Acknowledging their responsibility, the mining sector and associated industries have made significant capital investments and have been harnessing the materials science revolution to meet increased expectations of consumers, society and governments to sustainably and responsibly support the shift.

On a broader level, in a recent post, Seeking Alpha points to the European Copper Institute having found that the “copper industry reduced CO2 emissions by 60% from 1990 to 2020 by investing in efficiency and reducing energy consumption.”

The post adds: “(…) the green initiatives have just started: nowadays, mining of ‘green’ metals (which are metals produced with renewable energy sources and sustainable practices) is a new way to address emissions in the sector,” and points to low-carbon aluminum produced using mostly renewable energy sources, as well as low-carbon nickel.

Meanwhile, a significant disconnect persists in certain circles about both the importance of the mining industry in the green energy shift, and the strides companies have made to reduce their environmental impact. Overcoming that disconnect is the main reason ARPN continues to highlight specific sustainability initiatives in extractive and associated industries. These range from overhauling supply chain policies to ensure suppliers conform to certain environmental and social standards, to incorporating renewable power sources into their operations to offset some of the carbon costs of resource development. (Take a look at our latest roundup here.)

As Congress is weighing legislation that could bring significant changes for critical mineral resource policy, the time has come for another roundup:

• U.S. miner Alcoa has partnered with Alumtek Minerals, a Brisbane, Australia-based company that has developed a a process to extract critical minerals including gallium, vanadium, hafnium and rare earths from bauxite tailings. Having received a grant from the Australian government, the companies will collaborate with a Western Australian government research hub in the hopes to advance the processing technology from proof of concept to full production.
• As part of its full-value mining initiative, global miner Rio Tinto is also targeting waste tailings as a source for critical minerals and other useful consumer products. According to Bloomberg, the company is “currently figuring out ways to extract up to ten so-called critical minerals from copper waste at its mining facility in Utah,”  and in Australia, has partnered with the University of Queensland and Queensland Alumina to bioengineer bauxite residue known as ‘red mud’ into an eco-friendly plant-sustaining soil. Meanwhile, to reduce its carbon footprint, the company is looking to construct a brand new [additional] solar plant at is Weipa bauxite site, in Queensland, Australia. Contracting with energy supplier EDL, the company aims to triple North Queensland local solar power generation with the new plant.
• According to Engineering and Mining Journal, “Rolls-Royce and Flanders Electric have agreed to develop a retrofit solution for hybridizing mining-class haul trucks with mtu [motor-and-turbine union] engines, batteries and hybrid control systems, and Flanders drive train solutions.” A recently-signed Memorandum of understanding between the two companies enables them to “offer a scalable retrofit kit for hybridizing mining trucks in a wide range of mining applications.”
• In its efforts to operate more efficiently and sustainably, China-focused mine Silvercorp began constructing a one million tonne-per-year waste rock treatment plant which turns waste produced at its flagship Ying multi-mine project into aggregate. The company is further exploring the use of mine tailings in the manufacture of ceramic products.

These examples provide just a single snapshot into sustainability initiatives underway at this point in time, but of course more can, should, and is being done. Count on ARPN to continue to feature these initiatives going forward.

The post Green Energy Shift Requires a Revolution in Materials Science appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Simon Moores, Managing Director of Benchmark Mineral Intelligence and member of the ARPN panel of experts, was invited to testify on opportunities and risks in the energy storage supply chain. In his testimony, Moores outlined the “rise of the lithium ion battery megafactories,” and shared Benchmark Mineral Intelligence’s assessment of the development of the two largest growth markets for which these lithium ion batteries will be targeted – EV and stationary/utility storage, which Moores characterized as the “two uses that underpin the energy storage revolution.”

Said Moores:

“Both markets are in their infancy. However, as these markets mature over the next 10 years, the scale of application and its disruptive effect on established auto and energy industries will be unprecedented.”

Moores then discussed the critical raw material inputs fueling lithium ion technologies — Lithium, Graphite, Cobalt and Nickel — with an eye towards the United States’ current and prospective role in these respective markets. While outlining opportunities, Moores also warned of great risks:

“The demands EV manufacturers are placing on raw material miners to chemical processors and cathode manufacturers are huge – they are being asked to increase their business footprint by 5-10 times in a 7-year period. At present, there is little desire to share this capital and commercial risk of building new mines or expanding their business to meet this new demand. 

Major auto manufacturers will eventually have to conclude that supply chain partnerships and capital investment is the only way to secure lithium, graphite, cobalt, nickel or lithium ion battery cells. But this decision-making process is slow for players outside of China and risks derailing any form of revolution in the energy storage industry.”

He argued that necessary investment is still falling short and “needs to be 10 times larger to create a new blueprint for a post-2030 world.”

Concluded Moores:

“This energy storage revolution is global and unstoppable. For countries and corporations, positioning themselves accordingly to take advantage of this should be of paramount importance and longer term (~10 year) decisions need to be made.”

Here’s hoping that his testimony resonates with Members of Congress and helps deepen the conversation about a much needed comprehensive mineral resource strategy.

To read Moores’s full testimony, click here. Video footage of the hearing will be made available on the committee’s website as well.

The post Senate Energy Committee Zeroes in on Energy Storage Revolution – Where Will the Battery Megafactories Get the Minerals and Metals They Need? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

McGroarty points to the risks associated with our growing – and largely self-inflicted – dependence on foreign-sourced minerals and metals which have “implications for the strength of the American economic recovery, for the revival of U.S. manufacturing might, and for the hoped-for dominance of U.S. ingenuity and enterprise in the advanced technology applications that we know are shaping the world of the 21s Century.”

He argues that if the United States continues down the current path of reducing exploration spending while prolonging the already onerous permitting process for mining projects, resource development, and with that associated manufacturing, will move elsewhere.

Outlining several helpful first steps to mitigate these risks, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) American Mineral Security Act, he concludes:

“I don’t think there’s another nation in the world that can match American ingenuity.  We can pioneer the ideas behind wind and solar and so much else – but where will the materials that make these new energy sources real – where will they come from?

How we answer that question will determine to a large extent whether the U.S. can regain its manufacturing might…  Whether America will lead the alternative energy revolution…  And whether the U.S. will have the metals and minerals we need to provide the modern military technology we depend on.” 

Click here to read the full written testimony.

The post McGroarty before U.S. Senate Committee: “Increased Resource Dependence Jeopardizes U.S. Economic Strength and Manufacturing Might” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Chairman Broun, Ranking Member Maffei, Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Daniel McGroarty, and I am president of the American Resources Policy Network, an experts-led organization dedicated to exploring and informing the American public and American policy-makers of the importance of U.S. resource development – and the dangers of unnecessary foreign resource dependence.

The Pebble deposit, the subject of the EPA assessment, is the largest potential copper mine in the United States. America’s lack of this critical metal has most notably been acknowledged in a recent Defense Department report as causing “a significant weapon system production delay for DoD.” Pebble is also potentially a multi-metal mine, with prospects beyond copper for the recovery of Molybdenum — used in alloy form in gun-barrels of many types, Rhenium — used in high-performance jet fighters, and Selenium and Tellurium, both of which are used in photovoltaic solar panels that could not only lead the Green Revolution – but provide a portable power source for U.S. troops in the field.

As a matter of sound public policy, Pebble should be treated no differently than any other potential mineral resources project under the well-established environmental permitting process. But even before the permitting process has begun, Pebble has been subject to inconsistent and unprecedented treatment by the EPA — creating a troubling trend in public policy that has strategic implications. Given these factors, this Committee is right to examine the EPA’s actions in greater detail.

American permitting needs to be predictable — not as to outcome, but in terms of process — in order to encourage investment in American resources. The hallmark of that process – in terms of environmental permitting and public participation — is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Yet, the very act of EPA conducting the Bristol Bay Watershed Study (hereinafter, the “Watershed Study”) — prior to Pebble submitting a mine plan or seeking a single permit — creates a chilling effect on investment in U.S. resource extraction. The likelihood that mine opponents are gearing up to use the Watershed Study as a reason to trigger a pre-emptive permit denial (before NEPA even begins) could deprive the U.S. of reliable sources of critical metals, responsibly extracted under American regulations.

Every issue raised to justify the Watershed Study could easily and amply be raised and reviewed within the existing permitting process, with input from experts and the community. Put another way, there is no issue I see that requires the construction of a wholly new “pre-permitting process,” with the power to prevent a proposed project from even having the opportunity to be judged within the NEPA process.

An unprecedented watershed assessment of a hypothetical mine — and even the minor contemplation of a preemptive permit veto — warrants an extremely high bar for the scientific method, the validity of source material, and the impartiality that must be met by this study.

On all those counts, Mr. Chairman, we believe this assessment fails and falls short.

At this point, two caveats: I am a policy analyst, not a scientist. The substantive points I will raise are detailed by experts, but should give all non-scientists reason for pause.

So far, the most substantive review of one of the key studies in the Watershed Assessment – the EARTHWORKS-funded study, “Kuipers Maest, 2006, “Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines” led by Dr. Ann Maest (hereinafter, the “Kuipers Maest 2006 report”) — is an analysis conducted by global water and environmental management firm Schlumberger, on behalf of the Northwest Mining Association, and submitted to the EPA as part of NWMA’s Watershed Study comments. As the Schlumberger reports says, one of the fundamental tenets of scientific research is that its findings can be replicated by others, provided they have access to the data set. Schlumberger states that it cannot replicate the hydrological data presented in the Kuipers Maest 2006 report relied on by EPA.

Second, Schlumberger finds what I have elsewhere noted as “backward bias” inherent in any hypothetical construct. Schlumberger notes that the Kuipers Maest 2006 report draws on a “preponderance” of case studies taken from mines that operated before the modern regulatory era.

If the “data set” consists of a preponderance of mines permitted and operated before the modern era of regulatory limits – is it any surprise that these mines fell short of the modern limits?

What does the failure of past mines have to do with a proposed mine –using current and perhaps even cutting-edge processes – and whether it will meet modern requirements?

And how does it constitute “sound science” to argue against a proposed mine based on what happened at other mines operated to other standards 20, 30 or 40 years ago?

Would we use such a backwards-biased yardstick to judge the safety of a new airplane? A new car? A new medicine?

Is it “sound science” to say that poor performance in the past proves that we cannot achieve superior performance now and in the future?
Now I will turn from the substance to sourcing — serious questions concerning the impartiality of experts relied upon by the EPA.

My organization expressed these concerns in a letter sent to members of the House, Senate and administrators at EPA, which I include in my written testimony but will summarize here.

Once again, the subject of concern is work done by Dr. Ann Maest and Stratus Consulting.

Many of us saw the coverage of the Chevron environmental case in Ecuador, where plaintiffs were awarded an $18 billion dollar judgment against the oil company. This judgment has been the subject of extensive federal litigation in U.S. courts, where, among other charges, Chevron brought racketeering claims against members of the plaintiff’s team – including against Dr. Maest and Stratus. At the heart of these suits were claims that the plaintiff’s litigation team manipulated data to show contamination where no data existed and created a report written by the plaintiff’s team, including Maest and Stratus, that was then passed off as being written by a court-appointed independent consultant.

How do we know this? For what must have been public relations reasons, the plaintiff’s team actually invited a film crew to document the behind-the-scenes events in a major environmental lawsuit for a favorable documentary. This documentary also generated hours of tape on the cutting-room floor that was uncovered during Chevron’s discovery process.

Here is one such clip:

[VIDEO]

“Facts do not exist. Facts are created.” That’s the lawyer who directed the supposedly independent research. The woman chuckling in the seat next to him is Dr. Ann Maest: the scientist who conducted the Ecuador study, and later disavowed its findings…

…The very same scientist whose work is cited multiple times in the Bristol Bay Watershed Study.

And while the Chevron litigation is still ongoing, Maest and Stratus settled claims against them by submitting sworn statements that “renounced all of the scientific findings” in their report.

Stratus and Maest have numerous contracts with EPA and Maest’s work is cited 11 times in the Watershed Study – seven of those in reference to the Stratus consulting firm.

EPA — apparently understanding the controversy surrounding this work — ordered a quasi-peer review of the Kuipers Maest 2006 report as part of addendum to the second draft of the Watershed Study. I call it a “quasi-peer review” because EPA’s last-minute effort falls seriously short of basic peer review standards.

Case in point: the review relied on one scientist who was a former colleague at the Stratus firm who had coauthored studies with Dr. Maest. The Committee can consider for itself whether this constitutes the kind of independent assessment that defines peer review.

So, to sum up: in the Ecuador incident, the scientist has disavowed her work.

Her firm has cut its ties to her.

And yet EPA builds its Watershed Study on her work.

I want to be clear on this point: I do not know whether the work used in the Watershed Study will prove to show issues similar to the Ecuador studies that the author disavowed. My point is that this question needs to be examined – impartially, independently – and that absent that, EPA’s reliance on work done by this scientist or her firm in the Watershed Study puts the entire study under a cloud.

In closing, there’s a quote I’d like to share with the Committee:
“NEPA is democratic at its core. In many cases, NEPA gives citizens their only opportunity to voice concerns about a project’s impact on their community… And because informed public engagement often produces ideas, information, and even solutions that the government might otherwise overlook, NEPA leads to better decisions — and better outcomes — for everyone. The NEPA process has saved money, time, lives, historical sites, endangered species, and public lands while encouraging compromise and cultivating better projects with more public support.
…because of NEPA — …we are guaranteed a voice.”

That quote is from the website of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). They love NEPA — just not this time, for this project.

That’s a dangerous departure from the law. This time, the mine is Pebble and the metal is copper. But if we allow this precedent, there will be many mines and projects that don’t get built – and many metals we’ll be forced to import, many times from nations that wish us harm.

We have a process in place to determine whether a mine should or shouldn’t be built. We should follow that process – to lead us to a policy based on science, and projects made better by the even-handed scrutiny they receive.

Thank you.

# # #

The post EPA’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment: A Factual Review of a Hypothetical Scenario appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Commenting specifically on one of the bills pending in the committee, the ‘‘National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013’’ (HR 1063), introduced by Congressman Doug Lamborn (R, Colo.), McGroarty stressed the importance of aligning the United States’ public policy with the goal of strengthening America’s resource sector against the backdrop of our – unnecessary – over-reliance on foreign mineral resources.

In his testimony, McGroarty highlighted three steps Chairman Lamborn’s bill would take to reduce our mineral dependencies, which include strengthening our assessment capabilities, eliminating duplication in the permitting process, and the requirement for a “National Mineral Assessment.”

Here’s an excerpt:

“The second key section in the Lamborn legislation concerns eliminating needless duplication in the mine permitting process – a process that today, in the leading independent study, earns the U.S. worst-in-the-world ranking, tied for last with Papua New Guinea, with the average mine permitting process in the U.S. taking 7-10 years. And this metric is getting worse, not better: Just 4 years ago, in 2009, the same study found the U.S. process took an average of 5 to 7 years.

And little wonder why. One day, the DoD releases a study showing 23 metals and minerals in potential shortfall, while the DoE declares a dozen minerals critical to the green-tech and clean-energy transition. But at the very same time the U.S. EPA moves to stop a proposed American copper mine – a metal whose short supply, DoD tells us, has already caused “a significant weapon system production delay” – before the permitting process has even begun.

So with so many mixed signals coming from the federal government, let’s ask ourselves: If you were an American manufacturer, dependent on metals and minerals engineered into your products, could you risk waiting for a reliable source of American supply? Or would you build your new facility where the metals are – in China, perhaps – exporting jobs and Intellectual Property, sacrificing GDP and feeding a negative balance of trade as we buy back products that could have been, should have been, made here in America?”

McGroarty’s conclusion:

“The Lamborn bill is a solid test of our seriousness on this issue. If enacted, it would provide the fact-base for a data-driven assessment of our domestic resource potential, our vulnerability to foreign supply, and the obstacles that stand between us and a greater degree of resource independence.”

To read the full testimony, click here.

The post American Resources Principal Daniel McGroarty testifies before House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Chairman Lamborn, my thanks to you and your colleagues on the House Sub-Committee on Energy and Mineral Resources for the opportunity to testify today. I am Daniel McGroarty, President of the American Resource Policy Network, a non-profit think tank and experts organization dedicated to informing the public — and the ongoing policy debate — on the importance of developing U.S. mineral and metals resources — and reducing America’s dangerous dependency on foreign sources of supply.

I am also an officer and director of U.S. Rare Earths, a publicly-held company currently developing Rare Earths properties in three states, with the aim of adding to the domestic supply of metals critical to our high-tech and green-tech sectors, as well as the U.S. military’s advanced defense systems. The subject before this sub-committee this morning – America’s Mineral Resources:
Creating Mining & Manufacturing Jobs and Securing America – is critical to so many of the pressing policy issues before the Congress today, whether it’s the restoration of American manufacturing prowess, or restoring our economy to sustainable growth, or supporting our high-tech sector and our green-tech transition – and of course, as the last portion of our title today suggests: “Securing America.”

As a significant first step towards aligning our public policy with the goal of strengthening our resource sector, I want to focus on one of the bills before this Committee and this Congress: HR 1063, the ‘‘National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013,’’ introduced by Chairman Lamborn.

As the bill notes – and I quote — “the United States has vast mineral resources but is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign sources.” The bill buttresses this statement with data on the degree to which the U.S. is 100% foreign-dependent on certain metals and minerals – 18 at present — up from six 25 years ago. Last year, when my organization, American Resources, did a risk screen for metals and minerals used in defense applications, we derived a “risk pyramid,” with 46 metals on it – with China being the single largest supplier. But as we looked further at known resources located in the United States, we found that the U.S. is home to resources for 40 of the 46 metals and minerals on our risk pyramid.

In other words, if we are foreign-dependent for a wide range of hard rock resources, it is a dependency that is largely self-inflicted.

As I see it, the Lamborn bill takes three steps that would help the U.S. formulate a targeted policy to reduce — and in the case of many metals, eventually eliminate – our foreign dependence.

First – via Section 4 – the bill strengthens our assessment capability. We can’t begin to systematically address our resource dependence if we lack current, comprehensive data on the depth of that dependence. And that assessment, in turn, requires solid data on the extent to which potential resources might be found on federal lands – including lands withdrawn from mineral exploration and development – as well as the uses to which various metals are put across our economy and in our defense sector – and finally, a review of our current foreign suppliers, with an assessment of the likelihood of shortfalls or supply disruptions. Because in a world of resource nationalism, foreign dependence for critical metals can be used as leverage – commercial, but also military – that can induce economic shock to the American system.

And yet even before the U.S. Government begins collecting data, the agencies involved must begin by sorting through a half-dozen conflicting definitions of critical and strategic metals – one so tight that it produced a single strategic metal to the exclusion of all others – and some so vague that the entire Periodic Table might be eligible for inclusion.

The second key section in the Lamborn legislation concerns eliminating needless duplication in the mine permitting process – a process that today, in the leading independent study, earns the U.S. worst-in-the-world ranking, tied for last with Papua New Guinea, with the average mine permitting process in the U.S. taking 7-10 years. And this metric is getting worse, not better: Just 4 years ago, in 2009, the same study found the U.S. process took an average of 5 to 7 years.

And little wonder why. One day, the DoD releases a study showing 23 metals and minerals in potential shortfall, while the DoE declares a dozen minerals critical to the green-tech and clean-energy transition. But at the very same time the U.S. EPA moves to stop a proposed American copper mine – a metal whose short supply, DoD tells us, has already caused “a significant weapon system production delay” – before the permitting process has even begun.

So with so many mixed signals coming from the federal government, let’s ask ourselves: If you were an American manufacturer, dependent on metals and minerals engineered into your products, could you risk waiting for a reliable source of American supply? Or would you build your new facility where the metals are – in China, perhaps – exporting jobs and Intellectual Property, sacrificing GDP and feeding a negative balance of trade as we buy back products that could have been, should have been, made here in America?

Mr. Chairman, we need to recognize that Made in America often begins with Mined in America. The Lamborn bill puts us back on that track.

The third feature in HR 1063 that I want to mention today is the requirement for a National Mineral Assessment, updated at 2-year intervals. Critical metals are technology-dependent; and as technology evolves over time, so too will our tool-kit of critical metals. In Roman times, sodium chloride – salt – was a critical mineral, essential to preserving food for armies on the move. In Adam Smith’s time, he classed gunpowder and sailcloth as critical materials, and the father of free-market theory warned Britain against being dependent on foreign sources of supply. In our Moore’s Law world, as technology cycles are measured in months, not years, we will need to constantly update our understanding of what metals and minerals deserve to be called critical.

The Lamborn bill is a solid test of our seriousness on this issue. If enacted, it would provide the fact-base for a data-driven assessment of our domestic resource potential, our vulnerability to foreign supply, and the obstacles that stand between us and a greater degree of resource independence.

I commend the Chairman for his leadership on the critical issue of critical metals, and for the Committee’s focus today on the various bills that are the focus of this hearing. America has the good fortune to be a resource-rich nation. Sound policy can help ensure that our resources will be used to support our economic strength and our national security – and reduce the dangers of resource dependence in our uncertain world.

Thank you.

The post America’s Mineral Resources: Creating Mining & Manufacturing Jobs and Securing America appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.