Posted on 04/15/2023 7:35:52 AM PDT by Twotone
A judge ruled in favor of environmentalists to halt a mine in Nevada, adopting a stricter interpretation of mining laws first implemented by a federal appeals court last year, the Associated Press (AP) reported Wednesday.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that the U.S. Forest Service had improperly granted Rosemont Copper Company access to forest land for dumping waste, since there was no evidence the land contained valuable minerals, and thus had been improperly granted to Rosemont for the purposes of establishing a mine, Reuters reported. Following this reasoning, Judge Larry Hicks of the U.S. District Court of Nevada cited the Rosemont decision to back a planned molybdenum mine by Eureka Moly LLC, requiring the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the AP reported.
“The Court finds no meaningful difference between the Forest Agency’s argument in Rosemont and BLM’s argument here,” Hicks wrote in his March 31 opinion. “BLM cannot skirt the Mining Law requirement that valuable mineral deposits must be found in order to occupy the land,” he continued later.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in 2022 upended long-standing precedent surrounding the 1872 Mining Law, which granted mining companies permission to use lands surrounding proposed mines for waste, even if those lands did not contain the minerals that formed the basis of their claim to the mine, according to AP.
The Rosemont decision also featured prominently in fellow Nevada District Judge Miranda Du’s decision to approve Lithium America’s Thacker Pass mine, AP reported. Du also required that the BLM review Lithium America’s right to dump waste at the site, but stopped short of blocking the project, allowing construction to begin this summer.
Environmentalists are hopeful the ruling against Eureka Moly will have significant impact going forward, alongside the Thacker Pass and Rosemont decisions, AP reported.
“All three rulings now say you can’t bury waste there unless you find valuable minerals,” Roger Flynn, an attorney who represented the Great Basin Resource Watch in its lawsuits against both the Thacker Pass and Eureka Moly projects, told AP. “The Rosemont issue would apply to basically every big mine in the West.”
John Hadder, director of the Great Basin Resource Watch, was hopeful the Moly decision would help environmentalists appeal and block work on Thacker Pass, and questioned why the Thacker Pass project could begin work under the Rosemont precedent, according to AP.
“Both judges are saying there’s illegal actions here,” Hadder told AP. “It violates the law, but there’s no repercussions. They can still go forward with the illegal action. It doesn’t make sense.”
Mark Compton, executive director of the American Exploration & Mining Association, argued the three cases were “unique,” and that they were unlikely to have a broad impact.
“I don’t believe a straight line comparison can be made between the court decisions on Mt. Hope, Thacker Pass, and Rosemont,” Compton told AP. “The facts are unique to each case.”
So long to mining.
Considering that the point is to stop mining entirely, it’s a reasonable ruling.
So if you extract a valuable mineral from the ground and the remainder of the ground is therefore defined as “waste” you cannot put it back?
I’m surprised no FReeper has posted the news that a judge in NY told Bragg that he MUST TURN OVER EVERYTHING THAT jIM JORDAN WANTS.
Jordan 1
Bragg O
>>laws first implemented by a federal appeals court last year
Odd. Way back when I learned civics, it was the legislature that made laws.
America’s enemies, which include American Democrats, liberals, Leftists, enviro-crazies and a variety of people who aren’t from an enemy country, use every weapon at their disposal to harm the American economy. Their intention is to use any means necessary to disrupt American hegemony. From the part of other countries this isn’t for some noble, humanist reason. This is so they can establish their own hegemon, which they would run like a Mafia state. From the part of ordinary people, it’s for a variety of reasons but I think in the end if they got what they wanted they wouldn’t like what they had worked so hard to create. “Wait! You mean all this destruction of America hasn’t resulted in free streaming, free sex and free BMW’s!!??”
So long to mining.And the dream of EVs for all.
“A judge ruled in favor of environmentalists to halt a mine in Nevada”
TAKE THAT, PUTIN!!!!
It’s hard to believe, but the Neocons SERIOUSLY want to start World War 3 when we’re not even allowed to mine our own resources.
It would sure be nice if the Neocons would LIFT A FINGER to help us here in America, before running around the world trying to ‘regime-change’ every country that doesn’t allow Drag Queen Parades.
It actually makes some sense. The law apparently says BLM land can only be used for mining if you actually mine the land. Unless I am reading this wrong, the company apparently wanted to use BLM land to dump waste rock from a different mine operation.
BLM land should not be used as dumps for mining companies unless those companies are actively mining on another part of the same claim.
This is another reason why no one wants to build things in the USA.
So we can just import it from China, or Russia, or Mexico with our global reserve currency.....
....or until other nations stop taking our currency.
You’re not supposed to read the article. Freeper Rule #341.78.
Where are all the minerals for the green energy “transition” (there’s that word again) coming from? China? Russia? The Congo?
If this is about the Thacker Pass lithium mine, here is a link to the wiki info:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thacker_Pass_Lithium_Mine
And a link to the only active lithium mine currently at Silver Peak, also in NevaDUH:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/14/inside-silver-peak-americas-only-active-lithium-mine.html
I suspect with harm minerals it is much the same as with oil — most are “dry holes”. Uneconomical, or “oops”.
So, many many mines will start digging and find little worth pursuing. So, to put things back the way they were they have to bury what was dug up. If the rulings and treehuggers are trying to prevent this — there need to be some lynchings.
OTOHand, it is corrupt to file for a mine “over thar” so as to have a dumping site for stuff dug up elsewhere. If that is going on, my solution applies.
What is happening is governments are allowing foreign mining companies to mine our land and sent the products to overseas markets. Destroying America.
A "claim" is a legally-defined and contracted area in which you extract a specific valuable mineral, and conduct associated activities. The BLM and Federal Regulations have long stipulated the "Mill Sites" (including dumps) may be included in an overall claim area, but must NOT be located on the valuable mineralized vein. The logic is simple - if you have a very valuable mineral vein, you don't allow structures or dumps on it, because such would impede future abilities to work that vein. Therefore, the Government itself has always said - build associated mills and dumps on a non-mineralized part of the claim.
Now NOTE below comment from the article
ARTICLE: The Ninth Circuit’s decision in 2022 upended long-standing precedent surrounding the 1872 Mining Law, which granted mining companies permission to use lands surrounding proposed mines for waste, even if those lands did not contain the minerals that formed the basis of their claim to the mine,
So this Court/Judge is taking 150 years of precedent, related agencies long-standing rules contained in the Federal Register, and simple logic - and turning them completely on their head, to make the entire BLM/Interior management concepts self-contradictory self-contradictory.
Its an absolutely STUPID ruling from precedent, current regulations, and mining practicality.
Part of the problem is that Eureka Moly stated they do not intend to permanently occupy the land (dump site) since their mining will end in 40 years but they presented no plan or intention of removing the dumped waste rock from BLM land. In essence insinuating the the waste rock and any of the contaminates it may include, would be BLM’s problem after 40 years.
I have worked on several mine waste dumps and they can cause big problems later on depending on the minerals contained within them. Certain minerals once exposed to air can oxidize and degrade into some pretty nasty stuff that pollutes the land and ground water. Eureka Moly seems to have no other plan for their mine waste other than to dump it on land they do not own and just leave it there.
I don't know the specifics of mining molybdenum, but tailings, waste water, and site remediation have very long-standing and detailed regulations and rules from BLM/Interior and EPA. I doubt that any government agency would allow them to "just dump it."
Rather, it seems to me the judge is completely re-imagining 150 years of precedent, law and practice, for what I suspect are purely ideological reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.