Showing posts with label mining. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mining. Show all posts

Friday, February 17, 2017

Mining landfills better than digging new mines?

Sometime ago I read or heard about landfills being mined for gold in Japan

Looking into landfill mining, I found a large number of sites, mostly positive.  One I found a few weeks ago is Landfill Miners.

A search for “mining gold from landfill” or “mining copper from landfill” turned up a variety of sites about landfill mining, mostly positive.  It seems more recent articles are more positive than older articles.  Many projects reclaim a large variety of materials, many of which can be sold for less than mining the original materials.  Aluminum and copper are major materials in this category.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Mining and Adam Smith

If you think mining is good for northern Minnesota or anywhere else, read
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/opinion/appalachias-sacrifice.html.

Also consider what Adam Smith wrote about those who live for profit.  And consider that a true free market has no externalities, like pollution that is not in the cost of a transaction.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Pulltab predictions, mining, public interest, and bought politicians

I've been busy with submissions today.

The Star Tribune had an article today on the grossly overestimated projections for revenue from electronic pull-tabs.  See "Gambling firms drove flawed Minnesota e-pulltab funding plan", Jean Hopsensperger, Star Tribune, 2013-03-24.

I wrote a letter to the editor with the Adam Smith quote warning about laws and regulations being submitted by business people.

The Reader Weekly had a feature article by Jim Lundstrom, Scene Newspaper, about the opposition to the rushed, loose legislation in favor of a not-well-known company to mine in the Penokee Mountains in northern Wisconsin.  The opposition states that the proposed mining will be an environmental disaster that will make the area unlivable.  In response, I submitted "The Invisible Adam Smith" that I published last October.  Because the Reader Weekly republishes articles from several sources, they might republish this.  Besides, Bob Boone, the publisher and editor, occasionally asks me about writing something.

Gov. Scott Walker's desk sign, "Open for Business" was a clear warning of what was to come.  This was a clear statement in favor of those "who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public…"

Thursday, May 10, 2012

For the benefit of schools or for the benefit of large corporations?

"This land ultimately belongs to Minnesota’s children – our public schools have been waiting decades for this funding.  I am a big supporter of the Boundary Waters and this bill has been crafted in a way to make it even better.  The lands of Superior National Forest were set aside for the benefit of all Minnesotans.  Undoubtedly, the BWCAW [Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness] serves as a reminder of our nation’s legacy; but the BWCAW is more than just a legacy—it’s a springboard for Minnesota’s future."

- Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN 8, email to constituents

Rep. Cravaack has sponsored legislation to remove Minnesota School Trust Lands from the BCWAW.  But is this to provide access to resource extraction or to swap for Federal Land elsewhere?  If Minnesota School Trust Lands can be sold, why doesn't the Federal Government pay Minnesota for the lands and let the trust buy land elsewhere?  I read his wording as the first, resource extraction.  In fact, in his email he states "These lands within the BWCAW cannot be logged, leased, or mined."

Would you want to canoe past a clear-cut island or fish in waters with mining tailings?

Friday, April 16, 2010

Why was my site suddenly so popular?

When I checked the statistics on my web site this morning I was surprised to see over 100 hits for Thursday.  Gosh!  I've been lucky to get 10-15 a day.

When I looked at the details, I found there were 65 hits for "Once Upon a Lake", a fable about the rise and fall of the fortunes of the city of Toulouse.

Was this only a few people looking at the page several times or was it a lot of people looking at it?  Did somebody make a reference on a more popular site than mine?  If so, it was in a chat room and not on a Google-searchable site.  The only reference I found was for the page itself.