Idaho Mining

[BuzzH]

Ten bears, what the hell do you call posting a bond of 30 million and then having a cleanup of 65 million? Guess who subsidizes the mining industry to the tune of 35 million to cover the cost? Why isnt Pegasus coughing up the other 35 million?

That isnt a subsidy? What is it then? Where does the money come from?

If you're too ignorant to see whats going on, thats a personal problem you need to deal with.

By the way, YOU'RE WRONG.

 

[Ten Bears]

But who collected the 35 million gubbermint dollars? Was it mining companies, or environmental clean up companies?

Who will benefit from the expense of those dollars?

Mining companies have raped, and dumped wastes all over the country. It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it "welfare" either. In this area, remember the topic "Idaho Mining" not MT mining, many of the companies that were responsilbe for the wastes were defunct (out of business) by the 1970's. Of those that were left prior to the Bunker Hill Superfund site (that's in Idaho, you know) they have all contributed $'s and man hours to the cleanup. The federal goverment also has some responsibility for the wastes here (and Anaconda, MT too). You see during WWII and Korea (before most of your times, except IT) they (the feds) sent miners to the region, actually took experienced miners fro the military ranks, to produce lead and zinc for the war effort, and silver for the coffers to fund the war. If that was the "welfare" you two are looking for, then there it is, but with that "welfare" comes a measure of responsibility also.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-08-2003 16:18: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Ten, you truly cant be this mentally challenged...

Read the articles I posted.

THE TAXPAYERS are picking up the tab, the gummint doles out the $$$$ because the mining companies didnt post big enough bonds.

If they had to post the full bond, they'd claim it would cut into profits too much to make the mining worthwhile. So, they lobby (as noted in the above article) and cry, and whine, until some senator or sub-committee tells the BLM, FS, etc. to not require such a big bond. They know they'll forfiet the bond, its figured in as an "expense", not something they every plan on getting back.

Last I checked, when the gummint/taxpayers have to fork over money its a subsidy.

By the way, we havent even started discussing about the fees paid to the government for claims....you want to talk subidized...

It also makes no difference who benefits from the clean-up...the bottom line is tax payers are still paying for something they shouldnt have to. The only thing the gummint should have to do is employ people to monitor the cleanup and make sure its done correctly. Instead, the states and feds have to have the EPA, DEQ, consultants, etc etc etc because the mining companies cant be trusted to do whats right.

Besides all of that stuff, the part that pisses me off the most is, the mining companies lack of regard for how they harm the environment, the people who live near their toxic mining messes, and the wildlife.

They just dont give a damn...well the people in MT do, and thats on of the reasons why we voted out cyanide heap leach mining.

 

[MULE]

Oh my God

People are taking things out of the earth now.

Rocks for metal

Bad..Bad

 

[Nut]

The only way that things will change for mining on public lands is to have the Mining Act of 1872 to be amended.

Do a Google search and see what it says.

I wish I could pay for things for the same cost as 131 years ago. I could do a chitload of hunting

 

[Ten Bears]

NUT, you and the family gonna make it out to hunt in our mining waste land this year? Elk and Bear numbers are looking good this season.

 

[Nut]

Ten Bears I can only wish at this time.

But I do hope to try and do a trip next year so I can take a good look at them .

Maybe I can rent me a ATV to look at them?

 

[cjcj]

If it wasn`t for mineing We wouln`t have any copper, coal, silver, gold,etc.

 

[Ithaca 37]

cjcj, Thank you very much for enlightening us in that respect!

I'm a little confused about where lumber comes from, too. Could you explain that to us?

 

[Ten Bears]

NUT there's rentals if you want, but you can find'em from foot too if your on a tight budget.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, Please read this so you'll know what's going on!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&ncid=655&e=2&u=/oneworld/20030808/wl_oneworld/4536651701060343364

Funding Woes Plague Superfund Clean Up

The federal government is failing to fully fund the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites)'s (EPA) Superfund program and 42 percent of Superfund clean up efforts could be slowed down or stopped as a result, environmentalists say......
A new report released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) blames the Bush administration for cuts to the Superfund budget and Congress for shifting the burden of clean up from polluters to the American taxpayer......

"Not only has the pace of cleanups slowed down dramatically in the past three years, but regular taxpayers are footing more and more of the bill for toxic cleanups," said Julie Wolk, the report's lead author and an environmental health advocate for PIRG......

The slowdown in clean up leaves "millions of Americans remain at risk of chemical exposure and disease," Wolk said.....
Seventy million people, including some 10 million children, live within four miles of the nation's more than 1,230 Superfund sites. Children are most vulnerable to the arsenic, DDT and brain-damaging toxins like lead and mercury that are found in the water and soil at these locations......EPA Acting Administrator Marianne Horinko announced 20 new Superfund sites last month but acknowledged that only 11 would be funded in the coming fiscal year. She says any sites not receiving funding do not pose immediate risks to human health and will be considered for funding next year......
Horinko gave no additional information about funding for the hundreds of sites around the nation with ongoing clean up, but Ryan says "all ongoing clean up projects are going to get some funding."...
This does not sit will with environmentalists.....
The administration is "keeping the public in the dark," says Lois Gibbs, executive director of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice....
A 2001 study by the non profit research group Resources for the Future determined that the Superfund program needs annual funding of between $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion. Using these figures, PIRG's report says that the Bush administration has under funded the Superfund program by some $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion from 2001 through 2004....
The report blasts the administration and the U.S. Congress for opposing the collection of polluter pays fees, a policy that has increased the share of the program's costs carried by the federal government from 18 percent in 1995 to a proposed 79 percent or more in 2004....This is not the way the Superfund program was designed to work, but the program has been wrought with problems for much of its life....
Started in 1980 as a relatively short term project to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites, the program has expanded as tens of thousands of waste sites have been discovered...
Many of these sites are owned by the federal government, and cleaning them up has proved to be far more complicated and costly than anticipated. But the sites that are not owned by the federal government are to either be cleaned up by the private parties responsible for contamination or by the EPA, which is then tasked with seeking reimbursement from those responsible...
Congress created a trust fund to pay for cleanups of non government sites and devised "polluter pays fees" to fund it. These fees consisted of a corporate tax that applies to profits of large corporations in excess of $2 million, a fee on the purchase of harmful chemicals and a fee on the purchase of crude oil by refineries....

But the polluter pays provision expired in 1995....
The Bush administration opposes reinstating the fees unless reforms of cleanup standards and polluters' liabilities are enacted, a position environmentalists say mirrors industry.
"The polluter pays is a guiding principle of the Superfund program--every President up until now has collected or supported those fees," Wolk said.

Wolk takes issue with the administration's position that the program's budget has not fallen under the Bush presidency. When the figures are adjusted for inflation, Wolk says, funding for the program averaged $1.3 billion from 2001 to 2003 compared to $1.7 billion from 1992 through 2000.

There is little evidence the Superfund program will get the funding boost environmentalists say it needs.

 

[Ten Bears]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> She says any sites not receiving funding do not pose immediate risks to human health and will be considered for funding next year...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Many of these sites are owned by the federal government, and cleaning them up has proved to be far more complicated and costly than anticipated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...the sites that are not owned by the federal government are to either be cleaned up by the private parties responsible for contamination or by the EPA, which is then tasked with seeking reimbursement from those responsible...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clears things up just fine. What's your point of confusion?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-10-2003 12:22: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, I'm not confused at all. Get some third grader to read the article and explain it to you.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-10-2003 12:44: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Ten Bears]

I found it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This does not sit will with environmentalists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That was it, wasn't it.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, To answer your question: "Any hunter or angler who is not an environmentalist...is a damned fool." Conservation writer Ted Williams

Unfortunately, we have a few fools in this forum. You're one of the biggest.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-10-2003 14:37: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Ten Bears]

Call me what you will, it still doesn't make it so.

When Williams said that he was referring to environmentalists, before the word got such a bad reputation.