http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...u-should-care/

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673 wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...ld-is-running-
low-on-tungsten-why-you-should-care/

Municipal waste dumps should have significant tungsten from all the
discarded lightbulbs. Would that be competitive with natural tungsten
ore? Concentration may be low, but OTOH it's pure metal.

I've read several articles over the last 5-or-so years indicating that
numerous metals are becoming relatively scarce, and that China likely has
the largest yet untapped supplies of quite a few of the very rare materials
needed for future technological advances.

The future of mining/extracting of needed metals may be new methods in
landfill recovery technology.
The waste companies will end up holding the futures' supply of scarce
metals.

A friend photographed his aerial view flying over a long ago closed copper
mining operation in NM.. the vast scale of those mines can't be appreciated
by looking at pictures in textbooks.
When copper supplies get low in the not too distant future, manufacturers
will have to shift to other alternative materials for conductors.

Even if metals can be recovered from landfills, it would probably have to be
done by an electrolysis-type process since much of the landfill metals have
likely been reduced to a slurry.

--
WB
..........


"Ignoramus32673" wrote in message
...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...u-should-care/

On Mar 14, 11:49*pm, Ignoramus32673 ignoramus32...@NOSPAM.
32673.invalid wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...orld-is-runnin...

Time to start hoarding TIG tips?

Uranium has some similar properties- it's tough enough that some
ballistic warheads use it as the outer re-entry material, and it also
plays a role in the nuke going off (part of the secondary, I think).

Dave

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673 wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...ld-is-running-
low-on-tungsten-why-you-should-care/

China seems to be playing games with rare-earth commodities, too.

I wonder if it's an intentional attempt to screw up world markets, for
economic or military reasons, or if it's just a sea change in attitude at
the top. This could all be because someone's drunken brother-in-law got
appointed Minister of Mining & Metals (to replace someone else's drunken
brother-in-law), suddenly realized that they were going to run out, and
panicked.

I wonder how many Tungsten deposits there are in the continental US that
might be exploited if the price goes up enough.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:20:52 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673 wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...ld-is-running-
low-on-tungsten-why-you-should-care/

China seems to be playing games with rare-earth commodities, too.

I wonder if it's an intentional attempt to screw up world markets, for
economic or military reasons, or if it's just a sea change in attitude at
the top. This could all be because someone's drunken brother-in-law got
appointed Minister of Mining & Metals (to replace someone else's drunken
brother-in-law), suddenly realized that they were going to run out, and
panicked.

I wonder how many Tungsten deposits there are in the continental US that
might be exploited if the price goes up enough.

Hundreds. The US has quite a bit of tungsten. Canada does, too, in the
Yukon, and theirs is high-quality ore.

We don't mine it for the same reason we don't mine molybdenum:
environmental issues. And they're heavy issues, involving questions
like, "How soon do you want to die to get some more tungsten?"

Rising prices *should* encourage solutions to the environmental
problems. Then markets will prevail.

Meantime, let's suck up all we can from China. I'd rather they turn
out thousands of crippled mutants than us. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:28:53 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:20:52 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673 wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...ld-is-running-
low-on-tungsten-why-you-should-care/

China seems to be playing games with rare-earth commodities, too.

I wonder if it's an intentional attempt to screw up world markets, for
economic or military reasons, or if it's just a sea change in attitude at
the top. This could all be because someone's drunken brother-in-law got
appointed Minister of Mining & Metals (to replace someone else's drunken
brother-in-law), suddenly realized that they were going to run out, and
panicked.

I wonder how many Tungsten deposits there are in the continental US that
might be exploited if the price goes up enough.

Hundreds. The US has quite a bit of tungsten. Canada does, too, in the
Yukon, and theirs is high-quality ore.

We don't mine it for the same reason we don't mine molybdenum:
environmental issues. And they're heavy issues, involving questions
like, "How soon do you want to die to get some more tungsten?"

Rising prices *should* encourage solutions to the environmental
problems. Then markets will prevail.

Meantime, let's suck up all we can from China. I'd rather they turn
out thousands of crippled mutants than us. d8-)

Whoop! I got tungsten mixed up with molybdenum mining, and toxicity.
Actually, I mentally got them reversed.

Moly is highly toxic. Tungsten and its compounds are not. Most of the
environmentl problems with tungsten involve leeching of soluble
compounds from tailing ponds and the like.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/15/2012 10:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
O
I wonder how many Tungsten deposits there are in the continental US that
might be exploited if the price goes up enough.

Hundreds. The US has quite a bit of tungsten. Canada does, too, in the
Yukon, and theirs is high-quality ore.

We don't mine it for the same reason we don't mine molybdenum:
environmental issues. And they're heavy issues, involving questions
like, "How soon do you want to die to get some more tungsten?"

Rising prices *should* encourage solutions to the environmental
problems. Then markets will prevail.

Meantime, let's suck up all we can from China. I'd rather they turn
out thousands of crippled mutants than us. d8-)

Whoop! I got tungsten mixed up with molybdenum mining, and toxicity.
Actually, I mentally got them reversed.

Moly is highly toxic. Tungsten and its compounds are not. Most of the
environmentl problems with tungsten involve leeching of soluble
compounds from tailing ponds and the like.


There is more to i that just that, though.

China drove the price down to the point of putting competitors out of
business.

If the price rises to the point where it is economically viable to start
mining again, they could dump the market and run everybody off again.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:59:44 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 10:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
O
I wonder how many Tungsten deposits there are in the continental US that
might be exploited if the price goes up enough.

Hundreds. The US has quite a bit of tungsten. Canada does, too, in the
Yukon, and theirs is high-quality ore.

We don't mine it for the same reason we don't mine molybdenum:
environmental issues. And they're heavy issues, involving questions
like, "How soon do you want to die to get some more tungsten?"

Rising prices *should* encourage solutions to the environmental
problems. Then markets will prevail.

Meantime, let's suck up all we can from China. I'd rather they turn
out thousands of crippled mutants than us. d8-)

Whoop! I got tungsten mixed up with molybdenum mining, and toxicity.
Actually, I mentally got them reversed.

Moly is highly toxic. Tungsten and its compounds are not. Most of the
environmentl problems with tungsten involve leeching of soluble
compounds from tailing ponds and the like.


There is more to i that just that, though.

China drove the price down to the point of putting competitors out of
business.

If the price rises to the point where it is economically viable to start
mining again, they could dump the market and run everybody off again.

I doubt it. They would run smack into WTO regulations, which Europe
and Japan now seem willing to charge and enforce, along with us.

As long as China is supplying tungsten (and rare earths) without
prejudice against foreign buyers, it doesn't hurt us that they
dominate the market. But now it is charged that they are squeezing the
foreign market in order to gain an advantage with the products
manufactured from those metals.

That has put them in the sights of all of their customers. We'll see
action from the WTO soon, and we'll find out whether enforcement of
their regulations has any effect -- or any teeth.

In any case, we aren't going to have to beg them for tungsten. We have
quite a bit of it, and we will have it when we need it.

--
Ed Huntress

Forbes thinks you have your head buried somewhere, Ed...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...should-care/2/

Page 2


_Prior to 2001, Tungsten miners looked for new sources even as they
harvested existing ore in order to guarantee a continuous supply. But in
the early 2000s, China flooded the market with inexpensive tungsten.
That, coupled with the recession in 2008-2009, drove the price of
tungsten down to the point where many mines went out of business and
others found it too expensive to continue exploration. Consequently,
from 2009-2011 the search for new sources of tungsten dried up._

With China recently deciding to restrict exports and buy up as much
tungsten as it can, demand has exploded and the search is on again.
Unfortunately, the timetable – from exploration to building a new mine
or reopening an existing one to the actual production of tungsten
concentrate – is typically a two-to-three year process for those mines
currently extracting tungsten for export. In the case of companies that
are drilling for (and find) new supplies of tungsten “from scratch,” the
cycle to production is at least three to five years. Bottom line: there
is no new significant supply of tungsten expected on the market before 2013.

That may explain Berkshire’s move, and why, when the price of most
commodities plunged during the second half of 2011 – some by as much as
60 percent – tungsten prices remained stable at $430-$445 per MTU
(metric ton unit) – nearly double what they were in 2009. Some analysts
predict the price could reach even higher levels in 2012, which is not
unrealistic when you consider that some producers state that demand is
so high they could ship tungsten at a rate of one container per day –
versus the current rate of one per week – if they had the capacity.

Given the short supply of available tungsten on the world market,
industries that are depending on it more and more (such as technology)
appear to have limited options. In fact, if you view a Warren Buffet
type of move – where a company acquires a tungsten operation/mine for
its own private use –as unrealistic for most businesses, then there’s
really only one other viable possibility: working with and encouraging
those companies (outside of China) that are currently supplying tungsten
to increase supply and meet demand.

_The risk of not doing so could result in China choosing to repeat its
earlier policy of flooding the market, which would not only drive some
suppliers out of business – but potentially create a virtual, worldwide
monopoly with prices and supply dictated by China._ Recent rises in the
price of oil – again – and the effect it has had on the worldwide
economy should tell us that’s not the way to go.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:41:36 -0500, Richard
wrote:

Forbes thinks you have your head buried somewhere, Ed...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...should-care/2/

Page 2


_Prior to 2001, Tungsten miners looked for new sources even as they
harvested existing ore in order to guarantee a continuous supply. But in
the early 2000s, China flooded the market with inexpensive tungsten.
That, coupled with the recession in 2008-2009, drove the price of
tungsten down to the point where many mines went out of business and
others found it too expensive to continue exploration. Consequently,
from 2009-2011 the search for new sources of tungsten dried up._

With China recently deciding to restrict exports and buy up as much
tungsten as it can, demand has exploded and the search is on again.
Unfortunately, the timetable – from exploration to building a new mine
or reopening an existing one to the actual production of tungsten
concentrate – is typically a two-to-three year process for those mines
currently extracting tungsten for export. In the case of companies that
are drilling for (and find) new supplies of tungsten “from scratch,” the
cycle to production is at least three to five years. Bottom line: there
is no new significant supply of tungsten expected on the market before 2013.

That may explain Berkshire’s move, and why, when the price of most
commodities plunged during the second half of 2011 – some by as much as
60 percent – tungsten prices remained stable at $430-$445 per MTU
(metric ton unit) – nearly double what they were in 2009. Some analysts
predict the price could reach even higher levels in 2012, which is not
unrealistic when you consider that some producers state that demand is
so high they could ship tungsten at a rate of one container per day –
versus the current rate of one per week – if they had the capacity.

Given the short supply of available tungsten on the world market,
industries that are depending on it more and more (such as technology)
appear to have limited options. In fact, if you view a Warren Buffet
type of move – where a company acquires a tungsten operation/mine for
its own private use –as unrealistic for most businesses, then there’s
really only one other viable possibility: working with and encouraging
those companies (outside of China) that are currently supplying tungsten
to increase supply and meet demand.

_The risk of not doing so could result in China choosing to repeat its
earlier policy of flooding the market, which would not only drive some
suppliers out of business – but potentially create a virtual, worldwide
monopoly with prices and supply dictated by China._ Recent rises in the
price of oil – again – and the effect it has had on the worldwide
economy should tell us that’s not the way to go.

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...


"A man sees what he want's to see and disregards the rest"

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:48:21 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

As I said, make of it what you will. A young female reporter from
_Metalworking News/American Metal Market_ tailed me around on another
press junket. They were supposed to be the industry experts on the
metals-producing industries. I thought she was hitting on me. No such
luck...she just wanted to be sure she heard the questions I asked of
the industry people. And I didn't learn that until I'd bought her a
couple of drinks. d8-)

If you knew the reporters who get stuck on the industry beat at news
and business magazines, none of this would surprise you. We had a
really vile nickname for the top industry reporter for _The New York
Times_. He was hopeless.

Forbes is expert at finance and at corporate soap operas. End of that
story.

BTW, if you remember back around 33 or 34 years, you'll recall we went
through this exact situation with cobalt. The USSR produced most of
the world's supply, and they were squeezing us hard. It all blew over,
as this situation probably will. We may have to rattle China's windows
with some WTO action.

--
Ed Huntress



"A man sees what he want's to see and disregards the rest"

On 3/15/2012 2:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:41:36 -0500,
wrote:

Forbes thinks you have your head buried somewhere, Ed...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...should-care/2/

Page 2


_Prior to 2001, Tungsten miners looked for new sources even as they
harvested existing ore in order to guarantee a continuous supply. But in
the early 2000s, China flooded the market with inexpensive tungsten.
That, coupled with the recession in 2008-2009, drove the price of
tungsten down to the point where many mines went out of business and
others found it too expensive to continue exploration. Consequently,
from 2009-2011 the search for new sources of tungsten dried up._

With China recently deciding to restrict exports and buy up as much
tungsten as it can, demand has exploded and the search is on again.
Unfortunately, the timetable – from exploration to building a new mine
or reopening an existing one to the actual production of tungsten
concentrate – is typically a two-to-three year process for those mines
currently extracting tungsten for export. In the case of companies that
are drilling for (and find) new supplies of tungsten “from scratch,” the
cycle to production is at least three to five years. Bottom line: there
is no new significant supply of tungsten expected on the market before 2013.

That may explain Berkshire’s move, and why, when the price of most
commodities plunged during the second half of 2011 – some by as much as
60 percent – tungsten prices remained stable at $430-$445 per MTU
(metric ton unit) – nearly double what they were in 2009. Some analysts
predict the price could reach even higher levels in 2012, which is not
unrealistic when you consider that some producers state that demand is
so high they could ship tungsten at a rate of one container per day –
versus the current rate of one per week – if they had the capacity.

Given the short supply of available tungsten on the world market,
industries that are depending on it more and more (such as technology)
appear to have limited options. In fact, if you view a Warren Buffet
type of move – where a company acquires a tungsten operation/mine for
its own private use –as unrealistic for most businesses, then there’s
really only one other viable possibility: working with and encouraging
those companies (outside of China) that are currently supplying tungsten
to increase supply and meet demand.

_The risk of not doing so could result in China choosing to repeat its
earlier policy of flooding the market, which would not only drive some
suppliers out of business – but potentially create a virtual, worldwide
monopoly with prices and supply dictated by China._ Recent rises in the
price of oil – again – and the effect it has had on the worldwide
economy should tell us that’s not the way to go.

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

Did you not read from the report he cited?

Unfortunately, the timetable – from exploration to building a new
mine or reopening an existing one to the actual production of
tungsten concentrate – is typically a two-to-three year process
for those mines currently extracting tungsten for export. In the
case of companies that are drilling for (and find) new supplies of
tungsten “from scratch,” the cycle to production is at least three
to five years.

They may be "ready to go", but they won't be ready to *produce* for a
few years. That's if they ever can start - the good old eco-terrorists
seem not to want US tungsten mines to operate.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2006...-with-tungsten


I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:41:18 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 2:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:41:36 -0500,
wrote:

Forbes thinks you have your head buried somewhere, Ed...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...should-care/2/

Page 2


_Prior to 2001, Tungsten miners looked for new sources even as they
harvested existing ore in order to guarantee a continuous supply. But in
the early 2000s, China flooded the market with inexpensive tungsten.
That, coupled with the recession in 2008-2009, drove the price of
tungsten down to the point where many mines went out of business and
others found it too expensive to continue exploration. Consequently,
from 2009-2011 the search for new sources of tungsten dried up._

With China recently deciding to restrict exports and buy up as much
tungsten as it can, demand has exploded and the search is on again.
Unfortunately, the timetable – from exploration to building a new mine
or reopening an existing one to the actual production of tungsten
concentrate – is typically a two-to-three year process for those mines
currently extracting tungsten for export. In the case of companies that
are drilling for (and find) new supplies of tungsten “from scratch,” the
cycle to production is at least three to five years. Bottom line: there
is no new significant supply of tungsten expected on the market before 2013.

That may explain Berkshire’s move, and why, when the price of most
commodities plunged during the second half of 2011 – some by as much as
60 percent – tungsten prices remained stable at $430-$445 per MTU
(metric ton unit) – nearly double what they were in 2009. Some analysts
predict the price could reach even higher levels in 2012, which is not
unrealistic when you consider that some producers state that demand is
so high they could ship tungsten at a rate of one container per day –
versus the current rate of one per week – if they had the capacity.

Given the short supply of available tungsten on the world market,
industries that are depending on it more and more (such as technology)
appear to have limited options. In fact, if you view a Warren Buffet
type of move – where a company acquires a tungsten operation/mine for
its own private use –as unrealistic for most businesses, then there’s
really only one other viable possibility: working with and encouraging
those companies (outside of China) that are currently supplying tungsten
to increase supply and meet demand.

_The risk of not doing so could result in China choosing to repeat its
earlier policy of flooding the market, which would not only drive some
suppliers out of business – but potentially create a virtual, worldwide
monopoly with prices and supply dictated by China._ Recent rises in the
price of oil – again – and the effect it has had on the worldwide
economy should tell us that’s not the way to go.

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

Did you not read from the report he cited?

Yeah, I read it. I'm skeptical.


Unfortunately, the timetable – from exploration to building a new
mine or reopening an existing one to the actual production of
tungsten concentrate – is typically a two-to-three year process
for those mines currently extracting tungsten for export. In the
case of companies that are drilling for (and find) new supplies of
tungsten “from scratch,” the cycle to production is at least three
to five years.

They may be "ready to go", but they won't be ready to *produce* for a
few years. That's if they ever can start - the good old eco-terrorists
seem not to want US tungsten mines to operate.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2006...-with-tungsten

And how long will US industries' stockpiles hold out?



I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:41:36 -0500, Richard wrote:

Forbes thinks you have your head buried somewhere, Ed...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...should-care/2/
Page 2
_Prior to 2001, Tungsten miners looked for new sources even as they
harvested existing ore in order to guarantee a continuous supply. But in
the early 2000s, China flooded the market with inexpensive tungsten.
That, coupled with the recession in 2008-2009, drove the price of
tungsten down to the point where many mines went out of business and
others found it too expensive to continue exploration. Consequently,
from 2009-2011 the search for new sources of tungsten dried up._

With China recently deciding to restrict exports and buy up as much
tungsten as it can, demand has exploded and the search is on again.
Unfortunately, the timetable €“ from exploration to building a new mine
or reopening an existing one to the actual production of tungsten
concentrate €“ is typically a two-to-three year process for those mines
currently extracting tungsten for export. [...]

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2006/02/01/the-trouble-with-tungsten
has some similar comments: "The United States has hundreds, if not
thousands, of sites on which commercial quantities of tungsten have been
identified. The website TheWeekendMiner.com lists hundreds of such sites
just in California. Some are former operating mines closed due to the
activity of environmentalists or, before that occurred, closed due to
low tungsten prices, but now unable to reopen due mainly to environmental
issues. ... there are three ways to stop the production of a natural
resource in America: Raise environmental issues; Lower the price of
imports, i.e., exercise predatory pricing; or Find a cheaper substitute
for the material. A combination of factors 1 and 2 above completely
stopped the mining of tungsten in the United States by the 1990s. And,
as the Chinese have learned and practice to their advantage, once
environmental issues are raised in the U.S. they never go away.
Predatory pricing doesn't always work, because it reduces revenue for
everyone not just the targeted industry, but once you add environmental
issues you can then raise back the price to your heart's content, because
in America environment trumps economic value in mining every time."




--
jiw

In article ,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Clever folks will take filaments to the recycling center, and sell them to
the recycle guys.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Przemek Klosowski" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673 wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...ld-is-running-
low-on-tungsten-why-you-should-care/

Municipal waste dumps should have significant tungsten from all the
discarded lightbulbs. Would that be competitive with natural tungsten
ore? Concentration may be low, but OTOH it's pure metal.

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Yup.

And suspicious old cynics will wonder if this is what the light bulb
laws were all about in the first place??


On 3/15/2012 8:57 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Clever folks will take filaments to the recycling center, and sell them to
the recycle guys.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Przemek wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673 wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...ld-is-running-
low-on-tungsten-why-you-should-care/

Municipal waste dumps should have significant tungsten from all the
discarded lightbulbs. Would that be competitive with natural tungsten
ore? Concentration may be low, but OTOH it's pure metal.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Sure. That's most of what I do. Tonight, though, I'm writing a 6-page
brochure about a new machine tool. That's "advertising collateral
copywriting." It pays about 2 -3 times as much as freelance reporting,
so I mix some of it in.

--
Ed Huntress

The "Free world reserve" - excluding China, North Korea and the USSR
(age of book and what is going on today ??) - is estimated at about 295,
000 tons of metal content Tungsten. The other three countries have
about 4 times as much as the ROW.

At this same time, the us was producing 4,000 tons from domestic mines.

This is from my "Mineral Facts and Problems" 1965 Edition.
US Dept of the Interior. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 630.
(I have not found a newer version. I bout this new when it was printed.)

Martin

On 3/15/2012 3:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:59:44 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 10:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
O
I wonder how many Tungsten deposits there are in the continental US that
might be exploited if the price goes up enough.

Hundreds. The US has quite a bit of tungsten. Canada does, too, in the
Yukon, and theirs is high-quality ore.

We don't mine it for the same reason we don't mine molybdenum:
environmental issues. And they're heavy issues, involving questions
like, "How soon do you want to die to get some more tungsten?"

Rising prices *should* encourage solutions to the environmental
problems. Then markets will prevail.

Meantime, let's suck up all we can from China. I'd rather they turn
out thousands of crippled mutants than us. d8-)

Whoop! I got tungsten mixed up with molybdenum mining, and toxicity.
Actually, I mentally got them reversed.

Moly is highly toxic. Tungsten and its compounds are not. Most of the
environmentl problems with tungsten involve leeching of soluble
compounds from tailing ponds and the like.


There is more to i that just that, though.

China drove the price down to the point of putting competitors out of
business.

If the price rises to the point where it is economically viable to start
mining again, they could dump the market and run everybody off again.

I doubt it. They would run smack into WTO regulations, which Europe
and Japan now seem willing to charge and enforce, along with us.

As long as China is supplying tungsten (and rare earths) without
prejudice against foreign buyers, it doesn't hurt us that they
dominate the market. But now it is charged that they are squeezing the
foreign market in order to gain an advantage with the products
manufactured from those metals.

That has put them in the sights of all of their customers. We'll see
action from the WTO soon, and we'll find out whether enforcement of
their regulations has any effect -- or any teeth.

In any case, we aren't going to have to beg them for tungsten. We have
quite a bit of it, and we will have it when we need it.

On 3/15/2012 9:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Sure. That's most of what I do. Tonight, though, I'm writing a 6-page
brochure about a new machine tool. That's "advertising collateral
copywriting." It pays about 2 -3 times as much as freelance reporting,
so I mix some of it in.



If there are no other questions then I rest my case!

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:29:24 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Sure. That's most of what I do. Tonight, though, I'm writing a 6-page
brochure about a new machine tool. That's "advertising collateral
copywriting." It pays about 2 -3 times as much as freelance reporting,
so I mix some of it in.



If there are no other questions then I rest my case!

What are you now, a lawyer? d8-)

Let's stroke your accusation of "ego" some more. It's all a matter of
which journalistic culture one comes from. This is the one I come
from:

"The National Magazine Awards"

"The National Magazine Awards have been presented each year since
1966. In the first four years single awards were given to Look (1966),
Life (1967), Newsweek (1968) and American Machinist (1969)."

http://www.magazine.org/asme/about_asme/

How do you think a trade magazine won the national award against that
kind of company? By being dead serious about professionalism:
relentless about research, and fanatical about accuracy. If that's the
way you were taught, you're likely to carry it with you.

Malcolm Forbes ran a diferent kind of magazine. In those days, it was
the British tabloid of business journalism -- provocative, contrarion
headlines and melodramatic stories. I firmly believe that Malcorm
would have run spread pages of naked breasts ("Secretaries to the
Masters of the Universe") if he thought it would hype circulation. It
was hugely successful. So is Drudge. So is Rupert Murdoch.

It's not fair to assume that Forbes today is what it was in 1974, but
the memories about where that culture came from sticks with you. TIME
wasn't much better, at least in their coverage of industry. They
didn't take it seriously. We did. And their reporters knew it.

So I'm skeptical about Forbes stories. They may have it exactly right,
but I wouldn't hang my hat on it until I fact-checked it myself.

There are only a few of us still working who remember who was who and
what they did. The great editors and writers from _AM_ -- Colvin,
Stanley, and Ashburn -- and how they established an admirable culture
of quality are nearly forgotten.

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.

--
Ed Huntress

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.


While I sometimes enjoy a cute turn of phrase, it's hard to
respect a man who talks too much.

I'll pass on the ego justification from way back.
Right now you rate somewhere between Plimpton and Gunner...


1: George Plimpton .......................... : 224
2: RD Sandman ........... : 189
3: "Scout" ..... . : 123
4: Ed Huntress .................... : 77
5: Gunner Asch ....................... : 75
6: Peter Franks ............................. : 63
7: ..................................... ....... : 52
8: jk .......................... .... : 49
9: Too_Many_Tools ................ : 48
10: Hawke .................... . : 47
11: "Stormin Mormon" ..... : 45
12: Josh ................................ .. : 38
13: "Wild_Bill" ................. : 36
14: BeamMeUpScotty 35
15: Gray Guest .................. : 34
16: "ClintWarwick" ..................... : 33
17: Jeff M ........................... .. : 31
18: JohnJohnsn ........................ : 31
19: "Michael A. Terrell" ........ : 21
20: LURKER ............................... .. : 20

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:07:44 -0500, Richard
wrote:


I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.


While I sometimes enjoy a cute turn of phrase, it's hard to
respect a man who talks too much.
'
I don't really talk much. I just type. d8-)


I'll pass on the ego justification from way back.
Right now you rate somewhere between Plimpton and Gunner...

Carry on as you were, Richard.

--
Ed Huntress









1: George Plimpton .......................... : 224
2: RD Sandman ........... : 189
3: "Scout" ..... . : 123
4: Ed Huntress .................... : 77
5: Gunner Asch ....................... : 75
6: Peter Franks ............................. : 63
7: ..................................... ....... : 52
8: jk .......................... .... : 49
9: Too_Many_Tools ................ : 48
10: Hawke .................... . : 47
11: "Stormin Mormon" ..... : 45
12: Josh ................................ .. : 38
13: "Wild_Bill" ................. : 36
14: BeamMeUpScotty 35
15: Gray Guest .................. : 34
16: "ClintWarwick" ..................... : 33
17: Jeff M ........................... .. : 31
18: JohnJohnsn ........................ : 31
19: "Michael A. Terrell" ........ : 21
20: LURKER ............................... .. : 20

Oh, good, does this mean I should start looking for a buyer for the
~500 lbs of pure W that I have?

Joe

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673
wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...u-should-care/

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:41:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:29:24 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Sure. That's most of what I do. Tonight, though, I'm writing a 6-page
brochure about a new machine tool. That's "advertising collateral
copywriting." It pays about 2 -3 times as much as freelance reporting,
so I mix some of it in.



If there are no other questions then I rest my case!

What are you now, a lawyer? d8-)

Let's stroke your accusation of "ego" some more. It's all a matter of
which journalistic culture one comes from. This is the one I come
from:

"The National Magazine Awards"

"The National Magazine Awards have been presented each year since
1966. In the first four years single awards were given to Look (1966),
Life (1967), Newsweek (1968) and American Machinist (1969)."

http://www.magazine.org/asme/about_asme/

How do you think a trade magazine won the national award against that
kind of company? By being dead serious about professionalism:
relentless about research, and fanatical about accuracy. If that's the
way you were taught, you're likely to carry it with you.

Malcolm Forbes ran a diferent kind of magazine. In those days, it was
the British tabloid of business journalism -- provocative, contrarion
headlines and melodramatic stories. I firmly believe that Malcorm
would have run spread pages of naked breasts ("Secretaries to the
Masters of the Universe") if he thought it would hype circulation. It
was hugely successful. So is Drudge. So is Rupert Murdoch.

It's not fair to assume that Forbes today is what it was in 1974, but
the memories about where that culture came from sticks with you. TIME
wasn't much better, at least in their coverage of industry. They
didn't take it seriously. We did. And their reporters knew it.

So I'm skeptical about Forbes stories. They may have it exactly right,
but I wouldn't hang my hat on it until I fact-checked it myself.

There are only a few of us still working who remember who was who and
what they did. The great editors and writers from _AM_ -- Colvin,
Stanley, and Ashburn -- and how they established an admirable culture
of quality are nearly forgotten.

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.

"Admirable culture of quality"? Why Sir! You must be referring to Fox
News that paragon of news services ?-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:14:02 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:41:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:29:24 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Sure. That's most of what I do. Tonight, though, I'm writing a 6-page
brochure about a new machine tool. That's "advertising collateral
copywriting." It pays about 2 -3 times as much as freelance reporting,
so I mix some of it in.



If there are no other questions then I rest my case!

What are you now, a lawyer? d8-)

Let's stroke your accusation of "ego" some more. It's all a matter of
which journalistic culture one comes from. This is the one I come
from:

"The National Magazine Awards"

"The National Magazine Awards have been presented each year since
1966. In the first four years single awards were given to Look (1966),
Life (1967), Newsweek (1968) and American Machinist (1969)."

http://www.magazine.org/asme/about_asme/

How do you think a trade magazine won the national award against that
kind of company? By being dead serious about professionalism:
relentless about research, and fanatical about accuracy. If that's the
way you were taught, you're likely to carry it with you.

Malcolm Forbes ran a diferent kind of magazine. In those days, it was
the British tabloid of business journalism -- provocative, contrarion
headlines and melodramatic stories. I firmly believe that Malcorm
would have run spread pages of naked breasts ("Secretaries to the
Masters of the Universe") if he thought it would hype circulation. It
was hugely successful. So is Drudge. So is Rupert Murdoch.

It's not fair to assume that Forbes today is what it was in 1974, but
the memories about where that culture came from sticks with you. TIME
wasn't much better, at least in their coverage of industry. They
didn't take it seriously. We did. And their reporters knew it.

So I'm skeptical about Forbes stories. They may have it exactly right,
but I wouldn't hang my hat on it until I fact-checked it myself.

There are only a few of us still working who remember who was who and
what they did. The great editors and writers from _AM_ -- Colvin,
Stanley, and Ashburn -- and how they established an admirable culture
of quality are nearly forgotten.

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.

"Admirable culture of quality"? Why Sir! You must be referring to Fox
News that paragon of news services ?-)

"We throw it at the wall. You decide if it sticks." -- Roger Ailes?

--
Ed Huntress

On 2012-03-17, Joe wrote:

Oh, good, does this mean I should start looking for a buyer for the
~500 lbs of pure W that I have?

Not really, you can just sell it to me.

i

Joe

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673
wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...u-should-care/

On 3/16/2012 7:49 PM, Joe wrote:

Oh, good, does this mean I should start looking for a buyer for the
~500 lbs of pure W that I have?

Joe

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:49:41 -0500, Ignoramus32673
wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...u-should-care/


Looks like $35 per kilo,
bit strangely, sponge and powder forms may be worth more?

On 3/16/2012 1:07 PM, Richard wrote:

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.


While I sometimes enjoy a cute turn of phrase, it's hard to
respect a man who talks too much.

I'll pass on the ego justification from way back.
Right now you rate somewhere between Plimpton and Gunner...


1: George Plimpton .......................... : 224
2: RD Sandman ........... : 189
3: "Scout" ..... . : 123
4: Ed Huntress .................... : 77
5: Gunner Asch ....................... : 75
6: Peter Franks ............................. : 63
7: ..................................... ....... : 52
8: jk .......................... .... : 49
9: Too_Many_Tools ................ : 48
10: Hawke .................... . : 47
11: "Stormin Mormon" ..... : 45
12: Josh ................................ .. : 38
13: "Wild_Bill" ................. : 36
14: BeamMeUpScotty 35
15: Gray Guest .................. : 34
16: "ClintWarwick" ..................... : 33
17: Jeff M ........................... .. : 31
18: JohnJohnsn ........................ : 31
19: "Michael A. Terrell" ........ : 21
20: LURKER ............................... .. : 20

I think your "talk too much" list is somewhat misleading. The total
amount of posts by Ed and Gunner include a lot of on topic posts about
metalworking.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:21:54 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:14:02 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:41:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:29:24 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Sure. That's most of what I do. Tonight, though, I'm writing a 6-page
brochure about a new machine tool. That's "advertising collateral
copywriting." It pays about 2 -3 times as much as freelance reporting,
so I mix some of it in.



If there are no other questions then I rest my case!

What are you now, a lawyer? d8-)

Let's stroke your accusation of "ego" some more. It's all a matter of
which journalistic culture one comes from. This is the one I come
from:

"The National Magazine Awards"

"The National Magazine Awards have been presented each year since
1966. In the first four years single awards were given to Look (1966),
Life (1967), Newsweek (1968) and American Machinist (1969)."

http://www.magazine.org/asme/about_asme/

How do you think a trade magazine won the national award against that
kind of company? By being dead serious about professionalism:
relentless about research, and fanatical about accuracy. If that's the
way you were taught, you're likely to carry it with you.

Malcolm Forbes ran a diferent kind of magazine. In those days, it was
the British tabloid of business journalism -- provocative, contrarion
headlines and melodramatic stories. I firmly believe that Malcorm
would have run spread pages of naked breasts ("Secretaries to the
Masters of the Universe") if he thought it would hype circulation. It
was hugely successful. So is Drudge. So is Rupert Murdoch.

It's not fair to assume that Forbes today is what it was in 1974, but
the memories about where that culture came from sticks with you. TIME
wasn't much better, at least in their coverage of industry. They
didn't take it seriously. We did. And their reporters knew it.

So I'm skeptical about Forbes stories. They may have it exactly right,
but I wouldn't hang my hat on it until I fact-checked it myself.

There are only a few of us still working who remember who was who and
what they did. The great editors and writers from _AM_ -- Colvin,
Stanley, and Ashburn -- and how they established an admirable culture
of quality are nearly forgotten.

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.

"Admirable culture of quality"? Why Sir! You must be referring to Fox
News that paragon of news services ?-)

"We throw it at the wall. You decide if it sticks." -- Roger Ailes?


You know? That may be the solution for an all brands news service.
Alternate emphasis in every other sentence and you could get all the
Leftards and Rightards to listen ;-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:21:52 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:21:54 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:14:02 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:41:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:29:24 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Sure. That's most of what I do. Tonight, though, I'm writing a 6-page
brochure about a new machine tool. That's "advertising collateral
copywriting." It pays about 2 -3 times as much as freelance reporting,
so I mix some of it in.



If there are no other questions then I rest my case!

What are you now, a lawyer? d8-)

Let's stroke your accusation of "ego" some more. It's all a matter of
which journalistic culture one comes from. This is the one I come
from:

"The National Magazine Awards"

"The National Magazine Awards have been presented each year since
1966. In the first four years single awards were given to Look (1966),
Life (1967), Newsweek (1968) and American Machinist (1969)."

http://www.magazine.org/asme/about_asme/

How do you think a trade magazine won the national award against that
kind of company? By being dead serious about professionalism:
relentless about research, and fanatical about accuracy. If that's the
way you were taught, you're likely to carry it with you.

Malcolm Forbes ran a diferent kind of magazine. In those days, it was
the British tabloid of business journalism -- provocative, contrarion
headlines and melodramatic stories. I firmly believe that Malcorm
would have run spread pages of naked breasts ("Secretaries to the
Masters of the Universe") if he thought it would hype circulation. It
was hugely successful. So is Drudge. So is Rupert Murdoch.

It's not fair to assume that Forbes today is what it was in 1974, but
the memories about where that culture came from sticks with you. TIME
wasn't much better, at least in their coverage of industry. They
didn't take it seriously. We did. And their reporters knew it.

So I'm skeptical about Forbes stories. They may have it exactly right,
but I wouldn't hang my hat on it until I fact-checked it myself.

There are only a few of us still working who remember who was who and
what they did. The great editors and writers from _AM_ -- Colvin,
Stanley, and Ashburn -- and how they established an admirable culture
of quality are nearly forgotten.

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.

"Admirable culture of quality"? Why Sir! You must be referring to Fox
News that paragon of news services ?-)

"We throw it at the wall. You decide if it sticks." -- Roger Ailes?


You know? That may be the solution for an all brands news service.
Alternate emphasis in every other sentence and you could get all the
Leftards and Rightards to listen ;-)

It sounds like an invitation to schizophrenia. d8-)

Something interesting (IMO, anyway). My degree is in
telecommunications -- broadcasting.

Anyway, I had a course in 1971, taught by a prof named John Abel, who
later became VP of the NAB. In that course, one of John's theories was
that cable would lead to a division of the public into isolated
segments who got their news from "narrowcasting" cablecasters, highly
biased and catering to the political and social views of that segment.
The politically and socially homogonizing tendency of major-network
news would die out and we would all live in our own little realities,
reinforced by our choice of news sources.

John was (and is) a prescient guy. I wonder if Roger Ailes read any of
John's papers?

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/17/2012 6:54 AM, bobm46 wrote:
On 3/16/2012 1:07 PM, Richard wrote:

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.


While I sometimes enjoy a cute turn of phrase, it's hard to
respect a man who talks too much.

I'll pass on the ego justification from way back.
Right now you rate somewhere between Plimpton and Gunner...


1: George Plimpton .......................... : 224
2: RD Sandman ........... : 189
3: "Scout" ..... . : 123
4: Ed Huntress .................... : 77
5: Gunner Asch ....................... : 75
6: Peter Franks ............................. : 63
7: ..................................... ....... : 52
8: jk .......................... .... : 49
9: Too_Many_Tools ................ : 48
10: Hawke .................... . : 47
11: "Stormin Mormon" ..... : 45
12: Josh ................................ .. : 38
13: "Wild_Bill" ................. : 36
14: BeamMeUpScotty 35
15: Gray Guest .................. : 34
16: "ClintWarwick" ..................... : 33
17: Jeff M ........................... .. : 31
18: JohnJohnsn ........................ : 31
19: "Michael A. Terrell" ........ : 21
20: LURKER ............................... .. : 20

I think your "talk too much" list is somewhat misleading. The total
amount of posts by Ed and Gunner include a lot of on topic posts about
metalworking.

You are correct, of course. They do.
But then there is a lot of pontificating in there too.
(not that I can claim total innocence)

On 3/17/2012 10:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

"We throw it at the wall. You decide if it sticks." -- Roger Ailes?


You know? That may be the solution for an all brands news service.
Alternate emphasis in every other sentence and you could get all the
Leftards and Rightards to listen ;-)

It sounds like an invitation to schizophrenia. d8-)

Something interesting (IMO, anyway). My degree is in
telecommunications -- broadcasting.

Anyway, I had a course in 1971, taught by a prof named John Abel, who
later became VP of the NAB. In that course, one of John's theories was
that cable would lead to a division of the public into isolated
segments who got their news from "narrowcasting" cablecasters, highly
biased and catering to the political and social views of that segment.
The politically and socially homogonizing tendency of major-network
news would die out and we would all live in our own little realities,
reinforced by our choice of news sources.

John was (and is) a prescient guy. I wonder if Roger Ailes read any of
John's papers?



Is that still a "theory", or has it become broadcasting "law"?

Ed Huntress wrote:

There is more to i that just that, though.

China drove the price down to the point of putting competitors out of
business.

If the price rises to the point where it is economically viable to start
mining again, they could dump the market and run everybody off again.

I doubt it. They would run smack into WTO regulations, which Europe
and Japan now seem willing to charge and enforce, along with us.

As long as China is supplying tungsten (and rare earths) without
prejudice against foreign buyers, it doesn't hurt us that they
dominate the market. But now it is charged that they are squeezing the
foreign market in order to gain an advantage with the products
manufactured from those metals.

That has put them in the sights of all of their customers. We'll see
action from the WTO soon, and we'll find out whether enforcement of
their regulations has any effect -- or any teeth.

In any case, we aren't going to have to beg them for tungsten. We have
quite a bit of it, and we will have it when we need it.
Perhaps they just look at what had been done with oil, and said, "Hey
we can play that game too".
jk

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:10:37 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:21:52 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:21:54 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:14:02 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:41:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:29:24 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 9:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:07:48 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/15/2012 8:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In articlegNednVT4P_Yt_v_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

There aqre something like 500 mineable sites in the US, Richard. And
there are a number of mines that are shut down, ready to go if the
economics swing in their favor.

I'd have to go searching for the numbers and I'm not that interested,
frankly.

Make of this what you want, but I worked alongside of Forbes
reporters, years ago, on steel industry press jaunts. Most of what
they knew about the steel industry they learned from me, and they
still got a lot of it wrong. d8-) I don't have very high regard for
their industrial reporting. They're mostly good writers, though.


Ed, your ego is down right amazing...

Anyone who has spent any time with reporters knows that it doesn't take
much ego to recognize that they don't understand most of what they're
reporting.

Yes. Been there, done that.

Ed, are you still a reporter?

Sure. That's most of what I do. Tonight, though, I'm writing a 6-page
brochure about a new machine tool. That's "advertising collateral
copywriting." It pays about 2 -3 times as much as freelance reporting,
so I mix some of it in.



If there are no other questions then I rest my case!

What are you now, a lawyer? d8-)

Let's stroke your accusation of "ego" some more. It's all a matter of
which journalistic culture one comes from. This is the one I come
from:

"The National Magazine Awards"

"The National Magazine Awards have been presented each year since
1966. In the first four years single awards were given to Look (1966),
Life (1967), Newsweek (1968) and American Machinist (1969)."

http://www.magazine.org/asme/about_asme/

How do you think a trade magazine won the national award against that
kind of company? By being dead serious about professionalism:
relentless about research, and fanatical about accuracy. If that's the
way you were taught, you're likely to carry it with you.

Malcolm Forbes ran a diferent kind of magazine. In those days, it was
the British tabloid of business journalism -- provocative, contrarion
headlines and melodramatic stories. I firmly believe that Malcorm
would have run spread pages of naked breasts ("Secretaries to the
Masters of the Universe") if he thought it would hype circulation. It
was hugely successful. So is Drudge. So is Rupert Murdoch.

It's not fair to assume that Forbes today is what it was in 1974, but
the memories about where that culture came from sticks with you. TIME
wasn't much better, at least in their coverage of industry. They
didn't take it seriously. We did. And their reporters knew it.

So I'm skeptical about Forbes stories. They may have it exactly right,
but I wouldn't hang my hat on it until I fact-checked it myself.

There are only a few of us still working who remember who was who and
what they did. The great editors and writers from _AM_ -- Colvin,
Stanley, and Ashburn -- and how they established an admirable culture
of quality are nearly forgotten.

I don't forget. And I try to keep the attitude and approach alive.
Call it ego if you will.

"Admirable culture of quality"? Why Sir! You must be referring to Fox
News that paragon of news services ?-)

"We throw it at the wall. You decide if it sticks." -- Roger Ailes?


You know? That may be the solution for an all brands news service.
Alternate emphasis in every other sentence and you could get all the
Leftards and Rightards to listen ;-)

It sounds like an invitation to schizophrenia. d8-)

Something interesting (IMO, anyway). My degree is in
telecommunications -- broadcasting.

Anyway, I had a course in 1971, taught by a prof named John Abel, who
later became VP of the NAB. In that course, one of John's theories was
that cable would lead to a division of the public into isolated
segments who got their news from "narrowcasting" cablecasters, highly
biased and catering to the political and social views of that segment.
The politically and socially homogonizing tendency of major-network
news would die out and we would all live in our own little realities,
reinforced by our choice of news sources.

"So when it comes to pass-- as surely it will-- then they will know
that a prophet has been in their midst." (Ezekiel 33:33)

John was (and is) a prescient guy. I wonder if Roger Ailes read any of
John's papers?
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Richard" wrote in message
m...
On 3/17/2012 10:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

Anyway, I had a course in 1971, taught by a prof named John Abel,
who
later became VP of the NAB. In that course, one of John's theories
was
that cable would lead to a division of the public into isolated
segments who got their news from "narrowcasting" cablecasters,
highly
biased and catering to the political and social views of that
segment.
The politically and socially homogonizing tendency of major-network
news would die out and we would all live in our own little
realities,
reinforced by our choice of news sources.

Is that still a "theory", or has it become broadcasting "law"?

How does this differ from the old print media?

jsw

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:15:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Richard" wrote in message
om...
On 3/17/2012 10:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

Anyway, I had a course in 1971, taught by a prof named John Abel,
who
later became VP of the NAB. In that course, one of John's theories
was
that cable would lead to a division of the public into isolated
segments who got their news from "narrowcasting" cablecasters,
highly
biased and catering to the political and social views of that
segment.
The politically and socially homogonizing tendency of major-network
news would die out and we would all live in our own little
realities,
reinforced by our choice of news sources.

Is that still a "theory", or has it become broadcasting "law"?

How does this differ from the old print media?

jsw

It doesn't. To a degree, it's a return to identity politics, like we
had before the 1940s.

The difference is that we've transitioned from a period of economic
levelling, national communication of similar information, and a
centering of politics that allowed compromise. We're in a period of
isolation and ideological hardening of the arteries.

If you take a long historical view, this is more what the country was
like before we had instant, nationwide communication. We're becoming
tribal.

--
Ed Huntress