Search Results

At the 2021 United Nations Climate Change conference (COP26) held in Glasgow, Scotland earlier this month, two major U.S. automakers, General Motors and Ford, signed a commitment calling on automakers to sell only zero-emissions vehicles by 2040.  Joined by Volvo, Jaguar Land Rover and Mercedes-Benz, as well as several countries, territories and fleet operators, the manufacturers pledged to work towards “reaching 100% zero emission new car and van sales in leading markets by 2035 or earlier,” with the full transition to zero-emissions to be made by 2040.

On the heels of the agreement, Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley — who earlier this fall called for bringing the battery production supply chain to the United States  – announced on Twitter that his company intended “to become the second bigger EV producer within the next couple [of] years,” adding: “Then as the huge investments we’re making in EV and battery manufacturing come onstream and we rapidly expand our EV line-up, our ambition is for Ford to become the biggest EV maker in the world.” 

Reaching these ambitious goals, however, may prove challenging, as Benchmark Mineral Intelligence’s Simon Moores, who is also a member of the ARPN panel of experts, pointed out on Twitter:

“Lithium-ion batteries will be the first bottleneck, then raw materials the ultimate pinch point,” adding that “[t]he issue now is U.S. leaders need to get a grip with reality and solve EV supply chain issues they face, from raw materials all the way [through] to the battery cell.” 

And that’s the major challenge for the United States, because for all of the verbal affirmations of an “all of the above” approach to mineral resource policy on the part of the Biden Administration, the overall plan thus far appears more geared towards “rely[ing] on ally countries to supply the bulk of the metals needed to build electric vehicles and focus[ing] on processing them domestically into battery parts, [as] part of a strategy designed to placate environmentalists.”

The latest manifestation of this challenge became apparent during a congressional hearing last week, during which U.S. Representative Scott Peters (D-Calif.) suggested that rather than onshoring minerals production, the U.S. should try “friend-shoring,” adding that “it seems like we should be working with our allies to develop new mines and factories for clean energy technologies in more favorable locations.”

While the “friend-shoring” concept is certainly appealing, especially to those policy makers with “not in my backyard (NIMBY)” constituencies, it is insufficient to alleviate our overall problem, as Benchmark Mineral Intelligence’s latest blog post on the issue makes clear:

 “To meet the goals set out in the COP26 Glasgow declaration by 2040 would require over 7 million tonnes of lithium (LCE) annually, which is 17 times more than lithium chemical production in 2021, according to Benchmark’s Lithium Forecast. It would also require over 5 million tonnes of nickel sulphate, which Benchmark’s Nickel Forecast shows is 19 times more than nickel sulphate production in 2021.

At the moment there is insufficient investment into raw material supply to meet battery demand in 2030 let alone 2040, Simon Moores, CEO of Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, said. ‘Right now, lithium demand is growing at three times the speed of lithium supply,” he said. “That’s a big problem that needs to be solved.’” 

As Thom Carter, energy adviser to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and executive director of the Governor’s Office of Energy Development, recently argued in a piece for the Deseret News, the “keep it all in the ground” push by “Washington, D.C. and the East and West Coasts” provides little more than a “talking point. (…) Anyone who says that you can get power through a ‘keep it in the ground’ policy isn’t telling you the truth. (…) All power, whether traditional or renewable, is impacted by what comes out of the ground. Advocating for renewable energy sources also means maintaining, if not expanding, our mining infrastructure.”

The good news is that courtesy of the materials science revolution, industry can harness new technologies to do expand our mining infrastructure responsibly and sustainably – as even Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm acknowledged this summer during a U.S. Senate hearing:

“This is the United States. We can mine in a responsible way. And many places are doing it. And there are some places where there are more challenges, but we can do this.”

 

With the public commenting period for the EPA’s revised Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment now closed, Environment and Energy Publishing’s Manuel Quinones zeroes in on the comments submitted to the agency in his latest piece for E&E Daily (subscription required).

According to the article, the battle lines are drawn on the push by environmentalist groups for a pre-emptive EPA veto of the Pebble project – a promising deposit of strategic minerals, including Copper, Molybdenum and Rhenium in Alaska, with both proponents and opponents weighing in heavily on the EPA’s assessment.

The drastic increase in public comments compared to the last public comment period underscores the significance of this issue: If the EPA continues down this road and is allowed to set this precedent, every exploratory domestic resource project may be in jeopardy of getting preemptively shut down.

As the comments show, environmentalists continue their usual tactics of fear-mongering, emotional hyperbole and over-simplification. Quinones quotes several opponents of the Pebble Project, who imply that the issue is simply a question of protecting Alaska’s salmon and its habitat vs. mineral exploration. However, the issue is far more complex. As American Resources Principal Daniel McGroarty has previously pointed out:

“Few focus on the way the “Not In My Back Yard” mentality morphs into environmental imperialism, empowering rogue rulers and harming the poor and powerless.

Consider the fact that copper – the primary product in the case of the Alaska mine in Cantwell’s crosshairs – is a critical technology-metal, no less than exotic elements like the Rare Earths. Case in point: The copper content of a single wind turbine weighs in at 3 to 4 ½ tons. Copper is also the source for Selenium, a little-known metal that is key to next-gen solar power systems.

So would stopping a U.S. copper mine save salmon? Or would it sacrifice wind and solar power we’re counting on to make the transition to a green economy? If we’re pro-salmon, we’ve got to be anti-copper – but if we’re anti-copper, won’t that make us anti-wind and anti-sun? Life isn’t always as simple as that “Save the Salmon” bumper sticker.

But for the NIMBY mentality, all that matters is stopping the mine. Where we get the metals we need is, well … someone else’s problem.”

A glaring example of emotional hyperbole is provided by the National Resources Defense Council, one of the key groups pushing the pre-emptive veto, saying of the Pebble Mine “We view this as one of the worst projects anywhere in the world today,” and, as quoted by McGroarty in his latest op-ed for the Wall Street Journal,“EPA’s study (and intervention) is critically important. If left to its own devices, the state of Alaska has never said no to a large mine.” McGroarty refutes the NRDC’s arguments in his WSJ op-ed.

Meanwhile, in an interesting turn of events, the Washington Post’s editorial board and the left-leaning Center for American Progress – both of whom are not known to be mouthpieces for the mining industry – have recently come out in favor of letting the established permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) take its course – which is encouraging.

In theory, even the NRDC has acknowledged the important role of NEPA, as this statement on its website indicates:

“NEPA is democratic at its core. (…) 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.”

All of which leaves us scratching our head wondering if, according to NRDC, this process should only be allowed to function if the deck is stacked in its favor to oppose a project …

As we have previously pointed out: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was established to ensure adequate environmental protections for wildlife and habitat – there is simply no compelling reason to preemptively issue a veto and prevent a full and fair review.

This is the conversation we need to have.

The issue of the White House blocking several Department of Energy regulations was raised at a recent Congressional hearing, the New York Times reports. The rules in question would require greater energy efficiency for appliances, as well as building and lighting. Critics argue that in spite of a 1993 executive order requiring the White House [...]

With the release of this year’s instructive Behre Dolbear “Where Not to Invest” study, a report that ranks – among other things – the time it takes to bring new mines online in various nations, it comes as no surprise to see that the United States has tied with Papua New Guinea for the second [...]

As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, the United States has subjected itself to a significant degree of import dependency when it comes to the supply of critical minerals – a dependency that is in many cases homegrown and unnecessary. This over-reliance on foreign mineral sources comes with many strings attached, particularly when supplier [...]

Early last year, we highlighted new Rare Earth exploration efforts in Saxony, Germany, where a newly formed company called Seltene Erden Storkwitz AG was slated to kick off drilling operations in the East German state. They did kick off, and the long-suspected occurrence of Rare Earths in the area has now been confirmed by a [...]

In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, a reader from Arizona responds to American Resources Principal Daniel McGroarty’s op-ed “America’s Growing Minerals Deficit.” Citing Canada-based Augusta Resources’ Rosemont copper mine project in southern Arizona as an example, the reader alleges McGroarty “overlooks one very important consideration. There isn’t any assurance that [...]

This is part three of American Resources’ three-part 2012 retrospective. Check out parts one here and two. Traditionally, the New Year is the time when people reflect on the past twelve months and formulate resolutions for the months ahead. As the first hours of 2013 have been dominated by the drama the Fiscal Cliff, our [...]

American Resources expert Lisa Reisman’s blog MetalMiner had some cheerful news to share this week: The U.S. Steel Industry is leading the world – and this is not just a blast from the past. Some of the post’s key points: Steel production is up 5.7 percent to 7.6 million tons in January.   According to [...]

The Indian Express ran an excellent article this week on India’s efforts to develop a mineral strategy.  The piece gives a broad overview on the global context of the critical mineral mining environment from an Indian perspective. It points out that China not only accounts for more than 90 percent of global REE supply, but [...]