The question becomes all the more relevant against the backdrop of Denmark reportedly having made a strategic decision to serve as “the key gateway for Beijing’s commercial an strategic entrée in to the Arctic” earlier this year. Greenland, which is a self-governing dependency of Denmark, is seen as a bargaining chip by Denmark in its efforts to bolster its trade relations with Beijing, largely due to its mineral riches, which, as American Resources principal Dan McGroarty has previously pointed out, makes Greenland “as a stand-alone state something akin to Saudi Arabia – save that the Saudis are a uni-dimensional resource superpower, shackled for better or worse to the petro-economy.”

China’s forays into the Arctic circle, and fears that China, which already controls more than 97% of global rare earth production, might gain control over Greenland’s rare earths may have influenced the EU Commission’s decision to sign an letter of understanding with Greenland to “ensure that Greenland’s minerals remained available to free markets in the future.”

The United States’ claim in the Arctic regioin comes via Alaska. Perhaps now would be a good time to show up on the Arctic stage and harness the state’s significant resource potential.

The post China’s global quest for mineral resources continues – in the Arctic appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

While given that, one would expect that formulating a coherent national mineral strategy to ensure such access would be a public policy imperative, a new study by the American Resources Policy Network finds that this, unfortunately, is not the case.

The study, to be formally released at the The Strategic Minerals Conference 2012, taking place on June 6, 2012 at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, attempts to give a snapshot of the federal government’s approach to the United States’ mineral supply needs by reviewing recent government literature on the issue. The report will be available at www.americanresources.org after the conference.

The key questions guiding our research for the report -

1. Is there a consensus on which metals or minerals are “critical and/or strategic?”
2. What is our supply risk or import exposure (drawing on USGS data)?
3. How do we square private market activity with public policy to reduce resource dependency where possible and ensure surety of supply?

- will also be taken up and elaborated upon by a formidable lineup of speakers and panelists at the June 6th event.

For more information including related video from some of the conference participants, and an updated agenda as the event date draws closer visit www.strategicmineralsconference.com.

The post Forthcoming American Resources study – Reviewing Risk: Critical Metals & National Security appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Sounding the alarm on the possible impact of hypothetical mining — in spite of the fact that no permit application or specific plans have been submitted — the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a cursory review of the Bristol Bay Watershed in Alaska.

The EPA’s unprecedented early action is part of the agency’s effort to derail the development of one of the largest domestic deposits of key strategic mineral resources (Copper, Molybdenum, Gold, Silver and Rhenium) – the so-called Pebble Deposit in Southwestern Alaska.

While the project has not even entered the permitting process, EPA seems ready to hit the kill switch — preemptively vetoing the project before any application has been filed. Here are some key facts:

· While the U.S. is the world’s third-largest Copper producer, the related risk exposure to possible supply disruption is disproportionately greater than it is for any other mineral. On the national security front, the Pentagon has already reported a “significant delay” to a major weapons program due to inadequate copper supply.

· The unilateral expansion of EPA powers under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act would effectively give the agency ultimate authority to derail any project in the United States that touches on water — with potential impact for projects in every sector of the US economy, from mining to farming, manufacturing, building, energy, and water treatment.

· The EPA has asserted this preemptive power before, and it has been rebuffed in Federal Court. In April, a District Court judge ruled that the EPA’s previous unilateral expansion of its authority to revoke permits already granted for a coal mining project in West Virginia was illegal. In issuing the ruling, the judge termed EPA’s argument for such an expansive power a case of “magical thinking.”

American Resources principal Dan McGroarty’s statement on the issue, which has already been picked up by various news outlets including the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald and the Kansas City Star, is as follows:

The EPA’s decision to conduct a premature watershed study on a mining
project that has yet to enter the established permitting process is a 
dramatic expansion of the agency’s authority. When it comes to critical
 metals and minerals, the US is heavily dependent on foreign sources of
 supply. The EPA’s actions will have a chilling effect on domestic resource
 development, which will impact our national security, manufacturing
 competiveness, and ability to innovate.

The EPA’s action underscores the timeliness of a forthcoming study by the American Resources Policy Network entitled “Reviewing Risk: The American Resources Policy Network Report on Critical Metals and National Security,” which will be available at www.americanresources.org in June 2012.

For more information on Copper, one of the key minerals in the crosshairs of the EPA’s current action, visit www.coppermatters.org.

The post Review of Bristol Bay Watershed in Alaska: Is EPA Reaching for the Kill Switch? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

If you haven’t lived under a rock lately (pun intended), you are probably aware of the fact that there is growing concern regarding the supply of mineral resources. While American Resources has consistently argued that the U.S. has subjected itself to a troubling degree of non-fuel mineral import dependency, which is often greater than our dependence on foreign oil, the public debate is only just beginning.

The Strategic Minerals Conference 2012, taking place on June 6, 2012 at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC will look at the issue of critical mineral supply through the prism of “Private Markets, Public Policy, and National Security.” During this one-day conference, panelists and keynote speakers will address the geo-politics of resource supply, the breadth of our critical mineral needs, as well as the roles the public and private sectors can and must play in the maximization of our domestic mineral resource potential.

What:      Strategic Minerals Conference 2012
When:     June 6, 2012, all-day event
Where:   Hyatt Regency Washington, Capitol Hill, Washington, DC
Who:       U.S. Congressman Mike Coffman, 6th District of Colorado
U.S. Congressman Marc Amodei, 2nd District of Nevada
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Alaska (via video message)
Major General Robert Latiff, Dir. of the Intelligence and Security
Research Center, George Mason University
Kathy Benedetto, U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources

as well as members of the American Resources Policy Network Panel of Experts and many other industry and public policy experts.

How:       This is a closed event, but interested parties can request an invitation
by email via StrategicMineralsConference@gmail.com.

During the conference, American Resources principal Daniel McGroarty will also discuss the findings of a forthcoming study entitled: “Reviewing Risk: The American Resources Policy Network Report on Critical Metals and National Security.”

For more information including related video from some of the conference participants, and an updated agenda as the event date draws closer visit www.strategicmineralsconference.com.

The post Mark your calendars – Strategic Minerals Conference 2012 appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

ARPN’s Tungsten Month is over, but we will make an exception in the case for investment legend Warren Buffett. It seems one of his investment arms is taking a position in the re-commissioned tungsten mine in the United Kingdom, last operated as part of the industrial war effort during World War II. As American Resource followers know, China is the leading supplier of imported tungsten to the U.S., a dependency eased only by our recycling of tungsten scrap.

As the U.S. Geological Survey notes:

“World tungsten supply is dominated by Chinese production and exports. China’s government regulates its tungsten industry by limiting the number of exploration, mining, and export licenses; limiting or forbidding foreign investment; imposing constraints on mining and processing; establishing quotas on production and exports; adjusting export quotas to favor value-added downstream materials and products; and imposing export taxes on tungsten materials.”

Tungsten is one of the targets in the new WTO action brought by the U.S., European Union and Japan against China’s resource export policies. If the WTO rules against China, the country may be compelled to export more product to a tungsten-hungry world. But in the meanwhile, Warren Buffett seems to think it makes sense to develop new sources of supply — even if in this instance the source is an old mine, brought back into production. Maybe U.S. policy-makers should employ the strategy that works for so many investors, and ask: What Would Warren Do?

The post Is Warren Buffett an American Resource reader? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Discussing the U.S. policy landscape against the backdrop of the latest WTO case against China put forth by the U.S., the EU and Japan, and lamenting that Washington doesn’t even have a coherent definition of strategic and critical minerals, Green argues that policy makers are missing the point about rare earth element supply. Green calls for the development of a coherent domestic supply chain for the United States to remain competitive. Here are some of the interview’s key points:

· As the U.S. mostly imports components and end products containing REEs (rather than the metals themselves), U.S. demand appears fairly low, creating the misleading perception that we can meet our own demand, which we can for the direct sale of some REEs, but not for phosphors, metals and other magnets.

· Consumers continue to turn to China for access to raw material supplies.

· U.S. policy on the issue remains piecemeal, with agencies working from different angles, and policy makers in Congress unable to set a coherent framework largely due to partisan politics.

· In light of China’s near total monopoly, free market forces alone are insufficient to sort out REE supply chain issues, as even with new sources of supply coming online, “significant portions of that supply chain will still be relying on China for key processing technologies and intellectual property.”

· The WTO case is unlikely to increase REE supply.

· The current trend of metal processors moving to China is a big concern, as assembly makers, and ultimately end-product users will likely follow. The lighting industry, in which the majority of production already takes place in China, is a case in point. If the REE field goes down this trajectory, U.S. stands to lose economically, and runs the risk of intellectual property leakages.

Green shares a lot more insight, so read the rest of the interview here.

The post American Resources expert Jeffery Green: “Washington needs to realize that all roads lead to China” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

 

 
It’s great to see this key mainstay metal sector performing well. One of the things we should keep in mind, though, is that when it comes to other critical minerals and metals, the U.S. does not nearly fare as well as it could when compared to other global players, in spite of the treasure trove of natural resources beneath our own feet.

In many cases, we are blessed to have the minerals, as well as the technologies to cost-efficiently and – following some of the highest standards – safely explore and develop them, but fail to do so for a number of reasons. Given our mineral potential, we could conceivably lead the world in more sectors than steel, if only our policy makers would focus on creating a framework conducive to it, creating jobs and securing our strategic and economic future in the process.

The post U.S. Steel Industry leads the world – but what about our other minerals and metals? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The visit highlights a number of issues that make the current U.S-China relationship contentious. For followers of American Resources, the obvious question is whether rare metals — and rare earths in particular — will be on the bilateral agenda.

According to the long-time China hands I’ve spoken with, the short answer is No. (In spite of a Congressional effort spearheaded by Colorado’s Mike Coffman to put China’s rare earth quotas on the docket in the wake of last week’s WTO ruling on China’s industrial metals export policies.) Key issues expected to dominate the closed-door sessions will range from currency valuation and the rebalancing of the Yuan and Intellectual Property (IP) rights and China’s interest in getting serious about IP piracy, to human rights (think Tibet and Internet/social media freedoms) and the role of China’s hybrid State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), commercial behemoths that blend characteristics of private-sector multinationals with access to government funding and strategic support.

That said, metals may push their way into the bilateral discussions, as they play a part in these larger issues. Here’s how:

Metals and piracy. Non-Chinese companies — see Ford and GE for instance — will state for the record they’re not about to hand over any IP as the price of admission to the Chinese manufacturing sector, but the pressure is there, and the list of U.S. companies that have lost IP to Chinese piracy is long and growing. No one wants to hemorrhage IP, but with access to scarce metals as a magnet, companies may feel they have little choice.

How vulnerable are we on the metals front? According to the USGS, which last month provided its annual snapshot of U.S. import-dependency on a range of 60+ metals and minerals, of the 19 metals for which the U.S. is 100% foreign-dependent, China is a Top 3 provider for 11. That’s up from 8 of 18 metals — in just one year.

The private sector versus the SOE. This uneven battle is the economic version of asymmetrical warfare: U.S. firms wage the battle for market-share on their own — with perhaps a bit of government-backed market advocacy — against Chinese mega-nationals that are locked into government planning and routinely benefit from government subsidy. In the metals sector, this plays out in China’s rapid emergence as a major resource development partner in Africa, as well as in grating one-offs like Afghanistan, where U.S. troops provided security patrols for key transport routes in Logar Province used by the Chinese to develop a massive $3.5 billion copper mine at Ainak.

On metals as on all else, the Chinese notoriously think long term — how long? Just take a look at 863 Program, now in its 26th year — while American politicians wrangle over two-week federal budget extensions and American captains of industry scramble for the next quarterly earnings call.

Thomas Friedman may fantasize about the U.S. being China for a day, but I’m sticking with America’s market-based, innovation-unleashing economic and political system. Even so, we could borrow from the Chinese a mentality that looks both longer-term and deeper at the foundational issues that affect our economic competitiveness, our technological progress and our national security. In each case, we’d see the need to base our policies on a sound rare metals strategy — one that puts a premium on developing domestic sources of metals and minerals that decrease our Chinese dependency.

The post The U.S.-China Relationship: A Test of Metals? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

What do I mean? Many metals analysts speak often of Molycorp’s mine-to-magnets vertical integration strategy; what I find interesting in the Molymet deal is the first hint of what might be a “horizontal” strategy, bringing into one company a basket of strategic metals, ranging from Molycorp’s Rare Earths to Molymet’s Rhenium and Molybdenum.

While Rare Earths, Rhenium and Molybdenum have not historically been a part of the U.S. National Defense Stockpile, all are on various DoD “study lists” of critical materials, and the establishment of a Rare Earths “inventory” is an element in Congressman Mike Coffman’s proposed bill. According to the new USGS Mineral Commodities Survey, the U.S. is 86% foreign-dependent for its Rhenium supply; Rhenium can be recovered during Molybdenum production. And as we know, even with the return of mining at Molycorp’s Mountain Pass Mine, the U.S. is still more than 99% dependent on China for its Rare Earths. (Interestingly, the Molymet investment brings Molycorp full circle, as it bought the Mountain Pass property in 1950 to mine for Molybdenum, light years before the mini-computer/Internet era tech boom would vault Rare Earths into high demand.)

Wheels are turning in the defense industrial sector on how to source critical metals. While public policy coalesces, the Molycorp-Molymet deal may offer a first hint from the private sector on how a multi-metal mining operation might position itself to meet strategic resource needs. American Resources will follow the policy debate for signs that awareness on the strategic resource issue is beginning to grow.

The post From rare earths to rare metals: Molymet takes a stake in Molycorp appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Funding Roads to Resources [a transportation plan to build roads to connect to known and prospective oil and gas resources] more timely permits; a rare earths assessment; and statewide digital mapping — it’s all about jobs and creating new opportunities for independent, hard-working Alaskans to move forward.

The post AK Gov. Sean Parnell stresses importance of cultivating investment in mineral resources appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.