:hardly a by hubie · · Score: 2

      I want to know how many cell phones this rare earth deposit is equivalent to.

    4. Re:hardly a by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      I read a comment like this on a Chinese forum once about America. Go figure.

  12. nil chance by waddgodd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The last US Rare Earth mine closed because it was an ecological nightmare to smelt the ore, not because it ran out. Since this is a new vein and not a new smelting process, it'll be doomed to failure the exact same way, so will the (relatively) new vein in Idaho. Short of the EPA rolling over on a mine that will be a superfund site within months of opening in a Democratic administration (anyone want to figure the odds of that?), this mine will be a non-starter.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
    1. Re:nil chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You should tell that to these guys http://www.molycorp.com/

      They just reopened a rare earth mine in CA. Quick, go tell them they can't do what they've already done! Molycorp developed a way to extract the minerals without the pollution. Pretty smart considering pollution needs to be cleaned up and that clean up costs a ton of money. But don't let long term cost savings get in the way of your hippy hate. And no, I'm not a hippy, but I see the value in reducing costs by eliminating or reducing clean up. China will one day have to clean up the waste and it's going to cost a pretty penny. They love it now, but that debt will come due. Molycorp following EPA guidelines should reduce the total tally we owe.

    2. Re:nil chance by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Considering that Tea Party Republicans want to defund the EPA, there's a non-zero chance of this actually happening. We can then find out first-hand the costs that China is paying for being the world's foremost exporter of rare earth ore.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:nil chance by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why don't you go there since they have the level of environmental regulations you like? Breathe in that thick city air and let that foul black river "water" slowly slide down your throat. Taste the unregulated capitalism. Mmmmmm...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:nil chance by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Exactly, the fucking hippies have destroyed all our industry. I say we ship the hippies to China.

      Somehow, I don't think that trading hippies for pollution with China is going to help us. Unless this is all a master double-crossing plan, by which we expect the hippies in China to destroy their polluting industries, thereby creating a Chinese Tea Party that insists on importing those same industries right back, leaving us with no hippies and no pollution...

      Yeah, don't think so.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:nil chance by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Industry does not do you much good when you are dying from some disease these mining processes or chemicals give you.

      No reason other than cost that this can not be done in a more clean manner.

    6. Re:nil chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The mine that closed down is owned by Molycorp and it is in California. Molycorp is racing to restarting it at full capacity and it is only months from re-opening. Molycorp stock is up from about $3 to $60 since China put a tariff on exports. There are talks from China about putting a stop to exports of alloys with RRE which has a potential of increasing prices higher.

      There are other companies that are planning on opening projects relatively soon (within 5 years). RRE are not rare. What is rare is finding them in high concentrations. They tend to be found in ores rich in thorium, uranium and radium making extraction kind of radioactive and this has been one of of the major environmental problems for the Molycorp @ their Montainpass mine. This mine supposedly has enough resources to sustain *all* RRE yearly needs of US for a few decades, for the minerals that are available in that deposit.

      http://www.molycorp.com/

      Anyway, RRE is not "next gold" and not "next oil". It is a resource that is vital and is only in short demand due to export tariffs from the only major global source.

      PS. I do not hold any interest in Molycorp :)

      PPS. Also, this has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or politics. The mine was shut down because Chinese exports crashed the price below US production costs primarily because of no environmental controls in China (bad for China - one of major reasons they added the export tariff!). It is as simple as that.

    7. Re:nil chance by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Haha.

      No.

      No mine in America ever went out of business because of the ecology. They may have blamed that, to avoid a malfeasance suit from their shareholders, but it certainly wasn't true.

    8. Re:nil chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They originally closed that Molycorp mine after an accident that released a lot of radioactive waste, if you care to check your history.

    9. Re:nil chance by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Their stock has been a crazy roller coaster this year, and I've been riding it and doing rather well with it.

    10. Re:nil chance by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the republican option of reducing costs by ignoring pollution and allowing the corporate shell to go bankrupt from fines after shareholders have gotten their money is more efficient, as long as you are a shareholder and don't live nearby

      if you really want to unfuck the country repeal the concept of limited liability to shareholders, if a business goes under and still owes, take it out of the hides of everyone who has gotten a dividend or capital gain from owning shares of that company. suddenly actual corporate responsibility, instead of talking a lot of bullshit, will be important

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    11. Re:nil chance by nigelo · · Score: 1

      >thereby creating a Chinese Tea Party

      Strangely enough, it could also be called the Green Tea Party, I suppose.

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    12. Re:nil chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it isn't capitalism if there are negative externalities and cost-shifting in play. But, feel free to redefine words to fit your worldview.

  13. Gold rush my butt. More like a dirt rush. by fruitbane · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most rare earth minerals are actually not that valuable. They're necessary and quite abundant. The reason China controls the trade is that they have been willing thus far to run operations which mine at great cost for minimal profit. They've been buying operations in Africa and on other continents where large stores are found. In order for a US company to want to mine these minerals there will have to be a critical uptick in price, and that will raise prices on a number of important manufactured goods.

    1. Re:Gold rush my butt. More like a dirt rush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In other words, China is able to outcompete the US when it comes to areas that require a lot of unskilled labor. No surprise there.

    2. Re:Gold rush my butt. More like a dirt rush. by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      The price is definitely the issue, but I don't know if the low price is because rare earth minerals aren't valuable. From what I've heard (couldn't find any solid documentation, just plenty of 'business as usual' references), most of the mining is done via slave labor or close to it, whether it's in China or Africa.. It'll be pretty hard to set up mining operations in the US that can compete with slave labor.

    3. Re:Gold rush my butt. More like a dirt rush. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Well they are comparatively rare. If you look at something like iron a 13 million ton deposit is basically nothing. There is an iron mine up in northern Minnesota that claims they have mined over 800 million tons of iron ore from just the one mine. There are a number of other mines up in the iron range all of which I believe have produced more than 13 millions tons each.

      As a side note if you are in Minnesota it is worth the trip up to the iron range, especially if you have a son who likes big machines. the Hull Rust mine has an old 240 ton payload capacity truck that you can go and sit in. They are currently running 400 ton trucks in the mine now and don't use those smaller trucks anymore. I was up there a few weekends ago and my 2.5 year old loved it. We saw a number of mining sites.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Gold rush my butt. More like a dirt rush. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The US only became as big as it was because of slavery. Pretty much any powerful nation at one time had either slavery or abhorrent working conditions. The Chinese are now rising up in economic standpoint due to exploiting people and ignoring the environmental impacts of their operations. Eventually once they reach a more equal place with countries like the US they will get rid of these practices, or at least that's the hope. It's very hard to increase your place in the world without exploiting either people or the environment.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Gold rush my butt. More like a dirt rush. by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      Comparing "rare" minerals to the single most abundant substance on (in is probably a better word) earth is a bit specious.

    6. Re:Gold rush my butt. More like a dirt rush. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      aw c'mon, aluminum and then silicon are the most abundant metal/metalloids in the earth's crust. THEN it's iron!

    7. Re:Gold rush my butt. More like a dirt rush. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well the use of the word rare usually conjures up thoughts of things like gold, silver, uranium, or things from the platinum metal group which really are rare, but compared to things like iron, carbon, silicon, aluminum, and probably a whole host of others that are quite common.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  14. Nebraska by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is good news for Nebraska. The western side of the state is very sparsely populated, and getting more so as kids leave small towns for the city. More than half the state's population live in the two cities of Omaha and Lincoln. Getting development and jobs out there will help keep small town life alive for longer.

    The troubling part is that western Nebraska is over the Ogallala aquifer that supplies water to much of the plains states. I shudder to think what would happen if it got contaminated with rare-earths.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Nebraska by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I'm not a geologist, but I live in KC. That aquifer has been a scare for a while now, but the water supply seems to have stabilized lately. I've talked to a few friends with family way back West and they're parents don't seem to be concerned about the same armageddon of diminished water supply they were 10 years ago. For a while there, people were discussing migrating to a whole new economy in the West (like buffalo safaris and wild game hunting preserves).

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Nebraska by PRMan · · Score: 1

      More than half the state's population live in the two cities of Omaha and Lincoln.

      So that other article was right. IQs are rising.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Nebraska by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The troubling part is that western Nebraska is over the Ogallala aquifer that supplies water to much of the plains states. I shudder to think what would happen if it got contaminated with rare-earths.

      I doubt you mean the rare earth materials themselves. It's the purification process that creates most of the nasties.

      Interesting short piece about mining and purification of rare earths. Summary: Mining and primary concentration need to happen on site for economic reasons. However, it's the secondary purification steps that have most of the nasties. After it's been refined to a level of around 50% purity then it's economically viable to transport that material reasonably long distances for final smelting.

      Thus, one could have a single rare earth refining plant, closely monitored and supported by numerous mines. If done correctly, that might mitigate a significant part of the environmental concerns. (If I'm reading the article correctly).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Nebraska by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      I don't think increasing the population of western Nebraska would be a good thing; a lot of people live out there because they like small towns and don't want to see them change. And for that matter, maybe it's a good thing to still have sparsely populated areas in the Midwest.

    5. Re:Nebraska by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Any evening there is a UNL Cornhuskers football game and all the yayhoos come to the big city, you can literally feel the average IQ of Lincoln drop several points. :)

      Crazy to see another story about Nebraska on Slashdot, I think that's 5 since I've been here.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    6. Re:Nebraska by joelsanda · · Score: 1

      This is good news for Nebraska. The western side of the state is very sparsely populated, and getting more so as kids leave small towns for the city. More than half the state's population live in the two cities of Omaha and Lincoln. Getting development and jobs out there will help keep small town life alive for longer.

      The troubling part is that western Nebraska is over the Ogallala aquifer that supplies water to much of the plains states. I shudder to think what would happen if it got contaminated with rare-earths.

      I wonder how long those small towns will remain small if there is a new resource extraction industry that pops up? Seems to me that often means a new six-lane road filled with chain fast food joints, unfortunately.

      --
      The Luddites were ahead of their time.
    7. Re:Nebraska by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The dumb ones were moving to Texas, and raising the IQ in both states.

    8. Re:Nebraska by Zine · · Score: 1

      I grew up in the western panhandle of Nebraska, and I would agree that development is sorely needed. Sure, some folks like the small town feel, but when half the town is a ghost town due to families and business leaving they could stand to have some growth to bring it back to baseline.

      There were three main booms the panhandle went through. First was the railroad/homestead boom in the middle 1800's. Next was the oil boom when deposits were found (and now nearly completely dry). Finally there was the missile boom during the cold war era when several ICBM silo's were constructed (they still are there and active, but just without the huge influx of construction jobs).

      No new boom is in sight. Side note... Elk Creek is in the eastern side of the state. So I don't think this will help out on the panhandle's lack of industrial diversity. This mine if it does open will only strengthen the hold Lincoln/Omaha has on the Nebraska economy.

      Today it's just farming and the few industrials and corporates the locals have been able to coax in because nobody else wants them in their back yard (such as toxic waste incineration plants). Kimball has the Clean Harbors plant, and Sidney was fortunate to bring in Cabella's corporate. If those left, those community's populations would fall greatly, and possibly impact further the area's other sectors like the main community college (Western Nebraska Community College) in Scottsbluff and Sidney simply because there wouldn't be enough to sustain it.

    9. Re:Nebraska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily Elk Creek is in the south easy corner of the state and isn't above the aquifer.

      You must be from omaha, they call everything west of gretna "the western side of the state"

    10. Re:Nebraska by Hatta · · Score: 1

      LOL. Guilty as charged!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Nebraska by rk2z · · Score: 1

      um, Elk Creek is south east of Lincoln. It's only 20 miles north of Kansas and about 30 east of Iowa http://maps.google.com/maps?q=elk+creek+nebraska&hl=en&ll=40.287907,-96.127625&spn=1.627857,2.307129&gl=us&z=9

      --
      This is a sig, there are many like it, but this is mine.
    12. Re:Nebraska by Tanmi-Daiow · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a joke we have next door in Iowa: If you shave off the top and bottom tiers of Iowa's counties and give them to Minnesota and Missouri, respectively, you'll raise the average IQ of all three states.

      --
      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
    13. Re:Nebraska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of a joke we have next door in Missouri: Iowa.

    14. Re:Nebraska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The troubling part is that western Nebraska is over the Ogallala aquifer that supplies water to much of the plains states. I shudder to think what would happen if it got contaminated with rare-earths.

      Given the rate at which Nebraska is drawing water from the aquifer compared to the rate at which it is being replenished, I don't know that contamination of an aquifer matters when it no longer exists in the first place.

    15. Re:Nebraska by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      Why would saving small town life be a good thing. Small towns seem to breed ignorance and hatred. They require far more resources than they provide(especially infrastructure costs) , and add almost nothing of cultural or socieital value.

    16. Re:Nebraska by HBI · · Score: 2

      After reading your comment, I wonder about why we would want to encourage city life, since it seems to breed ignorance and hatred.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    17. Re:Nebraska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This discovery is in the eastern part of the state. You know, the part that does not have the Ogalala aquifer but does have the Missouri river and up until a few years ago was hosting one of the worlds largest lead smelting plants.

    18. Re:Nebraska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elk Creek, NE is located southeast of Lincoln, NE.

    19. Re:Nebraska by berberine · · Score: 1

      How is this good for Western Nebraska when the deposit was found in the southeastern part of the state?

    20. Re:Nebraska by booch · · Score: 1

      Down here in Missouri, we say that if we gave the bootheel to Arkansas, it would raise the IQ of both states.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  15. Could this be the next gold rush? by subreality · · Score: 2

    Er, no. Rare earths aren't actually that rare. The reason we get them from China isn't because they have a monopoly on the source. They just have the cheapest labor to dig them out of the ground.

    1. Re:Could this be the next gold rush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading the same comment that lead you to believe this. It turns out it was bullshit; useful rare earth minerals are actually rare. To quote wikipedia:

      Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million (similar to copper). However, because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms known as rare earth minerals.[3] It was the very scarcity of these minerals (previously called "earths") that led to the term "rare earth".

    2. Re:Could this be the next gold rush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the U.S. corporations that used to mine rare earths in the U.S. sold their equipment to China. It's the direction much of our industrial resources have gone, for providing quick and easy profits and evening up the U.S. balance of trade deficit. China has so much of our money to spend to buy our industrial infrastructure from companies willing to sell and move out. And every sale helps us out... Helps us out of business, that is. Our real businesses, the manufacturing industries, going out of business and selling their plants to China is what gives China "monopoly". It gives us unemployment, and with give-aways to non-producing industries (Wall Street financial system manipulators) and not collecting taxes from them, gives us debt. and more debt and no income with which to repay (we have to renege on our agreements to provide income and assistance to our aged and retirees, to educate our youth, etc. )..

    3. Re:Could this be the next gold rush? by subreality · · Score: 1

      Rare is relative. Even the "rare" deposits were already available in plentiful quantities domestically before this find.

    4. Re:Could this be the next gold rush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but no.

      The reason we get them from China is that THEIR rare earths aren't bonded with the same nasties that ours are. I am not a metallurgist, but I have it on authority from a client of mine who is. China doesn't have a reasonable part of the "environmental disaster" some are claimin here: They don't need to becuase it's much easier to extract the good stuff, and it's the only place we've found on earth (so far) that's like that.

    5. Re:Could this be the next gold rush? by dabblah · · Score: 1

      Not quite. China has the cheapest processing infrastructure from mining to processing to lax environmental regulations.

      The real vision is Toyota's who realize they need to engineer solutions that do not depend on rare earths...

  16. Not that rare by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Rare earths" aren't that rare. They're just at low concentrations, which makes for an inefficient mining operation. Getting rid of the waste products is a big problem. Molycorp has re-opened a rare earth mine in California, and is expanding capacity.

    There are other rare earth mines in the US. There's no shortage of places to mine. It's just that, until recently, it wasn't profitable.

    1. Re:Not that rare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afaiu china basically dumped the price till everyone else stopped mining it, then they upped the price again. they know that the politics of getting such a "dirty" industry restarted can take forever

  17. Re:Environmentalists Everywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So where exactly are these environmentalists? Do you have a real citation, or do you just need an excuse to whine?

    Posting anonymously because there are a lot of whiners around and many of them have mod points.

  18. there's on right here in Canada by Azmodan · · Score: 1

    ... at St-Fulgence, there is actually a nobium mine as seen at http://www.iamgold.com/English/Operations/Operating-Mines/Niobec-Niobium-Mine/default.aspx Accoring to IAMGOLD, there would be 316.3 million kg of Nb2O5...

  19. Will environmentalists allow mining? by Kohath · · Score: 2

    So what if there are minerals? We have lots of natural mineral and petroleum and other fossil fuel resources all over the US. Every time anyone wants to mine or drill for them, the environmentalists step in a file lawsuits to stop or delay the mining or drilling.

    In southern California, environmentalists are trying to stop solar power stations out in the desert by suing to prevent the power lines that would carry the electricity to where people live.

    So there's a solution to the rare earths problem. What difference does it make if we won't be allowed to use it?

    1. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've been brainwashed by professional liars. The United States does not have "lots of petroleum". We do have lots of coal, and we dig it up at a rate of over a billion tons per year. We have lots of natural gas, and we mine it at a rate of tens of trillions of cubic feet per year.

      The people you listen to are paid big bucks to keep you outraged and misinformed. Stop listening to them.

    2. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Have you every asked "why"? It's not just because those dirty looking miners are boogey men. Usually has something to do with the techniques employed and the effects on the human population (like the use of arsenic in gold mining). Yes, we have practical needs, but don't outright dismiss the concerns of "environmentalists" unless you understand the issue.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      They sued to stop 4th of July fireworks because because the spent rockets land in the ocean. Their concerns can be dismissed until they start acting like rational people who care about humans rather than religious zealots.

    4. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if there are minerals? We have lots of natural mineral and petroleum and other fossil fuel resources all over the US. Every time anyone wants to mine or drill for them, the environmentalists step in a file lawsuits to stop or delay the mining or drilling.

      In southern California, environmentalists are trying to stop solar power stations out in the desert by suing to prevent the power lines that would carry the electricity to where people live.

      So there's a solution to the rare earths problem. What difference does it make if we won't be allowed to use it?

      You are right...as long as it makes some greedy fuck a dollar...let's just blow up mountains and inject caustic chemicals into the ground until kitchen faucets become flammable and fires burn underground for decades and black sludge buries innocent peoples homes...oh wait we already did that...well i am bored, guess i will go back to playing angry birds and forget about reality.

    5. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And conservatives created the TSA whose agents feel up little kids in airports. Their concerns can be dismissed until they start acting like rational people who care about humans.

      Check, your move.

    6. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check, your move.

      Not so much, they moved off that square a long time ago. Now they're comparing the TSA to Nazis and in Texas they tried to pass state legislation to ban the TSA groping searches.

      By the way, the current head of the TSA is an Obama appointee. Check.

    7. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Here's the Senate vote on final passage of that bill. It was 100-0.

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-295

    8. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only a simpleton could make such an obviously false assertion. The US is the world's third largest petroleum producer, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia. I think perhaps it is you who is deluded.

    9. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      With a production rate that has been dropping since 1970.

      http://www.energybulletin.net/image/uploads/27804/us-production.jpeg

    10. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, of course! It's all the environmentalist's fault. If only it weren't for those hippie environmentalists, the US would be able to double its domestic production of oil and solve the problem of importing more than half its oil. Never mind that oil production in the US has been in decline since the 1970s, or that the major oil companies are mostly exploring in the offshore for some reason, even though it is 10x as expensive and more technically challenging to explore there. Why, it's almost as if ... wait, I know this is crazy, but maybe all the really big deposits in the onshore US have already been found and are in production decline, and there's nothing geologists in the big oil companies can do about it (they've tried), so they HAVE to explore for new deposits in more remote places offshore or elsewhere in the world or they'd go broke?

      No, that can't be it. It's all the environmentalists, slowing down the process of getting ever-cheaper non-renewable resources from an otherwise infinite supply within the borders of the USA. Never mind that companies would also be able to make more money if there were fewer regulations to get in the way, making them responsible for any messes. No, it's only the environmentalists keeping them from getting you cheaper gas at the pumps, not the frustrating limitations of the physics, chemistry, or geology of non-renewable resource discovery and extraction.

    11. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Every time, huh? All natural resource exploration is stopped in this country? By *environmentalists*, via *lawsuits?*

      You are making some remarkable claims. I hope you have real evidence.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    12. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by HBI · · Score: 1

      Acting like religious zealots is pretty much the modus operandi of the professional Left. Except i'm not so sure about the act...

      At least the right wing freaks admit they are religious.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    13. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, some of them may be turning on the TSA, but since you allow a handful of batshit insane environmentalists to ruin it for everyone else who just don't want to have to foot the eventual superfund bill, you can't just cut and run. Turns out playing chess is pretty tough when every piece is a king.

    14. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      All natural resource exploration is stopped in this country?

      No one said that. Are you claiming that environmentalists don't file lawsuits to stop or delay production of natural resources?

      They haven't succeeded in stopping all production. They're working hard at it though.

      I will admit that perhaps environmentalists failed to sue a few times. Perhaps once in a while someone is allowed to use a natural resource without legal harassment by environmentalists. I just can't think of any examples.

    15. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's cyanide that gets used in gold mining, not arsenic.

      riverat1 posting AC to preserve mods.

    16. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have lots of natural mineral and petroleum and other fossil fuel resources all over the US.

      That is great news! You should immediately inform the companies that are out there drilling in water over 1000 feet deep that the U.S. is full of this stuff and they don't have to dig in such a hazardous environment to find it!

      We landed on the moon!!!

    17. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You and the moderators are brainwashed. The United States has trillions (multiple of ten to the twelve power) of barrels of petroleum reserves. Absolute verifiable fact.

    18. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! stop listening to everyone! Ther'ye all wrong...

      Stick to the companies pulling the stuff out of the ground and doing the exploration and make up your own mind.

    19. Re:Will environmentalists allow mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a simpleton could make such an obviously false assertion.

      Let's look more closely at who the simpleton may be.

      The US is the world's third largest petroleum producer, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia.

      The original poster was talking about oil resources in the United States. By that metric, the U.S. is 14th, with 1.3% of the world's reservers. Also nowhere near 3rd in production.

      I think perhaps it is you who is deluded.

      Think again.

  20. Hawaii by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there an abundant supply found by Japan near Hawaii recently. Even if the cost is more and there are ecological questions that need to be answered (and we better answer them) - these two recent discoveries shouldn't be ignored. We need to build up a local industry through tax breaks if necessary so that we don't remain dependant on China for this. There may come a day when we and China arn't the best of friends... like if we default on the debt we owe them... or something like that!

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  21. yeah, it was discovered last year or the year befo by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah! I heard about it. It is called Unobtainium right?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  22. global stability? by ThorGod · · Score: 2

    "finding another regular source is crucial to global stability"

    Ha! It's in the US, it's good for US stability! Sheesh, like the primary concern of the US is strictly the world at large. I'm a liberal and a citizen of the world (as much as anyone else), but let's be honest here.

    The US is rich in natural resources. Yes, the jobs may go overseas - but our mineral deposits, forests, fisheries, energy resources (coal, to name 1), and all the other things I'm forgetting to mention - will stay here. (Assuming we don't let our international trade policy to become lopsided against our general well being.)

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    1. Re:global stability? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It is good for global stability, if the US doesn't have its own energy supply, somebody will be accused of stockpiling WMDs...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:global stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global stability affects you more than it appears you think it does. Global stability means it's safer to produce things, which means lower prices for everyone. That applies to everything from oil to bananas to teddy bears.

    3. Re:global stability? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      > and all the other things I'm forgetting to mention - will stay here.

      I think you are confused with another United States. The US exports just about everything it can get it's hands on (including fish) http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/tables/09s1267.xls

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    4. Re:global stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US exports timber and granite to Japan, and is a major exporter of coal to China to name a few off the top of my head. The US is a major exporter of food (which may be a bad thing, considering how it is subsidized, and so indigenous farmers cannot compete).

      Most commodities are fairly fungible, so even if the US stuff stays in the US, it means that the US will need to buy less from oversees, lowering the global price (this also happens in the reverse, e.g. when a hurricane hits the Gulf of Mexico).

      So yes, in some of the details, you are right, but in the big picture, you are wrong.

    5. Re:global stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US stability does in fact mean global stability.

    6. Re:global stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Global stability means it's more profitable to produce things, which means higher margins for the people in control.

      Fixed it for you.

      Funny you mentioned bananas. You know the term Banana Republic? See, there was this monopoly called the United Fruit Company in the late 19th, early 20th century. Yeah, starting with the Spanish American War, we landed Marines on many of these countries' shores, for the benefit of United Fruit Company and similar corporate interests.

      Mostly, they were worried that they'd have to pay their banana farmers a fair living wage, as there was significant political upheaval, for the same reasons, in south/central America in the 1900s-1930s. But we couldn't have that.

      Here's what two time Medal of Honor recipient Major General (USMC) Smedley Butler had to say about some of the "global stability" the US has implemented in the past:

      I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

    7. Re:global stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (Assuming we don't let our international trade policy to become lopsided against our general well being.)

      Wow, just wow. W.O.W.

      Ever heard of a trade deficit? Ever heard of communist China?

    8. Re:global stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but our mineral deposits,...

      Really? our mineral deposits.

      Oh, that's right, you have a Libertarian government in power now. I heard that they're planning on partial default so you don't have to repay the people that bankrupted you, and that they're phasing in a new currency off a rare-earth standard instead of gold standard, and that you were pulling out of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

      "our". There's no our I assure you. Ordinary American people may never benefit from these finds.

  23. Conservatives Everywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...are buing more lobbyists, congressmess, and getting ready to deregulate something. They aren't sure yet, but if the U.S. is going ot mine resources, there has to be something worth getting profit from.

    Seriously? Being pro-environment does not automatically make somebody anti-business or anti-mining. Just like being pro-choice doesn't automatically mean you think people should have abortions. Or being a Christian doesn't automatically mean you hate non-Christians.

    If you see protestors, and disagreee with them, by all means go ahead and rail against them. But this just reads like paranoia. I'm sure a safe, environmentally controlled mining operation would be welcomed by most. And some extremeist on both sides will always disagree. That's called freedom of dissent. That's one of the things Americans fight and die for. Get used to it.

    We should harness the collective knee-jerk energy of the US as an alternative fuel source. Hell, the energy people spend daily looking over their shoulder for the next bogeyman could power Times Square for a week.

    1. Re:Conservatives Everywhere... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair there are environmental protesters who do get overly worked up about things. It is unlikely that there will be protesters in Nebraska simply because it isn't a high profile cause unlike the protests of the logging of the giant redwoods in California. There aren't protesters hanging out in front of the giant iron mines up in norther Minnesota, the pinkish/purpleish areas are the iron mines, some are still active some are not. Also like northern Minnesota, Nebraska is out of the way so no one will notice.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  24. Oh for fuck's sake slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You cannot get "niobium and other rare earth elements" out of this mine, because niobium is not a rare earth. The deposit does contain niobium ores, and rare-earth ores, but they are not in the same category.

    Is it too fucking hard to edit the submission to make it correct?

  25. Hot Chile by macraig · · Score: 1

    I'm betting it's Chile and its Atacama Desert that comes to the rescue.

  26. The lobbying campaign has begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The press kit is here.

  27. too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US and Canada has plenty of rare earth metals, but our environmental standards make it too expensive to extract.

  28. Opportunity by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 2

    Quick, everyone! Some country has a rare metal we can harvest. Grab a gun and let's invade.

    --
    Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  29. Re:Environmentalists Everywhere... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's IRONY in this here post! Wee-hee! *prospector dance*

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  30. Re:Environmentalists Everywhere... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Screw that, the reality is so long as we can get them cheaper elsewhere we should. That way we have them after the prices go up.

  31. Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt someone will find some endangered lizard or flower and permanently fence the area off from any kind of mining.

  32. Nobium is not a rare earth element by Bender_ · · Score: 1

    Nobium is not a rare earth element. It is however a part of coltan, which is a sought after mineral that is mined in congo and a major cause of civil war in that region.

  33. The free market provides (again) by thepainguy · · Score: 1

    China tries to put on the squeeze, prices go up, people get an incentive to start looking, and here we are. Stories like this show why scarcity is so often a myth.

    1. Re:The free market provides (again) by Arlet · · Score: 1

      The free market is able to provide, because rare earth elements aren't really rare in the first place. They are actually quite common.

      Now, the free market will have a harder time coming up with new supplies of stuff we've been searching exhaustively for many decades, and which are getting harder to find every year.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Mineral Rights by sexconker · · Score: 0

    Most landowners got conned out of their mineral rights in the 60s and 70s.

  36. plenty of REE deposits, but costly by peter303 · · Score: 2

    The were either not developed or closed because they were more costly than offshore. But that is changing.

  37. Re:Environmentalists Everywhere... by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Probably the same phantom environmentalists that supposedly picket nuclear plants 24/7.

  38. U.S. - one country to rule them all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Many of the comments here seems to be made by U.S. citizens ... and they sound like U.S. is the only country on this planet. Like they were buying the resources from other planets until now.
    Why would everyone share their resources with the whole planet (and mostly with U.S.) and why would U.S. not share theirs ? The others resources were cheaper ? Of course they are cheaper, at least until you start digging yours.
    Why would U.S. wait until every others resources became extinct and then start mining theirs? Isn't this the same old strategy to live on the others back ? Like a virus ?
    The same strategy like printing more dolars and voting for increasing the debt, so U.S. can print more money and make everyone else work for them by giving them "money/dolars" (actually papers) ?
    Is it by accident that the resources are being found just now ?

    Lot of questions in my head.... no answers...

  39. But but but the environment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, using our natural resources for our own benefit harms the environment, so those resources are going to stay right there.

    At least until some big corporation bribes congress into giving them a monopoly on the stuff. We can't have any of that pesky competition and free market forces driving down prices for consumers now can we?

  40. Re:Environmentalists Everywhere... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    The GP may be referring to the protests of the tress sitters in California, but then this isn't trying to save the Redwoods and it isn't in California. Nebraska is out of the way so no one will notice and the local towns will probably enjoy the economic boom. Much like the oil boom in North Dakota.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  41. My only question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will our government, representing our interests*, ask them in return for exploiting what belongs to all of us and selling it back to us for a premium?
    Glass beads and a warm squeeze of the hand?

    * Yeah, I know⦠good jokeâ¦

  42. good luck.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...being allowed to mine it.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  43. Rare Earth Found In US by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    I just want to celebrate!

  44. Foreign Exploiters by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm... A Canadian company wants to strip mine Nebraska for mineral resources. I guess I'm OK with that. TFA says the locals are excited.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  45. Oh, when did the USA become... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China?

  46. AMEX:GMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMEX:GMO

    nuff said. watch this one.

    Not RE (Rare Earth's are not really rare, infact they are almost everywhere - just like thorium lol - just unfeasable to mine and make a profit).

  47. rare-earth ores are becoming irrelevant by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    there has been fear of being exploited by China for rare-earth ores (which later happened) so there was plenty of motivation to find an alternatives to make electric motors for electric vehicles.
    one option is being developed into a possible replacement, the switched reluctance motor.

    it's not perfect but at least someone is thinking ahead.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  48. North Platte has that big rail yard in it! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    North Platte has that big rail yard in it! so mine the rare earth and use rail to ship it.

  49. Slaves are lousy workers. Really, really lousy. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    The only way to get them to work is to have someone with a whip stand behind them. That will only get them to work hard enough not to get whipped.

    You would be better off just having the whip cracker do the work.

    No country that runs its economy on slavery has ever been able to out compete a country of free people working for their own benefit.

    Black slaves did not build the USA. They didn't even build the south.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Slaves are lousy workers. Really, really lousy. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I didn't say black slaves. I just said slaves, and also mentioned people working in abhorrent conditions. People who built the railroads, people who worked in coal mines. Chinese slaves who built the railroads and worked in mines were very common. There's still a lot of work in the US done by illegal immigrants, who, while they aren't slaves aren't subject to the same working conditions and pay as american citizens would be.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Slaves are lousy workers. Really, really lousy. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      The Chinese who built the railroads did so for wages that were higher than what they could get back home, and there were also crews of european descent whites working with them. Now well interesting their salary was $26-$35 while whites doing comparable work got $35 plus food and shelter, that's not slavery just ethnic/racial discrimination in pay.

  50. The U.S. is not China. by Petersko · · Score: 1

    Not yet. They need economic growth, manufacturing jobs, and educated students to become China. Of course an attitude of disdain towards the environment is needed too, but the Republicans are well on their way to making sure that's reality.

  51. Never any problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was never a shortage of rare earths in the ground, it's that the US let China dig it up and pollute their environment in return for US dollar oil.

  52. queue.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    queue the environmentalists!

  53. Hmmm..."The Nebraska 11ers" ?? by leftie · · Score: 1

    It doesn't exactly leap out at you, does it?

  54. Synthesizing rare-earth metals will ruin the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these other countries are loading the markets with pricy rare-earth metals knowing that they could lose their demand when someone invents a technique of enriching non-rare molecules like what has always been hypothesized to bumping up the atomic value of Lead into Gold.

    The United States is just ruining America in these regards, disenfranchising the progress of America to allow the world to grow higher around, and haven't you heard that buying all those foreign imported rare-earth metals from slave-countries of communists that are practical enemies to the American way of life is not good? Conside the fact that Slashdot refuses to report about the 1 of 4 Technology Zones between the Chinese and US Government where the 1st of which will be a 50-square-mile self-sustaining communist factory-town south of Boise Idaho. All the US dollars are being used to sell-out America to import hundreds of thousands of loyal Chines Communists into these 30k-plus acre estates that they own perhaps giving them the perspective to strip-mine America like the Chinese are doing to Africa.

    Something tells me that the United States has been bought-off to keep out of the competitition, but then who can compete with communist slave-made goods? Winning any wars yet? Little Chinatown, Little Saigon, Koreatown, Santa Ana, Little Haiti, boomshakalaka? America is the only country that re-creates it's super-heros from White people to pass-on to multi-cultural ethnicities that have never once invented any technology to save their own country and that's why America has been flooded with all these cowards. It's no different than all the Jewish propoganda trying to claim Jesus Christ was Jewish instead of Odinist.

  55. Re:Environmentalists Everywhere... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Oddly, other nations, like Canada and many in EU, have the ability to mine it cheaply AND clean their environment. Only in America where our Execs make 10-100 x what other nation's exec make, do we seem unable to do so. Why is that?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  56. Some of you do not get it by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    You scream about environmentalist and say that we will not mine rare earth. Yet, California pass re-starts later this year. Likewise, they will be doing the refining HERE, and producing magnets in USA. So, california pass's re-start shoots down the BS about not having any. In addition, other nations have plenty of mining and that includes Canada and many nations in EU. How clean are their operations? Clean.

    The problem is NOT environmentalist. It is business execs that want to have the lowest cost by producing goods in a similar fashion as China. It is not going to happen. Yet companies make loads of money by simply putting up a clean operation right from the gitgo.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  57. Only thing he'd hear right now... by dakameleon · · Score: 1

    "Not enough minerals."

    --
    Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  58. Life Lessons from videogames by jeko · · Score: 1

    Yes, because reality is so perfectly modeled in videogames. Tell me again, when I get killed, where will I respawn? :-)

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Life Lessons from videogames by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      That depends heavily on what kinds of contributions you have made in this lifetime! If one believed in karma:)

      Fortunately everyone here knows karma don't mean shit!

      (Ducks)

      Cheers!

  59. This Stuff Isn't Rare by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    "Rare Earth" elements aren't really rare. They're rarely mined and refined on a large scale because the industry is filthy, and in the US we have laws to protect us from the really expensive healthcare that ensues from the pollution, to say nothing of protecting us from the pollution itself. China subsidizes its rare earth dominance the way it does everything else: by hiding the costs of the pollution and abuse of its labor.

    Every day the news is filled with loaded stories pushing the US to drop our defenses and sink into the filth that China makes its money from, but which we left behind as soon as we realized we had too much dignity and power over our lives to suffer that way.

    BTW, US oil is what's rare. And the high costs of extracting what we do have are proven all the time, like Exxon polluting Yellowstone this Summer and BP sleazing the entire Gulf of Mexico last Summer.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  60. The difficulty is.. by Sneekyknees · · Score: 1

    its all on eight rack tape. :o

  61. Quick, somebody tell the Pharoahs by jeko · · Score: 1

    Because obviously slave labor never completed a single pyramid. :-) As for the South, take a look at some of the antelbellum structures in Georgia. Plantation owners made money hand-over-fist. If you've got a repetitive, labor-intensive task, like moving rock or farming sugar, cotton or tobacco, slave labor works great.

    Even today, the CCA corporation makes a ton of money off slave prison labor. We could industrialize agriculture tomorrow and have robots pick crops like they build cars, but the ready availability of easy exploited illegal labor means we make more money not doing so.

    Don't kid yourself. Just because slave labor can't do your job as well as you can doesn't mean the company won't outsource your job anyway. All we have to do is show we'll save payroll costs in the next 90 days, and the layoff is a done deal, the hell with the consequences on day 91.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Quick, somebody tell the Pharoahs by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What was the old joke. 'It was supposed to be a cube, but every shift did less work then the last.' Edge case, slaves will work hard if they believe you are a god who can punish them for eternity.

      Anyway you've got a funny definition of slave labor. People who are making a wage (albeit a small one) are not slaves. That's true even if the only place they can spend the money is the prison commissary.

      Slave is getting to be like rape. A horrible thing that is being watered down by being extended to everything that someone doesn't like. Whistles are not 'micro-rapes', prisoners are not slaves (if they are paid and have the choice not to work).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  62. Yeah, raising taxes always work. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, put the money in the hands of government so that it can efficiently spend it on bureaucracy.

    Let the government spend it on the care,feeding, and education of illegal aliens while ignoring the needs of people who are and have come here legally.

    Lets keep giving government workers raises, while non-government workers pay is cut or eliminated. And lets give the members of congress, and their staffs raises, because that way we can't squander our money.

    Lets give the new San Diego State University president $400,000 ($100,000 over the previous) a year job while raising tuition for students because there is not enough money in the budget.

    1. Re:Yeah, raising taxes always work. by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Holy brainwashing batman!

      Even if money ends in hands of "illegal aliens", they'll spend most of it consuming local services and satisfying basic needs. That will create jobs and stimulate economy.
      When government workers get raises, private workers have to get raises as well as private workplace would become less competitive when hunting for workers. Also, government workers, like illegal aliens would spend it on services and basic needs, creating jobs and stimulating economy.

      Your third claim, raising salaries of those who are already well off is what tax raises is supposed to PREVENT. Because wealthy rarely spend money locally, instead investing it into whatever brings them most return, which is rarely something in the local economy, and often is against local economy. Mortgage crisis and many similar ways to earn money from crashing or massively slowing economy down would like a word with you, as would investments in companies that simply outsource, eliminating local jobs and cutting local economy at its knees. Which is what is happening in the West (USA, Canada, EU region, Australia, Japan etc wealthy countries) - we're approaching the levels where capital controls so much power that its self-destructive potential is starting to overpower host country's ability to survive it.

      This is basic economics: capitalism is functional as long as it's properly guided so that it's natural tendency to become self-destructive is kept in check while it's positive drive for more competitiveness is supported. For examples of self-destructive nature of capitalism when unguided, you should take a look at the biggest crises that occurred in twentieth century - most of them have roots in failure to control the aforementioned self-destructive nature resulting in capitalism simply self-destructing. From bank crashes to motions that led to starting of WW2, collapse of capitalist system due to it running out of control has traditionally been one of the root causes.

      This is what strikes me as amazing about people who complain about this issue - the sheer amount of doublethink required to actually believe that things they spout are correct, when it's at conflict with basic economics which you really don't need a degree to understand.

    2. Re:Yeah, raising taxes always work. by DougF · · Score: 1

      Wow! Talk about brainwashing... 1) Illegal aliens send a large portion of their funds to their (real) homes in Central/South America. They live as cheaply as possible here to send as much cash there as they can. Go forth, spend time among them and see. They live many people to a house/room (San Antonio now has laws about how many people not of the same family can inhabit one house because 20-30 were living in 3 and 4 bedroom homes). They drive 14 to a van capable of carrying 8 to get to/from job sites. We have a large population of illegals here in central Georgia and see this all the time, where do you live that you don't see this?

      2) ALL government jobs are net losses, period. They DO NOT force commercial pay raises. Businesses compete against each other, not against the government (speaking as someone who is in the business of contracting with the government) when determining pay for jobs. Especially with high levels of unemployment, there is NO incentive to increase salaries as higher costs just make you non-competitive in your industry. So, it doesn't matter what the government pays it's personnel, it has no effect on the commercial sector.

      3) Ever hear of municipal bonds? Rich people and many mutual funds spend LOTS of money investing in our towns and cities for the tax-free returns. You want the rich investing more in America? Give them opportunities to grow their money and they'll come-a-running to invest. Wanna see the rich take their money and run? Declare the rich don't pay their "fair share" and then look determined into the TV camera when you say you're gonna take (tax) their money at even higher rates.

      4) Way to spin the cause of WWII from the real cause in the roots of the Treaty of Versailles along with the fractioning of political parties that led to a crisis of leadership and inability to manage their economy into a dumping on capitalism. (Ours is the opposite, but functionally equal, phenomenon of stalemate between two parties leading to an inability to manage the economy, not a failure to manage capitalism).

      Sheesh, did you just spout out all of your professor's liberal thoughts with no attempt at looking at the real world?

      The two best things government can do for business (and the economy) is a) invest in infrastructure (the one thing I do agree with the Obama administration on); and b) get out of the way, or at least give businesses one set of rules. This changing of the guard every two years is really screwing the ability of the commercial sector to make any plans/invest/grow, and by extension, the rest of us.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    3. Re:Yeah, raising taxes always work. by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 1

      1. I have observed legal citizens living cheaply and sending most of their money to other counties. And I have observed illegal aliens spending most of the money they earn here. It seems to depend more where their family is, and less on legal status. At any rate, if you study the value of the dollar, then you learn that when lots of currency is sent to a country, and becomes a de facto currency of that country then that increases the value of the dollar.

      2. If ALL government jobs are net losses then we should stop building roads, water pipes, sewer pipes, medical research etc. The military folks are all government workers too. So you would want to get rid of them as well. 'nuff said here.

      3. This is one half true. Give them opportunities to grow their money and they'll come-a-running to invest. Yep. The rest, utter BS. I would rather invest where I can grow my money at 23% and pay 33% of that in taxes, than where I pay 0 in taxes, but my money only grows at 3%.

      4. I am not going to touch the WWII thing because the original poster took a leap from causes of great depression to the start of WWII in one sentence. His attempted point was more on the need for guided capitalism anyway. (I think)

    4. Re:Yeah, raising taxes always work. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

      "Even if money ends in hands of "illegal aliens", they'll spend most of it consuming local services and satisfying basic needs. That will create jobs and stimulate economy."

      Really? They also take a much greater share of the services as compared to the taxes or economic benefit that they generate. They also will lower the wages for the people who are LEGALLY here.

      You are as brainwashed as the person who told me that without the ILLEGAL aliens that lettuce would be $10/head.

    5. Re:Yeah, raising taxes always work. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they're good. I'm saying they're better then the alternative of giving the money to the top 1% earners who will invest in whatever gives them the highest yield, economy be damned. The lesser evil basically.

      The best option would be to do what USA did in the 60s and 70s - heaviest taxes up to and over 90% on the highest earners, lightest on lowest, and limits on freedom of movement of capital that ensure that money that top earners to get is invested in a way that will benefit the economy even if that reduces the yields for investments.

      I'm what you would call a "classic conservative" in this regard - someone who has actually studied history, and likes the model that won the biggest economic power showdown of the history - the Cold War. And as you can tell, I'm not a biggest fan of the model of completely unhindered free capital movement model that we're pretty close to now, which has caused problems throughout our history whenever it was implemented, and it's doing so again as we speak. The top earners will ALWAYS push for it as it allows them a maximum amount of control and profit within the system, and in the end it ALWAYS ends up killing the economy and causing massive upheavals when not held in check. And to halt our progress toward this model, we need higher taxes on highest earners to reduce their economic power and influence over the political system.
      TL;DR: imo it's necessary to reduce the massive corruption of democracy by major capital that is unchecked, uncontrolled and slowly taking economy to it's death by hunting for the maximum profit at the expense of everything else.

      For the record: I don't mind people being rich, and I don't like people who skirt the rules or drive salaries down because they're illegally in the country. But I do think that the list you present is full of much lesser evils then that of ceding macroeconomic control to major capital with nothing to keep it from destroying the economy as it has done countless times in history and I also believe that we should handle important issues before getting stuck on the minutiae of lesser ones.

      I hope that clears up the "brainwashed" part for you.

  63. off-topic, but awesome sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning."
    You, sir, win an internet.

    1. Re:off-topic, but awesome sig by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I used to replace my sig more often, but that's a tough one to beat.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  64. Re:Environmentalists Everywhere... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Posting anon because you are a PUSSY

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  65. So if I join the dots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And connect this with the constant anti-china propoganda (which seems from the comments, despite how well they're filtered, to fail to fool the denizens here) to be the US striving for self sufficiency prior to war with china (or at least a breakdown of diplomatic relations) conveniently letting the US off the hook on the 1.4 trillion dollars owed. Being especially paranoid and doing tinfoil hat thinking it seems the US will have an attack from china that opens all the doors in your prisons (that cost more than the minimum wage per prisoner held) blame it on china and since cyber attacks are acts of war... BOOM!
    in other news scotch is good! *hic*

  66. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  67. Re:Synthesizing rare-earth metals will ruin the US by cavreader · · Score: 1

    Why should the US give a shit about slave wages or how workers are treated in other countries? Why is that our job? And I wouldn't worry to much about China trying to withhold exports of rare earth elements because if they tried the US could reciprocate with food exports to them. US food exports to China has increased 5 fold over the past 10 years and is one of the primary reasons their world economy trade surplus has been all but eliminated. If I had 1 wish in regards to the world economic system it would be for the US to develop the means and technology to eliminate any reliance on oil. We are not to far away from being able to accomplish that. Germany had to create synthetic oil during WW2 and the technology to do this is much more advanced today than it was back then. Let the middle east countries learn how to eat sand because without a US demand for oil they would have nothing, Even with their current oil exports their countries are still destitute and shit holes except for the people at the top and even if oil export revenue disappeared tomorrow they have enough money to move to more civilized countries and live in the lap of luxury to the end of time. The US could also finally ignore that entire region and worry about ore important things. Oh, Canada might take a hit but at least they could stop damaging their environment with their oil sands operations. As an extra benefit the US could also eliminate the need to deal with Venezuela.

  68. Re:Environmentalists Everywhere... by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

    The largest gold deposit in the world is in Alaska and it isn't being developed because no one will start digging because it could cost billions in court costs to be able to extract the first ounce of gold. The environmentalists are holding up real mineral development today. The funny thing is that most of the "environementalists" holding up Alaska Gold are Rich Republicans wanting to keep their land holdings artificially inflated and exempt from the free market forces that the political party they support talks about all the time. So conservatives are paying environmentalsts to stir up trouble. The second largest group of "environmentalists" are the fishing industry. The third largest is the Canadian Gold Industry trying to make sure the US doesn't dig up enough gold to hurt their profits. There are no hippie environmentsalists against the Alaskan gold near Iliamna. Only rich conservatives who are anti-environmentlists paying environmentalists to support their interests and a few pseudo-environmentalists that are interested because of the millions they make supporting conservative anti-mining positions. Yay US free market environmentalists, for sale to the highest bidder to be the invisible hand wherever the invisible hand needs its own invisible hand to help it along...

  69. Could this be the next gold rush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The potential yield of the deposit, found in Nebraska, could be the world's largest source for Niobium and other rare earth elements. Could this be the next gold rush?"

    No, IMO. air loom seeds, water, foraging, fishing skills and equipment. That's what you need.

  70. IPO anyone? by DryGrian · · Score: 1

    Is Quantam Rare Earths Developments Corp publicly traded? Do they have the mineral rights to mine these metals?

    --
    For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
    1. Re:IPO anyone? by DryGrian · · Score: 2

      Fine, you people won't do my googling for me, I did it myself; Yes, and yes. "otcqx" and the company site's Investor's page.
      Second question: How do I buy shares from the OTCQX marketplace? US based online brokers have no idea what I'm talking about....

      --
      For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
  71. hmm, refining, etc. where no one would care by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Suddenly the fascination with the asteroid belt begins t make more sense.

    It's less that we need more than it is that we need to be able to get at it without forcing people to move, and wtihout cleaning up afterward. But I think, just as we find that we can't just dump junk off the the space station, refining and manufacturing in space may not be the ecological freebie it seems like.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
    1. Re:hmm, refining, etc. where no one would care by black+soap · · Score: 1

      How many years of orbital manufacturing and refining would we get before we surrounded our planet with a field of tiny debris making future launches increasingly difficult? Instead of polluting the atmosphere with chemicals, we'd be polluting near-space with tiny solid particles. Unless the refining, manufacturing, and construction takes place further out* where the resources are, we will be setting ourselves up for future trouble by collecting asteroids of valuable composition and hauling them to Earth orbit to use them.

      *or near a massive object that will take care of garbage collection. The moon, perhaps? Plenty of sunlight, no atmospheric drag, mch easier escape velocity, etc., but probably easier for the human brain to cope with living/working on the moon than adjusting to living/working/thinking in open space long term.

  72. It's about whether they can mine it as cheaply by mrawhimskell · · Score: 2

    It's not about whether it can be got elsewhere, it's all about whether they can mine it as cheaply as China does.

  73. Don't sell it off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully whoever creates the mine doesn't try to get-rich-quick(tm) by selling it off to China YET AGAIN. We've had rare earth magnet assets in the past, and they were all sold off to China during the 90s. :(