When people and Gov'ts talk about mineral rights in reference to oil, natural gas and coal, they are wrong.
There are many minerals in the world such as iron,copper,gold,platinum,titanium,mercury,uranium , silver, etc. So when precedents were made in mining terms, the laws concerning "mineral rights" seem to have been applied to anything that comes from under the ground. That shouldn't be so.
Now I haven't gone into the research too deeply, unless I take a further course in the matter, which I don't intend to do. But I can say this much, no precious metals are volatile. Coal, natural gas and oil are, and they actually fall into the class of macerals. ( Coming from anything that rots under different circumstances, becomes trapped and creates gases under pressure that stay contained in the principle material,under the pressure of the solid earth or the tremendous pressure of the water over a period of millions or billions of years.) Fish oil is a maceral which mainly came from "Mackerel". Just a point of interest, I guess. Back when coal was discovered centuries ago, it was principally used for burning as an alternative to wood for keeping warm.
As the World became more advanced, it was realized that coal could also be processed as a bi-product for coal oil and became widely popular in place of Whale oil required for lamps.
Then it was soon used for many different purposes. ( 150 bi-products other than burning.)
But the biggest misconception is what it's largely used for now, and for the past approximate 120 years. The production of Steel and the controlled tempering of it.
Let me explain the varieties of coal most popular today; Anthracite coal, along with Bituminous, because of their highly volatile maceral properties and coke (Carbon) content are processed for the smelting and production of Steel, such as Carbide Steel used in many kinds of metal products. An estimated 90% of it's production is shipped around the world for that purpose. 10 %, having been closest to the surface and Nature's weather elements over the millions of years, loses it's coking ( Carbon) qualities, burns at a lower heat and can not be used for Steel production. It's more suitable for use in power plant production and other bi-product purposes.
Lignite coal also has a lower coking quality and therefore is not suitable for the production of metal products. ( China has large coal deposits but being of a lower quality, produces Carbide Steel of a lower quality.
Hence the poor quality in saw blades for example. I, being a carpenter and handyman in my retired years, can get 3 times more use of a blade produced in the U.S.A. I've used both.)
Lignite coal is the most ideal of the coal varieties for burning in domestic furnaces and coal and wood stoves, because of the lower volatility it possesses. The higher volatile coals tend to
actually burn out the support grates.
last, there is the lowest form of coal in it's dry form, Graphite which is very commonly used in different grades of pencils. It is not lead at all and people who become alarmed that their kids put the tips in their mouth to darken it's affect on paper need not be upset, It's only low-carbon coal!
Having been born and raised in Coal mining country such as Fernie, B.C., Canada, and fortunate enough to work for one of the largest producers of Steel in the World and Kaiser Coal Company, I was able to learn and understand the value of coal.
Due to this though, I also was disappointed to find how little the general populace of the modern world was educated concerning the coal Industry.
I believe the past and current Governments, through the prompting of other Industries lobbying for cleaner fuels, are largely ignorant of the true uses of coal and see it as a primitive source of value. They tend to leave the impression with most of us that it could be replaced by other maceral sources such as oil.
But until they can replace the carbon needed in many bi-products and particularly steel, they're only making it difficult for the coal Industry.
With China's attitude toward the United States and Canada, we're foolish to supply them with our valuable resources, particularly since they're the main cause of our Tea Party middle class workers chomping at the bit to get back to work.
From here I'm only suggesting it in the respect of the way I think it should be, concerning ownership of a country's natural resources.
Who do you think should own the rights to oil, particularly when a body of it can spread for thousands of miles laterally under the earth? Yes, I agree that when you buy a piece of property and you find metals of any kind existing under your feet, it should belong to you. Precious or otherwise. That's because when you own private property, you own the "mineral rights", unless you have agreed to otherwise conditions with the previous owner.
But coal, natural gas and oil are not minerals, and so essential to everyone in the country, that they should only belong to a nation that's under the control of a duly elected Gov't of the people. Even though oil, natural gas or coal is below private property, it should never belong to the owner of the property. Oil company or not. In our case it should be considered the property of all the people of the countries in which it exists. When the oil companies decide to take it out of the ground, it shouldn't be their's to do with as they please in terms of shipping it out of the country in which it belongs. It shouldn't even be up to the politicians to decide. It has become such a crucial necessity to us, the owners, that it should be up for a vote of approval by the citizens at large to decide at election time where it should go.
For example, selling it presently to the Chinese to create products that normally used to be manufactured in this country is basically wrong, because it has become the main reason we have a severe shortage of both jobs and oil in what used to be the most powerful, freedom loving nation on earth.
There wouldn't be such a high price on oil here if we were allowed easier, less expensive access to it right here before any of it was shipped out of the U.S. We wouldn't need OPEC at all.
We aren't even getting the direct benefit of the Alaska North Slope oil in fact.
You only have to be waiting for the Guemes Island ferry enough to see how many foreign ships, including the huge, orange colored Chinese ones, go back and forth from the oil refineries in Anacortes, to realize how much the oil companies are selling out of the United States to other parts of the world. And it seems to be at their leisure simply because we allowed them to pump it out of the ground! It shouldn't really be their's to do with as they wish outside the U.S.
It's my contention that we should get our own ample share first, rather than depend on imported oil from OPEC at a price not controlled by us. Don't you see the hypocrisy in all of this??
My point is this, Politicians alone should never be solely trusted to make all the decisions on crucial affairs such as this without putting it to a public vote, not just a Congressional one.
There's a money factor involved here that just can't be ignored. I'm sure most of us know what that's all about!
This is one thing that one man, one special interest group or Congress should not be allowed to make decisions on. Not even the "Great one".
It should only be decided by the American Voters, directly on a November or special election ballot. In his 2008 election speech, He promised one thing for sure. I have it on video tape. "If I am elected, I will make us independent on Foreign oil from Opec and Venezuela."
Today he is promising Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, ongoing purchases of Venezuelan Oil and has offered to give financial aid in them developing their oil fields.
Does this make sense to you??? This guy is going to be the richest man to ever leave the White House. That's the real reason he is there! Just sayin'.
No comments:
Post a Comment