Arguing that while it is “possible to produce them here” he says that “onerous federal rules make it extremely difficult,”adding that “[w]e cannot sit idly by and hope our U.S. mining industry can cut through the red tape currently strangling it.”

Sen. Risch points to the long-standing and, against the backdrop of surging demand, increasingly dangerous practice of over-relying on foreign – and especially Chinese supplies of critical minerals, which has given our adversaries significant leverage over us. The senator points to China’s penchant for weaponizing the mineral supply chain, with recent examples being the restriction of gallium and germanium exports — key components of semiconductor production and defense technology, arguing that “[i]t is only a matter of time before China decides to punish the U.S. and ur allies again by holding minerals hostage. That will even apply to minerals that are mined in the U.S. but processed in China, like copper.”

Meanwhile, one of the key obstacles to increased domestic mining and processing according to Sen. Risch, is the Biden administration, under whose guise a “working group on mining regulations released recommendations that, if implemented would transition mineral rights to a leasing program and add a dirt tax to every shovelful of ore, regardless of the value of the mineral,” which, according to the senator “would add years to the already lengthy permitting process and stifle investment in mining projects.”

Followers of ARPN are familiar with the average permitting timeframe for mining projects of roughly seven to ten years.  Litigation from NIMBY environmental groups — Sen. Risch points to the Rosemont decision in the Ninth Circuit Court which “changed the interpretation of long-established mining law” and “hampers the industry while making mining significantly less efficient and cost-effective”– can further add years to the already onerous process.

With even U.S. car companies requesting that the Biden administration speed up the mine permitting process, a consensus is growing that reform should be a national priority.

Sen. Risch points to the U.S. Department of Defense being an outlier in the administration and having recognized the “danger we face, which is why it is awarding grants to critical mining projects.”  The senator highlights the stibnite gold project in the central region of his home state of Idaho, where Perpetua Resources is working to be the sole domestic source of antimony, a key component of military technology.

But of course, as followers of ARPN know, there are more projects receiving DoD support with even more expected to be announced on a rolling basis.

In ARPN’s latest post on the blog, we pointed a series of Presidential Determinations involving specific critical minerals which laid the foundation for this type of funding under Defense Production Act Title III authority.

Current projects, recently highlighted by Oregon Group’s Anthony Milewski, include:

• Graphite: a $37.5 million agreement between the DoD and Graphite One (Alaska) to fast-track a domestic graphite mine;
• Antimony (as highlighted by Sen. Risch): two awards — $24.8 million and $15.5 million — by the DoD to Perpetua Resources to secure a domestic source of antimony [an additional conditional award of up to $34.6 million under the existing Technology Investment Agreement was announced earlier last month];
• Lithium: a $90million agreement to secure lithium production between the DoD and Abermarle;
• Nickel: a US $20.6 million agreement between the DoD and Talon Nickel to increase domestic nickel production.

Closes Sen. Risch:

“Every aspect of our society and security relies on processed minerals and would therefore benefit from expedited permitting and easier access. We cannot afford to wait until China reduces or even cuts off our access to critical minerals.

It is time for America to see the power of the U.S. mining industry, invest in it, and secure our supply chains. The technology we depend on every day is only possible because of mining. To ensure not just our economic success but our national security, Congress must revamp our mining laws and substantially reduce irrelevant regulations.”

The stakes are getting higher by the day, and, as ARPN’s Daniel McGroarty pointed out years ago, “we can’t admire the problem any longer” because “we don’t have the luxury of time.” However, we are dealing with Washington, D.C., and the question is whether Congressional stakeholders will finally be able to put policy over politics in an election year.

The post U.S. Senator: Embrace Domestic Mining and Processing of Critical Minerals “Before It’s Too Late” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Copper prices may have dropped, however demand for the metal, which is not only a key mainstay metal, but also an indispensable component in green energy technology, is expected to increase drastically to keep pace with the material requirements of the global push towards net zero carbon emissions.

According to the Financial Times, its growing application in this field will result “in it being dubbed the ‘metal of electrification’, with forecasts that it will double to a 50mn tonne market by 2035 compared with 2021 levels, according to S&P Global, which predicts a ‘chronic gap’ between supply and demand.”

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.”

As the Wall Street Journal outlined earlier this month, these circumstances have prompted mining companies to target “a new but also old source – closed mines, also known as brownfield sites.” The Wall Street Journal points to Sweden-based miner Bluelake Mineral, seeking to reopen a mine site in northern Norway that closed 25 years ago, as well as to Rio Tinto’s Resolution Copper project near Superior, Arizona, which is considered one of the most significant undeveloped copper deposits in the world and would reuse the historic Magma Mine which started production in 1910 and operated until 1996. While the project has strong support from the surrounding community, and began the permitting process in 1997, it is still awaiting permits to begin operation.

With Copper becoming increasingly critical in the context of decarbonization efforts – the material has not (yet) been added to the overall U.S. government’s critical minerals list, the Department of Energy recently designated the material a critical material as part of its 2023 Critical Materials Assessment – and with geopolitical volatility reaching heights not seen in decades with this month’s Hamas assault on Israel, securing key mineral supply chains becomes all the more pertinent, and U.S. stakeholders should look to embrace domestic opportunities to unleash our mineral potential where possible.

The post More Mines Needed to Provide Enough Copper, the “Metal of Electrification,” for Green Energy Shift appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The June debt ceiling deal included several permitting reform provisions, among them most notably time and page limits on for Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and Environmental Assessments (EAs).

With that, however, while talks are ongoing, some involved in the negotiations worry that the momentum for broader changes may have been blunted.

Whether or not lawmakers on Capitol Hill are able to overcome their differences on permitting reform remains to be seen — however, experts caution that it takes more to deliver a clean domestic energy supply chain.

As Elizabeth Wilson, professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College, Simon Lomax, program manager at the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines, and Morgan Bazilian, former lead energy specialist for the world Bank and the Director of the Payne Institute write in the New Hampshire Union Leader, beyond permitting reform, “[g]rassroots support is also essential, and that means overcoming decades of public ambivalence – and hostility – towards U.S. mining projects. “

After decades wrought with challenges, they say, “[t]oday, (…) there’s an opportunity to write a new chapter for the U.S. mining sector, in which more of the raw materials for advanced energy technologies are produced here, under the most protective standards in the world.”

However, Wilson, Lomax and Bazilian say, this can’t happen without strong public support or, “the social license to operate.”

In order to receive this social license to operate, they suggest stakeholders pursue at least these four approaches:

1. Prioritize local concerns.  Open lines of communication and thoughtful interaction with the locals are key when looking to advance resource projects. The authors point to NioCorp’s efforts to mine EV battery materials in Nebraska, where NioCorp has emphasized other uses for the materials, especially in the U.S. military thus appealing to a prevailing local sense of patriotism. 
2. Embrace full-value mining.  Identifying innovative ways to process rocks to extract other metals and minerals from existing mines, like Rio Tinto has successfully done with its tellurium extraction process in the context of its Kennecott copper operations in Utah, can help reduce waste and improve economics. 
3. Harness tailings and waste streams. Technologies like those developed by companies like Nth Cycle and Phoenix Tailings enable miners to extract critical minerals from discarded rock and other mine waste streams, allowing for the strengthening of domestic supply chains while improving remediation efforts.
4. Confront the past to build the future. With between 68% and 97% of U.S. cobalt, copper, lithium and nickel reserves located within 35 miles of Native American reservations, meaningful ongoing engagement with Native American communities, who suffered in the 19^th and early 20^th century quest for mineral wealth, cannot be sidestepped.

As Wilson Lomax and Bazilian say:

“A domestic supply chain for critical minerals cannot be built from Washington, D.C., with the stroke of a pen. It requires strong state and local engagement too.” 

Thankfully, the U.S. mining industry has already begun to embrace and implement these concepts and can build on them going forward. (See ARPN’s recent coverage on the industry’s effort to “turn the same stone twice” here and here). In the meantime, policy stakeholders must do their part to devise a policy framework conducive to harnessing our nation’s vast mineral resources.  Permitting reform is an important part of this, but so is promoting and fostering a pro-mining culture among their constituencies.

After all, as the authors close:

“It’s not a one-way street. Consumers and communities who demand clean energy technologies should also care about the supply chains for those technologies.

Support for climate action is support for mining — it’s just a matter of where, when and how that mining takes place.”

The post Permitting Reform is Important, But Not a Panacea: The Importance of a Comprehensive All-Of-The-Above Approach That Also Includes Grassroot Support appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

In a new opinion piece published last week, editors argue that while the environmental benefits of the United States’ green energy shift stand to be significant, the geopolitical risks are not to be dismissed – particularly as China dominates key segments of the critical minerals supply chain for many of the materials underpinning clean energy technology.

To minimize reliance on China, the editorial board suggests that stakeholders should “keep calm” and work towards mitigating possible supply shocks by strengthening stockpiling and recycling efforts.    Marking an important shift in the public discourse, which long been rife with hesitation to embrace increased domestic resource development, the Washington Post editors call for a strengthened commitment to U.S.-based mining and mineral processing to reduce geopolitical risk while also demanding permitting reforms to accelerate and update the permitting “red tape.” 

Followers of ARPN well know that the most prudent approach mineral resource security is a comprehensive all-of-the above approach – one that strengthens domestic capacities along all segments of the supply chain while leveraging partnerships with friendly nations.   The Washington Post editors agree – arguing that further friend-shoring deals along the lines of those ARPN has regularly discussed on our blog (see for example here, here and here) could “create and coordinate a free flow of critical minerals among like-minded countries.” 

The authors further invoke a new Aspen Institute task force report which suggests that clarifying standards for prior consultation with tribal nations could help resolve many concerns surrounding domestic resource development, which is preferrable to relying on countries with poor labor and environmental standards.

As the editorial board states:

“Environmentalists should remember: The question is not whether mining will occur but where. If not under regulated conditions in this country, it could well be in places such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, the world’s leading cobalt source. Though companies there have cleaned up their acts recently, working conditions remain poor, and a significant minority of the substance still comes from artisanal mines, often dug by children.”

We hear a great deal about concerning ourselves with our carbon footprint.  Perhaps it’s time to focus on the human rights footprint of the metals and minerals that make our modern world work.

The post Washington Post Editorial Board Calls for All-Of-The-Above Approach to Mineral Resource Security appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Ali points to the inherent irony of the green energy transition — renewable technologies requiring vast and increasing amounts of metals and minerals like lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese and REEs, but the U.S. Administration finding itself in a bind with the climate movement, a core part of President Joe Biden’s base, not wanting to mine them, “certainly not close to home.”

Ali cites the January 2023 Boundary Waters decision, in which the U.S. Department of the Interior closed over 350 square miles of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota – an area that holds some of the nation’s largest undeveloped deposits of copper and nickel but is also known for its pristine lakes — to mineral and geothermal leasing for twenty years.

Arguing that while the “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) sentiment has gone global – Ali points to Serbia’s Jadar lithium mining project being stopped in response to environmentalist pressures — the “United States seems particularly stuck.”  

(See ARPN’S coverage of the NIMBY movement here.)

Relying on allies, such as Australia and Canada, and countries with “controversial domestic-labour policies and environmental standards, including Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo” rather than developing its own resources has led to the U.S. yielding to China which has “benefited from the uncompromising US opposition to domestic mining and has built up a formidable dominance in critical metal extraction and processing over the past 30 years.”

Ali notes that while “[m]ining has a sordid history of exploitation and plunder, particularly with respect to Indigenous people,” “contemporary mines with regulatory oversight can have workable impact–benefit agreements with communities,” citing specific examples exemplifying such agreements, including Voisey’s Bay nickel mine in Canada and Red Dog Mine in Alaska, which preferentially employ Indigenous people, respect traditional hunting seasons and include incremental royalties and partial resource ownership.

Ali suggests:

“The country is in danger of forgetting one of the four laws of ecology that Barry Commoner (…) established in his 1971 book A Closing Circle: ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch.’ All industrial activities have some ecological impact. As researchers, and as informed societies, we must consider the benefits and trade-offs in concert.”

adding that

“as the world prepares for the 2023 COP28 climate conference — where even free conference lunches are not really free — the United States should revisit Commoner’s wisdom: there is virtue in embracing tough trade-offs.”

All in all, a welcome if somewhat unexpected proposition coming in an article from (mostly) peer-reviewed Nature.

The post Nature Magazine Column Calls on U.S. to “Embrace Tough Trade-Offs” and “Get Serious” About Domestic Mining to Support Green Energy Shift appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

He writes:

“From our warfighting capabilities to overlooked supply chains—including the personal protective equipment and essential medicines that were in short supply during the height of the pandemic—we’ve come to recognize that an unbalanced focus on efficiency has hollowed out key pieces of American manufacturing.

Countless supply chains are overstretched, and we’ve lost critical slack needed to ramp up production of essential goods and materials when needed. The withering of our industrial base has also created alarming reliance on supply chains controlled by our rivals or—worse yet—our adversaries.

Our extraordinarily dangerous over-reliance on mineral and metal imports—particularly from China—is a case in point.”

While there has been a “groundswell of bipartisan energy to address the minerals problem” – Gen. Adams cites the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act and the recent invocations of the Defense Production Act – some key issues that would help address said over-reliance on China, such as permitting reform, have yet to be addressed.

The just-introduced Transparency, Accountability, Permitting and Production of (TAPP) American Resources Act, H.R. 1 seeks to bolster U.S. critical mineral supply chains by reducing red tape, entry barriers and redundancies, and reforming the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide industry with clearer timelines and more certainty, among other things.

As Adams argues, “[a]s the war in Ukraine underscores, productive capacity is the foundation from which we can project strength and deterrence. It’s also how we can insulate our economy from those who seek to use supply chain dominance to exert undue geopolitical leverage.”

Reforming the U.S. permitting process to meet the national security exigencies of the 21st Century Technology Age is just one side of the coin — insuring that potential adversaries, “bad actors” in the parlance of the newly-unveiled TAPP Act don’t have undue access to domestic resources, is the other.

A provision in TAPP would limit Chinese and other “bad actors’” involvement in the U.S. critical minerals industry:

Sec. 20309 would bar “a mining claimant from the right to use, occupy and conduct operations on Federal land if the Secretary of Interior finds that the claimant has a foreign parent company that has a known record of human rights violations and knowingly operated an illegal mine in another country.”

According to the Daily Caller, “it was not immediately clear if the proposed legislation would impact firms like Lithium Americas, which is only owned in part by Chinese mining giant Gangfeng Lithium through subsidiary GFL International,” and which won federal court approval in 2021 to establish a major lithium mining project in Nevada.

With partisan politics dominating the halls on Capitol Hill, H.R. 1 and its provisions will likely face an uphill battle, but the the focus on permitting reform in general, and the inclusion of Sec. 20309 specifically highlights the fact that stakeholders are beginning to realize that harnessing and protecting domestic assets will be key as the global resource wars enter into the next round.

The post New Push to Bolster Critical Mineral Supply Chains to Shore Up Industrial Base Focuses on Permitting, Banning “Bad Actors” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

With Congressional leadership elections – finally – behind us, policy makers in Washington are gearing up to delve into the issues, and, if the newly announced House Committee assignments are any indication, critical mineral resource and supply chain security will rate high on the priority list.

Looking at the overall trend lines in the critical minerals space, earlier this month we outlined the themes we see emerging for this year, as follows:

• A focus on the Super Criticals (see our Year in Review post for more info);
• the growing importance of geopolitics, with China taking center stage and alliances and partnerships continuing to be forged to reduce reliance on Beijing;
• the acceleration of the green energy transition which will require vast amounts of critical minerals;
• …as well as industry’s efforts to sustainably green our future by harnessing the materials science revolution.

It appears the urgency to act is not lost on policy makers, and earlier this week, Rep. Peter Stauber (R-Minnesota) the incoming chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, offered an early glimpse into plans to overhaul the permitting process for energy projects with the new House majority.

Rep. Stauber has introduced the “Permitting for Mining Needs Act,” a bill that seeks to spur domestic critical mineral production to meet national defense, technology and clean energy needs.

Incoming House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Arkansas) has vowed to make permitting reform a priority in the 118th Congress, stressing in an interview earlier this week that “[t]he country’s got to come to grips with where we want to go with this electric economy”  and if we do, being “totally dependent on China and other countries like that to supply the materials we need” is not the answer, but rather striving to “produce these elements and minerals on our own.”  

Prioritizing the decoupling from Beijing is also the emerging theme from a vote to establish a Select U.S. House Committee on China, which will consist of nine Republicans and seven Democrats, and will be headed up by Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisconsin), who has framed U.S.-Chinese competition as a 21st Century Cold War and wrote in an op-ed for Fox News that the “first step is to restore our supply chains and end critical economic dependencies on China,” which he noted produced approximately 90% of the world’s rare earth metals, alloys, and permanent magnets in 2019.

Of course, if recent years on Capitol Hill serve as a guide, we can’t expect a high level of bipartisanship of the 118^th Congress overall, but the critical minerals space may continue to be a rare exception.

As a new piece for National Law Review outlines, “there is growing consensus that the U.S. must avoid trading dependencies on foreign sources of fossil fuels, for one, on Chinese critical minerals,” and while reform efforts may face an uphill battle with fundamental disagreements persisting over constraints on environmental reviews and timelines, “[p]ermitting reform will continue to be an issue receiving bipartisan attention,” though “[f]undamental disagreements among Democrats persist on how to put new constraints on environmental reviews and timelines.”

An area “ripe for bipartisanship” according to National Law Review could be “[t]echnologies to trap carbon emissions from power plants and suck carbon directly out of the atmosphere,” with some lawmakers “convinced there will be an appetite to boost carbon removal startups in the next few years.”

Meanwhile, external pressures continue to grow, with geopolitical tensions rising and the green energy transition accelerating.

Here’s hoping Santa put some sneakers under the tree this Christmas, because if this week’s policy announcements in Washington, D.C. are any indication, this first month of 2023, we’ve hit the ground running.

The post New Year, New Congress, New Impetus for Critical Mineral Policy Reform? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

While providing billions of dollars to “buttress U.S. energy security while also addressing climate change,” the IRA ties EV tax credits to strict sourcing restrictions:

Qualified cars must be assembled in North America and adhere to mandated “escalating levels of critical minerals to be sourced from the U.S. or a country with a free-trade agreement with the U.S.”

The escalating levels of sourcing requirements for applicable battery critical minerals (with the bill defining an extensive list of applicable minerals) are as follows:

“40% for a vehicle placed in service before 1 January 2024;

50% for a vehicle placed in the service during calendar year 2024;

60% for a vehicle placed in service during calendar year 2025;

70% for a vehicle placed in service during calendar year 2026; and

80% for a vehicle placed in service after 31 December 2026.

The bill places similar restrictions on the percentage of value of the components, but leading up to a 100% requirement for vehicles placed in service after 31 December 2028.”

Write Bazilian and Brew:

“For the first time, U.S. policy is directly tying the supply of these little-understood minerals to a massive paradigm shift in the automobile market. As the markets for these materials are diverse, global, and dominated largely by China, this offers a rare instance of bipartisan concern.

The purpose of the policy is threefold. The Biden administration wants to accelerate the energy transition to low carbon technologies; encourage domestic manufacturing; and improve U.S. energy security, ostensibly by reducing its dependence on foreign supplies of the minerals needed to support the energy transition.”

However, as followers of ARPN well know, the sourcing requirements pose a fundamental challenge for the United States, leading Bazilian and Brew to conclude that “[w]here the 20th century featured battles over access to oil, the 21st century will likely be defined by a struggle over critical minerals, particularly as the United States views China as a global competitor and strives to limit its reliance on Chinese supplies for EV manufacturing and a wide variety of energy and defense technologies.”

Outlining the scope of the geopolitical challenges and China’s dominance along the critical minerals value chain, as well as the United States’ need to catch up, Bazilian and Brew identify “five essential areas” that can “help provide the basis for a vibrant, more resilient, and more robust set of supply chains – and thus support energy transitions effectively”:

1. A focus on sustainable mining, building on the dramatic improvements of mining practices over the last decades, will not only provide cutting edge solutions but also allow “for a new narrative to emerge for the sector” which is still seen as “dirty, outmoded and unsophisticated.”
2. Increasing transparency and functionality in critical mineral markets can help eliminate “ineffective market signals for investment, obstacles that can cause huge roadblocks to production and trade.
3. Reframing the debate on critical minerals in the context of supply chains rather than “just rocks,” and taking into consideration the “gateway metal” and “coproduct” relationships (Bazilian and Brew use different terminology but invoke the same concept ARPN followers are familiar with) of many critical minerals will help stakeholders design effective policy solutions.
4. Circular economy concepts in which recycling of materials once products reach the end of their life span need to be emphasized and strengthened and harnessed in the U.S., where rates are “terribly low.”  
5. A focus on permitting as well as social acceptance will hold “a key to success in the critical mineral space.” 

Bazilian and Brew conclude:

“The IRA promises a drastic reduction in U.S. carbon emissions and an acceleration of the energy transition away from fossil fuels. The United States needs more wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars. But to make that possible, it will need more mines.”

As Shane Lasley outlines in his most recent publication, “Critical Mineral Alliances 2022,” we have an entire arsenal from which we can draw to succeed in the 21^st Century battle over critical minerals, but it will take a concerted effort, and one that requires reaching across the political aisle:

“[t]he optimum solution to laying the foundation for the next epoch of human progress will only be discovered through the forging of unlikely alliances between the woke and old school, environmental conservationists and natural resource developers, liberals and conservatives, national laboratories and private sector entrepreneurs, local stakeholders and global mining companies, venture capitalists and innovators, and everyone else with visions of a cleaner, greener, and high-tech future.”

From where we stand, the challenge of the 21^st Century’s Tech Metals Age begins with a change in mindset toward mining.

The post A Look at the Inflation Reduction Act and Its Potential to “Reclaim Critical Mineral Chains” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The move is a sign that “America is finally taking the battery metal shortage seriously,” as the headline of the latest piece by Tsvetana Paraskova for OilPrice.com indicates.

Amidst the cheer, some caution, however, that invoking the Defense Production Act does “nothing to streamline the permitting process,” which remains mired in redundancies and red tape.  Writes Joe Deaux for Bloomberg News:

“It takes a about seven to 10 years to get a mine up and running in the U.S., compared to two to three years in neighboring Canada, according to the U.S. business group National Mining Association. The omission will frustrate mining companies when Biden is pushing to revive domestic production capacity while embracing a shift in the U.S. economy to less polluting energy.”

Deaux cites National Mining Association President Rich Nolan, who told Bloomberg News via email that “[u]nless we continue to build on this action, and get serious about re-shoring 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.”

Meanwhile, pointing to recent regulatory action taken by the Biden Administration to block a proposed copper mining project in Minnesota and to slow another one in Arizona, the Wall Street Journal editorial board this week laments contradictions in the White House’s energy policy, stating that “President Biden on Thursday invoked the Defense Production Act to subsidize the mining of certain minerals in the U.S. that his own Administration is using regulation to block.”

All of which ultimately brings us back to the “inherent irony” or “paradox of the green revolution” Reuters columnist Andy Home has invoked in several instances when covering critical mineral resource supply chains for the very materials underpinning the green energy transition — the paradox that “public opinion is firmly in favour of decarbonisation but not the mines and smelters needed to get there.”

With the political campaign season upon us, the Biden Administration’s balancing act to reconcile its green credentials with the acknowledged need for domestic resource development will likely not get any easier, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has raised the stakes for mineral resource security – already high in the wake of the global coronavirus pandemic unearthing massive supply chain challenges – to a whole new level.

As Ruth Demeter, Senior Director of Policy, Global Energy Institute at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pointed out:

“The war in Ukraine and sanctions imposed against Russia have once again underscored the precarious nature of America’s growing dependence on critical minerals—and lack of homegrown supply.” 

Nonetheless, writes Bloomberg’s Deaux, “[t]he Defense Production Act would be a huge step in bringing legitimacy to U.S. companies with battery-metals projects seeking to attract more capital to expand businesses and help create a self-sustaining domestic industry.”

To be leveraged most effectively, however, its invocation should be embedded into a truly comprehensive “all-of-the-above” approach across the entire value chain that ARPN and others have been calling for.

We can, and should, harness partnerships with allies, expand recycling capabilities and work on “closed-loop solutions”– but, as we’ve stated elsewhere, we will not be able to meet vastly increasing mineral needs and safeguard our national and economic security without leveraging and expanding domestic production and processing capabilities.

The post Invocation of Defense Production Act a Sign “America is Finally Taking the Battery Metal Shortage Seriously” – But Must be Embedded in True All-of-the-Above Strategy appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The witness panel at the hearing, which E&E Daily described as “a largely pro-mining hearing that could serve as a blueprint for a potential deal on energy and critical minerals” featured three industry experts on the mining industry and two mining company representatives.

As pressures on critical mineral supply chains are mounting, there appears to be a cross-party consensus that, as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said during the hearing, it is “essential” to increase domestic mineral resource production and “reduce our country’s dependence on foreign-produced minerals,” with this being “as much a national security issue as (…) an environmental one.”

In her testimony, Securing America’s Future Energy’s Vice President, Critical Minerals Strategy Abigail Wulf highlighted the fact that “the 2020s will be a critical decade that will challenge the United States’ ability to consistently and effectively project its political, military, and economic strength. During this time,” she said,  “the production of batteries, electric vehicles (EVs), semiconductors, and other advanced technologies will take on increased geopolitical importance.”

Underscoring the importance of strengthening both domestic mining and processing, she stressed that “[t]he nation that prevails in controlling the manufacturing and distribution of these key industries will lead the global transition to a new energy future and the next industrial revolution, adding that ”[t]he United States is lagging behind, risking our position of global economic leadership, leaving us vulnerable to supply disruptions and dependent on nations that do not share our values.”

The hearing took place on the same day U.S. President Joe Biden invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to encourage domestic production of the metals and minerals deemed critical for electric vehicle and large capacity batteries, a move which, according to  Bloomberg News affords mining companies access to $750 million under the Act’s Title III fund.

Meanwhile, pointing to the still onerous and often redundant procedure for mining companies to obtain permits for their operations in the United States, Sen. John Barrasso (D-WY) cautioned during the hearing that “unless the President streamlines permitting, we should not expect to see any meaningful increase in American mineral production.”

Increasing domestic mineral resource production will undoubtedly be met with opposition by environmentalists and Indigenous activists.  To alleviate some of their concerns, the Presidential Determination issued this week stated that subsequent actions “shall be conducted, to the extent consistent with the promotion of the national defense and applicable law, with strong environmental, sustainability, safety, labor, Tribal consultation, and impacted community engagement standards.”

Furthermore, as E&E Daily reports, “[t]he same day as the [Presidential Determination was issued], the Interior Department published a notice in the Federal Register outlining plans to hold hearings and take public comments about changing current mining laws and regulations, including ways to improve Indigenous consultation.”

While much more remains to be done and valid concerns will need to be reconciled, the fact that Administration, Congress and other stakeholders are moving towards taking comprehensive steps to address our nation’s mineral resource challenge is encouraging.

As Sen. Joe Manchin told committee members during his opening remarks:

“Demand is increasing for minerals vital to clean energy and national security technologies, as well as for the everyday tools and comforts we take for granted. We must take action domestically or we’ll be putting our own security at risk by allowing China this power over our supply chains.”

The post Critical Minerals in Focus – U.S. Senate Full Committee Hearing on Domestic Critical Mineral Supply Chains appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.