02-24-2025, 10:46 PM
Agreed. One might have seen that kind of rhetoric from 18th century England regarding an upstart revolution in some distant colonies.
Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine
02-25-2025, 09:59 AM
The NYT has an article about Taiwan’s fears that it will be next. Can’t blame Taiwanese people for worrying.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-25-2025, 01:10 PM
Just a quick pop in to mark the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. (I have that right, right?) Also, for everyone keeping the most political non-political thread I've seen on any board alive this long. That means participants have been respectful and civil, which is no small thing.
My wife and I marked the anniversary by (very coincidentally) watching the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. What does that have to do with the war in Ukraine? Nothing. Everything.
My wife and I marked the anniversary by (very coincidentally) watching the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. What does that have to do with the war in Ukraine? Nothing. Everything.
Just a quick pop in to mark the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. (I have that right, right?) Also, for everyone keeping the most political non-political thread I've seen on any board alive this long. That means participants have been respectful and civil, which is no small thing.
My wife and I marked the anniversary by (very coincidentally) watching the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. What does that have to do with the war in Ukraine? Nothing. Everything.
My wife and I marked the anniversary by (very coincidentally) watching the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. What does that have to do with the war in Ukraine? Nothing. Everything.
02-25-2025, 04:41 PM
There may be an agreement with the U.S.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine..._permalink
The WSJ reporting seems to confirm the Economist’s reporting that Besset had demanded $500 billion.
BC
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine..._permalink
The WSJ reporting seems to confirm the Economist’s reporting that Besset had demanded $500 billion.
BC
There may be an agreement with the U.S.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine..._permalink
The WSJ reporting seems to confirm the Economist’s reporting that Besset had demanded $500 billion.
BC
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine..._permalink
The WSJ reporting seems to confirm the Economist’s reporting that Besset had demanded $500 billion.
BC
02-25-2025, 05:18 PM
The only upshot here is that now the US has skin in the game of a sort. It doesn't rule out a secret negotiation with Russia to carve up Ukraine for a better deal...but for now, the US has a vested interest in keeping Ukraine intact enough to carry out the deal.
The only upshot here is that now the US has skin in the game of a sort. It doesn't rule out a secret negotiation with Russia to carve up Ukraine for a better deal...but for now, the US has a vested interest in keeping Ukraine intact enough to carry out the deal.
02-25-2025, 05:41 PM
If you really intend to get something of value from extortion, demand immediate payment. A long-term obligation that you extract through extortion is not likely to be performed for one reason or another.
The U.S., knowing this to be true, would not seek speculative rights to mineral deposits from Ukraine unless the value that the U.S. hoped to obtain were tied more to the announcement of the deal than to the fulfillment of the deal's terms.
One might argue that the U.S. made this deal solely to claim credit for extracting something from Ukraine where no one else has been able to achieve that during the last 3 years. I choose to look at the situation more optimistically for now. The new U.S. administration has made a public announcement that it is betting on Ukraine to survive, and that's worth something even if the U.S. is betting with house money and even if Ukraine might not payout upon a successful outcome.
The U.S., knowing this to be true, would not seek speculative rights to mineral deposits from Ukraine unless the value that the U.S. hoped to obtain were tied more to the announcement of the deal than to the fulfillment of the deal's terms.
One might argue that the U.S. made this deal solely to claim credit for extracting something from Ukraine where no one else has been able to achieve that during the last 3 years. I choose to look at the situation more optimistically for now. The new U.S. administration has made a public announcement that it is betting on Ukraine to survive, and that's worth something even if the U.S. is betting with house money and even if Ukraine might not payout upon a successful outcome.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
If you really intend to get something of value from extortion, demand immediate payment. A long-term obligation that you extract through extortion is not likely to be performed for one reason or another.
The U.S., knowing this to be true, would not seek speculative rights to mineral deposits from Ukraine unless the value that the U.S. hoped to obtain were tied more to the announcement of the deal than to the fulfillment of the deal's terms.
One might argue that the U.S. made this deal solely to claim credit for extracting something from Ukraine where no one else has been able to achieve that during the last 3 years. I choose to look at the situation more optimistically for now. The new U.S. administration has made a public announcement that it is betting on Ukraine to survive, and that's worth something even if the U.S. is betting with house money and even if Ukraine might not payout upon a successful outcome.
The U.S., knowing this to be true, would not seek speculative rights to mineral deposits from Ukraine unless the value that the U.S. hoped to obtain were tied more to the announcement of the deal than to the fulfillment of the deal's terms.
One might argue that the U.S. made this deal solely to claim credit for extracting something from Ukraine where no one else has been able to achieve that during the last 3 years. I choose to look at the situation more optimistically for now. The new U.S. administration has made a public announcement that it is betting on Ukraine to survive, and that's worth something even if the U.S. is betting with house money and even if Ukraine might not payout upon a successful outcome.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-25-2025, 07:27 PM
(02-25-2025, 05:41 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: One might argue that the U.S. made this deal solely to claim credit for extracting something from Ukraine where no one else has been able to achieve that during the last 3 years.I agree that this "deal" was made solely to create the appearance of receiving some kind of payment in return for US efforts. AFAIK no one previously had even attempted to extract "payment", as everyone firmly believed it was very much in their own best interest that Ukraine prevail.
Quote:I choose to look at the situation more optimistically for now. The new U.S. administration has made a public announcement that it is betting on Ukraine to survive, and that's worth something even if the U.S. is betting with house money and even if Ukraine might not payout upon a successful outcome.It is worth something, but exactly what is hard to know. It may have met the domestic political "requirement" of demonstrating that the US was not giving aid without a promise of some "return on investment". That does provide "cover" for continuing aid to Ukraine. The ROI is indeed contingent on Ukraine surviving. That is grounds for some optimism.
(02-25-2025, 05:41 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: One might argue that the U.S. made this deal solely to claim credit for extracting something from Ukraine where no one else has been able to achieve that during the last 3 years.I agree that this "deal" was made solely to create the appearance of receiving some kind of payment in return for US efforts. AFAIK no one previously had even attempted to extract "payment", as everyone firmly believed it was very much in their own best interest that Ukraine prevail.
Quote:I choose to look at the situation more optimistically for now. The new U.S. administration has made a public announcement that it is betting on Ukraine to survive, and that's worth something even if the U.S. is betting with house money and even if Ukraine might not payout upon a successful outcome.It is worth something, but exactly what is hard to know. It may have met the domestic political "requirement" of demonstrating that the US was not giving aid without a promise of some "return on investment". That does provide "cover" for continuing aid to Ukraine. The ROI is indeed contingent on Ukraine surviving. That is grounds for some optimism.
02-28-2025, 02:26 PM
Am I the only one who believes this weird press conference thing today wasn't that bad?
I don't understand criticism of Trump/Vance/Zelenskyy for *gasp* not being in complete agreement in a public setting. Who cares that somebody raised their voice/interjected?
I don't understand criticism of Trump/Vance/Zelenskyy for *gasp* not being in complete agreement in a public setting. Who cares that somebody raised their voice/interjected?
02-28-2025, 02:47 PM
I think it would be best if we refrained from comment about the press conference. I just can't see how that would end well.
BC
BC
I think it would be best if we refrained from comment about the press conference. I just can't see how that would end well.
BC
BC
02-28-2025, 04:12 PM
I think there is more to take away from that public meeting than pointing out that they disagreed.
02-28-2025, 04:19 PM
It was a premeditated ambush. Vance was just waiting for his opportunity to strike.
Europe and Ukraine are functionally on their own. Article V is dead letter I fear.
Europe and Ukraine are functionally on their own. Article V is dead letter I fear.
02-28-2025, 04:27 PM
(02-28-2025, 02:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it would be best if we refrained from comment about the press conference. I just can't see how that would end well.
BC
Tapping the sign. I just don’t see how this doesn’t turn into a back and forth over what was or was not the administrations intention.
A lot of people here have strong opinions, myself included. Happy to chat about the meeting with others who feel strongly by PM. But we’ve already gotten one request to take down a post for violating the no politics rule and I really don’t want to see this thread shut down. I’ve learned more in here from people that know a lot more than I do about the conflict and war fighting than I could almost anywhere else, and I want to continue this as a place where I can learn.
BC
(02-28-2025, 02:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it would be best if we refrained from comment about the press conference. I just can't see how that would end well.
BC
Tapping the sign. I just don’t see how this doesn’t turn into a back and forth over what was or was not the administrations intention.
A lot of people here have strong opinions, myself included. Happy to chat about the meeting with others who feel strongly by PM. But we’ve already gotten one request to take down a post for violating the no politics rule and I really don’t want to see this thread shut down. I’ve learned more in here from people that know a lot more than I do about the conflict and war fighting than I could almost anywhere else, and I want to continue this as a place where I can learn.
BC
02-28-2025, 05:46 PM
Is it too political to say that Putin was the big winner today?
WSJ's Editorial Board, which tends to right-center, has posted tonight a very thoughtful, middle-of-the-road
analysis of how this meeting fits into the longer arc of the Ukraine War.
Although it is an editorial, it is high on facts and low on politics.
WSJ's Editorial Board, which tends to right-center, has posted tonight a very thoughtful, middle-of-the-road
analysis of how this meeting fits into the longer arc of the Ukraine War.
Although it is an editorial, it is high on facts and low on politics.
Is it too political to say that Putin was the big winner today?
WSJ's Editorial Board, which tends to right-center, has posted tonight a very thoughtful, middle-of-the-road
analysis of how this meeting fits into the longer arc of the Ukraine War.
Although it is an editorial, it is high on facts and low on politics.
WSJ's Editorial Board, which tends to right-center, has posted tonight a very thoughtful, middle-of-the-road
analysis of how this meeting fits into the longer arc of the Ukraine War.
Although it is an editorial, it is high on facts and low on politics.
02-28-2025, 10:50 PM
Zelensky will be back. He and UKR needs the deal. Another year of fighting won't move the line a mile.
Bessent has outlined how the JVs come with capital -- which UKR desperately needs.
And, Trump wants to see what Europe will do now... how much they really want to provide soldiers?
Unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians now support a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. They're exhausted.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrain...o-end-war/
Bessent has outlined how the JVs come with capital -- which UKR desperately needs.
And, Trump wants to see what Europe will do now... how much they really want to provide soldiers?
Unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians now support a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. They're exhausted.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrain...o-end-war/
Zelensky will be back. He and UKR needs the deal. Another year of fighting won't move the line a mile.
Bessent has outlined how the JVs come with capital -- which UKR desperately needs.
And, Trump wants to see what Europe will do now... how much they really want to provide soldiers?
Unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians now support a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. They're exhausted.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrain...o-end-war/
Bessent has outlined how the JVs come with capital -- which UKR desperately needs.
And, Trump wants to see what Europe will do now... how much they really want to provide soldiers?
Unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians now support a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. They're exhausted.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrain...o-end-war/
03-01-2025, 12:18 AM
(02-28-2025, 10:50 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Zelensky will be back. He and UKR needs the deal. Another year of fighting won't move the line a mile.
Bessent has outlined how the JVs come with capital -- which UKR desperately needs.
And, Trump wants to see what Europe will do now... how much they really want to provide soldiers?
Unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians now support a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. They're exhausted.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrain...o-end-war/
The quid pro quo is a security guarantee. Without a security guarantee, the gauzy prospect of mineral development is not very attractive.
(02-28-2025, 10:50 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Zelensky will be back. He and UKR needs the deal. Another year of fighting won't move the line a mile.
Bessent has outlined how the JVs come with capital -- which UKR desperately needs.
And, Trump wants to see what Europe will do now... how much they really want to provide soldiers?
Unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians now support a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. They're exhausted.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrain...o-end-war/
The quid pro quo is a security guarantee. Without a security guarantee, the gauzy prospect of mineral development is not very attractive.
(03-01-2025, 12:18 AM)chrisk Wrote: The quid pro quo is a security guarantee. Without a security guarantee, the gauzy prospect of mineral development is not very attractive.I agree that the "security guarantee" is Ukraine's quid pro quo. However, by now Ukraine knows that such security guarantees are meaningless. They had Minsk I and Minsk II. They has statements from the United States saying we would stand by them in this war "as long as it takes". The simple fact is that the US and the European community is unwilling to commit troops to the defense of Ukraine, period. This has been amply demonstrated since 2014.
There were two definite times when the Russian military carved off pieces of Ukraine. Both times Ukraine had security commitments from the US. We did nothing at all the first time and provided military aid the second time. If the US had been unequivocally committed to Ukrainian victory and delivered aid fast enough and in adequate quantity to achieve it, that could have "counted" as honoring our security guarantee. We weren't and we didn't.
The reason Ukraine became so attached to NATO membership (never a realistic option for many reasons) was that they knew security guarantees hadn't worked. They were simply ignored by the guarantors. Ukraine hoped that the NATO alliance was precious enough to the US and other NATO countries that they would be unwilling to reveal NATO as a total "paper tiger". Refusing to act on an Article 5 invocation by Ukraine as a member state would do exactly that. That is, understandably enough, one reason Ukraine would never be accepted as a NATO member.
The Baltic states are in an even worse position than Ukraine. They simply aren't big enough to win with any amount of material military aid from the rest of NATO. They are NATO member states. They will absolutely need NATO to send troops and actually fight. Will the US fight if Russia attacks Estonia and Latvia on the way to Lithuania? I suspect there are now grave doubts in those nations that we will. That will certainly make Poland nervous as well. The small contingents of US troops present in the Baltic states are our "hostage force" that commits us to fight there. The assumption is that once there are US casualties we will be committed. While IMO it isn't absolutely certain that is true today, removing those contingents arguably makes the statement we won't honor our commitments there, period. The danger of course is that Russia will interpret it that way, whatever our "true" intent may be. It greatly increases the probability that Russia (Putin) will attempt to recapture the Baltic states believing NATO has abandoned them. The Korean War was enabled by Russia believing that the failure of Secretary of State Dean Acheson to mention Korea as part of our "defensive perimeter" meant we wouldn't fight if North Korea invaded it. There is precedent for such misinterpretation leading to armed conflict.
Hitler believed that Britain and France would not actually fight a war over Poland. He had seen them ignore his repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Both Britain and France actually assisted in his dismemberment of Czechoslovakia rather than oppose it by force. Czechoslovakia had guarantees of self-determination in the Treaty of Versailles. France had a bilateral defense treaty with them. Why would Poland be any different? While Britain and France had issued statements saying they would support Poland, why should Hitler believe them? Neither one had any forces in place that could actually intervene in Poland anyway. We know what happened subsequently. When talking about WW III one side misreading the other is IMO the major danger.
(03-01-2025, 12:18 AM)chrisk Wrote: The quid pro quo is a security guarantee. Without a security guarantee, the gauzy prospect of mineral development is not very attractive.I agree that the "security guarantee" is Ukraine's quid pro quo. However, by now Ukraine knows that such security guarantees are meaningless. They had Minsk I and Minsk II. They has statements from the United States saying we would stand by them in this war "as long as it takes". The simple fact is that the US and the European community is unwilling to commit troops to the defense of Ukraine, period. This has been amply demonstrated since 2014.
There were two definite times when the Russian military carved off pieces of Ukraine. Both times Ukraine had security commitments from the US. We did nothing at all the first time and provided military aid the second time. If the US had been unequivocally committed to Ukrainian victory and delivered aid fast enough and in adequate quantity to achieve it, that could have "counted" as honoring our security guarantee. We weren't and we didn't.
The reason Ukraine became so attached to NATO membership (never a realistic option for many reasons) was that they knew security guarantees hadn't worked. They were simply ignored by the guarantors. Ukraine hoped that the NATO alliance was precious enough to the US and other NATO countries that they would be unwilling to reveal NATO as a total "paper tiger". Refusing to act on an Article 5 invocation by Ukraine as a member state would do exactly that. That is, understandably enough, one reason Ukraine would never be accepted as a NATO member.
The Baltic states are in an even worse position than Ukraine. They simply aren't big enough to win with any amount of material military aid from the rest of NATO. They are NATO member states. They will absolutely need NATO to send troops and actually fight. Will the US fight if Russia attacks Estonia and Latvia on the way to Lithuania? I suspect there are now grave doubts in those nations that we will. That will certainly make Poland nervous as well. The small contingents of US troops present in the Baltic states are our "hostage force" that commits us to fight there. The assumption is that once there are US casualties we will be committed. While IMO it isn't absolutely certain that is true today, removing those contingents arguably makes the statement we won't honor our commitments there, period. The danger of course is that Russia will interpret it that way, whatever our "true" intent may be. It greatly increases the probability that Russia (Putin) will attempt to recapture the Baltic states believing NATO has abandoned them. The Korean War was enabled by Russia believing that the failure of Secretary of State Dean Acheson to mention Korea as part of our "defensive perimeter" meant we wouldn't fight if North Korea invaded it. There is precedent for such misinterpretation leading to armed conflict.
Hitler believed that Britain and France would not actually fight a war over Poland. He had seen them ignore his repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Both Britain and France actually assisted in his dismemberment of Czechoslovakia rather than oppose it by force. Czechoslovakia had guarantees of self-determination in the Treaty of Versailles. France had a bilateral defense treaty with them. Why would Poland be any different? While Britain and France had issued statements saying they would support Poland, why should Hitler believe them? Neither one had any forces in place that could actually intervene in Poland anyway. We know what happened subsequently. When talking about WW III one side misreading the other is IMO the major danger.
03-01-2025, 09:33 AM
(03-01-2025, 12:18 AM)chrisk Wrote:(02-28-2025, 10:50 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Zelensky will be back. He and UKR needs the deal. Another year of fighting won't move the line a mile.
Bessent has outlined how the JVs come with capital -- which UKR desperately needs.
And, Trump wants to see what Europe will do now... how much they really want to provide soldiers?
Unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians now support a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. They're exhausted.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrain...o-end-war/
The quid pro quo is a security guarantee. Without a security guarantee, the gauzy prospect of mineral development is not very attractive.
I was under the impression that these deposits are not well developed and it will cost a fair amount of money to develop them along with a fair amount of time. I thought I also read somewhere that some of these deposits are in the Donbass region which is controlled by Russia. I find it hard to believe we would pay to develop resources controlled by Russia. I can certainly understand the desire or maybe even mandatory necessity for a security guarantee. What would prevent the other side from simply lauching another attack once the hard work is done developing the resources? Common sense would seem to dictate that this is very much a buyer's beware environment.
(03-01-2025, 12:18 AM)chrisk Wrote:(02-28-2025, 10:50 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Zelensky will be back. He and UKR needs the deal. Another year of fighting won't move the line a mile.
Bessent has outlined how the JVs come with capital -- which UKR desperately needs.
And, Trump wants to see what Europe will do now... how much they really want to provide soldiers?
Unlike 2022, a majority of Ukrainians now support a negotiated peace with territorial concessions. They're exhausted.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrain...o-end-war/
The quid pro quo is a security guarantee. Without a security guarantee, the gauzy prospect of mineral development is not very attractive.
I was under the impression that these deposits are not well developed and it will cost a fair amount of money to develop them along with a fair amount of time. I thought I also read somewhere that some of these deposits are in the Donbass region which is controlled by Russia. I find it hard to believe we would pay to develop resources controlled by Russia. I can certainly understand the desire or maybe even mandatory necessity for a security guarantee. What would prevent the other side from simply lauching another attack once the hard work is done developing the resources? Common sense would seem to dictate that this is very much a buyer's beware environment.
03-01-2025, 10:32 AM
(03-01-2025, 09:33 AM)GK3 Wrote: I was under the impression that these deposits are not well developed and it will cost a fair amount of money to develop them along with a fair amount of time. I thought I also read somewhere that some of these deposits are in the Donbass region which is controlled by Russia. I find it hard to believe we would pay to develop resources controlled by Russia. I can certainly understand the desire or maybe even mandatory necessity for a security guarantee. What would prevent the other side from simply lauching another attack once the hard work is done developing the resources? Common sense would seem to dictate that this is very much a buyer's beware environment.The ones not in the Russian area of control are not developed. The cost of development is very high. When evaluating the worth of these deposits one might ask "Why are Rio Tinto, BHP etc. aren't already there?". The answer is they did the math and decided it wasn't worth the investment. Mineral commodity prices are very key to whether or not investing in the exploitation of any given site makes sense. Many very costly major developments have been started when prices were high only to be abandoned when prices fell such that the cost of production would be greater than the current price.
As an example, BHP owns the mineral rights to many ore bodies they have discovered and mapped (at least partially) in Elko county, Nevada. They spent a LOT of money prospecting and drilling core samples. As the newspapers stated, the ore is worth many billions. Some of it is actually gold (https://www.mindat.org/locentry-1536910.html). However, lots of it is deep underground. Given the large up-front investment required and the ongoing costs of mining it, it just isn't worth doing. There are other lower cost sources of the material. BHP believes that won't be true forever, but it has been for the last 25 years at least. They are not developing anything AFAIK. They have sold off many of the leases. This link https://www.juniorminingnetwork.com/juni...evada.html is an interesting example.
That is the kind of thing we are "getting" from Ukraine in the area they do control, although not nearly as well prospected. OTOH almost all the sites present in the Donbas that Russia already controls are "mined out". They are money losing propositions that operate only because they are government controlled and necessary to the economy of the area. Their commercial value is very questionable at best. There are a few that are profitable but very obsolete in their production and refining methods. They also violate just about every pollution regulation known to man. They aren't profitable enough to justify major investments to reduce pollution or increase yield. We in the western US are unfortunately very familiar with that scenario.
(03-01-2025, 09:33 AM)GK3 Wrote: I was under the impression that these deposits are not well developed and it will cost a fair amount of money to develop them along with a fair amount of time. I thought I also read somewhere that some of these deposits are in the Donbass region which is controlled by Russia. I find it hard to believe we would pay to develop resources controlled by Russia. I can certainly understand the desire or maybe even mandatory necessity for a security guarantee. What would prevent the other side from simply lauching another attack once the hard work is done developing the resources? Common sense would seem to dictate that this is very much a buyer's beware environment.The ones not in the Russian area of control are not developed. The cost of development is very high. When evaluating the worth of these deposits one might ask "Why are Rio Tinto, BHP etc. aren't already there?". The answer is they did the math and decided it wasn't worth the investment. Mineral commodity prices are very key to whether or not investing in the exploitation of any given site makes sense. Many very costly major developments have been started when prices were high only to be abandoned when prices fell such that the cost of production would be greater than the current price.
As an example, BHP owns the mineral rights to many ore bodies they have discovered and mapped (at least partially) in Elko county, Nevada. They spent a LOT of money prospecting and drilling core samples. As the newspapers stated, the ore is worth many billions. Some of it is actually gold (https://www.mindat.org/locentry-1536910.html). However, lots of it is deep underground. Given the large up-front investment required and the ongoing costs of mining it, it just isn't worth doing. There are other lower cost sources of the material. BHP believes that won't be true forever, but it has been for the last 25 years at least. They are not developing anything AFAIK. They have sold off many of the leases. This link https://www.juniorminingnetwork.com/juni...evada.html is an interesting example.
That is the kind of thing we are "getting" from Ukraine in the area they do control, although not nearly as well prospected. OTOH almost all the sites present in the Donbas that Russia already controls are "mined out". They are money losing propositions that operate only because they are government controlled and necessary to the economy of the area. Their commercial value is very questionable at best. There are a few that are profitable but very obsolete in their production and refining methods. They also violate just about every pollution regulation known to man. They aren't profitable enough to justify major investments to reduce pollution or increase yield. We in the western US are unfortunately very familiar with that scenario.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »