Slashdot Mirror


Rare-Earth Mineral Supply Getting Boost From California, Australia

An anonymous reader writes "In recent times, the world's supply of rare-earth minerals has suffered from both increased demand, due to their use in modern technological devices, and uncertain supply, as China restricts the flow of exports. Now, Molycorp's mine in California has re-opened, and another in Australia is set to open later this year, easing — but not erasing — worries about skyrocketing costs. '[The mine had closed] in 2002 following radioactive wastewater spills and price competition. The largest spills, from a pipeline to Nevada, occurred in the late 1990s, in protected lands in the Mojave Desert. The company has since changed its ownership structure. ... It's being rebuilt to produce up to 40,000 metric tons of rare-earth elements by 2013, which would be a 700 percent increase from its production target for the end of this year."

59 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Who's paying for it? by Servaas · · Score: 1

    And they are sponsoring this little rebuild how? Want me to tell you what they will be oopsing about in 5 years?

    1. Re:Who's paying for it? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      *shrug*

      This is the future

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

    2. Re:Who's paying for it? by hguorbray · · Score: 2

      Hopefully they are not being given a pass on any Environmental impact or mitigation in the rush to access this resource.

      (see Drill, Baby Drill, ANWAR, XL pipeline, etc)

      although, in the long term, Rare Earths may end up being more important and irreplaceable to new tech than oil or natgas.....

      -I'm just sayin'

    3. Re:Who's paying for it? by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Probably by selling futures or some other stock market derived scheme. Lock in your buyers before you even start producing so when china pricedumps again you've got a buffer.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    4. Re:Who's paying for it? by starfire83 · · Score: 2

      Molycorp, if you pay attention to the news at all, is a publically traded company as of last summer. It's being funded by the shareholders and obviously corporate interests that intend to make use of the products that Molycorp produces as well as people that have been buying their products for years. They get no breaks on environmental regulations, especially since they fall under California environmental laws along with federal law.

    5. Re:Who's paying for it? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Drilling in Alaska - two of your three examples - has never had a large environmental disaster. Exxon Valdez was up here, but that wasn't a drilling accident or a pipeline problem, that was a drunk captaining a ship.

      ANWAR, unfortunately, isn't being developed.

    6. Re:Who's paying for it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      Drilling in Alaska - two of your three examples - has never had a large environmental disaster.

      You've missed one small, but rather important word : "yet".

      Note - I'm speaking as a geologist in the oil business, currently on an exploration well off the east coast of Africa. You could claim that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but the companies who pay my invoices would probably disagree with you.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re:Who's paying for it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Furnaces have exploded ; nuclear bombs have been dropped ; tsunamis have wiped out cities ; alien invasion ... if you're meaning extraterrestrials then we've no good evidence of it having happened, but for simply "foreign" aliens, that happens all the time.

      For all of these events (with the debatable exception of the alien invasion), sufficient experience exists to estimate the probability of it happening again in the future.

      On the basis of oilfield experience, the fact that Alaska has not yet had a major oil disaster (in drilling or production ; you've ceded the transportation example already, though quite why you consider that appreciably different isn't clear to me) is in significant part luck. At some point, there is likely to be a major disaster of this type. The more exploration and production that happens, the higher the probability of it happening in any particular time period in the future. Follows a Poisson distribution, IIRC my statistics courses.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:Who's paying for it? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      I believe you missed my point... While other people's furnaces have indeed exploded, mine has not. It is still in my basement and I have no intentions of removing it simply because the possibility of it exploding exists. As you pointed out, all the disasters I listed are valid possibilities. That doesn't mean that we panic prematurely. We are not going to abandon NY just because the distinct possibility of a tsunami leveling it exists. There is a distinct possibility that I can walk outside and get hit by a buss and killed. The longer I live the more likely I am to be killed by some freak accident. I'm still going to walk outside.

      Risk exists in pretty much everything that we do. It is important that we understand the risk and take *appropriate* mitigation steps. You claim that it is pure luck that has kept disaster at bay this long. If that is true, then it is pure luck that prevents an asteroid from colliding with the planet and destroying our atmosphere. Pure luck keeps a lot of disasters at bay. If, however, an oil disaster would be caused by humans, then it is not pure luck that keeps it at bay. Oil companies *do* pay geologists and other highly educated individuals lots of money to help them conduct risk analysis and understand the risks of their operations. There is a difference between understanding and accounting for risk and abandoning an activity simply because it is dangerous.

      I don't think anyone is suggesting that oil companies be permitted to abdicate responsibility. If they break something, they should fix it, but to say that oil explorations should stop because there are risks associated with it and eventually something bad will happen is also irresponsible. I suspect you agree with that sentiment since you are in the oil business. What I object to is the idea that the possibility of an event occurring equates to that event definitively occurring when we all know that there are many events that are possible, but most likely will never happen. Pointing out all the unlikely, yet possible, disasters that can happen is a waste of time serving only scare and confuse the general public thus resulting in idiotic legislation and policy decisions with no basis on fact.

    9. Re:Who's paying for it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It sounds like we both have a realistic understanding of probability and risk assessment. But you're taking a different line to "Wyatt Earp", to whom I was originally responding. At which point it's getting confusing.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. California is in the USA, not Australia by Bongoots · · Score: 1

    Duh!

    1. Re:California is in the USA, not Australia by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Duh!

      Seriously.
      Don't know how they got the U S of A mixed up with Europe.

  3. Radioactive spills? by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, management was replaced. Fine. Probably needed. But that doesn't tell me if the pipes were fixed or how the new management proposes to not have that kind of issue in the future. Nor does it tell me if the new management is proposing any kind of additional cleanup that may be needed in those protected lands (doesn't matter that it was a while back - Bhopal still suffers from uncleaned pollution and Florida has a gigantic oil sludge that will haunt it for a long time no matter how much it's officially declared gone).

    In short, yeah, new sources of Rare Earths are great but the Earth is also fairly high on the Rare list and I'd rather not need a new source.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Radioactive spills? by starfire83 · · Score: 1

      The radioactivity from the waste water deposits is so low it's just above normal background radiation but still fall under the EPA's guidelines for radioactive containment. You wouldn't want to go bathing in it but it wouldn't take decades to clean up, that's for sure. The accidents were no where near on the scale you're comparing it to.

    2. Re:Radioactive spills? by Local+ID10T · · Score: 2

      Former management was rendered into an environmentally friendly pipe reinforcement (glue) and applied to the defective areas of the pipes... new management is greatly motivated to avoid future accidents.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    3. Re:Radioactive spills? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Just above normal background radiation levels, but you wouldn't want to go bathing in it? Normal background radiation levels are perfectly safe for bathing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Radioactive spills? by starfire83 · · Score: 1

      I don't particularly like bathing in dirty water to get clean. Do you?

    5. Re:Radioactive spills? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Your stomach is more radioactive.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Radioactive spills? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Banana joke wins. "Did you know that all that evil potassium in your body is constantly irradiating you?"

    7. Re:Radioactive spills? by pgpalmer · · Score: 1

      *stunned* Really? Can you cite your source?

    8. Re:Radioactive spills? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Your stomach is putting out more non-ionizing radiation in the IR range than a fist-sized lump of unprocessed yellowcake uranium ore.

      And you shouldn't need a source to know that one. That should be common sense (high school level) if you understand what IR radiation is - heat.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Radioactive spills? by pgpalmer · · Score: 1

      Ah, my mistake. It didn't click in my mind that infrared radiation = radioactivity. When I think of radioactivity, I tend to think of the ionizing particles. (Whenever books and film talk about something being 'radiologically active', they don't use mean 'it's warm'.)

  4. Re:What if the market changes? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    It's been working for OPEC for a long time - maintaining prices *just* low enough that countries without such accessible oil struggle to compete as suppliers.

  5. The Chinese by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... probably thought they were awfully clever for a while.

    Nice to see the good guys get up once in a while. Here's hoping that government policy makes it easy for these guys to get started and start producing economically and profitably. The less that hostile and aggressive foreign powers have over us, the better.

  6. ie chinese radioactive spills dont stop production by decora · · Score: 1

    the reason it got shut down is because you can't outcompete a country where environmental activists are put into labor camps.

    pretty simple, and yet, almost every media story on this thing hides the truth in vague generalizations like "cost competition".
    its not cost competition, its fucking slavery.

  7. financial engineering by decora · · Score: 1

    see also: Kerr-Mcgee and Tronox

  8. Japanese probably investing huge amounts of money by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese are pumping huge amounts of money into this venture right now. With the Japanese economy being heavily invested in industries that use these minerals Japan definitely wants to wean itself off of reliance on China, and the insanely strong yen makes investing in the US incredibly cheap right now. Japanese companies would be incredibly remiss if they weren't taking advantage of this opportunity(and they may even get support for the government who wants to weaken the yen)

  9. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by hguorbray · · Score: 1

    all you can do in this life is to try to set a good example

    we would not set a good example by deciding to let our workers and citizens die due by ignoring safety and health just so we can join the 'race to the bottom'

    I'm not saying that US corporations are not complicit in offshoring pollution and slave labor, but the US people have a greater sense of justice and morality than our corporations I think....I hope -and maybe someday that will make a difference

    -I'm just sayin'

  10. Shortage is a matter of price by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember how in the 70s people complained we'll be out of gas by 2000? Then again in the 90s, we should be out of it by today. Now we have just enough gas to last us 'til the 2030s.

    Do we keep finding so many sources? Well, not that many. But what we find is more sources that get profitable with rising prices. Oil sands in Alaska, you think anyone would have even thought of exploiting that while the barrel was at 20 bucks? Of course not. It's not profitable. At 140, we're talking.

    It's almost the same with REMs. First of all, the name is misleading. They're not rare by definition. Well, aside of the radioactive Promethium. Cerium is amongst the most abundant elements on our Earth's crust. The problem with them is that they're fairly evenly distributed. There are few places where they can be extracted economically. With rising price, maybe sieving them from desert sand might be commercially interesting.

    A "shortage" of REMs means about the same as a "shortage" of well educated personnel: There's only a shortage if you are unwilling to pay the price required to get what you want.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Shortage is a matter of price by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nobody in the 1970s or 1990s said we'd be out of gas by now. Except the usual few nut jobs, who today say we'll never run out.

      What we learned in the 1970s is that global oil production would peak around 2010. Which it probably has, despite the kinds of big lies oil corps and oil producing nations tell. Those lies produced major "corrections" to Iraq's, Nigeria's and several other countries' "proven reserves" during the past decade, when they couldn't keep lying anymore about the truly dwindling size of what they have left.

      We also learned in the 1970s that after the global peak, the global output would drop off at about the same rate it increased to the peak. Because in the early 1970s we saw Hubbert's predictions made in 1956 about the US come true, validating his theories which next predicted global peak in the late 1990s.

      Meanwhile global oil demand just increases. With falling supply past the peak, the shortages grow rapidly.

      Oil sands and tar sands are profitable only to the extractors and sellers until it's pollution. But then the costs keep coming, all externalized onto the general public (and worst onto the poorest in the public). $140 is still too little to pay for all the costs including the damage. But indeed the oil corps are talking about anything they can put into a barrel at $140 per. Regardless of who really has to pay the rest.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Shortage is a matter of price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That the price of a barrel is way more than 140 if you include the cost to clean up afterwards is a given. But as long as oil corps needn't pay that price, it's profitable to them.

      If they have to pay, it's just not yet profitable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Shortage is a matter of price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We used to pay 30 bucks for the barrel of crude oil, too.

      Ain't it nice to see that the commies finally learned our law of supply and demand?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Shortage is a matter of price by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      But they don't have to pay, so it's profitable. Vastly profitable, as their record profits (during a record depression) prove beyond any doubt. And it didn't take $140 barrels to get those profits; most of the time the price was $90-120. And it didn't take those record profits to make producing the oil worthwhile; even at half the profits they were the most profitable corps on Earth, producing all around the globe.

      You're arguing that oil is too expensive to drill in many countries until it sells for $140 or close to it. But the facts prove you wrong. You can't defend it with an hypothetical condition that's not necessary to cause them to act, as they already have.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Shortage is a matter of price by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

      Aren't you kind of begging the question there by assuming that anyone producing evidence against those peak oil predictions is necessarily lying? I'm not saying there will never be a production peak/pretending that the supply is infinite, but I'm also not going to assume that a few vociferous alarmists are preaching the gospel truth and anyone who shows evidence to the contrary is a dirty liar ...

    6. Re:Shortage is a matter of price by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe 60 would be enough to make exploiting the oil deposits we know of today profitable. The 20 bucks of the 70s just don't, and that's pretty much what I said. Back then, we had resources 'til the 90s because even the other deposits known were simply not profitable at 20 bucks. 60 bucks a barrel, though, is probably enough to make exploiting the current drilling fields profitable. But why sell for 60 if you can sell for 120? Supply and demand...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Shortage is a matter of price by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Earth to be destroyed in giant fireball. The poor to be hardest hit.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Shortage is a matter of price by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      We are out of natural gas in north america, at least out of conventional natural gas. Current gas supplies are thanks to fracking, something that didn't exist prior to early 2000s.

      The fact that doomsayers base their predictions on static technology is just one reason among many that they so often turn out wrong.

      Some analysts are saying that the North American natural gas supplies now becoming practical represent a 100 year supply. Sounds overly optimistic to me, but there's surely enough to give lots of breathing room for the development of unrelated energy technologies.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  11. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How does Apple's HQ pretend that we have a green economy? Who's saying it runs off unicorn farts? Though "run off sunshine" is exactly what we're trying to do, and Californians have been doing more than most for generations.

    If what you're complaining about is that the US has better environmental protection than China does, that's not hypocrisy. There's nothing stopping China from cleaning up the way the US did, except its greed for the dollar at the expense of its workers. And when China does, if its growing population of people with enough money to protect themselves from being poisoned does protect themselves, their rising costs will help the US compete with them economically.

    None of that is hypocrisy. It's economics and the politics that follows it.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  12. Re:What if the market changes? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? Oil prices have been up around $100 or more for several years.

    Let's have a legit citation or a retraction.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  13. Strangely enough by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    such a policy would probably work quite well.

    1. Re:Strangely enough by jd · · Score: 1

      Mod Insightful or "To Be Implemented" please.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  14. Re:Recycling! by Goaway · · Score: 2

    The earth's crust is about 28% silicon. We're not going to need to recycle that any time soon.

  15. The headline lists two states of the US by reluctantjoiner · · Score: 1

    It makes more sense when you realise that Australia is the 51+Nst state of the US, so the headline is actually just listing the states of the US, not implying cartographical closeness.

    1. Re:The headline lists two states of the US by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      It makes more sense when you realise that Australia is the 51+Nst state of the US, so the headline is actually just listing the states of the US, not implying cartographical closeness.

      Pfft, like we'd ever accept them into our Union, what with all their monarchism.

  16. Re:What if the market changes? by Zancarius · · Score: 4, Informative

    China has the ability to remove their restrictions on exports, pulling the bottom out of the price for these elements and putting these companies out of business again.

    You do realize that this is why the rare earth mining operations in the US were shut down in the first place: Because of subsidized Chinese exports undercutting the industry. They destroyed the rare earth industry in the US, Canada, and Australia once before. One would hope that we wouldn't let them do it again, but I have little faith in our leadership.

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  17. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

    Yes, and all other countries are honest, upfront, forthright, put the concerns of others above their own, and use their power responsibly and fairly. Gimmie a break.

  18. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

    and we pretend we have a 'green economy' with our space-ship apple headquarters that run off of sunshine and unicorn farts.

    fucking US hypocrisy is astounding.

    But your hypocrisy is just A-OK because you're edgy, right? Sitting there posting on the electrically-powered Internet with your computer made from petroleum by-products and rare earth minerals, powered by coal, natural gas, petroleum or nuclear. What's astounding is your stupidity regarding your own situation. Nobody's pretending we have anything other than what we have, which is not an optimal or efficient system. If you don't like what's going on, get an education and invent something better. Give it away for free if you're that worried. Otherwise my suggestion would be to dial back on the rhetoric and the America-hate and start advocating real solutions. Otherwise, you're just another douchebag troll.

    Unicorn farts contribute to global warming, by the way.

  19. Re:Japanese probably investing huge amounts of mon by starfire83 · · Score: 1

    Mitsubishi and Sumitomo, so far.

    http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T101219002181.htm

  20. There is hope in this by Khyber · · Score: 1

    We need a more robust semiconductor industry. More locally-available REs would hopefully (idealistcally) cause a price drop from local suppliers, making their equipment more affordable. For the local LED industry, this could be a MAJOR boost.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  21. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    But allowing China's citizens to die for us is okay in your world?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  22. Re:Those jobs are NEVER coming back? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Why would you set up shop in the US? You have to "pay" the dems and reps, locals and feds.
    Then on going taxes, federal green issues, workers and toxic locals with very good legal teams.
    In many parts of the world you pay one good entry bribe and solve the rest with a death squad.
    No ngo, tribal leader, green group, press, political or labor leaders to worry about.
    In Australia you "invest" and if your workforce is dying you pay out an always low soft capped amount in court with very very little press.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  23. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    But allowing China's citizens to die for us is okay in your world?

    Allow? It's as if you pretend we have the power of life and death over them, their government and society.

  24. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by cavreader · · Score: 1

    Didn't you get the memo? The US is responsible for every decision made in the world regardless of the country.

  25. Largest rare earth mine in the world ... by Jerry · · Score: 1

    was recently discovered in Nebraska.

    "Quantum Rate Earth Developments (TSX-V: QRE; OTC: QREDF) acquired the rights to what the U.S. Geological Survey called one of the largest deposits of niobium globally. The rare earth property, a 14-square-mile track of farmland in S.E. Nebraska, could employ hundreds once the mine is developed. ..."

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  26. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    What part of context have you ignored?

    That at least some of environmental legislation is set by politics rather than good science. That the EPA is forbidden by law to do cost analysis of its regulations.

    That a company will go out of business if nobody buys its products, and almost nobody will buy its products if they're priced absurdly higher than similar products.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  27. Re:Its a start. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    According to T.J.Rogers, Solyndra had inferior technology.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  28. Re:yeah. better chinese workers die by cduffy · · Score: 1

    And it's the Chinese who choose to sell.

    If it's blood money, that's their own collective decision (or, as the case may be, inability to decide) -- and when the rapidly growing Chinese middle class decides that they give a damn, I expect it to stop. In the interim, why should I as a customer feel the slightest bit of guilt?

    (I'm likewise very happy to let them mine and sell their own natural resources below natural market price while we hold onto our own; if we wait until resources from China are no longer viable before restarting our own mining and drilling industries, we then at that time still have our resources at a point in time when they're scarcer and more valuable. That said, it seems they've finally realised the hole that they've been digging themselves into on this point).

  29. Re:Those jobs are NEVER coming back? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Cheap foreign labor, if the foreigners are not prohibited from saving their earnings, is a self-solving "problem." They get our money in exchange for their goods. Over time they accumulate money, and the more they have, the less they are willing to work cheaply. Eventually they come close to parity, like Japan. "Problem" solved.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  30. Re:What if the market changes? by Zancarius · · Score: 1

    Maybe they learned the lesson about rare earth mining, but wanna bet the same situation will have to be repeated in a dozen fields before there are any larger changes in technology policy.

    That's also a possibility, and I suspect the Chinese were banking on two things: 1) our complacency with increase price pressure on rare earths and 2) the length of time and start up costs for restarting mining operations. Both of these will only benefit the Chinese, and in the time #2 takes, they'll be able to decide just how much to subsidize their exports and have time to restart their own mining operations to push the price back down.

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX