North Dakota Law Included Fake Critical Minerals Using Lawyers' Last Names (northdakotamonitor.com) 53
North Dakota passed a law last May to promote development of rare earth minerals in the state. But the law's language apparently also includes two fake mineral names, according to the Bismarck Tribune, "that appear to be inspired by coal company lawyers who worked on the bill."
The inclusion of fictional substances is being called an embarrassment by one state official, a possible practical joke by coal industry leaders and mystifying by the lawmakers who worked on the bill, the North Dakota Monitor reported.
The fake minerals are friezium and stralium, apparent references to Christopher Friez and David Straley, attorneys for North American Coal who were closely involved in drafting the bill and its amendments. Straley said they were not responsible for adding the fake names. "I assume it was put in to embarrass us, or to make light of it, or have a practical joke," Straley said, adding it could have been a clerical error.
Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring questioned the two substances listed in state law during a recent meeting of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, which is poised to adopt rules based on the legislation... Friezium and stralium first appeared in the bill on the last afternoon of the legislative session as lawmakers hurried to pass several final bills... The amended bill is labeled as prepared by Legislative Council for Rep. Dick Anderson, R-Willow City, the prime sponsor and chair of the conference committee. Anderson said the amendments were prepared by a group of attorneys and legislators, including representatives from the coal industry...
Jonathan Fortner, president of the Lignite Energy Council that represents the coal industry, said it's unfortunate this happened in such an important bill. "From the president on down, everyone's interested in developing domestic critical minerals for national security reasons," Fortner said. "While this may have been a legislative joke between some people that somehow got through, the bigger picture is one that is important and is a very serious matter."
The fake minerals are friezium and stralium, apparent references to Christopher Friez and David Straley, attorneys for North American Coal who were closely involved in drafting the bill and its amendments. Straley said they were not responsible for adding the fake names. "I assume it was put in to embarrass us, or to make light of it, or have a practical joke," Straley said, adding it could have been a clerical error.
Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring questioned the two substances listed in state law during a recent meeting of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, which is poised to adopt rules based on the legislation... Friezium and stralium first appeared in the bill on the last afternoon of the legislative session as lawmakers hurried to pass several final bills... The amended bill is labeled as prepared by Legislative Council for Rep. Dick Anderson, R-Willow City, the prime sponsor and chair of the conference committee. Anderson said the amendments were prepared by a group of attorneys and legislators, including representatives from the coal industry...
Jonathan Fortner, president of the Lignite Energy Council that represents the coal industry, said it's unfortunate this happened in such an important bill. "From the president on down, everyone's interested in developing domestic critical minerals for national security reasons," Fortner said. "While this may have been a legislative joke between some people that somehow got through, the bigger picture is one that is important and is a very serious matter."
In Germany (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In Germany (Score:5, Informative)
The president of Mexico has a PhD. Best we can do is a guy who threatened to sue the school if they released his grades. Plus he’s a pedophile and convicted felon.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ah, IAmDesperateForAttention is back, and making up shit again.
Just for the record, Obama released his birth certificate. The history is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Of course, that didn't shut up sociopaths and nutjobs from coming up with all of sorts of other excuses. It was all lies, of course, but a fairly effective distraction.
Re:In Germany (Score:5, Informative)
Funny how you remember about the classified documents in Biden's residence but completely suppress the memory of the documents at Mar-a-Largo. Biden cooperated with returning the material while Trump fought tooth-and-nail to hide them. "I declassified them in my mind!"
The same mind that celebrates remembering which picture is the giraffe and drools over Karoline Leavitt - "Beautiful face, lips like machine gun"
Re:In Germany (Score:5, Informative)
Biden cooperated with returning the material while Trump fought tooth-and-nail to hide them.
More precisely, Biden voluntarily returned documents without being asked, when he realised they were in his possession. Trump refused to hand over documents after being repeatedly asked to, and had people moving them around his property to try to avoid detection by federal agents sent to retrieve them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> but he did prevail court
No, the Trumpy judge delayed the case until Trump was elected.
Trump probably would have lost the case. He definitely would have lost if they had been able to get any of the document recipients in Saudi Arabia to testify.
Re:In Germany (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Most politicians in Germany are lawyers as well.
Re:In Germany (Score:5, Informative)
Composition of the Merz Cabinet and their initial studies:
Friedrich Merz: Law
Lars Klingbeil: Political science
Alexander Dobrindt: Sociology
Johann Wadephul: Law (health&social)
Boris Pistorius: Law
Katherina Reiche: Chemistry
Dorothee Bär: Political science
Stefanie Hubig: Law
Karin Prien: Law and political science
Bärbel Bas: vocational training programme to become a social security specialist
Karsten Wildberger: doctorate in theoretical solid-state and computational physics
Patrick Schnieder: Law
Carsten Schneider: Public policy
Nina Warken: Law
Alois Rainer: Master butcher
Reem Alabali Radovan: political science
Verena Hubertz: business administration
Thorsten Frei: Law
Law: 8, political science: 3, sciences: 2, vocational training: 2, other social sciences: 2, business: 1
Re: (Score:2)
Our politicians are engineers and scientists. In USA they're all lawyers.
Usually failed lawyers, or lawyers that were so shitty at following the law they couldn't hack it even in our corrupt legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Who of our polititians is an actual engineer? Merz is a lawyer, Dobrindt a sociologist, Wadephul is a lawyer, Pistorius is a lawyer, Bär (research and technology[!]) is a politologist. Reiche is a chemist, and that's about it.
"Unobtanium" was considered (Score:4, Funny)
But the lobbyists who wrote the bill thought this might be a bit much...
Re:"Unobtanium" was considered (Score:4, Funny)
Undoubtedly, a failure of the Administratium.
This might actually be an instance of the infamous Van Halen brown M&Ms clause. Do you people actually read this sh-?
Re:"Unobtanium" was considered (Score:4, Funny)
They couldn't use Balonium or Trumpium?.
Been there, kind of (Score:1)
Reminds me of that time I tried to buy a laen knife.
Maybe slipped in by the CCP (Score:1)
As a potential poison pill.
No Easy Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no easy fix. If laws need to be properly reviewed, they won't be able to sneak in the corrupt parts!
Re: (Score:2)
LLMs seem like they would be a goo way to shed light on long, complex texts like this. Not saying you would rely on them completely, but it would be a good first pass to see what major points are in the bill.
It seems like we are well passed the point where people can claim that they didn't know what was in the bill they are signing on to.
Re: (Score:2)
Make this crap something that will get them put in prison for a few months for a first offense, and that might help. Eliminate Citizens United and that would also help. Both of those things SHOULDN'T be difficult if we had anti-corruption rules and laws actually being enforced.
Purpose of the bill, written by Coal Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
(from Claude)
Actual Purpose (The Legal & Practical Impact)
While the stated goals focus on "security" and "waste prevention," the primary practical function of the bill is to resolve ownership disputes and expand the rights of coal operators at the expense of general mineral owners. Key "actual" functions include:
- Granting Automatic Mineral Rights to Coal Lessees: The bill effectively changes the default terms of any coal lease, "whenever granted." It stipulates that a lease for coal is now deemed to include all critical and rare earth minerals contained within that coal unless they were specifically excluded in writing. This retroactively grants coal companies the right to valuable minerals they may not have originally paid for.
- Protecting Facility Owners (Coal Ash Ownership): The bill clarifies that coal ash and byproducts resulting from combustion or gasification belong to the owner/operator of the facility, not the original mineral owner. This secures the "downstream" value of these minerals for the utility companies.
- Limiting Liability: It includes language protecting facility owners from being held liable for "waste, conversion, or destruction" of minerals during the combustion or gasification process.
- Legal Retroactivity: By making these changes retroactive, the bill seeks to bypass potential litigation over existing contracts where the ownership of minerals like lithium or uranium found in coal seams might have been ambiguous under older laws.
In summary: The bill uses the high-profile justification of "national security" and "rare earth production" to codify a legal framework that ensures coal mining companies and power plants have the primary right to profit from these materials, even if those rights were not explicitly secured in their original land-use agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought retroactive laws were invalid? Or is that only for criminal court?
Thanks for the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Following the fall of Maduro, Russians are starting to realize in what bad shape Russia is. The events in Venezuela are unanimously considered a strategic Russian defeat, and they admit that Russia is currently too weak to help any Russian allies.
Not only the "investments" are gone, the very future of Russia is at stake. Russian allies such as Syria, Iran and Venezuela are getting lost or neutralized, without Moscow having even a chance to counter it.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon they will be mining... (Score:2)
Soon they will be mining 100% weapons grade bolognium.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
--JoshK.
Re: (Score:1)
You can start by they didn't even use AI to check... lulz:
Can you spot any potential errors in this document (from legal and scientific perspective)? https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/6... [ndlegis.gov]
Deepseek reply:
I have reviewed House Bill No. 1459 from the North Dakota Legislative Assembly and identified several potential errors and concerns from both legal and scientific perspectives. Here is my analysis:
### âs-ï **Potential Legal Issues**
* **Ambiguous and Inconsistent Drafting**: The definitions in Section 1 show irregular numbering, jumping from "3." to "3-4." and "4-5." This creates ambiguity. Furthermore, the retroactive application in **Section 4** could face constitutional challenges, as retroactive laws that impair contractual obligations or vested property rights are often scrutinized by courts.
* **Vague and Overbroad Definitions**: The core definitions of **"critical mineral"** and **"subsurface minerals"** are extremely broad. The "critical mineral" list appears to be a modified version of the **U.S. Geological Survey's critical minerals list**, but includes non-standard terms. The "subsurface minerals" definition is a catch-all that could unintentionally include common materials, despite its attempt to exclude sand and gravel.
* **Property Rights and Takings Implications**: **Section 2(6)** declares that a coal lease "must include the right to all critical minerals and rare earth minerals... unless specifically excluded." This could **override existing agreements** where these rights were previously severed or reserved by a different party, potentially leading to claims of an unconstitutional "taking" of private property without compensation.
* **Liability Shield Concerns**: **Section 2(8)** grants a broad liability shield to coal conversion facility operators for any damages arising from the purchase or processing of minerals within coal. This could potentially bar legitimate claims for environmental damage or negligence.
### ðY" **Potential Scientific and Technical Issues**
* **Incorrect and Non-Standard Terminology**: The "critical mineral" list contains significant scientific errors:
* **"Friezium" and "Stralium"** are not recognized chemical elements or minerals.
* **"Astatine"** is a highly radioactive element with an extremely short half-life; it does not exist in mineable quantities in nature and is not considered a critical mineral.
* **"Bauxite"** is a rock (an ore of aluminum), not a mineral itself, which makes its inclusion in a list of "minerals" technically incorrect.
* **Geochemical Inaccuracies**: The bill repeatedly states that critical minerals are "chemically bound, embedded, commingled, included, or contained within a coal seam." While coal can contain trace elements, many minerals on the list (e.g., **platinum group metals, titanium, zirconium**) are not typically found in *economically recoverable* quantities within coal seams. This foundational assumption may not be geologically sound.
* **Imprecise Definition of "Rare Earth Minerals"**: The definition correctly includes the **lanthanide series, yttrium, and scandium**. However, it omits **promethium**, which, while radioactive and not found in significant natural deposits, is part of the lanthanide series. The definition's reliance on being "contained within a coal seam" is also a significant and potentially inaccurate limitation from a mineralogical standpoint.
* **Problematic Royalty Trigger**: The royalty in **Section 2(10)** is based on minerals "mined, removed, and **sold**." This creates a loophole: if an operator extracts and uses the minerals internally (e.g., in their own manufacturing), they may avoid paying royalties, undermining the policy goal.
### ðY' **Suggestions for Correction**
To address these issues, the bill could be revised to:
1. Correct the scientific errors by aligning the "critical mineral" list with the official **U.S. Geological Survey Critical Minerals List** and removing non-elements like "bauxite."
2. Replace the problematic numbering in definitions with a standard sequential format.
3. Clarify the retroactive clause to specify it applies only prospectively to future leases or under very specific conditions to avoid constitutional issues.
4. Narrow the liability shield in Section 2(8) to exclude acts of gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
5. Redefine the royalty trigger to apply upon "commercial sale or utilization" to close the internal-use loophole.
I hope this detailed analysis is helpful for your review of the legislation. Please note that this is an analytical review based on the provided text and not formal legal or scientific advice.
Grok reply:
### Scientific Perspective
The document appears to be a legislative bill (House Bill No. 1459) focused on defining and regulating critical minerals and rare earth minerals associated with coal deposits in North Dakota. From a scientific standpoint, the core premiseâ"that certain critical minerals and rare earth elements (REEs) can be found chemically bound, embedded, or contained within coal seamsâ"is supported by research. Studies on North Dakota lignite coal (a low-rank coal prevalent in the state) indicate that REEs are often organically associated (e.g., as coordination complexes with organic matter) at concentrations of 300â"600 ppm on an ash basis in typical seams, and up to 2,300 ppm in some outcropped areas. Extraction via acid leaching has shown 70â"90% efficiency in lab tests, suggesting feasibility for recovery during coal mining or processing.
However, potential errors or inaccuracies include:
- **Non-existent or misspelled elements in the critical minerals definition (Section 1, amending 38-12-01)**: The list includes "friezium" and "stralium," which are not recognized elements or minerals. These may be typographical errors for actual critical REEs like "dysprosium" (Dy) and "terbium" (Tb), both of which are on the U.S. Geological Survey's critical minerals list and could plausibly occur in coal. If not typos, their inclusion introduces factual inaccuracies, as no such substances exist in scientific literature.
- **Inclusion of astatine**: Astatine (At) is a radioactive halogen with extremely short half-lives (seconds to hours), making it impossible to mine or utilize commercially. It is not on any standard critical minerals list (e.g., USGS 2022 list of 50 critical minerals) and has no known presence in coal deposits at extractable levels. This could be an erroneous addition, potentially confusing it with another element like arsenic (already listed).
- **Broad inclusion of elements not typically "chemically bound" in coal**: While many listed elements (e.g., cerium, neodymium, uranium) are trace elements in lignite ash or organically associated, others like helium (a noble gas) are more likely trapped in associated natural gas pockets rather than chemically bound. Helium extraction from coal bed methane is possible, but the definition's emphasis on chemical bonding may not accurately reflect its mode of occurrence. Similarly, bauxite (an ore, not a pure mineral) and barite (barium sulfate) are included, but their presence in coal is minimal and not always in forms amenable to the described extraction.
- **Overly broad REE grouping**: The definition separates specific REEs (e.g., cerium, erbium) while lumping others under "the rare earth elements group." This is redundant and imprecise, as the group typically encompasses all lanthanides plus yttrium and scandium (the latter already listed individually). It risks ambiguity in application, especially since research shows variable distribution of light vs. heavy REEs in North Dakota coal.
These issues could undermine the bill's scientific credibility if not corrected, potentially leading to misdirected research or extraction efforts.
### Legal Perspective
The bill amends existing statutes to treat critical minerals and REEs as inherently part of the coal estate in leases (unless excluded), mandates a minimum royalty, and applies retroactively. While aimed at promoting domestic resource development amid national security concerns (aligning with federal policies like the Energy Act of 2020), it raises several potential legal flaws:
- **Retroactive application (Section 4)**: Declaring the Act retroactive could violate the U.S. Constitution's Contract Clause (Art. I, Â 10), which prohibits states from substantially impairing existing contracts. By redefining past coal leases to include these minerals (unless specifically excluded at the time), it may alter negotiated terms, transferring rights from surface/mineral owners to coal lessees without consent. This has drawn criticism from groups like the Northwest Landowners Association, who argue it interferes with private contracts and have indicated plans for legal challenges. Courts (e.g., in cases like *Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co.*, 1983) scrutinize such impairments, requiring a legitimate public purpose and reasonable meansâ"here, national security may qualify as a purpose, but the royalty mandate and lack of compensation could fail the "reasonableness" test.
- **Potential Takings Clause violation (5th Amendment)**: If the redefinition deprives owners of vested property rights in severed minerals (e.g., if minerals were previously conveyed separately), it might constitute a regulatory taking without just compensation. North Dakota case law (e.g., *N.D. State Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands v. Frear*, 1999) emphasizes clear intent in mineral conveyances; retroactively altering them could invite due process claims.
- **Ambiguity in royalty provisions (Section 2, subsection 10)**: The mandatory minimum 2.5% royalty on "gross proceeds" from sold minerals is paid to "any applicable mineral owner" based on "undivided ownership of coal mined." However, since the bill deems these minerals part of the coal estate, it may create confusion if ownership is severed or disputed. "Gross proceeds" is defined narrowly as arms-length sales receipts, but no guidance exists for non-arms-length transactions (e.g., internal transfers by integrated companies), potentially leading to disputes or underpayment. Critics argue this overrides negotiated royalties, denying owners bargaining power.
- **Conflict with federal regulations**: Including uranium could overlap with federal Atomic Energy Act controls (via NRC), requiring additional permits not addressed. Helium might implicate the Helium Stewardship Act if federally reserved.
- **Incomplete alignment with federal definitions**: The bill's "critical mineral" list deviates from the USGS list (e.g., adding astatine, excluding others like zinc or nickel in some versions), which could complicate federal funding or incentives under acts like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Overall, while the bill's policy goals are defensible, the retroactivity and mandatory terms have sparked significant opposition, with potential for court invalidation. No major formatting or procedural errors are evident in the document itself, but the element list typos (if not corrected) could weaken enforceability.
Doesn't anybody take chemistry anymore? (Score:2)
This would leap right out at you.
Should have added "Cretinium" and "Stupidium" (Score:3)
Clearly the whole venture is a bad joke when they cannot even get somebody competent to read through the thing before making it a law.
Re: (Score:2)
if they did that most laws would never get passed. i don't see that as a bad thing
Re: (Score:2)
So you are on favor of broken laws? How is that a good thing?
Re: (Score:2)
which laws are not broken?
I'm here to lead, not read (Score:1)
Trump-Force found these in Venezuela: (Score:3)
Bonespuria, Invadia, Cankleia, Adolfia, Xenophobia, Golfia, Fibbia, and Blowhardia.
Version control, tracked reviews (Score:3)
Minerals or elements? (Score:1)
Version control for laws? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems they can't track who changes what. And they'll approve it all the same.
Why aren't they using version control already?
AI strikes again? (Score:3)
Where is the outrage? (Score:1)
People must have just accepted this level of corruption as normal and no longer care.
Industry writing the whole laws which are not even reviewed by their puppets for errors anymore! The real problem is the outsourcing of laws to corporate lobby groups.
Naming scheme (Score:3)
"Friezium" and "stralium" sound a lot more like fake chemical elements that minerals. They'd more probably be named "Friezite" and "Stralite" according to traditional naming schemas. The fact that they got through with it is a strong indicator of the technical competence of those making laws on technology.
Fictional for now (Score:2)
ium (Score:3)
-ium is not a suffix that denotes minerals, but rather elements. Minerals are typically denoted by the -ite suffix. So this is double dumb.
Waiting for the Ligma-gation to commence! (Score:1)