[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
2023
H.R. ____, ``TRANSPARENCY AND PRODUCTION OF AMERICAN ENERGY ACT
OF 2023''; AND H.R. 209, ``PERMITTING FOR MINING NEEDS ACT OF 2023''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, February 28, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-411 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 28, 2023....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 1
Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York................................. 3
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 5
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Naatz, Dan, Chief Operating Officer, Independent Petroleum
Association of America, Washington, DC..................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Questions submitted for the record....................... 12
Nolan, Rich, President and CEO, National Mining Association,
Washington, DC............................................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Squillace, Mark, Professor of Law, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado.......................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Questions submitted for the record....................... 36
Thomsen, Paul, Vice President of Business Development,
Americas, Ormat Technologies, Reno, Nevada................. 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Questions submitted for the record....................... 44
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman
USGS/Department of Commerce: Fig. 1--The Role of Nonfuel
Mineral Commodities in the U.S. Economy (Est. values in
2022).................................................. 79
Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber
American Petroleum Institute, Letter of support for H.R.
209.................................................... 95
Essential Minerals Association, Letter of support for
H.R. 209............................................... 96
American Exploration & Mining Association, Letter of
support for H.R. 209................................... 98
Women's Mining Coalition, Letter of support for H.R. 209. 105
Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association (LMOGA),
Letter of support for H.R. 209......................... 107
List of organizations supporting H.R. 209................ 108
Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva
National Parks Conservation Assoc., Letter dated February
27, 2023............................................... 109
Letter from green groups in opposition to H.R. 209....... 111
Submissions for the Record by Representative Ocasio-Cortez
BOEM Oil and Gas Leasing Report (as of Feb. 1, 2023)..... 84
GAO Report--National Environmental Policy Act: Little
Information Exists on NEPA Analyses (GAO-14-369; April
2014).................................................. 85
GAO Report--Hardrock Mining: BLM and Forest Service Have
Taken Some Actions to Expedite the Mine Plan Review
Process but Could Do More (GAO-16-165; January 2016)... 86
GAO Report--Abandoned Hardrock Mines: Information on
Number of Mines, Expenditures, and Factors That Limit
Efforts to Address Hazards (GAO-20-238; March 2020).... 87
E&E article titled, ``House Republican fires opening
salvo on energy permitting'' (January 10, 2023)........ 88
AP news article titled, ``US official: Research finds
uranium in Navajo women, babies'' (Oct 2019)........... 90
National Mining Association Fact Sheet: Support Reform of
the Mining Law to Keep U.S. Mining Competitive......... 92
Outdoor Alliance, Letter dated March 6, 2023............. 93
Submissions for the Record by Representative Dingell
Open Letter to the Biden Administration on the Rice's
whale in the Gulf of Mexico (Oct. 2022)................ 51
NOAA Technical Memorandum--Status Review of Bryde's
Whales (Balaenoptera Edeni) in the Gulf of Mexico Under
the Endangered Species Act (Dec. 2016)................. 58
.............................................................
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. ____, TO RESTART ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE OIL,
GAS, AND COAL LEASING, STREAMLINE PERMITTING FOR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE,
ENSURE TRANSPARENCY IN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``TRANSPARENCY AND PRODUCTION OF AMERICAN ENERGY ACT OF
2023''; AND H.R. 209, TO IMPROVE THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR MINING ON
FEDERAL LAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PERMITTING FOR MINING NEEDS ACT
OF 2023''
----------
Tuesday, February 28, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stauber, Lamborn, Gosar, Graves,
Webster, Fulcher, Curtis, Tiffany, Rosendale, Boebert,
Westerman; Ocasio-Cortez, Kamlager-Dove, Magaziner, Dingell,
and Grijalva.
Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee Rule 4, subdivision F, any oral opening
statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the
Ranking Minority Member.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Stauber. Welcome, everyone, to the Energy and Mineral
Resources Subcommittee's first legislative hearing of this
118th Congress.
First, I would like to acknowledge our new Ranking Member,
Representative Ocasio-Cortez. Our Subcommittee is poised to
tackle issues of great importance, and I am eager to work with
you, your staff, and the rest of this Committee. Although we
may disagree at times, our Subcommittee leadership has always
operated in a bipartisan fashion, and I look forward to
continuing that tradition.
America needs permitting reform, whether it be for the
burgeoning offshore wind industry, building transmission lines
to upgrade our energy grid, solar fields on Federal lands,
geothermal steam projects, mining proposals, or oil and gas
development. All of these projects need permitting reform to
ensure timeliness, transparency, and certainty.
To that end, we are here this morning considering two
proposals: the TAP American Energy Act, introduced by my friend
and colleague, and our full Committee Chair, Bruce Westerman;
and the Permitting for Mining Needs Act, which I introduced
last month and now has 33 co-sponsors.
To quote a witness at our February 8 Full Committee
oversight hearing on permitting, ``Without reforms to ensure
reasonable timeliness, crucial investments in American
infrastructure will be delayed and in some cases diverted.
Various provisions outlined in the TAP Act and other thoughtful
permitting proposals will help encourage the timely development
of clean energy infrastructure across this country.''
This is from the American Clean Power Association, the
largest trade association representing wind, solar, and more
clean energy technologies: ``Every megawatt of wind capacity
requires tens of thousands of pounds of copper, according to
the International Energy Agency. The Biden-Harris plan for
offshore wind alone is 30,000 megawatts by 2030. The IEA
estimates that offshore wind requires 17,600 pounds of copper
for every megawatt.''
We need hundreds of millions of pounds of copper to only
construct the turbines for meeting this Administration's
offshore wind goals. This does not account for the materials
needed for electric vehicles, charging stations, distribution,
transmission, storage, health care, tech, or more. It is only
turbine construction.
The answer for this Administration is to import and
recycle, but that is not based in reality. If the COVID-19
pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we must be self-
reliant on our own supply chains, and there are simply not
enough materials in existence now to recycle our way out of
this mess, and recycling centers also require permits.
It takes an absolutely unreasonable amount of time to mine
here in the United States. In my district alone, we have a mine
project in its second decade of permitting and litigation. We
have another that has its lease arbitrarily canceled and a
mining ban put in place over some of the best mineral reserves
in the world.
At a recent Oversight Subcommittee hearing, my Democrat
colleague from New Mexico discussed the need for a multi-
pronged effort to address our supply chains. I agree, but right
now it is not multi-pronged. Right now, the only plan is to
import from abroad and some vague references to recycling.
Minnesota, like Arizona, Alaska, Utah, or other states has
the resources, the workforce, and the political willpower to
mine. We just have to have an Administration not turn its back
on us.
Meanwhile, the Energy Information Administration predicts
50 percent increase in global energy consumption by 2050, with
petroleum and liquid fuels remaining the largest energy source.
American resources are the cleanest produced in the world.
Chairman Westerman, Federal Lands Chairman Tiffany, and myself
toured Federal land operations near Hobbs, New Mexico earlier
this month. We saw how clean operations are firsthand, from
construction to remediation. They are not hiding. They will
provide a tour to anyone who asks. Yet, the Administration
continues to kneecap American workers and American production.
On the first days in office, President Biden froze new oil
and gas leasing. Although sued and forced to comply with the
Mineral Leasing Act, it has been nothing but delay after delay
with this Administration.
Remember, it takes more than one permit to approve a
project on Federal lands. Operators must comply with various
statutes, including NEPA. However, approval times skyrocketed
from an average of 400 days under Trump to 650 days under Joe
Biden, with total approvals plummeting well below 50 percent.
The TAP Act fixes these issues and then some. It also
explicitly improves upgrades to NEPA that make it easier to
deploy transmission lines so we can supplement our energy grid,
building on coal, gas, and nuclear to include solar, wind, and
more. I am proud to support this legislation, and I am eager to
move it alongside my Permit MN Act.
America's energy future is in question. We remain beholden,
even after learning the lessons of COVID-19, to our foreign
adversaries for hardrock minerals and our energy fuels.
I look forward today to the witness testimonies, and I am
eager to move America forward with the TAP Act and the Permit
MN Act.
Thank you, and I yield to my colleague from New York,
Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman Stauber. And
I, too, am looking forward to working with you this Congress.
And it is agreed, while our policy difference may be very stark
at times, I think conducting this Committee in a professional
and courteous manner is what the American people deserve, and I
look forward in working with you on that.
I also want to extend a special thank you to all of our
witnesses that are here today, and for taking the time and
resources necessary to be here.
This Committee has a profound responsibility and role in
mitigating the impacts of the climate crisis. We have a
timeline that is simply inescapable in decarbonization, and our
actions and decisions that we make today will have profound
implications for our future. And as overwhelming as it may all
feel with the climate crisis, the very select few of us in this
very room can do something about it.
This Committee has the unique privilege of overseeing our
nation's public lands. As it stands now, nearly a quarter of
the United States' current carbon pollution comes from fossil
fuel production on public lands. I will say that again: A
quarter of U.S. carbon emissions comes from the public lands
that we oversee right here in this room. And failing to do
something about it would be a profound lost opportunity on a
timeline that we simply cannot get back.
So, with that, I want to dig into today's hearing. I want
to first address an argument that I am sure we may hear today,
that we need to open our public lands further to drilling and
mining in order to achieve ``energy independence,'' despite the
fact that fossil fuel companies are already using large
portions of U.S. public lands.
And it is in our view that the problem is not a shortage of
leases or land; the problem is a fossil fuel industry that is
more interested in keeping supply artificially low so that
prices stay artificially high. And I believe there is almost no
greater illustration of this point than the profiteering and
artificial surge in gas prices that we all experienced last
year and over the last several years at the height of the
pandemic and after the war in Ukraine.
The truth is that these companies are not necessarily
primarily motivated by energy independence. They are
corporations primarily interested in profit.
But let's dig in to the two pieces of legislation that have
been introduced today.
The first, the TAP American Energy Act, is a fossil fuel
industry wish list. It would eviscerate the authority and
discretion of land and ocean energy management agencies to make
smart, informed, and prudent decisions about the best uses of
our shared public lands and offshore areas. It would force the
DOI to hold lease sales quarterly in every state with oil and
gas reserves, despite the fact that the fossil fuel industry
already holds leases covering nearly 26 million acres, half of
which are not being used at all. And it would also allow oil
and gas operators to drill on up to 57 million acres of split
estate resources without Federal oversight. This is shocking.
The second, Permit MN, would loosen our mining regulations
for the most toxic industry in America. It would allow mining
companies to stake a claim to public lands without even having
to prove that the earth beneath them contains valuable
minerals. It would limit environmental reviews and,
egregiously, it would allow mining companies to conduct their
own environmental reviews.
This bill also attacks the rights of tribal communities. It
allows the mining industry itself to fast-track tribal
consultation processes, despite the fact that the vast majority
of minerals needed for clean energy are within 35 miles of
tribal land, and that nearly 40 percent of western headwaters
have already been polluted by hardrock mining.
At stake is the need to decarbonize rapidly while
prioritizing justice for the traditionally most impacted
communities in America. It is for our ecosystems and for our
planet. And because of this urgency, I look forward to today's
discussion and hearing from our witnesses.
Thank you, Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
And now I would like to allow the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you
to the witnesses for coming today.
Robert Frost, in his famous poem, he talked about two roads
diverging. And I think our country is at a point where we have
two roads diverging. And it is very important that we choose
the correct path. If we continue down the path that we are on,
we are going to go down a path where we lose. Quite frankly, we
are going to lose. And the only way that we can lose is if we
beat ourselves. And that is what current policies are doing.
They are causing us to beat ourselves.
We can do better than this. We can choose a path that
allows America to be energy independent, allows us to have more
national security, and allows us to protect the environment
more than we could ever hope to protect it down the path that
we are on right now.
When we talk about--I heard it mentioned that supplies and
prices are artificial. They are not artificial, they are real.
Our constituents are paying the price of bad policies that
result in high energy prices that translates throughout our
whole economy. As energy is so important as a foundation of the
economy, when we raise those prices it raises prices
everywhere.
We can have clean energy. We produce energy cleaner in
America than anyplace else in the world. That doesn't mean we
should stop innovating, but our innovators can't innovate
because of the barriers put in place by bureaucrats and by
policies that are antiquated, that need updated.
And I am for all-of-the-above energy, all-of-the-above
energy. But as my friends across the aisle are finding out,
even though they appropriated huge sums of money in the
Infrastructure and Jobs Act, huge sums of money in the
Inflation Reduction Act, those projects can't be built for the
same reason that fossil fuel projects can't be built. It is
because of the paralysis through the permitting system.
And I hope people will look at the facts, because I think
it starts in this Committee, if we want to take the right road.
And I want to work across the aisle with my colleagues, because
I want to do what is best for our country, what is best,
really, for the entire planet.
[Chart.]
Mr. Westerman. And this chart behind me that I have used
several times, it shows what is happening with global energy
consumption. It is not a slight increase. It is an exponential
increase. And if you look at, globally, 80 to 90 percent of
energy use globally is from fossil fuels, from carbon-emitting
sources. Do you think we can change that by cutting off the
quarter of the greenhouse gas pollutions that come from Federal
lands in the United States? It is only going to make it go up
higher, because developing countries, quite frankly, don't give
a rip about what is happening to the environment.
We produce energy with less emissions, cleaner, and safer
on our facilities than we do anywhere else. We were just out in
New Mexico, and the methane emissions off of the wells in New
Mexico are down to a fraction of a percent because we innovated
and used the right technology. But it doesn't matter how much
we innovate if we can't do the projects once the technology is
developed.
And it is not just oil and gas production, it is mining.
All this money for ``green energy,'' ``carbon-free energy,'' we
don't have enough copper, we don't have enough steel, we don't
have the rare earth elements to build what we need to build. We
have those, they are just in the ground. We have to get them
out, we have to process them.
And in the meantime, we can be creating great jobs here in
America, instead of exporting our wealth, quite literally, to
China, because they are the ones that are dominating the world
in mineral supplies. And every time we refuse to permit a mine
here in America, we are depending more on mines that are
controlled by Chinese.
And you all heard the story: cobalt is mined with child
slave labor in Chinese mines. That is not something we are
making up. That is what is happening in the world today, and we
are driving that kind of policy, we are driving that kind of
process because we refuse to do what we all know needs to be
done--is to streamline the permitting, to make it where we can
actually build stuff in America, because we can do it better
than any place else in the world.
I look forward to hearing the testimony today, and I look
forward to marking up and passing bills, and I really hope we
can do this in a bipartisan manner for the betterment of
America.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chair Westerman.
Now I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Ranking Member
of the Full Committee, Mr. Grijalva.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
courtesy, and a special thanks to the Ranking Member for adding
her leadership and her perspective to this Subcommittee.
I associate myself with the Ranking Member's opening
comments. And while my colleagues across the aisle are finally
beginning to admit climate change does exist, and that it is
real, the bills they are putting forward up for discussion
today show that it is, unfortunately, not being taken
seriously.
Climate crisis fundamentally changed our lives. And with
that, just with that fact alone, the issue should be a high
priority for this Congress and for this Committee. Yet, we have
here, I think, two bills that really represent industry wish
lists, a wish list that has been promoted and pushed for many,
many years.
At a time when we need environmental review, a strong
environmental review process more than ever, these bills seek
to gut those processes just so dirty energy projects that can
start producing profits a lot faster with weak scrutiny and
oversight and limited to no accountability. These bills have
always been a gift to the polluters, but with the context of
climate crisis that we all know is real, we are living in that
right now. These bills now become reckless and, to some extent,
dangerous.
So, before we start the whole marketed, branded phrases
that we are going to hear, ``permitting reform,''
``streamlining NEPA,'' let's look more closely at what some of
these bills do.
To start with, the Chair's bill explicitly says, and I
quote, ``Environmental reviews shall not require consideration
of downstream indirect effects of oil and gas consumption.'' To
make sure that there is no confusion, those downstream effects
are indeed climate change. So, when we are considering the
environmental impacts of more oil and gas drilling, we have to
leave climate change out of that equation. Check a box.
Next, these bills remove requirements to look at a project
alternative during environmental review. If there is another
proposal that is more sustainable, more equitable for a
project, we ignore them, and fast-track the original project
itself. Check a box.
These bills can strip cumulative impact language out of
environmental reviews. Check a box.
So, if a foreign-owned company wants to set up shop near a
tribal community whose water is already contaminated by mining
waste, they can do it. Check a box.
The Subcommittee Chair's bill even lets mining companies
conduct their own environmental reviews. Check a box. That is
trust but no requirement to verify.
And in a really bizarre turn of events, that same bill also
moves our outdated mining claims systems back even further by
letting anyone stake a claim wherever mining is allowed, pay
less than $10 an acre, and do whatever mining-related activity
they want on those lands, including dumping toxic mining waste.
So, what do you do with the waste? Check a box.
And my colleagues and I are not against industry or mining,
but we believe it needs to be done right. Given all the needs
for transition on the climate crisis, they need to be done
right. And these bills don't do that.
We believe that environmental review is a critical part of
that process. That is why we listen to what the experts said
would actually improve environmental review, and fought for $1
billion in the Inflation Reduction Act to do just that.
[Chart.]
Mr. Grijalva. And as we deftly move toward a visual along
with our comments, that is what that bill is about, and it is
about expediting those resources out there, and making sure
that, if the issue was the lack of staff, those areas have
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Republicans cut and cut
those programs, those reviews, staff programs that are so
vital, the personnel and the resources to them, and then they
complain that it takes very long. This is an effort to begin to
balance those scales and provide the professional staffing so
that we can expedite the review process.
And we believe that tribes deserve to be meaningfully
consulted before development happens on their ancestral lands.
Those are issues that are important. We believe in protecting
Americans and their communities from industry exploitation and
climate change. We believe that we can get to a cleaner, safer
future, and it is not only possible, but it is necessary.
These bills, on the other hand, are a checklist for
industry. The boxes are checked, but the reality of what we
need to deal with in the long term for this country, that box
continues to be left empty.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the
time.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Now I will introduce our
other witnesses.
The Honorable Dan Naatz is the Chief Operating Officer of
the Independent Petroleum Association of America; Mr. Rich
Nolan is the President and CEO of the National Mining
Association; Mr. Squillace is a Professor of Law from the
University of Colorado; and Mr. Paul Thomsen serves as the Vice
President of Business Development in the Americas for Ormat
Technologies.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Naatz for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAN NAATZ, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, INDEPENDENT
PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Naatz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, my name is Dan
Naatz, and I am the Chief Operating Officer of the Independent
Petroleum Association of America.
IPAA is a national trade association representing thousands
of American independent oil and natural gas producers. IPAA
members operate in 33 states, as well as offshore, and are the
primary producers of the nation's oil and natural gas, and
account for 83 percent of America's oil production and 90
percent of its natural gas output. The average IPAA member
company employs 20 people.
American oil and natural gas companies vary in size, and
the characterization that the industry is only Big Oil is a big
myth. IPAA and our members understand the challenges facing the
world regarding climate change, environmental protection, and
addressing energy security. These are all issues that must be
addressed worldwide on a global scale.
The good news is the United States is a clear leader in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, something that is directly
attributable to the increased production and use of American
natural gas.
We thank Chairman Westerman, Chairman Stauber, and
Representative Graves for the thoughtful reforms outlined in
the Transparency and Production of American Energy Act. Many of
the reforms outlined in the TAP Act will help to revitalize oil
and natural gas producers operating on Federal lands and waters
to the benefit of the nation.
The multiple-use mandate provided in the Federal Lands
Policy and Management Act, FLPMA, requires the Bureau of Land
Management to balance the resources and uses of public lands to
the benefit of the American people. While this mandate includes
a variety of uses beyond oil and natural gas production, it
clearly is not intended to prevent the production of American
oil and natural gas on Federal lands. IPAA believes that safe
and responsible development of the nation's natural resources
needs to remain an integral part of the equation.
The revenue generated from the production on Federal lands
helps fund critical investments and communities across the
United States, and supports jobs, schools, conservation
efforts, and infrastructure projects. The amount of annual
revenue that Federal mineral development provides to the U.S.
Treasury is second only to that provided by the Internal
Revenue Service.
There are several common-sense reforms in the TAP Act that
will increase certainty for American producers, and will
ultimately lead to a more streamlined process for Federal oil
and natural gas development. While IPAA is supportive of the
bill in its entirety, there are a few key provisions that I
would like to highlight in my testimony this morning.
IPAA supports language in the TAP Act requiring the
Secretary of the Interior to resume quarterly onshore oil and
natural gas lease sales. Quarterly, these sales are mandated as
part of the Mineral Leasing Act that governs proper stewardship
and handling of mineral extraction. The Biden administration's
efforts to hinder quarterly onshore lease sales will be felt
for years to come, as companies typically plan their next
stages of development many years in advance.
IPAA also represents many independent producers operating
in Federal waters. As such, we support the revisions to the
offshore oil and gas leasing program found in section 107 of
the TAP Act. Operating offshore is a capital-intensive
endeavor. Unlike the major oil companies, independent producers
often work together in a consortium, with more than one company
involved in a project. Federal offshore production makes up
about 15 percent of total U.S. oil production, which is a
significant component to America's energy security.
Last year, the Secretary of the Interior failed to act in a
timely manner on the 5-year plan offshore leasing program, and
let it expire without another plan in place. The proposed
program that closed for comment in October 2022 offered between
0 and 10 potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. A leasing
program that has the potential to offer no lease sales is not a
leasing program. It is a Federal mandate to end offshore oil
and natural gas production in the United States.
Oil and natural gas projects on Federal lands also face
months of delay due to regulatory obstacles with the National
Environmental Policy Act. For example, in 2020, it took an
average of 142 days to complete an APD to drill on Federal
lands. By comparison, in the state of Texas, in 2019, it took
an average of 2 days to process a standard drilling permit.
IPAA supports the Committee's efforts to develop workable
reforms to NEPA that will bring the law closer to its original
intent of analyzing projects that require major Federal action,
rather than the current process, which is simply being used to
delay and disrupt activities on Federal lands by a determined
Minority.
The current program governing oil and natural gas
activities on onshore and offshore Federal lands needs a
significant overhaul. The TAP Act provides important solutions
to many of the problems hampering the safe, continued
development of mineral resources on Federal lands and waters.
Oil and natural gas will remain a key component of energy
supply in the world for the foreseeable future. No modern
economy can function without them. Growth in other energy
sectors, such as wind, solar, and nuclear will also need to
occur. Clearly, more energy and from many sources will be
needed to maintain a robust American economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Naatz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel T. Naatz, Chief Operating Officer and
Executive Vice President, the Independent Petroleum Association of
America
These comments are submitted by the Independent Petroleum
Association of America (IPAA). IPAA appreciates the Committee holding
this legislative hearing.
IPAA is a national trade association representing thousands of
American independent oil and natural gas producers. Its members operate
in 33 states as well as offshore and are the primary producers of the
nation's oil and natural gas and account for 83 percent of America's
oil production and 90 percent of its natural gas output. These
independent producers are a driving force in the American economy and
support roughly 4.5 million jobs in the United States. IPAA member
companies are innovative leaders that broke the code to usher in the
shale oil and natural gas revolution in the United States. Furthermore,
the average member company employs 20 people. These small businesses
are unique and are best served by having a cooperative regulatory
system with input from the states and the federal government rather
than a one-size-fits-all structure coming from Washington.
IPAA thanks Chairman Westerman, Chairman Stauber, and
Representative Graves for the thoughtful reforms outlined in the
Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023 (TAP Act).
Many of the reforms outlined in the TAP Act will help to revitalize oil
and natural gas producers operating on federal lands and waters to the
benefit of the nation. The ``multiple-use mandate'' provided in the
Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to balance the resources and uses of public lands
to the benefit of the American people. While this mandate includes a
variety of uses beyond oil and natural gas production, it clearly is
not intended to prevent the production of American oil and natural gas.
IPAA believes that safe and responsible development of the nation's
natural resources needs to remain an integral part of the equation.
Currently, of the 640 million acres of land that are federally
owned in the United States, roughly 4 percent are leased for oil and
natural gas development. Yet, even with this small percentage, oil and
natural gas still have an enormous monetary impact for the federal
treasury. All federal oil and gas royalty, rental fee, and bonus bid
revenue is split roughly half between the U.S. Treasury and the states
where development occurs. That revenue helps fund critical investments
in communities across the United States and supports jobs, schools,
conservation efforts and infrastructure projects. The amount of annual
revenue that Federal mineral development provides to the U.S. Treasury
is second only to that provided by the Internal Revenue Service.
(Bureau of Land Management)
There are several commonsense reforms in the TAP Act that will
increase certainty for American producers and will ultimately lead to a
more streamlined process for federal oil and natural gas development.
While IPAA is supportive of the bill in its entirety, there are a few
key provisions that I would like to highlight in my testimony this
morning.
IPAA supports language in the TAP Act requiring the Secretary of
the Interior to resume quarterly onshore oil and natural gas lease
sales. Quarterly lease sales are mandated as part of the Mineral
Leasing Act (MLA) that governs proper stewardship and handling of
mineral extraction. The Biden administration's program to halt
quarterly onshore lease sales will be felt for years to come as
companies typically plan their next stages of development many years in
advance. IPAA also believes it is important to include in a sale all
parcels that were nominated and eligible for lease under the resource
management plan (RMP) of each state. Many times, a company's plans for
development are put on hold while they are forced to wait on a specific
parcel to tie a swath of land together whether for the purposes of a
right of way, communization agreements, or simply for economic reasons.
Producers must make sure that all the pieces are in place before they
can pursue an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) and be able to
contract for a drilling rig and crew. For these reasons, IPAA also
supports the additional language in the TAP Act on suspension of
operations permits.
Another issue that IPAA would like to highlight is the language in
the bill returning the federal royalty rate for onshore oil and natural
gas to ``not less than 12.5 percent.'' Sponsors of the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) argued that the historic royalty rate was too low
and significantly increased the royalty rate last year. However, as
discussed earlier, there are many factors that play into a company's
decision on whether and where to bid and lease for mineral extraction
on federal lands. These include the location of a specific area with
relation to other properties, transportation costs, operational costs,
taxes and rents. However, the most impactful are the regulatory costs
associated with a project. Operating on federal land triggers a variety
of regulatory actions that must be taken in order for a company to
receive a permit to drill. Satisfying the suite of federal regulations
can take many months as a company pays overhead costs while awaiting
specific federal approvals. Raising the royalty rate in isolation
without taking other critical factors into account will have an impact
on a company's decisions to develop federal resources or not. As such,
IPAA supports returning the royalty rate to 12.5 percent for oil and
natural gas on onshore federal lands.
Transparency in the permitting and leasing process is of the utmost
importance. It is not unreasonable to ask the BLM, the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM), and other federal agencies identified in
section 106 of the TAP Act to collate and submit information that they
already have on file to the authorizing congressional committees of
jurisdiction. This oversight function will help bring the leasing
practice in line with the original intent of the MLA by increasing
transparency and including timelines for how the Secretary of the
Interior plans to address issues to prevent unnecessary delays in the
process.
IPAA also represents many independent producers operating in
federal waters. As such, IPAA supports the revisions to the offshore
oil and gas leasing program found in section 107 of the TAP Act.
Operating offshore is a capital-intensive endeavor. Unlike the major
oil companies, independent producers often work together in consortium
with more than one company involved in a project. Federal offshore
production makes up about 15 percent of total US oil production, which
is a significant component to America's energy security. That said,
IPAA supports language in the legislation mandating two region-wide
annual lease sales in the prescribed offshore areas. Last year, the
Secretary of the Interior failed to act in a timely manner on the Five-
Year Plan and let it expire without another plan in place. The proposed
program that closed for comment in October 2022, offered between zero
and ten potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the option for
only one potential lease sale in the northern portion of the Cook Inlet
in Alaska. A ``leasing program'' that has the potential to offer no
lease sales is not a leasing program; it is a federal mandate to end
offshore oil and natural gas production in the United States. It is
also not in the best interest of Americans who benefit from the
increased revenue to the federal treasury and significantly harms
American national security.
Oil and natural gas projects on federal lands also face months of
delay due to regulatory obstacles with National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis. For example, in 2020, it took an average of 142
days to complete an APD to drill on Federal lands. By comparison, in
the state of Texas, in 2018 and 2019, it took an average of two days to
process a standard drilling permit. IPAA believes legislative language
is needed to define specific agency actions where a lower threshold of
environmental analysis could be used. IPAA supports the committee's
efforts to develop workable reforms to NEPA that will bring the law
closer to its original intent of analyzing projects that require
``major federal actions'' rather than the current process, which is
simply being used to delay and disrupt activities on federal lands by a
determined minority. While not being discussed in this hearing, IPAA
also supports the BUILDER Act, introduced by Representative Graves,
which enacts additional reforms to NEPA.
IPAA endorses section 213 of the TAP Act dealing with split
estates. BLM currently triggers NEPA analysis for wells on state or
private lands if any of the oil and natural gas resources being drilled
are federally owned. This occurs even when the federal government has a
small/minority mineral interest. For too long, the BLM has used this
federal nexus as a way for the agency to become involved in state and
private mineral development decisions. In addition, once the federal
interconnection is established, the full cavalcade of Washington's
regulatory agencies can become involved in projects. Even when there is
the smallest percentage of federal ownership, an operator must go
through an entire NEPA review that would not otherwise be required.
While adding time to the project, it is also a burden on federal
resources at the regional BLM level. Simply because the federal
government holds a minority mineral interest in a drilling project
should not allow it to impose burdensome restrictions or delay projects
where it has a limited role.
The current program governing oil and natural gas activities on
onshore and offshore federal lands needs a significant overhaul. The
TAP Act provides important solutions to many of the problems hampering
the safe, continued development of mineral resources on federal lands
and waters. Unfortunately, the Biden administration is ignoring both
the MLA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requiring
reasonable development of the nation's mineral resources on federal
lands and waters. Instead, the Administration is focused on land
conservation to the detriment of other activities from which all
American taxpayers benefit. Rather than working with stakeholders at
the local level, the land managers now make decisions based on edicts
from the national office. IPAA supports efforts to require the
Department of the Interior and its leadership to better engage the
states when taking actions that impact development in their areas.
Oil and natural gas will remain a key component of energy supply in
the world for the foreseeable future. No modern economy can function
without them. This is clearly true in the United States where oil and
natural gas contributes approximately 70 percent of the energy consumed
in the country. Growth in other energy sectors, such as wind, solar and
nuclear will also occur, clearly more energy from many sources will be
needed to maintain a robust American economy.
Artificial political efforts to suppress American oil and natural
gas supply will not reduce demand; they will only lead to a return to
an import dependent energy structure with attendant energy security
risks. False attacks targeting American oil and natural gas producers
will reduce supply while hurting independent producers, particularly
small businesses, and royalty owners. These policies will not reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The ultimate beneficiaries of these actions
would be foreign national oil companies that produce with fewer
environmental and safety controls than those in the United States.
IPAA applauds the House Natural Resources Committee for holding
this hearing today and looks forward to the Committee acting on the TAP
Act that will protect and enhance American energy security.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dan Naatz, Chief Operating
Officer, Independent Petroleum Association of America
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. How much Federal revenue did onshore and offshore oil
and gas production send to the Treasury last year?
Answer. Oil and gas revenues from production on federal land for
FY2022 totaled $7.6 Billion for onshore and $6.3 billion for the
offshore Gulf of Mexico.
Question 2. Last year our Democrat counterparts decided to raise
the royalty rate for production on federal lands and waters.
2a) If you had to choose between developing a project on federal
land versus private or state land what would be your preference and
why?
Answer. The question is more complex than federal land vs. non-
federal land. Many of our producers are involved in complicated, multi-
stage and multi-year projects on federal land which would result in a
huge financial blow to walk away from. Furthermore, oil and natural gas
are not manufactured. Companies must go where the resource exists and,
particularly in the West, that tends to be on federal land. That said,
I believe most companies would gladly pay the royalty premium to deal
with the regulatory certainty of a state like Texas where the average
permit is processed and awarded in 2 days rather than the federal
process as BLM permitting times are averaging over 170 days.
2b) Would you argue that the measures in the so-called Inflation
Reduction Act make federal land much less appealing than state and
private lands and in turn, result in less revenues for taxpayers?
Answer. Absolutely. I believe we are already starting to see trends
of new production being shifted away from federal lands and increased
regulatory burden, red tape, and costs are going to contribute as well.
Question 3. As we know, the Biden administration has held only one
onshore lease sale in 26 months. We also know that this is illegal as
the Mineral Leasing Act requires quarterly lease sales in all eligible
states. What impact will this decision have on production and revenues
over time and when will the impacts of this illegal lack of action be
felt?
Answer. The impact will be devastating, particularly to state and
local economies who count on oil and natural gas revenue as a crucial
part of their budgets to make ends meet. But the true effect will not
be felt for a few years as production that is coming online right now
was scoped a number of years ago. After a company wins a lease, the
exploration phase can take years of seismic testing and data analysis
before a company determines potential discovery. Independent producers
rely on certainty in the leasing process to make business decisions for
years in the future.
Question 4. As you know, the Biden administration canceled the
remaining offshore lease sales in the 2017-2023 5-year-plan and the
Inflation Reduction Act requires the administration to hold those sales
this year. The Biden administration has not yet published a new 5-year-
plan, even though the previous one expired in June 2022. Can you
discuss the importance of having a 5-year-plan in place and how this
delay is impacting planning and investment in offshore development?
Answer. Having a 5-year-plan in place in vitally important to the
health of the offshore oil and natural gas industry. Furthermore, the
proposed plan that the Administration closed for comments last year
gave the option for zero to ten leases in the Gulf of Mexico and one in
the Cook Inlet in Alaska. With all due respect, a leasing plan with the
possibility of zero lease sales is not a leasing plan. It's a clear
signal from the Administration of their priorities and sends a strong
message that offshore producers are not valuable.
Question 5. If producing on oil and gas federal lands and waters
ceases in the U.S., will demand decrease or will it instead be met from
other countries, like Russia?
Answer. Studies and trends all conclude that the demand for oil and
natural gas is going to stay strong for many years to come. The U.S.
produces the lowest carbon barrels of oil in the world, not to mention
our environmental and safety record that far exceed some other nations
such as Russia and Venezuela. For every policy that restricts American
oil and natural gas, those barrels will be made up for by dirtier
foreign sources.
Question 6. On February 14, the Institute for Energy Research
published a report titled ``The Environmental Quality Index:
Environmental Quality Weighted Oil and Gas Production'' that quantifies
the environmental impact of oil and natural gas produced in different
countries around the world. The report shows what many of us already
knew, that domestic production is much more environmentally friendly
than countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and many others.
6a) Would the provisions of this bill help the U.S. take more
global market share from these other countries?
Answer. IPAA represents independent American oil and natural gas
producers with one goal--to produce American oil and natural gas
supplies to the advancement of the American economy. While oil is
valued on a global market and OPEC nations often play games to
artificially inflate or deflate prices, additional US supplies will
help stabilize the oil and natural gas.
6b) Will this bill reduce global emissions?
Answer. As I've said before, America produces the cleanest barrels
of oil in the world. In fact, oil produced from the Gulf of Mexico has
the carbon intensity of one-half that of other producing regions. In
short, this bill will reduce global emissions as it aims to unencumber
industry.
______
Mr. Stauber. I thank the witness for his testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Nolan for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICH NOLAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL MINING
ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Nolan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate representing the
National Mining Association today to discuss the need to
strengthen our domestic supply chains, to secure American
energy resources, and to lower electricity cost.
Domestic mining conducted under world-leading environmental
safety and labor standards is essential to virtually every key
supply chain, and the right policies are needed to unlock U.S.
mining's full potential.
Mined materials are an integral part of all current forms
of energy. Uranium and coal, which provide 40 percent of the
nation's electricity, are key sources of baseload power
generation that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Nickel and titanium are needed for geothermal power. Copper,
cobalt, lithium, and silver are essential components to EV
batteries, solar panels, and the electrification of the
transportation sector. Barite keeps oil and gas producing.
Seventy percent of the world's steel requires metallurgical
coal for its production, as it takes 100 tons of met coal to
build the steel for one wind turbine.
In short, a strong domestic mining industry makes domestic
energy security possible.
The mining industry is also the source of high-paying,
stable U.S. jobs that provide generous benefits. Across the
industry, we directly employ more than 475,000 people who make
an average of $85,000 a year, well over the national average of
$68,000. Those direct jobs support more than 800 additional
jobs. Each year our industry generates more than $119 billion
in revenues for the U.S. economy, paying more than $18 billion
in federal, state, and local taxes. Last year alone, Federal
coal production amounted to over $525 million in royalties for
the Federal Government.
Mining meets the demands of the manufacturing supply chain
with the raw materials needed to begin production of virtually
any product, while keeping the lights on and prices affordable.
Now, demand for mined materials is expanding exponentially, but
we have not seen a corresponding urgency and action to make
those mined materials available here in the United States.
Despite all the rhetoric around securing our domestic
supply chains, we are now at a crisis point. In 2022, the
United States reached its highest record level of mineral
import reliance. Imports made up more than one-half of U.S.
consumption of 51 mineral commodities. We are more dependent
than ever on China and other foreign sources of materials we
could be sourcing right here at home.
And with each new announcement of a blocked mine, such as
the Twin Metals Project in Minnesota or the 16 foreign source
agreements through the OPEC State Department's Mineral Security
Partnership with countries that have documented problematic
labor practices, this just locks in our position of competitive
weakness in the world.
Without permitting reform, the United States will be
watching the global competition for energy and mineral
dominance from the sidelines. Providing additional Federal
funds for incentives for projects that will never be approved
does nothing. As the International Energy Agency reported,
``Governments must leverage private investment and sustainable
mining, but also ensure clear and rapid permitting procedures
to avoid potential supply bottlenecks.''
Opening or expanding U.S. mines typically involves multiple
agencies and tens or even hundreds of permitting processes that
are at the federal and state level. Delays arise from
duplication among agencies, absence of firm timelines, and
failures in agency coordination. Necessary authorizations for
hardrock mines take an average of 7 to 10 years or longer, one
of the longest permitting processes in the world. Valid
environmental concerns should be fully addressed, but
permitting process should not serve as an excuse to trap vital
mining projects in limbo of duplicative and unpredictable,
endless, and costly review.
The legislation proposed by Congressman Westerman, Chairman
Stauber, and Congressman Graves offered common-sense solutions
to establish a strong domestic mineral supply chain and ensure
continued Federal coal production. These bills prioritize
responsible development and certainty to mining companies,
investors, and manufacturers by establishing lead agencies,
coordinating state and federal processes, improving timelines
of decisions, and maintain access to mineralized Federal lands.
We have abundant mineral and coal resources right here at
home. Yet, we are stumbling when it comes to meeting the demand
of the world markets. The U.S. mining industry stands ready to
support and supply our country with a full range of materials
needed to power our nation into the future, and we look forward
to working with the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rich Nolan, President & CEO, National Mining
Association
Good morning members of the subcommittee. I am Rich Nolan,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Mining
Association (NMA). America's mining industry supplies the essential
materials necessary for nearly every sector of our economy--electricity
generation, new technologies, healthcare, transportation, steel making
and critical infrastructure, and national security. The NMA is the only
national trade organization that serves as the voice of the U.S. mining
industry and the hundreds of thousands of American workers it employs
before Congress, the federal agencies, the judiciary and the media,
advocating for public policies that will help America fully and
responsibly utilize its vast natural resources. We work to ensure
America has secure and reliable supply chains, abundant and affordable
energy, and the American-sourced materials necessary for U.S.
manufacturing, national security and economic security, all delivered
under world-leading environmental, safety and labor standards. The NMA
has a membership of more than 275 companies and organizations involved
in every aspect of mining, from producers and equipment manufacturers
to service providers.
Ever-increasing Demand for Minerals
There is widespread recognition that we are entering the most
mineral and metal intensive era in human history.\1\ Consequently, the
right policies to secure new domestic mineral production and our supply
chains are more important than ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Google results for the term ``critical minerals'' return nearly
24,000 responses (7,000 news specific) for the last month alone.
The international competition for minerals will be fierce. The
European Union (EU) has unveiled its ``REPowerEU Plan.'' \2\ The United
Kingdom (UK) released its ``Resilience for the future: The UK's
critical minerals strategy.'' \3\ In December, Canada released its
``Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy,'' a generational ``plan to
position Canada as the global supplier of choice for critical minerals
and the clean technologies they enable.'' \4\ Of course, China, with
its much longer planning horizon, moved earlier and more quickly to
address the risks to its mineral supply chains. In 1999, the Chinese
government announced its aggressive ``go global'' campaign to secure
raw materials. The policy, which was fully implemented around 2002-
2003, articulated three main objectives: (1) to support national
exports and expand into international markets; (2) to push domestic
firms to internationalize their activities as a means of acquiring
advanced technologies; and (3) to invest in the acquisition of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
strategic resources.\5\
\2\ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
The European Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: REPowerEU Plan, (SWD(2022)
230 final), May 18, 2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
resource.html?uri=cellar:fc930f14-d7ae-11ec-a95f-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/
DOC_1&format=PDF.
\3\ Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy,
``Resilience for the future: The UK's critical minerals strategy, 22
July 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-critical-
mineral-strategy/resilience-for-the-future-the-uks-critical-minerals-
strategy
\4\ Natural Resources Canada News Release, ``Countries Commit to
the Sustainable Development and Sourcing of Critical Minerals,'' Dec.
12, 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2022/
12/countries-commit-to-the-sustainable-development-and-sourcing-of-
critical-minerals.html
\5\ CRS, ``China's Mineral Industry and U.S. Access to Strategic
and Critical Minerals: Issues for Congress,'' R43864, March 20, 2015,
p. 2. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43864/6
Many public analyses evaluate the demand for minerals for new
technologies and especially energy generation. Last year the
International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a cautionary report about
risks related to the mineral supply chains required for energy
generation transitions.\6\ IEA estimates and others show that demand
for some minerals could grow by more than 40 times by 2040. According
to IEA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical World
Energy Outlook Special Report Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,''
May 2021.
Lithium demand is anticipated to grow by more than 40
times by 2040, followed by graphite, cobalt and nickel at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
around 20-25 times;
Copper demand for grid infrastructure and electrification
more than doubles by 2040;
Demand for cobalt is expected to be anywhere from 6 to 30
times higher than today's levels; and
Rare earth elements may see three to seven times higher
demand in 2040 than today.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id at pp. 8-10
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Notes: kg = kilogramme; MW = megawatt. Steel and aluminum not
included. See Chapter 1 and Annex for details on the assumptions and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
methodologies.
Other major reports echo the findings of the IEA. Wood Mackenzie,
the World Bank,\8\ the Wilson Center \9\ and others outline staggering
demand increases that are likely to outplace the available minerals
supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ World Bank Group, ``Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral
Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition,'' 2020. https://
pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-
Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
\9\ D. Wood, A. Helfgott, M. D'Amico, and E. Romanin, Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars, ``The Mosaic Approach: a
Multidimensional Strategy for Strengthening America's Critical Minerals
Supply Chain,'' Oct. 12, 2021, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/
default/files/media/uploads/documents/
critical_minerals_supply_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Wood Mackenzie:
Demand for copper and aluminum is anticipated to increase
by a third by 2040.
Nickel demand grows by two-thirds and cobalt and lithium
by 200 percent and 600 percent, respectively.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Gavin Montgomery, Wood Mackenzie, ``COP26: Why battery raw
materials are a highly-charged topic--Aggressive EV uptake is needed to
meet a 2+ C target, but metals supply will struggle to meet demand.''
13 October 2021, https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/cop26-why-
battery-raw-materials-are-a-highly-charged-topic/
Matching the speed and scale of this rising demand requires a
permitting regime that enables the mining sector to respond to market
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
signals. Current U.S. permitting timelines do not.
As the IEA recently concluded in a July 2022 battery supply chain
report:
Electrifying road transport requires a wide range of raw
materials. While all stages of the supply chain must scale up,
extraction and processing are particularly critical due to long
lead times. Governments must leverage private investment in
sustainable mining and ensure clear and rapid permitting
procedures to avoid potential supply bottlenecks.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ IEA, ``Global Supply Chains of EV Batteries,'' July 2022.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-supply-chains-of-ev-batteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts Down the Supply Chain
End users of minerals have awoken to the challenge of securing
mineral supply chains, a development perhaps most pronounced by the
automotive sector as it advertises a transition to electric vehicles
(EVs). Over the last few years, many of the major U.S. car makers have
made ambitious announcements about their EV plans. General Motors has
announced it will invest $35 billion in electric and autonomous vehicle
product development until 2025 and that it will phase out petrol and
diesel cars by 2035. Volkswagen wants half of its vehicle sales to be
electric by 2030 and nearly 100 percent electric sales by 2040. Audi
will launch fully electric models only from 2026 and aims for all car
sales to be electric by 2030.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ van Halm, I. and Mullan, C., Feb. 14, 2022, ``Booming EV sales
challenge critical mineral supply chains,'' Energy Monitor https://
www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/transport/booming-ev-sales-challenge-
mineral-supply-chains
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, automakers are warning with ever greater
frequency that the coming battery material shortfall could stop the EV
revolution in its tracks. As recently noted by RJ Scaringe, CEO of EV
start-up Rivian, the auto industry's current semiconductor problems
``are a small appetizer to what we are about to feel on battery cells
over the next two decades.'' \13\ No wonder, as the battery supply
chain is already facing the pinch of rising material prices as the gap
between demand and supply widens. Battery pack costs--which had been on
a long downward trend--are now rising. Metals accounted for 40 percent
of battery costs in 2015. Today, they account for 80 percent. Where the
price of these metals goes, so does the cost of batteries and EVs.
According to EV automaker Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares, there will be
a shortage of EV batteries by 2024-2025, followed by a lack of raw
materials for the vehicles that will slow availability and adoption of
EVs by 2027-2028 as the global automotive industry pivots to EVs to
meet an expected increase in consumer demand and government
regulations. He recently cautioned that the ``speed at which we are
trying to move all together for the right reason, which is fixing the
global warming issue, is so high that the supply chain and the
production capacities have no time to adjust.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Wall Street Journal,'' Rivian CEO Warns of Looming Electric-
Vehicle Battery Shortage,'' April 2022. https://www.wsj.com/articles/
rivian-ceo-warns-of-looming-electric-vehicle-battery-shortage-
11650276000
\14\ Media interview, May 24, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/
24/stellantis-ceo-warns-of-ev-battery-shortage-lack-of-raw-
materials.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automakers have been seeking solutions, including inking deals
directly with mining companies. For example, last year Tesla addressed
its concern about obtaining the nickel for its EVs by entering into an
agreement with BHP to obtain nickel from Australia and more recently
with Talon Metals to buy quantities of nickel directly from a mine the
company is building in Minnesota. Ioneer has signed a binding offtake
agreement with the Ford Motor Company to supply lithium from its
Rhyolite Ridge lithium-boron project in Nevada.\15\ General Motors
announced it was investing $650 million in Lithium Americas to secure
access to production from its Nevada operations, which it estimates
will contribute to one million EVs annually.\16\ For this deal, GM was
one of more than 50 automakers and companies competing for a secure
supply of minerals from Lithium Americas.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ PR Newswire,'' Ioneer Signs Binding Lithium Offtake Agreement
with Ford,'' July 21, 2022
\16\ Lithium Americas General Motors Transaction Announcement,
January 31, 2023, https://www.lithiumamericas.com/news/lithium-
americas-provides-general-motors-transaction-details-and-update-on-
construction-plan-for-thacker-pass. Cecilia Jamasmie, January 31, 2023,
``GM invests $650m in Lithium Americas to develop Thacker Pass mine''
www.mining.com, https://www.mining.com/gm-lithium-americas-to-jointly-
develop-thacker-pass-mine-in-nevada/
\17\ The Electric, ``The New `Elephants'--GM Grabs the Biggest
Lithium Deposit in the U.S., Feb. 2, 2023. https://
subscriptions.theinformation.com/newsletters/the-electric/archive/the-
electric-the-new-elephants-gm-grabs-the-biggest-lithium-deposit-in-the-
u-s
At the same time, automakers are urging the ramp up of domestic
mining. Last year, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation wrote
President Biden expressing concerns that ``neither the current
trajectory of consumer adoption of EVs, nor existing levels of federal
support for supply- and demand-side policies, is sufficient to meet our
goal of a net-zero carbon transportation future.'' \18\ One of the
specific policy recommendations offered by the Alliance is to promote
national security and economic security enhancements through the
development of U.S.-based supplies of critical minerals (extraction,
processing and recycling), battery and fuel cell manufacturing, and
other critical components, including semiconductors.\19\ And as
succinctly stated recently by Jim Farley, President and CEO of Ford
Motor Co.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Alliance for Automotive Innovation letter to President Biden,
March 29, 2021. https://www.autosinnovate.org/posts/communications/
Auto%20Industry%20EV%20Policy%20Letter%20
to%20President%20Biden%20March%2029%202021.pdf
\19\ Id. at 4.
We have to bring battery production here, but the supply chain
has to go all the way to the mines . . . So are we going to
import lithium and pull cobalt from nation-states that have
child labor and all sorts of corruption or all we going to get
serious about mining?'' . . . We have to solve these things and
we don't have much time.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Jim Farley remarks, Detroit Homecoming VIII, Live-streamed
interview with Mary Kramer (director of the annual event). Sept. 25,
2021. https://detroithomecoming.com/livestream-events/
We have our work cut out for us to build our domestic mineral
supply chains quickly. As recently reported by The New York Times, how
automakers will obtain enough materials for an all-electric lineup
remains unclear. Last year, Farley told analysts that only 50 percent
of the raw materials needed to meet the auto industry's announced EV
targets were actually available.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Boudette, Neal E. 2022. ``California E.V. Mandate Finds a
Receptive Auto Industry.'' The New York Times, August 25, 2022, sec.
Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/25/business/energy-
environment/electric-vehicles-automakers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Cannot Be Met Without New Mining
The automakers are just one stakeholder group that acknowledges the
role of domestic mining in securing our supply chains. Certainly, the
federal government has repeatedly noted that boosting sustainable
domestic mining must be part of the solution. For example, in May 2021,
the White House rebutted reporting from Reuters claiming that President
Biden will primarily rely on ally countries to supply the bulk of the
metals needed to build EVs. In its clarification, the White House noted
that the reporting incorrectly characterizes the Biden-Harris
administration's approach:
President Biden is focused on seizing the electric vehicle (EV)
market, sourcing and manufacturing the supply chain here in
America, and creating good-paying, union jobs. Building
American-made EVs and shipping them around the world will
include leveraging American-made parts and resources. This
includes responsibly pursuing, developing, and mining critical
minerals and materials used for EV batteries. As we strengthen
our supply chains, we will pursue strong environmental
standards and broad, rigorous consultations with local and
indigenous communities to support a responsible, fair, and
sustainable EV industry.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Statement from Ali Zaidi, Deputy National Climate Advisor,
Reuters, Epoch Times etc.: https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-
denies-report-that-biden-looks-overseas-for-electric-vehicle-
metals_3832373.html?welcomeuser=1
Working with our allies, like Canada, to build these supply chains
is smart. But that must complement the essential work of standing up
production and these supply chains at home. It cannot come in place of
it. The State Department's Mineral Security Partnership reportedly
funding 16 solely international mining projects while we continue to
debate needed permitting improvements domestic production is not a
balanced mineral production policy.
Recent withdrawal decisions locking up more than 225,000 acres in
federal Forest Service lands in Minnesota from mining for two decades
after also withdrawing federal leases nearly sixty years old from
projects in the same areas known for some of the nation's largest
reserves of nickel, cobalt, copper, platinum, and palladium could only
be described at best as short sighted and at worst self-sabotage.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Wall Street Journal, ``Biden's Green-Energy Mineral Lockup.
The feds block mining that is essential for making EV batteries''
January 29, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-
mining-duluth-complex-minnesota-superior-national-forest-deb-haaland-
electric-vehicles-11674860178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Permitting Process Discourages Investment in U.S. Mining
With over $6 trillion worth of mineral resources here in the United
States, a highly trained and highly compensated workforce, and world-
class environmental and safety standards, the U.S. mining industry is
essential to helping the nation meet ever-increasing demand for
minerals for electrification, infrastructure and manufacturing needs.
However, there is real room for improvement. To improve supply
chain security, we must also have a robust domestic mineral supply
chain. That includes more smelting, processing and refining
capabilities in the U.S. necessary to claw back these essential
processes from geopolitical adversaries like China, which controls more
than 80 percent of global rare earth element production, nearly 90
percent of global mineral processing capabilities as well as the market
prices for rare earth elements at each step of the process.
Permitting delays have been, and continue to be, one of the most
significant risks to meeting domestic mineral production goals. As the
permitting process for important projects across the U.S. drags on,
geopolitical rivals are taking advantage of our bureaucratic inertia.
Opening or expanding a mine in the U.S. typically involves multiple
agencies and the navigation of tens or even hundreds of permitting
processes at the local, state and federal levels, with little
transparency into status, delays arising from duplication among federal
and state agencies, an absence of firm timelines for completing
environmental assessments, and failures in coordination of
responsibilities between various agencies. Necessary government
authorizations now take an average of seven to 10 years to secure--one
of the longest permitting processes in the world for mining projects--a
time period that is completely out of step with the dramatic increases
in minerals production that will be needed in the coming decades to
keep up new technologies, infrastructure, manufacturing and even with
the administration's goals.
In the U.S., necessary government authorizations place 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., take
between two and three years. The NMA believes that valid concerns about
environmental protection should be fully considered and addressed but
permitting processes should not serve as an excuse to trap mining
projects in a limbo of duplicative, unpredictable, endless and costly
review without a decision point. Moreover, there is little evidence
that such delays yield commensurate environmental benefits. The length
of the permit process should not be confused with the rigor of review.
Ironically, it takes about two years to build a new battery
gigafactory, but it takes at least eight years (sometimes more than 10
years) to build a new lithium mine.\24\
\24\ Comments of Dr. Qichao Hu, founder and CEO of Massachusetts-
based battery maker SES, in an interview with Charged, https://
chargedevs.com/features/the-raw-materials-crunch-how-bad-how-long-how-
to-solve-it/#:?:text=Qichao%20Hu%2C%20founder%20and%20CEO,build%20a
%20new%20lithium%20mine.%E2%80%9D, Spring 2022.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Nearly two decades ago, the U.S. attracted almost 20 percent of
the world's total mining investment. Unfortunately, in the time since,
there has been a sharp decline in U.S. exploration investment. This is
not due to lack of resources, but rather a lack of confidence in the
U.S. as a viable mining jurisdiction in which to invest hundreds of
millions of dollars in upfront costs due to duplicative, inefficient
and costly permitting timeframes, making the U.S. more dependent on
other countries for metals. In its most recent report of global
investment in mining exploration and production, S&P Global
consistently rank Canada and Australia as by far the most favored
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
regions for mining investment.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsAlthough investment in some parts of the U.S. remains high, the
Fraser Institute releases an annual investment survey among mining
companies throughout the world on the areas of the world in which those
companies look to invest. The latest survey relayed the following
results about the United States under its Policy Perception Index (PPI)
meaning the perceptions of mining companies concerning the certainty of
the U.S. regulatory environment for mining:
The United States' median investment attractiveness score
declined . . . The median PPI score for the United States,
however, declined significantly--by almost 13 points--and is no
longer the top-ranked region based on policy alone. This year,
all US states saw a deterioration in their PPI scores.
Minnesota (-19.9 points), Idaho (-16.4 points), and New Mexico
(-15.0 points) saw the largest PPI score declines.\25\
(Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Fraser Institute, Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2021,
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/annual-survey-of-
mining-companies-2021.pdf, pp. 29-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Permitting Process Encourages Foreign Dependence
The U.S. is increasingly vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and
retaliation from geopolitical adversaries due to our ever-increasing
reliance on imports for these essential resources. Less than half of
the mineral needs of U.S. manufacturing are met by domestically
produced minerals, which leaves our economy and national -security at a
strategic disadvantage. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) annual
commodity summary released only last month makes some key findings:
Last year, imports made up more than one-half of the U.S.
apparent -consumption for 51 nonfuel mineral commodities,
and the United States was 100 percent net import reliant
for 15 of those.
Of the 50 mineral commodities identified in the ``2022
Final List of Critical Minerals,'' the United States was
100 percent net import reliant for 12, and an additional 31
critical mineral commodities (including 14 lanthanides,
which are listed under rare earths) had a net import
reliance greater than 50 percent of apparent consumption.
Underscoring the vulnerability of U.S. mineral supply
chains, China was the leading source of mineral commodities
with a greater than 50 percent import reliance providing
26, with significant imports of other essential commodities
also coming from Russia.
The estimated value of U.S. metal mine production in 2022
was $34.7 billion, 6 percent lower than the revised value
in 2021. In 2022, the capacity utilization for the metals
mining industry was 61 percent, less than the 63 percent
capacity utilization in 2021.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. Geological Survey, 2023 Commodity Summary, https://
pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 1900-2023 editions.
While alarming, these findings are the latest in a 20-year trend of
net imports that cost our country roughly $90 billion last year alone.
Though the warning signs about our import reliance have been
highlighted by a few key legislators for years, overall political
concern about minerals supply chains has waxed and waned--with periods
of frenzy following unexpected shortages, especially for military
applications such as China's exercise of its dominance over the rare
earths' minerals supply chain--followed by periods of complacency.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See e.g., The Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of 1953;
the Mining and Mineral Policy of 1970; the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act; the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research
and Development Act of 1980; and the 1984 National Critical Materials
Act.
Before the more recent exposure of supply chain vulnerabilities
from the pandemic and geopolitical developments of the last few years,
the most recent panic occurred in 2010, when China threatened global
rare earth supplies. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explained:
Chinese export quotas on a type of critical minerals referred
to as rare earth elements (REEs) and China's curtailment of
rare earth shipments to Japan over a maritime dispute in 2010
represented a wakeup call for the United States on China's
near-monopoly control over global REE supply. The actions of
the Chinese led to record high prices for REEs and, as a
result, began to shine a light on the potential supply risks
and supply chain vulnerability for rare earths and other raw
materials and metals needed for national defense, energy
technologies, and the electronics industry, among other end
uses. U.S. legislators have introduced and deliberated on bills
that would address the potential supply risk and vulnerability
with respect to rare earth supply and bills that would promote
domestic rare earth mine development.\28\ (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Humphries, Marc. Congressional Research Service, ``Critical
Minerals and U.S. Public Policy.'' R45810, June 28, 2019, p. 5. https:/
/www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190628_R45810_
b3112ce909b130b5d525d2265a62ce8236464664.pdf
Unfortunately, none of these past efforts or policies have reversed
the U.S. overreliance on foreign sources of minerals despite widespread
acknowledgement that this overreliance weakens our economy and
endangers our national security. China's mineral dominance remains a
major threat. Currently, China is the leading producer and/or supplier
of 66 percent of mineral commodities listed as essential to U.S.
economic and national security including lithium, rare earths and other
battery metals.\29\ According to USGS, production concentration has
increased markedly over the past few decades for many mineral
commodities with the most notable global shift has being the increasing
production of mineral commodities in China.\30\ China's share of global
mineral production and processing has grown markedly since 1990 for
many mineral commodities, including aluminum, bismuth, refined cobalt,
gallium, lead, magnesite, magnesium metal, mercury, REEs, silicon,
steel (raw), titanium, vanadium and zinc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Notably this reliance comes despite existing U.S. resources.
In the 2022 Mineral Commodity Summaries, the USGS indicated the U.S.
had an estimated 48 million metric tons (mt) of copper that can be
mined and processed economically, 69 million mt of cobalt, 340 million
mt of nickel and 750 million mt of lithium. Regardless, in 2021, the
U.S. imported 48 percent of U.S. consumption of nickel, 76 percent of
cobalt, 45percent of copper, and more than 25 percent of lithium.
\30\ Nassar, N.T., Alonso, E., and Brainard, J.L., 2020,
Investigation of U.S. Foreign Reliance on Critical Minerals--U.S.
Geological Survey Technical Input Document in Response to Executive
Order No. 13953 Signed September 30, 2020 (Ver. 1.1, December 7, 2020):
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020--1127, p. 4. https://
pubs.usgs.gov/of/2020/1127/ofr2020 1127.pdf
China's strong supply chain position stems, in large part, from
state investment in processing and manufacturing, rather than an
inherent advantage in reserves for most materials. China's ``go
global'' strategy included $390 billion in outbound direct investments
in the mining sector.\31\ For example, as discussed in a recent White
House report on supply chains:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Humphries, Marc. Congressional Research Service, ``China's
Mineral Industry and U.S. Access to Strategic and Critical Minerals:
Issues for Congress,'' March 20, 2015. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/
R43864.pdf).
China is the primary global supplier of cobalt for
batteries, despite having very limited reserves, through
its aggressive investment in processing capacity coupled
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
with foreign direct investment for ores and concentrates.
China has a dominant position over the Democratic Republic
of Congo cobalt reserves, which constitute half of the
known global cobalt reserves.
China has billions invested in nickel projects in
Indonesia, home to one-quarter of overall global reserves.
Mexican-based Sonora clay lithium deposit, operated by
China-based Gangfeng Lithium, is currently under
development, and would increase total lithium production by
roughly half of today's production.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ White House, ``Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing
American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-based Growth, 100-Day
Reviews under Executive Order 14017,'' June 2021, p. 94.
Chinese firms have also made multiple and large
investments in mining operations around the world to ensure
their supply of critical materials like cobalt, nickel and
lithium.\33\ Last month, China based CATL, the world's
largest EV battery manufacturer, beat out U.S. and Russian
companies to develop the world's largest lithium deposit in
Bolivia.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See also, USGS 2020 Investigation of U.S. Foreign Reliance on
Critical Minerals (There are instances where the mineral deposit or
mining and mineral processing operation of a commodity is partially or
completely owned and (or) controlled by foreign companies with strong
ties to their governments. For example, Chinese firms have purchased
equity stake in lithium deposits and operations in Australia and Chile,
niobium operations in Brazil, a rare earth deposit in Greenland, and
cobalt operations in the D.R. Congo, Papua New Guinea, and Zambia (S&P
Global Market Intelligence, 2020). Investigating China's investment in
cobalt assets worldwide, Gulley and others (2019) found that when
taking into account Chinese companies' ownership in foreign assets on
an equity-share basis, China's share of global cobalt production
increases from 2 to 14 percent for cobalt mine materials and from 11 to
33 percent for cobalt intermediate materials (figure 6). Furthermore,
if the Chinese companies' equity shares of the production from these
assets are assumed to be as secure as its domestic production, then
these acquisitions have the effect of reducing China's NIR from 97
percent to an adjusted 68 percent, thereby reducing China's exposure to
supply disruptions (Gulley and others, 2019).) p. 8.
\34\ Reuters, ``Bolivia taps Chinese battery giant CATL to help
develop lithium riches,'' Jan. 20, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/
technology/bolivia-taps-chinese-battery-giant-catl-help-develop-
lithium-riches-2023-01-20/
As a result of these tactics, China controls significant portions
of the global mineral supply chain. The IEA reported in May 2021 that
China was responsible for 60 percent of global rare earth elements
production and nearly 90 percent of global processing for rare earth
elements in 2019.\35\ And this threat is not limited to rare earths. As
noted in USGS criticality methodology, ``of the 54 mineral commodities
evaluated, China was the leading producer of at least one stage of the
supply chain for 35 commodities.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ International Energy Agency. ``The Role of Critical Minerals
in Clean Energy Transitions,'' 2021. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/
assets/24d5dfbb-a77a-4647-abcc-667867207f74/TheRoleof
CriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf
\36\ 2021 Methodology, p. 7.
It did not used to be this way and it does not have to be our
future. At every turn, our import dependence is both outsized and
unnecessary. As explained in a recent opinion piece published in The
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill:
In the 1980s, the U.S. was the mineral capital of the world.
Since then, China has developed a juggernaut battery supply
chain industry. The industry is centered around chemical
processing of battery materials, backed by substantial
government funding and coordination. These subsidies led to a
wave of outsourcing by American companies across industries
from semiconductors to steel. In addition, China has spent the
last two decades investing in the mining industry abroad,
including major investments and mineral rights in Australia,
Africa, Asia and South America. This has led to an overreliance
on China--and in turn vulnerable supply chains and a lost
economic opportunity at home.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, Ph D. 2022. ``How the U.S. Can Secure a
Resilient Electric Vehicle Battery Supply Chain.'' The Hill. June 8,
2022. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3516265-how-the-
us-can-secure-a-resilient-electric-vehicle-battery-supply-chain/.
Our mineral import dependence will be our next Achille's heel. The
U.S. must focus on supplying these metals at home as part of the
solution ``to diversify supply chains away from adversarial nations and
sources with unacceptable environmental and labor standards.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ``FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Supply
Chain Disruptions Task Force to Address Short-Term Supply Chain
Discontinuities.'' 2021. The White House. June 8, 2021. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/08/fact-
sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-supply-chain-disruptions-
task-force-to-address-short-term-supply-chain-discontinuities/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to support new domestic production, a robust domestic
supply chain that includes minerals and metals sourced, refined,
processed and smelted within our borders, we need to build on the
important work done by this committee.
The following data from the mining program at the University of
Missouri of Science and Technology is an important snapshot which
allows us to better understand the domestic supply chain issues
impacting production of some of the most widely used industrial metals:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Testimony of Dr. M Moats, University of Missouri of
Science and Technology, Feb. 2023 \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, ``Dependence on Foreign Adversaries: America's Critical
Minerals Crisis,'' Testimony Dr. M. Moats, Professor and Department
Chair of Materials Science and Engineering, Missouri University of
Science and Technology, https://naturalresources.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/testimony_moats.pdf, February, 9, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Coal Leasing Program
The Federal Coal Leasing Program has been a national energy and
economic success story. Over the last decade, the program produced
approximately 3.7 billion tons of coal and resulted in $9.2 billion in
revenue collections by the federal government alone. It has provided
hundreds of millions of dollars of state and local revenue per year,
while also providing a low cost, reliable source of energy for all
Americans and material for steel manufacturing. In 2020 alone, the
royalties, bonus payments, and rent payments from coal produced on
federal land provided over $525.5 million to the federal government. It
simply needs no explanation that delays in awarding leases under the
program deprives economic development, job creation and retention,
federal revenues, and threatens electricity reliability and U.S.
competitiveness in building critical infrastructure.
Total coal production through the Federal Coal Leasing Program is
significant. The Department of Interior's Office of Natural Resources
Revenue and the Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration reported that of 577.4 million short tons of total coal
production in the United States in 2021, 266.9 million short tons was
produced on federal lands amounting to 46 percent of total production
of both thermal and metallurgical coal.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See, U.S. Department of Interior Natural Resources Revenue
Data at https://revenuedata.doi.gov/query-data/?dataType=Production,
and U.S. Department of Energy Monthly Energy Review, https://
www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf, February 2023, p.
119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following data is an important snapshot from the three largest
producing states under the Federal Coal Leasing Program showing the
total tax and royalty liability to federal, state, and local
governments from each dollar of coal production: \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Energy Information Administration, Annual Coal Report, https:/
/www.eia.gov/coal/annual/, October 2022, taken from Table 28.
Wyoming
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Montana
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Utah
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsCertain coal production on federal land has been caught in a
back and forth on policy depending on the occupant of the White House.
In 2016, former U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Secretary Sally
Jewell issued Secretarial Order 3388 imposing a three-year moratorium,
with exceptions for metallurgical coal production and certain
exceptions for thermal coal production, on further coal lease sales
pending completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement
(PEIS). After a change in presidential administrations, former DOI
Secretary Ryan Zinke issued Secretarial Order 3348, that revoked the
Order 3388, terminated the ongoing PEIS, and directed Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to simply resume issuing coal leases. Litigation
immediately challenged Order 3348, and after another change in
presidential administrations, DOI Secretary Deb Haaland issued
Secretarial Order 3398 to revoke Order 3348 and update the policies of
the Department concerning the Federal Coal Leasing Program.
Finally, in August 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana issued an order reinstating the Federal Coal Leasing Program
moratorium established by former Secretary Sally Jewell in Order
3388.\42\ The order imposes an indefinite nationwide injunction against
federal coal leasing with some exceptions until the BLM completes an
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of the 2017
revocation of the moratorium. Clarification to simply withdraw the
original Order 3388 and allow the Department of the Interior to perform
its lawful functions to implement the Federal Coal Leasing Program is
critically important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See, U.S. District Court of Montana Order in 4:17-cv-00030-
BMM, August 12, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the Solutions?
Chairman Westerman's Transparency and Production of American Energy
Act and Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Stauber's Permitting for
Mining Needs Act support a new robust domestic mineral supply chain
that prioritizes responsible resource development through policies that
provide certainty to all mining operations and manufacturers. The bills
set lead agencies to coordinate the permitting process; improve the
timeliness of the permitting process through deadlines or simply
allowing project applicants to complete environment impact statements
with federal agency review similar to processes in Canada and
Australia; maintains access to mineralized federal lands unless
specifically withdrawn by Congress and unless the U.S. Geological
Survey can assure that a withdrawal does not threaten supply chains;
maintains decades of essential mining regulatory practice to not only
ensure U.S. competitiveness but to prevent impediments to domestic
production; provides more certainty to timing of legal reviews;
supports a domestic uranium industry for critical nuclear energy
production; provides new needed regulatory certainty to the Federal
Coal Leasing Program allowing new leasing, lease renewals, and
eliminating confusing exceptions; and unlocks innovation by not
supporting prescriptive policies.
These policy recommendations are commonsense changes that would
provide regulatory certainty to investors that the U.S. seeks to once
again compete on a global scale in the mineral supply chain. Instead of
only seeking to secure mineral supplies from foreign sources or
exporting domestically extracted materials for further refinement,
processing and smelting, the NMA supports improvements in the
permitting process would demonstrate that the U.S. intends to secure
the entirety of its supply chain, lessening vulnerabilities from
outside sources, including geopolitical impacts. These policy
recommendations would also provide the needed regulatory certainty to
support critical electricity reliability.
Conclusion
The U.S. is at a mining crossroads. Mineral demand is soaring, but
our policies are both lagging and impeding production. We must
encourage more domestic mining and processing to meet future demand and
ensure that the materials required for everything from infrastructure
to electrification are readily available from inside our own borders.
______
Mr. Stauber. I thank the witness for his testimony, and the
Chair now recognizes Mr. Squillace for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARK SQUILLACE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF
COLORADO, BOULDER, COLORADO
Mr. Squillace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
you, to the Ranking Member, and to the entire Committee. I want
to begin with a discussion about H.R. 209.
Now, I understand that we must acquire the minerals that we
need to make a smooth transition away from fossil fuels and
toward renewable energy. And I agree that we ought to find ways
to streamline the permitting process for mines and related
infrastructure. Some of the streamlining strategies that are
laid out in the FAST Act, for example, I think could be helpful
here. But let's be clear. We can accommodate a rapid transition
to renewable energy without sacrificing our public lands. And
the need for streamlining cannot be used as an excuse to allow
non-compliance with our environmental laws.
I want to focus on two particular problems with H.R. 209.
First, it allows the mine applicant, who has a built-in
conflict of interest, to prepare the environmental impact
statement. Aside from the fact that this violates NEPA, it
makes a mockery of the required alternatives analysis. The
alternatives analysis is the heart of the EIS. It is supposed
to present the proposal and alternatives in comparative form,
thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis
for choice for the agency and the public.
An alternatives analysis prepared by an applicant is only
going to focus on the applicant's proposal. But NEPA requires
agencies to consider all reasonable alternatives. In the case
of a proposed mine, for example, the agency should consider the
very promising alternative of facilitating metals recycling. A
recent study found that we can meet 55 percent of our copper
needs, 25 percent of our lithium needs, and 35 percent of our
cobalt and nickel needs just from robust battery recycling. As
this study further shows, a serious metals recycling program
could obviate the need for many new mines.
Unlike an applicant, agencies must also consider
alternative mining methods. So, for example, an EIS on a
proposal for a conventional lithium mine should address the
prospects for direct lithium extraction, or DLE, from the
massive Salton Sea deposits. DLE promises to be cheaper and to
produce far more environmentally friendly lithium than
conventional mining. The state of California, for example,
estimates that the Salton Sea deposit could annually meet 40
percent of global lithium needs.
Only by insisting that an alternatives analysis be prepared
by the agency can we assure that things like recycling and
different mining methods are fairly considered.
Let me now turn to the provisions that would effectively
make mining the dominant use of our public lands. H.R. 209
essentially gives a mining company carte blanche to claim
mining rights without ever having to even make a discovery of
minerals.
In addition, mining companies will have an unfettered right
to use whatever public lands they need for ancillary
facilities. This would include, for example, the massive mine
waste piles that they generate from their mining operations.
And mine operators, most of which are foreign-owned, by the
way, can take the public's minerals without paying a dime to
the U.S. Treasury.
Most worrisome, the proposal is not limited to critical
minerals. It would also open our public lands to potentially
thousands of mines for certain types of common minerals like
limestone, gravel, and clay.
Before we give away our public lands to foreign mining
companies, we should step back and consider real mining reform.
A leasing program with market-based acquisition fees and
royalties should be our top priority.
Finally, let me briefly touch on the proposed TAP American
Energy Act. In my written comments to the Committee, I address
some specific concerns. In the short time I have left, I would
like to address an overarching concern.
To put it bluntly, the TAP American Energy Act's focus on
promoting oil and gas development on our public lands and
waters aims to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
In the short term, an unprovoked war in Ukraine and OPEC's
efforts to constrain oil and gas supplies have caused a spike
in oil and gas prices. Those pressures on prices may continue
for the next couple of years. But over the next decade, we are
going to witness a rapid global transition to electric vehicles
and renewable energy, and this will erode the demand for oil
and gas significantly. Oil companies see this, and that is why
they are largely indifferent to public land leasing, and why
they are not developing what they have.
During the Trump administration, the government offered 25
million acres of onshore oil and gas leases and 78 million
offshore acres. Only about 10 percent of these lands were
actually leased. Oil and gas companies now sit on almost 14
million acres of unused public land leases, despite having
received more than 9,600 drilling permits for these leases.
Encouraging more leasing at below-market prices, as proposed in
the TAP American Energy Act, will further enrich already
bloated oil company revenues, while making these public lands
unavailable for other important uses. That strikes me as a very
bad deal for the American people.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments. I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Squillace follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Squillace, University of Colorado Law School
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to offer my views on the
proposed ``Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023,'' and the proposed
``Transparency and Protection of American Energy Act of 2023.'' I am
the Raphael J. Moses Professor of Natural Resources Law at the
University of Colorado Law School. I teach and work primarily in the
fields of environmental, natural resources, and water law and I have
written extensively on all of these subjects. My professional
experience with public lands issues runs deep. As a law student at the
University of Utah College of Law, I worked in the Utah State Office of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a land law examiner--a position
that allowed me to review all manner of public lands activities and
gain first-hand knowledge about the operation of our public land laws.
Following law school, and before entering law teaching, I was hired
into the Solicitor's Honor's Program at the U.S. Department of the
Interior where I gained significant additional experience on public
lands and mineral law issues. I took a leave from teaching and returned
to the Solicitor's Office in 2000 as a Special Assistant to the
Solicitor where I worked on a wide range of special projects involving
public lands. All of this experience both inside and outside of
government has helped to inform my understanding of public lands
management and the issues surrounding mining and oil and gas
development on public lands. Because the two bills currently before the
Subcommittee address very different issues, I will take them up
separately, beginning with the Permitting for Mining Needs Act.
I. The Permitting for Mining Needs Act: H.R. 209
H.R. 209 has some laudable goals. The transition away from fossil
fuels and toward renewable energy requires an adequate supply of the
critical minerals needed to produce the batteries, solar panels, and
wind turbines that this transition demands. And manufacturers will need
to gain access to those minerals in a timely manner. Proposed H.R. 209
appears to be designed, at least in part, to meet those important
goals. Unfortunately, it does so in ways that unnecessarily undermine
environmental values and the protection of our public lands.
Most worrisome, H.R. 209 proposes to change federal mining law for
every kind of ``locatable'' mineral; i.e., those minerals not subject
to lease or sale under current law. This would extend the streamlining
provisions afforded ``critical'' minerals under the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act to essentially all minerals that fall under the
General Mining Law.\1\ But only a very few locatable minerals, like
cobalt, lithium, copper or rare earths, are important enough to warrant
these advantages. According to the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), the vast majority of approved mining plans for locatable
minerals on public lands are for minerals that are in no way
``critical'' to the emerging economy.\2\ More than half of the acreage
is devoted to mining gold, which is primarily used for jewelry. Some
114 approved plans mine so-called ``uncommon varieties'' of widely
occurring substances like stone, gravel, and clay. Surely the Congress
has no need to streamline the process for approving mining plans for
these minerals, especially when these operators take publicly-owned
minerals off public lands for free. Yet that is exactly what H.R. 209
proposes to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 30 U.S. Sec. 1607.
\2\ See Mining on Federal Lands, GAO-20-461R (2020), available at,
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-461r; see also, Federal Land
Management, GAO21299, available at, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-
299.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before addressing my more specific concerns with proposed H.R. 209,
I want to acknowledge the potential benefits of promoting timely
preparation of environmental documents. The NEPA process often drags
out over a period of three years or more. When it takes too long, the
staff overseeing the work are more likely to lose focus and some will
likely leave for other jobs. This often triggers further delays. To be
sure, delays can result, not only from agency failures, but also from
the failure of the applicant to provide the agency with important
information about their proposal. But agencies should adopt
streamlining practices that help keep official on task and on schedule.
Streamlining need not and should not mean avoiding or compromising
compliance with environmental and other applicable laws. But
streamlining strategies, such as those set out in the FAST Act, can
help to ensure timely decisionmaking, especially if they are carried
out in a flexible way that takes account for the complexity of the
proposed action.
Nonetheless, while I support efforts to streamline the NEPA process
I cannot support those aspects of the proposed legislation that
undermine compliance with important federal laws and policies. As set
forth below, several provisions in H.R. 209 would do just that.
A. Allowing Applicants to Prepare Environmental Documents Makes a
Mockery of the Required Alternatives Analysis
Section 3(h)(3) of H.R. 209 authorizes the lead agency to adopt an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment that is
prepared by or for a project applicant. That provision stands in direct
conflict with Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, which requires ``a detailed
statement [to be prepared] by the responsible official . . ..'' \3\
Requiring agency officials to prepare environmental documents is
critical to the success of the law. In particular, it helps to ensure a
fair and robust consideration of all reasonable alternatives to the
proposed action as required by Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Emphasis added. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C). To be fair, the
proposed law requires the document to fulfill the requirements of
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA but that provision seems to be intended to
encompass the contents of the environmental document and not who
prepares it. If it does indeed include the latter then it has no force
and effect.
\4\ See e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d
827 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider, for example, a proposal to open a new copper mine. The
project applicant is not likely interested in considering alternatives
to mining such as recycling, or alternative locations for a proposed
mine, or alternative mining methods. Yet NEPA requires agency officials
to consider these and other reasonable options. Recycling in particular
warrants careful consideration before new mining is approved,
especially where such mining encroaches on our public lands. A recent
study from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of
Technology Sydney found that ``[e]ffective recycling of end of life
batteries has the potential to reduce global demand by 2040 by 55% for
copper . . ..'' \5\ As the study further found, this creates ``an
opportunity to significantly reduce the demand for new mining.'' \6\
Beyond battery recycling, recycling copper wire and electronics
equipment could help further reduce the demand for virgin copper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dominish, E., Florin, N., Wakefield-Rann, R., Reducing New
Mining for Electric Vehicle Battery Metals: Responsible Sourcing
through Demand Reduction Strategies and Recycling (2021). The study
also found that recycling could reduce the demand for lithium by 25%
and for cobalt and nickel by 35%.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Union is a leader in the field of recycling. Its
``Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)'' program,\7\
follows an Extended Producer Principle (EPR) that holds producers
responsible for the collection, treatment, and monitoring of such
equipment, including solar panels.\8\ Adopting something akin to the
WEEE program here in the United States could greatly increase metals
recycling and go a long way toward providing manufacturers with the
metals they need without new mining. To be sure, we may need some new
mining to produce the minerals needed for a successful energy
transition. But the smart move would be to focus first on recycling
because it is likely a viable alternative to at least some mining
proposals. Legislation that adopts an ``extended producer principle''
for American manufacturers, together with policies to maximize metals
recycling should be our first priority. That would help minimize the
loss of public lands to large-scale mining operations, while saving
money and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
(europa.eu).
\8\ Reducing New Mining report at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lithium mining offers another excellent example as to why agency
officials must be tasked with preparing the alternatives analysis
required by NEPA. Lithium has traditionally been produced in two
fundamentally different ways--solar evaporation and hard rock mining.
Solar evaporation requires pumping mineralized groundwater into large
storage ponds. The water in these ponds evaporates, sometimes over the
course of an entire year, creating lithium carbonate. This process
requires substantial pumping and adversely impacts the water supply of
local communities. It also results in substantial waste piles that are
typically left untreated, thereby contaminating the land surface and
limiting opportunities for future land uses. Lithium recovery rates
using this method are also low--somewhere between 20 and 40%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second lithium production method involves hard rock mining for
spodumene, the mineral associated with lithium deposits. Lithium mines
use traditional open-pit and underground mining methods, with all of
their concomitant costs and environmental problems. Processing
spodumene also requires large quantities of chemicals, and results in
substantial waste rock that is typically disposed of in tailings ponds.
This obviously poses additional risks to land, water resources, and
local communities, and results in the further destruction of our public
lands for private gain.
A promising alternative to these two traditional methods currently
under development is called ``direct lithium extraction (DLE).'' \10\
DLE is a brine extraction method that extracts lithium from geothermal
waters, processes the brine to remove the lithium, and then returns
more than 98% of the brine back to the groundwater reservoir, thereby
avoiding water resource conflicts. The DLE method has many significant
environmental and economic advantages over solar evaporation and
traditional mining. Geothermal energy can be used to extract the brine,
it can recover up to 99% of the lithium, and it has the potential to
produce a higher grade of lithium that will sell at a premium. DLE is
also a much faster process for producing lithium, is not dependent on
weather, and has a much smaller environmental footprint.\11\ The
California Energy Commission recently estimated that the Salton Sea
Known Geothermal Resource Area could produce as much 600,000 tons per
year of lithium carbonate using the DLE method.\12\ That is far more
than is currently used in the United States. DLE is quite obviously a
promising and reasonable alternative to the traditional methods of
lithium extraction. Yet, only by insisting that the responsible agency
prepare the EIS is this promising alternative likely to even be
considered as an alternative to opening a conventional lithium mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. See also, Using Direct Lithium Extraction To Secure U.S.
Supplies / News / NREL.
\11\ A Look At Direct Lithium Extraction (``DLE'') And Some Of The
DLE Lithium Companies / Seeking Alpha; see also, Direct Lithium
Extraction / Cornish Lithium Ltd. available at, As Lithium Drilling
Advances at the Salton Sea, Researchers Work Out the Details / News &
Community / KCET. An animated diagram can be found here. Direct Lithium
Extraction / Cornish Lithium Ltd. See also, https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/
our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/minerals-metals-facts/nickel-
facts/20519.
\12\ Ventura, S. et al., Selective Recovery of Lithium from
Geothermal Brines. California Energy Commission. Publication Number:
CEC500-2020-020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/
CEC-500-2020-020.pdf; see also Dave Goodman, et al., Salton Sea
Geothermal Development Nontechnical Barriers to Entry--Analysis and
Perspectives (June 2022) available at, https://www.pnnl.gov/main/
publications/external/technical--reports/PNNL-32717.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For decades, the Council on Environmental Quality described the
alternatives analysis as the ``heart of the EIS.'' It is supposed to
``present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the
alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and
providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker
and the public.'' \13\ By allowing the project applicant to prepare the
EIS for a major mining project, the proposed bill would cut the heart
out of any NEPA document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR Sec. 1502.14 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Allowing Operators to Develop Mining Claims without Any Discovery of
Minerals Upends the General Mining Law and Unduly Threatens
Public Lands
Calls to reform the General Mining Law of 1872 go back more than
100 years. To say that reforms are long overdue is a gross
understatement. Most egregiously, mine operators on our public lands,
most of which are based in foreign countries, are allowed to take these
valuable public resources while paying nothing to the U.S. Treasury--no
initial payment to acquire the rights, no royalties and no rental fees.
Thus, if changes to the General Mining Law are going to be made,
Congress should start by shifting public land mineral development to a
leasing program that requires an upfront payment for the fair value of
the minerals, with appropriate royalties for the minerals produced, and
a performance bond that guarantees safe mining practices and proper
reclamation once mining is completed. Even with such reforms, the
historic practice of dumping massive quantities of mine tailings on our
public lands is likely to continue, but the reform process would at
least provide a vehicle for examining alternatives to this problematic
practice.
A leasing program could also introduce an abandoned mined land fee,
as was established under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act,\14\ to help pay for the cost of cleaning up the thousands of
abandoned mines left behind by mine operators. These abandoned mines
litter our western public lands and cleaning them up will be
costly.\15\ The mining industry is responsible for this problem and
Congress should call upon them to help fix it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1232.
\15\ See, e.g., Land Management Agencies Should Improve Reporting
of Total Cleanup Costs, GAO-23-105408 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, H.R. 209 fails to make even the tiniest effort to
address these serious problems with the existing law. On the contrary,
it exacerbates them.
First, Section 8 of H.R. 209 gives mining companies the legal
``right to use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land'' on
payment of a small fee, and goes on to define operations to include
``any'' activity on public land that has any connection with mineral
prospecting or development, including waste dumps, roads, and
transmission lines. This eliminates the long-standing requirement of
the Mining Law that such activities must be supported by a discovery of
valuable minerals.
A ``discovery'' has been the hallmark of a valid mineral location
since the General Mining Law was adopted in 1872. Under the traditional
test for determining the validity of a mining claim, the government
must find that ``a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in
the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable
prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine.'' \16\ In United
States v. Coleman,\17\ the U.S. Supreme Court upheld what it described
as a ``logical complement'' to the prudent person test by insisting
that claimants show that the minerals they discovered could be marketed
at a reasonable profit. The problem is that neither Interior nor the
operator can know whether the located minerals can be marketed at a
profit without knowing the costs of developing those minerals. As the
Department subsequently found, those costs may include, among other
things, the cost of acquiring an adequate water supply and any
additional land that might be needed for the mining operations, the
costs to finance the operation, labor costs, and the cost of complying
with relevant federal, state, and local environmental laws, including,
for example, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
National Historic Preservation Act.\18\ Furthermore, FLPMA requires the
BLM to ``take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary and undue
degradation of [our public] lands'' \19\ and this allows the agency to
impose additional measures that may be appropriate for protecting our
public lands. All of these legal requirements must be analyzed during
the environmental impact assessment process, and until that is done,
and the costs of compliance are determined, neither the government nor
the operator can know whether the propped mining operation can be
developed at a reasonable profit, and thus whether a valid discovery
has been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Castle v. Womble, 19 Land Dec. 455 (1894).
\17\ 390 U.S. 599 (1968).
\18\ United States v. Pittsburgh Pacific Co, 84 Int. Dec. 282
(1977).
\19\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sponsors of H.R. 209 suggest that when an operator proposes to
expend their resources to develop a mine they must have determined that
they can make a sufficient profit to justify the operation, and thus
can meet the test for a discovery. But that puts the cart before the
horse. As suggested above, identifying the constraints that will be
imposed on a mining operation should only happen after a robust
environmental impact assessment process followed by a government
decision as to whether to allow mining, and if so, under what
conditions. In other words, developing a mineral property that might
appear to valuable in the abstract may actually be unprofitable or only
marginally profitable and insufficient to justify a discovery, after
accounting for the true cost of developing the mine. Absent a
discovery, the operator has no valid property interest and no right to
mine.
A second massive problem with section 8 of H.R. 209 is that it
appears to allow mining companies to use, free of charge, as much
public land as they might claim to need to dispose of their waste rock
and carry on all other activities that are ancillary to mining.. For
all of its problems, even the General Mining Law does not give a
mineral locator carte blanche to use whatever public lands they might
desire to facilitate mining. These are, after all, public lands that
should be protected, to the fullest extent possible, for public use.
H.R. 209 would make private mining of a vast array of substances the
dominant use, capable of trumping all other uses, especially those uses
enjoyed by the general public.
The consequences of this proposal are potentially alarming. While
the mining industry focuses on critical minerals, the proposed language
would allow operators who might claim any of the myriad minerals
subject to the mining law, including, for example, uncommon varieties
of limestone or building stone, and take as much public land for their
mining operations as suits them. Our public lands would be overrun with
people seeking to take advantage of this opportunity. Those of us who
cherish public lands for their recreational, ecological, and aesthetic
values would end up paying a huge price of this short-sighted policy.
By explicitly doing away with the bedrock discovery requirement of
the General Mining Law, H.R. 209 would effectively gift our public
lands to private, often foreign-owned, mining companies.\20\ It would
allow them to take as much of our public lands as they want for mineral
development and for dumping their vast quantities of mine waste without
any prospect that this land will ever be restored, and without paying a
dime to the federal treasury. Anyone who cares about protecting our
public lands for future generations should oppose this gift to the
mining industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Multinational Mining Corporations Are Exploiting U.S.
Taxpayers--Center for American Progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II H.R. ____: The Transparency and Production of American Energy Act
(TAP American Energy Act)
A. The TAP American Energy Act's Goals Are Incompatible with the Long-
term Outlook for Oil and Gas
The war in Ukraine and the surge in demand for oil and gas that
followed our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic caused energy prices
to spike and created an understandable effort to control oil and gas
prices by increasing oil and gas supplies. OPEC's decision to take
advantage of this situation and curtail production exacerbated this
problem. The TAP American Energy Act is apparently intended to respond
to the supply side of the problem by increasing domestic oil and gas
production. Almost everything about this proposed legislation, however,
would be counter-productive, especially when one considers the long-
term outlook for oil and gas.
Like it or not the shift away from oil and gas will accelerate in
future years. Within a decade or two, we will witness a rapid
transformation of the transportation sector toward electrification. As
a result, the demand for oil will plummet. Similarly, renewable energy
will become an increasing staple of our domestic electricity supply
putting downward pressure on natural gas prices. In the short term, the
market will likely remain volatile, rising and falling in response to
major events like war. But as time goes on and the pace of the
transition accelerates, oil and supplies will likely outstrip demand
and lead to price declines. Most of the players in the oil and gas
industry understand this and have shied away from major new commitments
to oil and gas development, especially those that will take years to
develop. Government policy should reflect this understanding.
About a decade ago, some of us were urging the government to manage
coal's decline in a responsible way so as to minimize the economic
dislocations for workers and coal dependent communities.\21\ Our pleas
fell on deaf ears. What followed was a wave of bankruptcies from every
major coal company that richly rewarded coal company executives for
their mismanagement even as their employees and communities suffered
severe losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See e.g., Managing coal's decline--WyoFile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the parallels between coal and oil and gas development are
not perfect the two industries are quite similar. Large companies with
significant oil and gas assets face a serious risk of bankruptcy if
they fail to anticipate and plan for the inevitable decline of that
sector. Congress and the federal government could play an important
role in managing the decline of the oil and gas industry in ways that
will minimize economic dislocations, especially for workers and
dependent communities. What Congress should be asking is how they can
facilitate a just and orderly transition away from oil and gas and
toward electric vehicles and renewable energy. By promoting more
leasing and more oil and gas production at below market rates, the TAP
American Energy Act seeks to do just the opposite and will lead us down
the same path that faced the coal industry just a few short years ago.
B. Existing Federal Oil and Leases and Permits Far Exceed Current
Demand
Currently, 37,496 federal oil and gas leases cover 26.6 million
Federal onshore acres. Of that, 12.8 million acres are producing oil
and gas from 96,100 wells. That leaves 53% or 13.8 million acres of
public land under lease and not producing. The lack of production is
not because the BLM has failed to issue drilling permits. More than
9,600 drilling permits have been issued for these lands and are not
being used.\22\ Leases that are not producing, some of which manage to
go on for years, due to various extensions beyond the 10-year primary
term, tie up our public lands, preventing their use for other purposes,
including, for example, renewable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ About Oil and Gas / Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov);
Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program (doi.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore leasing tells a similar story. Currently 12 million
offshore acres are under lease but 55% of these leased lands are not
currently producing oil and gas. To be sure, offshore leases can take
longer to go from lease to production and the capital costs for
developing these leases can be quite high. But it is not as if the
industry is begging for new leases Indeed, just because the government
``offers'' more federal leases does not guarantee that this will lead
to new leases being issued or more oil and gas being produced. The
federal government ``offers'' many leases that receive no bids. During
the four years of the Trump Administration, for example, Interior
``offered'' to lease 25 million acres onshore and 78 million acres
offshore. Yet only about 10% of these lands ended up under lease.\23\
The TAP American Energy Act also ignores the significant administrative
burden on the BLM that results from having to offer too many leases
that no one wants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ How much oil and gas comes from federal territory?--USAFacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act requires the federal
government to offer at least 2 million acres of onshore acreage for
lease and 60 million acres of offshore acreage before it can proceed
with renewable energy development. It seems prudent to wait to see how
these offers play out before insisting that even more acreage be
offered for lease. Indeed, the rush to offer new leases and to issue
more drilling permits seems wholly unnecessary in light of all of the
existing acreage that is currently under lease and for which drilling
permits have already been approved but that are not being
developed.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ About Oil and Gas / Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov); How
much oil and gas comes from federal territory?--USAFacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The TAP American Energy Act Would Deny the American Taxpayer a Fair
Return Even as Oil Giants Post Record Profits
In 2022, Exxon post record profits of $55.7 billion. Shockingly,
that is $6.3 million an hour! \25\ All of the majors posted similar
record profits. These oil giants didn't ``earn'' these record profits
because of clever management or good decisions. Their profits are due
almost entirely to a rise in oil prices brought on by an unprovoked war
by a Russian strongman and an oil cartel that decided to take advantage
of this war. A reasonable congressional response to this situation
might be to try to claw back some of these profits. Instead, the
sponsors of the TAP American Energy Act appear to believe that it is
better to add to the already overflowing oil company coffers while
short-changing the American people through below market royalties and
rental fees, and by reviving the much-criticized noncompetitive leasing
program.\26\ In a November, 2020 report, the GAO found that 98.8
percent of noncompetitive BLM oil and gas leases sold between 2003 and
2009 did not enter production during their 10-year primary term.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/01/31/big-oil-made-record-2022-
profits-while-fleecing-california-families/.
\26\ See Oil and Gas: Onshore Competitive and Noncompetitive Lease
Revenues, GAO-21-138; see also, On Heels of BLM Oil and Gas Lease Sale,
Chair Grijalva and Rep. Lowenthal Release GAO Report Showing Extent of
Outdated Industry Giveaways, House Natural Resources Committee,
December 14, 2020, describing the GAO report.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oil and gas industry already sits on almost 14 million acres of
public land leases that are not being developed and that could be made
available for other uses, including renewable energy development.
Offering additional leases that are not likely to be developed,
especially under the noncompetitive leasing program, is irresponsible
and contrary to the public interest.
The oil and gas provisions of the TAP American Energy Act are
trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and it would do so in
ways that unnecessarily compromise our public lands. For all of the
reasons set forth above, Congress should reject the provisions that
seek to increase oil and gas leasing as provided in this proposed
legislation.
D. The Automatic Suspension of Leases Following an Expression of
Interest in an Adjacent Tract by a Lessee Invites Abuse
The Mineral Leasing Act allows the BLM to suspend an oil and gas
lease ``in the interest of conservation.'' \28\ In a 2018 report, the
GAO found that the BLM had suspended 2,750 oil and gas leases in 16
states, covering about 3.4 million acres of federally managed land.\29\
Suspensions for 650 of those leases had lasted for more than 30 years.
For 320 more, they lasted between 10 and 30 years. During lease
suspensions, no revenues are collected. While there may have been good
reasons for some of these suspensions, the GAO was rightly critical of
the BLM for failing to set out the reasons for the suspensions.
Moreover, the BLM has no process for periodically reviewing these
suspensions and they likely go on for years without any review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 209; see also 43 CFR Sec. 3103.4-4.
\29\ Oil and Gas Lease Management: BLM Could Improve Oversight of
Lease Suspensions with Better Data and Monitoring Procedures, GAO-18-
411 (2018), available at, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lease suspensions have a significant potential for abuse, and the
TAP Energy Act would exacerbate the problem by requiring the Secretary
to approve a suspension within 15 days after receiving a request,
whether or not that request has merit. Apparently, all the lessee must
show is that it has an interest in leasing an adjacent tract. As the
GAO found, lease suspensions can last for years and during the
suspension period the government receives no revenue--no rental
payments nor royalties. Furthermore, the law makes no provision for
periodically reviewing suspensions and for canceling them when
appropriate.
If the government wants to allow suspensions it should do so
transparently. A request should be made public, should be subject to
public comment, and should be approved only after the BLM provides a
written statement of reasons that explains why, through no fault of its
own, the lessee is unable to develop the lease. Moreover, once granted,
lease suspensions should be reviewed no less than every two years
through a public process that ensures that the reasons for the
suspension still hold true.
Lease suspensions allow the lessee to hold onto leases and tie up
public lands for decades without paying rentals or royalties.
Historically, these suspensions have been granted without public notice
or review, and without any explanation of the reasons for the
suspension. The TAP American Energy Act should fix these problems.
Instead it proposes to make them worse.
E. The Proposed Changes to NEPA would Undermine the Law
NEPA has proved a useful scapegoat for those who complain about
delays in decisionmaking. Yet the basic idea behind NEPA--that we
should take a careful look at the potential consequences of a proposed
action before moving forward--is hard to criticize. It is for that
reason, that NEPA might very well be the most emulated American law
ever written. Most developed countries follow a NEPA-like process and
many state and local governments do so as well. To be sure, the NEPA
process can bog down and lead to unnecessary delays, but the answer to
this problem is not to gut the law, but to make smarter use of it.
Unfortunately, the TAP American Energy Act proposes a number of changes
to NEPA that would greatly undermine its effectiveness in promoting
smarter and better government decisions.
First, Section 202 of the proposed law would codify the Trump era
CEQ rules. Those rules have already been partially revised by the Biden
Administration and further revisions are expected soon. But what ever
one thinks about the merits of the competing versions of these rules,
freezing them in place makes no sense. Climate change requires that the
CEQ be nimble in responding to new circumstances as they arise. For
example, the CEQ likely needs to consider building into its rules
adaptive management criteria so that decisions that are impacted over
time by changes on the ground can be adapted to reflect the new
information. This will also require more careful monitoring so that
changes can be detected in a timely fashion. Somewhat relatedly, the
revised rules should include stronger mitigation language.
Historically, agencies have had discretion as to whether to require
mitigation measures as part of their decision. But when reasonable
mitigation measures are available as determined by the agency during
the NEPA process, those mitigation measures should be mandated.
Finally, the Trump era rules make the same mistake as H.R. 209 in
allowing a project applicant to prepare an environmental impact
statement. For the reasons set forth in my comments on that proposal,
such a provision should not be codified as proposed in this bill.
This review of the Trump era CEQ rules is in no way comprehensive
and many other concerns might fairly be raised. But the broader point
is that the CEQ needs flexibility to decide how best to implement
NEPA's important mandates and it should not be subjected to the
straight-jacket that would result from codification of the Trump era
rules.
Section 205 of the proposed TAP American Energy Act raises a
different problem. It provides for the reuse of previous EAs and EISs
if the new proposed action is substantially the same as what was
previously analyzed, and if the effects of the proposed action are
substantially the same. But, at a bare minimum, a new proposal will
occur at a different location and it is almost inconceivable that the
effects of an action at an entirely different location are going to be
the same. Agencies would be wise to reuse the prior analysis of
technologies and other information that is not dependent on a
particular site, but it seems highly unlikely that they would ever be
able to adopt wholesale a previous EA or EIS for a new project that was
not the subject of an earlier analysis. Construing this language to
allow the adoption of a previous assessment as proposed in Section 205
would violate the spirit if not the letter of NEPA.
Finally, Section 208 of the proposed TAP American Energy Act
authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to accept and
expend funds to expedite the processing of various energy-related
actions and facilities. The law should make clear, however, that these
funds should not be accepted from parties with an interest in the
agency's decision. Rather, parties who are seeking permits should be
charged reasonable fees for processing their permits as authorized by
Section 304(a) of FLPMA.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1734(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F The Provisions Addressing Public Land Withdrawals in the TAP
American Energy Act Handcuff the Land Use Planning Process
Proposed section 301 of the TAP American Energy Act imposes a
significant burden on the Secretary of the Interior by denying him the
authority to withdraw public lands, as authorized by Section 204 of
FLPMA, until she has carried out various assessments and reported on
those assessments to various House committees. Withdrawals are an
important tool for ensuring that the certain public land values are
protected from uses that would compromise them. Yet, section 301 would
hobble the Secretary from using protective withdrawals when they might
be needed.
Section 301 further burdens the already cumbersome land use
planning process by demanding a singular focus on minerals and seeking
to skew planning in the direction of more mineral development, even if
the agency has previously decided that certain lands are better suited
to other uses. This arguably violates the multiple use, sustained yield
mandates that both Interior and the Forest Service are required to
follow, but it also handcuffs the ability of these agencies to make the
critical choices about the appropriate uses that should allowed and
should not allowed on particular tracts of public lands.
Finally, section 302(a) prohibits the President from ``taking any
action that would pause, restrict, or delay'' the issuance of various
leases, permits or approvals unless the land has been withdrawn.
Similarly, section 302(b) broadly prohibits, with very limited
exceptions, officials in the executive branch from rescinding leases,
permits or claims for the extraction and production of any and all
manner of minerals, locatable, leasable, or subject to sale under
current law, or from taking other actions that could delay or restrict
the issuance of new authorizations to produce such minerals. These
limits on the executive violate a long tradition of entrusting the
public lands agencies with the responsibility to follow a public
process and to exercise their discretion in deciding how best to manage
our public lands. For these reasons, the restrictions on Secretarial
withdrawals under proposed section 301 and 302 should be rejected.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Committee
today. I wish the Committee well as it seeks to address the important
issues that surround mineral development on our nation's public lands.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mark Squillace, University of
Colorado Law School
Questions Submitted by Representative Ocasio-Cortez
Question 1. Section 214 of Rep. Westerman's H.R. ____
``Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023'' allows
only for the environmental analysis of the areas on and immediately
adjacent to the lease plot under analysis, and excludes consideration
of the downstream, indirect effects of oil and gas consumption. What
are the public health and environmental implications of this section?
Answer. This section would preclude consideration of indirect and
cumulative effects as currently required under the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) rules. Specifically, by limiting the
environmental analysis to a single lease, as provided under the
``Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023'', the
analysis will deny the public as well as the agency decisionmakers
important information about the indirect and cumulative effects of that
lease. The CEQ rules rightly require consideration of direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects associated with a proposed action.\1\ As
discussed in more detail below in response to Question 2, an analysis
of cumulative effects is especially important in the context of oil and
gas development. A single oil and gas well might not contribute a
significant amount of greenhouse gases or other air pollutants, but
hundreds or thousands of leases located in discrete areas could pose
significant consequences to the environment and public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.1(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my home state of Colorado, the EPA recently determined that
Front Range cities are ``severely'' out of compliance with the national
ambient air quality standard for ozone.\2\ Atmospheric ozone poses
serious health risks, especially to the elderly and people who have
difficulty breathing, even at low concentrations.\3\ Ozone is formed by
a mixture of nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
sunlight. Oil and gas operations release significant amounts of nitrous
oxides and VOCs, especially methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.
Recent data suggests that oil and gas operations on the Front Range are
the chief culprit for increased ozone pollution in the region.\4\ Oil
and gas operations also release air toxics like benzene, ethylbenzene,
and n-hexane.\5\ A single lease might produce a relatively
insignificant amount of these pollutants. But hundreds or thousands of
leases in a discrete area can have devastating health consequences for
people living near these facilities.\6\ These cumulative impacts would
simply be ignored if the TAP American Energy Act became law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Clean Air Act establishes various levels of noncompliance
with increasingly strict standards to bring the area into compliance.
The levels are: (1) marginal; (2) moderate; (3) serious; (4) severe;
and (5) extreme. See https://crsreports.Congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/
RL30853.
\3\ See Health Effects of Ozone Pollution/US EPA.
\4\ See Corrected ozone data estimate fracking and drilling produce
more emissions than every Front Range vehicle/Colorado Public Radio
(cpr.org). (``. . .[D]rilling and hydraulic fracturing . . . alone
appeared likely to account for more ozone-causing emissions than all
cars and trucks along the Front Range.'')
\5\ See Basic Information about Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution
Standards/US EPA.
\6\ See Study Explores Demographics of Communities Living Near Oil
and Gas Wells/Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org).
Question 2. This legislation codifies the Trump administration's
2020 NEPA regulations that eliminate the cumulative impact analysis
requirement. This requirement mandates that federal agencies consider
other nearby pollution sources and the cumulative impact a proposed
project or permit would have on a community when analyzing the
environmental impact of said project. Why are cumulative impact
analyses important, and what would be the consequences of eliminating
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this requirement?
Answer. The current Biden-era CEQ rules define ``cumulative
effects'' as:
effects on the environment that result from the incremental
effects of the action when added to the effects of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what
agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. when measured alongside all of the past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future leases and other actions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(3) (2021).
Thus, when analyzing an individual action, like a single oil and
gas lease, the CEQ rules require the decisionmaker to assess the
cumulative impacts of all other leases and other actions that cause
cumulative effects. So, for example, activities on public lands like
grazing, oil and gas development, and renewable energy projects can
impose cumulative impacts on wildlife species, including endangered and
threatened species and candidate species like the Greater sage grouse.
If we don't want to push the Greater sage grouse into a formal listing,
with all of the consequences that that entails, we should be carefully
evaluating the cumulative effects on that species, as well as other
impacted species, from a wide range of activities. Likewise, many
public lands activities release greenhouse gases (GHGs) and otherwise
contribute to or are impacted by climate change. Looking at the
cumulative effects of these activities will be extremely helpful in
developing measures that can avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse
impacts from these activities. An important tool for measuring the
social cost of GHGs (SC-GHG) would make it relatively easy for agency
decisionmakers to ascertain the cumulative impact on society from past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, when considering a
permit application or proposal for an individual project. A draft
report recently released by the EPA estimates that cost at about $190/
ton of CO2. The public would benefit greatly from a transparent
discussion of the cost of approving a new permit, when considered
alongside other projects that release GHGs into the environment. That
discussion will also will allow the decisionmaker to be better informed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
about the consequences of their decision.
Question 3. In your written testimony, you criticized the proposal
to restore noncompetitive oil and gas leasing on public lands, which
was eliminated in the Inflation Reduction Act. Can you elaborate more
about your opposition to noncompetitive leasing?
Answer. Noncompetitive leasing promotes speculation. Under the pre-
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) version of the Mineral Leasing Act, a
party could obtain a lease on a parcel that received no bids during the
competitive auction simply by paying a small filing fee and the first
year's rental of $1.50/acre. In a report issued in 2020, the GAO found
that 98.8 percent of these noncompetitive BLM oil and gas leases sold
between 2003 and 2009 never produced oil and gas during their 10-year
primary term.\8\ Yet these leases tie up our public lands and are
unavailable for other uses. Add to this the BLM's tendency to approve
lease suspensions without public scrutiny and these leases can tie up
our lands for several decades, while providing no return to the public.
(When leases are suspended the obligation to pay rent is also
suspended.) Most worrisome, is the fact that the TAP American Energy
Act would apparently require the BLM to approve these suspensions
within 15 days after they are requested just because the operator
claims it would be in the interest of conservation. No inquiry, no
public notice, and no periodic review of these suspension requests
would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IRA wisely eliminated noncompetitive lease sales. It also set
graduated rental rates that make speculation much more costly, and thus
far less likely to happen. H.R. 209 would bring back the noncompetitive
leasing program and restore the old, below market rental rates. That
would be tragic.
Question 4. This legislation would allow the Secretary to accept
funds from third parties to expedite the processing of energy-related
activities. Can you expand on how this section could invite abuse and
undermine NEPA?
Answer. When third parties provide funding to expedite processing
for energy-related facilities, they likely want the proposed project
approved. Even if the money is not made contingent on a particular
outcome, the agency will face substantial pressure to approve the
project as desired by the funder. But government decisionmakers must
approach a proposed action with an open mind and decide on the merits
whether the proposal should be approved, approved with changes or
rejected. Anything but straight up approval is harder if a third party
has paid the bill. Moreover, this is entirely unnecessary.
Section 304 specifically authorizes the BLM to charge ``reasonable
filing and service fees and reasonable charges, and commissions with
respect to applications and other documents relating to the public
lands.'' \9\ Thus, the BLM already has the authority to impose fees
sufficient to cover the cost of processing applications. Unfortunately,
it seems reluctant to use this authority to cover its full costs. If it
were to do so it would not have the need to accept funding from third
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 43 U.S.C. 1734(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Mr. Stauber. I thank you very much for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thomsen for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thomsen.
STATEMENT OF PAUL THOMSEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, AMERICAS, ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, RENO, NEVADA
Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member
Ocasio-Cortez, and all the Subcommittee members for this very
timely hearing on critical geothermal permitting reform.
I will make brief remarks, and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
By way of introduction, Ormat Technologies is a vertically
integrated renewable energy company focused on geothermal
energy development. We have been in the United States,
headquartered here, since 1965, and are headquartered in Reno,
Nevada. And today, we own and operate 1,100 megawatts of
generation, primarily in the United States. We also have
projects in Kenya, Guatemala, Indonesia, Honduras, and
Guadeloupe.
What separates Ormat from other developers is that we not
only own and operate geothermal projects, but we design and
manufacture the equipment. Ormat is also responsible for 2
gigawatts of geothermal generation around the world. So, that
is about double what we have been able to do here in the United
States.
We have extensive experience on U.S. public lands. We have
22 operating geothermal projects on almost a quarter of a
million acres of BLM land. We have another 17 projects that are
in NEPA review. We have paid about $2.6 million in royalties,
and we pay about $1 million a year in rentals to the Bureau of
Land Management. Our zero-emission binary technology is
deployed almost 10 to 1 over other technologies today, and we
have avoided about 4.5 million tons of CO2. And we
think the provisions in the TAP Act will help us double that.
We applaud the introduction of the Transparency and
Production of American Energy Act of 2023. It provides clarity
and consistency in three specific areas that will help meet the
goal of deploying at least 25 gigawatts of geothermal energy on
public lands by 2025.
So, what does this bill do, exactly? Well, section 109
requires geothermal leasing to occur annually. In states like
Nevada, we see the Bureau of Land Management regularly
conducting lease sales, which is the critical first step to
geothermal development. In other states, we have not seen a
lease sale since 2016, even though lands have been nominated
for geothermal development.
Section 203 recognizes that the drilling for exploratory
geothermal wells, including constructing or improving structure
pads for activities that are less than 12 inches in diameter
and where the total surface disturbance is less than 5 acres,
should not be required to proceed through the full NEPA review,
which is currently taking geothermal projects 24 to 36 months.
What does that mean? Before a geothermal developer can even
know if there is a geothermal resource today to be able to
drill those exploratory wells, we have to go through a full
environmental assessment, and that is taking between 2 to 3
years. Then we proceed to a utilization permit to build and
construct and operate the power plant, which takes another 2 to
3 years, currently. That is 6 years to develop state-of-the-
art, zero-emission geothermal projects that take up less than
about a 15-acre pad.
Section 213 of the bill really, again, clarifies that if
the Federal Government does not have any rights to the surface
estate and less than 50 percent to the subsurface estate, we do
not have to go through the NEPA process, but we can work with
the local entities in the state to permit these projects.
Non-major Federal actions. Clarifying that temperature
gradient holes and other geothermal exploratory wells required
for preliminary resource confirmation are non-major Federal
actions. This will enable the geothermal industry to deploy
more megawatts on public lands, creating new jobs and royalty
revenues for our Treasury, local states, and counties. This
clarification results from extensive consultation within the
industry, white papers, a review by the Department of Energy in
their Geo Vision Report, and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
I believe we have been discussing this for over a decade,
trying to streamline the categorical exclusion so that
geothermal is put on the same level playing field as other
energy developers, to define where these resources are quickly.
For years, Ormat and the Geothermal Rising, the industry's
trade association, have requested the Department of the
Interior or Congress to issue clarifications to the categorical
exclusion from NEPA to reduce the permitting burden for
geothermal resource confirmation.
Defining geothermal resource confirmation as a non-major
Federal action immediately unlocks new projects and their
associated economic benefits. But, maybe, most importantly, it
allows the BLM field staff to focus on the appropriate
permitting priorities of permitting the actual physical power
plants that may have an effect on our environment.
This action also provides greater parity between geothermal
and oil and gas, which is afforded a broad categorical
exclusion for exploration activities, including resource
confirmation wells under section 390 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul A. Thomsen, Vice President, Business
Development--Americas Ormat Technologies
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the
``Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023.''
Ormat Overview
By way of introduction, Ormat Technologies, Inc. is a New York
Stock Exchange registered company (symbol ``ORA''). Headquartered in
Reno, Nevada, Ormat Technologies has more than five decades of
experience as a global leader in geothermal power and recovered energy
generation (REG). A vertically integrated company with 1,400 employees,
Ormat designs, develops, manufactures, owns, and operates geothermal
power plants all over the world, with more than 3,000 MW of gross
capacity in over 30 countries. Ormat has extensive experience on U.S.
public lands, with 22 operating facilities (880 acres) utilizing
256,784 acres on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in California,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. In 2020, Ormat paid $2.6 M in royalties
and $993,344 in rentals to the Bureau of Land Management.
Ormat's state-of-the-art, air-cooled binary facilities provide
stable and reliable renewable energy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
with zero carbon emissions. Its geothermal facilities utilize binary
technology to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize
the power grid. Binary plants reinject 100% of geothermal fluid and
maintain reservoir pressures, meaning they are ideal for geothermal
reservoirs to maximize sustainability.
Ormat is a pioneer in Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) technology and a
leader in the manufacture of ORC power equipment. Using this
technology, geothermal fluid is extracted from an underground reservoir
and flows from the wellhead through pipelines to heat exchangers in the
Ormat Energy Converter (OEC). Inside the heat exchangers, the
geothermal fluid heats and vaporizes a secondary working fluid with a
low boiling point. The organic vapors drive the turbine. They are then
condensed in a condenser, which is cooled by either air or water. The
turbine rotates the generator. Condensed fluid is recycled back into
the heat exchangers by a pump, completing the cycle in a closed system.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsIn March 2022, Ormat signed a 15-year Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA) with Peninsula Clean Energy, a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA)
that provides more than 3,500 GWh of electricity to San Mateo County
and the City of Los Banos, California. Under the terms of the PPA,
Peninsula Clean Energy will purchase 26 MW of clean, renewable energy
from Ormat's Heber 2 geothermal facility located in Imperial Valley,
California. This PPA marks the successful completion of Ormat's first
ever solicitation for bids, with a request for bids (RFB) on the Heber
2 facility issued in July 2021.
In May 2022, we announced the execution of two PPAs with NV Energy.
Under the first PPA, signed in 2021, NV Energy will purchase 25 MW of
power over 25 years generated by the North Valley Geothermal Project, a
new facility in Washoe County, Nevada, expected to come online by early
2023. Additionally, NV Energy will purchase up to 135 MW of power
generated by a portfolio of the company's new and existing geothermal
power plants under a PPA signed in May 2022. The portfolio PPA is
subject to the Public Utility Commission's approval.
In June 2022, Ormat announced the execution of a PPA with
California Community Power (CC Power), a Joint Powers Agency consisting
of numerous CCAs. Energy deliveries under the portfolio PPA are
expected to start in the second quarter of 2024, with the expectation
that the entire portfolio covered under the new PPA will be online by
the end of 2026. The portfolio PPA covers up to 125MW for a term of 20
years and is comprised entirely of new projects currently under
construction or in development in Nevada and California. Capacity is
subject to California Independent System Operator (CAISO) connection
approval.
Demand for geothermal and other renewable energy is growing in the
United States as generation costs have become more competitive. We
believe that future demand for energy generated from geothermal and
other renewable resources in the United States will be driven primarily
by a further commitment to carbon-free capacity resources. For example,
in California, the Public Utilities Commission has required Electric
Load Service Entities (LSEs) to procure 11.5 GW of new clean
electricity by 2028. One GW of this procurement must deliver firm power
with an 80% capacity factor, produce zero on-site emissions, and be
weather independent. With a high capacity factor and firm and flexible
generation, geothermal energy addresses these requirements and is the
natural replacement for baseload fossil fuels and nuclear generation,
which is why the United States are seeing a massive surge in geothermal
development.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Geothermal Power Purchase Agreements on the Rise (https://
www.geothermal-library.org/
index.php?mode=pubs&action=view&record=1040017)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAP American Energy Act
Many geothermal resources that are commercially viable for energy
production using today's technologies are located on public lands. BLM
manages all subsurface geothermal resource on federal lands, regardless
of the federal agency that manages the surface estate (such as the
Forest Service). Therefore, almost all geothermal development must
conduct a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. While
geothermal is inexpensive to operate and maintain once a project is
complete, during the resource discovery, phase developers must drill
resource confirmation holes to determine the true quality and quantity
of the underground resource. This means the industry has a
disproportionate permitting burden at the ``front end'' of a project,
before a revenue payback is guaranteed. A heavy permitting burden means
a slow development cycle, and a slow development cycle means developers
pay a lot for financing.
Regulatory reform is critical to alleviate barriers to geothermal
development in the United States. Ormat appreciates the work of
Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-AR), Congressman Pete Stauber (R-MN),
and members of this Committee for introducing the ``Transparency and
Production of American Energy Act of 2023.'' The TAP act provides
clarity and consistency in three areas that will help meet the
administration's goal of deploying at least 25 GW of geothermal
resources on public land by 2025:
Section 109, Geothermal Leasing: Amends the Geothermal
Steam Act to require a yearly lease sale for geothermal
energy.
Section 203, Non-Major Federal Actions: Exempts from NEPA
review any drilling for geothermal exploratory wells,
including for constructing or making improvement to
structure pads for activities that are less than 12 inches
in diameter and where total surface disturbance is less
than 5 acres.
Section 213, Access to Federal Energy Resources from Non-
Federal Surface Estate: Amends the Geothermal Steam Act to
exempt from federal permitting any geothermal exploration
and production activities that occur on nonfederal surface
estate, provided that the U.S. owns less than 50% interest
in subsurface estate and the operator submits a State
permit to the Secretary of the Interior for the activity.
Nothing in this section affects royalties owed to the
federal government, and this same exemption does not apply
to resources managed in trust for tribes.
Section 109, Geothermal Leasing: Ninety percent (90%) of
conventional geothermal resources in the United States are located on
federally managed lands. Access to more federal land is the critical
first step for ensuring additional geothermal production. Lease
provisions administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) vary by
state in process and frequency. Nevada BLM, for example, has held a
geothermal lease sale every year since 2016, while California BLM has
not held a geothermal lease sale since 2016. Standardizing annual land
quotas, nominations, and decision time frames will create more
opportunities for geothermal exploration and utilization.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Geothermal Rising, Letter to Secretary Debra Haaland, March 18,
2021, https://geothermal.org/resources/geothermal-rising-letter-
addressinggeothermal-permitting-public-lands
Section 203 and 213, Non-Major Federal Actions: Clarifying that
temperature gradient holes and other geothermal exploratory wells
required for preliminary resource confirmation are Non-Major Federal
Actions will enable the geothermal industry to deploy more megawatts on
public lands, creating new jobs and royalty revenues for our treasury,
local states, and counties. This clarification is the result of
extensive consultation within the industry, whitepapers, and a review
of geothermal permitting conducted in 2013 and 2014 by the Department
of Energy, Geo Vision Report \3\ and National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chapter 5: The GeoVision Roadmap: A Pathway Forward, ENERGY.GOV
(2019), https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/06/f63/5-
GeoVision-Chap5-opt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the GeoVision Analysis Supporting Task Force Report concluded:
``Reducing the overall project time directly attributable to
NEPA, whether by reducing the time of individual NEPA processes
or reducing the frequency of NEPA analysis for a particular
project, can alleviate some of the major barriers to geothermal
development. Reducing NEPA timelines directly decreases overall
project timelines which indirectly decreases the perceived risk
profile--lowering three of the four barriers to geothermal
development identified by industry. Lowering these barriers is
in line with one of NEPA's stated goals: to ``enhance the
quality of renewable resources.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Young, K., A. Levine, J. Cook, D. Heimiller, and J. Ho. 2019.
GeoVision Analysis Supporting Task Force Report: Barriers. An Analysis
of Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Deployment and Potential
Improvement Scenarios, NREL/TP-6A20-7164, NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY
LABORATORY (2019). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/71641.pdf.
Defining geothermal resource confirmation drilling as a Non-Major
Federal Action will significantly relieve the permitting burden for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
geothermal industry without undermining environmental stewardship.
For years, Ormat and Geothermal Rising, the industry's trade
association, have requested that Department of Interior (DOI) or
Congress issue a new rulemaking or memorandum to expand and clarify
existing categorical exclusions (CX) from NEPA to reduce the permitting
burden for geothermal resource confirmation and observation. Defining
geothermal resource confirmation drilling as a Non-Major Federal Action
immediately unlocks new projects and their associated economic
benefits, while allowing the hardworking BLM field staff to focus on
appropriate permitting priorities. This action also provides greater
parity between geothermal and oil and gas, which is afforded a broad CX
for exploration activities, including resource confirmation wells,
under Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Next Steps for Geothermal Development on Public Lands
In addition to annual lease sale requirements and categorical
exemptions for exploration activities (as currently proposed in the TAP
American Energy Act), Ormat asks the committee to consider additional
reforms that prioritize renewable geothermal energy development on
public lands. Ormat continually updates Congress on permitting
timelines and the increasing timelines for Environmental Assessments
(EA), Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and even Geothermal
Drilling Permits (GDP). Formation of a geothermal task force within BLM
could expedite the review and execution of permits, educate BLM offices
less familiar with geothermal development, coordinate U.S. Department
of the Interior Office of the solicitor review of BLM actions, and
reduce permitting delays caused by the Biden administration moratorium
on drilling which impacted geothermal project permitting and increased
solicitor review times.
Streamline Geothermal Drilling Permits: BLM manages all subsurface
geothermal resources on federal lands, regardless of the federal agency
that manages the surface estate (like the U.S. Forest Service),
creating a permitting bottleneck due to ineffective collaboration among
land and resource managers. While interagency environmental planning
remains essential to geothermal utilization at the power plant
development phase, there is agency gridlock during review of Geothermal
Drilling Permits (GDP) when multiple agencies cannot coordinate review
efficiently. The DOI or Congress should establish a maximum two-month,
BLM-only administrative approval time limit.
Permit Process Transparency: Ormat understands regulatory processes
are essential to ensuring geothermal development is carried out
responsibly. Increasing transparency in the permit process would assist
in overcoming uncertainty and costs associated with undefined
regulatory review timeframes. Ormat has approximately 17 projects
currently under review by BLM. On average, permitting geothermal
exploration takes four years, though some projects have taken many more
years and are still pending NEPA determination. Permit tracking across
districts and field offices can provide renewable energy developers
clear outcomes, issues identification, improved education of agency
staff, and a significantly shorter permitting process.
Remove Agency Redundancy: While geothermal plants are relatively
inexpensive to operate and maintain once constructed, the resource
discovery phase requires costly permitting and drilling to determine
the quantity and quality of an underground resource. This places a
disproportionate front-end investment on renewable energy projects.
Costs are further exacerbated by cumbersome permitting cycles that put
meeting federal and state renewable targets in jeopardy. Removing
agency redundancies saves money and time. BLM should not be tasked with
responsibilities to evaluate in detail resource issues that are under
the jurisdiction or special expertise of federal or state environmental
protection agencies. In the case of Nevada, water degradation
prevention is already the jurisdictional responsibility of a state
subsurface Underwater Injection Control (UIC) program with expertise in
basin and range hydrologic and hydrogeologic systems. BLM should be
directed to rely on and incorporate by reference the analyses of other
state and federal agency with jurisdiction or special expertise,
allowing BLM staff to focus on appropriate permitting priorities.
Conclusion
Ormat has unmatched insight into the progress and pitfalls of
geothermal development, which is why the company is celebrating with
two ribbon cuttings events in 2023, one of which is the first new
independent plant in California in over a decade. Ormat remains
resolute in its mission to deliver 320 MW in Power Purchase Agreements
by 2026, a quantity that could easily double with regulatory reform. In
closing, Ormat Technologies supports the House Natural Resources
Committee's commitment to energy development, and specifically to the
deployment of more megawatts of geothermal production, which will
generate new energy, new jobs, and added revenue for the treasury,
states, and counties. It is my pleasure to ask this Committee to help
ensure geothermal energy remains a pillar of our nation's clean energy
future.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Paul Thomsen, Vice President,
Ormat Technologies
Ormat applauds the work of Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-AR),
Congressman Pete Stauber (R-MN), and members of House Committee on
Natural Resources for their leadership in regulatory reform to
geothermal development barriers in the United States. Further, Ormat
appreciates the opportunity to respond to four additional questions
pertaining to the geothermal components stated in the ``Transparency
and Production of American Energy Act of 2023'' and H.R. 209
``Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023''.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. Are the tools provided in this package for geothermal
exploration consistent with other exemptions that the federal land
management agencies offer to other energy sources?
Answer. Specifically this action provides parity between geothermal
and oil and gas exploration, which is afforded a broad categorical
exclusion for exploration work including resource confirmation wells,
under Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We believe the
proposed language provides certainty and consistency for the geothermal
industry while requiring compliance with all environmental regulations.
Question 2. This bill would require the Department of the Interior
to hold annual lease sales for geothermal development.
Could you discuss how annual lease sales would help
provide certainty for the geothermal industry and how
making this change would impact investment in geothermal
development?
Answer. Requiring annual geothermal lease sales is the only way to
ensure that federally managed geothermal resources can be evaluated and
developed. Ninety percent (90%) of conventional geothermal resources in
the United States are located on federally managed lands. Access to
more federal land is the critical first step for ensuring additional
geothermal production. Annual lease sales are the foundation for
developing additional geothermal resources. Standardizing annual land
quotas, nominations, and decision time frames will create more
opportunities for geothermal exploration and utilization.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Geothermal Rising, Letter to Secretary Debra Haaland (18 March
2021). https://geothermal.org/resources/geothermal-rising-letter-
addressinggeothermal-permitting-public-lands
Question 3. In your testimony you discuss the particularly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
burdensome permitting process on the front end of a geothermal project.
How would this bill expedite the permitting process on the
front end of a project?
Answer. As is the case now, preliminary geothermal exploration is
hampered by onerous ``front end'' permitting requirements. Eliminating
burdens in the process results in fixing an unnecessarily slow
development cycle which results in significantly higher project
financing. This bill facilitates the ability to collect data and make
determinations about commercial viability without spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars permitting non-commercial resources. The bill also
eliminates uncertainty for federal decision makers and allows both the
federal land managers and proponents to instead prioritize their
valuable resources on viable geothermal developments.
Question 4. Without significant permitting reforms will we be able
to meet the administration's goal of having 25 gigawatts of geothermal
on public lands by 2025?
Answer. No, 25 gigawatts of geothermal on public lands in less than
two years is not achievable without significant permitting reform and a
Department of Interior commitment to more efficient environmental
review.
In summary, the geothermal component of the ``Transparency and
Production of American Energy Act of 2023'' and ``Permitting for Mining
Needs Act of 2023'' provides several specific changes needed to improve
geothermal exploration. While we have discussed the benefits and
crucial nature of those changes, it is important to reiterate that the
proposed changes do not affect the geothermal industry's responsibility
and integrity in meeting the highest water quality, reclamation, and
well abandonment standards for environmental stewardship.
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony.
The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of
questions, and I will start with myself.
I would like to first take a moment to recognize the
important work done by our colleagues from Louisiana on the
bipartisan effort to increase coastal revenue sharing to 50
percent. Majority Leader Scalise is not only a standard bearer
for our conference, but he is also my roommate and friend. I
understand the importance of this provision to not only
Representative Scalise, but also to my colleague on the
Subcommittee, Representative Garret Graves. I am happy the
BREEZE Act is included, and I look forward to supporting this
legislation into law.
Mr. Nolan, it is great to see you again, and thank you for
joining us today. As you know, the Biden administration opted
to ban mining in the Superior National Forest, a working forest
which partially covers the Duluth Complex, one of the most
mineral-rich areas in the world.
After investing more than a half-a-billion dollars, Twin
Metals had the rug pulled out from underneath. And the PolyMet
project is on year 20 of permitting and fighting frivolous
litigation. And by the way, both of these projects have project
labor agreements in place with union building trades.
Can you explain why certainty is so vital to mining
projects in the United States, and how the Permitting for
Mining Needs Act provides certainty to miners?
Mr. Nolan. Be happy to, Mr. Chairman. The Twin Metals
Project is a poster child for what is wrong with the permitting
process.
As you just outlined, the mining industry is a very patient
group. We can wait, and we have waited. We have waited an
incredibly long period of time. That time cost capital, cost
jobs, cost trust, cost consultation. We really need to do
better. The amount of capital that has been sunk for Twin
Metals is a tremendous shame with a resource that can benefit
the world and meet the exponential drive toward the minerals
that we need to meet the electrification goals of the world
economies.
With regards to the legislation itself, the directive is to
appoint a lead agency to consult with the other agencies to
make sure that timelines and deadlines are getting accomplished
through MOUs.
The decision about bringing forward an EIS within 2 years,
I think, is somewhat reasonable, from any measure.
It has been mentioned about the Federal Government allowing
private entities or states to bring forward EIS work. That is
what we see with our competitors in Canada, who can get
projects up and running in 2 to 3 years. It is something that
the Committee should seriously take a look at. It is included
in this bill.
Changes such as that, looking at the land withdrawal
process and assessing the minerals that are there before the
land is withdrawn. We do not decide whether those minerals are,
those were put there. And it is important that we take care of
sensitive locations and communities, but at the same time there
is a limited supply of locations where we can actually access
those materials. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And, again, those are
multi-generational union jobs that were just pulled out from
underneath them.
Mr. Naatz, thank you for joining us today. In your
testimony, you discuss the long timeliness for drilling
permits, which is something we also discussed 2 weeks ago in
Hobbs, New Mexico. If the timeliness mirrored those of the
states, would that result in more taxpayer revenue and bring
down the cost of energy for Americans?
Mr. Naatz. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we believe, if the
process was streamlined and they got back to the NEPA process
as it was originally intended, that would certainly help.
Independent producers, the members we operate, are small
producers, largely not publicly-traded companies. They roll
their profits back into the ground. Many times they are local,
operating there. So, it is really important to have a process
that they have comfort in, that they understand.
One of the challenges, again, is the instability of the
Federal regime, which, if it were clarified and made more
streamlined, closer mirroring the states, we believe you would
have additional production, both onshore and offshore.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Will the TAP Act help
reduce timeliness?
Mr. Naatz. Is that to me? I am sorry----
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Mr. Naatz. Yes, it will. It will. Again, the provisions--
first of all, requiring quarterly sales, which is part of the
Mineral Leasing Act, which is the law, is really important. It
is unfortunate, we believe, that you have to have another law
to force the Administration to already move on another law. But
yes, we believe the provision in the TAP Act will help
timeliness for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And it was great to see
you down in Hobbs, New Mexico, and touring one of the drill
rigs. I appreciate that.
My time is up, and I want to refer the next 5 minutes to--
--
[Pause.]
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It is Kamlager-Dove.
Mr. Stauber. Kamlager-Dove. There you go. I am sorry. I had
my Ranking Member on my mind.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes, I am skipping----
Mr. Stauber. You are up now. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair and my Vice Ranking
Member for the courtesy.
My district includes the largest urban field in the United
States, so my constituents, sadly, know better than many about
the environmental and health impacts that come with oil and gas
development. And I certainly believe, as do they, that we need
stronger, not weaker environmental, climate, and public health
protections. And I am concerned that some elements of these
bills take us in the wrong direction.
Specifically, this legislation does a lot to limit
environmental reviews critical for community input under NEPA.
So, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Squillace.
First, I understand that the Federal law requires tribal
consultation. So, if during the consultation process, a tribe
opposes a public lands mine that would destroy sacred sites,
for example, does the mining law empower the Secretary to deny
that project?
Mr. Squillace. I would say that the mining law doesn't
necessarily give the Secretary that authority. We have a law
called the National Historic Preservation Act, which arguably
comes in here. It would require consultation with the various
parties who would be affected, including the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. And there could at least be
recommendations that the permit be rejected on those grounds.
It is not mandatory, but certainly there would be an effort to
understand the potential implications on tribal resources, and
consider those actions or those impacts in a final decision
that was made to allow or not allow that to go forward.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. But it is discretionary.
Mr. Squillace. Yes, it is discretionary.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, great. And then, not great, but
thank you for the answer.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. And then section 202 of the legislation
would codify the Trump administration's disastrous NEPA
regulations, which the Biden administration is in the process
of replacing. Among other things, this legislation would
eliminate the long-standing requirement that Federal agencies
consider climate change in their environmental reviews, and
also severely restrict the ability for agencies to consider
pollution and public health impacts.
So, I would just love your thoughts on what gets covered
up, what is not shared when you silence community by removing
public input from the process.
Mr. Squillace. Yes, it is a really important question. And
I guess I would say that one thing that we kind of have ignored
here is the fact that the social cost, if you will, of climate
change is enormous, and we have tools that we can use to
calculate that cost and factor it in to important decisions.
The EPA recently came out with a proposed study. It is
still in draft form, but it suggests that the cost of one
additional ton of carbon equivalent into the atmosphere is
essentially costing us about $190 for each ton. And some of
these fossil fuels facilities and operations are contributing
massive quantities of carbon into the atmosphere.
And if we took those costs into account, and we did so in a
cumulative way, which would not be required under the Trump
administration's NEPA rules, I think we would be able to see
quite clearly that a lot of these decisions to allow oil and
gas to go forward would be arbitrary and capricious. It just
wouldn't be appropriate, given the cost to society that we are
seeing from climate change.
So, I think that is one of the big concerns with the
proposal that has been offered there.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great, thank you very much. I agree with
you. Oftentimes, we forget to talk about how much poor public
health costs and how, while we are always looking to invest
more in how we can have green and clean energy, we forget that
when we are trying to circumvent a process or obfuscate it, we
end up costing ourselves much more.
I just want to close by saying, I think these regulations
and some of our past regulations have already resulted in
sacrifice zones like those in Cancer Alley in Louisiana. So, I
am certainly dedicated to doing everything that I can to stop
legislation like this so that the issues we are facing aren't
further exacerbated, and so that communities like mine, people
that live in my district, don't suffer that same fate.
So, thank you so much, and I yield back my time.
Dr. Gosar [presiding]. I thank the gentlewoman. The
gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing allow
operators to drill numerous wells on a single pad, which
reduces the surface disturbance on public lands. This is the
least intrusive method that exists for large-scale energy
production.
However, many of these pads need numerous wells to be
profitable. In many cases, the approval of only a couple of
individual drilling permits is not sufficient. Instead,
operators may need five or so wells to be economically viable,
and they need all of the permits in hand and ready to go to
provide the certainty that is needed to develop. So, by failing
to efficiently issue drilling permits, this Administration is
jeopardizing projects across the West that require multiple
permits.
Mr. Naatz, the TAP Act section 104 offers a suspension of
operations to companies awaiting adjacent acreage not yet
offered for lease. Can you talk about the development process,
and why natural gas companies require multiple leases and
permits?
Mr. Naatz. Sure, Congressman, thank you for the question.
You outlined it very well. Many times in the Intermountain
West, on Federal lands or anywhere, you have to put together
projects in a very complicated system of federal lands, state
land, federal minerals, state minerals, private minerals. So,
as producers move forward, you just don't get one permit and
drill. You need to have a program together, especially, again,
smaller independent producers, but all producers, so that you
have a program ready to move and secure the drilling rigs, to
secure the labor, to secure all the issues that are required,
and are importantly required--environmental issues. And that
unionization is really important, because it is not just one
well you go out and drill. It just would never be economical,
it wouldn't work. And that is the challenge.
So, suspending those, again, some of the numbers that come
out about the permit delays, that is exactly why you are
holding on one permit, paying rent, paying for the lease, but
at the same time you have to wait until these other projects or
blocks come together. It is very important.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. And for you and Mr. Nolan, how
do U.S. energy and mining environmental regulations and labor
standards compare to countries such as China, or Nigeria, or
Russia, or Iran, where not only is the revenue going to
countries that don't like us, but to countries that have poor
environmental records and labor standards?
Mr. Naatz. Congressman, just on our side, one of the things
we always say is that U.S. oil and gas--and again, it is
factual--are the cleanest barrels produced in the Gulf of
Mexico, onshore, and especially as you compare to Saudi Arabia,
to Venezuela, to Russia. Not only the environmental aspects of
what is being done, but labor, the safety of the workers.
Again, the American industry has a record--well, the
natural gas industry--second to none. We are very proud of
that. We are going to continue to improve. So, it is important,
too, when you look at that.
Mr. Lamborn. And what about mining, Mr. Nolan?
Mr. Nolan. Congressman Lamborn, the U.S. mining industry
complies above and beyond the highest environmental safety and
labor standards in the world. This Committee has highlighted
this past month what is going on in the cobalt fields across
the world right now with child labor. It is unconscionable. We
need to invest here at home, where we can create good American
jobs in the safest environmental, health, safety, and labor
standards in the world.
Mr. Lamborn. And I am going to finish with a comment, and
you can respond if you want to, but you don't have to.
I just find it the height of hypocrisy that environmental
extremists want to shut down U.S. energy and mining projects
all over the United States wherever they can, when we excel at
environmental regulations and labor standards compared to these
other countries. I don't see them saying anything about these
other countries and their poor labor standards and bad
environmental records, and it is even worse because by shutting
down U.S. production where they have been able to, that just
forces these other countries to expand their operations and
create more pollution and worse labor standards, including
child labor. So, I just think that is the height of hypocrisy,
and I really wish we could do something about that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman from
Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before us today are
two bills that I have to tell you really do raise concerns for
me, because they weaken landmark environmental laws,
specifically NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, instead of
offering meaningful or bipartisan solutions for us to consider.
And I, again, want to reaffirm my commitment to work with
my colleagues on real--I know we have to modernize our laws,
but we have to do it in a way that protects original intent,
but also makes it better. These don't. And I am serious about
working with you on real legislation that would do that.
Unfortunately, I don't think these are serious proposals.
But let's first start with the mining law of 1872. I think
it is fair to say a lot of things have changed over the 150
years, and I would hope all my colleagues would agree that our
law should reflect the times we are in, not the past. I know
you are telling me that.
So, Mr. Squillace, Democrats recently secured more than $1
billion in the Inflation Reduction Act to increase Federal
agencies' capacity for environmental reviews, which I was proud
to support. So, how would modernizing our 150-year-old mining
laws, instead of rolling back NEPA, allow us to better
strengthen our domestic supply chain for critical minerals, so
we can build the batteries we need to deploy more electric
vehicles here in our energy storage solutions and not be
dependent on China?
Mr. Squillace. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question.
It is an important question.
And I want to say that I think we are going to have to
recognize that we may need some more domestic mining in this
country.
Mrs. Dingell. I agree.
Mr. Squillace. But if we are going to have it, it needs to
be done right. We need to look at all those reasonable
alternatives that I talked about in my testimony. And we need
to make sure we have considered the environmental costs
associated with going forward with some of these proposals.
I mean, I do think that the money that has been
appropriated is going to help us to get there. But I also think
that we owe it to the American people to reform the laws in
such a way that these companies are paying a fair return to the
people for taking these minerals. They are paying nothing to
the American Government for taking our minerals, and most of
these companies are foreign-based.
We are essentially allowing foreign companies to come into
our country and take our minerals, and they are not paying a
dime to the Treasury. I think that is shameful. I think that
needs to be fixed. If we fix that, we can have a much more
constructive conversation, it seems to me, about what kinds of
new mining we are going to allow in this country.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. And, again, I don't think it is
either/or. We can do both.
Now I would like to move to the TAP American Energy Act.
This is an Endangered Species Act question. The draft section
209 of the TAP American Energy Act would preempt all future
environmental review of seismic testing in the Gulf of Mexico.
This is problematic.
Section 209 ignores the science, ignores the Endangered
Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and
greenlights any and all seismic testing in the Gulf of Mexico
outside the GOMESA moratorium area. It would be disastrous for
the Gulf's marine wildlife and for the Rice's whale, one of the
most endangered whale species on the planet. It is estimated
that there are just 50 endangered Rice's whales left. NOAA
biologists have concluded that seismic blasting is likely to
eliminate or seriously degrade the entire species.
Mr. Naatz, yes or no, do you agree that it would be bad for
the Rice's whale to go extinct?
Mr. Naatz. Yes. But I would just like to say again that the
Endangered Species Act, our companies comply with it,
understand how important it is. So, of course, we want to work
with the Committee and find an answer.
But, obviously, we would be concerned about any species
going extinct.
Mrs. Dingell. OK. So, yes or no, do you agree that it is
prudent to evaluate the possible impacts of seismic surveys on
the Rice's whale, and come up with mitigation and avoidance
measures to help keep those remaining 50 whales safe, and help
them on the road to recovery?
Mr. Naatz. We are confident that the industry will work
with the Federal regulators, work with the Fish and Wildlife
Service to find answers there. And we are confident, again,
that the Federal regulators will work with them to answer those
questions.
Mrs. Dingell. I am about to run out of time, but what I am
concerned about is that section 209 of the TAP Act would
prevent any future environmental reviews of seismic blasting in
the Gulf.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side, especially
those from Florida and the Gulf states, is the extinction of
the endangered Rice's whale in your backyard really the price
you are willing to pay for unfettered access to seismic testing
in the Gulf of Mexico?
And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the NOAA status review on Rice's whales and a statement
about Rice's whales from 100 marine scientists that came out
last fall.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Dingell
An Open Letter to the Biden Administration
We, the undersigned, are marine scientists united in our concern for
the Gulf of Mexico whale, also known as Rice's whale, the only baleen
whale known to be resident to the Gulf and one of the most endangered
marine mammal species on the planet.
Early last year, in an effort led by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, scientists confirmed that the whale
constitutes a unique species, one that has diverged from other baleen
whales through long isolation in the Gulf.\1\ A mature Gulf of Mexico
whale extends about 40 feet in length and is sleek in form; it has a
spectacular vocal repertoire, making a long call that has not been
heard in other species.\2\ This cetacean is also critically
endangered.\3\ The agency currently estimates that the entire species
has a population of only 51 individuals.\4\ With so few whales in
limited habitat, the species is highly vulnerable to effects from human
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rosel, P.E., Wilcox, L.A., Yamada, T.K. and Mullin, K.D.
(2021). A new species of baleen whale (Balaenoptera) from the Gulf of
Mexico, with a review of its geographic distribution. Marine Mammal
Science, 2021: 1-34, doi.org/10.1111/mms.12776.
\2\ Soldevilla, M.S., Ternus, K., Cook, A., et al. (2022). Acoustic
localization, validation, and characterization of Rice's whale calls.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 151(6): 4264-78.
\3\ Rosel, P., Corkeron, P., and Soldevilla, M. (2022).
Balaenoptera ricei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2022:
e.T215823373A208496244. Available at iucnredlist.org/species/215823373/
208496244.
\4\ Hayes, S.A., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., et al., eds.
(2021). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock
Assessments 2020, at pp. 160-67. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-271.
Continued oil and gas development in the Gulf represents a clear,
existential threat to the whale's survival and recovery. The
government's Natural Resource Damage Assessment on the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill estimates that nearly 20 percent of Gulf of Mexico
whales were killed, with additional animals suffering reproductive
failure and disease.\5\ The species is also subject to chronic exposure
to noise from seismic oil and gas exploration, which dominates the
acoustic environment through much of the northern Gulf.\6\ Airgun
surveys have far-reaching effects on baleen whales, including the
masking of biologically important sounds and the disruption of
activities vital to feeding and reproduction over large ocean
areas.\7\,\8\,\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DWH NRDA Trustees (2016). Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Final
programmatic damage assessment and restoration plan and final
programmatic environmental impact statement. Available at
www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan.
\6\ Estabrook, B.J., Ponirakis, D.W., Clark, C.W., and Rice, A.N.
(2016). Widespread spatial and temporal extent of anthropogenic noise
across the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf ecosystem. Endangered
Species Research, 30: 267-82.
\7\ Castellote, M., Clark, C.W., and Lammers, M.O. (2012). Acoustic
and behavoural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in
response to shipping and airgun noise. Biological Conservation, 147:
115-22.
\8\ Cerchio, S., Strindberg, S., Collins, T., et al. (2014).
Seismic surveys negatively affect humpback whale singing activity off
Northern Angola. PLoS ONE, 9(3): e86464.doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0086464.
\9\ Blackwell, S.B., Nations, C.S., McDonald, T.L., et al. (2015).
Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates: Evidence for
two behavioral thresholds. PLoS ONE, 10(6): e0125720.doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0125720.
Vessel collisions are another significant threat to the species. At
night, Gulf of Mexico whales come to rest within the upper 15 meters of
the water column, leaving them acutely vulnerable to ship strikes.\10\
One stranded whale, a lactating female, was found with injuries
consistent with blunt force trauma; another, a free-swimming
individual, has been observed with spinal deformities consistent with a
collision injury.1 A number of shipping routes traverse the
whales' habitat along the northern Gulf, and the collision risk is
likely to increase with new offshore oil and gas development. With
abundance so low, the loss of even a single whale threatens the
survival of the species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Soldevilla, M.S., Hildebrand, J.A., Fraser, K.E., et al.
(2017). Spatial distribution and dive behavior of Gulf of Mexico
Bryde's whales: Potential risk of vessel strikes and fisheries
interactions. Endangered Species Research, 32: 533-50.
Gulf of Mexico whales can recover. They continue to produce calves, and
our experience with other baleen whales shows that populations can
rebound as conditions improve. But Gulf of Mexico whales are on the
edge of extinction, and measures are urgently needed to reduce
mortality and serious injury as well as to alleviate human stressors.
Aquaculture, offshore wind farms, and other new development should
always be sited outside of their known habitat, which is limited to a
strip of water running along the continental shelf break from the
eastern through the central and western Gulf. Vessels transiting
through the whales' habitat should be required to slow down and take
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other measures to reduce the risk of a fatal collision.
In the case of oil and gas development, protecting the species means
excluding leasing and other activities from the whale's habitat;
prohibiting seismic airgun surveys to prevent exposure of the whales
and their habitat to what has become the dominant source of noise in
the northern Gulf;6 and disallowing drilling in areas both
inside and outside of the whale's habitat, such as in the Mississippi
Canyon, that pose a catastrophic risk to the species. Habitat in the
eastern, central, and western Gulf must be protected. Your
Administration is presently considering a new five-year program for
offshore oil and gas leasing, as well as a new regulation and related
permits and authorizations for seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico.
Continuing with seismic exploration or drilling in the northern Gulf is
antithetical to basic principles of conservation and would jeopardize
the species' survival and recovery.
The Gulf of Mexico whale is a unique part of the Gulf's natural history
and the only large whale species resident year-round in the waters of
the United States. Yet few on-water measures have been established to
protect it. Unless significant conservation actions are taken, the
United States is likely to cause the first anthropogenic extinction of
a great whale species.\11\,\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Corkeron, P., Roman, J., Kershaw, F., et al. (2022).
Balaenoptera ricei is also the Gulf of Mexico whale. Marine Mammal
Science, 38: 847-49.
\12\ Corkeron, P., and Kraus, S.D. (2018). Baleen whale species on
brink of extinction for first time in 300 years. Nature, 554: 169.
On this, the fiftieth anniversary year of the nation's commitment to
whales through the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we urge
you to announce robust conservation measures to protect the Gulf of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico whale as well as funding for its recovery.
October 2022
Peter Corkeron, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Chair, Kraus Marine Mammal Conservation Program
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life
New England Aquarium
Francine Kershaw, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Marine Mammals and Oceans
Natural Resources Defense Council
Matthew Leslie, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor
Environmental Studies Department
Ursinus College
Joe Roman, Ph.D., Fellow
Gund Institute for Environment
University of Vermont
Alexandra Aines, M.E.M.
Marine Scientist
Oceana
S. Elizabeth Alter, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Department of Biology & Chemistry
California State University, Monterey Bay
Kimberly R. Andrews, Ph.D., Bioinformatic Data Scientist
University of Idaho
Robin Baird, Ph.D., Research Biologist
Cascadia Research Collective
Lisa T. Ballance, Ph.D.
Director, Marine Mammal Institute
Endowed Chair for Marine Mammal Research
Professor, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences
Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center
Jay Barlow, Ph.D.
40 years as a marine mammal scientist
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (retired)
Lance Barrett-Lennard, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist
Co-Director, Cetacean Research Program
Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Simone Baumann-Pickering, Ph.D., Professor and Researcher
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California San Diego
Paulette Bloomer, Ph.D., Professor
University of Pretoria
Gill Braulik, Ph.D., Research Fellow
Sea Mammal Research Unit
University of St. Andrews
Claire Charlton, Ph.D., Principal Scientist
Current Environmental
Fredrik Christiansen, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Zoophysiology--Department of Biology
Aarhus University
Phillip J. Clapham, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Seastar Scientific
Christopher W. Clark, Ph.D., Founding Director (retired)
K. Lisa Yang Center for Conservation Bioacoustics
Senior Scientist, Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Graduate Professor, Dept. of Neurobiology & Behavior
Cornell University
Tim Collins, M.S., Researcher
Wildlife Conservation Society
Richard Connor, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Courtesy Professor, Florida International University
Rochelle Constantine, Ph.D.
Professor, Marine Ecology and Conservation Biology
Institute of Marine Science
University of Auckland
Stephen Dawson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
Marine Science Department
University of Otago
Asha de Vos, Ph.D., Founding Executive Director
Oceanswell
Alistair Dove, Ph.D.
Vice President of Science and Education
Georgia Aquarium
Charlotte R. Findlay, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Fellow, Marine Bioacoustics Lab
Zoophysiology--Department of Biology
Aarhus University
Alyson Fleming Ph.D., Research Faculty
Forest & Wildlife Ecology
University of Wisconsin Madison
Wally Franklin, Ph.D.
Adjunct Fellow, Southern Cross University
Managing Director and Marine Scientist, Oceana Project
Laura Ganley, Ph.D., Associate Scientist
New England Aquarium
Peter Gill, Ph.D., Director
Blue Whale Study
Sarah Glitz, Ph.D., Marine Scientist
Oceana
Pavel Gol'din, Ph.D., Leading Researcher
Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology
Simon Goldsworthy, Ph.D., Professor
University of Adelaide
Rebecca Hall, Scientific Officer
Blue Whale Study
Robert Harcourt, Ph.D., Professor
Macquarie University
Mark Hindell, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor
University of Tasmania
Ellen Hines, Ph.D., Associate Director and Professor
Estuary & Ocean Science Center
San Francisco State University
Fairul Izmal Jamal Hisne, Co-Founder & Vice-Chairperson
Marecet Research Organization
Sascha Hooker, Ph.D., Professor
Sea Mammal Research Unit
University of St Andrews
Lisa A. Hoopes, Ph.D., Director of Research and Conservation
Georgia Aquarium
Kelsey Howe, Assistant Scientist
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life
New England Aquarium
Erich Hoyt
Research Fellow, Whale and Dolphin Conservation
Co-chair, IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force
Sharon Hsu, M.S., Research Assistant
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life
New England Aquarium
Miguel Iniguez, M.Sc., Researcher
Fundacion Cethus
Yulia V. Ivashchenko, Ph.D., Director
Seastar Scientific
Mark Johnson, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Zoophysiology--Department of Biology
Aarhus University
Kristin Kaschner, Ph.D., Research Associate
Department of Biometry and Environmental Systems Analysis
Albert-Ludwig-University of Freiburg
Eric Keen, Ph.D., Visiting Professor
Sewanee: The University of the South
Robert D. Kenney, Ph.D.
Emeritus Marine Research Scientist & Adjunct Professor in Resident
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Jeremy Kiszka, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Florida International University
Scott D. Kraus, Ph.D., Chair
North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium
Russell Leaper, Consulting Scientist
International Fund for Animal Welfare
Carolina Bonin Lewallen, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Marine and Environmental Sciences Department
Hampton University
Laura May-Collado, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Department of Biology
University of Vermont
Richard Merrick, Ph.D., Independent Scientist
Retired from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Olaf Meynecke, Ph.D., Researcher and Manager, Whales and Climate
Griffith University
Michael J. Moore, Vet. M.B., Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Leslie New, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Ursinus College
Giuseppe Notabartolo di Sciara, Ph.D., Founder and Vice-President
Tethys Research Institute
Orla O'Brien, M.S., Associate Scientist
New England Aquarium
Daniel Palacios, Ph.D., Endowed Associated Professor in Whale Habitats
Marine Mammal Institute and Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, &
Conservation Sciences
Oregon State University
E.C.M. Parsons, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Centre for Conservation and Ecology, University of
Exeter
Affiliate Professor, George Mason University
Heidi Pearson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Marine Biology
University of Alaska Southeast
Gwenith Penry, Ph.D., Research Associate
Institute for Coastal and Marine Research
Nelson Mandela University
Betzi Perez, M.Sc., President, Panama
Panacetacea
Benjamin Pitcher, Ph.D., Research Fellow
School of Natural Sciences
Macquarie University
Robert Pitman, Marine Ecologist
Marine Mammal Institute
Oregon State University
Stephanie Plon, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Stellenbosch University
Elena Politi, M.Sc., Member
IUCN Joint SSC/WCPA Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force
Margi Prideaux, Ph.D., Policy Director
Wild Migration
Timothy J. Ragen, Ph.D., Executive Director (retired)
Marine Mammal Commission
Kristen Rasmussen, M.Sc., Founder and President
Panacetacea
William J. Rayment, Ph.D.
Department of Marine Science
University of Otago
Vincent Ridoux, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology
University of La Rochelle
Denise Risch, Ph.D., Lecturer
Scottish Association for Marine Science
University of the Highlands and Islands
Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho, Ph.D.
Ocean Wise
Canada/Mexico
Rosalind M. Rolland, D.V.M., Emeritus Senior Scientist
New England Aquarium
Naomi Rose, Ph.D., Marine Mammal Scientist
Animal Welfare Institute
Peter Ross, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Matthew Savoca, Ph.D.
NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University
Rod Salm, Ph.D., Senior Advisor Emeritus
The Nature Conservancy
Meike Scheidat, Ph.D., Senior Researcher
Wageningen Marine Research
Geoff Shester, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Oceana
Mark Peter Simmonds, OBE, Visiting Research Fellow
Veterinary School, University of Bristol
Ana Sirovic, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Liz Slooten, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
University of Otago
Brian D. Smith, Senior International Adviser
Wildlife Conservation Society
Craig Smith, Ph.D., Professor of Oceanography
University of Hawaii
Mark Smith, Manager of Conservation, Research, and Animal Welfare
Royal Zoological Society of South Australia
Renata Sousa-Lima, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
Michael Stocker, Founding Director
Ocean Conservation Research
Dipani Sutaria, Ph.D., Research Fellow
James Cook University, and Marine Mammal Research and Conservation
Network
Barbara Taylor, Ph.D.
28 years as a marine mammal scientist
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (retired)
Coordinator, IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group Red List Assessments
Dom Tollit, Ph.D., Principal Scientist
SMRU Consulting Canada
Peter Tyack, Ph.D., Emeritus Research Scholar
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Scott Veirs, Ph.D., President
Beam Reach Marine Science and Education
Val Veirs, Ph.D., Professor of Physics (emeritus)
Colorado College
Valeria Vergara, Ph.D., Senior Scientist and Co-Director
Cetacean Conservation Research Program
Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Els Vermeulen, Ph.D., Director
Mammal Research Institute Whale Unit
Department of Zoology and Entomology
University of Pretoria
Lindy Weilgart, Ph.D.
Senior Ocean Noise Expert & Policy Consultant, OceanCare
Adjunct Research Associate, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University
Shaye Wolf, Ph.D., Climate Science Director
Center for Biological Diversity
Bernd Wursig, Ph.D.
University Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Texas A&M University at Galveston
______
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-692
doi:10.7289/V5/TM-SEFSC-692
STATUS REVIEW OF BRYDE'S WHALES (BALAENOPTERA EDENI) IN THE GULF OF
MEXICO UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Patricia E. Rosel, Peter Corkeron, Laura Engleby, Deborah Epperson,
Keith D. Mullin, Melissa S. Soldevilla, Barbara L. Taylor
December 2016
*****
This memo is part of the hearing record and is retained in the
Committee's official files.
It is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20230228/115368/HHRG-
118-II06-20230228-SD021.pdf
------
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany, is
recognized.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much. I would just respond
to the good lady from Michigan. All she has to do is look at
the upper Midwest states--Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota--
to see why the ESA needs to be reformed. And that is because of
the wolf, the wolf that has recovered fully and no longer
should be on the Endangered Species Act. They are the poster
child for why we should reform the ESA.
Mr., or excuse me, Professor Squillace, is the Energy
Information Agency, are they incorrect? Because I heard you say
that there is going to be less oil and gas use. They are
projecting through 2050 we are going to have about a 50 percent
increase.
Mr. Squillace. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Yes, I think they are incorrect.
The EIA has consistently over-estimated the amount of
fossil fuels that we are going to need. If you look back the
last 20, 30 years, particularly on issues like coal and oil and
gas, their estimates were way off, in terms of----
Mr. Tiffany. So, EIA is incorrect, EIA.
What was the price of oil on January 20, 2021, the day
President Biden was----
Mr. Squillace. I don't know the answer to that question,
Congressman.
Mr. Tiffany. The answer is it was $60 a barrel. And what is
it now, $90 a barrel? Something like that.
Mr. Squillace. It is a little under $90, I believe, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, exactly. So, you criticize a company for
making huge profits. Why did that happen? All you have to do is
look at cause and effect.
And to say that these companies that are--you heard from
Mr. Naatz, how he said that it takes years for us to get
through the permitting process, and that they are being denied
being able to get those permits done. If you are seeing
significant delays, you can see how people are pricing in the
increase in energy costs as a result of the reduction in energy
that is going to be produced right here in America.
It is time to stop the blame game, when we can bring down
the price of oil really fast and also make it more affordable
for the American people simply by producing more.
Do you agree that plastics pollution is a problem?
Mr. Squillace. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Isn't plastics an alternative to us not
mining?
Mr. Squillace. I don't know what you mean by that question.
Certainly, plastics can be used as a substitute for some
other----
Mr. Tiffany. We use them for so many things that we used to
mine minerals for. Haven't companies factored in the
alternative in that way by saying we are not going to go the
mineral route, we are going to produce our stuff in other ways?
I would just add a little statement. We just had the former
U.S. Forest Service Director here a few months ago, when we
were in the Minority last session, and I asked him if it is OK
to mine anywhere. Because you lay out this whole issue of
alternatives. But every time we said, ``Well, how about here,''
he is like, well, no, we just simply can't do it here,
including the mine out in Arizona, Resolution Copper, that,
gosh, we can't possibly mine there, because I brought that up.
He said we shouldn't be mining in the upper Midwest, like
Twin Metals. And I said, ``Well, how about in''--and he said a
dry climate would be a better place to go. We said, ``Well, how
about Resolution Copper?'' Well, we can't mine there, either.
It seems like every time we bring up an alternative, it is
always no.
How many years of private sector experience do you have,
Professor?
Mr. Squillace. I would say six to seven. I should say that
that was with the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, so that was not in the private sector.
That was a public entity, correct?
Mr. Squillace. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. OK. So, no years of private sector experience,
if you exclude that.
Have you ever owned a business?
Mr. Squillace. No.
Mr. Tiffany. When is the last time you visited an active
drill site, either mining or for petroleum?
Mr. Squillace. About a year ago.
Mr. Tiffany. Which one?
Mr. Squillace. I was up at the Montana mine. I am drawing a
blank. The one in Butte, Montana. I was up at that mine.
Mr. Tiffany. Did you talk to the owners and managers of the
facility?
Mr. Squillace. Yes. Yes, we did.
Mr. Tiffany. Have you ever been to the Eagle Mine in the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan?
Mr. Squillace. No, I have not.
Mr. Tiffany. I would urge you to go there. You will see
modern, 21st century mining that goes on up at the Eagle Mine.
They actually, the drill hole goes underneath the river. And I
would urge you to go there.
If people want to see 21st century mining right in your
state, the Eagle Mine. It can be done using existing
regulations that are there. The state permitting process can be
used there.
Mr. Squillace. Can I briefly respond to some of the
comments that you are making here?
Mr. Tiffany. No, I have only 20 seconds left, and I have to
give some time to a couple of other people.
Does the process drive up the cost of minerals, Mr. Nolan?
Does this process drive up the cost of us bringing minerals to
the marketplace?
Mr. Nolan. It absolutely does. The time delayed for
projects is very expensive, and capital goes elsewhere.
Mr. Tiffany. And does that ultimately end up coming out of
the consumer's pocket?
Mr. Nolan. Eventually in the price in the marketplace.
Mr. Tiffany. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Rhode
Island, Mr. Magaziner. Did I say it right?
Mr. Magaziner. That is right.
Dr. Gosar. OK, thank you.
Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman.
This Committee has a responsibility to ensure that
America's natural resources benefit the American people and not
just the special interests. And over the past year, we have
seen vividly what can happen when big energy companies are
allowed to put profits ahead of people.
In just 6 months last year, the price of gasoline in this
country rose 49 percent. The price of diesel fuel rose 55
percent. Rhode Islanders were paying $5 a gallon for gas for
the first time ever. Families were struggling to heat their
homes. And what were the big oil companies doing? Raking in
record profits--not revenues, profits. Exxon, Chevron, BP,
Shell, Total Energy has recorded profits of nearly $200 billion
in 2022. That is not revenue, that is profits. That is $600 for
every American citizen.
Exxon alone reported more than almost $80 billion in
profits. That is $6 million an hour. Their CEO made $18 million
last year, and the company recently signed off on a $50 billion
stock buyback plan.
Chevron made $36 billion in profits, more than double the
previous year. Their CEO made $22 million, all of this while
the industry was sitting on more than 9,000 unused leases on
Federal lands.
They want the price to be high. They want the price to be
high. So, we cannot have a real conversation about lowering
energy costs without addressing runaway profits. The benefit of
energy production on public lands should go to the consumer,
not the highly-paid executives or the hedge fund managers.
So, now we are being asked to consider legislation that
would let the oil and gas industry short-cut environmental
reviews to get even more leases faster and to sit on them
longer, without any guarantee that it will do anything to lower
prices for consumers. We are even being asked to look at
gutting the funding that Democrats secured to speed up
permitting reviews.
I will say that again: gutting the funding to speed up
permitting reviews, because the goal here is not to speed up
the process, it is to shortcut the process.
So, we cannot allow oil and gas companies to sit on unused
leases for longer, preventing those leases from being used, by
the way, for clean energy projects and other purposes that
could lower costs for consumers indefinitely. We have to, as a
Committee, make sure that we prioritize the interests of the
American consumer, not the interests of the CEOs, the
executives, the hedge funds, and the like. And I look forward
to working with anybody to do that.
My question for Mr. Squillace is, in your testimony, you
talked about how these 14 million acres of unused leases in
many cases could be used for other productive purposes,
including affordable, clean energy projects that could lower
prices for consumers. Could you expand on that point, please?
Mr. Squillace. Sure. Thank you for the question,
Congressman.
We have tied up a lot of lands, not just for the 10-year
primary term of a lease, but oftentimes much longer than that.
There was a study done in 2018 that suggested over 2,700 leases
had gone well beyond their primary term through these
suspensions. The bill, the TAP American Energy Act, would allow
almost unfettered access to these additional suspensions, which
are supposedly in the interest of conservation.
And the problem with that is that, under the TAP American
Energy Act, apparently an oil and gas company could request an
extension, basically because they are claiming that they need
some adjacent land to develop their oil and gas, and the BLM is
required to issue that extension within 15 days, no review, no
public process. And these extensions go on and on forever. The
GAO report found that for 650 leases, these leases had extended
more than 30 years.
So, the problem is that these leases are tying up our
public lands and they are not being used for the purposes for
which they were made. All those lands are no longer available,
not just for renewable energy development, which could be
important, but for other public uses that we could make of
these lands, including public access, public recreation, and
those kinds of things.
So, I think it is really important that we clean up the
leases that are not being used, that we find ways to remove
them from our public lands, and indeed that we periodically and
pretty often review suspensions of leases to make sure that
they have been issued for legitimate reasons.
Mr. Magaziner. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman, Mr.
Curtis, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor--and I am going to try to do this--Squillace, did
I----
Mr. Squillace. It is Squillace.
Mr. Curtis. Squillace. Excuse me. I knew I wouldn't get it
right, but I wanted to address you.
In your testimony, you state, ``Calls to reform the General
Mining Law of 1872 go back more than 100 years. To say that
reforms are long overdue is a gross understatement.'' I
frequently hear this from a lot of my Democratic colleagues.
But I have noticed in an Op-Ed that you penned yourself on
the Antiquities Act, you write, ``It would be shortsighted in
the extreme for Congress to change a single word of what has
been, by practicality, every measure, one of the most fruitful
and farsighted laws that has ever been put on the books.''
Now, I am not going to disagree that during Western
discovery there could be a role for Antiquities Act, but those
days are long gone. How do you square--how is it logical to
argue one law needs updating due to its age and the changing
conditions of the world, but not the other from the same time
period?
Mr. Squillace. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
really think it is apples and oranges here.
I think, since the Antiquities Act was passed, there has
been increasing demand from the public to protect our public
lands for public kinds of uses. If you go back and look at the
history of the Antiquities Act, many of our most favorite
national parks started as national monuments that were
designated under the Antiquities Act.
Mr. Curtis. So, I am actually going to agree with you on
that, although in my district the Antiquities Act has been used
to abuse, to tie up vast amounts of land that don't have those
same interests, and I would just argue with you that it needs
the same changes because of its outdatedness.
Mr. Squillace. Fair enough. Can we talk about the general
mining law then, and the need for reform?
Mr. Curtis. Well, I would like to talk to Mr. Nolan, and
address a question to Mr. Nolan.
On average, it takes 4\1/2\ years to complete the NEPA
permitting and review process. The recent IRA and
infrastructure laws have authorized billions of dollars for
renewables, but they will go underutilized due to NEPA.
Just yesterday, I met with the CBO Director, who agreed
that permitting reform would increase the rate at which these
new energy programs are used.
As we all look to cut global emissions and end hard working
conditions abroad, shouldn't we prioritize domestic minerals?
Mr. Nolan. I would fully support that statement. The global
forecast for minerals demand are exponential. We are going to
have shortages, prices will go up, the consumers will pay the
price, manufacturing will pay the price, economic progress will
pay the price. We are 10 to 20 years behind China and the
investments that they made, and now we are seeing the results.
Mr. Curtis. Can you give us a sense of how the people you
represent feel about this sense that it is not OK to do here,
where we have rigorous standards for human rights, for
emissions, for safety, and somehow it is OK--if we can't see
it, it is somehow OK?
Mr. Nolan. Well, the mining industry is a very proud and
patient part, a vital part of our economy. We have witnessed an
unprecedented growth in demand not seen in this country, not
seen globally, probably, since World War II. And the
opportunities that afford themselves here in the United States
are vast.
And, again, we have been patient with this Administration
and the Congress now reaching a bipartisan conclusion that we
need these materials. There has been capital investments made
through the Department of Energy, through the Defense
Production Act that are helpful. But at the same time, if we
cannot permit or expand mines here in the United States, none
of those resources matter.
Mr. Curtis. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but
you tell me if this is an accurate representation. The people
you represent stand ready to meet the highest environmental
standards, the highest safety standards, the highest human
rights values to meet the needs that we have here in the United
States.
Mr. Nolan. And exceed them, Congressman.
Mr. Curtis. Excellent. Good. Thank you.
I yield my time.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Utah. The gentleman
from Arizona, the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr.
Grijalva, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow up on
my colleague's questions, Mr. Nolan.
So, ``exceed the highest standards.'' Do you believe, then,
that companies, multi-national companies, corporations that
work in other parts of the world that exploit people, child
labor, horrible labor standards, no concern for the environment
or clean air or clean water, do you feel that these particular
entities should be allowed to do business on Federal land and
waters if they are violating the laws of other countries? Yes
or no, if you wouldn't mind.
Mr. Nolan. No.
Mr. Grijalva. They should not be able to do business with
us?
Mr. Nolan. Congressman, there are specifics around global
mining operations and how they operate. But what I can tell you
is that the book of law that spans over three dozen Federal
environmental laws and regulations, including some of them that
have been mentioned here today, including the Antiquities Act,
provides a vast----
Mr. Grijalva. And I agree. And thank you, Mr. Nolan. I look
forward to working with you and my colleagues from across the
aisle to address that issue, in particular, through legislation
in the future.
If we are going to be consistent, that begs the question
not to be consistent. And by banning those entities from doing
business on Federal lands and waters, I think we take a step,
and keep that standard high for the rest of the world. I look
forward to those discussions.
Mr. Squillace, the bill allows mining companies to do their
own environmental assessments. Do you think that leads to,
would create conflicts of interest? And how would that, in
general, affect the environmental review, if a company does its
own analysis?
Mr. Squillace. Yes, I think there is no question,
Congressman, that if a company prepares the environmental
assessment, they have a biased point of view. They want to do
what they are proposing to do. And that is why NEPA was careful
to require that the NEPA document be prepared by the
responsible official--that is, by the agency. Only by having
the agency prepare the environmental documents are we going to
get, as I was discussing in my testimony, a robust alternatives
analysis that looks at other options.
I mean, in most cases, there are other ways to develop a
mineral resource. There are other places, maybe, where you can
do it. That is not to say that the government should deny the
permit for the applicant, but we need to look at these other
opportunities that we have.
I gave the example of lithium. It is kind of a very
important issue right now, with what is going on with lithium.
I think we have paid far too little attention to the
potential for recycling. You can dismiss recycling and say we
are not going there, but we have no program here in the United
States for robust metals recycling. And we could go a long way,
I think, with solving our problems if we adopted something like
what Europe has done with their waste of electric and
electronic equipment program.
Mr. Grijalva. So, approximately sir, let me follow up with
you. How much of our public lands would be open to mining
claims if the text in this bill became law?
What kind of restrictions would exist on those that stake a
claim where--how long would these claims be good for?
Mr. Squillace. So, Congressman, you have been a champion of
mining law reform and trying to avoid a lot of these problems,
and many of us are greatly appreciative of that.
But I will say that because of the way that the proposal
for H.R. 209 works, it would seem that it would open up all
lands that have not otherwise been withdrawn. I think that is
in the neighborhood of 300 million acres of public land that
would be available. And you won't even have to show that you
have made a discovery of valuable minerals. I mean, the only
limitation we have really had on the ability of a mining
company to go onto public lands and develop minerals is the
discovery requirement. And that would be wiped out. As I
pointed out in my testimony, it----
Mr. Grijalva. So, mining waste would then become, on public
land, a mining----
Mr. Squillace. Yes, because the bill defines operations to
include all ancillary facilities that are needed for mining.
So, all a mining company has to do is say that they need this
additional 2,000 or 3,000 acres of public land for their giant
mine waste pile, and it is theirs. They can basically take over
our public lands with this toxic mine waste, and that land is
going to, essentially, be lost forever.
Mr. Grijalva. As long as the present mining law exists, the
legislation we are talking about today, it only makes matters
worse. The law is the fundamental issue that is on the table.
Mining industry doesn't seem to have a problem with that, but
it does have a problem with public's right to know and public
interest balance.
But I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The
gentleman from Idaho, might be increased to be the Greater
Idaho, is recognized.
Mr. Fulcher. Not greater yet, but it might be coming here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to have a question for
Mr. Thomsen here in just a second.
But given our circumstances, if we try to do anything in a
bipartisan fashion, it is difficult because my friends on the
other side of the aisle, in terms of energy production, they
are not real fond of coal, not real fond of hydro because of
dams, not real fond of fossil fuels, certainly nuclear, not
even wind and solar when it comes to the point that they don't
want us to mine and manufacture what is necessary to do that.
So, for some time I have been trying to think of, all
right, unless you just don't like electricity, what are your
sources? And one that has been a very strong one in my state of
Idaho is geothermal. And I wanted to talk about that just for a
moment, and ask you.
You had submitted in your testimony there is significant
potential for geothermal resources on Federal lands. And in the
past, I have introduced bills to streamline the exploration for
such. And I just wanted to ask you, first of all, just in
general, to expand on your earlier thoughts and comments about
the potential for geothermal on Federal lands.
Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr.
Fulcher. Thank you for the question, and we have discussed this
some time ago. The potential for geothermal is huge, and states
are starting to recognize that if they want carbon-free,
reliable resources, they need to develop more and more
geothermal resources.
The year 2022 was incredibly good for Ormat. We signed
about 311 megawatts of power purchase agreements for the
development of geothermal. We have been a company since 1985,
and we operated about 1,000 megawatts. So, a third increase in
our total power purchase agreements is staggering. And we are
just one company. There are other companies.
California actually put out a request, basically, a mandate
looking for 1,000 megawatts of resources from geothermal. So,
the demand is increasing exponentially, and the need to be able
to permit and develop these projects on Federal lands is also
increasing.
However, at the same time, we are seeing the timelines for
an environmental assessment, an environmental impact statement,
and even a geothermal drilling permit continue to increase.
Mr. Fulcher. That actually takes me to the follow-up
question. Please tell the Committee where those specific pinch
points on the bureaucratic barriers for geothermal exploration
and permitting, where are those pinch points in the
bureaucracy?
Mr. Thomsen. Sure. Mr. Chairman, through you to Congressman
Fulcher, I think it is staffing at the Bureau of Land
Management. I think it is education. I am incredibly impressed
with the funding through the IRA. But it is going to take time
to be able to hire the number of employees. We have seen a big
loss in the specialty areas.
A lot of Bureau of Land Management employees were excited
to get in and look at wildlife management. They are not experts
in subsurface hydrogeology, and reservoir engineering, and the
things that are required for geothermal development.
Mr. Fulcher. So, you could probably get the idea of where
my head is on geothermal, and I think I understand where yours
is. But it is very difficult, again, to get my friends on the
other side of the aisle to do anything when it comes to energy
production, except for turn on the light switch.
Tell us in the remaining minute and 10 seconds that we
have, what does that footprint look like when you have a
geothermal facility--talk about the disruption of the surface
area. Talk about the environmental impact of a geothermal well,
a geothermal project.
Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you to
Congressman Fulcher, our footprint usually takes up about a 15-
acre disturbance. For the amount of power we produce, our
environmental footprint is 22 times smaller than a solar PV
project. We have zero emissions utilizing new binary
technology. So, as previous comments looked at the climate
change impacts, we see that discussion slowing down the
development of some projects. We do not see it expediting the
development of other projects like geothermal.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Idaho. The
gentlewoman from New York is recognized, the Ranking Member.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you so much.
And, Mr. Squillace, I just wanted to speak to a little bit
of the conduct that was directed toward you earlier. I think
that we, in this Committee, I rarely see anyone ask someone if
they have a Ph.D. or not. And if they don't have a Ph.D., then
their experience is illegitimate, and so on and so forth. And I
think it was inappropriate for a Member to attack your
extensive experience, just because you don't have an experience
as a corporate executive or trying to squeeze families for
profit that you shouldn't be listened to. I think that is
inappropriate. We wouldn't do that in any other form of
experience.
All forms of experience are legitimate, and yours is very
necessary here in this hearing, particularly because it does
provide that balance, and it speaks more to the state of our
body that there seem to be people that think anything outside
of corporate experience is illegitimate. So, thank you for
being here today. You deserve better than that, but I will dive
into it.
One of the pieces of legislation, as has been extensively
discussed, that is on the table today is the TAP American
Energy Act, and it gives away more and more lands to fossil
fuel development, and locks them up from potential productive
use, other productive uses like renewable energy development
and climate mitigation, and makes it even easier for industry
to avoid public input and the consequences of their actions.
So, let's talk about this whole leasing issue.
Mr. Squillace, on average, how many drilling permits are
approved each year on Federal land?
Mr. Squillace. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for
your kind comments. I have a pretty thick skin, and I am
reasonably confident about my own experience and expertise. I
was not cowed by the comments of your colleague.
I believe that the number is somewhere in the neighborhood
of 3,000. Do I have that right?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes.
Mr. Squillace. I think it is about 3,000 permits that are
issued every year. And as I mentioned in my testimony, we have
9,600 outstanding permits on our public lands. So, it is not as
if the oil and gas industry doesn't have the opportunity to
develop more public land oil and gas. I think the question is,
do we really need to exacerbate the existing problem of all
these leases and lands that are not being used, despite the
fact that they are tied up for many, many years?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And from our data, that is absolutely
right. Nearly 3,000 drilling permits are approved each year.
And how many wells are drilled annually out of that 3,000?
Mr. Squillace. I don't know the number. I am guessing that
you have the number in front of you. But, I think, the broader
point that needs to be made here is that there is not a lack of
opportunity for the oil and gas industry to develop our public
lands. What we really need to think about is a transition.
I talked a little bit in my written testimony about the
fact that the coal companies, a decade ago or so, many of us
were arguing that we needed to think about the transition away
from coal, because it was going to happen, and we couldn't get
people to listen to the need to manage the decline, if you
will, of coal. And what happened? We saw what happened. The big
coal companies all went bankrupt, some several times. And the
result was really devastating for a lot of the workers in the
coal-dependent communities, while the executives made out like
bandits.
And I suspect we are going to see something similar in the
oil and gas industry, not today, not in the next couple 2 or 3
years. But if we start looking over the next decade or two, we
are likely to see a significant change in that industry. And I
think the most important thing is for the American Government
to think about that transition. How are we going to manage it
to make sure that we don't leave these dependent communities
holding the bag, if you will, from the loss of jobs and the
loss of an economic opportunity that they have?
I think it can happen. We are seeing a fair amount of
transition of oil company employees to renewable energy. That
is great. I just think that we need to sort of manage it better
at sort of the national level, because I think it is coming
whether folks like it or not.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I mean, it is such an excellent point,
Mr. Squillace, because our goals here are to actually protect
and be proactive for coal workers and fossil fuel workers
because they were left holding the bag in the case of the coal
industry. This transition was not prepared for, and there was
almost this artificial propping up of the coal industry until
the market forces just really saw this not work out.
And, in fact, there may be giggling here at that, but we
saw even the other side resist pension protections for those
coal workers. So, I don't want to hear this giggling at that,
because we saw that pensions by the Republican Party were
opposed for those fossil fuel workers until Democrats stepped
in. But, thankfully, we were able to advance a bipartisan
protection of that. But it wasn't until we were able to advance
that.
And I think that that planning, that transition is going to
be essential. Thank you for raising that point.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from New York. The
gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this important hearing today.
With the average price of gasoline nationwide currently
sitting at $3.35, and the average hardrock mining project
taking 7 to 10 years to go through the NEPA permitting process,
clearly we must do more to streamline the permitting process
and encourage responsible energy production.
And I must just add that I am not thrilled to hear the
remarks from Mr. Squillace and the Ranking Member. It is
coming, whether people like it or not, the Green New Deal?
Wind? Solar? It is coming, whether people like it or not? We
are not even going to allow the markets to decide? The markets
were deciding with fossil fuels and it was a reliable and
efficient energy source. And then the Federal Government came
in and shut them down, and highly subsidized, heavily
subsidized wind and solar--so-called renewables that are not
renewable--and now we hear it is coming, whether people like it
or not. You are going to learn to like it because the Federal
Government is going to put the restrictions and regulations to
force you to have it, and you are going to like it, whether you
want to or not. Praise the Lord.
Look, I am proud to support both of these well-crafted
bills that we are here to discuss today that will do the work
that is needed to streamline the permitting process and
encourage responsible energy production here in America. I am
also thrilled that the TAP American Energy Act also includes
the American Energy Act that I introduced. My bill, H.R. 1067,
is important to the people in my district, and will help reduce
gas prices by providing certainty for energy producers.
Chief Operating Officer Naatz, you talk about this in your
testimony, but the Biden administration continues to ignore the
leasing mandates in the Mineral Leasing Act and the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act. Will this bill force the
Administration and future administrations to comply with the
law?
Mr. Naatz. Well, it certainly should. Again, thank you for
the question. As I said earlier, the laws are there, but the
Biden administration has not enforced the Mineral Leasing Act
and OCSLA. This bill will require quarterly lease sales, which
is very important to get that process both onshore and
offshore.
And I just want to also stress again how important, or how
negative the President has been. I can't tell you the impact
that the Administration saying no more drilling on Federal
lands, no more drilling offshore, the President saying again no
ability for the oil industry to provide to continue to drill,
period, has a----
Mrs. Boebert. He wants to end fossil fuels. That was his
campaign promise.
Mr. Naatz [continuing]. Dampening effect on small producers
that we represent to get out there and operate.
And the one other thing I would say is, you are talking
about the energy renaissance that happened with hydraulic
fracturing. Nobody knew that. So, if you are talking about ``we
know what is going to happen,'' we know the market decided
that. Energy producers, independent producers, took huge risks
to go down, hydraulically frack horizontal, and the energy
renaissance has happened. Thank God that happened. Thank God
that now that we have a situation in Ukraine and elsewhere,
that people didn't say, ``Oh, we are done.'' Our producers,
American producers went out and said, ``We are going to take
the risk,'' small producers, and that has benefited all of us.
Mrs. Boebert. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Naatz.
It was reported yesterday that President Biden was
incorrect about his assertions that the industry is sitting on
9,000 drilling permits, according to the BLM. In reality, those
numbers are much lower, potentially due to a clerical error--
how convenient--or a computer system malfunction.
Mr. Naatz, will you explain to those in this Subcommittee
who have echoed those same remarks that Joe Biden said, what
the revised number means, and why the industry might not be
able to use a permit immediately upon receipt?
Mr. Naatz. So, the numbers were--again, as we talk about
9,000--we are, by the agency's own admission, reduced down to
6,600. Again, that will tell you how unclear the agency is on
what is happening. The President of the United States himself
used a 9,000 figure, which was wrong.
Mrs. Boebert. Correct.
Mr. Naatz. Second of all, many of those approved permits
are tied up in litigation, lawsuits from the environmental
community. Both in New Mexico and Wyoming, leases are tied up.
So, as you are talking about leasing, it is really important to
understand they are tied up in litigation.
And then, finally, it is not just a spigot that you open
up. Once you get a permit, it takes a huge amount of work. This
doesn't happen overnight. So, we certainly take exception to
this idea that you can just turn these projects on and off
overnight.
Mrs. Boebert. Right. Thank you, Mr. Naatz. My time is
expired.
And thank you to the witnesses who are here today.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado. The
gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate it.
My friends across the aisle, when we talk about the cost of
energy, choose to ignore the impacts of supply and demand and
our domestic production being intentionally reduced by nearly 2
million barrels a day at the very offset of the Biden
administration. They never bring up the amazing profits from
renewable energy companies, much of which was extracted from
taxpayers with no choice in the matter in the form of Federal
subsidies. It came directly from tax dollars, and not because
they actually consumed any energy whatsoever.
So, I would just like to list a few of these. Some of the
biggest profit margins in the country last year, 2022, we
didn't hear about this. All we hear is about the oil and gas.
GE Renewable Energy, $5.84 billion net profits 2022; Iberdrola,
$4.99 billion net profit; NextEra, $3.83 billion; Vestas, $1.9
billion net profits; Daqo New Energy, $1.63 billion; Brookfield
Renewable, $887 million. These are all net profit numbers. We
never hear about that. All we hear about are the oil and gas
companies that had major profit margins. But, again, my friends
across the aisle refuse to acknowledge the facts of supply and
demand and this global market.
Mr. Naatz, in your testimony, you mentioned that while it
is a small percentage of all federally owned land, oil and gas
development on Federal lands results in substantial revenue and
investment in those communities that it is produced near. Could
you tell me more about the impact of oil and natural gas leases
to these rural communities?
Mr. Naatz. Congressman, again, it is hugely important. The
revenue source from both onshore and offshore is key to local
communities, even throughout the West. The impact on jobs,
economic development, schools are so dependent on this mineral
revenue, which is a great resource.
So, again, we feel that our industry is reducing its
footprint, doing a much better job of addressing issues. At the
same time that the footprint is getting smaller, we are
producing more oil and natural gas from single well pads. So,
the impact on the land, the impact on the environment is
reduced. In addition, if you look at any data, CO2
has gone down, methane has gone down, SOx has gone
down, NOx has gone down.
So, this is really a great story that we need to continue
to do better, continue to do a better job of. But the impact on
that--when I talked about multiple use--of using those lands
for a variety of uses--and I want to stress not just oil and
natural gas, a variety of uses--is really a backbone of those
Western economies.
Mr. Rosendale. And this is something that I had spoke with
the ranker about just last week, and that is there are so many
people that have been lifted out of impoverished conditions,
provided cleaner water, energy to their homes because of having
access to not only these natural resources, but the revenue
that is provided by them.
Mr. Naatz, you also mentioned in your testimony that no
modern economy can function without oil and natural gas
production. I understand that you are petroleum expert, so I
hope it is not unfair to ask you a policy question. But energy
is a commodity that is based on the global conditions and
influences. Given your expertise, do you believe that
significantly reducing the number of oil and gas leases in the
United States could make us more vulnerable to foreign
adversaries?
Mr. Naatz. Absolutely. Again, we talked about the American
production being the cleanest barrel of oil that is going to be
produced, and that not only goes from the environmental
benefits, but the labor, the safety. We are very proud of our
safety record across the board.
If you reduce that, and you saw the Administration have to
do that, immediately you have to start looking at other
countries--Venezuela, Saudi Arabia--which don't produce as
cleanly, as safely. And that is going to have a huge impact
when you, again, significantly reduce the production on Federal
lands, both onshore and offshore, it is bound to have an impact
of causing the United States to have to look abroad at sources
that are far dirtier and far less safe.
Mr. Rosendale. And outside of the environmental impacts, we
have already demonstrated that there are actually more gases in
the environment right now than prior to the Biden
administration because of these other countries producing the
energy at a lower quality environmental standard. What do you
believe it does to our national security when we start relying
more upon these adversaries for our energy?
Mr. Naatz. It is, again, something we always talk about,
which is more than even energy independence, it is energy
security. It benefits the world when the United States is an
energy superpower. And the renaissance that happened in the oil
and natural gas shale revolution really has given us the
ability--again, just look at any headline in today's paper,
what is happening. Imagine if the United States didn't have a
robust oil and natural gas industry to address that. And it is
something, again, that we think is really important for energy
security.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thomsen, I have a question for you. Can you tell me
what minerals you use in your geothermal? A lot of iron?
Mr. Thomsen. Mr. Chairman, yes, we do. Iron ore for the
piping for our geothermal facilities is critical.
Dr. Gosar. So, I guess my question, and I am coming back to
you, is how do you explore for geothermal?
Mr. Thomsen. Mr. Chairman, we need to go out and drill
exploratory wells to determine if there is a geothermal
resource at depth. What separates geothermal from other
renewable developers is it is not just an above-surface
exercise. We can't put out an anemometer and know where the sun
and the wind is going to blow. We have to go drill and, using
geology, look for these unique areas where we have geothermal
resources close to the Earth's crust.
Dr. Gosar. So, pretty prevalent, if I am not mistaken, in
Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, right, in the West?
Mr. Thomsen. Correct, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I think you said the magic word about the
problem here, and that is called drilling. The similarity that
each one of you have is drilling. We don't want to perforate
that subsurface and that surface. I think that is what the
biggest problem is here, because you, of all the industries,
are the most renewable asset we have.
Mr. Squillace, I have a dilemma here. A previous Minority
witness had said that recycling was robust in this country in
regards to solar panels and critical and rare earths. You said
otherwise. What gives?
Mr. Squillace. Well, Congressman, thank you for the
question. I do not think that we have a robust recycling
program in this country. It may exist in some local
communities, and even in a few states. But I wouldn't call it
anything close to robust, particularly with respect to all of
the electrical and electronic equipment that we have that is
generally disposed of in landfills.
You think about all the old computers, hard drives, other
kinds of equipment that has lots of valuable minerals embedded
in it. And what Europe has done has basically adopted what they
call the ``extended producer principle,'' which basically
requires the producer of those materials, of those things, to
take them back and recycle the metals that are in them. And if
we were able to do that, I think it is a great idea. There is
no there is no downside, I think, to requiring that we reclaim
the minerals that we have already mined.
Dr. Gosar. Well, let me interrupt you there.
Mr. Squillace. Sure.
Dr. Gosar. My understanding of the process is it is still
pretty caustic in regards to reclaiming those metals and
purifying them. But I thank you very much for giving me a
better understanding from previous witnesses.
Now, Mr. Nolan, in regards to, I want to talk about the
mining process, particularly within the designation of Russia,
Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, particularly with uranium.
Anybody that I have seen that has any macho in regards to
renewable energy understands you cannot do renewables without
uranium. Tell me how this was nearsighted by not keeping them
on the critical minerals list.
Mr. Nolan. Uranium is critical to baseload power in this
country. Combined with coal, it makes up 40 percent of our
electricity generation here. Right now, only 5 percent of that
uranium is coming from domestic sources, and the majority of
that is in stockpiles. So, we don't have it.
Dr. Gosar. So, where do most of the rods come from? Russia,
right?
Mr. Nolan. Russia, Kazakhstan.
Dr. Gosar. And Uzbekistan.
Mr. Nolan. And Australia and Canada.
Dr. Gosar. So, very, very problematic, because if I am not
mistaken, most of it is in Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.
Mr. Nolan. That is correct.
Dr. Gosar. So, when you are looking at something so
critical for baseload power--and I want to make sure we get
this right. Baseload power is different than temporary power,
right?
Mr. Nolan. Pardon. The question, sir?
Dr. Gosar. They are very different, aren't they?
Mr. Nolan. Very much so.
Dr. Gosar. So, baseload power, 24/7, you flip the switch
and it comes on. If the wind doesn't blow, the sun doesn't
shine, we don't have energy on the temporary marketplace.
In regards to the permitting process, why is it important
that the mining companies have work outside of the United
States? Can you give us a kind of a portfolio breakdown for us,
and why?
Mr. Nolan. They work outside the United States because
there are jurisdictions measured--and any CEO or executive or
mining exploration geologist can tell you--that are more
attractive. This country, 10 years ago, was the No. 1
destination for capital. We now fall into No. 3. China is
literally cleaning our clock. There are jurisdictions in Canada
and Australia that can get through the process and stand up
mines within 2 to 3 years. As this Committee knows, it takes at
least 7 to 10 in this country, and that is before you get to
litigation, which can add another 1 to 3 years on top of that.
Dr. Gosar. So, just to summarize it, you have to have other
portfolio aspects to keep your company alive while you are
waiting for something in the United States.
Mr. Nolan. That is correct.
Dr. Gosar. We are going to go to a second round real quick.
So, with that, I am going to recognize the gentleman from
Montana for his 5 minutes.
Committee Staff Voice. She goes first.
Dr. Gosar. No?
Committee Staff Voice. No.
Dr. Gosar. No, we go first and then they go. It is the same
process. And then I will come back to you, then me. Yes, go
ahead.
Mr. Rosendale. We tried going ladies first.
Mr. Nolan, as you can see, everything that I have been
talking about today has had the national security focus on it,
the national security vent, if you will. You brought up
international competition for minerals in your testimony.
Specifically, you mentioned China's Go Global campaign to
secure raw materials.
Do you believe that support for mining is an issue of
national security as China aggressively pursues minerals?
Mr. Nolan. Congressman, I do. The testimony is accurate.
The Chinese have been at this investment strategy for over a
decade. They have managed to corner the market in many
materials, and especially including the finishing of those
materials, processing and refining. And that is a big problem.
That is why it is important to continue to invest.
At the same time, we are talking about standing up new and
expansive mine operations in this country. We also need to
bring forward processing, and development, and smelting here in
the United States. We ought not to be mining these materials,
sending them overseas, just to buy them back. We need to do it
all at once here, and we are behind.
Mr. Rosendale. So, basically, like a colony producing raw
materials and then shipping them overseas, having them turn
into a product, and then purchasing them back again?
Mr. Nolan. It is an unfortunate practice, but that is what
happens now.
Mr. Rosendale. And why would you, in your opinion, say that
we have to send all of these raw materials overseas for that
refining and processing?
Mr. Nolan. There has been a lack of will and investment
here in the United States, based on the limitations that have
been put forward in standing up processing facilities from cost
and environmental compliance standards.
Mr. Rosendale. So, basically, it is a risk versus reward
and the inability to have predictability. Not to put words in
your mouth, but on the outcome of that investment.
Mr. Nolan. It is less risky.
Mr. Rosendale. OK. By any chance, do you know of the rough
numbers of the 10 critical elements or minerals that we most
depend upon, how much of those China currently has control
over?
Mr. Nolan. About 60 percent.
Mr. Rosendale. About 60 percent of the top 10----
Mr. Nolan. That is correct.
Mr. Rosendale. We have all been talking about supply chain
problems for the last several years. I think if we didn't
recognize anything else, when we went through COVID, that the
reliance that America has on, whether it is for pharmaceuticals
or for computer chips, to be bringing that in from overseas is
very problematic and, quite frankly, very dangerous to our
country and to the people that live here.
Do you think that transitioning too quickly or too
aggressively to electric vehicles could create supply chain
problems here in the United States?
Mr. Nolan. Absolutely. I think you have already seen just
about every major EV company take investment stocks and
agreements with mining companies here in the United States and
North America to de-risk those supply chains. Time will tell if
that will be effective. If we don't get the permitting process
right, those investments will not be proven out.
Mr. Rosendale. So, I am not sure who would be the best one
suited to answer this question across the panel there.
But as I go around the state of Montana, a lot of the
communities are extremely dependent upon small co-ops. It is a
very rural state. We have spread-out communities, and we don't
have that many large energy providers. And the local co-ops are
telling me that they have substantial barriers and issues that
are looming on the horizon in order to provide the electricity
that is going to be necessary if we were to throw a switch
today and say we are going to mandate all of these EVs.
Are you getting any feedback about how we could actually
produce--it is not just a question of producing the energy, but
actually a question of having the infrastructure available to
deliver that in, as well. Can anyone comment on that?
Mr. Nolan. I can take a stab at it. We certainly made
tremendous investments in infrastructure and electrification in
this economy over the last Congress. But now we are coming up
against the concerns that we have been talking about here
today: there are not enough engineers, there are not enough
permits, and there is not enough time to transition quickly
enough to make sure we have the electricity we need. And that
goes in spades for the co-ops, who are, as you say, small
business operators.
Mr. Rosendale. So, the last thing I would say, Mr. Nolan,
is that I have also been quite the advocate to make sure that
we have baseload electricity. And while it is great to utilize
these renewables when they are available--including
hydroelectricity, which still fails to be identified as a
renewable energy--when we start looking at when they are
actually going to be able to be utilized, the most efficient
form that I have seen on a wind farm was about 40 percent that
they could run at full capacity. So, that leaves about 60
percent of the time, according to my real quick math, that they
are not going to be able to.
How are we supposed to provide the energy consistently,
efficiently for that balance of that 60 percent?
Mr. Thomsen. Mr. Chairman, if I may, to Congressman
Rosendale, geothermal provides that baseload power with zero
emissions. And the provisions in the TAP Act would allow us to
develop our projects twice as fast, reducing the permitting
time in half. The Department of Energy has said that would
unleash about 6.5 gigawatts of additional energy, primarily in
places like Montana, the West. So, when you look at the
solution to EVs, it is expediting the exploration and
development of renewable resources and drilling for projects
like geothermal.
I would be remiss if I didn't say that 6.5 gigawatts of
additional geothermal generation represents about a $30 billion
investment in construction, thousands of jobs, and about a half
a billion dollars in local royalties paid to co-ops and folks
who are taking advantage of these type of projects throughout
the West.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you.
And Mr. Chair, I will yield back with one final comment--
not question--and that is that is great to have all that energy
being produced, but then we run into the problem of permitting
the transmission lines to get it where it is actually going to
be consumed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. The
gentlelady, the Ranking Member, from New York is acknowledged.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I thank the Chair. I want to quickly
touch on Representative Stauber's Permit MN bill that is being
discussed today that would update our mining laws to largely
favor mining interests.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested
here and in another forums that environmental review is a key
bottleneck in developing critical resources, and that reforms
to the National Environmental Policy Act are necessary, that it
creates all of these headaches, and there are all these issues
in NEPA, and we need to really streamline it and reopen it for
editing and review.
Mr. Nolan, you are the CEO of the National Mining
Association. Do you know what percent of NEPA decisions have a
significant enough environmental impact to require an
environmental impact statement?
Mr. Nolan. I don't have that, but I am happy to get it to
the Committee. I am sure you may have it in front of you.
I would say, though, that just about every EIS for a modern
mining project is challenged in court after the decision is
made.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I see here the GAO estimates it is about
1 percent of all NEPA decisions require an EIS. Do you know how
many of those NEPA decisions require an environmental
assessment?
Mr. Nolan. The GAO methodology is somewhat suspect, because
that EIS component is limited, and that sample size in that
report is something I would like to further discuss.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, given that, and I register that. But
on top of that 1 percent, we are also seeing that the estimates
are less than 5 percent of all NEPA decisions requiring an EA.
And, specifically, when it comes to hardrock mining, Mr. Nolan,
the industry says it takes roughly 10 years to permit a mine.
Is that correct?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I would also like to introduce to the
record a GAO report that shows hardrock mines average, in their
assessment, about 2 years to permit. So, when we talk about
permitting reform, which in the case of this bill, guts a lot
of environmental review, what we really, I think, should be
focusing on is the more than the $1 billion in the Inflation
Reduction Act to increase Federal agency capacity for those
environmental reviews, which I think would actually speed up
time.
But I want to turn now to questions around royalties for
hardrock mines. Mr. Nolan, how many abandoned hardrock mines
are there in the United States?
Mr. Nolan. Hundreds of thousands, ma'am.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes. And according to another report, we
are looking at over more than 400,000 abandoned hardrock mines
in this country. Also, according to that same study, cleaning
up these abandoned mines costs billions upon billions of
dollars. These abandoned hardrock mines currently have no
source of funds for cleanup at all. And that means that the
communities nearby these abandoned mines are left with the
burden, the burden of toxic waste and pollution, and the burden
of paying for that cleanup themselves, if it ever even does get
cleaned up. And those communities are very often Indigenous,
low-income, or already overburdened.
The toxic health effects of these communities can be
generational. In fact, a quarter of Navajo Nation women today
have extremely high levels of radioactive uranium in their
bodies decades after uranium mining stopped on the Nation's
lands. And their newborn babies have equally high levels of
toxic uranium.
Mr. Nolan, do you believe that the public, public funds and
taxpayers, should be responsible for paying for the remediation
of these sites? And do you believe that these overburdened
communities should be left with this mess that they didn't
make?
Mr. Nolan. I would say that the legacy of abandoned mines
is something we all need to work on. Modern mining did not
create this mess, you mentioned 20 years, 2 decades ago.
But we are working in partnership with this Committee and
the NGOs to address the problem. Whether it is Senator
Heinrich's edition of $6 million in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law or our partnership with Trout Unlimited to
put forward bipartisan Good Samaritan legislation, we would
like to continue to work with the Committee to address AMLs.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I appreciate that. And would
you support a royalty of some kind to help give Americans a
fair return for mining companies' production of publicly owned
minerals, and to help fund the cleanup of some of these
abandoned hardrock mines?
Mr. Nolan. Certainly, we have been on the record as
supporting a fair return to the public, but we believe that
that has to be done carefully. Right now, our total tax
contribution is similar to our global competitors. And at the
time we are trying to incentivize the electrification of the
economy, bring these mineral projects forward, we have to do
this very carefully.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And are you aware that in this bill
there isn't any such kind of royalty of this kind?
Mr. Nolan. I am.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber [presiding]. Thank you very much. I am going to
yield for questioning in his round one for Mr. Westerman, the
Full Chair of the Natural Resources.
Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you
to the witnesses. It is good that Congress is back at work. A
lot of us have been not just slipping out and taking a break,
we have been going back and forth to other Committees, where we
are having markups. But there is no Committee hearing on
Capitol Hill today that I believe is more important than this
Committee hearing.
And there was something I wanted to give Mr. Nolan a minute
to clear up. There have been concerns expressed about
provisions in the Permitting for Mining Needs Act, which
affirms that exploration and mine support activities can take
place with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral
deposit. Could you explain why this language is crucial to
current and future mining projects?
Mr. Nolan. The provision in the draft allows for mine
infrastructure, such as roads, ancillary use, buildings, and
waste disposal without a discovery requirement. This simply
codifies existing regulations, BLM's 4809 regs, Forest
Service's 228 regs, and returns to the historical platform that
has been the basis of mining on public lands.
What we have seen recently is Judge Miranda Du, an Obama
appointee, actually looked at the Rosemont finding with regards
to Thacker Pass, and rejected the interpretation that the
Rosemont decision about ancillary use was ``long settled law,''
and that was not persuasive. So, this rectifies and returns the
mining practice to where it should be.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you for clarifying that.
Mr. Squillace, in your testimony, and I will read from it,
it says, ``To say that reforms are long overdue is a gross
understatement. Most egregiously, mine operators own our public
lands, most of which are based in foreign countries, are
allowed to take these valuable public resources while paying
nothing to the U.S. Treasury, no initial payment to acquire the
rights, no royalties, and no rental fees.'' And you say
Congress should start by shifting public land mineral
development to a leasing program.
So, is it your testimony that the main problem with mining
is an economic issue, and fair pay to the U.S. Treasury?
Mr. Squillace. I would say that is a significant problem
with the current mining----
Mr. Westerman. You said it was the most egregious problem,
and that is where Congress should start.
Mr. Squillace. Well, I think what is egregious is the
failure of Congress to adopt mining law reform more broadly.
So, mining law reform would presumably include some issues
dealing with permitting and environmental protection.
But I do think that the failure to provide the American
people with a fair return on their minerals is wrong.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the
record a report from the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S.
Department of Commerce that talks about the economic return
from minerals in the United States. And this chart, it shows,
when you net out mining and recycling, that you come up with a
value of minerals of about $120 billion.
But when you go further and process those minerals in the
United States, that multiplies up to $900 billion of value from
those minerals. And those minerals also, when they go into
manufacturing, adds $3.7 trillion to the U.S. economy, to the
GDP.
Would you say that is any economic benefit to the U.S.
taxpayer in jobs and other tax revenue that comes from
developing those minerals?
Mr. Squillace. Of course it is. But if you were developing
those minerals on private land or on state land, you would be
paying a royalty, and probably an acquisition fee for those
minerals. So, this is not to say that mining doesn't promote
economic development in some communities. Of course it does,
and I think that is important. The question is whether the
American people are going to get a fair return for the minerals
that they are providing to companies, often foreign companies,
I might add.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Nolan, in your testimony you have some
very interesting bubble charts that show the production of U.S.
minerals in the 1990s, compared to China, and the production of
those minerals today. And on copper, for instance, it is
showing .7 million tons is what China made in 1995, and the
United States made 2.3 million tons. Today, the United States
produces 1 million tons, and China produces 11 million tons.
My understanding is there are 2 copper smelters in the
United States and 50 in China. What impact could producing our
domestic copper have to the U.S. economy?
Mr. Nolan. The forecast for copper demand, whether it is
wind turbines or electric vehicles that take a tremendous
amount of copper, are off the charts. If we can bring the
smelting and processing back home and incentivize new mines, we
could recapture that, and really advance our economic future in
electrification.
Mr. Westerman. Does anybody see a way to do the proposed
electrification of the economy without copper?
Mr. Nolan. It is impossible.
Mr. Westerman. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Westerman, did you want to submit that?
And if so, so moved, without objection.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman
United States Geologic Survey's Figure 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Gosar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
Mr. Nolan, our colleagues often talk about how the demand
for coal is non-existent. Could you please reflect reality at
home and abroad, and can you discuss how coal is actually being
used more?
Mr. Nolan. Absolutely. Coal has a critical role to play in
certainly navigating the energy transition we just discussed.
Just yesterday, another regional grid operator warned about
the capacity and blackout limitations going forward in this
country. We saw blackouts and brownouts during Christmas Storm
Elliot. As prices for other baseload power shot up, coal
remained steady and kept the lights on in many regions of the
country.
We need the options now, more than ever, when renewables
are not there, the sun doesn't shine, and the wind doesn't
blow. It is incredibly important to note that during the
Ukraine crisis and what has happened here and in Europe, as
Bloomberg reports, over 40 U.S. power plants that rely on coal
have extended their lifetimes and their shutdown deadlines
based on the demand for electricity and the limitations on
other fuel sources. In Europe, 26 plants were also brought back
online to maintain energy demand and supply in a half a dozen
European countries.
So, we certainly want to value and continue to value coal
as a reliable source of power, and certainly agree that
technology can and continues to need to be developed, and
investments need to be made in CCUS and CCS to meet the climate
goals that we know are important for the nation and the world.
Dr. Gosar. So, continuing that conversation, if the whole
grid goes down, it is not very easy to get it started back up.
Is that true?
Mr. Nolan. That is accurate.
Dr. Gosar. My understanding is we were a minute away from
having that happen, particularly in the Western United States.
Is that true?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Wow. That is pretty amazing, that we got to this
point. Because I saw earlier in the discussion is that we don't
care about markets. We can pursue and push new technology.
Now, there was a comment in regards to actual work on the
ground, and I applaud a Ph.D., but there comes a time when you
learn things on the ground, things that are practical, things
that are impractical. Would you agree with that, Mr. Nolan?
Mr. Nolan. It is important to have, certainly, aspirational
goals, but there is reality. And if you don't take that into
balance, people can get hurt.
Dr. Gosar. So, in regards to Resolution Copper, we talked
about mitigation for mine sites. Did Resolution spend over $1
billion mitigating a current mine site there?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, there was an adjacent site that was on the
edge of being on the Superfund list, and they voluntarily
cleaned up the entire thing at their own expense.
Dr. Gosar. And to specifications, right?
Mr. Nolan. And they met all the modern environmental
specifications, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Now, we have constantly come to the grounds to
mitigate some of these orphaned mines, or these abandoned
mines. But the other side refuses to allow it, because they
want to keep continually having them liable, whoever does it,
the liability, even though they are doing it to the same
context as the law stipulates. And these are groups like
Audubon Society, Trout Unlimited, and they have been forbade to
actually mitigate some of these. So, there are lots of
possibilities here.
The second-to-the-last question I have, Mr. Nolan, is we
now have new smelting and extraction processes, particularly
for critical minerals in regards to ore. It is very green, uses
very little water, and extracts all minerals out of the ore,
leaving a silicate base, which our semi-conductor base actually
needs. How will this actually help us keep those types of
programs here, instead of sending them abroad?
Mr. Nolan. There have been tremendous strides made in
additional modern environmental techniques, including in situ
and brine extraction that my colleague had mentioned. And I
think it is important to bring those technologies forward and
invest in them as well, because the demand, again, as I have
said repeatedly today, is so dramatic that we are going to need
all sources, including brines in situ, as well as recycling.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Naatz, I am going to make a statement. It
would take a revolutionary scientific advancement in battery
storage for renewables to actually take the place of oil and
gas. Is that true?
Mr. Naatz. Again, I am not an expert on battery, but I can
tell you, yes, about 70 percent of the current U.S. energy is
either oil or natural gas.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Nolan?
Mr. Nolan. Correct.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Thomsen?
Mr. Thomsen. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
Dr. Gosar. Yes. It would take a revolutionary discovery in
science for batteries to replace oil and gas, or even improving
your place in the world, in geothermal.
Mr. Thomsen. I think batteries don't produce electricity to
begin with. They have to be charged and discharged. So, to make
that clarification, I think, is critical.
And the renewable resources, geothermal is one of the few
that is baseload-producing power 24 hours a day. And for the
intermittent resources to charge that, you would need a very
large amount of batteries or a new technology, yes.
Dr. Gosar. Last, Mr. Squillace. I am a big recycler, so I
really want to see the push.
Mr. Squillace. I appreciate your including me in the
conversation here.
There are some remarkable technologies that are being
developed for what we call metal air batteries, iron air
batteries, zinc air batteries, and some other things that are
really, I think, going to revolutionize the storage of energy.
I should also mention that there are a number of proposals
now that are coming up for pumped hydro facilities. And I
happened to prepare an environmental assessment for a company
in Colorado that is doing a pumped hydro facility, which is
basically a battery-type storage facility.
So, we are not there yet, I think, with the kind of storage
that we are going to need to overcome the baseload issues, but
we are getting there. So, I think we are going to see that
revolution in storage technology in the not-too-distant future.
Dr. Gosar. Time will tell. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Gosar.
You are up next, Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have a
question of you, and it is kind of a long one, but I am
supportive of many of the provisions in these bills because
they make the permitting process for domestic energy and
material production more efficient and reduces America's
reliance on our adversaries for the resources.
I also share your strong opposition to the mineral
withdrawal recently imposed by the Biden administration in the
Superior National Forest, which prevents the development of
vast copper resources there. This Administration should be
taking action to develop resources domestically before going
out to our adversaries and nations, and significantly lowering
environmental and labor standards.
However, I am concerned about how the bill could impact
Florida and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Florida's Gulf Coast is
a world-renowned tourist attraction, and the bases, important
military training and weapons testing. I have long opposed
drilling there. There are large, vital training areas east of
the military mission line and require open space for fighter
jet training. There are also many significant Department of
Defense installations. The DOD refers to the Eastern Gulf as an
irreplaceable national asset.
The unique capabilities in the region have been developed
over decades. We spent billions of taxpayer dollars as an
investment. The Trump administration recognizes the importance
of protecting the area and worked with the Florida delegation
to extend a drilling moratorium. The Trump moratorium is in
effect until 2032. I am glad this bill will not impact the
existing moratorium.
Will you commit to working with my office and the Florida
delegation to ensure this bill includes, that the reporting
requirement in section 301 does not have unintended
consequences for national security and our way of life?
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Webster, as a husband to an Iraq War
veteran, I totally understand your concern for the military,
and I appreciate your concern for our way of life, as well, in
northern Minnesota, and our desire to develop our vast
resources for the benefit of the country and the world.
Like in my opening statement, these provisions are
something I believe we can all get behind. And I understand
your concerns about similarly protecting the way of life of
Floridians, and I do commit to work with you before advancing
this bill out of Committee. I am confident in our ability to
get to a yes, and we will work together.
And I yield back to my colleague from Florida for the
remainder of his 5 minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back.
Mr. Stauber. And do you have anybody that needs to go to
round two?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No, I don't.
Mr. Stauber. OK. I am going to take my round two
questioning, and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, I want to thank
you for allowing the second round of questioning for this
important Committee work, and I really appreciate you being--
when I was out of the room, it was your decision to do that,
and I want to thank you.
Mr. Thomsen, Congress has created categorical exclusions
for agencies to stop doing the same work over and over again,
yet agencies still decide not to use a categorical exclusion.
How would the TAP Act avoid issues with the unpredictable usage
of categorical exclusions?
Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are absolutely
correct that we have seen some district offices for the Bureau
of Land Management deploy the categorical exclusions for
geothermal and others not do that. So, the provisions in the
TAP Act would make it clear that when we are doing exploration
drilling with less than 5 acres of disturbance, it does not
need to take the time of the hardworking BLM employees, and
would let them focus on the projects that are backlogging the
process today, the utilization planning for geothermal projects
that have found a resource and will continue on to development.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nolan, a mining project, even a permitted project, can
be challenged 6 years after a final Federal action. How does
forcing any litigation sooner in the process help with getting
new U.S. mining production?
Mr. Nolan. I think we are talking about trust and upfront
consultation with communities, tribal groups, Indigenous
populations in the process, so there is more transparency. It
is something the Committee can work on so that those challenges
are known and can be addressed to the benefit of both the
project and the community. So, I think that is something that
the bill speaks to and can be worked on.
Mr. Stauber. Yes, in the Permit for Mining Needs Act, there
is a 120-day period after a Federal decision, and you and your
folks support that?
Mr. Nolan. We do. We think it is a tremendous improvement.
Mr. Stauber. OK. That is really all the questions I have.
Let me finish up here. One second.
[Pause.]
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And Mr. Stauber, while you arrange that,
would it be all right--I have some documents that I would like
to submit to the record. May I seek unanimous consent to submit
that?
Mr. Stauber. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez
Combined Leasing Report
As of February 1, 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsUpdated Monthly
Footnotes/Definitions:
1. A Planning Area is a large, contiguous portion of the OCS,
consisting of defined OCS blocks, considered as an entity
for administrative planning purposes. The quantity and size
of a planning area can vary by Region.
2. An Active Lease is a lease that has been executed by the Lessor
and the Lessee(s), has an effective date and has not been
relinquished, expired, or terminated. Some leases have more
than one block. Blocks are generally 9 square miles but can
be vary. Slight numerical discrepancies are the result of
the processes used during the rounding of acreage.
3. A Producing lease is an active lease that has produced product
i.e. oil or gas, or both. A non-producing lease is an
active lease that has not produced product. NOTE: There can
be a difference in the definition for producing and non-
producing leases between BOEM and ONRR (i.e. time lag,
fiscal versus calendar year, etc) because of different
purposes in collecting data (i.e. operations versus revenue
collection.)
4. There are currently no active leases split between CGOM and EGOM;
thus there is no longer a small variation in acreage and
production.
5. There are 4 planning areas in the Pacific Region but only 1
planning area with existing leases.
6. There are 15 planning areas in the Alaska Region, but only two
planning areas with leases.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.
The full GAO report is part of the hearing record and is being retained
in the Committee's official files.
It is available for viewing at:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-369.pdf
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full GAO report is part of the hearing record and is being retained
in the Committee's official files.
It is available for viewing at:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-165.pdf
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full GAO report is part of the hearing record and is being retained
in the Committee's official files.
It is available for viewing at:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-238.pdf
______
House Republican fires opening salvo on energy permitting
E&E News, January 10, 2023 by Emma Dumain
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsRep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.) on Capitol Hill in 2021 discussing
critical minerals policy. Francis Chung/E&E News
A senior House Natural Resources Committee Republican offered an early
preview Monday of how the GOP will seek to overhaul the permitting
process for energy projects with its new House majority.
While the approach, which deals with the hardrock mining industry, is
one that's sure to galvanize Republicans, it isn't likely to attract
the bipartisan coalition necessary for passage in the Democratic-
controlled Senate.
That won't deter Rep. Pete Stauber of Minnesota, incoming chair of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, who is looking to forge
ahead with a legislative agenda that mirrors the party's larger
willingness to revisit the National Environmental Policy Act--a
sacrosanct law to most Democrats--and cut regulations in the pursuit of
U.S. energy independence and dominance.
The first bill Stauber has introduced in the 118th Congress is the
``Permitting for Mining Needs Act (https://stauber.house.gov/sites/evo-
subsites/stauber.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/
hardrockpermit_01_xml.pdf),'' which is designed to increase domestic
production of critical minerals necessary for meeting defense,
technology and clean energy needs in the United States.
Stauber told E&E News in an interview that he views it as either a
stand-alone bill that could move through the Natural Resources
Committee or one that could become a part of a larger permitting reform
package the committee's chair, Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), has
pledged to make a priority.
``This is important,'' Stauber said of his legislation. ``America needs
this to become critical mineral dominant again.''
Stauber's bill, which enjoys support from the National Mining
Association, among other groups, would shorten the hardrock mining
permitting review process under NEPA so that environmental assessments
would take no more than 12 months and environmental impact statements
would take no longer than two years.
It would prohibit lawsuits against permitting decisions more than 120
days after such a decision has been made and would designate a lead
federal agency to review applications and grant approvals.
Crucially, the legislation also would allow an individual to pursue
hardrock mining activities ``with or without the discovery of a
valuable mineral deposit'' beforehand--a distinction critics like Aaron
Mintzes, senior policy counsel or Earthworks, said would create ``Wild
West claim-staking,'' opening up vast swaths of land to indiscriminate
disruption.
This distinction is significant for Stauber, for whom this bill fills a
parochial need beyond simply bolstering the larger party platform: His
district is home to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, around
where Twin Metals has for years been engaged in legal battles with
environmentalists to mine for copper and nickel.
The ``Permitting for Mining Needs Act'' would, in fact, be nicknamed
the ``PERMIT-MN Act,'' a nod to Stauber's home state.
The legislation benefits from a system that's been in place ever since
passage of the General Mining Act of 1872. Under this law, companies
seeking to do specific hardrock mining activities in the Intermountain
West only need to make claims and payments for their desired land. They
do not need to secure a lease beforehand, as is the case for non-
hardrock mining.
In Minnesota, where mining activities are subject to leasing, Stauber's
legislative proposal could create new workarounds for Twin Metals to
proceed with its ambitions.
Pitch to Democrats
Stauber isn't shy about his bill's home state connections.
``We have tremendous mineral wealth across this nation, and it's simply
unacceptable that, in one case in northern Minnesota, they are pushing
20 years for permitting, yet in the same watershed, in the country of
Canada, they permit a mine within three years,'' Stauber said,
referring to the Boundary Waters.
He is also quick to argue that it's imperative for the United States to
promote domestic critical mineral mining as a means discourage the
business relationship with the Democratic Republic of Congo, where
cobalt is frequently mined using child labor.
Democrats should embrace the bill, Stauber insisted.
``I think we all can agree to allow an [environmental impact study] to
go forward [that] lets the facts, the truth and the science dictate a
project,'' said Stauber. ``The radical, anti-jobs, anti-mining groups
sue at every turn. If they support the transition to alternative
sources of energy--for instance, solar and EVs--they have to look at my
legislation, and other legislation that comes out of our Natural
Resources Committee. They know, with 100 percent certainty, that 75
percent of cobalt is mined by slave labor. That is immoral.''
But Democrats probably won't.
Even amid bipartisan interest in tackling broader permitting reform--
inspired by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-
W.Va.), who convinced his party leadership to endorse the push as a
condition of his supporting the Inflation Reduction Act--overhauling
mining laws more narrowly has been a consistently insurmountable task.
Democrats last year tried to take their own approach to revising the
General Mining Act of 1872. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), then chair of
the House Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-
N.M.) were pushing for the ``Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act.'' The
proposal would have brought all hardrock mining activities under a
leasing system and created a first-ever hardrock mining royalty.
`Royalties are dead'
Consideration of the Grijalva-Heinrich framework in the House was
ultimately derailed amid concerns even among Democrats about the
dangers of putting guardrails on an industry that's so sorely needed to
help with the advent of a clean energy economy.
Still, Democrats have largely rallied around the need to establish a
royalty system for mining activities, and Stauber last night declared
that ``royalties are dead.'' It's not clear whether the two parties
will be able to overcome that difference.
In a statement, Grijalva--who will be the ranking member of the Natural
Resources Committee this year--said that while there is ``no question
that our 150-year-old mining laws need reform,'' Stauber's proposal
``isn't even an honest attempt.''
Grijalva continued, ``the mining industry uses up our public lands,
ignores tribes' concerns, spills their toxic waste into our communities
and waterways, and leaves their messes for the rest of us to clean up .
. . the Republicans' bill does nothing to solve any of these problems
and instead just makes it easier for industry to do more of the same,
inevitably ending in more destruction and more lawsuits.''
Mintzes said there are ``minor'' opportunities for Democrats and
Republicans to find compromise on small-scale mining reforms in this
Congress--for instance, directing excess claim maintenance fees toward
hardrock abandoned mine lands, or legislation to make it easier to
volunteer to participate in hardrock mine cleanup.
But Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who has sought to engage colleagues on
mining overhaul efforts in the past, said he is pessimistic that
anything truly ambitious could survive the Senate gantlet.
``Mining law reform for minerals--if you scrub out all that political
demagoguery, there's room to run in there and do the right thing for
the resource, for the country, and all that stuff,'' he said. ``But the
problem is, nobody can resist sticking in the knife and twisting it.''
______
US official: Research finds uranium in Navajo women, babies
AP News, October 7, 2019 by Mary Hudetz
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP)--About a quarter of Navajo women and some
infants who were part of a federally funded study on uranium exposure
had high levels of the radioactive metal in their systems, decades
after mining for cold war weaponry ended on their reservation, a U.S.
health official Monday.
The early findings from the University of New Mexico study were shared
during a congressional field hearing in Albuquerque. Dr. Loretta
Christensen--the chief medical officer on the Navajo Nation for Indian
Health Service, a partner in the research--said 781 women were screened
during an initial phase of the study that ended last year.
Among them, 26% had concentrations of uranium that exceeded levels
found in the highest 5% of the U.S. population, and newborns with
equally high concentrations continued to be exposed to uranium during
their first year, she said.
The research is continuing as authorities work to clear uranium mining
sites across the Navajo Nation.
``It forces us to own up to the known detriments associated with a
nuclear-forward society,'' said U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland, who is an
enrolled member of Laguna Pueblo, a tribe whose jurisdiction lies west
of Albuquerque.
The hearing held in Albuquerque by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, Haaland and
U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, all Democrats from New Mexico, sought to
underscore the atomic age's impact on Native American communities.
The three are pushing for legislation that would expand radiation
compensation to residents in their state, including post-1971 uranium
workers and residents who lived downwind from the Trinity Test site in
southern New Mexico.
The state's history has long been intertwined with the development of
the nation's nuclear arsenal, from uranium mining and the first atomic
blast to the Manhattan project conducted through work in the once-
secret city of Los Alamos. The Federal Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act, however, only covers parts of Nevada, Arizona and Utah that are
downwind from a different nuclear test site.
During the hearing, Haaland said one of her own family members had lost
his hearing because of radiation exposure. At Laguna Pueblo, home to
her tribe, the Jackpile-Paguate Mine was once among the world's largest
open-pit uranium mines. It closed several decades ago, but cleanup has
yet to be completed.
``They need funds,'' Haaland said. ``They job was not completed.''
David Gray, a deputy regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, said the mine illustrates uranium mining and
milling's lingering effects on Indian Country.
On the Navajo Nation, he said, the EPA has identified more than 200
abandoned uranium mines where it wants to complete investigation and
clean up under an upcoming five-year plan, using settlements and other
agreements to pay for the work that has taken decades.
Udall, who chaired the hearing, acknowledged federal officials had
shown progress but that the pace of cleanup has proven frustrating for
some community members.
``They feel an urgency,'' Udall said. ``They feel that things need to
happen today.''
In her testimony, Christensen described how Navajo residents in the
past had used milling waste in home construction, resulting in
contaminated walls and floors.
From the end of World War II to the mid-1980s, millions of tons of
uranium ore were extracted from the Navajo Nation, leaving gray streaks
across the desert landscape, as well as a legacy of disease and death.
While no large-scale studies have connected cancer to radiation
exposure from uranium waste, many have been blamed it for cancer and
other illnesses.
By the late 1970s, when the mines began closing around the reservation,
miners were dying of lung cancer, emphysema or other radiation-related
ailments.
``The government is so unjust with us,'' said Leslie Begay, a former
uranium miner who lives in Window Rock, an Arizona town that sits near
the New Mexico border and serves as the Navajo Nation capital. ``The
government doesn't recognize that we built their freedom.''
Begay, who said he has lung problems, attended the hearing with an
oxygen tank in tow. The hearing held in the Southwest was especially
meaningful for him after traveling in the past to Washington to
advocate for himself and others, he said.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OUTDOOR ALLIANCE
March 6, 2023
Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee legislative hearing
February 28, 2023
Dear Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez:
On behalf of the human-powered outdoor recreation community, we
write to express our community's views on the Permitting for Mine Needs
Act (PERMIT-MN Act) and the Transparency and Production of American
Energy Act of 2023 (TAP American Energy Act), which were considered
during February 28's Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
legislative hearing. While we appreciate the Subcommittee's attention
to improving federal permitting processes, we are highly concerned that
the changes proposed in these bills would unnecessarily accelerate
mining and fossil fuel development in a way that fails to account for
other public lands values, including outdoor recreation. As a result,
Outdoor Alliance opposes both bills and encourages the Subcommittee to
instead explore how reforms can better protect recreation access, a
healthy environment, and the $862 billion outdoor recreation economy.
Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of ten member-based organizations
representing the human powered outdoor recreation community. The
coalition includes Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American
Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter
Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, the American Alpine Club, the
Mazamas, Colorado Mountain Club, and Surfrider Foundation and
represents the interests of the millions of Americans who climb,
paddle, mountain bike, backcountry ski and snowshoe, and enjoy coastal
recreation on our nation's public lands, waters, and snowscapes.
Our community is highly familiar with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, as well as the protections afforded by the
Clean Water Act and other environmental laws referenced during February
28's hearing. Through our advocacy in support of sustainable recreation
access on federal public lands and waters, we experience both the
invaluable public protections afforded by these laws, as well as the
challenges that sometimes accompany permitting new projects. We are
also eager to see recent federal investments in clean energy--including
those from the Inflation Reduction Act--expeditiously put into action
to address the climate crisis.
With these perspectives in mind, we are open to an honest dialogue
about how to modernize and improve federal permitting. Unfortunately,
the proposals laid out in the PERMIT-MN Act and the TAP American Energy
Act would advance fossil fuel and mineral development in a way that
would not facilitate informed, science-based decision making,
transparency, and robust public input, and would not protect recreation
resources on public lands. We encourage the Subcommittee to consider
additional perspectives, including from frontline communities, Tribes,
scientists, and recreation advocates, as you continue to consider
permitting reform.
Our comments on individual bills are provided below.
Permitting for Mine Needs Act (H.R. 209)
The PERMIT-MN Act primarily addresses the permitting process for
mining on federal lands. The outdoor recreation community is profoundly
affected by mining on federal lands, both through mining proposals that
threaten to degrade valuable recreation lands, and through the ongoing
impacts of legacy mining pollution. We are highly interested in reforms
to mining policy that will help address these impacts while providing
regulatory certainty for mine developers and meeting the growing demand
for critical minerals.
Unfortunately, instead of striking a necessary balance between
mining and other public land values, the PERMIT-MN Act would instead
further cement the harmful mining policies of the past two centuries.
In particular, we are concerned by Section 8, which would change long-
standing policy under the 1872 Mining Law to allow for validating
mining claims before a claimant has proven mineral discovery. We are
similarly concerned by other provisions of the bill that would that
would set an arbitrary 120-day limit for communities and tribes to seek
judicial review for mining projects (Section 10), allow for exploratory
mining without NEPA review (Section 7), and arbitrarily shorten the
timeline for environmental reviews for mining projects.
Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023
The discussion draft of the TAP American Energy Act primarily
addresses fossil fuel leasing and energy infrastructure on federally-
managed lands and waters. This bill would mandate a substantial
increase in fossil fuel production and would undo hard fought
protections for environmental, cultural, and recreational resources
that are affected by energy development. We are highly concerned about
provisions of the bill that:
Undo important fiscal reforms to the oil and gas leasing
process established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
that provide a fairer return to taxpayers from energy
development.
Restrict the President and the Interior Secretary's long-
standing authority to withdraw federal lands from mining
and oil and gas development. Mineral withdrawals can be
critical for protecting valuable recreation lands.
Arbitrarily require the Department of Interior to hold
quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales in every state
with oil and gas reserves, as well as offshore lease sales
twice per year.
Codify the 2020 NEPA regulations promulgated by the
Council of Environmental Quality under the Trump
administration, and otherwise weaken the public input and
judicial review process for fossil fuel development
projects.
Together, these changes and others proposed in the TAP American
Energy Act would make it more difficult for federal agencies to balance
fossil fuel development with sustainable recreation access and other
uses of public lands and waters.
***
Thank you for considering our community's input as you consider
legislation to make changes to federal permitting processes. We look
forward to working with you to ensure that reforms provide adequate
protections for outdoor recreation, local communities, cultural
resources, and the environment.
Best regards,
Louis Geltman,
Policy Director
______
Mr. Stauber. And then, a great reminder, I too would like
to enter into the record that the following organizations
support one or both of these bills today, and I am going to
quickly read them: The National Association of Building Trades
Unions; American Exploration and Mining Association; National
Mining Association; Better in our Backyard; Uranium Producers
of America; Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions; Range
Association of Municipalities and Schools; Women's Mining
Coalition; National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association; and
the Essential Minerals Association.
I would also request that, if there is no objection, to
enter into the record the following pieces of material that I
have: the letters of the record from API; Essential Minerals
Association; American Exploration and Mining Association; and,
again, Women's Mining Coalition; the Louisiana Mid-Continent
Oil and Gas Association that have supported one or more of
these bills.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
February 24, 2023
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Westerman & Ranking Member Grijalva:
The American Petroleum Institute (API) writes regarding legislation
to be considered during the upcoming legislative hearings on Tuesday,
February 28, 2023: The Transparency and Production of American Energy
Act of 2023 (TAP Act) in the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
and Building United States Infrastructure through Limited Delays and
Efficient Reviews Act of 2023 (BUILDER Act) in the full Committee. API
is committed to meeting the challenge of providing affordable and
reliable energy while continuing to reduce emissions. As the leading
trade association representing the entire value chain of the U.S. oil
and natural gas industry, API supports policies that strengthen our
nation's energy security and our economy, and that protect our
environment.
Last month, API released industry priorities for 2023 that include
the adoption of policies that make, move and improve American energy
and recognize U.S. oil and natural gas as a long-term strategic asset.
API commends Chairman Westerman and Congressman Garret Graves (R-LA)
for introducing important legislation that advances those priorities
and we write to offer our support in these efforts.
The TAP Act discussion draft provides a sensible roadmap to renew
our nation's commitment to onshore and offshore leasing of oil and
natural gas. Federal lands and waters provide 25% of the oil and 11% of
the natural gas we produce in the United States. A robust federal
leasing program is essential to maintaining our nation's energy
security and providing critical conservation funding throughout the
country. Additionally, reforms to our permitting processes are critical
to help move energy from where it is produced in the United States to
where it is needed. This legislation will help streamline the nation's
permitting processes to maintain America's energy advantage.
The BUILDER Act brings much-needed reform to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A recent study from Rystad Energy
commissioned by API cited Council of Environmental Quality findings
that showed between 2010 and 2018, the average NEPA Environmental
Impact Statement took more than 4.5 years to complete and exceeded 600
pages. Delays in the NEPA process are costing billions of dollars in
energy investment and locking up critical oil and natural gas resources
that could reduce energy costs and enhance our energy security. The
BUILDER Act will help expedite this process and unlock critical
resources our nation needs.
As the push for energy legislation and permitting reform progresses
in Congress, API stands ready to support policies that strengthen
America's energy security and promote economic development and
environmental stewardship.
We look forward to continuing to work with Members of the Committee
and their colleagues in the House and Senate to support legislation
that will restore America's energy leadership.
Sincerely,
Amanda E. Eversole,
Executive Vice President
& Chief Advocacy Officer
______
ESSENTIAL MINERALS ASSOCIATION
Arlington, VA
February 27, 2023
Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Stauber:
On behalf of the members of the Essential Minerals Association
(EMA), I write to thank you for your continued leadership on the issue
of mineral permitting reform. The EMA supports H.R. 209, the Permitting
for Mineral Needs (PERMIT-MN) Act of 2023 as a terrific first step in
the process of reforming a system that all can agree is broken.
The EMA represents the interests of more than 80 member companies
that mine, process, or support the minerals that are critical to nearly
all aspects of everyday life. According to the most recent figures from
the United States Geological Survey, the metal/non-metal industry
generates approximately $98 billion in production with an estimated 1.3
million direct and indirect jobs, of which EMA's members are
significant contributors. This production contributes significant tax
revenues to the nation's local, state, and federal governments.
The minerals produced by EMA's members are vital to the
manufacturing processes for many, if not all, of the products we use
every day.These minerals are used in agricultural feed, fertilizers,
baking products, water purification needs, batteries, protective masks,
dialysis machines, semiconductors, solar panels, glass, ceramics,
paper, plastics, rubber, detergents, insulation, pharmaceuticals,
cosmetics, foundry cores and molds used for metal castings, paints,
filtration, metallurgical applications, refractory products, and
specialty fillers. These are just a few of the many uses of our
members' essential minerals.
It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the federal
permitting system is fundamentally flawed. The current process is
onerous and duplicative in nature, and does not provide definitive
timelines for reviews to occur. Even after going through the regulatory
process, a company then faces the uncertainties of litigation which
creates further delays. If the United States is to establish a more
secure domestic supply chain of the minerals that are vital to our
manufacturing and agricultural needs, then we must have a much more
efficient process in place to provide mining entities with the
predictability and clarity they need.
From comments seen from both sides of the aisle in recent Natural
Resources Committee hearings, we believe there is now bipartisan
agreement on the need to reform our permitting system for the minerals
sector. The transition to a greener economy relies upon an adequate and
reliable domestic minerals supply, but the system currently in place in
the United States makes it exceedingly difficult for a company to
justify making the tens of millions of dollars of investments necessary
to begin production. The current process is almost comical when
compared to similar countries like Canada and Australia that can permit
a mine in under three years with very similar environmental standards,
whereas in the United States it routinely takes over a decade.
Our country's national and economic security depend on strong
domestic supply chains for mineral resources. Continuing to rely upon
our strategic adversaries for the resources we need is an untenable
policy, and streamlining the permitting for domestic mineral operations
is a crucial step toward rectifying that dependence. We are currently
being held hostage by China, Russia, and others for many of these
minerals that we rely on for every aspect of our lives, and global
geopolitical conditions globally continue to worsen by the day. China,
Belarus, and Russia currently control 60 percent of the global supply
of fertilizer, and they also control the supply of dozens of other
minerals that are vital for agriculture and manufacturing. We are still
seeing the impacts of the supply chain disruption from Covid-19. This
is an unacceptable dynamic, but one that can largely be rectified if
Congress does the right thing by passing the PERMIT-MN Act to secure
our domestic mineral supply chains.
We need to address this issue swiftly, and it must be bipartisan.
All sides need to come to the table and reach a commonsense solution
that allows for the rapid, environmentally safe development of the
domestic mineral resources we have here at home. Producing more
minerals domestically will allow those minerals to be extracted and
processed under the protections of U.S. environmental laws and
regulations, as well as those protecting worker health and safety. EMA
member companies strive every day to protect vital land, air, water,
and cultural resources while conducting operations, in addition to
providing exemplary protection for the health and safety of their
workers. This is in stark contrast to countries like Russia and China
who have abysmal environmental standards and little or no regard for
worker health and safety. Developing more domestic mineral production
will benefit the environment, the workforce, and our country as a
whole, and H.R. 209 will help achieve that objective.
In particular, we strongly support the PERMIT-MN Act's provision to
require federal agencies to complete Environmental Assessments required
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) within 12 months and
Environmental Impact Statements within 24 months. The clarity and
predictability these timelines would provide will incentivize U.S.
mining entities to invest in domestic operations. Many EMA members have
seen permit applications languish for 10 years or more with no
guarantee of any decision ever being made, which deters development of
essential mineral resources. We can and must do better, and the
timelines in H.R. 209 are a key step in the right direction.
We also support the PERMIT-MN's narrow and specific focus on
permitting reform for the mining sector. While there may be partisan
disagreement in Congress about permitting for other resources, there is
bipartisan agreement on the need to increase domestic mineral
resources. Permitting reforms in the previous Congress failed because
of the disagreement over the inclusion of energy resources in those
reforms, and we do not wish to see that same result in this Congress.
The EMA believes that in order for this issue to be addressed and
for meaningful changes to occur in a timely manner, we must have a
minerals-specific bill like the PERMIT-MN Act. Including other, more
controversial resources in the permitting reform debate will only serve
to slow the process down and prevent this needed change from occurring.
With this in mind, the EMA strongly encourages the Natural Resources
Committee and House leadership to allow the PERMIT-MN Act to remain a
stand-alone vehicle and remain a minerals-only bill.
Enacting meaningful permitting reform legislation is vital to the
future of the American economy as well as our national security.
Increased domestic mineral production will create jobs across the
country and will better enable our economy to complete the transition
to renewable energy technologies; ensure farmers have adequate and
affordable supplies of fertilizer, feed, and seed; support domestic
manufacturing; provide resources to the healthcare sector; allow
quality and affordable housing to be constructed; and supply our
military with the sophisticated weapons and equipment to defend our
country and our freedom both now and into the future.
EMA strongly supports the PERMIT-MN Act as a long overdue step to
promoting mineral development in the United States.
We recognize and support that there must be changes to this bill to
ensure that all sides' concerns are heard throughout not just the
process of finalizing this bill, but in the implementation of the bill
as well. Congress must enact the bill on a bipartisan basis as soon as
possible to secure our domestic supply chains for essential mineral
resources that are vital to the everyday life of millions of Americans.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to accomplish this goal.
Please do not hesitate to reach out if we can be helpful in any
way.
Respectfully,
Chris Greissing,
President
______
AMERICAN EXPLORATION & MINING ASSOCIATION
Spokane Valley, WA
February 27, 2023
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: AEMA Statement for the Record for the February 28, 2023 House
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources
Hearing on the discussion draft for the Transparency and
Production of American Energy Act of 2023 and the Permitting
for Mining Needs Act (H.R. 209)
Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Stauber,
and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez:
The American Exploration & Mining Association wishes to express our
strong support for H.R. 209, the Permitting for Mining Needs Act of
2023, and the concepts in the discussion drafts of the Building United
States Infrastructure Through Limited Delays and Efficient Reviews Act
of 2023 (BUILDER Act) and the Transparency and Production of (TAP)
American Energy Act of 2023. As noted in President Biden's Executive
Order 14017 (America's Supply Chains), ``the United States needs
resilient, diverse, and secure supply chains to ensure our economic
prosperity and national security,'' and mineral production is the first
link to reaching these goals. The recent global pandemic and
geopolitical events have led to an increased recognition of the
importance of a strong domestic mineral supply chain. We believe H.R.
209 and the discussion drafts will strengthen our ability to
responsibly produce the minerals needed for our national and economic
security.
Who We Are and the Importance of the U.S. Minerals Mining Industry
The American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA) is a 128-year-
old, 1,400-member national trade association representing the mineral
development and mining industry, with members residing across 46
states, 7 Canadian provinces or territories and 10 other countries.
AEMA is the recognized national representative for the exploration
sector, the junior mining sector, as well as mineral developers
interested in maintaining access to public lands. Thus, AEMA represents
the entire mining life cycle, from exploration to mineral extraction
and then to reclamation and closure. More than 80 percent of our
members are small businesses or work directly for small businesses.
American miners continue to play an indispensable role in building
and defending our Nation. From foundations to roofs, power plants to
wind farms, roads and bridges to communications grids and data storage
centers, America's infrastructure begins and ends with minerals and
mining. As just one example, steel resulting from mining operations
directly supplies the construction and development of roads, railways,
appliances, buildings, stadiums, bridges, airports, conventional and
renewable energy facilities, and other structures. Steel is used to
reinforce concrete and other construction materials and 6 billion tons
of steel are used across the U.S. National Highway System. Steel
requires iron ore for its production, and sixty-five percent of the
global zinc consumption is used to coat steel, for purposes of making
it resistant to corrosion. Other metals important to steel alloys,
including manganese, chromium, nickel, aluminum, vanadium, tungsten,
titanium, cobalt, and niobium, are specifically identified on the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS') final 2022 list of critical minerals.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/24/2022-
04027/2022-final-list-of-critical-minerals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example is copper, with its flexibility, conformity,
conductivity, and resistance to corrosion, that make it an ideal and
essential clean energy metal.\2\ Forty-three percent of U.S. copper
demand comes from the construction industry, as the average American
home contains 439 pounds of copper. An electric vehicle (EV) uses
approximately four times as much copper as a conventional car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ According to the World Bank, copper is used in ten low-carbon
energy technologies. https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/
961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-
of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure improvement and development at all levels depends on
metals and mining. Beyond hard-rock mining, AEMA also represents the
industrial minerals industry. Industrial minerals include any rock or
mineral with economic value that is not used as a source for metals,
gemstones, or energy production. Industrial minerals are classified as
non-fuel minerals and differ from construction aggregates like sand,
gravel, and crushed stone. Many different types of industrial minerals
serve multiple uses, some of which are considered critical minerals and
many of which are essential to our nation's economic and national
security. The most widely used industrial minerals include limestone,
clays, diatomite, kaolin, bentonite, silica, barite, gypsum, potash,
pumice, and talc.
Similarly, there is no substitute for phosphorus in agriculture and
in the development of our Nation's food supply. Phosphorus is essential
for plant nutrition and plays a vital role in photosynthesis, energy
transfer, root formation, seed formation, plant growth and improvement
of the quality of fruits and vegetables. China has been the leading
producer of phosphates, followed by the United States. The Society for
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration's (SME) website \3\ provides a deeper
introduction to industrial minerals and explains why securing domestic
production is essential to America's future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.smenet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question that the minerals we produce are indispensable
to modern society. They are also essential to fighting climate change,
and for zero-emission technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels,
storage batteries and EVs. As these technologies are deployed in ever-
greater numbers, the demand for minerals is skyrocketing, and our
Nation must do more to keep up. The International Energy Agency (IEA)
published a report at the end of July 2022 titled ``Global Supply
Chains of EV Batteries,'' and noted that demand for EV batteries will
increase from 340 GWh today to about 3500 GWh by the year 2030. To meet
that demand, 50 new lithium mines, 60 more nickel mines and 17 more
cobalt mines would need to come into production.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4eb8c252-76b1-4710-
8f5e-867e751c8dda/GlobalSupply ChainsofEVBatteries.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has taken note of this surge in demand, and through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 and the Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022, has decided--and we agree--that it is
inappropriate, unwise and dangerous to rely on hostile, untrustworthy
or unstable countries to supply our country's minerals. Notably, the
Inflation Reduction Act contains provisions requiring automakers to
source significant portions of their EV batteries and components from
domestic supply chains, or from countries with which the United States
has free trade agreements. Congress has sent a clear message--Now is
the time to get serious about building a reliable mineral supply chain
(emphasis supplied). AEMA and its members stand ready to help build
that supply chain right here in America.
Our members take great pride in producing the metals and other
important minerals America needs for national and economic security, as
well as the materials people use in their everyday lives. We are proud
of our members' contributions across the communities and regions where
they operate, many of which are rural areas facing significant economic
and social development challenges. Notably, the U.S. mining industry is
the safest, most environmentally responsible mining industry in the
world. Our members have repeatedly demonstrated that mining and
protecting the environment are compatible, as mineral producers make
possible the development of society's basic needs and consistently
minimize modern society's impacts on the environment.
We Need a Reliable Domestic Mineral Supply Chain
Recent global events have exposed the United States' supply chain
vulnerabilities, highlighting the importance of an abundant and
affordable supply of domestic minerals for America's future.
The fact is, global mineral demand is skyrocketing. As noted in a
report from the International Energy Agency, keeping global temperature
rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will
quadruple the demand by 2040 for the minerals needed to build wind
turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. A faster energy
transition--reaching net zero globally by 2050 as the Biden
administration has called for--would require critical mineral inputs to
increase sixfold by 2040.
Solar panels require silver, tin, copper, and lead; wind turbines
use rare earths, copper, aluminum, and zinc; electric vehicles are
built with copper, aluminum, iron, molybdenum; and rechargeable storage
batteries use lithium, vanadium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese.
Approximately 40% of the gold now produced is used in electronics and
computer chips that are needed for clean energy technologies to meet
carbon emission reduction objectives to address climate change.
President Biden has promised to convert the entire U.S. government
fleet--about 640,000 vehicles by 2030--to EVs. That plan alone could
require a 12-fold increase in U.S. lithium production to manufacture
the lithium-ion batteries that power EVs, according to Benchmark
Minerals Intelligence, as well as increases in output of domestic
copper, nickel, and cobalt--and that's just for the U.S. government
vehicle fleet. The magnitude of the minerals needed for a 100 percent
EV market is even more staggering, and simply cannot be ignored.
Unfortunately, a lack of access to economically viable mineral
deposits and a lengthy, inefficient federal permitting system has
resulted in the U.S. being increasingly dependent on foreign sources of
strategic and critical minerals. It's time that we, as a Nation,
recognize this vulnerability and the vital importance of minerals to
our national security, our economy, and our everyday lives. We have
heard a lot over the years about the importance of energy independence,
but it is equally as important, if not more so, that we are minerals
independent.
In September 2016, the Government Accountability Office (``GAO'')
published a report titled ``Strengthened Federal Approach Needed to
Help Identify and Mitigate Supply Risks for Critical Raw Materials.''
This reported evaluated ``certain metals, minerals, and other
``critical'' raw materials [that] play an important role in the
production of advanced technologies across a range of industrial
sectors and defense applications.'' The GAO report found several
limitations in the scope of federal critical mineral programs that are
inconsistent with the directives in the National Materials and Minerals
Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980. (30 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1602-1605), hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Act.
In the 1980 Act, Congress found:
``the United States lacks a coherent national materials policy
and a coordinated program to assure the availability of
materials critical for national economic well-being, national
defense, and industrial production, including interstate
commerce and foreign trade.'' (30 U.S.C. Sec. 1601(7).
In response to this finding, Congress declared:
``. . . it is the continuing policy of the United States to
promote an adequate and stable supply of materials necessary to
maintain national security, economic well-being and industrial
production with appropriate attention to a long-term balance
between resource production, energy use, a healthy environment,
natural resource conservation, and social needs.'' (30 U.S.C.
Sec. 1602)
As important as recycling is, it cannot meet the world's burgeoning
mineral demand. The IEA's report estimates that by 2040, recycling
metals from spent batteries could only supply about ten percent of the
minerals that will be needed.
Made in America must include ``mined in America'' and sourcing
minerals from U.S. mines that use state-of-the-art environmental
protection measures, put a premium on worker health and safety, and
have financial assurances that guarantee reclamation when mining is
complete.
Permitting Mines in the United States
Effective implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act of 2021 (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) is
dependent on the critical and strategic minerals and materials that our
members mine. However, according to a 2021 report by the Wilson Center:
The United States faces a troubling scenario when it comes to the
supply chain for critical minerals. Rapidly increasing demand, under-
developed national resources, intense international competition, and
years of neglect in this issue area place the U.S. at a distinct
disadvantage vis-a-vis China in securing access to the metals and Rare
Earth Elements that are vital for the energy transition and for
geopolitical ambitions. [emphasis in original]
Most notably, we are failing to develop infrastructure or critical
minerals projects in a timeframe that would allow the United States to
achieve its ambitious clean energy objectives, reduce our reliance on
China and other adversaries for critical minerals, and strengthen our
critical minerals supply chains. This is largely due to lengthy
permitting delays and uncertainties which place the United States at a
competitive disadvantage for purposes of attracting investments in
mineral development.
Notably, the permitting of comparable mining projects in Australia
and Canada, which have similar environmental standards and practices as
the United States, takes between two and three years, compared to the
seven to ten years or more required to permit a mine in the United
States. Given the comprehensive scope and effectiveness of U.S.
environmental protection laws and the federal land management agencies'
regulations governing mineral projects, these delays do not yield any
substantive environmental benefits. However, they contribute
significantly to the additional costs and risks that project proponents
are required to bear. The adverse impacts stemming from permitting
delays extend far beyond corporate boardrooms--as they hurt local
communities that must wait for the jobs, tax revenues, and other
investments and socioeconomic benefits associated with exploration and
mining.
There are real world consequences caused by permitting delays. The
unpredictable nature of delays, alone, can reduce a typical mining
project's value by more than one-third, or as much as one-half before
production even begins. The challenges of our federal environmental
review and permitting processes, and how they adversely affect our
supply chain of critical minerals, were recently detailed as part of
the aforementioned Wilson Center report.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/uploads/
documents/critical_minerals_ supply_report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic permitting delays chill investment in U.S. mining
projects. Yet, our Nation needs these investments to remain competitive
and to improve our supply chain independence. According to the USGS'
Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, our country's import dependence for
key mineral commodities has doubled over the past two decades, with the
United States now 100 percent import-reliant for 15 of its key minerals
and more than 50 percent import-reliant for an additional 36 key
mineral commodities. This foreign reliance continues despite the
existence of significant mineral deposits of many of these commodities
within our borders. Moreover, U.S. mineral import reliance continues to
increase as mineral demand from essential industries, such as energy
and transportation, soars. Notably, the World Bank sees mineral demand
for advanced energy technologies jumping by nearly 500 percent by the
year 2050.\6\ Copper demand alone may rise as much as 350 percent by
2050, according to one estimate.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-
for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-
Transition.pdf
\7\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0959378016300802
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEMA wants to emphasize that it does not generally view compliance
with substantive environmental protection laws and regulations to be a
problem, because our members' projects are designed and operated with
state-of-the-art environmental safeguards, and all our mining projects
are fully bonded, and are carefully reclaimed when mineral exploration
and mining activities are complete. Instead, it is the federally
mandated permitting process--and associated litigation and
administrative delays--that have caused major problems. For mine
projects that involve federal permits and authorizations, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process consistently causes lengthy
federal permitting delays and frequently results in subsequent
litigation. In July 2020, CEQ issued a report and supporting materials
(https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa-practice/eis-timelines.html) compiling
information related to the timelines for preparing Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs) from 2010 through 2018. While the CEQ's Forty
Questions state that the time for an EIS, even for a complex project,
should not exceed 1 year, CEQ found that, across the federal
government, the average time from issuance of a Notice of Intent (NOI)
to completion of an EIS and issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) was
more than 4.5 years. Only one quarter of the EISs evaluated took less
than 2.2 years, and another quarter required more than 6 years.
In recognizing the challenges associated with NEPA, the impacts of
litigation must be considered because lawsuits are frequently the final
step of any significant NEPA process. Typically, it is the NEPA
analyses and federal permits for hardrock mining projects which are
litigated in federal courts. Because NEPA litigation is so common, our
members routinely anticipate at least two to three years, or more, of
litigation delays when planning their proposed mining projects. While
some level of litigation risk is a reality we will always have in the
United States, the mining industry faces consistent and unnecessary
litigation hurdles based on the fact that NEPA policies and procedures
are developed and implemented on a project-by-project basis. This
project-by-project approach leads to inconsistencies that make various
courts the arbiters of compliance and cause confusion across the
industry as to how NEPA should be applied. Costly and time-consuming
lawsuits burden projects and federal agencies and hurt communities
waiting for jobs, tax revenues and other project-related benefits to
materialize.
Most mining companies that progress mineral exploration to the
stage of starting a mine are sophisticated and quite familiar with
NEPA's requirements and related timing. They also understand their
environmental obligations and--through the work of preparing complete
applications for a Plan of Operations and other federal permits--have
identified associated environmental permitting obligations, reclamation
requirements, and both mine start-up and reclamation bonding costs.
Although these applicants generally anticipate the time required for
the NEPA review process, there are widespread concerns about the length
of time it takes federal agencies to complete the process, which
creates considerable uncertainty and complicates business plans and
decisions and discourages investment.
Mining companies frequently engage private consultant experts to
assist in preparing the required environmental baseline studies,
environmental impact analyses, and mitigation plans. The applicants and
their experts are generally the most familiar with the project proposal
and are required to submit technical information to support analysis of
environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts, but may sometimes
be restricted from preparing the NEPA document. When that happens, a
draft EA or EIS is likely to include factual errors or incomplete
information that results in delays and additional litigation risk and
cost. It is the litigation delay and cost that are the wild cards for
any proposed mining project, often with the result that NEPA litigation
delays render a project uneconomic or more difficult to finance. The
2020 CEQ regulations made it clear that applicants have a substantive
role in the process and may even prepare an EIS for agency review.
Specifically, CEQ's 2020 regulations provided many commonsense,
procedural changes to the NEPA process that AEMA believes are essential
to improving its implementation and reducing the litigation risk that
inconsistency brings; while still adhering to the basic tenets of the
statute that allow for meaningful public input and support the federal
decision-making process. These include well-reasoned bounds on timing,
with exceptions for extraordinary situations, page limits, guidelines
on proponent involvement, and particularly rules for interagency
cooperation including procedures for issue resolution. They also
provide for high level agency accountability for not adhering to the
requirements, which is especially important given the potentially
significant implications on the viability of the critical and strategic
mineral projects that our members represent.
Mineral Withdrawals Must be Limited
According to the GAO, the federal government manages about 650
million acres, or 29 percent, of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the
United States.\8\ Former Department of Interior Solicitor, John Leshy
(now a professor at the University of California Hastings College of
Law), estimated in 2021 that of the approximate 650 million acres of
public lands, roughly 400 million acres are set aside for conservation
and preservation purposes and are functionally off-limits to mining.\9\
He also calculated that during the period from 1980 to 2020, the acres
of conservation and preservation lands grew from 250 million acres to
400 million acres.\10\ Federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral
entry to protect a variety of ``special places,'' from national
monuments and wilderness areas to military bases. For example, the
national conservation lands system already includes 35 million acres of
pristine, culturally diverse and scientifically important sites that
have been withdrawn from mineral entry, including: 122 national
monuments, 28 of which are managed by BLM; 23 national conservation
areas; 30 National Scenic and Historic Trails; 200 designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers; 260 congressionally designated wilderness areas; and 491
wilderness study areas.\11\ Congress has closed or withdrawn areas to
mineral exploration in favor of other uses, including for the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GAO Letter report to Senator Tom Udall entitled ``Hardrock
Mining: Availability of Selected Data Related to Mining on Federal
Lands,'' May 16, 2019, available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-
435r.pdf.
\9\ John D. Leshy, America's Public Lands--A Look Back and Ahead,
67th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, July 19, 2021.
\10\ Id.
\11\ BLM website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-
conservation-lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Parks;
National Monuments;
Indian reservations;
Various types of Bureau of Reclamation projects;
Military reservations;
Scientific testing areas;
Wildlife protection areas;
National Wilderness Preservation System and Wilderness
study lands; and
Wild and Scenic River designated and study areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See BLM website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-
minerals/mining-and-minerals/locatable-minerals/mining-claims/locating-
a-claim; see also Attachment 5, ``List of Select Federal Laws Amending
or Affecting the Mining Law of 1872,'' identifying principal laws under
which federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral entry.
More withdrawals seem likely under Executive Order 14008 in which
President Biden set a goal of preserving and restoring 30 percent of
U.S. lands and waters by 2030.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Executive Order 14008 ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at
Home and Abroad'' (January 27, 2021) and the ``America the Beautiful
Initiative.''
Shrinking the available land base where mineral exploration and
mining are allowed would reduce the number of future mineral
discoveries that can become mines. This would ultimately increase the
Nation's reliance on foreign minerals and thwart the country's goals to
increase domestic production and become more mineral independent. The
1980 House Subcommittee report discussed above recognized that removing
lands from operation of the Mining Law was a serious threat to mineral
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
security:
The most precious asset and the most fundamental requirement,
access to land--primarily the mineral-rich public land--in
which to search for minerals could well become the scarcest
component in America's mineral supply future.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 1980 Subcommittee Report, op cit. page xv.
Rather than asking whether additional lands need to be withdrawn,
it would be more appropriate to ask whether some previously withdrawn
lands with high mineral potential should become available for mineral
exploration and development to address current critical minerals
availability challenges. In light of our untenable and dangerous
reliance on foreign minerals, it would be in the public's best
interests to determine whether certain withdrawn lands that are not
part of the National Park System or congressionally designated
wilderness are more valuable for their mineral resources compared to
scenic, cultural, recreational or other land uses. This evaluation
should consider how the modern environmental protection standards that
would apply to potential mineral development would minimize
environmental impacts, maximize protection of cultural resources and
scenic landscapes, require reclamation when mining is complete, and
enable multiple uses on these lands for mining and nearby recreational
uses both during and after mining.
As one example of how mineral withdrawals play out to this nation's
detriment, in 2012, then-Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, finalized
the withdrawal of 1 million acres of land well outside Grand Canyon
National Park in Arizona. Although there was already a buffer around
the park boundary in which many activities, including mining, are
prohibited, advocates of the withdrawal successfully argued that an
additional ``buffer beyond the buffer'' was necessary. Similar
arguments were made with the recent withdrawal of 225,000 acres in the
Superior National Forest in Minnesota.
As AEMA noted in our comments on the Arizona withdrawal at the
time,\15\ the United States was already importing 90 percent of its
uranium in 2009, and northern Arizona holds ``42% of the nation's
estimated undiscovered uranium endowment . . . To withdraw this
critical resource from location and entry under the Mining Law, with no
environmental benefit or necessity, is short-sighted and dangerous.''
In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the
United States has found the will to ban the import of all manner of
Russian goods and commodities, but it is unable to wean itself off of
Russian uranium imports--a troubling situation for domestic power
generation and national security.
\15\ Northwest Mining Association (now AEMA), Comment Letter on
Notice of Proposed Withdrawal, 74 Fed. Reg. 35887, October 19, 2009.
The Grand Canyon withdrawal is a real-world example of a problem
AEMA has frequently raised in theory, and that is now playing out
before us. The federal government placed federal lands off-limits to
mineral entry that could have provided the uranium needed for power
generation and national security purposes from highly regulated, state-
of-the-art mining operations. The United States has often withdrawn
federal public lands from mineral entry before fully understanding the
mineral potential of the withdrawn lands. Although the United States
had a considerable understanding of the deposits in northern Arizona,
policy makers failed to fully weigh the long-term ramifications of the
withdrawal, which are now coming into clearer focus. At a time when the
need for carbon-free, baseload power is ramping up, some of the nuclear
power industry's best domestic sources of uranium are inaccessible.
This is a self-inflicted wound. Uranium is not currently listed as a
``critical mineral,'' but has been designated as such in the past and
given its strategic importance, should be returned to the list in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
future.
AEMA and our members oppose removing lands from mineral entry, but
at the very least, every time a withdrawal or land use restriction is
proposed to remove federal land from mineral entry, the decision makers
should develop a full understanding of the land's mineral endowment.
Otherwise, the United States runs the risk of repeating the same short-
sighted land management exemplified with the Grand Canyon withdrawal,
which has put much-needed uranium resources off limits to mining.
Conclusion
Since 1970, Congress has consistently and repeatedly recognized
that minerals and mining are essential to all facets of our economy,
society, and national defense. For example, the MMPA (1970), the FLPMA
(1976), the MMPRDA (1980), the Energy Act (2020), the IIJA (2021), and
most recently the IRA (2022) all direct the Executive Branch agencies
to respond to the Nation's need for domestic minerals.
Unfortunately, these Congressional directives have gone largely
unheeded as more lands continue to be withdrawn from mineral entry and
permitting timelines, costs, and risks have become intolerable. Our
risky reliance on imported minerals is a direct result of five decades
of ignoring Congress' clear directives that minerals should be mined
from public lands to help satisfy the Nation's need for minerals.
Despite the urgent need to increase domestic mining and reduce our
dependency on foreign minerals, today it can take 10 years or more to
permit a mine.
The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture must start
complying with the law; compliance is not discretionary. Through their
land management agencies, BLM and the Forest Service, these departments
must reverse the trend of the last 50 years during which it has become
increasingly difficult to access potentially mineralized public lands
and to secure the necessary permits to explore for minerals and build
mines.
The findings in the IIJA that ``critical minerals are fundamental
to the economy, competitiveness, and security of the United States''
and that ``the Federal permitting process has been identified as an
impediment to mineral production and the mineral security of the United
States'' must result in constructive action to streamline permitting
and eliminate permitting impediments.
For the aforementioned reasons, we wholeheartedly support H.R. 209,
the Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023, and the concepts in the
discussion drafts of the Building United States Infrastructure Through
Limited Delays and Efficient Reviews Act of 2023 (BUILDER Act) and the
Transparency and Production of (TAP) American Energy Act of 2023. We
look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure America has a
secure and affordable supply of the minerals and metals needed for our
modern society.
Sincerely,
Mark Compton,
Executive Director
______
WOMEN'S MINING COALITION
Reno, Nevada
February 27, 2023
Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Support for H.R. 209 and the TAP American Energy Act Discussion
Draft
Dear Chairman Stauber:
The Women's Mining Coalition (WMC) is writing to voice our strong
support for your bill, Permitting for Mining Needs (PERMIT MN) Act,
H.R. 209, and for Chairman Westerman's Discussion Draft of the TAP
American Energy Act. Both bills address the significant barriers that
the protracted, costly, and uncertain permitting processes create for
the timely development of U.S. oil, gas, coal, and mineral resources.
Recent events like the war in Ukraine clearly underscore the need
to strengthen the Nation's critical minerals supply chains in order to
reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign adversaries for the minerals
essential to our national defense, economy, infrastructure,
manufacturing and technology sectors, and our clean energy future.
China's hegemony over many critical minerals constitutes a serious
threat to the U.S.
The Biden Administration's aggressive goals to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to address climate change through policies advocating
nationwide electrification are unachievable without the minerals that
are the raw materials needed to build EVs and energy storage batteries
to supplement fossil fuels. The permitting obstacles that stand in the
way of exploring for, developing, and responsibly mining domestic
minerals like lithium, rare earths, copper, cobalt, and nickel must be
solved before the U.S. can truthfully say we have implemented effective
climate change policies. Without these minerals, the country's climate
change policies are nothing more than hollow gestures.
Similarly, the country urgently needs to increase the production of
fossil fuels in order to provide sources of reliable energy during the
transition to renewable energy sources. This transition is going to
take longer than the 2030 and 2050 deadlines established in current
policies. In fact, it is likely to take many decades. Once the
renewable energy transition goals have been met in the future, the U.S.
will still need long-term sources of domestically-produced fossil fuels
for the petrochemical industry and other purposes. Chairman Westerman's
TAP American Energy Act discussion draft addresses the permit
streamlining that needs to occur to support the long-term and
responsible development of the country's fossil fuel and mineral
resources.
We applaud your proposal in H.R. 209 to amend Section 40206 of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 by extending its
applicability to all minerals--not just those minerals on the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS') list of critical minerals. There are no
``unimportant'' minerals. All minerals are needed to support our
economy, national defense, clean and conventional energy
infrastructure, and our manufacturing and technology sectors.
For example, the chart below from the World Bank Group's May 2020
report entitled Minerals for Climate Action emphasizes the importance
of many minerals in our energy sector. Please note that copper, which
is not currently in the USGS' critical minerals list, is needed for all
types of energy infrastructure. Recognizing the critical need to
increase domestic production of copper, Chairman Manchin along with
five of his Senate colleagues recently sent a letter to Secretary of
the Interior, Deb Haaland, requesting that she direct the U.S.
Geological Survey to add copper to the critical minerals list.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsThe U.S. is fortunate to have a significant geologic endowment
of many minerals and fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the Biden
Administration has implemented policies that put significant mineral
and fuel resources off-limits to exploration and development. For
example, the recent pre-emptive vetoes of proposed copper projects in
Alaska and Minnesota will categorically prevent the responsible
development of two world-class copper deposits. WMC strongly supports
Chairman Westerman's proposal in his discussion draft to put limits on
the use of executive fiat to make mineral and fossil fuel resources
unavailable for development.
WMC has focused for many years on the Nation's dangerous reliance
on imports of critical minerals from foreign countries like China and
Russia and the paucity of domestic mineral processing facilities.
Today, the need to significantly increase the number of domestic mines,
smelters, and refining facilities is more urgent than ever as the Biden
Administration implements the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of
2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which both require secure
domestic sources of minerals.
We also believe that an ``all-of-the-above'' approach to meeting
our energy needs is the only viable policy for the foreseeable future.
It is inappropriate and unproductive to pit one form of energy against
another. We need all forms of renewable and conventional energy to
support our economy and keep our country safe. We have the technologies
needed to produce these energy resources in a safe and environmentally
responsible manner.
For these reasons, WMC supports both H.R. 209 and Chairman
Westerman's TAP American Energy Act Discussion Draft. We urge this
committee to advance both proposals.
WMC is a grassroots organization whose mission is to advocate for
today's modern domestic mining industry, which is essential to our
Nation. Our membership includes over 200 women who work nationwide in
hardrock, coal, and industrial minerals mining and in the energy,
manufacturing, transportation, and service industry sectors.
We will be in Washington, D.C. from April 17-21 for our annual Fly-
In and hope to have the opportunity to meet you and your staff to
discuss the importance of strengthening the U.S. hardrock and coal
mining sectors to supply the country with the mineral and energy
resources needed for national security and our economic and social
wellbeing. In the meantime, please contact us if you have any questions
or would like additional information.
Thank you for your consideration and this opportunity to submit
this letter for the record for the February 28, 2023 hearing before the
House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Sincerely yours,
Emily Hendrickson, Wanda Burget,
WMC President WMC Manager
______
LOUISIANA MID-CONTINENT OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION
Baton Rouge, LA
February 28, 2023
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Westerman & Ranking Member Grijalva:
Since 1923, Louisiana Midcontinent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA)
represents all sectors of the oil and gas industry in Louisiana and
across the Gulf of Mexico. Importantly, LMOGA represents the energy
producers and refiners along the Gulf Coast who produce nearly 20% of
our nation's energy, refine 45% of the total U.S. petroleum, and
process 51% of the nation's natural gas. Our industry supports
thousands of high wage jobs across the Gulf South, serviced by
businesses in every state in the Union. In Louisiana alone, the oil and
gas activities are 26% of Louisiana's GDP, and the industry accounts
for over $4 billion in state and local tax revenue.
We write today to voice our support for the TAP American Energy Act
as it will bring much needed certainty to our industry in the Gulf of
Mexico so that we can continue to produce energy that meets nearly 16%
of our nation's energy demand and will strengthen our communities'
resiliency to coastal land loss. Importantly, the legislation would
mandate two area-wide lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, direct the
Department of the Interior to complete a new Five-Year OCS leasing
Program this year, and improve the development of leasing programs and
lease sales moving forward by setting predictable and achievable
timeframes.
When President Biden paused federal oil and gas lease sales in the
Gulf of Mexico, our industry faced unprecedented uncertainty leading to
record-high gas prices for consumers. The recently announced Lease Sale
259, issued in accordance with mandates in the Inflation Reduction Act,
is the first in 15 months since the Department of the Interior held a
lease sale after federal court action. For the first time ever, there
is a lapse in the Five Year Leasing Program for the Outer Continental
Shelf. The TAP American Energy Act would build on the leasing
provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act and ensure lease sales will
continue in the Gulf of Mexico and the Department of the Interior will
issue a five-year plan for the subsequent years in a timely manner.
The TAP American Energy Act also provides Gulf coast energy
producing states with a larger share of revenue from offshore energy
development, bringing much-needed investments to our Coast, especially
in Louisiana, to combat coastal land loss. LMOGA strongly supports
these provisions and believes strongly that we must restore our coast
to sustain both our livelihoods and our environment for generations to
come.
LMOGA also supports the BUILDER Act sponsored by Louisiana
Representative Garret Graves. As the Representative knows well,
permitting delay and uncertainty, largely due to the arduous
administrative review process often holds up much needed infrastructure
needed for our members to bring American energy to market. Louisiana in
particular is at the precipice of a robust amount of new infrastructure
build out as it works to develop and deploy new renewable energy
offshore and its carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS)
industry. From permit renewals for the nearly 50,000 miles of existing
pipelines in Louisiana, build out of new infrastructure to capture
carbon, or laying cable in the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore
wind development, the BUILDER Act will help bring certainty to the
process and make our energy system in Louisiana transformative. We
thank the Committee for considering these bills and urge their swift
passage.
Sincerely,
Tommy Faucheux,
LMOGA President
______
Supporting Organizations for H.R. 209 (Stauber),
the Permitting for Mining Needs Act
National Association of Building Trades Unions;
American Exploration and Mining Association;
National Mining Association;
Better in Our Backyard;
Uranium Producers of America;
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions;
Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS);
Women's Mining Coalition;
National Stone Sand and Gravel Association; and the
Essential Minerals Association
MICHAuto
______
Mr. Stauber. And then I would just like to close up this
hearing by thanking the witnesses for your great testimony.
Here is how we officially close. Again, I want to thank the
witnesses for your time and your expert testimony, all of you.
We value what you had to say to us tonight.
The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday,
March 3. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business
days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Washington, DC
February 27, 2023
Re: NPCA Position on H.R. 209, the Permitting for Mining Needs Act of
2023, and the TAP American Energy Act of 2023
Dear Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of
the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee:
Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has
been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and
enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million
members and supporters nationwide, I write to share our positions on
H.R. 209, the Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023, and the TAP
American Energy Act of 2023
H.R. 209--Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023: NPCA opposes
this legislation which risks key conservation lands that help protect
our national parks and the health and wellbeing of our communities.
While mining is not permitted within national parks, mining activities
pollute the air and water that crosses the boundaries of other nearby
protected lands. NPCA does not oppose additional mining for minerals
critical to the clean energy transition and we acknowledge that growing
demand for certain materials may require new hardrock mines, including
some on federal public lands. However, there are better ways to source
minerals than by allowing entities to stake claims prior to the
discovery of a mineral deposit or imposing arbitrary environmental
review timelines. Insufficiently regulated mining in the name of clean
energy development promotes a false choice and we must do better.
NPCA has specific concerns with sections 3, 8, and 10 of this bill:
Section 3--This section sets arbitrary timelines for key steps in
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for mine
permitting. According to the Government Accountability Office, the two
most cited challenges that affected the length of time to review
hardrock mine plans were the low quality of information operators
provided in their mine plans and the agencies' limited allocation of
resources for their hardrock mining programs.\1\ This bill addresses
neither of those problems and instead sets a time limit of 12 months
for an Environmental Assessment (EA) and 24 months for an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) without properly funding the agencies tasked
with performing these reviews. This will dramatically reduce the
quality of these reviews and opens the door to greater threats to
water, land, sacred sites, and communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-165.pdf
Section 8--This section would exacerbate the issues with the
current claim system by validating mining claims under the Mining Law
of 1872 before the claimant has proven a mineral discovery. Currently,
mining rights fully vest only after valuable minerals are discovered.
Under H.R. 209, a claimant would no longer need to prove they
discovered valuable minerals. Instead, any person could ``claim''
mining rights on unwithdrawn public lands merely by grounding a stake,
paying a fee and filing some paperwork. This would effectively lock out
most other uses of public lands and establish mining as the highest and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
best-use of the land.
Section 10--This section sets an arbitrary 120-day limit for
communities to legally challenge mine projects in court. This 4-month
limit severely restricts the ability of communities and Tribes to
protect their water, land, air and sacred sites from toxic mining
pollution. Restricting the ability of local communities to provide
adequate input degrades the public trust in these industries and does
little to expedite the permitting process.
Congress has already invested significant time and resources into
permitting reform for mining. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
included $1 billion to support timely and effective environmental
reviews across federal agencies, which should lead to better, more
equitable outcomes and help avoid litigation. The Permitting for Mining
Needs Act of 2023 would not meaningfully address the underlying issues
with mine permitting or supply of clean energy minerals but would
exacerbate the conditions for more hardrock mines to pollute the
watersheds of our national parks.
H.R. ____--Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of
2023: NPCA opposes this legislation which would allow unrestrained oil
and gas development on federal lands and waters with no consideration
for the negative effects it would have on national parks and
communities. The bill effectively ends the long-standing policy of
``multiple-use'' on public lands in favor of fossil fuel extraction
over recreation and conservation and would have drastic implications
for the president's ability to protect cultural, natural and sacred
spaces. This legislation also makes unnecessary changes to NEPA, our
nation's bedrock environmental protection law, including arbitrarily
shortening timelines and limiting the public's ability to participate
in the permitting and siting processes.
While this legislation is problematic by effectively making
extraction the dominant use on BLM and USFS lands, NPCA has specific
concerns with the following titles:
Title I--This title would force the federal government to lease
large swaths of public lands and waters for oil and gas development
with no regard to the effects on climate or national parks and
communities. This ends the decades-long precedent of deferring to the
president and secretary of the Interior on determining when and where
to hold lease sales. It also requires the federal government to lease
more public lands for coal mining while fast tracking the leasing and
permitting process at the expense of environmental reviews and
community input. We believe the future of energy development must
include renewable energy, this title would hamper the federal
government's effort to transition to clean energy including wind and
solar.
Title III--This title modifies the way a president may withdraw or
conserve public lands from fossil fuel and mineral extraction. It also
requires the administration to survey for additional mineral and fuel
deposits on lands already protected through administrative withdrawal
or Antiquities Act designation, allowing for the potential removal of
these protections for fossil fuel development and mineral extraction.
These changes upend the way public lands are protected and used,
undermining our country's long-standing commitment to conservation and
protecting resources for the enjoyment of future generations.
Additionally, this title forces the federal government to
prioritize oil and gas development and coal and mineral mining on
federal lands over all other uses. This could make lands unusable for
conservation and recreation purposes, including hiking, hunting and
fishing, and end the long-standing policy of ``multiple-use''.
As this would apply to all Bureau of Land Management and U.S.
Forest Service lands that have not already been removed from oil and
gas development by administrative withdrawal, lands protected through
legislative designations or under the Wilderness Act could lose those
protections and become open to drilling and mining.
Title IV--This title rescinds the commonsense changes to the oil
and gas leasing program that NPCA supported in the Inflation Reduction
Act, including updated royalty rates and the end to non-competitive
leasing. By lowering royalty rates, this title would take money from
conservation funding programs and leave it in the hands oil and gas
companies. By reinstating non-competitive leasing, federal land could
be given away for oil and gas development for up to half as much as it
would sell for at auction.
Title V--This title makes drastic changes to the revenue sharing
structure from energy production on federal lands and waters and would
take funding away from multiple conservation programs, including the
National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund created by the
Great American Outdoors Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
the Historic Preservation Fund. This title also abolishes
administrative fees that help the Department of the Interior facilitate
its leasing programs, effectively defunding the department's ability to
manage its leasing program which Titles I and III of this bill seek to
grow exponentially.
The TAP American Energy Act of 2023 does not increase America's
energy independence, security or diversification in a meaningful way--
which can only be done by increasing the use of renewable energy. It
does, however, eviscerate some of our most important and long-standing
protections for natural, cultural and sacred spaces.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Christina Hazard,
Legislative Director, Government Affairs
______
February 28, 2023
Re: Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Legislative Hearing
Dear Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of
the House Natural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee:
As your subcommittee considers Mr. Stauber's legislation, H.R. 209,
the Permitting for Mine Needs (PERMIT-MN) Act, we urge you oppose this
bill and instead prioritize efforts that would balance public health,
community input, and the protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat,
and cultural and historic resources on America's public lands and
wildlife. The PERMIT-MN Act would exacerbate deficiencies in the
existing mining law and result in an unnecessary increase in mining on
federal public lands and puts at risk irreplaceable protected lands,
special places, endangered and sensitive wildlife, tribal sacred sites,
and culturally significant sites.
In particular, Section 8 of the legislation upends more than a
century of practice by validating mining claims under the Mining Law of
1872 before the claimant has proven a mineral discovery. Currently,
mining claims do not become valid just because the claimant says so:
mining rights fully vest only after the miner discovers valuable
minerals. Yet, under H.R. 209, a claimant would no longer need to
actually prove they discovered valuable minerals. Instead, any person
could ``claim'' mining rights on unwithdrawn public lands merely by
grounding a stake, paying a fee, and filing some paperwork. The PERMIT-
MN Act would effectively lock out most other uses of public lands,
prioritizing mining instead.
H.R. 209 rigs the legal system in favor of mining companies by
reducing opportunities for communities to understand their government's
mining decisions and to protect themselves from project impacts. Some
of those impacts occur, and others become foreseeable, during mining
exploration. Yet Section 7 allows exploratory mining with no community
notice and removes environmental review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Worse, Section 10 restricts the
ability of nearby communities and Tribal nations to protect their
water, land, air, and sacred sites from toxic mining pollution by
arbitrarily closing the courthouse door to legal challenges brought
more than one year following the permit, license, and/or approval.
We urge all Members of Congress to oppose this legislation.
Improvements to the Mine Permitting Process
We acknowledge that growing demand for certain materials may
require new hardrock mines, including some on federal public lands.
However, there are better ways to source minerals than allowing
entities to validate mine claims prior to the discovery of a mineral
deposit or imposing arbitrary environmental review timelines. Necessary
changes include those considered last Congress in the Clean Energy
Minerals Reform Act of 2022. Converting to a leasing system for
hardrock minerals, just like the one that oil and gas companies use
today, would help provide certainty to the permitting process and
result in more timely and socially acceptable decisions.
Congress has already invested significant time and resources into
permitting reform for mining. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
included $1 billion to support timely and effective environmental
reviews across federal agencies, which should lead to better, more
equitable outcomes, and help avoid litigation. Additionally, the Fiscal
2023 budget will help fund public lands management agencies to perform
more thorough mining reviews.
These resources for mine permitting build upon those in the
Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA). IIJA made permanent the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Permitting Council
(Permitting Council), which, in January 2021, added hardrock mining as
a covered sector. In November 2022, the Biden administration announced
the Permitting Council will devote $5 million in support of more
meaningful consultations with federally recognized tribes in hardrock
mine permitting.
IIJA also required the Interior Department to identify process
improvements to hardrock mine permitting. A coalition of tribes,
indigenous-led organizations, and conservation groups have also
petitioned Interior for rules that, if finalized, would result in more
timely decisions for hardrock mine permits without sacrificing
necessary public input. In response to both, the administration
convened the mining reform Interagency Working Group which should
recommend mining rule improvements, consistent with the petition. These
updates would also help lead to a fair hardrock mine permitting
process, delivering more certainty to both claimants and impacted
communities.
Mining Law Must Be Modernized, Centering Historically Impacted
Communities
Current mining law has allowed for the pollution of America's
environment and waterways, placing additional unjust burdens on
communities who have already borne the brunt of our nation's toxic
mining legacy. Already, GAO estimates America is littered with hundreds
of thousands of abandoned mines while the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) estimates hardrock mines have polluted 40% of the
headwaters of western U.S. watersheds and will cost taxpayers more than
$50 billion to clean up. Under current law, taxpayers are potentially
liable for billions more in cleanup costs at currently operating
mines--including treatment of water in perpetuity, risking the health
of already threatened Western watersheds--because the legal
requirements for mining companies to remediate lands and waters remain
inadequate. H.R. 209 does nothing to address the legacy of abandoned
mines or promote remediation of American lands and waters.
Mining companies have already left a lingering toxic legacy and
enjoy generous access to minerals with insufficient environmental
safeguards; all of which has led to severely negative consequences. A
prime example of the ongoing toxic mining legacy is found in the Navajo
Nation's experience with uranium mining, milling, and toxic pollution.
The Navajo Nation is situated directly in America's uranium mining
belt, and in the 1950's and 1960's fervent uranium development left
residents with myriad health risks due to radiation exposure through
polluted water and land. Today over 500 of these mines remain
unremediated across the Navajo Nation, where they continue to impact
residents' health. Navajo Nation residents are 67 times more likely to
live without running water than other residents across the country--and
many water sources on the Navajo Nation are contaminated as a result of
uranium mining and milling operations. The Navajo Nation is not alone:
past and ongoing impacts of uranium operations on Native communities
are extensive.
The Pinyon Plain uranium mine (formerly called Canyon Mine) sits
less than ten miles from the south rim of the Grand Canyon on the
Kaibab National Forest and within the Red Butte Traditional Cultural
Property, a sacred site to the Havasupai Tribe. The mine was permitted
in the late 1980's, but nearly four decades later, the mine has yet to
commence mining operations. However, under the permissive 1872 Mining
Law, the mine is allowed to continue to occupy sacred tribal and public
lands. The mine's owner has constructed a close to 1,500 foot deep mine
shaft, which has exposed mineralized rock and pierced groundwater
aquifers that overlie a deeper regional aquifer--all part of a complex,
interconnected, and little-understood groundwater system that flows
through karst and fractured rock. The overlain aquifer serves as the
only water supply to the Havasupai's remote village of Supai, is the
source of Havasu Creek, which flows through Supai, and is connected to
an unknown number of seeps and springs inside of Grand Canyon National
Park. The mine's existence has impacted the Havasupai Tribe's cultural
practices and is viewed by the tribe as an existential threat.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Silversmith, Shondiin. ``Havasupai Tribe: Pinion (sp) Plain
Uranium Mine Threatens Our Existence.'' AZ Mirror. June 28, 2022.
https://www.azmirror.com/2022/06/28/havasupai-tribe-pinion-plain-
uranium-mine-threatens-our-existence/
Any Changes to Mine Permitting Must Explicitly Include Protections for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Special Places
Expanding mineral activities on federal public lands without
modernizing our mining laws could threaten some of our nation's most
treasured areas. Previous mine permitting proposals have sought to
scale back protections for millions of acres of tribal sacred sites,
culturally significant places, and iconic natural places. While mining
is not permitted within the boundaries of National Parks, mining
activities pollute the air and water that crosses the boundaries of
protected lands. Insufficiently regulated mining in the name of clean
energy development promotes a false choice by risking key lands that we
need to conserve for our own health and wellbeing. We urge the
committee to reject any legislation that puts important American lands,
waters, and wildlife at risk of pollution and degradation.
Conclusion
We urge Members of the House Natural Resources Energy and Minerals
Subcommittee to oppose the PERMIT-MN Act, a bill that would exacerbate
deficiencies in the existing mining law and result in an unnecessary
increase in mining on federal public lands--risking irreplaceable
protected lands, special places, tribal sacred sites, wildlife, and
culturally significant sites.
Sincerely,
The Wilderness Society Earthjustice
League of Conservation
Voters Sierra Club
Earthworks Natural Resources Defense Council
Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Lands Foundation
Center for Biological
Diversity Nuestra Tierra Conservation
Project
Information Network for
Responsible Mining Cook Inletkeeper
Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance Soda Mountain Wilderness Council
Citizens to Protect Smith
Valley, NV Grand Staircase Escalante
Partners
Californians for Western
Wilderness Progressive Leadership Alliance
of Nevada
Change the Chamber Wilderness Workshop
New Mexico Interfaith Power
and Light Endangered Species Coalition
Multicultural Alliance for
a Safe Environment New Mexico Climate Justice
The Rachel Carson Council
(RCC) Friends of the Sonoran Desert
Black Hills Clean Water
Alliance Friends of the Earth
Winter Wildlands Alliance Interfaith Power & Light
Conservation Northwest Grand Canyon Trust
Environmental Protection
Information Center Western Environmental Law Center
Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance Los Padres ForestWatch
Endangered Species
Coalition Hispanic Federation
Northeastern Minnesotans
for Wilderness Seven Circles Foundation
Bluewater Valley Downstream
Alliance (BVDA) Ocean Conservation Research
Earth Action, Inc.