USAJohn Chadwick has turned International Mining into a visual delight, like the National Geographic, which I received for thirty years, looking at the pictures and never reading the text. I then decided to read the editorial in March’s International Mining. Here is my critique of John’s opinion, another gloomy piece that ignores the reality of America. Let me put the Englishman right by reminding him of the strengths and spirit of the average American and the common sense that rules the U.S.A. in spite of foreign criticism and national self-interested groups. 

John writes of a study being undertaken by the National Academies on factors influencing the supply of minerals critical to the United States’ economy. It seems that while the U.S. consumes most of the world’s minerals, it does not produce many, and certainly the U.S. is not spending nearly enough on exploration to find the supply needed in the future. The really bad-sounding news, which will no doubt be used to justify the funding of a study, is that in 2006, the U.S. imported over fifty percent of the top 45 minerals consumed and relied one-hundred-percent on imports for 17 of the top minerals it consumed. 

I think that is good news, not bad news. What is wrong with importing minerals that can be mined more efficiently and cheaper than at home? If we adopt John’s argument that importing minerals is bad then we should cry over all the clothes and cars we import. Let him drive one of those domestically produced British cars (are there any?), but leave me to the delights of my Japanese-made Hondas. 

To my way of thinking, the U.S. economy is humming along most efficiently while importing mined products needed to enjoy life, liberty and pleasure. America imports metals that can be gotten cheaper from elsewhere and produce locally those that can be produced—and transported—cost-effectively at home. the United States produces all the gravel, sand, clay, lime and salt it needs in the lower forty-eight. It would be silly to import them. 

And the U.S. is producing those products from mines within and very close to cities and densely populated areas. It is simply wrong to imply, as John does, that mining is impeded by permitting and rising costs. When we need the products—and it is obvious to the average citizen that the product can be cost-effectively mined without destroying the environment—the U.S. mines and does so most effectively. Read the papers presented in the SME sessions on Urban Mining if you doubt what I say. 

I for one suspect any statement that an activity is impeded by the need to get a permit. Take a slightly closer look and the maker of the statement turns out to have no decent regard for the environment or the clean logic and imperative of the democratic process. Neither Mugabe nor Castro gets permits for the nasty things they do. Disdain for the permitting process is too often the backbone of a Big Man—actual or incipient—who would, given half a chance, ride rough-shod over our rights and interests. Lawyers and the need for permits are the only guarantees of due process and hence the right to life, liberty and justice for the individual. 

I can see that the U.S. needs to know where the ore bodies are that could—if needed—provide all the minerals the U.S. currently imports. It is perfectly feasible that the supply of any one of them could be cut off by a politician, a megalomaniac or a little BigMan in any one of the many countries currently supplying us with minerals. But just as the U.S. does not currently have to go mining to the oil shales, it does not have to go mining every mineral it has in the ground, but it currently chooses to import. As long as the Saudis are prepared to pump their oil, and as long as Alberta is prepared to tear up the permafrost, why should we go to Colorado, Utah, Nevada et cetera for oil? It’s the same for all the other minerals we import. I say that we keep them safe in the ground for another day, or even generation, when the rest of the world is in turmoil.  

I hope that day never comes, but you never know. I think a located but unexploited ore body is as good a generational insurance policy as I can imagine. I fear that John and the NAS have fallen prey to industry pressure groups that see an unlocated or unmined ore body as a national tragedy or, at best, another lost-opportunity to exploit the sugar pile. I include in these groups the following:

  • Professors who wail about the need for more money for more students while neglecting to improve technology so that we can do more with fewer people.
  • Isolationists who would have us close our borders to all imports so they can make money from the resulting shortages. 
  • Scientists who like to study things without considering economic, social or environmental policy (the NAS?).
  • Politicians who love to make speeches handing out money to clean-sounding causes as long as contributions come in as fast through the back door. 
  • Junior mining companies, which, as John notes, “. . . do not generally find much of a welcome in the USA” because, I suppose, they are wont and apt to skirt the rules and leave behind unfunded messes to be cleaned up by the taxpayer. As an American, I am perfectly happy to see these scallywags go elsewhere to undemocratic places. 
  • People who forget that importing mined minerals is good foreign policy:  helps the locals in those far-off places earn themselves a living, pull themselves out of poverty, and maybe even throw off the yoke of the dictator. Buying foreign mined minerals is a lot better than sending free foreign aid that is quickly spirited away in a new Mercedes or BMW to a Swiss bank account.

Enough for one article and enough here to comment on. But it is better still go take a look at International Mining. It is visually stunning.  

P.S.  I could not find on the web any reports on this study John writes about. Being kept pretty quiet? I did find the PowerPoint presentation at this link that probably sets out the position of the National Mining Association. A similar one is from the Northwest Mining Association at this link.