U.S. aims to end reliance on China for minerals, but environmentalists block mining on American soil

The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on September 28 to “Examine Opportunities to Counter the People’s Republic of China’s Control of Critical Mineral Supply Chains,” even as U.S. environmental activists say that domestic mining of the materials needed for America’s transition to green energy could pollute protected lands at home.

U.S. demand is rising for lithium, nickel, and copper, minerals essential for building electric vehicles, wind turbines, and other new energy technologies discussed at the hearing on Capitol Hill. Also discussed were 15 rare earth minerals used in a wide range of electronics and in U.S. military systems.

China dominates production and refinement of many of these minerals, processing almost 60% of the world’s lithium, 70% of cobalt, and more than 80% of manganese, a September 26 report from the Colorado School of Mines’ Payne Institute for Public Policy showed. In the case of some minerals, such as dysprosium, which is used in nuclear reactors, China controls 100% of the production and refinement.

As U.S.-China tensions rise, so too do concerns that China may leverage its control of mineral supply chains to hamper American development of green energy technologies, perhaps in retaliation against U.S. control of exports of the semiconductors that China wants to make its own hi-tech products. In July, China announced export controls on the minerals germanium and gallium that are key to making semiconductors.

“Just like Putin weaponized Russia’s oil and gas resources to try to scare off Europe from supporting Ukraine, Xí Jìnpíng 习近平 and the Chinese Communist Party are more than willing to use critical minerals as leverage to put Americans and the free world at risk,” Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said in his opening remarks at the hearing.

“It will come as no surprise that I want to discuss our best options to pivot away from China, particularly when it comes to the electric vehicle supply chain,” Manchin, the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources committee, said.

There is significant bipartisan support to reduce reliance on China for critical minerals evident in bills from multiple committees in both chambers of Congress focused on ramping up domestic mining and processing of the minerals. However, gaining permission to mine on U.S. soil can take years and environmental activists often do all they can to block mines from breaking ground.

Gumming up the works

Investment in American mining is discouraged because it takes mining companies in the U.S. an average of seven to 10 years to get permission to start digging, compared with two to three years in Canada or Australia, the Payne Institute report found.

Environmentalists often lead public opinion campaigns against mining American land.

“At this point there doesn’t seem to be a mine on federal land that isn’t facing opposition, delays, or rejection,” Morgan Bazilian, the Payne Institute director, wrote in the report’s introduction.

One such opposition campaign is taking place in northern Minnesota, against Twin Metals’ proposed $1.7 billion mine, which would tap a deposit of nickel, cobalt, and copper, according to the company’s website. Twin Metals was founded in 2010 after Canadian company Duluth Metals Limited identified strategic mineral deposits in northeastern Minnesota, not far from Lake Superior, and formed a partnership with Antofagasta PLC of Chile. Antofagasta later acquired Duluth Metals in 2015.

The proposed mine faces opposition because of its proximity to Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a park that draws thousands of visitors each year. Although Twin Metals points out that the proposed mine sites are outside the wilderness area, and outside an even larger mining-exclusion zone, wildlife and canoeing enthusiasts argue the mines could still harm the recreation areas.

“Yes, we need critical minerals, but we also need clean pristine ecosystems to exist not just for their inherent natural beauty, but also to support the current way of life of our wilderness edge communities and the nearly $1 billion yearly economic engine that the outdoors amenities-based economy provides for northeastern Minnesota,” Alex Falconer, the campaign manager at Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, told The China Project.

Falconer said that the greater Quetico-Superior ecosystem adjacent to the proposed mine is one of the six most important areas in the United States for climate resilience and adaptation.

“It is far more valuable as a carbon sink and a landscape for resilience and adaptation than it is as a short-term mine,” Falconer said. A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases.

For now, the Minnesota activists can breathe easy. President Joe Biden canceled Twin Metals’ leases to mine near the Boundary Waters in 2022, and though Twin Metals sued to have the leases reinstated, a U.S. district court judge threw out the company’s lawsuit in early September.

Mining advocates say it is difficult to attract investors in a system that allows the federal government to cancel leases unilaterally.

The Minnesota mines were a flashpoint in the hearing when Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) criticized witness Tommy Beaudreau, the deputy secretary for the Department of the Interior, for the Biden administration’s decision to block the project from moving forward.

“Why did you close the Twin Metals mine in this country earlier this year?“ Hawley asked Beaudreau. ”You are making us dependent on imports from the Democratic Republic of the Congo controlled by China, from Chinese-controlled and -owned mines from all across the world, you’re shutting down our mines here in the United States.”

Hawley added: “I thought it was critical that we had supply chains in this country. And yet you’re shutting down critical mineral production in this country.”

To which Beaudreau replied: “The number of jobs generated by the Boundary Waters and tourism dramatically outpaces the potential of that mine.”

In prepared testimony, Mark Compton, the executive director for the American Exploration & Mining Association, said about the Twin Metals’ leases: “This cancellation vividly illustrates the risks associated with a leasing system and its lack of security of tenure, as the government used its discretion to cancel leases on acquired federal lands after the mining company invested hundreds of millions of dollars to explore and develop mineral deposits under its leasehold acreage.”

Environmentalists support the leasing system because they say it enables cooperative troubleshooting of a mine before it becomes a problem.

“Mining companies and land managers can avoid planning a mine in a controversial area” such as the watershed of the Boundary Waters wilderness area, Falconer told The China Project.

Twin Metals didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Environmental trade-offs

While there is an environmental case to be made for preventing some mines from breaking ground, there are those who point out that critical minerals are crucial for America’s transition to green energy, away from fossil fuels.

Down the line, cleaner mining could relieve policymakers from having to choose between protecting the environment and securing a supply of critical minerals.

“New technology and innovation could help increase supply directly,” Dr. Daniel Yergin, a veteran energy analyst and the S&P global vice chairman, said in prepared testimony. “If such innovation addressed the environmental and social concerns of a growing portion of investors, then it would also attract more capital into the industry and increase supply indirectly.”

More answers to questions about how to prevent critical mineral mines from over-polluting may not be too far off. On the same day as the hearing, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced a bill “to establish a critical mineral environmental processing and mining cleanup program.”