Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (216292)	9/3/2025 12:01:16 AM
From: Maple MAGA	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217620

A good friend and associate who works as a consultant with a large gold producer say their analysts believe $5000 gold is coming. A world crisis is coming but it will be a quick-crisis, a few months pain and suffering and a major re-adjustment, no one wants to live in caves. This is from an email exchange this a.m. QUESTION "If just 1 percent of each “by-product” mineral were recovered from ongoing mining, before the mineral becomes waste, we could drastically reduce U.S. dependence on foreign suppliers. With 90 percent recovery, the United States could meet nearly all domestic manufacturing demand for nearly every critical mineral. So why don’t we? Mines are designed to be economically optimal. They’re not designed to recover maximal amounts of metal. Recovering by-products from the ore moving through the process — especially those by-products present in tiny concentrations — requires extra steps, additional equipment, more energy and specialized processing. Although the cost of recovery is modest relative to opening a new mine, there’s typically no immediate financial incentive to make these investments." ANSWER "The reason by-product recovery isn’t happening in Canada at the same scale as the U.S. isn’t simply a matter of technology or economics, it’s because of the worldview and policies pushed by people like Mark Carney. Carney has spent the past decade shaping “green finance” and ESG mandates in such a way that capital flows toward superficial optics (wind farms, carbon credits, paper shuffling) instead of toward hard-nosed industrial innovation like critical mineral by-product recovery. He engineered a system where mining companies are punished in the marketplace for pursuing unconventional recovery methods that might slightly dent their quarterly margins, even if those methods could secure long-term resource independence. Instead of aligning financial incentives with national security and manufacturing stability, Carney pushed the banks, insurers, and pension funds into box-checking exercises. The result? Miners won’t touch the modest capital investments needed to extract germanium, gallium, rare earths, tellurium, or vanadium as by-products, because the Carney-style ESG regime only rewards them for “net zero pledges,” not for actually producing the strategic materials we need. This is the bitter irony: recovering even 1% of these by-products could slash U.S. import dependence, and with 90% recovery the country could meet nearly all its domestic critical mineral demand. Yet thanks to Carney’s financial orthodoxy, the money flows away from pragmatic solutions and into abstract climate “transition plans.” So why don’t we recover the by-products? Because Mark Carney made sure that the financial system doesn’t pay for it."