U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–976 2018

S. HRG. 115–183 

THE UNITED STATES’ INCREASING DEPENDENCE 

ON FOREIGN SOURCES OF MINERALS AND 

OPPORTUNITIES TO REBUILD AND IMPROVE 

THE SUPPLY CHAIN IN THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 28, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

ANNIE HOEFLER, Professional Staff Member 

SEVERIN WIGGENHORN, Senior Counsel 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SPENCER GRAY, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

MELANIE STANSBURY, Democratic Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, a U.S. Senator from Nevada .............................. 3 

WITNESSES 

Hitzman, Dr. Murray, Associate Director–Energy and Minerals, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior ...................................................... 4 

Barrios, Alf, Chief Executive, Rio Tinto Aluminum ............................................. 12 

Hinde, Dr. Chris, Director, Reports, S&P Global Market Intelligence ............... 21 

MacGillivray, Randy, Vice President Project Development, Ucore Rare Metals, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 25 

Cosgriff, Vice Admiral Kevin J., USN (Retired), President and CEO, National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association ................................................................. 30 

Eggert, Dr. Roderick G., Viola Vestal Coulter Foundation Chair in Mineral 

Economics, Division of Economics and Business, Colorado School of Mines .. 36 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Barrios, Alf: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 12 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 14 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 74 

Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Cosgriff, Vice Admiral Kevin J.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 30 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 32 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 86 

Eggert, Dr. Roderick G.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 36 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 38 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 88 

Hinde, Dr. Chris: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 21 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 23 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 76 

Hitzman, Dr. Murray: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 6 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 68 

MacGillivray, Randy: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 25 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 27 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 81 

(The) Minerals Science and Information Coalition: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 94 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

(1) 

THE UNITED STATES’ INCREASING DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN SOURCES OF MINERALS 

AND OPPORTUNITIES TO REBUILD AND IMPROVE THE SUPPLY CHAIN IN THE UNITED 

STATES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The Committee will come to order. 

I understand Senator Cantwell will be coming later, but Senator 

Cortez Masto will be subbing in this morning. We appreciate that 

a great deal. 

We are here today to receive testimony on the United States’ foreign mineral dependence. It will probably come as no surprise to 

anyone here that, I believe, this is a significant and a growing 

threat to our nation. Resolving it and restoring our mineral security is a priority for me and many members of this Committee. 

Our starting point is to recognize that minerals are important 

because they are the building blocks of our modern society, from 

the smallest computer chips to the tallest skyscrapers and just 

about everything in-between. 

Minerals are fundamental to fracking, MRI machines, and jet engines. The homes that we live in, the food we eat, the cars we 

drive, and the computers we use, all depend on minerals. Almost 

every product in our nation is made from, or uses, minerals, yet 

more and more these minerals are now being produced somewhere 

else. 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), we imported at 

least 50 percent of our supply of 50 different minerals, including 

100 percent of our supply of 20 of them, just last year in 2016. 

That is a major increase from our foreign dependence levels in 

1978 when this data was first collected, and it suggests that we are 

on the verge of replacing our dependence on foreign oil with an 

equally, if not even more damaging, dependence on foreign minerals. 
2 

Rare earth elements are perhaps the best-known example. With 

the Mountain Pass Mine in California now closed, we once again 

import 100 percent of our supply of rare earths, exposing us to potential supply shortages and price volatility while reducing our 

international leverage and attractiveness for manufacturing. It is 

the same story with graphite, palladium, indium, manganese, niobium and many others. 

When you look at the list of what it is that we import, where we 

import it from, and what it is used for, it quickly becomes clear 

that we have a problem on our hands. Our foreign mineral dependence is a threat to our ability to create jobs in this country. It limits our growth, our competitiveness, and our national security. It 

may seem abstract right now for some who are not responsible for 

managing a supply chain, but there will come a day when it will 

become real for all of us when we simply cannot acquire a mineral 

or when the market for a mineral changes so dramatically that entire industries are affected. 

Some agencies have begun to wake up to the threats posed by 

our foreign mineral dependence, but on the whole, the Federal Government is not paying anywhere near enough attention. Executive 

agencies are not as focused or as coordinated as they need to be, 

and they do not have the direction or authority that they need to 

make lasting progress to restore our mineral security. 

That is why, for the past three Congresses, I have introduced legislation to improve our nation’s mineral security along with members from both sides of our Committee. Last Congress we included 

our work in our broad, bipartisan energy bill which both the Committee and the Senate overwhelmingly approved. 

As we examine policy options in this new Congress, I remain convinced that our ideas on minerals are on the right track and they 

are as timely as ever. 

I continue to believe that we should have a mechanism to track 

which minerals are critical in use and susceptible to supply disruption. When a mineral is listed as critical, we should survey our 

lands to determine the extent of our resource base. 

When it comes to permitting delays for new mines, our nation is 

among the worst in the world, so fixing our broken system is one 

of the single most important steps we can take. 

We should also promote research into alternatives, efficiency, 

and recycling options, especially for minerals that we do not have 

in significant abundance. 

We should build out our minerals forecasting capability to provide a better understanding of mineral-related trends and early 

warnings when problems do arise. 

And we need to pay attention to workforce issues so that smart 

kids are taught by qualified professionals and can go on to find success in environmentally-responsible mining operations. 

This Congress offers a perfect opportunity to finally bring our 

minerals policies into the 21st century and to begin to restore our 

nation’s mineral security. Today we start that effort by focusing on 

the importance of minerals, the threats posed by our rising foreign 

dependence, and a discussion of the solutions that are within our 

reach. So I look forward to hearing from each member of the panel 

this morning. 
3 

I will now turn to Senator Cortez Masto and welcome her for her 

comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

I want to thank Madam Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member 

Cantwell for bringing together this hearing that is incredibly salient to our interest in not only rebuilding our mining industry but 

in retooling our economy for a high-tech world. 

The United States is at a critical stage of innovation. The technologies that we all use demand a steady supply of critical minerals, minerals that are primarily imported with an increasing 

global demand. 

When our dependence on foreign minerals increases and we are 

100 percent import reliant for 20 minerals, including 8 identified 

as critical, it is absolutely necessary to prioritize the security of our 

supply chain. 

We have the opportunity, right now, to seize on mineral supply 

independence as we have in the energy sector with fuel. Our country has the supplies, workforce, technology and government programs to rebuild our domestic supply, but they require investment. 

Not only does improving our supplies ensure our mining industry’s success, but it will also improve our economy, other important 

industries and resilience to global competition. 

Mining companies provide thousands of good jobs for residents in 

Nevada, pay millions of dollars in tax revenues and help support 

other parts of our state’s economy. 

Additionally, mining companies like Barrick and Newmont not 

only employ thousands of Nevadans but also prioritize digital improvements that increase efficiency, transparency and corporate 

sustainability. The ripple effect of an expanded domestic mining industry includes technology companies, research institutions, energy 

systems and the military. 

Technology minerals are absolutely critical for many of the technologies that are part of our everyday lives and stand to improve 

our energy systems from our cell phones, to solar panels and battery storage. Leveraging our resources is a real opportunity which, 

if done responsibly, continues the charge of my state and the country into a great age of innovation and resiliency in a competitive 

global market. 

But know that there are challenges that we must address. I am 

eager to hear from our esteemed experts who will inform us about 

the challenges they face or the solutions they believe will move us 

forward. I know that investments in technologies, research, education and a trained workforce and improving the permitting review process, all are priorities moving forward as our country increases its domestic supply of critical minerals and the innovation 

dependent upon those resources. 

Thank you very much for joining us today. 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

We will now turn to our witnesses. Thank you. I appreciate not 

only your input this morning but what you have done in the var-
4 

ious sectors and spaces that you operate. Your leadership is greatly 

appreciated. 

We are going to start off this morning with Dr. Murray Hitzman, 

who is the Associate Director for Energy and Minerals at the U.S. 

Geological Survey. Welcome to you, Mr. Hitzman. 

He will be followed by Mr. Alf Barrios, who is the Chief Executive of Rio Tinto Aluminum. Welcome. 

Dr. Chris Hinde is the Director of Reports, Metals and Mining 

at S&P Global Market Intelligence. We thank him for being here. 

Next is a friend of mine, Mr. Randy MacGillivray, who is the 

Vice President of Project Development at Ucore Rare Metals, Incorporated. Welcome. 

We are joined by Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, U.S. Navy Retired. 

He is the President and CEO of the National Electric Manufacturers Association (NEMA). We appreciate you being here. 

Rounding out the panel is Dr. Roderick Eggert, who is the Viola 

Vestal Coulter Foundation Chair in Mineral Economics at the Division of Economics and Business at the Colorado School of Mines. 

We appreciate your contributions this morning. 

Dr. Hitzman, we will ask you to lead off the panel. I would ask 

each of you to limit your comments to five minutes. Your full testimony will be incorporated as part of the record, and we will hold 

our questions until each of you has spoken. I look forward to your 

input this morning. 

Dr. Hitzman, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MURRAY HITZMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR–ENERGY AND MINERALS, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Dr. HITZMAN. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, and thanks 

to the members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to be here to testify about the nation’s foreign mineral dependence. 

The U.S. Geological Survey is responsible for conducting research 

and collecting data on a wide variety of mineral resources. The 

USGS collects, analyzes and disseminates information on current 

production and consumption of 84 mineral commodities, both domestically and internationally for 180 countries. These data include 

information on domestic production and use, import sources, world 

production capacity, and recycling. These mineral data are published annually in the Mineral Commodities Summaries. 

Global demand for mineral commodities is on the rise, and the 

United States is increasingly reliant on foreign sources for raw 

processed mineral materials. In 2016, our studies show that imports made up more than one-half of the U.S. apparent consumption of 50 non-fuel mineral commodities valued at $32.3 billion. The 

United States was 100 percent reliant for 20 of these mineral commodities, including 8 identified as critical. This is an increase from 

2015 when the country was more than 50 percent dependent on 47 

non-fuel mineral commodities and 100 percent reliant on 19. 

The list of mineral commodities for which the United States is 

100 percent import reliant includes both well-known and obscure 

commodities. Elements that the U.S. depends on from foreign 

sources include the rare-earth element, Europium, which is essen-
5 

tial for getting a bright red color out of a TV screen and metal oxides that are responsible for some popular automobile paint colors. 

The metal oxides are an example of the effect of supply disruptions. For several months after the 2011 Japanese earthquake and 

tsunami, American vehicle manufacturers were unable to supply 

customers with popular red and black sports cars and trucks due 

to the unavailability of a critical mineral ingredient. 

In 2015, the USGS, in cooperation with the Department of Energy, developed a screening tool to identify critical minerals of concern for economic and national security and to stay ahead of technology changes and geopolitical unrest. This criticality tool accounts for several variables in identifying critical minerals, including how vulnerable the supply chain is to disruption, how much 

production growth is expected for the material and market dynamics. These studies allow the users to rank minerals from lower to 

higher potential criticality. The resultant rankings are being used 

today by the Defense Logistics Agency. 

An accurate assessment of the nation’s mineral resources must 

include not only the resources available in the ground but also 

those that become available through recycling. Metal supply consists of primary material from a mining operation and secondary 

material which is composed of new and old scrap. Although recycling is a significant source of some non-fuel mineral resources 

such as aluminum, technical difficulties with recycling mean that 

for other mineral commodities such as the rare earths, recycling is 

extremely challenging. 

In addition to providing information on mineral production and 

consumption, the USGS also produces data that aids in assessing 

the mineral potential of the nation. For example, the USGS recently released a study on critical minerals in Alaska. 

To help source minerals domestically, the USGS undertakes both 

geologic mapping and the production of regional-scale geophysical 

maps that help define areas favorable for mineral exploration. 

Currently only about one-third of the United States has been 

mapped at the detailed scales required for mineral exploration. 

Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, have undertaken 

such geological and geophysical surveys and have reported that investments of $1 by the government have resulted in further investments of over $5 by the private sector. 

The Department, through the USGS, stands ready to fulfill its 

role as the federal provider of unbiased research on known mineral 

resources, assessment of undiscovered mineral resources, data to 

aid mineral exploration by the private sector and information on 

domestic and global production and consumption of mineral resources for use in global critical mineral supply chain analysis. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I’m very happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hitzman follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hitzman. 

I believe that other members of the Committee have received the 

USGS report on the Alaska assessment which I found was very 

helpful with the maps, thank you. 

Mr. Barrios, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ALF BARRIOS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, 

RIO TINTO ALUMINUM 

Mr. BARRIOS. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski and members 

of the Committee. 

My name is Alf Barrios. I am the Chief Executive of Rio Tinto 

Aluminum. I sit on the Rio Tinto Executive Committee and serve 

as the company’s country sponsor for Canada and the United 

States. 

Rio Tinto has been operating in the U.S. for over 100 years. Our 

operations include Kennecott Copper in Salt Lake City, Utah; Resolution Copper in Superior, Arizona; and Rio Tinto Boron in California. 

The most recent Mineral Commodity Summaries by the U.S. Geological Survey should set off alarm bells in the White House and 

Congress. The study, published earlier this year, indicates the U.S. 

is now import-dependent for 50 different metals and minerals and 

100 percent import-dependent for 20. The trend is troubling. 

U.S. mineral dependency is at a record-high, now double what it 

was 20 years ago. During that same timeframe, investment in minerals exploration projects has dropped from 20 percent to seven 

percent. This drift away from greater self-sufficiency for the basic 

building blocks of our economy compromises our economic and national security and ignores North America’s rich reserves of metals 

and minerals that are at the front-end of the manufacturing supply 

chain. Dependence on imported essential materials to meet the 

needs of key domestic industries leaves the U.S. unnecessarily vulnerable to disruptions to vital supply chains. 

Of course, no country, not even the United States, is blessed with 

top tier deposits of every essential mineral. Enhancing the U.S.’ 

ability to access its own resources does not mean we should raise 

barriers to imported materials. Nowhere are the mutual benefits of 

trade more apparent than the integrated supply chains in North 

America where imports from Canada make U.S. manufacturers 

more competitive and vice versa. 

We have a real opportunity to realize the full potential of the domestic mining industry. Clearly demands for minerals is increasing 

as global population expands and minerals are used in a greater 

range of applications, particularly associated with the deployment 

of new technologies. 

The manufacturing sector has expressed heightened concerns 

about securing access to the minerals they need when they need 

them. According to a survey of 400 manufacturing executives, more 

than 90 percent are concerned about supply disruptions, citing geopolitics and increasing global demand as the most pressing factors. 

In addition, 80 percent of U.S. manufacturing leaders recognize the 

importance of sourcing domestic minerals and metals, noting 

strengthened national security as reasons for doing so. 
13 

An outdated, inefficient permitting system presents a major barrier to the domestic mining sector’s ability to perform to its full potential and supply more of our infrastructure needs. The U.S. has 

one of the longest permitting processes in the world for mining 

projects. In the U.S., necessary government authorizations now 

take approximately seven to ten years to secure, placing the U.S. 

at a competitive disadvantage in attracting investment for mineral 

development. By comparison, permitting in Australia and Canada, 

which have similar environmental standards and practices as the 

U.S., takes between two and three years. 

Authorities, ranging from the National Academy of Sciences to 

the Departments of Energy and Defense to international mining 

consulting firms, have identified permitting delays as among the 

most significant risk and impediments to mining projects in the 

United States. Most recently, the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office linked the need to streamline the mine permitting process to 

mitigate supply risks. 

To address supply chain vulnerability and import dependence, 

President Trump and Congress should continue to examine ways to 

improve permitting of new U.S. mines and smelters. The mining 

industry strongly supports efforts in the House and Senate to address the mine permitting process including S. 145, the National 

Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. The bill provides 

for efficient, timely, and thorough permit reviews and incorporates 

best practices for coordination between state and federal agencies. 

We also appreciate the efforts by Chairman Murkowski last Congress to move forward the American Mineral Security Act. Her legislation, cosponsored by many on this Committee, was a step forward in bringing the U.S. in line with its global peers who are preparing to meet the 21st century challenges of mineral supply chain 

reliability and security. 

I would like to conclude by reemphasizing the important role the 

mining industry has in supporting U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure development, but also by acknowledging that Rio Tinto 

understands responsibility extends far beyond. 

We must lead by example when it comes to community engagement, reclamation and pioneering technology innovation. For example, on Lake Chelan in north-central Washington State, we have 

been working to rehabilitate the old copper mine which we obtained through a large acquisition in 2008. Despite never commercially benefiting from the mine, Rio Tinto has brought its global expertise to the project and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars 

to rehabilitate Holden Village. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I appreciate the 

Committee’s leadership on this very important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrios follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Let’s go to Dr. Hinde. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CHRIS HINDE, DIRECTOR, REPORTS, 

S&P GLOBAL MARKET INTELLIGENCE 

Dr. HINDE. Chair and Members of the Committee, good morning 

and thank you for inviting me to present to this Committee. 

My written testimony can be summarized in six parts. 

First, if I may, what authority can I bring to bear? I’ve been writing about the mining industry for 30 years at S&P Global Market 

Intelligence, as the world’s largest database of exploration and 

mining activity. 

Second, a comment about the supply/demand scene in the USA. 

S&P Global has conducted two relevant studies within the past 

three years. In September 2014, we argued that a healthy, local exploration and mining sector is important for the American economy. And in mid–2015, we quantified the impact of permitting 

delays on mine development in the USA. 

The second of these reports identified the destruction of value of 

the results from even short delays in the permitting process whilst 

the first reports demonstrated a clear mismatch in the USA between consumption and the local supply of required metals and 

minerals. 

This country is still the world’s largest economy and per capita 

metals consumption in the USA is far in excess of the citizens of 

other countries. In contrast, the USA ranks as only the seventh 

largest mining nation by value of production. This shortfall is especially regrettable because manufacturing activity is returning to 

the USA. This move is driven by manufacturers’ desire to reduce 

the risks in their supply chains and a consumer’s increasing concerns regarding corporate accountability. We found that the USA 

miners are highly efficient and generally apply best practices with 

regard to productivity, sustainability, and safety. 

Third, mining is a very uncertain business with geology and mineral endowment being extremely difficult to assess, and its companies being price takers rather than having the luxury of being able 

to set the price of their products. Because of this extra risk, the industry acquires financial returns that are in excess of most of business activities. 

The fourth of my six points is the USA offers some key advantages to miners including a stable political and economic environment, but most companies with comparable mineral resources and 

similar environmental standards offer a much more certain permitting process. Like companies and industries the world over, mining 

executives simply seek certainty in the legal and fiscal processes 

that they face. 

As one of my colleagues just mentioned, it takes, on average, 

seven to ten years to secure the permits needed for mines to reach 

production in the USA. In contrast and with very similar overall 

requirements, Canada and Australia are managing their average 

permitting periods of barely two years. 

In the USA, many agencies and stakeholders are involved with 

a requirement for multiple permits and rather undefined goals for 

indigenous groups, the general public, and non-governmental orga-
22 

nizations. Rigorous permitting is, of course, necessary and is to a 

similar standard to our knowledge in the USA, Canada, and Australia; however, the permitting process is much better defined in 

Canada and Australia with a shorter timeline for the various agencies to respond. 

Fifth, a quick note on the global scene. In our corporate explo- ration strategies we report, we identified $7.2 billion of global, nonferrous exploration last year. That’s not including iron ore and coal 

exploration. Only $500 million of this was spent here on exploration compared with very nearly $900 million in Australia and 

close to $1 billion in Canada. Indeed, the USA exploration expenditure has fallen from the record $1.7 billion spent on exploration locally in 2012. So current exploration is running at a third of the 

record level. 

Finally, an observation from a foreigner. The USA remains highly prospective from a geological point of view. Unfortunately, the 

country’s existing permitting system presents a formidable barrier 

to the development of its own mineral wealth. This has left the 

USA unnecessarily dependent on local mines, whose remaining life 

is declining or on foreign sources of metals and mineral resources. 

Your country and its mining industry would benefit from a more 

streamlined permitting process, ideally, something similar to those 

already being applied by the world’s leading mining nations. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hinde follows:] 
23 
24 
25 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. MacGillivray, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY MACGILLIVRAY, VICE PRESIDENT 

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, UCORE RARE METALS, INC. 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. Madam Chair Murkowski, Acting Ranking 

Member Cortez Masto, and distinguished Members of the Committee, I would first like to thank you for the invitation to testify 

before you today. It’s a great honor to testify before the United 

States Senate and I hope to provide you with some valuable information regarding the state of the industrial base for the production 

of strategic and critical materials in the United States from the 

perspective of a domestic miner. 

I presently serve as the Vice President of Project Development 

for Ucore Rare Metals, a junior mining company with a rare-earth 

element project located in Southeast Alaska. Ucore is currently developing its Bokan-Dotson Ridge Rare Earth Project which presents 

the opportunity for near-term recovery of crucial, heavy, rare earth 

elements. Located in Alaska, the project would give the U.S., the 

world’s leading consumer of rare earth elements, strategic access to 

a domestic supply. 

The issue of foreign mineral dependence is not new, but its importance cannot be overstated. At present, the People’s Republic of 

China dominates the production of numerous metals, including 

rare earth elements, which are essential for the proper function of 

everything from smartphones in our pockets, to advanced weapons 

systems used by the modern warfighter. In fact, China exhibits a 

near monopoly on the production of these materials introducing a 

dangerous risk into our supply chains. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. has no operating producer of rare earth elements after the highly-publicized bankruptcy and closure of the 

only domestic rare earth mine in 2015. To date, the sole mitigation 

strategy adopted by the U.S. has been to stockpile small reserves 

of materials deemed to be critical and to promote substitution and 

recycling efforts, an inadequate approach given the criticality of 

these materials. Without a U.S. supply base, should the Chinese 

ever decide to curtail the supply of these materials to the U.S., we 

would be left without access, endangering both our domestic economy and our military. 

Furthermore, Chinese production of these materials often relies 

on outdated and environmentally destructive mining and processing practices. The solvent extraction separation process used extensively by the Chinese to recover rare earths has a low selectivity 

for individual elements, necessitating the use of numerous separation stages using highly corrosive chemicals and generating vast 

amounts of toxic and radioactive waste for which very little care is 

taken in disposal. 

To witness firsthand the toll that Chinese rare earth production 

is having on the environment, one need not look farther than the 

artificial lake located in China’s Inner Mongolia region where black 

chemical sludge, a byproduct of solvent extraction, stains the landscape. This embrace of environmental pollution on behalf of the 

Chinese, in combination with the lack of worker protections, allows 

the Chinese to manipulate the market and effectively control global 
26 

prices. Chinese producers have willingly undercut the rare-earth 

price driving foreign competition out of the market while the Chinese government has refused to address illegal mining and trading 

operations which have led to greater supply, lower prices, and further consolidation of rare earth production in China. 

In light of the current situation and American dependence on 

these materials, the need for domestic sources and production is 

paramount to ensuring our national security; however, Chinese 

market manipulation over the past decade and notable failed domestic projects have left capital markets unwilling to fund critical 

material projects. Domestic mining and separation firms, with advancements in environmentally friendly technologies, would benefit 

from support to bridge the divide between operating on a pilot scale 

and full commercialization of the new technology. 

The technologies to secure American independence in the critical 

materials markets exist, but government needs to be the key to 

unlocking the door for a domestic supply of critical materials for 

energy and defense applications. 

Congress has previously been supportive of the domestic mining 

sector as seen by the introduction of legislation last Congress by 

the Madam Chair which would have promoted the development of 

green technology to meet the nation’s demand for critical materials. 

Ucore remains fully committed to solving the critical materials 

issues facing our country and working toward solutions developed 

in coordination with Congress to alleviate our dependence on foreign nations for these materials. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. MacGillivray follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. MacGillivray. 

Vice Admiral Cosgriff, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL KEVIN J. COSGRIFF, USN (RETIRED), PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

Admiral COSGRIFF. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Members of 

the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity for the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association to appear here today on this 

important subject. 

To put that into context, that’s some 350 member companies in 

the electro industry, as we like to call it, and also importantly the 

medical imaging industry. Industry-wide that’s some 400,000 

American jobs with 7,000 facilities in every state of the Union. It’s 

approximately $114 billion a year in production and $50 billion in 

exports. 

As you might expect, NEMA supports policies that provide greater assurance to our companies of stable, continuous, and affordable 

inputs for their domestic manufacturing. Challenging supply conditions and price volatility in those inputs can be a significant concern to U.S. companies in multiple sectors, including our own. 

When we speak to our members, supply chain risk management is 

very much on their minds every day. 

While some of our companies source raw materials, many are one 

or more steps away from that and purchase processed or semi-processed material that’s more ready for the manufacturing effort. But 

one way or another, every one of our companies is dependent on 

reliable access to raw materials. 

In the area of rare earths, the supply crisis several years ago has 

eased due to multiple factors, including some changes in technology 

and also the market that has been commented on, including in 

China. But U.S. firms still remain largely dependent on shipments 

from China for rare earths. 

Foreign sourcing of lithium, not a rare earth, but nonetheless an 

important element, is significant as well, although not absolute. 

We’re also hearing from our members about the state of the U.S. 

aluminum industry, and factors that are leading to occasional constrained conditions. A number of our manufacturers of electrical 

wire and cable report that previous suppliers have either gone out 

of business or are otherwise operating at reduced capacity. 

Copper, as you might expect, is another key metal, and about 

one-third of the total used is from overseas. 

In the area of medical imaging there is a metal substance of essential importance, specifically Molybdenum–99, I’ll call it Moly 99, 

and its parent is the parent isotope of Technetium–99m, call that 

Tech 99, is used in approximately 40,000 diagnostic procedures a 

day. Tech 99 has a very short half-life and therefore must be produced on a continuous basis. The U.S. consumes about half of the 

world’s Moly 99 and has no domestic source. Canada, which used 

to supply the U.S. with half of our needs, ceased routine production 

last year. 

In 2012, Congress enacted S. 99, the American Medical Isotopes 

Production Act as part of the Defense Authorization bill. We commend this Committee for its work on S. 99, and we encourage its 
31 

oversight responsibilities to monitor implementation of this law so 

that patients can get the right scan at the right time. 

Returning to the bigger picture, we support a federal role in minerals policy, including research and development, as well as minerals information and analysis. It’s important to add that a balanced mineral policy is an important support to domestic manufacturing and employment. 

Despite many efforts to date, many manufacturers’ dependence 

on foreign sources of critical minerals, including rare earths and 

other raw materials, remains a concern. Companies manage this 

risk by diversifying supplies and, if possible, holding more inventory, both of which can impact operating costs and therefore, competitiveness. Having access to more secure, price competitive supplies closer to home, domestic as well as the other NAFTA countries, or Western Hemisphere, more broadly, is desirable. 

At the end of the day, the issue we are discussing is about 

whether the U.S. electro and medical imaging companies can manufacture what they need to manufacture here at home. Clearly this 

involves access to minerals, related information, and a regulatory 

environment that helps them compete globally. 

Thank you again for this opportunity and I look forward to any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Cosgriff follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Finally, Dr. Eggert, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RODERICK G. EGGERT, VIOLA VESTAL 

COULTER FOUNDATION CHAIR IN MINERAL ECONOMICS, DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS, COLORADO SCHOOL 

OF MINES 

Dr. EGGERT. Thank you. Good morning. 

I have three key points in my testimony. First, government plays 

an essential role in fostering domestic supply chains of raw materials through research and education which, in turn, are important 

determinants of innovation. Second, both recycling and new mines 

will be important in meeting future raw material challenges. And 

third, I would suggest that it is risky imports rather than import 

dependence itself that is the problem, and in turn, risky imports 

are but one aspect of the larger issue of supply chain risks and long 

term resource availability. 

Now consider research, education, and recycling in turn and 

starting with research. 

Two aspects of research, I believe, are especially worthy of government involvement. First, early stage research and development 

which the private sector acting alone is likely to underinvest in 

from the perspective of society as a whole because its benefits are 

risky, far in the future and difficult for private companies to fully 

capture. Second, activities aimed at facilitating the transition, the 

conversion of new knowledge to commercial products and applications insights from basic research often languish because of insufficient communication between basic researchers and commercial developers of new technology. 

More narrowly, and with respect to extracting and recovering 

materials from both mineral deposits and wastes, I believe there 

are two grand research challenges. The first is chemical separations. The challenge of separating one element from another in a 

mineral deposit or in a waste material. The second, resource efficiency, optimizing the recovery of multiple elements from the same 

mineral deposit or from the same waste product. 

Turning to education. Part of the issue with education in this 

area is basic science, technology, engineering and math, but part 

of it is discipline specific. The dearth of resource discipline graduates in fields like economic geology, mineral processing, extractive 

metallurgy and even material science and engineering is highlighted by a 2013 National Research Council study. 

With respect to recycling for the major metals, iron and steel, 

aluminum, copper, lead, zinc, there are already well-established recycling industries and recycling already plays an important role in 

the supply chain. 

For minor metals, however, very little recycling occurs. Many, 

and I’m thinking about many of the so-called high-tech, specialty, 

or critical minerals and metals that are used in small quantities 

and yet provide essential properties or functionality to modern engineered materials, things like lithium and cobalt in batteries, neodymium and dysprosium in magnets, gallium and indium in electronics in flat-panel displays, and a variety of other applications. 
37 

Both research challenges apply here, chemical separations and 

resource efficiency, when it comes to improving and enhancing recycling of and recovery of minor metals from waste products. 

With respect to recycling end-of-life products, as opposed to manufacturing wastes, demand for metals, almost certainly, will grow 

because of population growth, economic development, the lifting of 

many of the poorest people around the world out of poverty, and 

the improvement of their material well-being. Recycling by itself 

will not be able to meet this new demand because the quantities 

available for recycling today reflect the level of demand in the past. 

This is not to minimize the importance of enhanced recycling but 

rather to be cautious about the ultimate role of recycling in meeting our supply chain challenges. 

So, as I began, government plays an essential role in fostering 

domestic supply chains of raw materials through research and education. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Eggert follows:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Eggert. 

Thank you all. We have heard very interesting comments this 

morning. 

I am going to begin with just a general question to whomever 

may want to jump in or multiples of you. This is the fourth hearing 

we have had in this Committee on the issue of mineral security. 

A couple of you have testified before the Committee before. We 

have heard from USGS before. Three of you have flown in from 

other countries. You are clearly paying attention to the situation 

here in the United States. Other countries are paying attention to 

this issue. I think, most notably, China. 

But here we are, and the information that you have given me 

this morning is that instead of lessening our dependence, we are 

actually increasing our dependence. We have increased it from just 

last year. We are not making headway on this issue. 

It is a little bit frustrating, maybe because I feel like I am a voice 

in the wilderness sometimes here on these issues, but I have been 

trying to raise the issue, raise the profile, speak to what it means 

when we are more vulnerable or relying more on risky imports, to 

use the terminology that was given here today. What are we doing 

wrong here? 

This smartphone that you all have in your pockets, that you are 

using to take pictures, it does not happen without these critical 

minerals. Those of you that flew here would never have been able 

to arrive had we not had these. 

So much of this is education, education, education. I think it, 

kind of, fits with my view of how many people, how many in this 

country, view energy in general. There is this immaculate conception theory of energy. It just happens. 

I am starting to think that same view holds true when it comes 

to how we are able to operate as a society. We do not make the 

connection to where our minerals fit in. What can we be doing 

more to make this connection? 

Dr. Hitzman, you mentioned the fact that to this point in time 

only one-third of the United States has been mapped. We clearly 

have some room to grow there. 

But from the perspective of educating, whether it is our manufacturers, who are part of that supply chain so I think they get it. But 

do we, as a society, get it? 

It is one thing when you mentioned that we are impacted by the 

ability to get a red car or a black car because the Chinese acted 

and cutoff those rare earths there. I don’t think people get too 

alarmed about the fact that they might not be able to get the color 

of their choice. But when they view that this is a security threat, 

that changes the discussion, one would think. 

I am kind of throwing this out there for general discussion. What 

are we? Where are we failing to connect with Americans, not only 

John Q. Public out there, but folks in the White House as well? 

How do we raise this up beyond just this Committee? 

I welcome anyone to comment. Dr. Hinde? 

Dr. HINDE. I’d love to say I had an answer, but as I—— 

CHAIRMAN. I was hoping for it. 
47 

Dr. HINDE. I’ve been writing about this issue for 30 years. In 

fact, I launched an environmental magazine about 15 years ago to 

address these very issues. 

I mean, it stems, of course, to state the blindingly obvious, from 

a mistrust of the industry. I can’t speak for here, but certainly in 

Europe, we were pretty bad miners in the last century and we were 

awful the century before that. Even the Romans didn’t mine terribly responsibly. 

So throughout Europe we’ve got historical baggage. We’ve got 

some pretty shocking lignite, remains of lignite, mines. And so, 

most Europeans certainly grow up with a dislike, inherent dislike, 

of the mining industry. 

I’m a mining engineer, but neither of my sons went into mining, 

both went into accountancy. We have a serious issue facing the industry because at the school level, it’s not understood. 

I think it’s probably more serious than even you’ve painted it in 

that it’s not just the link between metals and what we use. That 

should be doable. I mean, the popular, certainly in North America 

and Europe, should understand these things. They might choose 

not to notice. 

The more serious thing is just not getting mining. They’re quite 

happy for it not to be in their backyard. They want someone else 

to do the hard yards and make the metal. As we’ve elucidated here, 

that isn’t a very clever strategy for the future in terms of security 

of supply. 

But if you can have your products and someone else does the 

digging, that looks preferable to most people at the moment. So, 

that’s not an answer to how to solve it, but it’s clearly got to start 

at the school level, that responsible mining is a way forward. It 

just has to be done environmentally in a friendly manner which we 

are now doing. 

CHAIRMAN. Yes, I appreciate that. 

Mr. Barrios? 

Mr. BARRIOS. I would say also in terms of storytelling and comparing to other countries. If we compare the permitting process in 

the U.S. versus Canada, we can clearly see that in terms of scope 

and depth, the permitting process in Canada is very similar to the 

process in the U.S., the consultation process, the amount of rigor 

and discipline that goes into the process. 

I think talking about how the people are doing it and trying to 

address the issues that are becoming obstacles, to be able to be as 

effective as other countries in allowing mining projects to progress 

at an acceptable speed. And I think the timeline, what I mentioned 

before, is critical. 

If you look at the process in Canada, clearly the timeline is very 

different. A number of colleagues mentioned it. I mean, it’s truly 

about being rigorous and disciplined with the amount of time that 

one is assigning for these permitting processes to take place. And 

it is important for companies like ourselves and other mining companies. If there is one thing which we’re looking for is certainty. 

Clearly, that lack of certainty in the timeline does impact our ability to be able to put forward projects in the U.S. and make them 

as competitive as projects in other parts of the world. 
48 

CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. I have, kind of, thrown it out 

to all of you. My time has expired, but if we want to come back 

to visit at the end of the hearing, if any of you have additional comments you want to add to that, I would welcome that. 

Senator Cortez Masto? 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me follow up on this discussion on permitting because, as a 

new member to the Committee and somebody who is from a state 

that grew up with mining in our state, this is something I have 

constantly heard is the permitting process impeding, really, the 

movement forward when it comes to mining. I constantly hear it, 

but I don’t hear specifics. Now I am sure our Chairwoman or Ranking Member and many others are focused on this. 

Can you give me an idea, when we are talking about a permitting process that has taken seven to ten years, what is it, specifically, that we can do at the federal level to streamline it or are 

there duplicative processes that I have heard from Dr. Hinde as 

well? What is it, specifically, that we can focus on to cut that time 

down to address what I have heard today from all of you? 

Dr. HINDE. I don’t pretend to be an expert on USA permitting 

but we’ve, obviously, done quite a lot of surveys asking other people’s opinions, but there were two primary differences. 

In Canada and Australia, for example, and certainly at the federal level there, they’re also not coordinated. It’s at the state level 

the difference comes in. Broadly speaking at the state level in Australia and Canada, one agency takes the lead. They set the goals, 

they set the timeframes and other agencies link to them. And in 

that way, they try and avoid overlapping requirements. The total 

requirements are no more rigorous. They’re very similar, but what 

they do is they set the benchmark for other people to do and generally speaking, they hit the time tables. 

The second thing that is different is that in both those countries 

it is the mining company that does the environmental impact statement (EIS). They obviously use third parties. They use consultancies that, I think, can be relied upon, but the company pays for 

it and organizes it and does the timeframe. Of course, it’s in their 

interest to drive it. If it’s left as it is here with an agency to set 

the environmental impact statement, there isn’t quite the same urgency. Clearly, the agency needs to monitor and make sure that 

EIS has been done, done adequately. More often than not, it’s done 

by an international consultancy company, whoever it is that’s 

tasked them with the requirement. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Mr. Barrios, I am curious, any specific thoughts on how we can 

streamline it or concerns? 

Mr. BARRIOS. I think, similarly, I mean, when we look at it from 

a Canadian perspective, that my colleague mentioned as well, but 

I would really highlight if one looks at Canada the standards are 

very similar. 

It’s about the timelines. It’s about making sure the roles and responsibilities of each agency and the timeline base targets are 

agreed and published at the start of the application process so we 

all know what the timelines are and those are adhered to. And 

that, really, is one of the key elements that is making a difference 
49 

in the permitting process where we’re finding that in two to three 

years you can obtain them in Canada. It’s been lengthening here 

in the U.S. from five to seven, now to seven to ten. And this really 

is hurting investment. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Dr. HINDE. Can I, sorry? 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Please. 

Dr. HINDE. Can I just add to that? 

The one thing I forgot to mention that we did find in our survey 

of a year and a half ago, was that here, unlike in Canada and Australia, sometimes the same requirement can be repeated over rather than sit down in the beginning and hear from the various interested parties what is it you need to test or check and put it together in one document and do it in one go. 

The mining companies here, to a certain extent, are asked to do 

one particular environmental impact assessment and then perhaps 

six months later someone else chips in and it’s oh, I would like to 

do something slightly different and they do it again. 

Far better, clearly, to get it all done in one go, even if it’s more 

rigorous at that point and takes longer. It’s parallel permitting as 

opposed to in series. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

I know my time is running short, but Dr. Eggert, I am curious, 

your thoughts on this? 

As you well know, besides a school like yours, Nevada also has 

a College of Mines. I know that approximately 70 percent of mining 

engineers will retire within the next decade. And because fewer 

and fewer students are enrolling in mining engineering programs, 

we will not be able to replace them at an adequate pace. 

What recommendations do you have to increase enrollment of 

students in these programs so that we do have a robust workforce? 

Dr. EGGERT. I think one of the key actions that would help improve enrollments in mining engineering, mineral processing and 

extractive metallurgy is actual research funding in this area that 

will allow faculty members in these departments to hire graduate 

students. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Dr. EGGERT. I mean the single thing that I would suggest. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, I appreciate it. 

I know my time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Daines? 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair, for having this hearing today. This is very important for my home state of Montana. 

I do want to thank the Committee and the witnesses today for 

highlighting the importance of critical materials for the United 

States and the very high hurdles we have to jump over to extract 

them. 

What too many people forget, and the Chair mentioned this in 

her opening comments, is that if the U.S. wants to continue to be 

a leader in high tech, in communications, renewable energy, we 

have to be a leader in critical mineral development. Everything 

from our cell phones, telephone lines and wind turbines require 

these critical minerals. 
50 

In my home state of Montana, mining is a backbone, so much so 

that it is written into our state motto, ‘‘Oro Y Plata,’’ gold and silver. If you look at the Montana State flag, it says Montana on it 

and then there’s Oro Y Plata. Those are the only words on it. They 

are in Spanish. In fact, you will see a shovel and a pick axe there 

next to a plow, going back to the very roots and the foundation of 

our state of agriculture as well as mining and natural resources. 

The Still Water Mine in Montana is the only, let me say that 

again, is the only producer in the United States of platinum and 

palladium, the only one. 

We are a major copper producing state as well. 

At the same time, Montana has received awards for our firstclass reclamation work. Most Montanans are passionate about fly 

fishing and hunting and the outdoors and preserving the incredible, pristine environment that we have in Montana. And count me 

in on that. 

At the same time, we must continue to responsibly develop our 

resources so that moms and dads can still stay there, raise their 

children there, and still go to Walmart to buy an elk tag, so we do 

not turn into a land only for the rich and famous because we do 

not have jobs there that working families need to have a living 

wage. These jobs, the mining industries, provide that. We are only 

producing in Montana about one percent of our potential, so there 

is a lot there. 

We can begin to expand our critical mineral production by 

streamlining and speeding up the permitting process that was 

talked about here in your testimonies. The U.S., as was mentioned, 

has one of the longest permitting processes in the world. I will give 

you a couple of examples. 

In Montana, we have the Rock Creek and the Montanore 

projects. They have been in the permitting process, now I heard 

seven to ten years, we would be envious of that kind of result. The 

Montanore and Rock Creek projects have been more than 30 years 

in the permitting process, and they are still not up and running. 

Do the quick math. Go back 30 years. Ronald Reagan was President. It seems like irony that we now have statues of presidents 

in Statuary Hall that were serving when the permitting process 

began some 30 years ago. 

Here is the impact for families in Montana. The Forest Service 

estimates the Montanore Project would provide full-time employment for 450 people. The Rock Creek Mine will provide more than 

300 full-time jobs. That is $667 million in direct payroll over the 

life of the project, and $175 million in tax revenue. 

I can tell you, I spent a lot of time talking to my county commissioners back home, and they are struggling to find ways here to 

make ends meet from a tax base viewpoint. The indirect economic 

benefits are even greater than that. 

By the way, these projects are in Lincoln County. It is a county 

in my state that has one of the highest unemployment rates. They 

can benefit greatly from this. I spoke to a couple a few years ago 

from Eureka, Montana, in Lincoln County and they said, ‘‘Steve, 

basically what we have in Lincoln County now is poverty with a 

view.’’ We need to change that. 
51 

Mr. Barrios, in your testimony you speak about the length and 

the duplicity of the permitting process. Could you expand your suggestions to simplify the process? I know you had somewhat a similar question before. Maybe specifically, what can this Committee 

do? What would you recommend to us in terms of action we can 

take here to try to streamline the process? 

Mr. BARRIOS. I think when you look globally at what are the 

overarching themes that a company like ours looks at when it is 

thinking about investment, it really is around regulatory certainty 

and it’s in three areas. The reliable timeline of the permitting process, the second thing is creating certainty in access to minerals, 

and the third thing is finally having something that is reasonable 

around financial assurance, closure. 

If we look at the timeline, I think that’s where we emphasize 

that’s one of the critical elements that we need to ensure that, 

similar to what we have in Canada, there are set lengths that are 

adhered to. 

If we look at our Resolution Copper Project in Arizona, we started the permitting process in 2013. We’ve spent so far $1.3 billion, 

and we’re far from completing the process there. This is a mine 

that will supply, could supply, 25 percent of the U.S. copper needs, 

and create 3,700 jobs. It’s quite staggering that now in another 

country like Canada, we would be having those permits in our 

hands and processing—progressing with the project. We are still, 

through the process, trying to obtain those permits. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. I am out of time, but it sounds like 

our neighbors to the north may have some examples of, perhaps, 

processes and some parameters that may be helpful for us here. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 

each of you. 

Coming from a state like Michigan, where particularly in Northern Michigan in what we call the upper peninsula, which has been 

mineral rich for a century, when watching things change there 

based on mining and having jobs and then not having jobs, I certainly understand the economic impact of what is being talked 

about. 

Looking at your testimony I know that you are talking significantly about permitting issues and regulatory barriers impacting 

the industry, but I would like to talk for a moment about the importance of transportation infrastructure in all of this. 

In Northern Michigan in the upper peninsula in Sault Ste. Marie 

we have a lock and dam that is vital to transporting mining goods, 

including iron ore, throughout the Great Lakes region and the 

country. According to the report by the Department of Homeland 

Security, a shutdown of the Sault locks would likely result in all 

North American production of mining equipment and automobiles 

and farming equipment to stop within weeks. 

We have a very old infrastructure there, only one of the locks is 

big enough to handle most of the cargo going through there. I think 

we are on borrowed time at the moment with that lock. 
52 

Eleven million people would become unemployed if that lock shut 

down, even for a few weeks, and the North American economy 

would enter a severe recession. 

I wonder if each of you might speak to how important it is from 

a mining industry standpoint to have well-functioning locks and 

dams, roads and bridges and rail to operate efficiently and compete 

in the global marketplace? And what does our aging infrastructure 

mean for our ability to move minerals and materials where they 

need to go? 

I guess I will start at the end, yes. 

Dr. HITZMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

In terms of the USGS, we’re not so much looking at the infrastructure, we’re looking at where to get the minerals. Michigan, 

most people don’t know, was actually the major supplier of copper 

to the world for a number of years. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes, that is right. 

Dr. HITZMAN. Clearly in any area of the world or the country 

where we’re going to do mining, one of the things that the companies look for is sufficient infrastructure to actually move materials 

and then the mine products out. So it’s clearly a critical part of the 

equation. 

Senator STABENOW. Mr. Barrios? 

Mr. BARRIOS. I think, similarly, one has to look project by 

project. It’s very difficult to give a general answer. Generally it 

really depends where the resource is and how far it is to get it to 

market. So it is a critical element, and it makes a big difference 

in the evaluation of a project. That’s usually, the transportation 

costs, are a significant cost of exploration. So it is a very critical, 

important element. But it really depends, resource-by-resource. 

Senator STABENOW. Dr. Hinde? 

Dr. HINDE. Yeah, the important part, I think, of infrastructure 

is to recall that infrastructure is absolutely crucial for bulk commodities, such as in your state, Senator. Clearly coal, copper and 

those big, bulk commodities, railway lines and infrastructure and 

ports are absolutely required. 

But of course, half the mining industry, in terms of expenditure, 

is gold and that you can fly out by helicopter. It’s less required for 

infrastructure, so it rather depends, as my colleague said, on a 

project-by-project basis. 

The other thing to bear in mind is the USA constantly rates 

right at the top in terms of infrastructure on a world perspective. 

We all know, in this room, that your infrastructure is aging and 

needs work. But on a world perspective, it is highly regarded. And 

so, companies come here because of your infrastructure, notwithstanding your problems. 

And so, you know, there are other things that are damaging the 

industry here like permitting rather than infrastructure. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, it is interesting though being in China 

and being in Brazil and other places where they are putting large 

amounts of money into infrastructure. At some point, they are 

going to be ahead of us because we have not been doing that. 

Dr. HINDE. Indeed, yeah. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes, so—yes, Mr. MacGillivray? 
53 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. The only thing I could possibly say is that 

in Alaska we are actually looking for the roads in the first place. 

[Laughter.] 

Sort of, roads to resources is our common theme that Madam 

Chair has been a proponent of. So, from our perspective, you have 

a good problem that you are able to readily access your resource 

base. 

Senator STABENOW. Vice Admiral? 

Admiral COSGRIFF. If the Chair will indulge me, thank you for 

asking a question about ships. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

Admiral COSGRIFF. But if you’re going to move something like an 

ore or heavy, dense commodity, then you’ll want to move it on 

water. And if you can’t get it out on water that flows, you’ll want 

it in a pipeline and if it doesn’t flow, you’ll want it on a train and 

so on down the path. 

At the far end of this process we’ve received these materials 

largely over road, rail and road, and then when we finish our jobs 

as manufacturers, they go out the other side on, principally, road 

and rail. 

This full scope look at our infrastructure is, in our opinion, long 

overdue. It, in and of itself, is an investment in real estate or in 

infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, along with other 

types, like electrical, which will pay dividends for this country over 

the longer run. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

Dr. Eggert? 

Dr. EGGERT. Yes, I agree with what others have said. Infrastructure, in general, is important for mining and other forms of economic activity. With respect to mining, it’s especially important, as 

Dr. Hinde said, for the bulk commodities. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

CHAIRMAN. That is a great question, and it is so key to everything. 

As Mr. MacGillivray says, we have got the resources there but 

we do not have any way to get to them or get them out. So infrastructure is key and certainly something that this Committee has 

been focused on of late. 

Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Some specific questions. 

First, Mr. MacGillivray, what is the nature of rare earth mining? 

In other words, is it tunnels, pits, mountain top removal? What are 

we talking about here in terms of how it is actually, physically, 

done? 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. So the nature of the deposits do vary. There 

are proposed projects in the United States that are open pit but our 

project in Southeast Alaska is a vein-hosted deposit; therefore, it 

would be accessed by underground methods. 

Senator KING. So it varies? It varies according to the deposit and 

where it is? 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. Based on the geological occurrence. 
54 

Senator KING. Are there any special environmental problems associated with these particular minerals as compared with coal or 

oil or gas? 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. No, I don’t think there’s anything unique 

with rare earth deposits. Maybe there is, you know, some slight enrichment in uranium and thorium that has to be considered and 

dealt with appropriately, but by and large they’re similar to other 

commodities. 

Senator KING. Mr. Hitzman, do we have rare earths, significant 

deposits of rare earths, in the United States if we could do the development necessary? 

Dr. HITZMAN. I think you’re hearing from one of our panel members who has one. So that’s one, and there are others that companies are working on in various parts of the United States, Wyoming 

and of course, the large deposit in Southern California that has 

gone in and out of production. So, the answer is yes, we do have 

deposits. 

Senator KING. Is there more, is there potentially more, if we had 

better mapping and geology? 

Dr. HITZMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator KING. I know the Chinese, for example, are buying up 

mines and resources around the world, not necessarily in China, 

but they are buying properties in Africa and South America. Is 

that, are our mining companies doing something similar? Are we 

looking all over the world for these materials? 

Somebody? 

Dr. HITZMAN. I can answer that from USGS. 

Yes, American mining companies are exploring around the planet. Just like Rio Tinto which is a major, multi-national company 

working all over the world. Freeport and other companies in the 

United States, Newmont, are also doing the same. 

Senator KING. Okay. We have talked about the fact that we are 

dependent. I commend the Committee’s attention to the chart the 

Committee staff included that is really pretty shocking that 

shows—we are 100 percent dependent on 21 minerals from other 

countries, which is a dangerous place to be, particularly when they 

have strategic value. 

What is the bottleneck? I know you have talked about permitting. It sounds like we have a loss of engineers; we have financing 

issues, in part relating to permitting; we have permitting; and, we 

have fundamental geological research. Is that a good list of what 

the obstacles are? Does somebody want to echo that? 

Yes, sir? 

Dr. EGGERT. Yes, that’s a reasonable list. It’s, I would say, not 

a single factor, but a combination of several factors. 

With respect to rare earth resources, in particular, there are special technical challenges associated with separating the rare earth 

elements from one another. 

Senator KING. Does that have to happen at the mine or can it 

be shipped somewhere else with the separating happening somewhere else? 

Dr. EGGERT. Typically what happens is that the mineral resource 

is concentrated at the mine site and then often, initial separation. 
55 

There are 15 or so rare earth elements and the initial separations 

involve separating them into, basically, two or three piles. 

Senator KING. Okay. 

Dr. EGGERT. And then there are subsequent separations that can 

take place at the mine site or elsewhere. 

Senator KING. I want to talk a bit about permitting, and I know 

I am running out of time. 

Quick question. If federal lands are used for one of these mines, 

are there royalties paid to the taxpayers for the extraction? Mr. 

Hitzman? 

Dr. HITZMAN. Yes. 

Senator KING. Okay, so there are royalties that come back for 

whatever the value is of the mined minerals. 

Obviously, Madam Chair, we have got to talk a lot about permitting. I would like to know, specifically, where the bottlenecks are 

in the permitting. And is it a lack of deadlines, is it multiple studies, is it multiple agencies? 

In Maine we had these issues and we, in part, solved them by 

having a lead agency where it was a one stop permitting. The lead 

agency would coordinate the studies that were necessary. 

I am getting a lot of nods. Is that a—— 

Dr. HINDE. Yeah, that’s exactly the issue and that’s what they 

essentially do in Canada and Australia, somebody takes the lead 

and organizes all the other interested parties. 

Senator KING. I take it that does not happen here? You have got 

to get 27 separate permits. 

Dr. HINDE. It would be, appear to be, the exception rather than 

the rule. 

Senator KING. So that is something, Madam Chair, obviously, we 

want to look at. 

My final question is for you, Madam Chair. Are you going to reintroduce S. 883, or have you? 

CHAIRMAN. From this wonderful hearing I plan on reintroducing 

it if we need to add anything, but the purpose of the hearing was 

designed to help us, kind of, supplement that, if necessary. So yes, 

I am intending to reintroduce S. 883 and would welcome the support from other colleagues. 

Senator KING. Well I would like to work with you on this because, based upon my service on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, this is a national security issue and I think we 

need to find ways to have a predictable and timely permitting process that still adequately protects the environment. So I would like 

to work with you on that. 

CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. Know that I absolutely concur in 

terms of the security perspective. It is something that we need to 

be working on, so I appreciate that. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Hitzman, soda ash producers in Wyoming, like so many others in the minerals industry, face increasing transportation costs, 

as well as intense competition from foreign markets. The cost to 

ship soda ash from rural Wyoming to ports and domestic consumers is substantial. So foreign suppliers are able to subsidize 
56 

their production and do not face many of the regulatory overheads 

that the suppliers in the United States face. 

In your view, what can Congress do to ensure a strong, domestic 

market so that American producers are able to remain competitive? 

Dr. HITZMAN. Well, it’s, sort of, many different things, not one individual thing. One is ensuring that the transportation infrastructure exists to help get things to market. Ensure that various parts 

of the tax code work to the benefit. That’s something that’s coming 

up. And actually, ensure that producers have, as other people have 

said, certainly with how the laws are applied to the minerals industry. 

Senator BARRASSO. Nearly all of you on the panel today have 

suggested in one way or another that the United States should reduce our reliance on imported minerals for either economic or national security reasons. Senator King just made that reference. 

The other side of the coin is improving the ability to export raw 

materials and goods. You know, in Wyoming and in any other mineral producing state, our resource industries require access to foreign markets and you need to get through ports. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for these industries, I believe, to gain access to these ports. 

Mr. MacGillivray, to your point, you discussed ongoing environmental issues with Chinese production of certain minerals that the 

United States also produces. So in your opinion, what steps can 

Congress take to improve trade pathways through coastal ports so 

that these cleaner, American-made, raw materials and goods have 

access to foreign markets? 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. So in my answer I’d like to restrict my comments to rare earth materials, critical and strategic materials. 

As Dr. Eggert correctly identified, the crux of the issue with production in the United States is the separation technology. It’s the 

sole reason that China dominates the monopoly that they do with 

rare earth production right now because they have limited regard 

for the environment so they use a technology called, or a technique 

called, solvent extraction. 

Ucore Rare Metals knew when we were permitting the BokanDotson Ridge Project that solvent extraction would not be 

permittable in Southeast Alaska, an environmentally sensitive 

area, so we shopped the world for alternative technologies and 

came across a Nobel prize winning technology called molecular recognition technology. It’s a technology that’s not only limited to mining, it’s also used in the healthcare industry. But the basis of it is 

ligand based, so there are no solvents. There are no extreme pollutants from this process. It’s very innovative and adapted toward this 

issue. 

So, I guess, a shorter answer here is that, some sort of support 

to help develop rare earth separation in the United States will enable us to have domestic supply and then be able to export, eventually, materials to other manufacturers worldwide. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

In your written testimony, Dr. Eggert, you identified the need for 

the government to establish an efficient framework that both pro-
57 

tects the environment and considers the needs of the community 

where the development occurs, and I agree. 

Dr. Hinde, in your written testimony you mentioned that new 

mines can lose one third of their economic value as a result of 

delays in production, more than 30 percent of the value of a mine 

could be lost because of permitting delays. 

In Wyoming we have one of the biggest reserves of rare earth 

minerals in the world, but companies face decades long permitting 

delays and tens of millions of dollars in up-front costs. So, I believe, 

now is the time that we should create some certainty in the job 

market and in national security. 

Dr. Hinde, Dr. Eggert, can you just talk a little bit about how 

much certainty do you think addressing these unnecessary permitting delays would bring to the industry, and how do we eliminate 

these unnecessary and unreasonable permitting delays, especially 

those not caused by the applicants themselves? 

Dr. Eggert? 

Dr. EGGERT. I think Dr. Hinde made a couple of very useful suggestions, the appointment of a lead agency that establishes the 

framework and a timeline for the permitting process. 

More generally, I think what companies are looking for is certainty in a process as opposed to certainty in actual outcomes. In 

other words, a process that gives them a fair hearing, you know, 

in what various parties, all parties, would consider to be a reasonable timeframe. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay. 

Dr. Hinde? 

Dr. HINDE. Yeah, essentially, exactly the same. I mean, almost 

across mining, it’s certainty whether it’s in tax or any sort of legislative and working environment. It is just certainty. Given that, we 

can plan accordingly. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for 

holding this hearing. 

I had a chance to chair a hearing a few years ago on critical minerals in general, so it is very important for us to continue our focus 

in this area. 

Dr. Eggert, I wanted to ask you about recycling of critical mineral materials and what you think the recycling opportunities are 

for us, as it relates to supply? 

One of the things we have been proud to do in the northwest, as 

we shift to composite manufacturing, is to look at recycling as a 

way to drive down the cost of composite materials for smaller businesses. I wondered what you thought about, as we look at shortage 

issues, looking at recycling of product too? 

Dr. EGGERT. I think recycling has an important role to play, and 

its role can be enhanced. 

As I indicated in my written and oral testimony, very little recycling takes place at present of the, so-called, miner or specialty 

metals that appear in small quantities and yet, provide essential 

functions to modern materials. 
58 

A key challenge, part of the challenge, is technological. Elements 

like indium in flat panel displays are there in very small quantities 

and therefore, the economic case is not going to be made on the 

basis simply of indium, but the ability to recover several materials. 

The current technologies really focus on the major, most valuable, elements in a product and there’s technical work to be done 

at, what I call, the resource efficiency, optimizing the recovery of 

multiple elements from a multi-element product, like a smartphone 

or a television set. 

And it’s really a similar set of issues to recovering multiple elements from a mineral deposit. Most mineral deposits contain multiple elements, only a couple of which are actually recovered for 

commercial reasons. 

Senator CANTWELL. How do you think we could proceed in this 

area? I know some of our labs are doing work, and do you think 

the private sector just continues to—— 

Dr. EGGERT. Well, I think the private sector is doing work in this 

area. 

A number of national labs are and in fact, I’m involved in an entity called the Critical Materials Institute which is a Department 

of Energy-funded research consortium that has as its members at 

universities, companies and national labs. It carries out early stage 

research related to, among other things, recycling of critical materials. Industry partners help us identify key challenges and important problems. And so, I think a continuation, perhaps an enhancement, of this type of public/private partnership that forces companies and national labs and university researchers to talk to one another, better than maybe they have in the past. 

Senator CANTWELL. I personally like those models because you 

are then getting the maximum out of everybody at the table. I am 

very big, obviously, on collaborative efforts in general. So anyway, 

we’ll look forward to discussing this with you further. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thanks to all 

of you for being here today. 

Mr. Barrios, you mentioned a shocking number, a significant 

number, that Rio Tinto has spent—some $1.3 billion on permitting 

studies, on permitting, on studies and on shaping the Resolution 

Copper Mine. Now, this is great. We love to see investment in 

these kinds of things. I am glad that you are able to put those resources into it and that you have access to resources that will benefit consumers in America and throughout the world. 

My concern is that our current regulatory regime makes it very, 

very difficult for anybody to do anything. It basically prohibits mining investment from non-Fortune 500 companies. There are very 

few companies out there, very few people anywhere, who can afford 

this type of investment. 

As if the current regulatory burden were not enough in this area, 

on January 11th of this year, the Obama Administration proposed 

a rule to create additional bonding requirements under section 108 

of CERCLA for hard rock mining. If the proposed CERCLA rule 
59 

were finalized, tell me, sir, what effect might that have on the mining industry and on your ability to extract critical minerals? 

Mr. BARRIOS. Thank you, Senator Lee, for that question. 

The CERCLA 108(b) for us is clearly a disincentive, but furthermore, I would say in terms of investment, because of the burden 

it implies, but the issue which is a concern is the duplication in 

terms of financial assurance at the state level and the federal level. 

This is really an area where we could see some simplification and 

avoid duplicating rules and regulations that are not adding additional value. 

Senator LEE. I think everyone here agrees that mining companies and industrial producers need to be liable, need to be responsible for any disasters they create for superfund sites they create, 

that, of course, have to be cleaned up. So that is not in dispute. 

If a company goes bankrupt or if a company walks away from a 

contaminated site, the American people should not be faced with 

having to either foot the bill for the cleanup or, alternatively, face 

the catastrophic consequences associated with just leaving it there. 

What bonding requirements and regulations, state and federal, are 

currently in place to ensure that mining companies leave mining 

sites in a stable condition? 

Mr. BARRIOS. The issue that we see, and I mentioned before, 

really is around the CERCLA 108(b) rule. It is an example of a regulation which is duplicative and unnecessary. We already see the 

current programs that are in place address the risk of mining and 

mining processing sites and prevents these sites from becoming a 

superfund liability. So for us, really, this renders the current rule 

being proposed unnecessary. 

Furthermore, I think we can say with certainty that the practices 

that lead to contamination of groundwater, soil and wetlands in the 

past, simply are not allowed today under the many state and federal requirements that we must meet. 

Senator LEE. So in your opinion those existing requirements obviate the need for these new regulations? 

Mr. BARRIOS. Yes. 

Senator LEE. Rio Tinto Kennecott has, of course, a long history 

in my state, in Utah. You have been operating in the Salt Lake 

Valley for over 100 years and plan to continue operating for a significant amount of time to come, and we are happy about that. But 

mining is not always easy. In 2013 the Kennecott mine suffered the 

mine slide which was very significant, and it was difficult. 

Can you describe the recovery process and also other sustainability efforts you have in place? 

Mr. BARRIOS. Yup. 

Rio Tinto was aware of the slide potential in February 2013, and 

we began preparing for a safe and minimal impact event. We had 

nine layers of safety in place to monitor the material movement 

and safety was the number one priority at the time and it continues always to be at Rio Tinto. 

We were very happy to report that nobody was injured during 

the event, and all the personnel were evacuated before the slide occurred. 

We were also very proactive in engaging with the key external 

stakeholders prior to the slide, and the community was very appre-
60 

ciative of knowing the information beforehand. To this day, they 

still praise Rio Tinto for the transparency around this event. 

The slide was a slide of 150 million tons which took place in the 

night of April 10th, 2013. The slide material would fill enough rail 

cars to stretch three-quarters the way around the world. It was 

quite a material slide. 

The overburden we recovered very fast. The overburden was 

mined three days after the slide, and production started operating 

17 days after the event. So very, very fast recovery. And we did 

spend about over a billion dollars to remediate the slide and materials. So quite a big commitment for the mine and to continue operating the mine for years to come. 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much. 

I see my time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Mr. Hitzman, I want to ask you where we are with the USGS 

budget and how much of your budget, the agency’s budget, actually 

goes to the minerals work each year. 

I am concerned that as we talk here today and try to shine a 

spotlight on things that we are not doing all that we need to be 

doing from an agency perspective, from the federal perspective, in 

making sure that we have the information, the data, the analysis, 

the mapping. Within USGS, how much time and how much of the 

budget actually goes to the minerals aspect of the work that the 

agency does? 

Dr. HITZMAN. I actually don’t know the exact percentage but it’s 

not the largest of the mission areas in the Survey. It’s one of the 

smaller mission areas. 

The budget, over time, decreased for a number of years, but in 

the last couple of years has had a slight uptake and stabilized. Of 

course, now we’re under a CR, so we’re where we were last year. 

CHAIRMAN. But as you have indicated to the Committee here onethird of the mapping that you believe that we need to have done 

as a nation, only one-third has been completed, so we obviously 

need to be resourcing this a little bit better. Is that a correct statement? 

Dr. HITZMAN. It would be good to do that. Remember that not all 

the mapping is done through my part of the Survey. 

CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Dr. HITZMAN. As well. 

CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Dr. HITZMAN. So it’s done through other pieces of the Survey. 

CHAIRMAN. Right, okay. 

You said in your testimony, in speaking about what was done 

with the Alaska mapping, recognizing what it is that we have allows us to then move out and do more. It allows those that are 

looking at it from an investment position to have a greater degree 

of certainty going forward. It seems to me that if we do not have 

solid mapping, it just further slows our process there. 

Vice Admiral Cosgriff, as you represent those in the manufacturing industry, are you hearing concerns from your member organizations about the growing vulnerability that we have as a nation 

and that they have as U.S. manufacturers with the growing realization that we are relying more and more on imports? 
61 

Again, I think it was you, Dr. Eggert, you said it is not necessarily relying on imports so much as risky imports. But are you 

hearing concerns from your members about this issue and do you 

see growing pressure to see more action? 

Admiral COSGRIFF. I don’t think they would say it in that, sort 

of, global way you did about, sort of, a risk to the United States 

manufacturing, per se. It would tend to be more particular. 

I can give you a good example though of how close that they 

watch where their supplies are coming from. You recall a few years 

ago a large-scale strike on the west coast which created the opportunity for a major disruption in supply chains coming, mostly, from 

the Far East. And so, the response to that was, as you’d expect, 

with things moving on ships you now have to find a different port 

for the ship to go to. You have to figure out where your inventory 

stocks are, for how many days of production you have left before 

that ship gets to wherever it’s going to get to. What are your alternative sources of moving that input from, let’s say, Long Beach, 

California, via rail to someplace on the east coast and then by 

truck to your plant? 

So, that was a major event, and I think it served as a wakeup 

call for a lot of our companies to pay far more attention, even more 

attention, than they already are paying to the supply chain. I 

think, to some extent, the discussion about NAFTA is having a 

similar effect. That’s a material effect on a supply chain, in this 

case, closer to home, a very mature supply chain, that again, has 

their attention and that we have to get right so that we don’t disrupt those supplies. 

The bottom line, though, it is a globally sourced supply chain still 

with the few exceptions we’ve talked about today that do have the 

attention of our company’s rare earths, I put at the very top of 

that. 

CHAIRMAN. Yes, I can remember when the Chinese effectively cut 

off all sources to Japan over a dispute with Japan. It certainly got 

the attention of those in Japan and, I think, those of us in this 

country as well because you realize then the real stranglehold, the 

chokehold, that China has when it comes to the rare earths. 

Dr. Eggert, you have spoken a little bit in your testimony here 

today, as well as in your written testimony, about minerals research and we have discussed the mapping aspect of it. But what 

research are we seeing being conducted at our universities, at our 

national labs, the Critical Materials Institute, to make the mining, 

the processing, and the end use of critical minerals more economically viable? Are we seeing the level of research that you believe 

is necessary? 

Dr. EGGERT. I’m not sure I can speak to the level of research. I 

guess my bias would be, as researchers, we would like a higher 

level of funding. 

But I can describe what’s happening using the Critical Materials 

Institute, this Department of Energy-funded research consortium 

that I mentioned earlier. 

If you think about supply chain risks or long-term resource availability, there are really three solutions, and technology plays an 

important role in all three. 
62 

There’s first of all, technology that enhances and diversifies production, technology that enhances or reduces waste, and technology 

that helps us use less. And so, it’s process engineering in the first 

two cases and it is material science in engineering in the third 

case. 

The Critical Materials Institute is carrying out research in all 

three areas. As I indicated in my written testimony, I think of the 

many research challenges, the two grand challenges, or at least two 

of the grand challenges, are chemical separations, which are important both for mineral resource development and production, and 

the recycling of manufacturing wastes and end of life products. 

And so, these two types of research are really quite complementary in terms of both the chemical separations and the other one 

that I mentioned, resource efficiency. It’s really the same types of 

research and process engineering. 

And the Critical Materials Institute is making progress on more 

efficient methods for separating rare earth elements from one another, from recovering lithium from domestic brines, to recycling 

rare earth magnets from hard disk drives, for example. 

CHAIRMAN. I want to have Mr. MacGillivray speak specifically to 

the process there at Ucore, but first, Mr. Barrios, I understand that 

you are working on a project with DOE’s Critical Materials Institute to improve recovery rates for minerals. What can you describe 

about this partnership that you are working on with the Critical 

Materials Institute? 

Mr. BARRIOS. In our copper deposit in Utah, copper is a gateway 

material. In addition to copper, we produce olibanum, gold, and silver. But we also extract other metals like rhenium, which is quite 

critical to the U.S. national defense, and it’s one of the critical materials. 

And what we’ve been doing in this work with the Department of 

Energy and the Critical Materials Institute is to continue exploring 

how we can extract more rhenium, but also look at other potential 

metals that we could extract together with copper. One of them is 

tellurium, which is used to increase efficiency in solar, converting 

solar into electricity and it increases the efficiency by about ten 

percent, exacting a key contributor to the challenges of climate 

change. So we are working very actively now to try and understand 

what other minerals we can actually produce at our Kennecott Copper Mine. 

CHAIRMAN. Good, good. 

Mr. MacGillivray, I want to have you go into a little more detail 

for the Committee about this MRT technology, the Molecular Recognition Technology, because as you have described, this technology, I do not know whether we describe breakthrough as the appropriate term, but if it is a reality that the permitting for this 

chemical extraction process is not going to be allowed in this country, then much of what we are talking about becomes moot and we 

just say we will rely on it for others. 

But I have had the benefit of a brief from Ucore on the specific 

technology. If you can, in layman’s terms for the Committee’s benefit, please explain what MRT actually does, how it is different 

from the chemical extraction process, and really why it works environmentally. 
63 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. Thank you for the question. 

So I mentioned earlier that Ucore recognized that solvent extraction would not be permittable in the United States, let alone Southeast Alaska, which is very environmentally sensitive. And when we 

shopped worldwide, we landed in Utah. 

There’s a company there by the name of IBC Advanced Technologies, and they have been in the metals separation business for 

over 20 years. They use a ligand technology. This is a highly selective, kinetically rapid, selective method of absorbing individual elements onto their ligand. They had not developed ligands for rare 

earth elements. They were working with other metals commercially. So Ucore invested money with them to specifically develop 

a ligand specific to rare earth elements. They conducted bench 

scale testing using the Bokan-Dotson Ridge ore and individually 

separated all 15 of the lanthanides that we had for that project. 

Since that time, we’ve invested into a pilot plant and up scaled 

that technology into, you know, a pilot plant scale. 

The next step that we would like to pursue is the commercialization of this technology. We’re very confident that it will work and 

be able to supply rare, individual rare earth elements for the 

United States, whether those sources come from recycling or heavy 

minerals sand by-product or ore itself from the Dotson Ridge 

project. 

But I think initially we’re going to concentrate on by-products 

where we can find concentrates of rare earths, like Dr. Eggert mentioned, and then using that clean, green technology, be able to permit a facility in the United States. 

CHAIRMAN. If you have gotten to the point where you believe the 

pilot project is successful, why do you feel that you need federal resources to assist with commercialization? 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. Well naturally, we would probably start out 

fairly small, and we are competing in a monopoly situation with 

the Chinese. So the private sector markets are somewhat supportive but it’s really taking that first leap, that little shot, as to 

what kind of advantage can we provide to get that first step. And 

we believe that domestic supply of individual rare earth elements 

in the United States is the necessary first step. 

CHAIRMAN. Has there been any interest expressed by the Department of Defense? 

We have talked a lot about security here, security of supply and 

all that entails and specific as to China and China’s role when we 

are talking more about rare earths. Have you had any expressed 

interest from DOD? 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. Certainly some of our experienced consultants here in Washington, have a history with the Department of 

Defense, so we’re very strong in those communications in that area. 

Again, the crux of the entire situation is the viability of the technology to actually separate out these. So we need to have, sort of, 

a commercial scale plant to initiate that supply to build that confidence and then the things start rolling. 

CHAIRMAN. And then to go to a question that was raised by Senator King and the requirements for being able to do the separation 

at the site. 
64 

You mentioned the location of the project that Ucore is looking 

at—Bokan—is in Southeastern Alaska. 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. Yes. 

CHAIRMAN. My hometown, where I was born and raised in that 

same region, is environmentally sensitive. 

If you were to go to commercialization, what assurance can you 

give me to provide to Alaskans that there is a level of environmental safety and attention to the nature of the environment there 

and that it would not be at risk? 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. Certainly. 

I believe that Alaskans have great confidence in the scrutiny that 

the state provides during the permitting process. State engineers 

would certainly take a look at our technology, understand the 

water balance that goes on within the processing and the chemical 

characterization each step of the way. 

The Bokan-Dotson Ridge Project is actually fairly innovative in 

itself in that should we be able to get that mine up and running, 

that due to x-ray ore sorting and MRT technology, we’ll be backfilling 100 percent of the milled tailings back underground. So the 

project description for that project, the mine project, is very, you 

know, it’s something to be proud of. 

With respect, now we look more toward, well, the first step, because we like to phase our approach to entering into the rare-earth 

space. The first step would be building the separation plant in isolation. So probably not on the project site, but in a good location 

with infrastructure. 

All I can say is that the permitting regime is strict and the reviews will be thorough, and I believe that once understood this 

ligand-based technology is exemplary. 

CHAIRMAN. It always gets your attention when a process that involves issues related to toxins, to toxic waste here, can be referred 

to as a ‘‘green’’ technology. So there is a lot of interest in what you 

are pursuing. 

Mr. MACGILLIVRAY. Right. 

CHAIRMAN. I look forward to talking with you more about it. 

Let me turn to Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for having to leave. I have a competing Banking Committee 

meeting going on, but I am very interested in the discussion today. 

Dr. Eggert, you may have talked a little bit about this while I 

was gone, and this is the issue of lithium mining. 

In Nevada, we have lithium mining and it is important to both 

a booming technology industry—we have Tesla there as well as our 

geothermal companies that procure an abundant amount of geothermal resources in my state. 

I am curious. Are there technologies that help both these industries utilize that lithium so that it is compatible and they are not 

necessarily competing against one another? 

Dr. EGGERT. Well, within the research consortium that I’m involved in, the Critical Materials Institute, we are working on processes to recover lithium from geothermal brines in the salt and sea 

area and then process it into a form and a purity that allows it to 

be used in lithium ion batteries. We have had some technological 

success and the work that we are now working on with an industry 
65 

partner is scaling that, proving that, at larger than in a test tube 

or a bench top scale but also at a larger scale as well. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to have 

a second round of questions. 

CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, this has been, I think, very instructive, good information. We have had a couple different hearings in the Energy Committee over the past several weeks focused on infrastructure, and 

those hearings will continue. Senator Stabenow raised the question 

of infrastructure in view of what we are talking about with gaining 

access to critical minerals and our resources. In every infrastructure hearing that we are talking about, it comes down to permitting and a level of certainty. It is clear to me that we have much 

work that can be done in those spaces. 

I think we heard today that there are opportunities to do a little 

bit better, whether it is designation of a lead agency or firm deadlines, but all that we can be doing from the perspective of providing 

some level of certainty to those who are looking to take the risk. 

We have not talked about the risk that is inherent in the commodities market, that prices go up and prices go down. I can recall 

several decades ago being at the ribbon cutting at a Molybdenum— 

it is so hard to say, that is why we say Moly—at a Moly mine outside of Ketchikan. I was there for the ribbon cutting, and that was 

it. That was all she wrote. The price of Moly went down, and I do 

not believe there was ever any resource that was extracted from 

that mining venture. 

That is a risk that is inherent within the industry. I think, Senator Cortez Masto, coming from a mining state, that there are 

years when the state’s economy is good and strong and robust and 

others when it is not so much. So much of it is pricing beyond our 

control. 

But those things that we can control, it seems to me, we should 

make a better effort to, again, provide for some level of certainty 

and a process that is fair and reliable. 

I appreciate, Mr. MacGillivray, you saying that the permitting in 

these areas needs to be rigorous. We want to ensure that we are 

meeting good, strong, environmental standards so that the land 

that we are charged with taking care of is respected. 

But there is a balance here that at some point you say, when you 

have overlaying bureaucracies, when you have overlaying or perhaps inconsistent regulation that causes confusion, that that adds 

to costs because you have duplication of effort. There is a rationale 

for streamlining, but streamlining does not necessarily mean environmental shortcuts. 

How we lay that all down, how we make it work so that industry 

can operate is what, I think, we need to be doing. We do not want 

to be the country with a bad environmental track record. We will 

not accept that. But we also want to be the country that has greater predictability so that investors can look at the United States 

with, perhaps, a little more enthusiasm than we might have seen. 

So we have opportunities with the resources. We thank the people at USGS for the good work that they do. 
66 

I would certainly encourage us, and I will be looking to the budget as the Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee that has the oversight of the USGS budget, I would like to see us making sure that 

the efforts to do better by our resources and understanding our resources are maintained. 

But those of you that are in the industry, those of you that are 

helping to educate those who become part of the industry, know 

that we appreciate the contributions that you bring to the table. 

For those who have joined us from outside the United States, 

again, we welcome your contributions and all that you have provided here today. 

With that, we stand adjourned and thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(67) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

Æ