So how does the U.S. stack up compared to other mining nations?

“In this year’s report, the U.S. appears to have improved its overall ranking, but this is only an “optical illusion.” In 2013, other mining countries became less hospitable to mining at a faster pace than the U.S. The fact that Russia, DRC and China’s permitting delays are metastasizing more rapidly than ours is hardly a point of pride.

“The fact is, it doesn’t have to be this way. The U.S. is remarkably resource-rich, from aluminum to zinc, and many minerals in between. Our substantial mineral endowment provides the U.S. the ability to build a sustainable industry, play a leadership role in the world’s commodity markets, and minimize our growing exposure to the geo-political and economic risks of resource dependency.

“To a large degree the steady accretion of federal policy got us in this mess; policy reform will lead us out.”

But there’s a precursor to sound policy. According to McGroarty and McCurdy,

“…the nation needs a change in mind-set: It’s time to remind ourselves that life as we know it is made possible by the inventive use of metals and minerals. Smart phones, the Cloud, the Internet: These things may seem to work by magic, but quite often the backbone of high-tech is mineral and metal, not fairy dust. Failure to mine what we can here in the U.S. simply perpetuates dangerous dependencies on nations that may not wish us well.

“Responsible development of domestic mineral resources should be a policy priority. Our ability to grow our economy, revive American industry, and safeguard our national security – depends upon it. Maybe by the time next year’s “Where Not to Invest” report comes along, the U.S. will be seen as having reversed course, putting our economy on a path to a resource-driven recovery.”

The post Made in America Starts with Mined in America appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Nonetheless, the new process represents a significant accomplishment as it has“the potential to halve the time taken for companies to be granted exploration permits, while maintaining rigorous environmental, native title and land access assessments.” 

The change bodes well for Australia as a destination for mining investment, as it may well improve the country’s already very positive ranking on esteemed mining research firm Behre Dolbear’s “Where Not to Invest” report, which attest Australia one of the most expeditious permitting systems with the least amount of permitting delays of all surveyed countries.

Meanwhile, in spite of a dismal ranking on Behre Dolbear’s index in the “permitting delays” category, U.S. efforts to reform our rigid and outdated permitting structure for mining projects are continuing to face an uphill battle with the fate of Rep. Amodei’s (R-Nev.) National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013 (H.R.761) in the Senate unclear yet again.

The post While U.S. is slow to even begin permitting reform, Queensland, Australia speeds up already expeditious process appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

A just-released Government Accounting Office (GAO) study analyzes some of the supply chain challenges, including in the African region itself, and has found that in spite of some progress largely through greater visibility and awareness, a “lack of security, lack of infrastructure, and capacity constraints could undermine companies’ abilities to ensure conflict-free minerals sourcing.”

A possible, albeit partial solution that would allow for the sourcing of conflict free minerals (as the U.S. does not have any Tin deposits), might lie the development of at least Tantalum and Tungsten deposits in the United States. Considering the fact that among the 25 leading mining nations, the U.S. has dubious honor of being tied for last place with Papua New Guinea for permitting delays in Behre Dolbear’s latest Where Not to Invest report, this possible solution will not be able to help manufacturers in the short-term.

Nonetheless, it would be a good reason for policy makers to start thinking strategically about critical minerals, and prioritize removing obstacles to harnessing our vast domestic – and conflict-free- mineral potential.

The post Compliance with conflict minerals rule remains challenging for manufacturers appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

As reported by Reuters, Caterpillar Inc will lay off of about eleven percent of the workforce at one of its U.S. manufacturing sites for mining equipment. The job cuts, necessitated by the need to bring to “bring production in line with demand,” according to Caterpillar’s announcement, will affect 460 workers at the Decatur, Illinois, plant.

This type of news is never welcome, but it is particularly disheartening when there are real growth opportunities in the mining sector – opportunities which are wasted due to an onerous and rigid regulatory permitting framework.

According to the National Mining Association, “mining’s direct and indirect economic contribution includes nearly 2 million jobs with wage and benefits well above the state average for the industrial sector.” That number could be significantly larger if it wasn’t for a permitting system which has once more given the U.S. the dubious honor of being tied with Papua New Guinea on permitting delays – an indicator of the time it takes to bring a new mine online – in the just-released 2013 “Where Not to Invest” report by the esteemed mining advisory firm Behre Dolbear.

Policy makers in Washington, DC would be well-advised to create a more predictable and expeditious regulatory framework for mining permits (without sacrificing environmental standards). In doing so, they might spare us from reading more headlines on layoffs in the manufacturing sector in the future, as such a framework would attract additional investment and allow the mining industry to increase its contribution to the U.S. economy at all levels.

The post Layoffs at mining equipment manufacturing site highlight need for permitting reform appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Among various indicators, the instructive study released annually by the renowned mining advisory firm Behre Dolbear, ranks mining nations for the permitting processes to bring new mining projects online, and once more, it paints a troubling picture of the U.S. system (particularly when compared with countries like Australia, where the permitting process runs between one and a half to two years).

Here is American Resources Policy Network principal Daniel McGroarty’s statement on Behre Dolbear’s latest findings:

“Just 4 years ago, in 2009, the same study found that the U.S. permitting process took an average of 5 to 7 years. Today, it’s 7 to 10 years – a 40 percent increase in delays. Thanks to onerous federal rules on U.S. mine permitting, we are mired in last place with Papua New Guinea for the second year in a row. Meanwhile, other mining nations are leveraging their mineral resources to fuel manufacturing, drive economic growth, and create jobs without sacrificing environmental protections.

“This is deeply troubling at a time when other U.S. government agencies are recognizing the need to increase access to strategic and critical minerals. The Department of Defense recently released a study showing 23 metals and minerals in potential shortfall, and recommended for the first time since the Cold War that Congress take actions to stockpile them. And the Department of Energy has declared a dozen minerals critical to America’s green-tech and clean-energy transition.

“The Obama administration should take these findings very seriously. Permitting delays are handicapping America in the global resource wars. There is a direct link between domestic resource development and U.S. national security, manufacturing competitiveness, and the ability to innovate across numerous sectors of the economy.”

The 2013 Behre Dolbear report can be read in its entirety here:

The post In new report, U.S. tied for having worst permitting process – again appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei (R, Nev.) has reintroduced his critical minerals legislation. Identical to last year’s bill (H.R. 4402), which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the summer but stalled in the U.S. Senate, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013 (H.R. 761) would:

• Require the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of strategic and critical minerals and mineral materials; including rare earth elements;
• Define strategic and critical minerals as those necessary:
(a) for national defense and national security requirements;

(b) for the nation’s energy infrastructure including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production;

(c) to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing, telecommunications, healthcare and transportation infrastructure; and

(d) for the nation’s economic security and balance of trade;

• Facilitate timely permitting process for mineral exploration and mine development projects by clearly defining the responsibilities of a lead agency; and
• Ensure American mineral mining projects are not indefinitely delayed by frivolous lawsuits by setting reasonable time limits for litigation.

The bill ties into the overall context of mineral resource security and our growing minerals deficit, an issue we have covered extensively in the past – most recently in the Wall Street Journal. Invoking a study we have frequently cited in our own publications -the renowned Behre Dolbear “Where Not to Invest” report – Rep. Amodei points out, that “[i]n the 2012 ranking of countries for mining investment, the United States ranked last in permitting delays,” and goes on to explain that “[d]ecade-long permitting delays are standing in the way of high-paying jobs and revenue for local communities. This bill would streamline the permitting process to leverage our nation’s vast mineral resources, while paying due respect to economic and environmental concerns.”

Perhaps pointing to increased momentum and greater awareness of the seriousness of the underlying issue, with 28 co-sponsors having signed onto the legislation, this year’s bill already has more original co-sponsors than the final total number of sponsors of H.R. 4402 last year (27). It has been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary, where hearings are yet to be scheduled.

The post National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act reintroduced appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

America’s Growing Minerals Deficit
The U.S. is now tied for last, with Papua New Guinea, in the time it takes to get a permit for a new mine.

By Daniel McGroarty

After every election, there’s a mad scramble in Washington over the must-make-it-happen agenda for the newly inaugurated president and Congress. There are welcome signs from the White House’s own Material Genome Initiative that securing America’s access to critical metals and minerals will be high on the list.

A good thing, too. Jobs and capital increasingly flow to countries that command the resources to power modern manufacturing, and American manufacturing is more dependent on metals and minerals access than ever before. Yet there is no country on the planet where it takes longer to get a permit for domestic mining. Among other consequences of this red tape, there are now 19 strategic metals and minerals for which the U.S. is currently 100% import-dependent—and for 11 of them a single country, China, is among the top three providers.

Even so, the president’s interest in the subject is a double-edged sword: Will U.S. policies be guided by sound science? Or will they be unduly influenced by environmental politics—despite the fact that many minerals we need are essential components for the production of green energy?

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy underlined the importance of this access in a Jan. 14 statement. “A century ago, plentiful elements like iron, lead, and copper fueled our Nation’s transition to an industrial economy. But today, many of the materials that characterize the industrial cutting-edge—such as rare earths, indium, and lithium—are not as naturally abundant or easy to access as their predecessors.”

The implication that we’ve entered a brave new world where arcane “technology metals” replace their industrial precursors is a bit misleading, though. The situation is actually more acute. The country’s metals dependency is even more pronounced than the White House indicates—and some of those metals and minerals, important in many processes, are not just “cutting-edge” ones like rare earths and indium.

General Electric, for instance, is now using 72 of the first 82 elements on the periodic table in its product-manufacturing mix. Not just iron, lead and copper, either. GE also needs zinc, aluminum, tin and nickel—elements that the American Resources Policy Network argues are best understood as “gateway metals,” resources whose byproducts include scores of critical metals recovered during mining.

Consider copper, which serves as a gateway to 21 elements on the periodic table, collectively supporting transportation, manufacturing, modern medicine and the major alternative-energy sources to power the clean technology of the future. Copper can also be processed to produce selenium and tellurium (used in solar power), molybdenum (used in steel super-alloys), and rhenium (used in jet engines, lead-free gasoline and treatments for liver and bone cancers). Finally, copper is sometimes found with rare-earth elements which are used in alternative-energy production, for wind turbines, electric-vehicle batteries and compact-fluorescent light bulbs.

The country’s advanced weapons systems are equally—and increasingly—metals-intensive. Measured in metric tons, copper is the second-most-used metal in defense applications. In April 2009, the Department of Defense reported that a shortage of copper had caused a “significant weapon system production delay for DOD.”

The White House’s Material Genome Initiative says its goal is to “support U.S. institutions in the effort to discover, manufacture, and deploy advanced materials twice as fast, at a fraction of the cost.” The need for speed is accurate, but it’s going to prove difficult for American innovators to be twice as fast when America’s mine permitting process is easily twice as slow as in other mining nations.

The U.S. has domestic resources for 18 of those 19 metals and minerals we now exclusively import from abroad. But a maze of government regulations has made mining them here too difficult. That’s the consistent finding of the annual Behre Dolbear Country Rankings for Mining Investment, known in the mining world as the “Where-Not-to-Mine Report.” The U.S. is currently tied for last place (with Papua New Guinea) in the time it takes to permit a new mine seven to 10 years on average.

In a world where the technology industry regards a year as an eternity, waiting a decade for new supplies of critical technology metals will severely hamper America’s ability to innovate. Without significant reform of the country’s mining-permit process, the U.S. may be starved of the resources to build everything from smartphones to weapons systems, impairing both the economy and national security.

Reform could begin with streamlining the permitting process to get rid of redundancies at the local, state and federal levels, so the process can run concurrently. Among other benefits, this would mean that environmental challenges and litigation—bitter ironies given the fact that the mined metals and minerals are needed for many forms of green energy—do not set the permit process back repeatedly.

All that will depend on whether the White House initiative is the first step toward a strategic-resource policy that asserts the importance of domestic metals and minerals exploration. Or will the initiative bring only a federally funded study group writing what might prove to be the definitive white paper on the industrial decline
of the U.S.?

Mr. McGroarty is president of American Resources Policy Network, a nonpartisan education and public-policy research organization based in Washington, D.C.

The post Op-ed: America’s Growing Minerals Deficit appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

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 Federal lawmakers may not have gotten around to focusing on other less publicized — but no less pressing — issues, we at the American Resources Policy Network have put together a few New Year’s Resolutions for U.S. policymakers as they relate to critical and strategic metals and minerals.

2012 provided a year of opportunity for Congress to enact legislation to better harness the United States’ mineral potential, but in spite of thoughtful bills put forward by a group of lawmakers who are critically aware of our mineral needs and challenges ahead — and a better-sensitized public (at least with regard to the much-publicized challenges regarding Rare Earths) – on the federal level at least, the year has to be written off as a missed opportunity.

While the U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Critical and Strategic Minerals Production Act (H.R. 4402) sponsored by Rep. Marc Amodei (R, NV-2) in the summer, the Senate failed to take up the bill. It remains to be seen what U.S. inaction on the mineral policy front does to our ranking in the forthcoming and instructive Behre Dolbear “Where Not to Invest” report. Being tied with Papua New Guinea for last place in terms of the mine permitting process, there’s little room for the U.S. to get worse, but 2012 did nothing to make things better.

On the state level, however, there is a shining example of what can be done to improve the strategic and critical mineral policy framework, and it hails from the State of Alaska. Alaska’s Parnell Administration understands the stakes of mineral resource policy, and has taken the lead in not only formulating a critical minerals strategy, but also implementing it in 2012.

As lawmakers shift focus on the other non-fiscal cliffs ahead, ARPN has assembled a list of resolutions for the coming year. Check back tomorrow to see what they are!

The post New Year’s Resolutions for U.S. Policymakers (Part 1) appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

While the U.S. Government continues to talk about critical minerals access and the dangers of foreign dependency, New Zealand’s government is taking action.

According to MiningNe.ws, the New Zealand government is “looking at ways of speeding up approvals for big mining projects because endless court action is “frustrating” companies and costing them millions.”

Here are the key points from the MiningNe.ws piece:

· Aside from looking into new legislation allowing for the acceleration of granting resource consents for “regionally significant” projects, the Ministry for the Environment seeks to limit ways by which appeals can be mounted against such consents.

· The current legal framework allows for repeated appeals against approval for projects, and has been a source of frustration for the oil and gas industry, property developers, or groups wanting to build wind farms.

· Energy and Resources Minister Phil Heatley argues that New Zealand has “a court system where people can continue to oppose, and what we’re saying is, maybe we need to bring in a consenting system where … you have a first chance, last chance in court, it’s only appealable on point of law, and then the answer is either yes or no, and you can get on with it.”

· A sought-after change would emulate the “national consenting process,” which, while allowing for public hearings, provides for fast-tracking of projects with strict time limits.

Meanwhile, on this side of the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is engaging in efforts to not only prolong, but derail mining projects even before any permit requests have been filed.

For a country that already has the dubious honor of having the lengthiest permitting process among mining nations according to the renowned Behre-Dolbear “Where Not to Invest” ranking, this is an approach that will have a “chilling effect on domestic resource
 development, which will impact our national security, manufacturing
 competiveness, and ability to innovate,” as American Resources principal Daniel McGroarty has pointed out.

The post New Zealand Government Seeks to Accelerate Mining Permits appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

No, you’re not on the wrong blog – this is not a book club. The plot of the book actually involves a group of terrorists set on destroying the only rare earths mine in the U.S.. Only Jason Bourne can save the U.S. from China extending its “dominion” over these highly critical minerals – hence our interest in the book.

While probably making for an entertaining read (and I have to admit, I haven’t read the book yet), McGroarty laments that, in spite of the fact that China indeed has a near-total monopoly on global rare earths supply, and shutting down the only domestic mine really would indeed represent a serious problem, the plot is “simply not credible.”

The reality, while far more boring, is that it doesn’t take a terrorist network blowing up a mine to stop a major U.S. mining project. As McGroarty points out:

[A]ny group opposed to U.S. interests would simply need an anti-mining activist, a Wi-Fi connection and the email addresses of a few federal, state and local bureaucrats. A thousand Jason Bournes with arms-linked around the mine pit would be no match for a well-aimed question about an errant comma on page 15 of Appendix D-3 of any one of the scores of permitting documents required to bring a modern mine online in the U.S. today.

The just-released annual Behre Dolbear “Country Rankings for Mining Investment” report, underscores the fact that the U.S. while having gained a point in the ranking, still has the dubious honor of being tied with Papua New Guinea for having the lengthiest permitting process of the 25 major mining nations evaluated in the report.

Concludes McGroarty:

In our world, as in Bourne’s, other countries step in to seize advantage when and where they can. Unless we streamline a process perennially judged to be the mining world’s worst, the U.S. will be begging or buying critical metals of all kinds from whatever countries continue to mine them, using whatever standards – or lack thereof – to pull them out of the ground.

Ultimately, McGroarty says, only U.S. policy makers could save the day. But who would go out and by that book?

The post “Not even the likes of Jason Bourne can save us” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.