# Rare earths in Alaska



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Wow well that's good. Maybe it will create some jobs over there. People with jobs tend to stay off the streets doing other stuff.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Rare Earths really aren't that rare - the issue is that the processing is expensive and difficult to do if complying with EPA mandates. That is why the U.S. is no longer the world's largest supplier.

Question: If it's too expensive to run EPA-compliant mines / processing facilities in the lower 48 where permafrost isn't an issue; and if the EPA won't allow Alaska to drill in 3 square miles of uninhabited wasteland, what makes anyone think that the discovery of rare earth resources in Alaska will be developed in our lifetimes?

Just sayin'...


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Rare Earths really aren't that rare - the issue is that the processing is expensive and difficult to do if complying with EPA mandates. That is why the U.S. is no longer the world's largest supplier.


 Actually they are fairly rare, and the EPA mandates thing is just bull.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Actually they are fairly rare, and the EPA mandates thing is just bull.


Not that rare, just hard to extract.

Are you objecting to my EPA comment because you think it is my opinion that their interference was unwarranted? Because I actually agree with many of their requirements - the original processes were quite "dirty" and had runoff including radioactives heading down the mountain towards the cities. However, it is a fact that these requirements added cost the Chinese don't have because they allow dirty mining, so the point is valid.

Molycorp is planning on a zero discharge process which will, well, "mollify" the greenies...


----------



## idarusskie (Feb 17, 2011)

Rare earths deposits normally has lot of thorium in them. Thorium can be classified as radiative waste. Even though its not. Remember thorium is used in gas lantern mantles. The waste rules treat it like its plutonium/uranium which it is not. Now if you had a place to use the thorium as fuel then the rare earths would be cheaper to process. never the less you do not want to just dump the thorium anywhere you want.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/20...y-shut-down-by-protests-over-pollution-fears/


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

idarusskie said:


> Rare earths deposits normally has lot of thorium in them. Thorium can be classified as radiative waste. Even though its not.


Yep. That was part of why the EPA rules are a bit much.



> Remember thorium is used in gas lantern mantles. The waste rules treat it like its plutonium/uranium which it is not. Now if you had a place to use the thorium as fuel then the rare earths would be cheaper to process.


You mean a place to use it as in a Thorium Reactor? Too bad our government is keeping them unavailable.



> never the less you do not want to just dump the thorium anywhere you want.


Yep. Our government stockpiled thousands of tons of the stuff in the 40s and 50s digging for Uranium. Interestingly, it is very easy and safe to store.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think the REE scare is overblown. You don't need them for motors or batteries anyway. Plus there is this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...toyota-develops-alternatives-commodities.html


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Yeah, looks like the U.S. is getting back into the game, too.

Funny what prices running over $1,000/kilo will do to supply...


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Are you objecting to my EPA comment because you think it is my opinion that their interference was unwarranted?


 No, that it is not as much an effect as the subsidizing of the mining industry in China and lower labor costs.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> No, that it is not as much an effect as the subsidizing of the mining industry in China and lower labor costs.


Maybe, maybe not.

China is conducting open-pit mining like we used to do. 

Given that most of the "work" is done by machines, it would seem that labor is not the driving factor.

While both contribute, I'm going to have to stick with my original position - that the EPA is a far bigger "cause" of this work moving overseas than labor costs.


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Also vast quantities of quite high concentrations have been found under the coastline of Hawaii. Easily obtained; simply sucked up through a pipe.

Agreed. The filthy act of processing must follow.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ya, considerations of China "cheating" aside, looks like we have zero pollution techniques now that may even be competitive.

What I find most interesting is that we think we can to it zero emissions cheaper than buying from China (although admittedly part of this is because they are restricting export supply).

Just another example of supply & demand working just as predicted; e.g. there's no real "shortage" but rather only a "shortage" at the prices people want to pay, for the consequences they are willing to tolerate (EPA, etc.).


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Just like gold & silver really... The market in Neodymium is less likely to exist only on paper as the short sellers have for the other two metals.


----------

