

Now environmentalists say we need the minerals that they’ve been locking up for decades
Guest post by Paul Driessen
“China’s control of a key minerals market has US military thinkers and policy makers worried about access to materials that are essential for 21st-century technology like smartphones – and smart bombs,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Plus stealth fighter jets, digital cameras, computer hard drives – and wind turbine magnets, solar panels, hybrid and electric car batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, catalytic converters, and more.
China’s dominance in mining and processing 17 “rare earth” metals “has raised alarms in Washington,” says the Journal. These unique metallic elements have powerful magnetic properties that make them sine qua non for high-tech, miniaturized and renewable energy equipment.
China currently produces fully 97% of the world’s rare-earth oxides, the raw materials that can be refined into metals and blended into specialty alloys for defense, commercial and power-generation components. However, the Middle Kingdom has slashed its rare-earth oxide and metal exports.
Beijing claims to be motivated by environmental concerns – reflecting the fact that rare earths are present in very low concentrations, mountains of rock must be mined, crushed and processed to get usable metals, and every step in the process requires oil, gasoline or coal-based electricity. A more likely reason is that the Chinese want to manufacture the finished goods, thereby creating countless “green” factory jobs, paid for with US and EU taxpayer subsidies, channeled through GE, Siemens, Vestas and other “socially responsible” companies that then install the systems across Europe and the USA.
So here we are, long beholden to foreign powers for petroleum – and newly dependent on foreign powers for “green” energy. National security issues (direct defense needs and indirect dependency issues) once again rise to the fore, and the Defense Department, Government Accountability Office, House Science and Technology Committee and others are busily issuing reports, holding hearings and expressing consternation. Congressman Bart Gordon (D-TN) worries that the United States is being “held hostage.”
As well he should. However, the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves – or more precisely in our militant environmentalists.
Back in 1978, I ruined a perfectly pleasant hike in a RARE-II roadless area, by asking an impertinent question. “How do you defend prohibiting any kind of energy or mineral exploration in wilderness study areas?” I asked Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rupert Cutler and Forest Service Chief John McGuire, “The 1964 Wilderness Act expressly allows and encourages those activities, so that Congress and the American people can make informed decisions about how to manage these lands, based on extensive information about both surface and subsurface values. How do you defend ignoring that provision?”
“I don’t think Congress should have enacted that provision,” Dr. Cutler replied.
“That may be your opinion,” I responded. “But Congress did enact it, and you are obligated by your oath of office to follow the law the way it was written, not the way you think it should have been written.”
“I think we’ve said enough to this guy,” Cutler said to Chief McGuire, and they walked away.
A couple months later, I asked the Denver Sierra Club wilderness coordinator a related question: “Why are you focusing so heavily on areas with the best energy and mineral potential? Isn’t that going to impact prices, jobs and national security?”
“Americans use too much energy, and they’re not going to change voluntarily,” he said. “The only way to make them change is to take the resources away. And the best way to do that is put them in wilderness.”
And every other restrictive land use category that arrogant, thoughtless activists, bureaucrats, judges and politicians can devise, he might have added. Which is how we got where we are today.
As of 1994, over 410 million acres were effectively off limits to mineral exploration and development, according to consulting geologist Courtland Lee, who prepared probably the last definitive analysis, published in The Professional Geologist. That’s 62% of the nation’s public lands – an area nearly equal to Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming combined – primarily in Alaska and our eleven westernmost Lower 48 states. Today, sixteen years later, the situation is much worse – with millions more acres locked up in wilderness, park, preserve, wildlife refuge, wilderness study and other restrictive land use categories, or simply made unavailable by bureaucratic fiat or foot-dragging.
Due to forces unleashed by plate tectonics, these rugged lands contain some of the most highly mineralized mountain and desert areas in North America. They almost certainly hold dozens, perhaps hundreds, of world-class rare-earth deposits. The vast mineral wealth extracted from those areas since the mid-1850s portends what might still be there, to be discovered by modern prospecting gadgets and methods. But unless laws and attitudes change, we will never know.
How ironic. First eco-activists lock up the raw materials. Then they force-feed us “renewable energy standards” that require the very materials they’ve locked up, which we’ve never much needed until now. Thus China (and perhaps other countries a few years hence) will happily fill the breach, creating green jobs beyond our borders, selling us the finished components, and using our tax dollars to subsidize the imported wind turbines, solar panels and CFL bulbs that are driving energy costs through the roof.
Science historian James Burke became famous for chronicling the “Connections” between successions of past discoveries and achievements and various modern technologies. Unfortunately, today’s increasingly powerful and power-hungry activists, jurists, legislators and regulators cannot see the connection between their actions and the economic havoc they leave in their wake.
Of course, there is little incentive for them to do so. They know they will rarely be held accountable. Others may freeze jobless in the dark – but most of them will keep their jobs, perks, pensions, positions of power over our lives, economy and civil rights progress.
However, there are bright spots. The upcoming elections offer hope for a general House (and Senate) cleaning. A recent poll found that a third of all Americans don’t want to pay even $12 a year in higher energy costs, even to create “green” jobs or forestall Climate Armageddon. Many people are simply fed up – with Washington, and with constant assertions of imminent eco-catastrophes.
A steady stream of shale-gas discoveries in Europe and the United States suggests that we still have plentiful supplies of cheap natural gas. Evidence is mounting that petroleum is abiogenic in origin – and natural forces deep inside the Earth are constantly creating new hydrocarbons from elemental carbon and hydrogen. Both developments undermine a principle argument for pricey, land-intensive, intermittent wind and solar power: that we are running out of “fossil fuels.”
Just north of the Mojave Desert, near Mountain Pass, California, Molycorp is working to restart mining operations at the largest rare-earth deposit outside of China. They had been suspended in 2002, for economic, permitting and environmental reasons that have since been resolved. China’s Baotou Rare Earth Company was a happy beneficiary of the circumstances and US regulatory excesses.
Now there is hope that common sense will prevail at Mountain Pass, new processing methods will reduce costs and environmental impacts, and exploration may one day be permitted in areas locked up by Cutler & Company. Too many technologies depend on lanthanides to keep US deposits under lock and key.
Radical greens may not give a spotted owl hoot about military needs. But they may care enough about preserving their dream of a hydrocarbon-free future, while a few politicians may want to ensure that tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar power and electric cars don’t all head overseas.
___________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.Cfact.org) and Congress of Racial Equality (www.CongressOfRacialEquality.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. He has degrees in geology, ecology and environmental law.
Greens shackle national security – and renewable energy
Now environmentalists say we need the minerals that they’ve been locking up for decades
Paul Driessen
“China’s control of a key minerals market has US military thinkers and policy makers worried about access to materials that are essential for 21st-century technology like smartphones – and smart bombs,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Plus stealth fighter jets, digital cameras, computer hard drives – and wind turbine magnets, solar panels, hybrid and electric car batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, catalytic converters, and more.
China’s dominance in mining and processing 17 “rare earth” metals “has raised alarms in Washington,” says the Journal. These unique metallic elements have powerful magnetic properties that make them sine qua non for high-tech, miniaturized and renewable energy equipment.
China currently produces fully 97% of the world’s rare-earth oxides, the raw materials that can be refined into metals and blended into specialty alloys for defense, commercial and power-generation components. However, the Middle Kingdom has slashed its rare-earth oxide and metal exports.
Beijing claims to be motivated by environmental concerns – reflecting the fact that rare earths are present in very low concentrations, mountains of rock must be mined, crushed and processed to get usable metals, and every step in the process requires oil, gasoline or coal-based electricity. A more likely reason is that the Chinese want to manufacture the finished goods, thereby creating countless “green” factory jobs, paid for with US and EU taxpayer subsidies, channeled through GE, Siemens, Vestas and other “socially responsible” companies that then install the systems across Europe and the USA.
So here we are, long beholden to foreign powers for petroleum – and newly dependent on foreign powers for “green” energy. National security issues (direct defense needs and indirect dependency issues) once again rise to the fore, and the Defense Department, Government Accountability Office, House Science and Technology Committee and others are busily issuing reports, holding hearings and expressing consternation. Congressman Bart Gordon (D-TN) worries that the United States is being “held hostage.”
As well he should. However, the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves – or more precisely in our militant environmentalists.
Back in 1978, I ruined a perfectly pleasant hike in a RARE-II roadless area, by asking an impertinent question. “How do you defend prohibiting any kind of energy or mineral exploration in wilderness study areas?” I asked Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rupert Cutler and Forest Service Chief John McGuire, “The 1964 Wilderness Act expressly allows and encourages those activities, so that Congress and the American people can make informed decisions about how to manage these lands, based on extensive information about both surface and subsurface values. How do you defend ignoring that provision?”
“I don’t think Congress should have enacted that provision,” Dr. Cutler replied.
“That may be your opinion,” I responded. “But Congress did enact it, and you are obligated by your oath of office to follow the law the way it was written, not the way you think it should have been written.”
“I think we’ve said enough to this guy,” Cutler said to Chief McGuire, and they walked away.
A couple months later, I asked the Denver Sierra Club wilderness coordinator a related question: “Why are you focusing so heavily on areas with the best energy and mineral potential? Isn’t that going to impact prices, jobs and national security?”
“Americans use too much energy, and they’re not going to change voluntarily,” he said. “The only way to make them change is to take the resources away. And the best way to do that is put them in wilderness.”
And every other restrictive land use category that arrogant, thoughtless activists, bureaucrats, judges and politicians can devise, he might have added. Which is how we got where we are today.
As of 1994, over 410 million acres were effectively off limits to mineral exploration and development, according to consulting geologist Courtland Lee, who prepared probably the last definitive analysis, published in The Professional Geologist. That’s 62% of the nation’s public lands – an area nearly equal to Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming combined – primarily in Alaska and our eleven westernmost Lower 48 states. Today, sixteen years later, the situation is much worse – with millions more acres locked up in wilderness, park, preserve, wildlife refuge, wilderness study and other restrictive land use categories, or simply made unavailable by bureaucratic fiat or foot-dragging.
Due to forces unleashed by plate tectonics, these rugged lands contain some of the most highly mineralized mountain and desert areas in North America. They almost certainly hold dozens, perhaps hundreds, of world-class rare-earth deposits. The vast mineral wealth extracted from those areas since the mid-1850s portends what might still be there, to be discovered by modern prospecting gadgets and methods. But unless laws and attitudes change, we will never know.
How ironic. First eco-activists lock up the raw materials. Then they force-feed us “renewable energy standards” that require the very materials they’ve locked up, which we’ve never much needed until now. Thus China (and perhaps other countries a few years hence) will happily fill the breach, creating green jobs beyond our borders, selling us the finished components, and using our tax dollars to subsidize the imported wind turbines, solar panels and CFL bulbs that are driving energy costs through the roof.
Science historian James Burke became famous for chronicling the “Connections” between successions of past discoveries and achievements and various modern technologies. Unfortunately, today’s increasingly powerful and power-hungry activists, jurists, legislators and regulators cannot see the connection between their actions and the economic havoc they leave in their wake.
Of course, there is little incentive for them to do so. They know they will rarely be held accountable. Others may freeze jobless in the dark – but most of them will keep their jobs, perks, pensions, positions of power over our lives, economy and civil rights progress.
However, there are bright spots. The upcoming elections offer hope for a general House (and Senate) cleaning. A recent poll found that a third of all Americans don’t want to pay even $12 a year in higher energy costs, even to create “green” jobs or forestall Climate Armageddon. Many people are simply fed up – with Washington, and with constant assertions of imminent eco-catastrophes.
A steady stream of shale-gas discoveries in Europe and the United States suggests that we still have plentiful supplies of cheap natural gas. Evidence is mounting that petroleum is abiogenic in origin – and natural forces deep inside the Earth are constantly creating new hydrocarbons from elemental carbon and hydrogen. Both developments undermine a principle argument for pricey, land-intensive, intermittent wind and solar power: that we are running out of “fossil fuels.”
Just north of the Mojave Desert, near Mountain Pass, California, Molycorp is working to restart mining operations at the largest rare-earth deposit outside of China. They had been suspended in 2002, for economic, permitting and environmental reasons that have since been resolved. China’s Baotou Rare Earth Company was a happy beneficiary of the circumstances and US regulatory excesses.
Now there is hope that common sense will prevail at Mountain Pass, new processing methods will reduce costs and environmental impacts, and exploration may one day be permitted in areas locked up by Cutler & Company. Too many technologies depend on lanthanides to keep US deposits under lock and key.
Radical greens may not give a spotted owl hoot about military needs. But they may care enough about preserving their dream of a hydrocarbon-free future, while a few politicians may want to ensure that tens of billions in taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar power and electric cars don’t all head overseas.
___________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.Cfact.org) and Congress of Racial Equality (www.CongressOfRacialEquality.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. He has degrees in geology, ecology and environmental law.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you very much, Paul, for this very important information.
Where is this craziness taking us?
Great article. Thanks.
It should be remembered that “rare earth” elements is really a misnomer and the elements vary widely in their distribution and composition as part of the Earth’s crust. The term goes back to previous eras wherein the elements were “rarely” concentrated for anything, many inorganic chemists today don’t even use the term.
“Environmentalists” will hamper anything excepting the volume and shrillness of their demands, people who work for a living and actually contribute something to the betterment of humanity just need to work around them as best they can.
Plug for my own energy vision for the US: Covert coal to syngas, then syngas to methanol or Fischer-Troepsch oil as diesel fuel or methanol to gasoline. Should last for a few hundred years to develop a hydrogen economy in the meanwhile. Quit horsing around with “renewable” stuff in unworkable markets excepting a thorium cycle.
/end digression
Thoroughly well said.
-Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
As a semiconductor engineer by profession I can say that the usage of these exotic metals is only increasing. The cost of these materials is immense, especially for semiconductor grade. These rare earth metals are useful because of their unusual properties. If the United States does not develop their own natural resources we will once again be forced to give up our money and our jobs to foreign countries to our detriment and their benefit.
Once again we could be funding those that will oppose our way of life and especially our freedoms. China does not believe in free speech and the penalty for using free speech can be severe. The Middle East opposes the freedom of religion that is enjoyed in this country and those same people have greatly benefited from our money as we buy oil from them, China seems to be well placed to play that role for the next century if we once again refuse to use the resources abundantly available in our own country.
Freeing those resources would also allow long term and productive jobs to grow once again in this country. More advanced technology is allowing more efficient uses of the energy available. It is critical for the United States to develop both the resources and the technology of the future. The singular greatest advantage of the United States is the ability for those with great ideas to personally benefit from those ideas. Allowing Americans to reap the benefits of responsibly developing these resources will be best for Americans and in the end the best thing for the planet.
Thanks,
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
“Evidence is mounting that petroleum is abiogenic in origin – and natural forces deep inside the Earth are constantly creating new hydrocarbons from elemental carbon and hydrogen.”
==========================================================
Links please. I have a 20 year old bet to settle!
“Americans use too much energy”
That right there is the crux of the biscuit (sorry, Frank). No, we do not use too much energy. We could have all the energy we want right now with the technology at hand. Energy could be so plentiful and so cheap they would be begging us to buy it.
Modern nuclear power with reprocessed fuel, where the reprocessing is done on the same site as the generating plant so nothing ever leaves the plant until it is utterly and completely useless could produce so much energy that “conservation” would seem silly in most contexts such as homes. We could then electrify rail transport and eventually vehicle transport along with practically all the energy used in homes greatly reducing the amount of oil and coal used in this country.
Thank you for the article, Paul. I’ve been interested in the idea of abiogenic gas and oil since the early 80s, when the Atlantic magazine had a lengthy story about the work of Thomas Gold and the search for deep oil beneath igneous layers. I’ve thought about it more recently in connection with the deep oil and gas recently discovered in the Bakken Shale here in North Dakota.
I’d be interested to know whether petroleum geologists are moving significantly toward abiogenesis as the best explanation for many deep gas and oil deposits. Not being formally trained in geology, I have to look to experts on this, but I would really like to see more discussion on the topic.
Caught between a rock and a hard place indeed. They are rare by price. China produces cheaply, sells at what the market will bear and reaps huge profits
Why does china produce cheaply, no envrionment impact assessments, low regulation, cheap labour, cheap machinery.
Technology and process overcomes the economic advantage but the control/ licensing issue, impossible.
Chiefio adds to this article (or visa-versa)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/are-rare-earths-rare/
Worth two in the bush.
There’s another way to look at this problem–as an opportunity. China is not the only country with these metals. They also exist in parts of Africa and Latin America. So there will be competition for them. And if we have them sequestered away, then we’ll have them last and will get the best price.
The author is right about the folly of our policy–but it’s not fatal.
Certainly it must cost more to raze a mountain and process the ore than process every single piece of electronics that goes to the dumps. At some point some people were doing it for the gold in the old computers. Maybe it is about time we think of recycling the rare earth metals from all electronics junk.
“Americans use too much energy, and they’re not going to change voluntarily,” he said. “The only way to make them change is to take the resources away. And the best way to do that is put them in wilderness.”
Hmmmm…..no pressure!
crosspatch says:
October 2, 2010 at 10:00 pm
+1000!
It’s becoming increasingly clear to people that environmentalists and leftists DO see the connections, that they’re causing economic havoc purposefully. They don’t care who they hurt, as long as it’s people who are hurt and not plants or animals or natural rock formations. They seem to take special delight when American are hurt though.
Evidence is mounting that petroleum is abiogenic in origin – and natural forces deep inside the Earth are constantly creating new hydrocarbons from elemental carbon and hydrogen.
Yes, Links please. And, not the recently rediscovered papers of the two Russian Scientists back in 1959.
And, my final question is: When can we go back down there and “re-drill” the East Texas Oil Field. It peaked in the Early 70’s, and has been declining since, I believe.
WTF says:
October 2, 2010 at 9:56 pm
For 14 pages of discussion and links go to:-
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=271b06e91d804a35d68542cc1739e9c8
and follow the thread,
Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
1 … 12, 13, 14by StefanR » Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:07 pm
Warren Mayer *on the blogroll* recently published an article which was reprinted in Forbes, “Why are the Democrats promising to raise taxes?”
In it he says: “We should be thrilled that the Chinese government and its people see fit to spend their own money to subsidize lower prices for American businesses and consumers.”
Well, This is one reason we’re Not “Thrilled.”
WTF says:
October 2, 2010 at 9:56 pm
There are some interesting links in the discussion here: Thunderbolts Forum
Lots of dead dinosaurs on Titan. How did the oil get there?
Aus is no different here – in fact,one of our most prospective areas for metalliferous deposits (including the rare earths) is deliberately locked up as a huge National Park and it is illegal to run even airborne geophysical sensitivity surveys
This is the modern, and green, equivalent to mediaeval book burning
Paul Driessen’s powerful essay, delivered by Anthony’s powerful blog, stands a very good chance of having a powerful effect. It is a challenge to single-element beliefs; in fact shows up those who ply them as shallow, if not absolutely evil. Paul has provided a balance (with examples) in this essay which will add a sense of comfort to all who seek to disentangle from the suffocating mesh woven by zealots and carperbaggers alike.
(And an added bonus for me: abiotic oil is again on the agenda for discussion. Yes!)
A country without an industrial policy loses when it comes up against a country with one. What a surprise. The wrong kind of people (lawyers) are running the country. The Chinese don’t want lawyerly fair rules for everyone. They want to win because losing means you are poor. The smug, complacent elites in the west have lost the plot. They have forgotten – or don’t want to admit – what made US and Europe rich in the first place.
Rare earths are not rare. China gained a temporary monopoly on them by keeping the price low and now acts like any monopolist. I actually agree with them that rare earth metals have been under-priced. Mostly they are just about making permanent magnet electric motors smaller. Well there are technical answers to that. The answer to high prices is always high prices which is triggering increased supply from elsewhere and more economical use whether it’s rare earths or oil or food or anything.
Jeff Id has an interesting post on corruption, as it relates to Government Motors (see: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/corruption/ ). It resonated with me as I had just read a piece from Fox News on the regulatory nightmares that businesses face on a regular basis. (see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/01/science-kit-makers-battle-feds-safety-tests-paper-clips/ ).
As I was reading it, something jumped out at me. I’ve seen this so many times it never really registered; after all, we see this argument all the time and they make it sound all so reasonable:
Good luck if you’re a businessman trying to fathom what today’s regulatory mood might be, when rulings are rendered on a case-by-case basis! Will some inept bureaucrat come in to work today hung over and render a ruling unfavorable to you after having ruled differently with one of your competitors? How do you plan ahead? What will be the mood next year? next month? next week? tomorrow? an hour from now? How do you plan investments or production schedules if your fate is dependent on some third-rate paper-pusher’s ability to handle his alcohol (or control his bowel movements). The real miracle is that we have an economy as advanced as it is despite all the regulations that have been thrown at businesses all these years.
It is the sanctimonious self-righteousness of bureaucrats such as Dr. Cutler who have ridden roughshod over hard-working businessmen all these years. There have got to be easier ways of making a living than spending all your waking hours acquiring venture capital that has to be spent on lawyers filling out reams of papers to be filed with some bureaucratic slug, in the hopes that you will be permitted to work 100-hour work weeks on getting your mine up and operating.
“Americans use too much energy, and they’re not going to change voluntarily,” he said. “The only way to make them change is to take the resources away. And the best way to do that is put them in wilderness.”
I would suggest that there is an implied suggestion that these resources will be used in the future by someone other than americans.