topleft topright

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Mineral Rights

  1. #21
    Senior Member Array BrianH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    1,489
    Blog Entries
    40
    I like the songs on Harvest Moon and Mirror Ball. If Slim and Feltan don't, that's fine. And no, I'm not a Republican now, Slim.
    And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?
    ~Hamlet

  2. #22
    Senior Member Array rcmatthews's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    1,155
    I don't agree with Neil Young's political messages for the most part, and I think most of his new stuff sucks, but I think that about a lot of people. Like Eric Clapton. Pretty much anthing he did past 1975 sucks. It doesn;t change what these guys did in the past.
    Ich steige ab, Hab keine Zeit, Muss jetzt zu den anderen Pferden, Wollen auch geritten werden

    C'est pas la chute, c'est l'atterrissage.

  3. #23
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    35
    As for mineral rights, you can go two ways with it, 1 - when you buy land the owner of that land owns not only the top of that land but everything below it, or 2 - while a private owner can buy the top of the land the natural resources under the ground still belong to the government.

    now each has its benefits and problems. the first one helps promote investments in mining as companies own completely what they mine, so this makes investment easier in natrual resources and helps grows the private sector of a country with less governmental red tape. the problem is that foreign investors can mine YOUR resources and you see little benefit as most of it is shipped out of your country.

    the second one offers better protection of natrual resources so that the home country sees more benefits from the mining of natural resources in the case of foreign investments. the government can control what companies do and how much they profit from the mining of the resources as they are more or less just leasing the rights to mine and don't own the resources to mine. by having companies pay leasing rights and putting whatever other tariffs on the mining and export of natrual resources the home country can see a greater benefit than in first type. however, this discurages foreign investment for the same reason it benefits the home country, they don't get total control of the resources. also, to take the example of Mexico when they nationalized the oil industry, it pisses foreign companies and countries off..... a lot.

    so protect investments, or protect profit for the home country? of course there can be a balance between the two these are just the two extremes, and i think i've rambled on enough.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-16-2005, 04:44 PM
  2. Rights to a song
    By mrbiggs in forum Water Cooler
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-11-2004, 11:58 AM
  3. Connecticut & the Bill of Rights????
    By pkt in forum Water Cooler
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-19-2004, 08:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30