An interesting take on Pebble

[Dougfirtree]

I'm obviously biased, as I think Pebble would be a bad idea even if it was wildly profitable. But, I think this is an interesting take on this project and has a ring of truth to it. https://www.mining.com/short-seller...H5tWAic6V7TsAQiTwHvzICKfpQM3HUCwEK3l7ebBlAOmk

 

[BWALKER77]

I'm obviously biased, as I think Pebble would be a bad idea even if it was wildly profitable. But, I think this is an interesting take on this project and has a ring of truth to it. https://www.mining.com/short-seller...H5tWAic6V7TsAQiTwHvzICKfpQM3HUCwEK3l7ebBlAOmk

If it wasn't profitable why would anyone pursue the project? The general public should not care about profit margins and the like as long as the bonding is payed up front. Of course a company that makes its money shorting stocks is going to say things like this.

 

[Dougfirtree]

If it wasn't profitable why would anyone pursue the project? The general public should not care about profit margins and the like as long as the bonding is payed up front. Of course a company that makes its money shorting stocks is going to say things like this.

Well, the article seems to be saying that executives in the company can make money off just securing the permitting, regardless of whether the mine makes money down the line...

 

[BWALKER77]

Well, the article seems to be saying that executives in the company can make money off just securing the permitting, regardless of whether the mine makes money down the line...

And that makes sense given the obstacles faced and the fact that Northern Dynasty is an exploration company and not a mining company. I am sure there is a carrot for securing a major mining company to develop the property as well.

 

[diamond hitch]

There are many factors that define a mine versus an anomaly. Environmental costs and risks are just one of them. I see crap like this all of the time as well as the enviro posturing that all mining is bad. As with everything - the devil is in the details. There are more than enough environmental controls in place as well as the technology to manage the issues. I favor letting the process determine the fate of the project. No politics, no emotional pleas (either side) just science. Get the back seat drvers out of the discussion and make the decisions based on reality and fact. All this noise is just BS and we already have reached a saturation of it on the east coast.

 

[SAJ-99]

The oil and gas industry is going to be mad when they realize their monopoly on gaslighting investors is no more.

 

[Stocker]

If it wasn't profitable why would anyone pursue the project? The general public should not care about profit margins and the like as long as the bonding is payed up front. Of course a company that makes its money shorting stocks is going to say things like this.

Like wind power, it’s a subsidy scam. I form a wind energy company, get a board of directors, pay myself and them millions off the government subsidies. Start the project, claim bankruptcy. Then sell it to my buddy for pennies on the dollar, who does the same thing, then turn it over to a public power district or anyone else to run.

 

[Stocker]

Well, the article seems to be saying that executives in the company can make money off just securing the permitting, regardless of whether the mine makes money down the line...

When you know congressmen you can secure about anything. If they have a cut of course.

 

[diamond hitch]

Given that observation: How about this - house and senate positions get twelve years. Every two years we have a vote of confidence. If they fail, they are out and we have an election with new candidates. At the end of the 12 years they get 5 years in prison. We know they did something illegal but frankly it isn't worth it to figure out what it was or how.

On top of that we drop the title of honerable from their title. We know that there isn't anything about any of them that is honerable.

 

[BWALKER77]

Like wind power, it’s a subsidy scam. I form a wind energy company, get a board of directors, pay myself and them millions off the government subsidies. Start the project, claim bankruptcy. Then sell it to my buddy for pennies on the dollar, who does the same thing, then turn it over to a public power district or anyone else to run.


Been there done that, anyone who says it works differently is a fool or a sucker.

Hard rock mining isnt subsidized typicaly.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Hard rock mining isnt subsidized typicaly.

A valid point, though I'd argue that any privately owned business operating on public land is being subsidized..

 

[BWALKER77]

A valid point, though I'd argue that any privately owned business operating on public land is being subsidized..

I am not sure how you figure that given they pay royalties to the federal or state government. Another way to look at it is they are subsidizing us sportsman who use the land free of charge.

 

[hank4elk]

Uh,we already own the land and pay taxes to keep it that way.

 

[JLS]

Another way to look at it is they are subsidizing us sportsman who use the land free of charge.

Really?

 

[BWALKER77]

Uh,we already own the land and pay taxes to keep it that way.

No you dont, but the Bundy's and the like would love your position. The federal government owns the land. Your taxes do help fund the coat of administration of said land but so do the taxes of corporations.

 

[BWALKER77]

Really?

You ever paid a fee to hunt BLM land? I sure havent.

 

[JLS]

You ever paid a fee to hunt BLM land? I sure havent.

Since Uncle Sam takes a significant portion of my paycheck every month, I fully expect I'm paying a fee to use said federal lands.

 

[diamond hitch]

Let me throw some facts at you but I doubt it will change much. It didn't for the first 45 years of my career. In Montana about .02% of the land has mineral potential. That land is located in 14 of 56 of the poorist counties. They are almost totally dependent on resourse industries- logging, mining and agriculture. Of 8,600 known mineral properties, something like 20 are in production of some sort. The most I ever saw was 54 and the majority were small family run gold placers. That included cement, talc, and bentonite mines. There is likely more acres disturbed by sewage lagoons than by mining. Large mines have to acquire up to 57 permits and pay millions in bonds plus administration fews to the government. A single medium to large mine will pay the lions share of taxes for the county. Their purchases for goods and services will span the US and beyond. Some items come from the smallest of towns as well as supporting the major towns that have no mineral potential yet fight every permit. The largest concentrated populations of deer and elk I have seen have been at major mine sites. The reclaim provides better forage than the native lands and they have security within the permit boundaries. I believe the elk population at Montana Tunnels when it was running was near 900 head.

The mineral industry pays its share and more. I remember someo of the taxes at Butte in the 90s were something in the range of $4.5 M. When the bonuses were paid the employees bought recreational equipment, businesses, and houses. Not exactly corporate welfare. As I remember in the last mining directory I produced very little of the operations were on public land.

Environmental damages have been linked largely to the early years when technology didn't exist to test for it or remediate it. As proven in the last 30 years the best way clean up our past is by remining the ground under todays rules and technology.

Montana is not pure by any means. Central Montana has levels of selenium that kill non-native cows. It comes from the ocean floor sediments in the Bearpaw shales. Northeastern Montana have zinc levels far exceeding the EPA standards in the massive lignite beds. Nobody is involved it is natural. And of course the largest single pollution source of all - Yellowstone Park which dumps millions of gallons of arsenic rich water into the Madison river which exceeds the EPA standards all the way to Canyon Ferry.

Those of you non-believers, you won't change your mind. Why clutter the airways with the truth. To the rest - I see a user tax in the future for our use of "public" lands. You may own them but you aren't paying your share.

 

[BWALKER77]

Since Uncle Sam takes a significant portion of my paycheck every month, I fully expect I'm paying a fee to use said federal lands.

Since Uncle Sam takes a significant portion of my paycheck every month, I fully expect I'm paying a fee to use said federal lands.

Taxes are not a use fee. Non users, corporations, etc all pay taxes.

 

[JLS]

Taxes are not a use fee. Non users, corporations, etc all pay taxes.

The forest use passes I've purchased are use fees. If you want to argue semantics, feel free. I fully understand there are multiple tax sources. My point is, I am paying for the administration and maintenance on these lands. If you have a breakdown of federal lands spending and revenues, I'd love to see it.