Lessons Learned and Lessons Missed from the Attempted Land Grab

Photo: freedigitalphotos.net
 

The recent standoff at the Bundy ranch in Nevada has taught us many lessons, but the most important one was missed. We learned that the government will do anything to private citizens in order to grab land and private property either under the guise of protecting an “endangered” desert tortoise that is actually overpopulated, or getting rid of “feral” and destructive “trespassing cattle” grazing the land for generations, cattle that are in the way of developing a $5 billion Chinese solar panel plant (ENN), and the exploitation of rare earth elements in the larger adjacent area.

Mr. Bundy was too stubborn, the last rancher standing in Clarke County, Nevada, clinging to his inconvenient “feral” cattle, his agreement with the State of Nevada, with the BLM, his “prescriptive rights,” and his ranch.  I thought cattle were domesticated, not feral, and were raised for beef consumption.  

Mr. Bundy may or may not owe the $1 million in grazing fees. The case is not clear-cut on either side and may go all the way to the Supreme Court. If someone trespasses or uses someone else’s land for at least five years without the owner of the land taking legal action, that person can claim prescriptive rights. In Mr. Bundy’s case, twenty years have lapsed since payment of fees have been in question. http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#2V4JpF3xbCxPfjSW.99

Mark Levin explained in his April 11th broadcast that “Bundy had agreements with the State of Nevada before the BLM claimed jurisdiction.” http://politicalarena.org/2014/04/13/former-chief-of-staff-to-attorney-general-ed-meese-says-bundy-is-right/

Photo: freedigitalphoto.net

The sad lesson was how innocent animals were hurt and no animal protection agency stepped forward to protest their treatment, how people were manhandled, tazed, frightened by fully armed and menacing agents, and how massive, extreme, and expensive was the government’s response to one farmer who allegedly has not paid $1 million in grazing fees. How many people are currently in court that have embezzled other people’s money, or have failed to pay money owed to the federal government, yet have not received the Bundy treatment?

Another lesson missed was that the federal government has huge land holdings, particularly in the southwest. Lord Monckton mentioned in his article that “almost one-third of the entire 2.3 billion acres in the country are owned by the federal government.” He is of the opinion that there should be a statute of limitations on civil debt, including the right of use. http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/hands-off-the-bundy-ranch/

The BLM citing alleged environmental damage by the Bundy Ranch was not credible because ranchers grow up caring for the environment that provides their livelihood. They are not likely to abuse the land or any property that sustains them and their families for generations.

 

The other important lesson missed was that putting so many ranchers out of business, coupled with other variables, is having a negative impact on the price of beef. U.S. cattle inventory is at a 63-year low for several reasons. William Hahn of USDA explained that “cow numbers were down… and the lower supply meant higher prices.”

U.S. is the world’s largest beef producer and Texas is the leader. Demand from China and Japan for U.S. beef has increased. Supply is tight, “everything produced is consumed.” Dry seasons, increased cattle feed prices due to grain use for ethanol are some of the variables affecting supply and beef prices. Wrangling Mr. Bundy’s cattle with helicopters and exhausting some to death certainly would not help the price of beef.

Ranchers are happy with the higher prices but consumers are looking at an increase of 5-10 percent for steak this year and 10-15 percent for ground beef. Consumers can switch to cheaper priced meats. Economists call this the substitution effect. Restaurants are cutting beef portion size and increasing their prices.

According to USDA, “beef and veal prices, which are already at or near record levels across the country, rose 4 percent in February and are up 5.4 percent over this time last year. As the largest monthly increase in beef prices since November 2003, this reflects, in part, an increase in exports, a decrease in imports, and further reductions in the U.S. cattle inventory.” http://www.ers.usda.gove/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings.aspx#.UOvOfVevbwt

Replenishing the beef supply is not easy nor quick. It takes two years for cattle to be ready for slaughter.

There is an environmental push against meat consumption because cow flatulence produces methane. Methane is one of the gases which environmentalists blame for global warming. To mitigate such “pollution,” environmentalists would like to impose a flatulence tax per head.  

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that animals emit greenhouse gases through flatulence and belching and pollute the air. The EPA is considering charging any farmer with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle, or 200 pigs an annual fee of $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 for each beef cattle and $20 per pig. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/epas-air-pollution-target-flatulent-cows/

To influence and discourage the public to consume meat, a study from the Netherlands by Monique van Nielen of Wageningen University claims that “too much animal protein is tied to diabetes risk.” The study was done ex post facto, looking at dietary data from 11,000 select people who developed type 2 diabetes and 15,000 people without diabetes.

The study should have randomly assigned subjects to eat varying amounts and types of protein. This would have given a better indication if “too much animal protein is tied to diabetes risk.” Instead, the study looked at the diets of people who developed diabetes and those who did not. There were so many other variables besides meat consumption that were not controlled in the study.  

The Diabetes Journal discussed the effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes in a 2004 study. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/9/2375.full

The last and most important lesson about the Bundy land grab standoff in Nevada is heightened awareness to other land grabs, specifically what House Appropriation Committee Chairman Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky) calls “the biggest land grab in the history of the world” that would have a “profound economic impact” and it “would absolutely freeze economic activity in this country.”

What Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky) refers to is the joint EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2014 proposed rule, Waters of the United States, to spell out which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. http://www2.epa.gov/uswaters

During the Congressional budget testimony last week, it was revealed that Waters of the United States would give the EPA authority over streams on private property even when the water beds are dry or have been dry for a long time.

The EPA website posted the rule for a 90-day commentary period. The science behind the rule has not been completed. Yet EPA claims that “the proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act.”

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil works, Jo-Ellen Darcy, opined that the nation’s waters and wetlands “are valuable resources that must be protected today and for future generations.”

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy stated that the EPA and the USDA are going to regulate 56 farm practices so that farmers no longer need to ask questions whether their activities are considered exempt under the Clean Water Act. http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/biggest-land-grab-in-the-history-of-the-world/

“The proposed rule will:

-          Preserve current agricultural exemptions for Clean Water Act permitting, including:

-          Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching practices. Those activities include plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for production of food, fiber, and forest products.

-          Upland soil and water conservation practices.

-          Agricultural storm water discharges.

-          Return flows from irrigated agriculture.

-          Construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches on dry land.

-          Maintenance of drainage ditches.

-          Construction or maintenance of farm, forest, and temporary mining roads.

-          Provide greater clarity and certainty to farmers.

-          Avoid economic burden on agriculture.

-          Encourage the use of voluntary conservation practices.

-          Be consistent with and support existing USDA programs.”

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/cwa_ag_exclusions_exemptions.pdf

Congresswoman Murkowski and many farmers are troubled that the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA, the Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers would gain so much power as to dictate grazing rights, food production, farming activities, animal husbandry, and the use of water and energy on private lands.

Rare Earth Elements

Rare Earth Elements attracted my curiosity because environmentalists constantly complain about the scarcity of raw materials and elements on the planet due to over-exploitation by greedy capitalists.

I am in agreement with Milton Freedman on the issue of greed: “Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.”

How rare are these rare earth elements? It turns out, the 15 elements called lanthanides are not so rare after all, some more abundant than copper, lead, gold, and platinum. They are just difficult to extract and release radioactive byproducts during mining that must be carefully disposed of and stored. The rare earth oxides and metals are used in catalysts, glass, polishing, metal alloys, magnets, phosphors, ceramics, medicine, batteries, engines, and defense.

The 15 lanthanides are: lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, ytterbium, lutetium, yttrium, and scandium. These elements are divided into light rare earths which are more abundant (lanthanum through europium with atomic number 57-63) and heavy rare earths which are less abundant (gadolinium through lutetium with atomic numbers 64-71 and yttrium).

According to Dr. Klaus Kaiser, “Up until the mid-19th century, rare earths were just a chemical curiosity without much practical use. Then in 1885, the Austrian chemist Carl Auer von Welsbach (1858-1929) invented the cerium-containing "Glühstrumpf" (gas mantle) for kerosene-burning lanterns and, in 1903, the cerium-based flint. Both are still widely used today, the flint in such things as cigarette lighters, and the gas mantle in Coleman-type lanterns for camping.”  (http://EzineArticles.com/5732661)

March Humphreys, a specialist in energy policy, writes in the CRS Report for Congress of June 8, 2012, about some specific uses of lanthanides:

Lanthanum – hybrid engines, metal alloys

Cerium – auto catalyst, petroleum refining, metal alloys
Neodymium – catalysts in cars, refining of petroleum, hard drives in laptops, headphones, hybrid               engines
Praseodymium, samarium, and gadolinium – magnets
Europium – red color for television and computer screens
Terbium – phosphors, permanent magnets
Dysprosium – permanent magnets, hybrid engines
Erbium – phosphors
Yttrium – red color, fluorescent lamps, ceramics, metal alloy agent
Holmium – glass coloring, lasers
Thulium – medical x-ray units
Lutetium – catalysts in petroleum refining
Ytterbium – lasers, steel alloys
(Rare Earth Elements: The Global Supply Chain, Marc Humphries, p. 3 using as source the DOI, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 930-N)

Fluorescent lamps, new generation generators for wind turbines, satellite and communication systems, and defense such as fighter jet engines, missile guidance systems, and anti-missile defense also use rare earth elements (REEs).

The supply of REEs is vulnerable since China holds a monopoly with 97 percent of rare earth elements output and 75 percent of permanent magnet production.

China’s production of REEs started in late 1950s in the Chinese area of Inner Mongolia, the Baiyun Obo iron ore deposit discovered in 1927. The mine covers 48 square kilometers and is estimated to contain 36 million tons of rare earth oxide. (Wayne M. Morrison and Rachel Tang, China’s Rare Earth Industry and Export Regime: Economic and Trade Implications for the United States, April 30, 2012)

The Chinese has a monopoly because the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping made the exploitation of rare earth elements a top priority, likening its strategic significance to the importance of the Middle East’s oil.

China has used rare earths as a political bargaining chip. The New York Times reported on September 22, 2010 the incident between two Japanese and Chinese fishing vessels that collided in disputed waters. This collision resulted in the arrest of the Chinese captain by the Japanese and the subsequent temporary halting of exports of rare earth elements to Japan which China denied. (CRS Report for Congress, p. 31)

China denies using rare earth elements as a political weapon although it stated that it aims to control the rare earths for the world’s sustainable development.  “We are pursuing a sustainable development for the rare earth industry.” Where did I hear that before? It is now the platform of every agency of the U.S., state, and local governments that have adopted the UN Agenda 21 platform of sustainable development and green growth/smart growth - a way to control the global economy and ultimately our daily lives, private property, and bodies.

The second reason for a Chinese monopoly is the shutdown of the Mountain Pass mine (owned by Molycorp) in the United States in 2002. Two of the largest rare earth mines are the Mountain Pass mine in the U.S. and Mount Weld in Australia.

Rare earth deposits contain radioactive elements which must be separated and disposed of properly as toxic pollutants and hazardous waste materials. The Mountain Pass mine, operating at full capacity in the 1990s produced 850 gallons of salty wastewater per minute, containing radioactive thorium and uranium. This salty water was delivered 11 miles away where it was evaporated. The radioactive materials leeched into the desert sand when the pipes had to be cleaned and burst occasionally. The owner of the mine, Molycorp, a subsidiary of Unocal, was ordered by the state of California to clean up the waste. Molycorp ran out of space by 2002 to store the waste and failed to secure a permit to build a new storage facility. (CRS Report for Congress, April 30, 2012, Wayne M. Morrison, Rachel Tang, p. 3)

Chevron bought Unocal and thus Molycorp with its Mountain Pass mine in 2005 after the China National Offshore Corp., a state owned company, failed to buy Unocal due to political outcry that U.S. oil reserves should not be transferred to a corporation owned and controlled by the communist Chinese government. No mention was made at the time of Molycorp and the Mountain Pass mine. (CRS Report for Congress, April 30, 2012, p. 21)

Molycorp started processing stockpiled bastnasite concentrate and mining fresh bastnasite in 2011 to be processed into magnetic materials. However, since Molycorp acquired Neo Material Technologies, listed in Toronto, but with plants in China and Thailand, serving markets in China and Japan, it is doubtful that the acquisition would help United States interests. Instead, the deal would reinforce China’s dominance in rare earth elements production.

“China is the only country that can supply right now a significant amount of light and heavy rare earths, and is likely to remain the major supplier in the future.” Consequently, the price of Chinese rare earths imports has sky rocketed from $3,111 per metric ton in 2002 to $76,239 in 2011, a 2,432 percent increase. (CRS Report for Congress, p. 5)

Global production of REEs is 133,600 tons annually while demand has been estimated at 136,100 tons in 2010. (U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2011)

Foreign demand for rare earths from China has dropped, easing prices. Foreign demand decreased because many foreign manufacturers have moved to China, reduced their rare earth inventories, switched to alternative materials, or just cut production in order to avoid paying the extreme high prices. The Chinese took countermeasures by imposing new production regulations, exportation quotas, and exportation taxes on foreign manufacturers operating in China.

We love our cell phones, portable DVDs, laptops, electronic gadgets, rechargeable batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and medical devices. Once self-reliant in domestically produced REEs, in the last 15 years we have become 100 percent dependent on Chinese imports because of their lower cost operations and lack of stringent regulations. Now that they control production, the sky is the limit.

Analysts, who recognize how critical rare earths are to hundreds of high tech applications, know that, “without rare earth elements, much of the world’s modern technology which defines our modern way of life, would be vastly different, and many applications would not be possible.”

Butler on Business Radio Segment WAFS 1190 Atlanta

http://www.cyberears.com/cybrss/16576.mp3

Today's topic: Rare Earth Elements
You will see why I chose this topic for my weekly 9-10 minute radio segment on WAFS 1190 Atltanta's Premier FM station. My segment airs live every Wednesday at 10:49 a.m. EST. Please join us if you can. Podcasts are available at the Butler on Business Podcasts archive.
Ileana Johnson Paugh