Slashdot Mirror


Where Next-Generation Rare Earth Metals May Come From

retroworks writes "Great piece in The Atlantic by Kyle Wiens of IFIXIT.org, who visited and photographed the Molycorp Mountain Pass rare earth facility in California's Mojave Desert. The mine is the only source of rare earths in North America, one of the only alternatives to the mineral cartels in China, and one of the only sources for the key metals such as tantalum needed in cell phones. There is of course actually one other source of rare earth metals in the USA — recycled cell phones. Is the best 'state of the art' mining as good as the worst state of the art recycling? If the U.S. Department of Energy subsidizes the mine, will China open the floodgates and put it out of business? Or will electronics be manufactured with alternative materials before the mine ever becomes fully scaleable?"

128 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. In a not so distant future... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...rare Earth metals may come from the Moon. We didn't do that yet, because no one knows how to call them.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:In a not so distant future... by forkfail · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Long before that, they'll come from Afghanistan, in all likelihood:

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan-holds-enormous-bounty-of-rare-earths

      (which may explain a few things...)

      --
      Check your premises.
    2. Re:In a not so distant future... by phrostie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suspect mining landfills is going to be a major industry in the century to come.
      I wonder how you would go about looking to see who, if anyone, has been buying up mineral rights on landfills?

    3. Re:In a not so distant future... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My post is indeed not very clever. I won't thank you, but thanks to your unfortunate post, mine looks brillant now. Relativity...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:In a not so distant future... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I suspect mining landfills is going to be a major industry in the century to come.
      I wonder how you would go about looking to see who, if anyone, has been buying up mineral rights on landfills?

      Seems to be an improbably old and frail gentleman, who goes by the name of Monty Burns.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:In a not so distant future... by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      That's Mister Burns!

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    6. Re:In a not so distant future... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      Well by 2014 we're supposed to have pretty much all American troops out of Afghanistan. Even if mining companies were to get set up in the area, what are they going to do to protect themselves against insurgents and/or banditry? Hire a private army?

    7. Re:In a not so distant future... by forkfail · · Score: 1

      If we really are out by then, Blackwater^W Xe will need something to do.

      --
      Check your premises.
    8. Re:In a not so distant future... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Do what you do anywhere that's unstable: find out who's running the areas you need, and how much money they want to protect you against everyone else. Then run the numbers to see if the mine still pays.

    9. Re:In a not so distant future... by Surt · · Score: 2

      Hiring a private army is the traditional solution, yes.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:In a not so distant future... by slew · · Score: 2

      Well by 2014 we're supposed to have pretty much all American troops out of Afghanistan. Even if mining companies were to get set up in the area, what are they going to do to protect themselves against insurgents and/or banditry? Hire a private army?

      Just about diamond mine today has their own private army. Why would this mining operation be any different?

      http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/books/peaceprofitplunder/chap9.pdf

    11. Re:In a not so distant future... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I've heard that one before. It is campaign jostling. Also, there is a supposed troop draw down ("coming home") but then you find out that 10000 troops are being pulled from European bases with no mention of them going home. Where are they headed? Recycling.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    12. Re:In a not so distant future... by ybanrab · · Score: 1

      You might start with this lady. She's starting mining ewaste now.

      Solve for X: Privahini Bradoo on resource reclamation
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NePslxLgS9M

    13. Re:In a not so distant future... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Considering how late we found the latest pretty nearby ones, rare earths could come from the asteroid belt without need that anyone call them.

    14. Re:In a not so distant future... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Until those who are protecting you find out that if you'll pay $X, then you might be willing to pay $X+$Y where Y > 0. Rinse. Repeat.

    15. Re:In a not so distant future... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      You can always remind them that you can pay someone else...

    16. Re:In a not so distant future... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Well by 2014 we're supposed to have pretty much all American troops out of Afghanistan.

      ...and you believe that?

      I'm sure there'll be no "US Army" forces there, they'll be renamed to something else. You can bet there'll be a whole bunch of armed Americans living there, the only question is how many (I'm sure the actual number will be classified).

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:In a not so distant future... by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      These aren't the droids you're looking for...  this is the Pat you wanted:

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

    18. Re:In a not so distant future... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Well by 2014 we're supposed to have pretty much all American troops out of Afghanistan.

      And the relevance of American troop numbers to the largely Chinese corporations who are surveying and intending to exploit the mineral resources of Afghanistan is ... what?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Not the only place by husker_man · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are rare-earth deposits in other places - like Elk City, Nebraska having resources of the rare metals. However, it wouldn't be much fun to be running a mine in the middle of the desert.

    1. Re:Not the only place by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Hmm. Does anyone know just how well the various resources of the United States have been mapped?

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:Not the only place by trainman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are also mines starting up for rare earths in the Canadian arctic. Actually, quite large deposits up there from what I've read.

    3. Re:Not the only place by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought Australia was proving to be rich in rare Earch metals.

      Linky

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Not the only place by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...it wouldn't be much fun to be running a mine in the middle of the desert.

      There are many, many mines that are unpleasant to run or work in. But if the resource you're mining is valuable enough you can attract the people you need (for the right price). If it's profitable, they will come.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Not the only place by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      However, it wouldn't be much fun to be running a mine in the middle of the desert.

      Actually, high volume / low yield mining is probably best done in a desert (if it can be done in an environmentally sane fashion anywhere). Remember, these are not high grade ores. It's not like you pick axe out a block of Yttiribilium (or however you spell these silly names). You get a pile of rocks with a bit more Yttiribilium than the surrounding rocks and then you process it into a slurry with more Yttiribilium and then it goes off and gets smelted.

      There was an interesting article somewhere suggesting that the best way to do this in terms of minimizing mining and water waste was to crush the ore, separate the rare earths using magnets and getting the concentration up to around 50%. It would then be economically feasible to haul that much smaller volume of rock to the a large, perhaps one off facility, that purified the material and dealt with the large amount of tainted water, dust and heavy metals that the refinery process entailed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Not the only place by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Eh? We have geologists guarded by Marines working to survey Afghanistan because of all the rare-earth stuff there, and get mines up and running to kickstart their economy.

      I'm sure we can handle Nebraska.

    7. Re:Not the only place by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hmm. Does anyone know just how well the various resources of the United States have been mapped?

      Google comes up with fantastically interesting stuff sometimes. And it's even safe for work!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Not the only place by MollyB · · Score: 2

      Detailed maps of valuable deposits would be proprietary, I should think. The US Geological Survey does provide maps of mineral resources.

    9. Re:Not the only place by mikael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be even worse running a mine in downtown LA or New York. Imagine trying to get all those Caterpillar 797's and Liebherr T282B's through rush-hour traffic ....

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:Not the only place by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      I think the rush hour would be easy for the tracks.
      Different story for the cars and trucks tho.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    11. Re:Not the only place by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Wow, there is a large deposit of hot air in the Washington DC area.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re:Not the only place by ccool · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is also some deposit in Canada.

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

      I have been to a conference in 2009 where the speaker was talking about a mine which would open in a few years.

    13. Re:Not the only place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      careful, you might summon roman_mir

    14. Re:Not the only place by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      That's simply methane emissions heating the air as it comes off of all the bullshit floating around down there./p.

    15. Re:Not the only place by sconeu · · Score: 1

      That deposit has been well known since about 1800.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    16. Re:Not the only place by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      rare Earch metals.

      Clearly wherever you live is rich in high-proof alcohol and has a liberal policy towards drinking at work. d=

    17. Re:Not the only place by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not like you pick axe out a block of Yttiribilium (or however you spell these silly names).

      WHAT?! Minecraft LIED to me!

    18. Re:Not the only place by camperdave · · Score: 1

      No need to imagine. There are lots of videos online.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    19. Re:Not the only place by clueless_penguin · · Score: 1

      Hopefully those maps are better than the one that put Nebraska in the desert.

      --
      Use the spatula, Luke
    20. Re:Not the only place by cusco · · Score: 1

      I think most deserts are more interesting than Nebraska.

      The best place for a rare earth mine would be somewhere like the Atacama Desert (which also has some good deposits). No issues with messing up the ecosystem, because there **IS** no ecosystem there. It's not a desert like the Sahara or Chihuahua were there are cacti and bugs, because when it rains only once every couple of centuries nothing can survive. There are areas of the Atacama where there aren't even detectable levels of bacteria. They fed sand from the Atacama to the equipment on the Viking Mars lander, and it didn't find life. If you're going to create an enviornmental catastrophe, like rare earth mines tend to do, that's the place to do it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    21. Re:Not the only place by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed, that was what I was thinking.

      More and more I've found that it's for lack of prospecting that we believe our resources to be so limited, not because we've already searched everywhere and come up empty.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    22. Re:Not the only place by es330td · · Score: 1

      However, it wouldn't be much fun to be running a mine in the middle of the desert.

      I can think of plenty of places that are much worse. I've worked the oilfield in Alaska when it was well below zero. Even bumping into things hurts when it is that cold. I've spent time in Louisiana swamps with bugs and beasts that exist to suck your blood (mosquitos) or eat/kill you (alligators & snakes.) "The desert" might not be Napa Valley but I would take that over those other environments in a heartbeat.

    23. Re:Not the only place by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Oh it's not for lack of prospecting. Just about every scrap of this country has been combed over. The real kicker is the cost to mine the stuff relative to the price it can be sold at. Sure there's always new stuff to find, but most often the case is "We know it's there, we just can't get it until it sells for $x or we can get our cost to mine it down to $y"

      --
      +1 Disagree
    24. Re:Not the only place by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      More and more I've found that it's for lack of prospecting that we believe our resources to be so limited

      Where did you "find" this? Why don't you share with the rest of the class?

      I'm really interested in this topic and would like to see some evidence that the reason we're not pulling lithium out of the ground is because we just don't know what's under our feet.

      Thanks.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Not the only place by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      send in the bagger 288

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    26. Re:Not the only place by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      For example.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    27. Re:Not the only place by arose · · Score: 1

      You will see the same phenomena in any place with a high concentration of corporate headquarters. But it's not polite to acknowledge for some reason.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    28. Re:Not the only place by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Of course there are large rare deposits in Australia and more mores being investigated. Ohh, look a new US marines presence in Australia, rare earth minirals the new oil for foreign occupation forces.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    29. Re:Not the only place by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      There was an interesting article somewhere suggesting that the best way to do this in terms of minimizing mining and water waste was to crush the ore,

      Hmmm, that, by definition, is going to generate large volumes of dust ...

      It would then be economically feasible to haul that much smaller volume of rock to the a large, perhaps one off facility, that purified the material and dealt with the large amount of tainted water, dust and heavy metals that the refinery process entailed.

      And then more dust in a different place.

      Don't get me wrong - this can be a feasible process. In fact, it is quite common for this sort of separation and pre-concentration to be done. But it's not cheap, either in terms of energy (crushing rock takes power) or environmental consequences. The "gangue" (geologist and miner's term for the bits of rock quarried which are not your target mineral) is very likely to contain significant amounts of heavy metals itself. Even in the absence of heavy metals (or light metalloids such as antimony and arsenic), the fine grain size of powdered rock and the consequent high surface area makes them relatively reactive, which can be a bad thing. Also, in consequence of the fine grain size, the gangue typically has very low permeability (plenty of porosity, but low permeability ; most people get those two properties confused), which makes them very poor components of soils. So ... if you want them to go away and cease to be a problem, you've got to dig a hole deep enough and voluminous enough to accommodate your mine's waste products before you get started on your ore processing. That's a big up-front cost, which established mines can, to a degree, dodge by back-filling worked out parts of the mine. This isn't without problems - tailings are not generally structurally sound materials. But that can be engineered around. At a price.

      I spent most of the last couple of months working on a small testing operation in a 2nd-to-3rd world country. The environmental regulations and stuff we had to go through to "dispose" of a few hundred cubic metres of rock cuttings and a similar quantity of processing water ... Oh, what a mound! Not (mostly) my problem, but it was a really time consuming part of the evaluation process. Approaching a hundred truckloads, moved 50+km to an acceptable landfill site on dirt roads. Just one more problem.

      There's a substantial gold deposit on the west coast of Scotland which would be an ideal site for processing like this - low population density area ; reasonable grades of ore ; decent associated other minerals (copper-zinc) ; close to the sea, with good deep-water anchorages. A smelter (in Sweden) has been pencilled in to take the processed ore (it already smelts similar ore, has a deep-water harbour ...). Everything is lined up, except for how to handle the tailings. That trips up the EIA, every time.

      I did my thesis mapping nearby ; as a geologist, I'd be fascinated by what we could discover in the process of taking this ore out ; as a mountaineer who has been walking those mountains for most of my life, the bulldozers and explosives would go in over my dead body - and quite a few other dead bodies too - unless that tailings issue is credibly dealt with.

      ("Oh ; think of the jobs!" is the next line of argument. A mine there might employ 30 to 50 people ; the tourist industry in the area employs, directly or indirectly, thousands. So the next line is "We ARE thinking of the jobs - that a mine would lose!")

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Summary is editorial. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    And wrong at that. There are rare earths in many more products then cell phones. There are other sources, just not other mines etc.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Lame article by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Superficial article about Mountain Pass. The big problem they have is finding a place to dump the tailings. A rare earth mine needs big settling ponds. The Mountain Pass solution is that they've built a pipeline to Ivanpah Dry Lake on the Nevada border.

    The mine tailings are slightly radioactive, because the dirt in the area being mined has some uranium and thorium in it. This isn't a big deal once the water has evaporated and it's solid material again, but the water in the tailings ponds has to be kept from leaching into a water supply.

    1. Re:Lame article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      All the same, as someone who has recently invented a new form of energy storage that relies upon several ceramics comprised in part of rare Earth elements - and having to deal with foreign vendors for the ceramics - I can definitely say its a challenge. Virtually all rare-earth suppliers are in the Asia/Pacific area - all of them get their rare Earths from China, and China is increasingly locking down the supply (they will of course build whatever you want made out of Rare Earths at an incredibly competitive price, but if you want to buy the raw materials instead of the finished component there is a very tightly controlled channel to go through with strict limits on how much can be exported - IMO this is to get the designs of what is being built so they can control the manufacturing side). In short: all of our latest technology requires rare Earths, all foreseeable technology will require it - rare Earths are practically the new Oil, we should have our mine running ALONG WITH a strong rare Earth recycling program, possibly go further and provoke the Icelandic mines to open up as well as encourage (even buy stock from) companies in Japan readying to mine the massive supply of rare Earths on the Pacific Ocean seabed.

    2. Re:Lame article by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Gee, if only we had something that could use uranium and thorium. We could kill two birds with one stone.

    3. Re:Lame article by L3370 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've heard other discussions about rare earth mining here on /. and one factor that seemed to pop up all the time was China.

      Specifically, China being so willing to mine without much regard to pollution or contanimation. They are the biggest suppliers of it now so they can set the price. If someone were to stand up a mining operation in say...california, all China would have to do is drop their asking price or ramp up production and watch the California mine collapse in bankruptcy.

      It is my understanding that propping up a rare earth mining/refining operation requires tons of capital and an incredible amount of preparation for enviornmental concerns (at least in western nations where people don't like radioactive pools leaking into their ground water). Investors would be understandibly weary of putting money on the line when China could potentially kick the legs from under the entire enterprise.

      Hard to compete when your competitor is willing to turn their backyard into a wasteland.

  5. Mission. ****ing. Accomplished. by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So if we make the mine operational and then China starts providing us with cheap metal, I don't see the problem. Keep the mine maintained, and ready for use, and let China load us up with cheap minerals. Oh, of course making this situation of allowing many hundreds of businesses and hundreds of millions of consumers to thrive in an atmosphere of reduced costs would depend on the government buying out or subsidizing one...

    Naturally, this will have conservatives crawling out of the woodwork to declare that capitalism is being subverted and to let the market decide. I will quietly pray that the other business leaders wait for those conservatives to go home, and then beat them until all the stupid has leaked out...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Mission. ****ing. Accomplished. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So if we make the mine operational and then China starts providing us with cheap metal, I don't see the problem.

      It isn't a problem for us as consumers, but Molycorp is going to need to think long and hard about it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Mission. ****ing. Accomplished. by olsmeister · · Score: 2

      Opening the mine and, if necessary, subsidizing it may be the best answer in a situation like this. However the important thing is to maintain the availability of the resource, not necessarily to keep the price low.

      I'm sure the far right would consider this sacrilege to the God of Free Markets, but sometimes when you're dealing with entities like China you need to be willing to stray slightly from your ideology sometimes, for everyone's sake.

    3. Re:Mission. ****ing. Accomplished. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Mr. President! We must not allow ..... a Rare-Earth Metal's Gap!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Mission. ****ing. Accomplished. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      China won't let you have raw materials. They'll require you to move all your manufacturing to China, so that they control that, leaving you like a third-world country with no technology or know-how.

    5. Re:Mission. ****ing. Accomplished. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      It's not really a problem that needs to be worried about. The primary reason that China is reducing the amount of rare earth metals it is exporting is because its own demand is starting to consume most of its supply. This means that they are unlikely to be in a position to dump enough rare earth metals onto the market to drive prices down.
      That being said, I would expect the objection your plan to come from liberals decrying "corporate welfare".

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Mission. ****ing. Accomplished. by cusco · · Score: 1

      In that case to hell with the subsidy. Just let the gov't own and operate the mine. There really isn't a need to enrich some multinational corporation with tax dollars just to keep the site in maintenance mode.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:Mission. ****ing. Accomplished. by careysub · · Score: 1

      So if we make the mine operational and then China starts providing us with cheap metal, I don't see the problem. Keep the mine maintained, and ready for use, and let China load us up with cheap minerals. Oh, of course making this situation of allowing many hundreds of businesses and hundreds of millions of consumers to thrive in an atmosphere of reduced costs would depend on the government buying out or subsidizing one... Naturally, this will have conservatives crawling out of the woodwork to declare that capitalism is being subverted and to let the market decide....

      China's practice of using its ability to undersell by mis-pricing externalities to destroy competition and create a monopoly of course is the anti-thesis of free markets, as its subsequent abuse of this monopoly to charge exorbitant prices to its competition, or worse cut off supplies altogether. This is economic warfare not free trade, and defensive measures by government are perfectly in order. A Republican President could make this argument and conservatives would eat it up. There is well established model for this too - having the government support the business with long-term contracts to build up a strategic reserve, and conservatives love the strategic oil reserve (GW Bush was eager to start filling it up again, buying at the peak of the market when supplies were tight the last time gas hit $4 a gallon). But if Obama were to suggest this it would be Marxism and a plot to destroy freedom. There is a non-governmental approach though: all the industries and companies that consume rare earths forming a trade association to buy rare earths on long-term contracts at agreed fixed prices for part of their supply no matter how cheaply China sells rare earths. Even then it is likely the government will need facilitate the arrangement.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  6. Mineral Cartels in China? by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just to be clear: rare earth minerals are mined in numerous countries.
    Our problem is that China had a national strategy of buying up as many mines and refineries as it could.
    By creating a vertical *monopoly, China has made it very hard for anyone else to enter the market.

    Assuming China doesn't implode from its demographic and financial problems, there's a serious risk that China's state capitalism is going to outcompete America's free/mixed market capitalism.

    *sometimes monopolies lower prices. When this happens to a market with high start up costs, it deters anyone else from entering.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Mineral Cartels in China? by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To clarify, it’s not a monopoly per say. It’s the market structure that makes it hard for anybody to enter.

      To start a rare earth mine requires long lead times, large up-front capital spending, and high running costs (As have been mentioned, these mines produce a lot of trailings that need special environmental handling).

      Any competitor entering the market would face a opponent that has already spent huge amounts on it’s fixed capital (i.e. sunk costs). What normally happens in these situations is a long, brutal price war as the established company lowers it price because it does not have to recoup it’s sunk costs. So anybody who enters the market could not count on today’s high prices.

      If the established company want’s it’s monopoly, it can even “dump” product onto the market for years, starving it’s completion.

        Factor in that you are going against a state sponsored Chinese company that has access to cheap capital (effectively reducing the cost of it’s fixed capital) and lower requirements to it’s environmental laws.

    2. Re:Mineral Cartels in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it's strategically important enough, the government can legislate against the unfair competition either through tariffs or outright import bans, or take up the case with international bodies. That the US does not do so is because we seem to have misplaced our spine sometime in the past 25 years.

    3. Re:Mineral Cartels in China? by wyoung76 · · Score: 1

      So, what if the compliance costs of maintaining supply to the country are considered "too high"?

      Or, perhaps the market isn't considered valuable enough and the supply will simply dry up anyway...

      Or the import costs will make it prohibitively expensive (despite the moral high-ground you're taking)..

      Or.... ad infinitum...

    4. Re:Mineral Cartels in China? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      To clarify, it's not a monopoly per say. It's the market structure that makes it hard for anybody to enter.

      It's a monopoly. Full stop.
      China didn't dig all the mines or build all the factories.
      Instead, with the cheap capital you talked about, Chinese companies went on a global buying spree.
      Now, China is closing/merging companies and concentrating ownership into the hands of state run/owned companies.

      There's a new Australian built refinery going up in a Malaysian swamp, but it's shaping up to be a disaster
      after the contractor who's going to supply the lining for the concrete tanks pulled out because of not-safety-reasons.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Mineral Cartels in China? by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the structure of the market dictates the best way to handle this. In industries like this you tend to get monopolies, cartels, collusion, etc.

      One choice is to break the company up. Not an option here.

      Another choice is to compete head on. In industries like this it will mean years of pouring subsidizes down the new competitor. This “monopoly” (well, “leading oligopoly” would be more correct) can hang on for years until it breaks even without a state subside. It may well be worth it, but don’t kid yourself that it’s going to be a quick battle.

      Another choice is to doge the issue. Figure out better ways to recycle. Toyota is figuring out how to make electric motors that don’t require rare earths.etc.

      As a counter point, look back to the 80’s when Japanese companies were dumping DRAM onto the market Intel had a choice. They could keep producing their bread and butter, seek US Government subsides, and engage in a very long and expensive fight over a commodity product. Or, they could abandon their main business – which they did – for CPUs. And we know how the battle ended – Intel prospered, Japan stagnated, and South Koreans won.

      Now, I do think it’s good to have a supply other than China. It’s not the high prices but forcing companies to relocate to China if they want a supply. But it’s good to know the nature of the fight and to think of other options.

  7. "one of the only?" by owenferguson · · Score: 1

    Seriously? "One of the only?" Which is it, smart guy.

  8. Market Economics by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    Market Economics don't quite apply in this case. It was market economics that put the mine out of business in the first place. The Chinese undercut them until they could not continue.

    The recent Chinese trade embargo on rare earth elements did expose the world's strategic vulnerability to the single source in China. Both the US government and the EU woke up in a hot hurry and determined to do what's necessary to revive alternate sources.

    The mine and its counterparts elsewhere will, in this case, have the government support they need to to provide critical materiel to industry. Alternative materials may come to the fore eventually, but for now governments will do the necessary.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Market Economics by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      How don't they still apply? Chinese restricting the supply of rare earths raises the price, making it cost effective to do here now.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    2. Re:Market Economics by careysub · · Score: 1

      Until the day the new plant comes on line, and China slashes prices again. They are already did this to obtain the monopoly - why would you think they wouldn't repeat what they have already done?

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Market Economics by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Then the plant closes - point being that they can't keep this up indefinitely. First - what's started this whole discussion was a restriction of exports because China needed the materials for domestic consumption. Sure, they could flood the market again, but it would cost them domestically and wouldn't stop us from waiting them out yet again. Second - these are uncommon materials. It's not like mining salt out of the ocean where you can simply add more pumps and get more salt, it's a resource that takes time to extract and when it's extracted, it's gone.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  9. Why no right-thinking person believes in free trad by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    will China open the floodgates and put it out of business

    Whenever I've had conversations with libertarians about how free trade would actually work in the real world where governments frequently aggressively protect corporate interests, they always stammer "buh buh the free market will prevail." Really? You mean American companies going up against Chinese state-owned companies or companies with tacit backing from the Chinese central government aren't going to face crushing problems competing against that level of cohesion between state and corporate power? Anyone remember what happen to the Australian mining executives who were imprisoned a while back for having the audacity to negotiate hardball style with their Chinese counterparts under the mistaken premise that it was a meeting of equals?

    When this country was at its most economically free, we had high tariffs. That's an indisputable fact that no free trader can deny unless they want to argue that slavery was so heinous that it overshadows all of the economic freedom in all areas of employment, property ownership, business creation, etc. that was enjoyed in the late 18th century and most of the 19th century.

  10. North America rare earth mine and deposit by Backflasher · · Score: 1

    By digging aroung you can find rare earth in North America. Some examples:

    IAMGOLD Corp. - Niobec Niobium Mine
    MDN Inc - Crevier Deposit : Niobium, Tantalum and Zirconium resource
    Dios Exploration Inc. : Lithium, Niobium and Rare Earths

  11. Not well researched by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    There are two other potential new sources that were missed in this article: Greenland and deep-sea muds around vents.

  12. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by Pope · · Score: 3, Informative

    The simplistic answer is that fee companies competing with state-sponsored ones is by very definition not a free market.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  13. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whenever I've had conversations with libertarians about how free trade would actually work in the real world

    See, there's your problem.

    Sadly, the Libertarian model more or less assumes that nothing about current reality applies, and that we can hit a big reset button and start from scratch in a bubble where all of their little assumptions would hold true by sheer force of will.

    It's like bed-time stories for economists.

    There will always be inequalilties that keep that perfectly free market from happening, and countries will always try to bolster their own industry over others. The US does this in many areas (agriculture, steel, lumber) and seems to expect they can protect their own companies while trying to skew the playing field against foreign competition who have a different cost structure.

    To me, there's simply nothing to actually support the notion that the Libertarian free market could ever exist. And, if it did, it sure isn't going to bring about all of the positive things it claims ... mostly the world would devolve into the rich having all of the privileges, and the rest of us being left to duke it out for scraps. But apparently, that's a good thing somehow.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  14. Re:Plenty of rare earths in NA by arth1 · · Score: 2

    Not only in the US, but in other parts of the world too.
    After all, about half the rare earth metals are named after a single Swedish town and the scientists working on samples from there. But minerals with rare earth elements in them can be found in numerous places.

    The question is how high the price must go before commercial mining or even prospecting becomes lucrative, given the higher environmental concerns in countries outside China, Columbia and South Africa. It's (for now) cheaper to close ones eyes and let these countries mine it and deal with (or ignore) the pollution problems.

  15. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by eth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My first thought when I read that was that if China starts selling the stuff at insanely low prices (at a subsidized loss) to beat out domestic competition, why don't we just start buying it up and stockpiling it.

    That would give us a buffer if they decide to cut us off, and we wouldn't need to buy from them for a while if they raise the prices, which might cause them to keep underselling themselves.

  16. Isn't recycling the best source of rare earths? by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems that the second link in the summary is being ignored (by both /. and industry). The concentration of rare earth elements in used electronics (cell phones, displays, computers, etc.) is many thousand times higher than their concentrations in rare earth ores. Rather than tearing up and polluting large areas of the earth with new mining, it would seem to be much more cost efficient and easier on the environment to "mine" used electronics.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Isn't recycling the best source of rare earths? by Amouth · · Score: 1

      that is making an assumption that we will never need more than what has already been mined.. what makes better sense is to do both at the same time.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Isn't recycling the best source of rare earths? by wwbbs · · Score: 2

      HREE's are used in such small quantities that extraction is often impractical to extract them is no economical or environmentally sound. Often they are used as catalysts and are consumed in the manufacturing process etc, or the risk of mixing the compounds and creating a volatile substance is also a risk. Safety Concerns “The fire is not the only safety problem,” says John Michlovic, manager of technical services and marketing for H.H. Robertson Floor Systems. The plastics used in the insulation and jacketing may also release toxic gasses and smoke in a fire scenario. The fire doesn't necessarily ignite the cabling jackets immediately, but the heat can cause it to release clear or white toxic gases that are highly dangerous. These gases can be blind you or shutdown your respiratory system. Incapacitation of the building occupants is a real problem that is not addressed by the testing or the NEC. "Plenum rated cabling may start burning in 35 to 40 seconds to a couple of minutes," says Michlovic. "Currently, there's no toxic gasses-developed criteria for plenum-rated cable, no fuel load standard. Worst of all, there are no toxicity standard and no acid level requirements." Current industry estimates: 1,000 feet of four-pair unshielded twisted pair (UTP) cable weighs about 24 pounds -10 pounds of copper and 14 pounds of plastic jacketing and insulation. "When cables are installed in a plenum air handling space, exposure to airflow makes the risk from heat or fire generated toxic gasses and smoke especially dangerous for building occupants when fire breaks out," says John Moritz, principal of JMME consulting firm, well-known safety advocate and NFPA/NEC expert. Fluoropolymer (like DuPont Teflon® FEP) insulated and/or jacketed cabling releases many toxic gases under heat decomposition. Some of the deadly gasses like Hydrogen Fluoride are highly reactive. HF gas, when in contact with any moisture, including humidity, forms hydrofluoric acid. Moritz said, "Hydrofluoric acid is so corrosive that it can destroy most glass and eat away most metals and metal oxides. The damage potential posed by HF to the human body is immediate and it can affect your eyes, throat, and lungs incapacitating someone on exposure. Incapacitation can and does lead to many fire related causalities." Remember: Safety is too important to ignore.

  17. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't understand what free trade is. That's your problem. We do NOT have free trade in the united states... not by a long shot. We subsidize one industry, tax another, we bribe other countries to sell us cheap goods with economic and military aid. If China is willing to sell goods for cheaper than it costs to produce, then that's good for us. The rare earth metals will remain in our country while we bleed China dry. You can only try to manipulate the market for so long before you run out of money. That time is fast approaching for China. The price of goods will suddenly skyrocket and manufacturing in the US will suddenly seem a lot more reasonable (it's actually already starting to happen) The only thing standing in our way is our government and its silly programs designed to aid industry and other countries. Let oil rise to its real value (likely $8-$10/gallon) and see what happens to the automotive industry. Stop subsidizing farmers and giving the food away to countries that can't afford to produce it themselves. When the cost of a bad of grain goes from "free" to $20, see how quick local business's figure out the free market.

  18. More than just cell phones by pz · · Score: 1

    While it would not surprise me that discarded cell phones form a significant waste stream, saying ...

    There is of course actually one other source of rare earth metals in the USA — recycled cell phones.

    suggests that there isn't any other source. More-or-less all electronics consumer goods have rare-earth materials in them, from TVs to computers, to stereos, to MP3 players, to microwave ovens, and so forth. Essentially anything that's going to have a circuit board in it is going to have rare-earth materials that might be re-processed. And we have all of those lovely landfills just waiting to be mined, too.

    In the same vein, the summary suggests that cell phones are the only reason to think rare earths important when, again, every segment of the electronics manufacturing industry is wondering where they're going to get tantalum capacitors in the coming years.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  19. Rare earth bust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With all the posters pointing out rare earth deposits in other areas I can't help but think we might have a glut of rare earths in 10 years. It takea a while to get the mine up and running. You mine all that material in anticipation of a market. Then lo and behold you have a bunch of recycled phones, old wind turbines being replaced, etc. Next thing you know there's a bust in mining. That's why most of us kids shouldn't play on the commodity investing freeway.

  20. Trash dumps in general by wjcofkc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have long held the idea that a future industry will be the comprehensive mining of trash dumps.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Trash dumps in general by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I hate to give oxygen to the "coal ash is radioactive waste" loonies but the contents of ash dams look like they have the potential to have some easily recovered and partially gravity separated deposits of some useful materials. It all depends on what was in the sand or silt that ended up being a small portion of the coal. That stuff doesn't burn, then the pollution controls often mean it ends up as a slurry poured into a big storage dam. Even tiny amounts of some minerals can get sorted by density and concentrated in such an enviromentment.

  21. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by mikael · · Score: 1

    Australian executive charged in China with embezzlement

    And who just happen to be ethnic Chinese citizens of other countries...

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  22. National Geographic had a good article a year ago by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    NGC here has a good article. One of the issues though again is cheaper labor and lax restrictions in China. Processing rare earths is labor intensive and can generate toxic and radioactive by-products which are fare more expensive to deal with in our regulatory system from an environmental and worker safety perspective.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  23. Why not process sea water? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Sea water is full of everything and follows no boundaries.

  24. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    His problem is he is talking to imaginary 'libertarian' strawmen.

    It is best just to walk on when you run into someone who talks to trees (or strawmen). If he could understand your post he would, at least, construct better strawmen to have discussions with.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  25. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by lightknight · · Score: 2

    Indeed. However, the general thought is that although the [Insert Foreign Power] can tacitly back one of their chosen industries, to do so they must pull resources from somewhere else, which creates an opening.

    Think of the marketplace as a battlefield. To put 5 more tanks on the lines protecting [Insert Politically-Favored Company], they must draw 5 tanks away from [Insert Some Other Company Not Held In As High Regard]. They strengthen one, at the cost of another; by focusing on their front lines, they've left their flanks unguarded. When the imbalance becomes large enough, competition from within and without begins appearing in earnest, destroying what's left of those weakened companies, and coming up from behind on those previously favored companies.

    To protect GM, the United States had to ultimately sacrifice a fair number of less-favored, weaker, and / or newly created companies. Ultimately, it's a form of cannibalization, where Saturn eats his sons to maintain his power (to mix in some Roman mythology here, just for fun).

    This is why protectionist economies eventually fail -> the market moves at light-speed or faster, cannot be bribed, and is constantly checking for weaknesses; the people working the protectionist racket move at human speeds, can be bribed, and are not always aware of weaknesses in either themselves, their friends, or their enemies. As the effects of poor decisions take some time to ripple throughout the markets (the effects thereof, not the decisions themselves), endlessly cascading until they hit a particular resonance (at which point destruction, creative or otherwise appears), things such as high tariffs may take several years to destroy a healthy economy. Feel me? It's like losing a loved one, acknowledging the fact thereof for many months, but only realizing it / feeling it on some quiet afternoon when you suddenly break out in tears, but don't know why.

     

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  26. Re:US exports rare earths all the time by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    If you had the money, you would run a business case for your billion dollar recycling center and decide to keep it invested.

    That's how people keep their money. Now get to work, you need to make payments on your new Prius.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  27. More gold in old phones/computers than in mines by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    The only problem is extracting it. Right now, it makes more sense to mine dirt then it does to shread and melt down all the cellphones and computers and heat distill the molten metals.

    Mainly because the mines have single pure metals, as opposed to a mix of all the valuable stuff. heat distilling molten metals is too expensive - today.

    A good engineer could very well change that.

    Cripes, the main reason we do such a good job of recyclying steel is that it is magnetic.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  28. perhaps by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    there aren't many mines in the rest of the world because its cheaper to exhaust China's deposits first? Doesn't mean you can't get it else where if you need to. I'm pretty sure rare earth mines were shutdown many years ago when China got into the export game, probably wouldn't take much to reopen them

  29. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Whenever I've had conversations with libertarians about how free trade would actually work in the real world where governments frequently aggressively protect corporate interests, they always stammer "buh buh the free market will prevail."

    Here, let me try.

    When China subsidises it's own mines to drive prices down and force the competition out of business, our local mines will shutter and we all enjoy the benefits of rare earth minerals paid for, in part, by the Chinese taxpayer. We all win with the exception of the miners who were working at the mines. The mine owners may be forced to sell then mine to someone with enought foresight to know that the prices won't stay low forever. And they would be correct.

    Once the Chinese government thinks they have a lock on the market and raises prices, the domestic mines open back up and begin to reap the large profits from the elevated prices of these rare earth minerals. Eventually, the price will lower and stabilize once supply reaches and equalibrium with demand.

    So, yeah! The free markets will prevail. The main losers here would be the Chinese government and taxpayer who subsidized the materials that we used to build stuff and sell back to them at a profit. (Actually, they'd be the ones building it... but for Apple, who is American based)

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  30. is "hyperbolic fud" redundant? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    " The mine is the only source of rare earths in North America, one of the only alternatives to the mineral cartels in China, and one of the only sources for the key metals such as tantalum needed in cell phones"

    Only, only, only! Oh noes!

    As if anyone doesn't already know or understand. The term 'rare' in rare earth doesn't mean rare as in "hard to locate any". It means "rare" in the sense that you'll never find VEINS of it, or nuggets lying around. It exists in many many places, but requires the refining of tons to get ounces.

    --
    -Styopa
  31. Re:Really? The only source? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

    There are extractable deposits all through Colorado and New Mexico.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climax,_Colorado

    But first you need to get past the Sierra Club. Good luck with that.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  32. Canada is most of North America by beckett · · Score: 2

    There's more than one rare earth mine in North America: Hoidas Lake in northern Saskachewan, and Strange Lake in northern Quebec, and Bernic Lake in Manitoba.

    I guess the US is just lazy or something; lots of rare earths being pulled out of North America already.

    1. Re:Canada is most of North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also in Canada:

        Misery Lake (Labrador), Ramusio Lake (Quebec), Alterra-Strange Lake (near Strange Lake in Quebec), Eden Lake in the Leaf Rapids district of Manitoba, Red Wine HREE Project in southern Labrador.

      Elsewhere:

      Aktyuz Ore Field among others in Kyrgyz Republic (being mined by NA companies in collaboration with Kyrgyz companies), not to mention Sweden, Norway, and Finland among many others.

      China however controls 97% of the market. The can drive others out of business simply by lowering prices and making it economically infeasible to produce (H)REEs

    2. Re:Canada is most of North America by Jeng · · Score: 1

      It's not that the US is just lazy, but have you actually been to Saskatchewan? It's like Wyoming, but with less people.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Canada is most of North America by dkf · · Score: 1

      WHAT!! Like Wyoming but with less people!!!!!! SIGN ME UP! I'll take 500 acres to homestead, please.

      I see you're after a small place there. (Most of Canada is terribly empty, unless you like tundra, trees, bogs and snow/biting insects, depending on season. Lots of northern Europe and Asia is identical and hardly anyone lives there either.)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  33. Just keep looking by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

    Surely there are some we've just missed -- we just need to dig down to levels 2-16 near the lava and bedrock. And if there's none within walking distance, build nether portals to get far away and find new areas to look. Wow, I've been playing that game too much. I do wonder, though, do they have good ways of locating these in the whole country, or could looking harder really yield some new sites? Is there some super-metal-detector that can find rare earths at any depth anywhere in the country?

  34. Sea Floor by rwise2112 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the ocean floor, are large deposits of the stuff Wall Street Journal
    A company called Nautilus Minerals Inc. is planning to begin operations.

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  35. The flood gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is where capitalism fails, when the intervention of a government dictates everything. You can only fight such abuse with your own abuse (high traffics to ensure alternatives along with international agreements with other countries). It would otherwise be too easy for China to fully control usage of rare earth around the world. These rare earth mining operations take a long time to both setup and become profitable, China needs only to open up it's export policies every few years to basically destroy any normal company. The only other option is government subsidizes to alternatives. Either way, it would require government to fight against government. (An economic resource war in a way).

    1. Re:The flood gates by macraig · · Score: 1

      It's not a failure of capitalism, it's just scaled way-up. It's collectivized capitalism.

      *ducks*

  36. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by cusco · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Local businesses have already figured out the "free market". It's called 'WalMart crushes everyone smaller', which is why anyone who appreciates the value of small and local businesses is opposed to the Libertardian policies.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  37. Stock gambit by macraig · · Score: 1

    Looks like somebody bought stock in Molycorp and now wants to guarantee the success of his investment with a little buzz on the grapevine, eh?

  38. Unfortunatly... by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Giant Smurfs are living where another huge source of rare earth is found, but I am pretty sure they won't put up much of a fight...

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  39. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 1

    >> Perhaps you just haven't met the right Liberals or perhaps you failed to hold up your end of the conversation. If you want to speak to a Liberal you should be prepared not just for a political discussion, but for a philosophical one as well. Many people just tune out when the discussion turns to philosophy. Also try talking to a Liberal who is more intelligent than you are. Not less. You might actually learn something.

    Fixed your comment.

  40. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    Stop subsidizing farmers and giving the food away to countries that can't afford to produce it themselves

    Worse than that even. The countries can afford to produce food themselves. What they can't do is compete with free food from the US. We give them food, all of their local sources of food go under because who exactly will buy bread when you get it from free from the USAID box?

    --
    +1 Disagree
  41. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by dkf · · Score: 1

    The simplistic answer is that fee companies competing with state-sponsored ones is by very definition not a free market.

    So... Libertarianism only works if China is Libertarian as well? Oooh... kaay... but I do think this is a good time to deploy "Good Luck With That" and some hollow laughter. Seriously, a politico-economic model that only works when everyone plays by the same set of rules is definitely unworkable in reality. It's like the right-wing reverse-image version of Communism. Sure, the nature of the mistakes it makes are different at the level of the detail, but the big picture is that you simply must not assume that people will obey any particular rule. There's always going to be someone (or some country or some company or ... well, who isn't important) willing to be underhanded to gain an advantage.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  42. Pea Ridge Mine, MO by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    There's an old Iron mine in Missouri called Pea Ridge, where they have found REEs. The owner wants to re-open the mine to mine Iron and REEs.

  43. They Will Come From Canada (Ontario and Quebec) by wwbbs · · Score: 1

    Have a Look at a company Called Matamec Exploration Inc to be specific from what I can see there just scratching the surface of the deposit. Which is located north east of Renfrew Ontario, East of Cobalt Ontario and Sudbury and South of Timmins and Rouyn-Noranda so anyone with a little knowledge of the area knows that this can and probably will be a strategic asset for all of North America soon. Matamec Explorations Inc is a junior mining exploration company whose main focus is in developing the Kipawa deposit. It is also exploring more than 35km of strike length in the Kipawa Alkalic Complex for rare earths-yttrium-zirconium-niobium-tantalum mineralization on the surrounding Zeus property. A timely, high value and low cost mine is projected for early 2016. The viability of the project is emphasized by: a simple mineralogy rich in the rarer heavy rare earths (HREEs); a well defined NI-43-101 compliant indicated and inferred resource with plenty of upside; a flat-lying ore body that extends to surface and is open pittable with a low strip ratio; an ore concentration process that eliminates 65% of the ore; a simple, low cost recipe for extracting the total rare earths as an oxide (TREO). End users, such as the car industry, are interested in our critical metal content (such as dysprosium) and are capable of absorbing most of our product.

  44. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    What you've described is how customers will respond to market forces. The situation is still anything but a free market.

    If you consider China subsidizing shit to still be part of the 'free market,' then what the fuck is the point of even having the term 'free market' to begin with? It's all just 'the market'.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  45. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by ArcherB · · Score: 2

    What you've described is how customers will respond to market forces. The situation is still anything but a free market.

    If you consider China subsidizing shit to still be part of the 'free market,' then what the fuck is the point of even having the term 'free market' to begin with? It's all just 'the market'.

    --Jeremy

    Understand that OUR market will be free and end up ahead. Sure, in my example, the Chinese government tried to manipulate the market, and did so successfully. However, it didn't help them. It ended up helping OUR market, because we have the FREE market in my example.

    What you've described is how customers will respond to market forces.

    Yeah! It's called Demand and is the most fundamental concept of economics. I thought we were past that.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  46. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    The mine owners may be forced to sell then mine to someone with enought foresight to know that the prices won't stay low forever.

    And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.

    Just a few examples.

    Libertarian, busted you are.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  47. Drives me nuts, too. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    The correct formulations are "one of the few" (for an indeterminant number) and "one of only N" (if the number is known).

    I would REALLY appreciate it if the editors would fix this in submitted stories.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Drives me nuts, too. by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

  48. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Yawn. Yea, lunatic fringe is lunatic fringe. There are also those who think the government can simply take control of all production and set prices as it sees fit.

  49. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by ArcherB · · Score: 1

    The mine owners may be forced to sell then mine to someone with enought foresight to know that the prices won't stay low forever.

    And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.

    Just a few examples.

    Libertarian, busted you are.

    Risk = Reward. If the Chinese can buy up all the mines in the world to corner the market on NEW materials, then they deserve the monopoly... wait, monopolies are illegal in this and many other countries. I wonder how that will play out.

    But again, like people have said, even if all the mines are not producing, that will mean a HUGE market for recycled materials, increased research into alternatives and alternative supply chains.

    So, yeah, China could bank if they could buy out the world's mines, buy out the future potential mines, outbid all other investors for those last few mines, prevent alternative sources from being found, and finally, prevent alternative materials from being discovered... yeah, then they could corner the market and reap huge rewards. However, that's a very VERY risky venture that, let's face it, won't pay out.

    Sure, others have tried and some do quite well at it. DeBeers, for example, have a controlling chunk of the diamond market. However, the more they raise prices, the more alternative sources of diamonds are discovered. OPEC controls oil prices, but every time they cut production, more sources of oil are found.

    There are laws of economics. The free market is based on those laws. Governments can bend the market one way or the other, but the laws may not be broken. When governments try to bend it too far one way or the other, a thriving black market will take over, which runs on... you guessed it... FREE MARKET principles.

    I'm not recommending a free market. It's unavoidable. You may not break the laws of economics no more than you may break the laws of physics. You may try to manipulate them one way or the other and may even make a bit of progress, but in the end, the laws of supply and demand will win out. The trick is to not fight it. Know how the laws work and you can predict the future to make sure you are on the winning end every single time.

    (yes, there are times when government intervention is required, like regulating natural monopolies such as utilities and insulin providers, but less is almost always better. Subsidies are almost never a good idea and if it really looks like China is about to corner the market on critical materials, then the US government can always declare the area around the mine a "national park" like ANWR to prevent anyone from owning it. Then the government would actually lease the rights to mine there.)

    And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.

    No. Actually, US private sector is much larger than the Chinese government. The US private sector is larger than the US government. For that matter, US banks have more money than the Chinese government.

    Sorry, but government only takes a percentage of GDP. That means that GDP is larger than government as long as tax rates are under 50%. All liquid money ends up in banks. Yeah, you may have put it in the stock market, but the company you invested in put it in the bank. If they spent it, whoever they spent it on put it in the bank.... all money goes through the banks. The banks in the second largest economy in the world can easily outbid the government of the third largest economy in the world (EU is first according to Wikipedia).

    By the way, the US economy is still 2-3 times larger than the Chinese.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  50. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by careysub · · Score: 1

    It's like the right-wing reverse-image version of Communism.

    I've often thought that. It is a distinctly 19th Century Utopian notion (though the product of the mid-20th Century). It was clearly a counter-reaction to and inspired by Communism (which Ayn Rand's family fled in 1917) dreamed up at the height of the "Red Menace" years from the 1930s to the 1950s. Like Communism it was dreamed up by an academic mind without basing it on any evidence of feasibility in the real world. Like Communism, to adherents the failure of the theory to describe the real world reveal a defect in reality (not the theory) or is simply the result of the theoretical scheme not being comprehensively and universally implemented. You must surrender to it utterly to experience its wonderful benefits.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  51. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by careysub · · Score: 1

    ...If China is willing to sell goods for cheaper than it costs to produce, then that's good for us. The rare earth metals will remain in our country while we bleed China dry....

    Brilliant! Let's do that! Lets buy all those rare earths at below cost, and bleed China dry!

    Wait. Didn't China stop selling rare earths at below cost and now charges punitive rates? Isn't it a problem not getting them to sell to you at all? Why isn't that good deal still available? Come on China let us bleed you dry!

    This could be shaped into a line for Weird Al's "Dare to be Stupid" ("It's like I said, you gotta buy one if you wanna get one free.").

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  52. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by careysub · · Score: 1

    ... If you want to speak to a Libertarian you should be prepared not just for a political discussion, but for a philosophical one as well. ....

    Done that many, many times. The problem is that philosophy is used as a counter to any consideration of reality.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  53. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's halfway there. The employment conditions there are a wet dream for any libertarian employer. Consider an "unregistered" coal mines in China (the ones we hear about due to the nearly weekly death toll) and how little government oversight on any aspect of them there is. The libertarians would love it. Forget safety standards, it's just a negotiation between the employer and whoever wants to risk their lives in the hope it will pay off.

  54. Re:Why no right-thinking person believes in free t by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The thing with little Utopias is how badly it sucks for people they don't see as their perfect citizens. Burning people as witches is one American example.

  55. Crichton, anyone? by segwonk · · Score: 1

    Anyone else ever read Michael Chrichton's book Congo?

    I remember thinking it was a little silly, but nowadays it seems like his most prescient novel.

    --
    - ------ Go 'til ya know.