As Dario Pong, founder and managing director of Ferro Resources, a Hong Kong-based automotive ferrite magnet company operating in mainland China, told attendees during a panel discussion on supply chains at a conference organized by the think tank branch of Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund in Hong Kong earlier this month, he is more concerned about copper and nickel, stating that “[t]here is enough rare earth in the world. There is also enough cobalt in the world.” 

But with regards to copper and nickel he said:

“These are the big-ticket items, not the so-called minor materials, and China is also worried about not having enough copper and nickel. That is why China is working together with the world to secure that.”

As governments around the globe place more emphasis on securing critical mineral supply chains, China has a leg up on the West because, as Pong says, the country planned for the run on critical minerals before the West began focusing on it.  While China has scarce copper resources, Pong says that Beijing has close trade relationships with its main suppliers from Latin America (including Chile and Peru) along with Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Central Africa, and has made significant strategic investments in these leading copper mining countries, while “[t]he West has overlooked their manufacturing sectors in the past few decades.”

Indeed, as followers of ARPN well know, China has, through decades of strategic planning, achieved a stranglehold on most segments of the supply chains for many critical minerals.  Copper may not be as flashy as some of its peers – but, as followers of ARPN well know, it is also an indispensable component in green energy technology, and demand for the “metal of electrification,” as it has been dubbed by the Financial Times, is expected to increase drastically to keep pace with the material requirements of the global push towards net zero carbon emissions.

While U.S. import reliance for copper hovered around 30 to 35 percent in the 2010s, that number has gone up to more than 40 percent in the 2020s, according to the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries. 

Miners are pointing out that a confluence of complex permitting timelines, rising inflation and the fact that the commodity is “harder to find in high quantities in the ground” may have led to a situation “where it’s likely there won’t be enough copper to meet decarbonization goals in the next few decades.”

And with China “tightening its grip on copper” as Bloomberg News phrased it recently, there is potential for more competition and confrontation between China and the West, an already fraught relationship, on the horizon.

Perhaps now would be a good time for the U.S. Government to revisit its omission of Copper from the latest Critical Minerals List.  The Department of Energy has already opened the door by adding the metal to its 2023 Critical Material Assessment list – USGS only needs to walk through it.

The post China Zeroes in on Copper appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The annual report assesses the criticality of materials to the supply chains in the renewable energy technology sector and focuses on key materials with high risk of supply disruption.

The incorporation of copper into this year’s list marks the first time a U.S. government agency has added the material on one of its official “critical” lists.

While copper is included in several other national lists, including India’s, Canada’s, South Africa’s, and Brazil’s, as well as the European’s most recent critical minerals list, the official comprehensive U.S. Government Critical Minerals List, last updated in 2022, has yet to incorporate copper.

This is not for the lack of pushes to afford the material “critical minerals” status — ranging from public comments submitted to USGS during the drafting process (see Daniel McGroarty’s submission here) over congressional lettersand legislation.

As such the inclusion of the material in the DOE Critical Materials Assessment list represents an important acknowledgement of copper’s key role in 21^st Century technology and the green energy transition.

As Copper Development Association (CDA) CEO Andrew G. Kireta, Jr. said in a statement on the announcement:

“Copper is a major contributor to US economic and national security, and with copper demand projections doubling by 2035, primarily due to plans for the clean energy transition, electrification and clean water infrastructure. The nation would be defenseless without electricity and copper’s vital role in its generation, transmission, and distribution.” 

So copper is now a DOE Critical Material – but not (yet) a U.S. Government Critical Mineral: A bureaucratic distinction that ARPN will watch with interest, as copper demand in a net zero world continues to rise.

The post Bearing Testimony to Its Importance to the Green Energy Shift, DOE Adds Copper to Department’s Critical Materials List appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Created in 2021 and dedicated to accelerating the development of a robust and secure domestic supply chain for lithium-based batteries, the consortium released an action plan entitled “Building a Robust and Resilient U.S. Lithium Battery Supply Chain” containing 26 recommended actions to bolster the domestic lithium battery industry with the goal of putting the United States on a competitive path in the global battery value chain.

According to the Argonne National Lab, “the report complements a series of recent government initiatives designed to strengthen the country’s battery and semiconductor industries including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL) and the CHIPS and Science Act, which together represent some of the most significant industrial policy initiatives in U.S. history.”

Recommendations range from investments into R&D and, removing barriers to market-entry to strengthening partnerships with other countries, and Congressional action to accelerate U.S. domestic mineral mining and processing projects. The report goes on to argue that Li-Bridge should be formalized to execute on its recommendations, effectively creating a public-private partnership to coordinate efforts across state, local and federal governments with private enterprises.

Deputy U.S. Energy Secretary David M. Turk believes that “[t]he public-private partnerships described in this report will be crucial to realizing that safer, cleaner future that will benefit generations of Americans to come.”

With public-private sector cooperation having long both fueled and fed off the materials science revolution, which has been transforming the ways in which we use and obtain metals and minerals, placing a stronger emphasis on these cross-sector collaborations only makes sense.

In part fueled by the above referenced government initiatives, new partnerships between the public and private sectors to bolster the battery supply chain have sprung up, especially at the state level.

Recent cases in point:  the construction of battery plants in Coweta County, Georgia, and Van Buren Township, Michigan.  States like Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas have also attracted EV battery makers as automakers scramble to lock down supplies and policy stakeholders work to create frameworks conducive to attracting investment into these critical industries.

ARPN has featured several of these efforts — along with other initiatives and projects specific to the individual battery criticals (graphite, manganese, cobalt, nickel and lithium) in a series of posts.

As stakeholders step up their efforts, ARPN will continue to feature more examples of state level public-private cooperation or formalized public private partnerships (PPPs) to sustainably strengthen the domestic battery supply chain.

The post Bolstering the Battery Supply Chain – Leveraging Public-Private Sector Cooperation and Getting the States Involved appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

With skyrocketing demand, the mineral intensity of the green energy transition and supply chain challenges associated with our over-reliance on adversary nations, most notably China, has finally resonated with stakeholders. The passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in the summer of 2021 represented an important step towards decoupling U.S. critical mineral supply chains from adversary nations.  Others have since followed.

Today marks another key step: As part of the implementation of the 2021 infrastructure law, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the first round of funding under the Act for projects aimed at “supercharging”  U.S. manufacturing of batteries for electric vehicles and electric grid.

Awardees — a total of 20 companies — will receive a combined $2.8 billion “to build and expand commercial scale facilities in 12 states to extract and process lithium, graphite and other battery materials, manufacture components, and demonstrate new approaches, including manufacturing components from recycled materials.”

According to the Department of Energy announcement, recipients will match the federal funds to leverage a total of more than $9 billion “to boost American production of clean energy technology, create good-paying jobs, and support President Biden’s national goals for electric vehicles to make up half of all new vehicle sales by 2030 and to transition to a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.”

The supported projects span the entire value chain, with funding going towards:

• Developing enough battery-grade lithium to supply approximately 2 million EVs annually
• Developing enough battery-grade graphite to supply approximately 1.2 million EVs annually
• Producing enough battery-grade nickel to supply approximately 400,000 EVs annually
• Installing the first large-scale, commercial lithium electrolyte salt (LiPF6) production facility in the United States
• Developing an electrode binder facility capable of supplying 45% of the anticipated domestic demand for binders for EV batteries in 2030
• Creating the first commercial scale domestic silicon oxide production facilities to supply anode materials for an estimated 600,000 EV batteries annually
• Installing the first lithium iron phosphate cathode facility in the United States

The map provides a snapshot of anticipated project locations:

More details and individual project information can be accessed here.

According to DoE, the department “anticipates moving quickly on additional funding opportunities to continue to fill gaps in and strengthen the domestic battery supply chain,” and ARPN will continue to keep tabs on these efforts.

The post U.S. Department of Energy Announces Federal Grants to “Supercharge” U.S. EV Battery and Electric Grid Supply Chains appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Lithium Americas, a Vancouver, Canada-based company is, according to its website, “focused on advancing lithium projects in Argentina and the United States to production,” and the company is looking to advance its Thacker Pass projection in Humboldt County, Nevada.   In order to finance it, the company has applied for a loan under the DOE’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, which is part of the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Writes Sen. Cotton:

“Worryingly, media reports indicate that Lithium Americas’ largest shareholder is Ganfeng, a Chinese company with direct ties to the CCP. Ganfeng is currently acquiring lithium mines around the world, which, according to former Secretary Mike Pompeo, is part of a ‘clear intention by the Chinese Communist Party to control the entire supply chain for green energy.’ The United States should be reducing its dependence on China for these critical inputs, not opening the door for China to ‘gain a foothold in America on lithium mining,’ as reported.”

He adds:

“The U.S. government should apply strict oversight regarding potential federal funding of CCP-owned or -controlled entities. DOE’s loan for the Thacker Pass mine would be substantial and reportedly cover the majority of the project’s capital costs. As the government continues to invest in battery supply chain programs, it is critical that DOE ensure taxpayer funding does not go to corporations with CCP ties and does not increase U.S. mineral dependence on China.”

Specifically, the Senator demands that the department use its leverage to “incentivize Lithium Americas to part ways with Ganfeng. Ganfeng and any other Chinese entities with CCP ties should divest their stakes in Lithium Americas before the company is offered this loan.” He further urges the department to reject Lithium Americas’ application for the ATVM if the company refuses to end its Ganfeng relationship.

Senator Cotton seeks clarification from Secretary Granholm on the following questions:

1. Is DOE aware of Lithium Americas’ application for the Advanced Technologies Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program and the company’s partial ownership by entities closely tied the CCP?
2. What safeguards or requirements are in place to ensure the ATVM program is not funding other companies owned or controlled by the CCP or other adversaries?
3. Does DOE agree that the United States must reduce its dependence on China for critical minerals like lithium and should invest in domestic production of such minerals? If so, does DOE believe that funding deeper CCP control of the U.S. critical mineral supply chain is counterproductive to this goal? If not, why not?
4. Has DOE raised with Lithium Americas the possibility that its loan application for the Thacker Pass project may be harmed by the company’s partial ownership by Ganfeng or that its application may be improved if Ganfeng divested in the company?

Senator Cotton closes:

“The United States urgently needs domestic critical mineral production to supply its technology sector and reduce its dependence on China; the United States does not need and should not fund possible attempts by the CCP to deepen its control over the U.S. critical mineral supply chain.”

It will be interesting to see how the Department of Energy responds, as it was precisely the realization that our nation (and the Western world) is overly-reliant on adversary nations for its critical mineral needs across the entire value chain that led the United States to finally focus on securing its supply chains.

Whether Chinese influence over this project proves to be definitive or not depends on the facts of the matter, but Senator Cotton’s point that questions of foreign control deserve to be fully investigated before the U.S. Government confers funding seems unarguable. Government programs intended to alleviate worrisome foreign resource dependencies should not unwittingly strengthen those dependencies at the expense of the American taxpayer – and American national security.

The post U.S. Senator Demands Information From Department of Energy over Potential Chinese Ties Relating to Nevada Mining Project appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

According to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, the move to provide grants to companies that can create new, retrofitted or expanded processing facilities as well as battery recycling programs will further the Biden Administration’s aspiration that 50 percent of all vehicles sold in America by 2030 be electric while strengthening U.S. energy independence.

The funds, which account for almost half of the $7 billion approved for domestic battery supply chain improvements in the 2021 infrastructure law, will be released via grants to as many as thirty companies which will be required to match them on a 50-50 basis.

Abigail Wulf, vice president of critical minerals strategy at the non-partisan advocacy group SAFE said: “The United States is finally getting into the global battery race and broader race for the future,” adding that “[i]t’s now up to DOE to get the money out the door to projects that will make us stronger in the short- and long-term.”

The move ties into a broader push by the Biden Administration to strengthen critical mineral supply chains, and follows on the heels of a March 31 presidential determination to invoke the Defense Production Act to shore up domestic production of the critical minerals required to manufacture EV batteries.

However, mining expert Debra Struhsacker, co-founder of the Women’s Mining Coalition, has pointed to “mixed signals” sent by the Biden Administration about “whether it is really serious about extracting critical minerals from U.S. mines,” arguing that “on the same day the president made his Defense Production Act announcement, the Department of the Interior published a Federal Register notice to begin a process to change mining laws and regulations in ways that could make it harder and more expensive to develop critical minerals and put lands off-limits to mining.”

As National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan said in response to the presidential determination invoking the DPA earlier this spring:

“The minerals supply chain that will drive the electrification of our transportation sector and the energy transition is not only at risk from a perilous and growing import dependence, but the approaching minerals demand wave is set to strain every sector of the economy and requires an urgency in action from government and industry never before seen. Unless we continue to build on this action, and get serious about reshoring these supply chains and bringing new mines and mineral processing online, we risk feeding the minerals dominance of geopolitical rivals. We have abundant mineral resources here. What we need is policy to ensure we can produce them and build the secure, reliable supply chains we know we must have.”

Recent actions taken by the Administration to strengthen domestic supply chains thus far are important steps towards greater mineral resource independence – but they must be embedded into the context of a comprehensive and unambiguous “all of the above” approach across the entire value chain.  As we like to say at ARPN, “supply chain” begins with… supply.

The post Biden Administration Announces Grant Program for Domestic Production and Recycling of EV Battery Components appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

As friends of ARPN will appreciate, the catalyst is the materials science revolution redefining how the world uses scores of metals and minerals for technology applications unknown just a few years ago. Enter the concept of carbon capture, which — as Reuters columnist Andy Home recently suggested – “could allow some to move beyond neutrality to become net carbon negative.” 

Home notes that while “[t]he technology for industrial-scale carbon capture and storage is still in its infancy and largely untested,” there are certain minerals that “do it naturally,” and harnessing their potential could in fact turn miners — who “tend to be the perennial villains in the environmental debate,” into “the unlikely pioneers of large-scale and permanent carbon storage.”

Case in point:  the U.S. Department of Energy’s $2.2. million award to fund to a Rio Tinto-led project with joint-venture partner Talon Metals Corp. at the Tamarack Nickel Project in central Minnesota to achieve carbon capture by a process that mineralizes the carbon in rock – a process far more stable than methods that inject carbon, where it remains vulnerable to seepage and fracturing due to earthquakes.

Experts believe that harnessing the natural chemical reactions that convert captured CO2 into rock and stored underground, as currently done at large scale by carbon mineralization company Carbfix at its Coda Terminal in Iceland (see our piece on the issue here), could become an important asset in the push to meet global climate goals, which is why this  new public-private partnership deserves a feature in ARPN’s Materials Science Profiles of Progress series.

In the context of this series, ARPN has been highlighting public-private partnerships that are fueling the materials science revolution which is transforming the ways in which we use and obtain metals and minerals and their work to develop practical solutions to critical minerals issues.

With the help of the just-announced funding via the Department of Energy’s ARPA-E Innovation Challenge the project, to which Rio Tinto will contribute an additional $4 million, seeks to explore “new approaches in carbon mineralization technology as a way to safely and permanently store carbon as rock.”

The company’s technical experts will work with consortium partners from the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Columbia University, plus private-sector partners Carbfix and Advantek Waste Management.  The project will leverage insight and build on the findings from PNNL’s Wallula Basalt Carbon Storage Pilot Project in Southeastern Washington State, where researchers successfully performed the first supercritical CO2 injection into a basalt reservoir in 2013 and demonstrated the potential to transform CO2 into a “solid form that is immobile and poses no risk of leakage.” 

At a time when the Biden Administration is grappling to reconcile its green credentials with the acknowledged need for domestic resource development, the significance of carbon capture opportunity cannot be overstated, as, in the words of Andy Home, it “could inject a whole new dimension into the heated debate around new mines and metals plants.”

The post Materials Science Profiles of Progress: DoE Funds Carbon Capture Project in Minnesota appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Watch the archived webcast here.

Sec. Granholm stated that critical minerals are “part and parcel of how we are going to be able to electrify the electric vehicle supply, it is part and parcel of making sure that we have the means to [support] the full stream of technology products for clean energy,” domestically.

While stressing the need for recycling and substitution, when pressed by Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana), Sec. Granholm expressly rejected the notion of an “anti-mining,” “anti natural resource development” sentiment in the Biden Administration.

She pointed to page 18 of the just-released National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries by the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries, which stipulates “[s]ecure access to raw and refined materials and discover alternatives for critical minerals for commercial and defense applications” as the number one goal and lists the following near-term objectives:

1. Work with partners and allies to establish reliable sources and supplies of key raw materials for batteries, including critical minerals, both domestic and international
2. Increase U.S. safe and sustainable production capacity of critical battery minerals (lithium, nickel, and cobalt) by supporting R&D and mining efforts
3. Develop federal policies to support the establishment of resilient domestic and global sources and supplies of key raw materials

Calling DOE’s approach a “wrap-around strategy” that includes recycling and substitution, as well as mining, she said:

“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.”

It’s a welcome affirmation of the comprehensive “all of the above” approach ARPN and many others have been calling for, in keeping with the objectives the Biden Administration has embraced in its just-released 100-Day Supply Chain Report.

As Secretary Granholm rightfully says, mining (and processing for that matter) can be done — and is being done — in a sustainable and responsible way in the U.S. APRN will be highlighting some of the more recent efforts undertaken by industry to support the green energy transition in forthcoming posts.

The post Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm Commits to “Soup to Nuts” Strategy, with Critical Minerals Being “Part and Parcel” of Renewable Energy Production appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Thus, it came as no surprise that President Biden’s February 2021 executive order launching a 100-day review of supply chain vulnerabilities for four key products targeted advanced batteries. The Department of Energy has now completed its review, with the findings released last week as part of a comprehensive 100-Day Supply Chain Report.

As DoE points out:

“Advanced, high-capacity batteries play an integral role in 21st-century technologies that are critical to the clean energy transition and national security capabilities around the world—from electric vehicles, to stationary energy storage, to defense applications. Demand for these products is set to grow as supply chain constraints, geopolitical and economic competition, and other vulnerabilities are increasing as well.”

In its report chapter, DoE notes that

“The rationale for supporting the U.S. supply chain now is clear: demand for EVs and energy storage is increasing, investors are increasing investment in the clean economy, and the pandemic has underscored the fragility of some U.S. supply chains. China and the European Union (EU) – in contrast to the U.S. approach – have developed and deployed ambitious government-led industrial policies that are supporting their success across the battery supply chain. China has also moved beyond conventional policy support with practices involving questionable environmental policies, price distortion through state-run enterprises to minimize competition, and large subsidies throughout the battery supply chain.”

In other words, as ARPN expert panel member and Benchmark Mineral Intelligence managing director Simon Moores told members of Congress a while back:

“We are in the midst of a global battery arms race.”

Moores had told members of Congress that “[i]t is not too late for the US [to secure global supply chains post-COVID] but action is needed now.” — a sentiment DoE echoes in its report chapter:

“However, the opportunity for the United States to secure a leading position in the global battery market is still within reach if the Federal Government takes swift and coordinated action.”

While less explicit about the “all of the above” approach than the Department of Defense, DoE notes that:

“With the global lithium battery market expected to grow by a factor of five to ten by 2030, it is imperative that the United States invests immediately in scaling up a secure, diversified supply chain for high-capacity batteries here at home. That means seizing a critical opportunity to increase domestic battery manufacturing while investing to scale the full lithium battery supply chain, including the sustainable sourcing and processing of the critical minerals used in battery production all the way through to end-of-life battery collection and recycling.

Through strong collaboration across the federal government, with U.S. industrial stakeholders, the research community, and international allies, the U.S. must develop a durable strategy that invests and scales our potential industrial strengths to meet this challenge.”

Among the Agency’s key recommendations for immediate and future action to strengthen the domestic advanced battery supply chain are:

• Strengthening U.S. manufacturing requirements in federally-funded grants, cooperative agreements, and research and development (R&D) contracts.
• Procuring stationary battery storage.
• Providing financing to the advanced battery supply chain for electric vehicles.
• Releasing the National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries by the Federal Consortium on Advanced Batteries (FCAB).
• For Congress to catalyze private capital with new federal grant programs to support battery cell and pack manufacturing.
• The electrification of the nation’s school bus fleet, and the acceleration of the electrification of the nation’s transit bus fleet.
• Providing consumer rebates and tax incentives to spur consumer adoption of EVs.
• Investing in the production of high-capacity batteries and products that use these batteries to support good-paying, union jobs.

Developing strong environmental review permitting practices for the extraction of critical minerals.

Under the sub-head “Mapping the Supply Chain,” while the Department zeroed in on the usual suspects — notably Lithium, Cobalt, Graphite, Manganese — all of which were officially deemed critical on the U.S. Government’s official 2018 Critical Minerals list — DoE also prominently features Nickel and Copper. For Nickel, DoE even notes that “if there are opportunities for the U.S. to target one part of the battery supply chain, this would likely be the most critical to provide short- and medium-term supply chain stability.”

Which would make Nickel the most critical “non-Critical” – a status consistent with the word cloud we created based on the number of 100-Day Report mentions (footnotes included) of the metals and minerals that made the official U.S. Government Critical Minerals List of 2018 — and the two that didn’t but should have (Nickel and Copper).

As we noted in our post earlier this week, the Biden Administration is right to give prominence to Nickel and Copper in its strategy.

After all, as Reuters’s Andy Home has pointed out,

“There is no domestic nickel processing capacity outside a limited amount of by-product salt production.

Yet this particular battery metal is the one likely to experience the most significant demand increase over the coming years, the report says, with ‘market indications that there could be a large shortage of Class 1 nickel in the next 3-7 years.’

Indeed, with nickel content rising in battery cathode design, not having enough of the right kind of nickel ‘poses a supply chain risk for battery manufacturing globally, not just in the United States.’”

And for Copper, the latest IEA report has estimated that — largely driven by the EV revolution — demand will be 25 times greater in 2040 than it was in 2020.

Thankfully, there are opportunities to alleviate our supply chain vulnerabilities and to begin the “sustainable sourcing and processing” here at home, both for Nickel and Copper, as well as for the other battery “Criticals,” and many other metals and minerals.

With the Administration having endorsed an “All of the Above” strategy to secure our supply chains “soup to nuts,” as Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm phrased it earlier this week, here’s hoping that this broad-based approach will find swift application via policy, programs and projects.

The post DoE Chapter of 100-Day Supply Chain Report Calls for Immediate Investment in “Scaling up a Secure, Diversified Supply Chain for High-Capacity Batteries Here at Home” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Observers of the critical mineral resource realm have been closely monitoring the transition from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration. There were early indications that, unlike some other areas, the critical mineral resource realm might see a certain level of continuity. In December Of 2020, then-Assistant Secretary of State (Energy Resources) Frank Fannon declared that he expected the Energy Resource Governance Initiative (ERGI) an initiative aimed at securing supply chains for metals critical for the clean energy transition, would continue in 2021, and policy statements made by the transition team suggested that, while emphases were certainly going to shift, efforts to secure critical mineral supply chains was going to continue taking a central role under an incoming Biden Administration.

And while a number of executive decisions made during the young Biden Administration have already ruffled some feathers, remarks made by Jennifer Granholm, former Governor of Michigan and President Biden’s pick for the position of Secretary of Energy before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources last week signal that the Biden Administration acknowledges the urgency of our nation’s critical minerals challenge and intends to address it head-on.

Granholm, who hails from a state well-known for its auto industry, stressed the importance of securing domestic mineral resource supply chains:

“If we are to build the supply chain for batteries, as one example, if we allow for China to corner the market on lithium or for the Democratic Republic of Congo to be the place where everyone gets cobalt when there may be child labor or human rights violations associated with that supply, then we are missing a massive opportunity for our own security but also for a market for own our trading partners that also may want to have access to minerals that are produced in a responsible way.”

She added, “the responsible way is an important thing to mention — we know we can mine in a responsible way.”

Thanking former Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski, who emphasized the “national security imperative of critical mineral resource policy” for her leadership on the Energy Act of 2020, Granholm declared herself “very enthusiastically supportive” of the direction given in said act for the Department of Energy to work on critical mineral issues and rare earths, “both for jobs and energy/supply chain security [reasons].”

At a time when China is stretching its tentacles and alluding to the possibility of — once more — weaponizing its stranglehold on critical minerals in general, and rare earths in particular, these remarks provide some hope that our nation will continue down the path towards a more comprehensive mineral resource policy begun under the Obama Administration and kicked into high gear over the past few years.

Watch the entire U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing to Consider Nomination of the Honorable Jennifer Granholm to be the Secretary of Energy here.

The post Amidst Big Policy Shifts, Signs for Continued Emphasis on Securing Critical Mineral Supply Chains at DoE appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.