<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:88357.wais]
THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS IN OUR NATIONAL AND
ECONOMIC SECURITY
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 17, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
88-357 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, Chairman
RON KIND, Wisconsin, Ranking Democrat Member
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Chris Cannon, Utah Samoa
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Grace F. Napolitano, California
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Tom Udall, New Mexico
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Rob Bishop, Utah VACANCY
Devin Nunes, California Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 17, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada, Prepared statement of..................... 6
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin............................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Carpenter, Ann, Advisor, Women's Mining Coalition............ 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Groat, Dr. Charles G., Director, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Hanes, Hugh, Consultant, Brush Wellman Inc................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Noel, Robert J., Advisor, Metals Availability Initiative
Consortium................................................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Silver, Douglas B., President, Balfour Holdings, Inc......... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Additional materials supplied:
Mineral Policy Center, Statements and articles submitted for
the record................................................. 58
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS IN
OUR NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY.''
----------
Thursday, July 17, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Cubin,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Representatives Cubin, Gibbons, Cole, Nunes, Kind,
Napolitano, and Tom Udall.
Mrs. Cubin. The oversight hearing by the Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources will please come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
role of strategic and critical minerals in our national and
economic security. Under Rule 4(g) the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member can make opening statements. Any other members
who have statements can have their statements included in the
record under unanimous consent. Excuse me, they can always have
their statement included in the record, but if you want to say
something, Mr. Gibbons, then you will have to have unanimous
consent for that.
Mr. Gibbons. Feeling generous.
Mrs. Cubin. Yes, that is right, and I am feeling tough.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gibbons. I noticed you picked on me.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, you were the only one over there.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Kind is over here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA CUBIN. A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Cubin. The Subcommittee meets today to discuss a
subject with both economic and national security implications.
Our Nation is facing a dwindling production of strategic and
critical minerals and a growing reliance on foreign imports to
supply minerals to our defense, aerospace and high-tech
industries. America is blessed with an abundant supply of
metals and other minerals. That mineral supply has played a
critical role in America's economic development, our success in
technological development and our national security.
Our domestic mineral supply comes from our domestic hard
rock mining industry. Historically the U.S. has been a world
leader in the mining of a variety of minerals, and continues to
be one of the largest producers of copper, gold, lead, zinc and
silver. We have substantial reserves of these and many other
important minerals. Minerals are key to any manufacturing
economy and used extensively in modern industries such as
aerospace, communications, robotics and information processing.
If our Nation is going to be the leader in technology, it must
have access to critical minerals, preferably a secure supply
produced domestically. Minerals have a profound effect on our
Nation's economic security.
Minerals availability is also crucial to America's ability
to defend itself, maintain its position as a global superpower
and carry out the war on terror. As several of our witnesses
will testify today, the United States is becoming increasingly
dependent on foreign sources for strategic minerals that are
used by our defense, security and aerospace industries. Nations
such as China, Russia, Morocco and South Africa are now
providing minerals that are key to our national security. This
is a disturbing situation.
Our Nation is becoming ever more dependent on minerals
imports because our current policies discourage domestic
production. There are some alarming trends occurring in our
domestic mining industry. The United States' share of worldwide
hard rock minerals exploration dropped 10 percent in 2000
alone. Also, since the mid 1990's there has been a sharp
decline in mining claims. Further, since 1997 there has been a
66 percent increase in exploration spending in the United
States. These companies are investing abroad. I said increase.
A 66 percent decrease in explorations spending in the United
States. Pardon me. These companies are investing abroad.
Why are we losing our domestic industry? First, political
risk for mining companies is higher in the United States than
in almost all other countries, including those nations many in
this room would not travel to themselves. Second, regulatory
changes in policies that have been initiated over the past
decade are destroying our domestic mining industry. The
Millsite opinion issued in 1997 and the rewrite of the 3809
regulations in 2001 created massive uncertainty for anyone
developing a mine plan in the United States. Third, the land
withdrawals, such as the California Desert Protection Act and
the Roadless Rule, have jeopardized exploration and development
of mineral resources adjacent to withdrawn areas and has locked
up millions of acres with promising mineral potential.
Uncertainty in the permitting process and frivolous litigation
are delaying projects for up to 10 years. Finally, an extended
crisis in the surety bond industry has made it virtually
impossible for mining companies to obtain reclamation insurance
bonds, thus making it exceedingly difficult to obtain permits.
All of these factors are destroying our domestic mining
industry. Once again, our Federal lands policies are running
counter to America's economic health and national security.
If we want to remain a strong and vibrant economic and
military force, we need to evaluate our current minerals
policies and develop one based on common sense. We need
policies that promote American industries and American jobs.
I thank you all for coming today and look forward to the
testimony of our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Barbara Cubin, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
The Subcommittee meets today to discuss a subject with both
economic and national security implications. Our Nation is facing a
dwindling production of strategic and critical minerals and a growing
reliance on foreign imports to supply minerals to our defense,
aerospace and high-tech industries.
America is blessed with an abundant supply of metals and other
minerals. That mineral supply has played a crucial role in America's
economic development, our success in technological development and our
national security.
Our domestic mineral supply comes from our domestic hardrock mining
industry. Historically, the U.S. has been a world leader in the mining
of a variety of minerals, and continues to be one of the largest
producers of copper, gold, lead, silver and zinc.
We have substantial reserves of these and many other important
minerals. Minerals are key to any manufacturing economy and are used
extensively in modern industries such as aerospace, communications,
robotics and information processing.
If our nation is going to be the leader in technology, it must have
access to critical minerals, preferably a secure supply produced
domestically. Minerals have a profound affect on our nation's economic
security.
Minerals availability is also crucial to America's ability to
defend itself, maintain its position as global superpower and carry out
the War on Terror. As several of our witnesses will testify today, the
U.S. is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign sources for
strategic minerals that are used by our defense, security and aerospace
industries.
Nations such as China, Russia, Morocco, Gabon and South Africa are
now providing minerals that are key to our national security. This is a
disturbing situation.
Our nation is becoming ever more dependent on minerals imports
because our current policies discourage domestic production. There are
some alarming trends occurring in our domestic mining industry. The
U.S. share of worldwide hardrock minerals exploration dropped 10
percent in 2000 alone.
Also, since the mid 1990s there has been a sharp decline in mining
claims. Further, since 1997 there has been a 66 percent decrease in
exploration spending in the United States. These companies are
investing abroad.
Why are we losing our domestic industry? First, political risk for
mining companies is higher in the U.S. than in most other countries,
including those nations many in this room would not travel themselves.
Second, regulatory changes and policies that have been initiated
over the past decade are destroying our domestic mining industry. The
Millsite Opinion, issued in 1997, and the rewrite of the 3809
regulations in 2001, created massive uncertainty for anyone developing
a mine plan in the U.S.
Third, land withdrawals such as the California Desert Protection
Act and the Roadless Rule, have jeopardized exploration and development
of mineral resources adjacent to withdrawn areas and has locked up
millions of acres with promising mineral potential. Uncertainty in the
permitting process and frivolous litigation are delaying projects for
up to ten years.
Finally, an extended crisis in the surety bond industry, has made
it virtually impossible for mining companies to obtain reclamation
assurance bonds thus making it exceedingly difficult to obtain permits.
All of these factors are destroying our domestic mining industry. Once
again, our federal lands policies are running counter to America's
economic health and national security.
If we want to remain a strong and vibrant economic and military
force, we need to evaluate our current minerals policies and develop
one based on common sense. We need policies that promote American
industries and American jobs.
I thank you all for coming today, and look forward to the testimony
of our witnesses.
______
Mrs. Cubin. I now would like to recognize our Ranking
Member, Mr. Kind, for any statement that he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RON KIND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to be brief.
First of all I want to welcome the witnesses today, the
Director of USGS, Chip Groat, I appreciate your attendance and
the work that you and everyone at USGS has been doing on behalf
of our Nation. Thanks for coming, as well as the other
witnesses.
And I commend the Chair for holding this very important
hearing. I think it is something we need to delve into and keep
an eye on from time to time. It is an issue, obviously, of
geopolitical significance for our Nation, capabilities abroad
and access to supply overseas as well.
But I also believe that the central question to the
Subcommittee must be what role can our public lands play in
securing our strategic and critical mineral supplies for the
future? This is not simply a question of whether the United
States contains such minerals. Oftentimes we don't, not in the
size, the quantity that we need. It has been typically we don't
have them, we have to seek them abroad, and what can we do to
ensure that supply line. But inevitably it is also a question
of economic viability based on what we do have available and
how do we obtain it in a cost effective but also an
environmentally minded fashion?
As witnesses will testify today, based on some of the
written comments that you have already submitted, most
strategic metal ores found in the United States are of such low
quality that it is far more economical to buy them abroad.
There are some exceptions, two mines, the beryllium operation
in Utah and the platinum group of metals mine in Montana stand
out. Consequently, our Nation has been and will continue to be
dependent on various foreign supplies of strategic metals for
the foreseeable future, not unlike what Chairman Greenspan was
testifying just a couple of short weeks ago, that it is not all
together bad that we try to diversify our sources of natural
gas, recognizing we have natural gas supplies here but we are
going to be dependent on imports from other countries, and the
more diversified we can get, the less dependent we will be on
supply disruptions.
There are those that assert the United States should
encourage and facilitate the development of our public domain
for these critical metals, while others say the geology is
simply inadequate for these types of production and would not
want the environmental consequences that would come with such
development. Most experts would agree, however, that the bulk
of the mineral supply of the United States imports for national
defense purposes cannot be economically produced in the United
States, whether it is from a lack of mineral resources or
facilities needed to process the raw ore. Nevertheless, today's
hearing will inevitably focus on increased domestic production
on Federal lands, but before we consider that option to any
great extent, we must also look at the current state of the
hard rock mining industry in the United States. The hard rock
mining industry is the Nation's most toxic polluter according
to EPA's 2003 toxic release inventory. Moreover, the General
Mining Law of 1872 has remained largely unchanged since
President Grant signed it into law, and the industry remains
exempt from paying royalties on minerals extracted on public
lands, nor are completely responsible for the environmental
consequences that come from production on these public lands.
My colleague, the Ranking Member of the full Committee
here, Mr. Rahall, has once again introduced bipartisan mining
reform law of which I am an original cosponsor and which we
hope will receive serious consideration by this Committee and
by the Congress as a whole.
As with the supply debates and other matters under the
jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, a discussion of increased
domestic hard rock minerals production on public lands is not
complete without considering alternatives to activities that
have been potentially hazardous environmental implications.
Conservation of minerals through recycling is one area where
technological advancements can offset concerns about new
production increasing supply.
I am looking forward to perhaps hearing some testimony in
regards to what the industry itself is doing in order to reduce
the dependence on some of these strategic minerals and sources,
and there has been some market forces at play there. Also
interested in hearing from any of the witnesses, your insight
on recycling efforts and if more can be done in this area in
order to reduce our foreign dependence on these crucial
supplies.
So once again I commend the Chair for holding the hearing.
I thank the witnesses for attendance. I will apologize ahead of
time because I have a meeting with Ambassador Zoellick to talk
about some trade issues, that I am going to have to step out
for, but hopefully return in short order.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kind follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, Ranking Democrat,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Ongoing U.S. military activity abroad along with nationwide efforts
to ensure our homeland security here at home has drawn the attention of
our Subcommittee to the issue of the Nation's strategic and critical
minerals supply.
To understand the issue, it is useful to consider the history of
the Nation's critical and strategic mineral supply and its relation to
geopolitics.
From the end of World War I through the end of the Cold War, the
military was concerned about U.S. dependence on foreign nations for
supply of certain metallic minerals necessary for military equipment
and operations.
Today, the situation is different. The Cold War is over. The
nations of the former Soviet Union and Africa are more stable and
economically reliant on exports of these strategic minerals.
Technology and geological knowledge have dramatically increased,
causing world reserves of these minerals to grow, at times by as much
as 700 percent.
In response to these trends, Congress has authorized the sale of
many of the Nation's stockpiled minerals, siting the availability of
world markets to provide necessary supplies. At this time, only
beryllium, mica, and quartz crystals are actively stored for future
use.
So, today, the Subcommittee asks the question, ``what role can our
public lands play in securing our strategic and critical minerals
supply for the future?'' This is not simply a question of whether the
United States contains such minerals. Inevitably, the question of
economic viability comes into play.
And, as witnesses will testify today, most strategic metal ores
found in the United States are of such low quality that it is far more
economical to buy them abroad. There are some exceptions--as evidenced
by two mines: a beryllium operation in Utah and a platinum group metals
mine in Montana.
Consequently, our Nation has been and will continue to be dependent
on various foreign supplies of strategic metals beyond the foreseeable
future. As in the case made by Fed Chairman Greenspan for multiple
sources of natural gas, from a geopolitical perspective, this is not a
bad thing.
There are those that assert the United States should encourage and
facilitate the development of our public domain for these critical
metals. While others say the geology is simply inadequate for these
types of production and would not warrant the environmental
consequences.
Most experts would agree, however, that the bulk of the mineral
supply that the U.S. imports for national defense purposes cannot be
economically produced in the United States, whether it is from a lack
of mineral resources or facilities needed to process the raw ore.
Nevertheless, today's hearing will inevitably focus on increased
domestic production on federal lands. But before we consider such an
option, we must first look at the current state of the hardrock mining
industry in the United States.
The hardrock mining industry is the nation's most toxic polluter
according to the EPA's 2003 Toxics Release Inventory. Moreover, since
the General Mining Law of 1872 has remained largely unchanged since
President Ulysses S. Grant signed it into law, the industry remains
exempt from paying royalties on the minerals it extracts from the
public domain. In comparison, coal, oil and gas producers are all
required to pay 8 to 12 percent royalties on production from federal
leases. To put this into perspective, since 1872, more than $245
billion in metals and minerals has been extracted without any payment
to the owners.
My colleague, the Ranking Member of the Resources Committee from
West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, has, once again, introduced a mining law
reform bill this Congress, of which I am an original co-sponsor.
Mr. Rahall's bill is designed to bring the Mining Law of 1872 into
the 21st Century. If enacted, H.R. 2141, ``The Mineral Exploration and
Development Act of 2003,'' would permanently abolish the use of patents
in hardrock mining, place an 8 percent royalty on minerals extracted
from federal lands, create an abandoned mine lands fund to reclaim
abandoned mines, and proscribe new operation and reclamation standards
for operators.
As with supply debates in other matters under the jurisdiction of
the Subcommittee, a discussion of increased domestic hardrock minerals
production on public lands is not complete without considering
alternatives to activities that have potentially hazardous
environmental implications.
Conservation of minerals through recycling is one area where
technological advancements can offset concerns about new production and
increasing supply.
I am glad to see Mr. Robert Noel has come to testify on behalf of
the Metals Affordability Initiative, a consortium of aircraft and
engine manufacturers and key material and component-supplier companies
that, among other things, works to reduce the amount of metal used in
military and aerospace products.
In addition to industry efforts, Congress must work harder to
encourage the recycling of these critical metals.
Whether it is for increased domestic supply, national security,
environmental protection, or political purposes, continued research and
development of recycling technologies can help us maintain our
strategic and critical metals stockpiles and preserve our scenic public
lands and waters for future generations to enjoy.
I would like to thank the panelists for their presence today and I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
______
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Kind.
Would any other members like to make an opening statement?
Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. Madam Chairman, in view of the time and the
need to hear from our witnesses, I do have an opening
statement, but I will submit it for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing today to
discuss an issue of utmost importance to our Nation's independence,
prosperity, economic stability, and most importantly, our safety and
security.
We are truly blessed to live in a county rich in natural resources.
As a result of developing our natural resources, not only have we
have raised our standard of living exponentially but created the
strongest, most technologically advanced military in the world.
Having both a mining and military background, I understand the
intricate link between the minerals and metals that our mines extract
and the development of the world's most sophisticated technology.
The availability of various materials equates to the most
technologically advanced military in the world.
Unfortunately, misinformed environmental groups are incessantly
attacking our domestic mining industry.
They work to over-regulate the mining industry to a point where
mining operations just cannot bear the burden and flee the United
States for business environments that are more fair and predictable.
We have seen this pattern before.
For example, through regulatory burdens we have completely shut off
the majority of our public lands from oil drilling, and consequently,
we are dependent on foreign nations for this resource.
Because oil is an absolute necessity, we often must ally with
countries that do not have our best interests in mind or with nations
that are politically unstable.
This puts us in a very vulnerable position.
It is our responsibility as policy makers to ensure that we do not
willfully put this country in a position in which we are dependent on
other nations for resources that are an absolute necessity for our
safety-resources that can be produced domestically.
Furthermore, it is our job to ensure that we protect the basis of
our economy which is unarguably our domestic mining industry.
I look forward to hearing from our witness today and I hope that as
a result of each of your recommendations, we can make policy which will
promote our domestic mining industry and further advancements in
technology.
______
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you. All opening statements will be
submitted.
Now, I would like to recognize the first panel, Dr. Charles
Groat, the Director of the United States Geological Survey with
the U.S. Department of the Interior. Would you please approach
the table?
It is policy for this interior Committee to swear all of
the witnesses, so would you mind rising and raising your right
hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you. The Chairman now recognizes Mr.
Groat to testify for 5 minutes. The timing lights on the table
will indicate when your time has concluded, and if you are not
able to present your entire testimony orally, then your entire
testimony will be included in the record.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES G. GROAT, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Groat. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I will submit my full testimony for the
record and just paraphrase and run through the high points.
I was asked to comment on the U.S. Government's involvement
in critical and strategic minerals from a historical point of
view to kind of set the framework for how we have been dealing
with those.
If we really want to go back to true history, we can go
back all the way to Lewis and Clark, when 200 years ago
President Jefferson wrote to Merriwether Lewis concerning
exploration in the Pacific Northwest and told him to observe,
quote, ``mineral production of every kind.'' So the Government
has recognized for a long time that mineral resources are a
critical part of its economy and of its well-being.
Unfortunately, in the early parts of the 19th century the
ability to understand those resources, their production and
their likelihood for future development wasn't very great
because it was spread around in different kinds of reporting
mechanisms, so in 1879 the Congress created the U.S. Geological
Survey and consolidated much of the activity that it was
carrying out in the area of minerals within the USGS. One of
the first things the USGS did was to set up a mining statistics
division, so that the flow of information about mineral
resources in the United States would be adequate.
The creation of the Bureau of Mines in 1925, that function
was transferred to them, and then with the abolition of the
Bureau of Mines in '96, it was turned back to the United States
Geological Survey.
If we look historically at the concern of the Government
and its activities in critical and strategic minerals, we
really see an ebb and flow of interest and activity. After
World War I it was pretty clear that the United States was not
going to be and was not at the present time self-sufficient in
all the minerals it needed, and by the time World War II came
along, the country was really clear in its concern about
vulnerability to disruptions in the supply of critical
commodities.
As we moved into the atomic age, by that time the United
States had become a net importer of many minerals, and it was
evidence to all in the industry and those concerned about our
economy that this trend posed serious threats for this country
in many ways.
In response to that concern the Federal Government took a
number of steps to address that. One of them was to create a
loan program to encourage exploration on public lands, and
second, created the stockpile that has continued to the present
of critical and strategic minerals, and put together the Paley
Commission, which in '52 produced a report that documented the
Nation's mineral position, and developed recommendations about
how we ought to deal with our mineral problems.
The ebb comes up again following the Korean Conflict. By
that time it was perceived that we were in a surplus situation
in most cases, and the interest in doing anything of
consequence about critical and strategic minerals wasn't very
high.
But there again the flow picks up again as concerns about
the Soviet Union and its expanding influence around the globe
grew, and there were concerns that we might even end up in a
resource war in a sense with the Soviet Union, and even more
so, the fact that they might deny us access to some of the
foreign supplies, that we were becoming increasingly reliant
on, of critical minerals as they extended their influence.
So that at that time, we published in 1973 the first
general assessment of the mineral resources of the United
States that covered the whole country. This was the first one
in 20 years since the Paley Commission, and reported on
geologic studies and estimates about that resource base.
In the '70's we tried to develop an approach to helping the
country in a probabilistic sort of way understand what the
potential was for undiscovered resources. It is one thing to
chronicle what is there and what we know about. The question
always remains what is the potential of this country to develop
more resources? So in 1973 we did such a study, and at that
time in the '90's by the time that was completed, we concluded,
and I will quote in a sense, that in this first ever report to
determine the potential undiscovered deposits of gold, silver,
copper, lead and zinc, we concluded, quote, ``That there is
every reason to believe that, for conventional-type deposits
that contain gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, about as much
left to be discovered in the United States as has already been
discovered.'' And we reported what the estimates of those total
resources were. This kind of activity will continue to be
updated as conditions surrounding the economics and the
accessibility to those deposits or potential deposits
continues.
In recent concerns, the cold war ebbed in a sense those
concerns and we had much less interest in Government action in
this sort of thing. Nonetheless, the United States continues to
import 100 percent of some very critical resources, indium,
manganese, vanadium. We are highly dependent on foreign sources
for chromium, cobalt, platinum group minerals and tantalum. In
addition, we are increasingly depending on some resources that
we at one time were significant producers of, and so we are
importing significant amounts of beryllium, copper, lead,
lithium, magnesium metal, rare earths and titanium.
Globalization, and I will close with some comments about
that. Clearly it is a global market in many ways, and the same
is true, as you have pointed out, with our critical and
strategic minerals. We are seeing patterns that increase the
understanding of our dependence on global supplies. We tried to
be a participant by initiating in 2002 the first global
assessment of the potential for undiscovered resources which
will help us guide policy in our development and ability to use
those kinds of resources in a global sense.
Finally, let me close as I started, with the importance of
information. It is clear that we need sources of objective,
unbiased information about existing resources and the potential
for additional resources on both a national and global scale,
and as we do that the USGS hopes that it can continue to play
that role in providing you, to the private sector, other parts
of Government, important information about existing and
potential mineral supplies, the information which will help
shape a reasonable domestic and global policy on mineral
resources.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groat follows:]
Statement of Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing and to discuss
the role of strategic and critical minerals in our national and
economic security. The broad importance of these minerals is often
overlooked and misunderstood. Minerals are important to our security
and economy. They are the stuff of which our material infrastructure is
built.
There is a common misperception that minerals can be found anywhere
and that there will never be a problem with sources of these
fundamental commodities. I'd like to talk with you today about the U.S.
history of mineral supply-and-demand issues and the work the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) does to provide the Nation's policymakers with
reliable, current information that helps sustain the economy and
maintain security.
The United States government has a long history of concern about
access to the minerals necessary to the functioning of its economy and
maintaining a strong national defense. Two hundred years ago, when
President Jefferson wrote Merriwether Lewis concerning his exploration
mission to the Pacific Northwest with William Clark, he instructed them
to observe ``mineral production of every kind.'' Twenty years later, in
1833, George Featherstonhaugh, an English-born geologist, wrote a
letter to Secretary of War Lewis Cass expounding on the benefits of
dedicating public funds to expand the Nation's knowledge of its mineral
resources. He wrote, ``It is difficult to form an estimate of the great
disadvantages any country lays under, precluded from a correct
knowledge of its own mineral resources; and this remark may be
especially applied to the United States.''
Congress recognized the importance of strategic and critical
minerals when it enacted The Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of
1953, which remains in force. This Act states, ``It is recognized that
the continued dependence on overseas sources of supply for strategic or
critical minerals and metals during periods of threatening world
conflict or political instability within those nations controlling the
sources of supply of such materials gravely endangers the present and
future economy and security of the United States. It is therefore
declared to be the policy of the Congress that each department and
agency of the Federal Government charged with responsibilities
concerning the discovery, development, production, and acquisition of
strategic or critical minerals and metals shall undertake to decrease
further and to eliminate where possible the dependency of the United
States on overseas sources of supply of each such material.''
The difficulty in gaining an understanding of the mineral
production of the United States during the first half of the 19th
century is the legacy of multiple independent government reports on the
mineral resources of individual mining districts. At the close of the
19th century, the United States was largely thought to be abundantly
endowed with mineral resources. By the first decade of the 20th
century, this view was changing and the country began to focus on
managing and conserving its natural resources. In 1879, Congress
created a single organization, the U.S. Geological Survey, to provide
the Nation with knowledge about its mineral resources and the state of
their development. Among its first activities, the USGS created a
Mining Statistics Division to collect and disseminate information about
the Nation's mineral production and to investigate the geology of and
the technology employed at several important mining districts.
This vital mining statistics function was transferred from USGS to
the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) in 1925 and returned to USGS by the
U.S. Congress in 1996. The mineral statistics program was expanded at
the USBM as demand increased for minerals data, particularly by defense
and emergency preparedness agencies.
Significant concerns about access to strategic and critical
minerals arose after World War I when the Nation recognized that it was
not self-sufficient in all of the minerals it needed. The implications
of being a net importer of minerals and the need to develop elements of
a national mineral policy gained the attention of government decision
makers and scholars. The onset of World War II brought home to the
country its vulnerability to disruptions in the supply of critical
mineral commodities. These concerns were heightened by the dawning of
the atomic age, as the United States had become a net importer of many
minerals. The rise of a communist government in China and the
termination of access to Chinese tungsten, as well as the onset of
hostilities in Korea, which was also a significant source of that
metal, raised concerns about the vulnerability of the United States to
disruptions of minerals supplies.
The Federal Government took a number of actions to address the
fears about access to strategic and critical minerals. These actions
included creating a program of Government loans to encourage
exploration for such minerals (the Grubstake Loan Program of the
Defense Production Act of 1950, the Defense Minerals Exploration
Administration, and successor programs in the USGS), establishing
government stockpiles of a wide variety of minerals, and appointing the
President's Materials Policy (Paley) Commission. In 1952 the Commission
produced a report that documented the Nation's mineral position and
made recommendations to address mineral-supply problems.
Following the Korean Conflict, however, minerals were in surplus
rather than shortage, and public interest in assuring sources of
mineral supplies ebbed. By 1956, even uranium was in oversupply, thanks
in part to government efforts to spur exploration and production of
that mineral.
However, access to minerals remained a concern of the United States
throughout the Cold War. In the late 1970s, guerrilla activity in Shaba
Province, Republic of Congo (then Zaire), caused cobalt prices to rise
precipitously. Heightened tensions with the Soviet Union in the early
1980s fueled apprehensions about a ``resource war'' and global
competition for resources. Some experts cited mineral resources as one
of the dominant factors that led the Soviet Union to invade
Afghanistan. This view reflected the broader concern that, if the
Soviet Union were in a position to do so, it would deny the United
States access to foreign supplies of minerals critical to defense
systems or to the U.S. economy.
In 1973, USGS published the first overall assessment of mineral
resources of the United States since the 1952 Paley Commission report.
Planning by the U.S. Government again focused on access to strategic
and critical minerals, support for geologic studies of particular
strategic and critical minerals, and the maintenance of adequate
stockpiles of materials to meet projected national emergencies.
In addition to undertaking geologic studies of strategic and
critical minerals, USGS began in the 1970s to develop consistent,
probabilistic techniques for estimating potential for as-yet
undiscovered deposits of essential minerals. These techniques were
first applied in the United States and used to assist Federal land
managers in considering mineral values as a part of land management
plans. In the 1990s, USGS conducted the first-ever probabilistic
assessment of the entire United States to determine potential for
undiscovered deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc. The
study concluded that ``there is every reason to believe that, for
conventional-type deposits that contain gold, silver, copper, lead, or
zinc, about as much is left to be discovered in the United States as
has already been discovered'' and reported the estimated total
resources of these five metals. USGS will update this assessment
periodically as changes occur in minerals utilization, adding economic
and environmental analyses when feasible.
Recent Developments and the Present Situation
The end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991
resulted in a lessening in concerns about access to strategic and
critical minerals and a decrease in the size and composition of
stockpiles. This was based on the assumption that in future
emergencies, the United States would have ready access to foreign
sources of minerals. Recent events have called that assumption into
question. The Federal government continues to maintain stocks of a
large number of critical mineral materials such as such as bauxite,
chromium, cobalt, columbium, diamond, fluorspar, germanium, graphite,
iodine, manganese, mica, palladium, platinum, and tantalum.
The United States imports 100% of such important mineral materials
as bauxite, columbium, indium, manganese, and vanadium; and is a net
importer of chromium, cobalt, platinum-group metals, and tantalum (see
tables 1 and 2). In addition, the United States imports an increasing
quantity of mineral materials we once exported. Many of these materials
are important components of defense systems or are used in technically
sophisticated products, including super alloys in jet aircraft,
electronic components, such as capacitors for personal computers and
cellular telephones, and semi-conductors. Data collected since 1978
demonstrate that the value of imports of mineral materials has
increased faster than the value of exports (figure 1).
Just as the end of the Cold War prompted major changes in defense
planning and foreign policy, it also marked a major change in global
economies, including the United States. Increased globalization will
likely increase global interdependence on mineral supplies, as minerals
are mined in one country, processed in another country, and turned into
manufactured goods in yet other countries.
Information about both our domestic and global mineral resources
remains vital to meeting the economic and national security challenges
that the Nation faces. In response to this need, USGS provides
information on production and consumption of 100 mineral commodities
domestically and in 180 countries. At the same time, USGS conducts
research and assessments designed to provide a scientific basis for
understanding the Nation's domestic and global mineral resource
position. The information provided by USGS is a public good, providing
valuable information to market participants that would not be obtained
in a private market. Such information is also important should foreign
sources become prohibitively expensive in a time of crisis.
In 2002, USGS scientists began a USGS-led, internationally
coordinated project to assess potential for undiscovered nonfuel
mineral resources on a global scale. The primary objectives of this
multi-year project are to outline the principal land areas in the world
that have potential for selected undiscovered mineral resources and to
estimate the probable amounts of those resources to a depth of 1
kilometer below the Earth's surface. The first priority for the project
has been identifying and formalizing relations with other countries and
multinational organizations around the world. In addition, USGS is
preparing reports on regional geology, recent exploration, significant
mines and mineral resources, major past and current production, and
supply-demand conditions. These reports will be available beginning in
early 2004.
Future Concerns
As developing nations grow, demand on known resources will increase
rapidly. For example, among the most dramatic recent changes has been
the emergence of the Peoples Republic of China as a major participant
in minerals markets. China currently supplies the United States a large
number of mineral commodities including: antimony, barite, fluorspar,
graphite, indium, magnesium, niobium, rare earths, tantalum, tin,
tungsten, and yttrium. However, China's internal consumption of
minerals is rising rapidly. China's consumption of copper recently
exceeded 1 million tons per year and China will likely be the largest
consumer of copper in the world before 2020. China is changing from a
country that exports many minerals to one that imports increasing
amounts and varieties of minerals. As China and other developing
nations grow, trade balances in many mineral materials will shift. The
U.S. needs to anticipate these shifts and be prepared with long-term
strategies.
Many organizations and agencies need information concerning mineral
resources provided by USGS. These organizations include: land
management agencies, the Federal Reserve Board, numerous Department of
Commerce agencies, and the Departments of State and Defense. Private
sector groups, such as industry trade organizations and non-
governmental agencies, are also frequent customers and partners. In
closing, I would like to reiterate how important minerals are to our
security and our economy. They are the stuff of which our material
infrastructure is built.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.003
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Dr. Groat. The Minerals Information
Team collects and disseminates information on the domestic and
international supply and demand of minerals essential to the
U.S. economy and national security. Are there other sources of
this information, and how is the information used by the
Federal Government and the private sector?
Mr. Groat. I think clearly the most comprehensive source of
that kind of information comes from the Mineral Information
Team. We report on over a hundred commodities in 80 different
countries around the world. While the function is with the
Bureau of Mines and with us, it has been recognized as probably
the single most public authoritative source. There are
estimates made by various consulting firms and foundations
about mineral resource potential, but I think that remains the
most commonly used, and it has access to the most forms of
data, because as a neutral source, companies and others are
willing to provide information sometimes on a confidential
basis that can be aggregated and reported to an organization
like the Bureau of Mines at one time and us now that they might
not report to the private firms that they would have some
concern about.
Mrs. Cubin. What is the current budget for the Minerals
Information Team?
Mr. Groat. Let me ask Kate Johnson, who heads our minerals
program. Do you have that number, Kate? $16 million, Madam
Chairman.
Mrs. Cubin. And that is the 2003?
Mr. Groat. 2003 enacted.
Mrs. Cubin. Right. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes
$750,000 cut in the program. Considering the importance of the
program to our national security, why were these cuts proposed?
Mr. Groat. Well, we had to make some difficult choices in
meeting our targets with the budget and we had some significant
cuts to be taken in various areas. Mineral Information Team
shared in some of those cuts. We were not about to remove that
program. We recognized its importance, but we are seeking
economies where possible.
Mrs. Cubin. I just can't help but wonder if the
administration, if there is a break in the thought process with
some people in the administration in that we need energy for
our national security and we need these minerals for our
national security. The Interior Department is one of the only
agencies that actually brings revenue into the Government, and
yet the Interior budget was hit pretty hard. It doesn't make
sense to me. Do you have any remarks on that?
Mr. Groat. I can comment on the USGS aspects of that, and I
think what we have learned is that it is important for us to do
as good a job as we can in helping people including
administrations and constituents and folks that use
information, appreciate the importance of the kind of
information in the sense of the Mineral Information Program
that we develop, and to the degree that we can increase that
appreciation, as you and this Subcommittee try to do for
mineral resources in general, expand the appreciation for the
importance of the resource and information about it, hopefully
those kinds of decisions won't have to be made in the future
and the country will support them to the degree that you and I
seem to think they should be.
Mrs. Cubin. In what daily operational or concrete ways will
that $750,000 affect USGS, or the Information Team I should
say?
Mr. Groat. I don't think at that level of cut that we will
stop doing anything that is currently done in the sense of what
we report on, the countries that we report on and that sort of
thing. I think we will be forced to seek some economies in how
we do that. Whether that will mean sacrifices in the quality of
data, I certainly hope not, but we will do everything we can to
make sure that what we are dependent on for good information
continues to be provided.
Mrs. Cubin. In your opinion, are our current policies
toward access to Federal lands affecting our ability to produce
strategic and critical minerals?
Mr. Groat. I think you probably, Madam Chairman, with all
due respect, got the wrong guy to be asking the question about
access. We are in the science business, the resource estimation
business, and don't really get involved in policy questions
regarding access. We certainly do get involved in assessing
potential resource on Federal lands and recognize that there is
certainly potential there, but decisions about whether or not
there should be access to them is beyond my scope.
Mrs. Cubin. I wasn't asking whether or not there should be
access. I guess I was asking more about the presence of
minerals on the lands, and obviously there is some reason that
they are not being explored. You are right, that is not in your
job definition, but it is in mine. So your testimony says that
there are minerals out there that could be, all things being
right, that could be produced.
Mr. Groat. We certainly can say that, based on our geologic
work, that there are potential mineral resources under Federal
land surfaces.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
I would like to recognize Mr. Kind.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you again, Director Groat, for your testimony,
your presence here today. Unfortunately, I think the budgetary
decisions that you and your department have had to make are
consequences of the fiscal policies being pursued. I mean it is
the classic tradeoff between the tax cuts that are being
enacted right now and the critical resources that are needed in
order for us to develop these types of strategic plans for the
sake of national security in our country, and you have to deal
with the fact that we are operating under very tough, tight,
budgetary circumstances, a deficit this year of $460 billion
and projected deficits for many years to come. I think,
unfortunately, it is going to put a further squeeze on your
department and other agencies in your ability to meet the needs
that we are asking of you. It is an unfortunate situation, but
it is a reality of the fiscal management right now that we see
here in Washington.
I believe I heard that you have initiated a global study on
strategic minerals that started in 2002; is that correct?
Mr. Groat. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kind. When do you expect to complete that?
Mr. Groat. That will be a multiple year effort, as was our
global assessment of undiscovered conventional energy
resources, and it is intended to be based on the same sort of
pattern where we have a group of experts that work
collaboratively with comparable experts in other parts of the
world and receive information from a variety of sources, and
try, in the sequence of groups of critical minerals, to proceed
through. We are starting with one group now, and I think, Kate,
that total program is estimated to last at least 6 years, isn't
it? Yes, 2008.
Mr. Kind. Will there be period reports or reports updating
the progress of the study that we can have access to?
Mr. Groat. Yes, we will release reports as they are
generated in sequence rather than waiting to the end, and then
do updates as well.
Mr. Kind. I know it is very new. You have just embarked on
this global study, but are there any red flags presenting
themselves right now that this Committee and this Congress
needs to be aware of?
Mr. Groat. I don't think red flags. I think we will find,
as industry is well aware and as we believe we are as well,
that the distribution of most mineral resources around the
globe is adequate for consumptive use for some time to come.
The real challenges get to be in whether they are geologically
or in an engineering sense accessible. And as you have
struggled with questions, how access to them is available,
whether for political, physical or other means. So we hope to
be able to identify potential for the resource being there
within a kilometer's depth, which in most cases would be
accessible, and then that will allow it to be overprinted with
other interests and issues about access and availability.
Mr. Kind. Your agency will do an assessment on all that
though, not only the presence of these minerals in foreign
lands but also the geopolitical consequences, our foreign
policy, our relationship with these nations and the potential
access that we may have?
Mr. Groat. No. We will just deal with the resource
potential estimates and then with characterization of those
resources. Some of the characterizations may affect
environmental aspects related to their development, but we
won't get into the geopolitical aspect.
Mr. Kind. In your testimony that you submitted there is a
Table 1 listing the import reliance on a lot of the minerals,
which is quite a variety. The question I have is how many of
these minerals are currently available in the United States at
significant levels where we could further explore and produce
them and reduce our reliance on the imports of these minerals?
Mr. Groat. I think there are really a couple categories of
minerals that you see high reliability on imports. One is those
in which this country has very little potential, particularly
some of the alloy metals in the steel business, some of the
specialty metals, where the geology of this country just isn't
really suited for them to be there, and then the other is where
economic or other kinds of conditions make it cheaper or more
prudent in a sense to obtain them from foreign sources, so it
is a mixture of those sorts of things.
We can provide you for the record, Mr. Kind, if you would
like, some assessment of which of those is which.
Mr. Kind. Again, just to reiterate your testimony, we
basically have a good grip on what mineral sources we have
available domestically here; it is not a question of trying to
explore or discover new mineral holds in some areas that we are
not familiar with; is that right?
Mr. Groat. Well, I wouldn't say that we have done a uniform
assessment job for understanding potential for new resources,
particularly in Alaska, for example, where there are vast areas
that are inadequately geologically mapped, inadequately
assessed for the potential for minerals. There are pieces of
territory like that that we can't say that for. There are other
parts where we have and others have done a lot of work, and we
have a fairer degree of certainty what at least the potential
is, but geology always is full of surprises, and if the
conditions are right, there is always a good chance of
geologists and mining engineers proving that they will find
something.
Mr. Kind. Got it. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Cubin. Before I recognize Mr. Gibbons for his
questioning, I have to remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that
the $20 billion last night that he voted to send to Africa
would have gone a long way in meeting the needs of the Interior
Department.
Mr. Kind. [Off microphone.]
Mrs. Cubin. Yes, you did.
I would like to recognize Mr. Gibbons now for his
questioning.
Mr. Kind. I am glad someone is paying attention.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Groat, thank you very much for your testimony here
today. Of the selected metallic minerals that you have listed
in your appendix to your remarks, which ones of those are
strategic?
Mr. Groat. That is a definition that has never really been
pinned down. I think you could argue on the one hand that every
mineral commodity that we use in any quantity is strategic in
the sense that our economy can't survive without them.
Strategic is usually kind of hinged around whether we have
domestic supplies or access, free access, not free, but open
access to their supplies in other places. I would tend to say
that they are all strategic in that sense.
Mr. Gibbons. Would you agree that our mining industry is
much like, and our minerals industry, is much like our
manufacturing industry; as we tend to rely more on the
dependence outside of this country, our own institutional basis
for being able to discover, explore and develop minerals here
is decreased just as it would if it was a manufacturing base
where we lose the institutional and educational value of what
we have within our own boundaries?
Mr. Groat. I think there is no question that that is true,
Mr. Gibbons. I think one sign of that in the realm we operate
in the science area is as we see the closings of schools of
mines at places like the University of Nevada and other places,
we see even a falling off of commitment of educating people to
prepare themselves for careers in that critical area, so that
is going to hurt us as well.
Mr. Gibbons. I noticed when Mr. Kind asked a question you
were quick to say that we haven't yet looked at the geology of
all of the United States to discover whether these supplies of
minerals are adequate or even discoverable. Is it true also to
say that we haven't discovered all of the mineral potential yet
in the lower 48 that could be of value to us in some of these
strategic mineral cases?
Mr. Groat. No. I think that is definitely true. I think we
have a history of proving that, of Carlin gold in Nevada, for
example, of new kinds of deposits that are unearthed, and then
we look for their potential as something we hadn't looked at
before, and there is always that possibility.
Mr. Gibbons. The geology is an evolutionary cycle and
educational evolutionary cycle, and therefore mineral
development in these areas would also be subject to new
technologies, new educational discoveries about how we produce
minerals, how we discover minerals, and how we define minerals
as economic for recovery purposes.
Mr. Groat. I think that is correct, and I think the
parallel with our energy resource where technology and
increased capabilities have allowed us to extract and process
and use beneficially sources or resources that we wouldn't have
thought about decades ago, the same thing is true in the
mineral industry if we continue to develop the capability to
develop that technology and to do the exploration. As you said,
that concern that we are not doing that is a legitimate one.
Mr. Gibbons. It is sort of like water, it seeks its own
level, and in other words, where it is easier to find them, we
tend to focus our concentration, focus our attention and
sponsor where it is easier to find them. If that happens to be
overseas, if it is easier to find them, if it is easier to
develop them over there, companies are going to go over there.
I was interested, having just returned from Chile, having
looked at some of the mines in Chile, because I was constantly
hearing the banter from the environmental groups that mining
companies are leaving the United States to go to Chile, to go
to Third World countries, because they don't have to concern
themselves with the environmental issues. May I say that while
I was there, I learned a great deal about IOC 14001, which is
an international standard that mining companies have to adhere
to, which even in those countries they adhere to, which is the
same sort of or even greater standards than some of our
companies here as well, so that doesn't help.
Real briefly, what minerals do we stockpile?
Mr. Groat. I don't know. Kate, do we have a list with us?
I don't know, Mr. Gibbons, what the list is.
Mr. Gibbons. And if we stockpile them, why do we stockpile
them?
Mr. Groat. I can give you a few, a large number of mineral
commodities such as bauxite, chromium, cobalt, columbium,
diamonds, fluorspar, germanium, graphite, iodine, manganese,
mica, palladium, platinum and tantalum. We stockpile them
largely because they are commodities for which we are largely
dependent on foreign sources, and therefore, should there be
some interruption in that supply, that we would have the
ability to get by for a reasonable period of time, much as we
do with the strategic petroleum reserve in storing oil and gas,
oil I mean.
Mr. Gibbons. Finally, are our stockpiles adequate?
Mr. Groat. I think that ebbs and flows as does our concern
about those minerals. They were depleted after the period of
the Korean War and have not been rebuilt up, as far as I know,
since that time. Are they adequate to meet a flourishing
economy for, I guess the question would be for what period of
time? And I think that is where the debate would come, and I
don't know the answer to what time they are expected to fill.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.
I must correct for the record a statement I made that the
amendment to send money to Africa was $10 billion, rather than
20. I want to get that straight for the record.
The Chair would now recognize Mr. Udall if he has any
questions for Dr. Groat.
Mr. Tom Udall. Just a couple of questions. First of all,
Dr. Groat, thank you for being here today and thank you for
your expertise in this area.
As you are probably aware, New Mexico has a molybdenum mine
in Questa, New Mexico, that has been operating for a number of
years. I think it is run by Unical. I was just wondering, do we
stockpile molybdenum?
Mr. Groat. I didn't see it on the list. Maybe someone from
the industrial panel would know. I don't believe that we do.
Molybdenum is one of the steel alloy kinds of minerals that we
have been largely self-sufficient in historically, and I would
be surprised if we did stockpile it.
Mr. Tom Udall. So the mine we have in New Mexico supplies
you think a major portion of the molybdenum needed in the
United States?
Mr. Groat. I think mines in New Mexico and Colorado have
historically played a large role in that, yes.
Mr. Tom Udall. So we are in a better situation there than
some of these other strategic minerals that are there.
Mr. Groat. Definitely.
Mr. Tom Udall. I don't have anything else. Yield back.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
I would like to thank you for your valuable testimony, and
tell you that members of this Subcommittee may have some
additional questions if they would like. We would submit those
to you in writing and hold the record open for 10 days if you
could add to those following questions.
Mr. Groat. Be pleased.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Groat. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Cubin. And thank you for your testimony, Dr. Groat.
Mrs. Cubin. I would now like to recognize the second panel
to testify.. Mr. Hugh Hanes, Consultant with Brush Wellman,
Inc.; Robert J. Noel, Advisor, Metals Affordability Initiative
Consortium; Ann Carpenter, Advisor of Women's Mining Coalition;
Douglas B. Silver, President of Balfour Holdings, Inc.,
If you would please rise and take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Cubin. I will once again remind the panel that if they
can hold their oral testimony for 5 minutes, their entire
testimony will be submitted to the record. I will begin by
recognizing Hugh Hanes, Consultant with Brush Wellman,
Incorporated.
STATEMENT OF HUGH D. HANES, FASM, CONSULTANT TO BRUSH WELLMAN
INC. AND METALS AFFORDABILITY INITIATIVE CONSORTIUM
Mr. Hanes. Good morning, Madam Chair and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on what I consider to be a critical issue relative to
the industrial base of the United States.
The purpose of my testimony will be to demonstrate the
linkage between hard rock minerals and strategic and critical
metals. I will also give examples where these strategic metals
are enabling, both to the aerospace defense and critical
civilian infrastructure. And obviously, within 5 minutes I
don't have time to deal with all those examples, but they are
in the written testimony.
All of these metals, strategic and critical metals are
derived from hard rock minerals, whether domestically or of
foreign source. These strategic metals are found both in the
defense, aerospace and critical civilian infrastructure. The
critical civilian infrastructure, at least as I define it,
includes automotive, commercial aircraft, computers,
telecommunications, electronics, electrical transmission and
medical applications. In other words, these are the
applications that maintain this country's world leadership as
well as the quality of life in this country. These metals have
some common characteristics. They are mainly found in high-
performance applications. They are used for high reliability
because of their unique properties. They become enabling. In
other words, they make equipment work better or even work at
all. They tend to be pervasive and unrecognized in the
infrastructure, and in all cases because they are expensive
materials, then tend to be materials of choice.
The manufacturing of beryllium and its alloys is a case
with which I am quite familiar, is a case study which
demonstrates the independence of mining and specialty metal
manufacturing in this country. As was previously noted,
beryllium is mined and extracted for minerals in Utah by Brush
Wellman, my former company. Many in Congress consider this to
be a ``western issue,'' and I use that in quotes. The ore
concentrate is shipped to Ohio, our primary production plant.
All of a sudden it becomes now an eastern issue. The secondary
fabrication occurs in states ranging literally coast-to-coast,
Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
and distribution centers around the country and around the
world. So it truly is a national issue and it is something that
needs to be recognized nationally, not on a regional basis.
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, when he
described to Congress the transformation of the armed services,
indicated a list of six goals that the armed services were
pursuing, and in that list of six goals the metal beryllium
plays an enabling role in equipment and hardware that allows us
to accomplish four of those six goals. Then he went further to
describe systems under development, and in all cases beryllium
played an enabling role. If you look at the Iraqi situation and
the weapons that were employed there, beryllium is employed
everywhere from strategic surveillance satellites down to the
fire control system of the individual tank commander.
Thus, beryllium processing clearly demonstrates that
linkage and it also epitomizes what needs to happen within the
industrial base.
Precious metals are another example. Between 25 and 55
percent of the so-called noble metals mined and produced
domestically, depending on the commodity, are used in critical
high reliability electronic applications. For example, they are
found in automotive electronics. Computerized ignition systems,
automatic transmissions, cruise control devices, anti-lock
braking systems, the new generation of electronic suspension
systems, are all made better because of the presence of these
precious metals, and in effect, society benefits extensively
from this because of the increased safety, the increased fleet
mileage and decreased emissions in modern automotive equipment.
Silver is another example. Best electrical conductor of all
the metals, it finds uses in conductor switches, contacts,
circuit breakers and fuses. It not only enhances the quality of
life, but it enhances the safety even in our own homes. And as
some do, to portray the usage of precious metals as trivial, I
think it is totally to ignore the benefits and the increased
quality of life that we all enjoy from the judicious
application of precious metals in the critical civilian
infrastructure.
We support the value of the USGS Minerals Information Team.
That has been well covered.
We think that these metals demonstrate the linkage between
hard rock minerals and the pervasive use of strategic and
critical metals in the domestic industrial base, and we have
great concern that a mineral policy not only address the issue
of critical minerals, but also the industrial manufacturing
base of the critical metals that are derived from these
minerals is essential in maintaining the quality of life in
this country.
My time is up, Madam Chair, and I am available for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanes follows:]
Statement of Hugh D. Hanes, FASM, Consultant to Brush Wellman Inc. and
Metals Affordability Initiative Consortium
Good morning Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this critical
issue relative to the industrial base of the United States.
My name is Hugh Hanes. I am a retired Brush Wellman Inc. executive
with over 45 years experience in the strategic metals business,
including general management of Brush's mining and metallic beryllium
operations. Since retirement in December 2000, I have continued as a
government affairs consultant to both Brush Wellman and the Metals
Affordability Initiative Consortium.
The purpose of my testimony will be to demonstrate the linkage
between hardrock minerals and strategic and critical metals. I will
also give examples where these strategic metals are enabling to both
the aerospace/defense and critical civilian infrastructure.
The importance of these strategic and critical metals is described
in the ancient saying, ``For Want of a Nail,'' by some unknown author:
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost,
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost,
For want of the horse, the rider was lost,
For want of the rider, the battle was lost,
For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a nail.
It would be easy to modernize this homily by substituting mineral,
metal, turbine engine disk, plane, warfighter, etc. into the text
above.
Strategic and Critical Metals: the Hidden Commodities
Strategic and critical metals are often referred to as hidden
commodities. Metals availability is usually assumed by those in the
user base who are dependent on the specialty aerospace metals industry.
Usually, they're only noticed when either they become unavailable,
e.g., the cobalt shortage of the 1970's, or a component fails.
However, they have similar characteristics. All of these metals are
derived from hardrock minerals. Furthermore, many of these minerals are
no longer domestically mined, as is shown in Table 1. As has already
been discussed in this hearing, the domestic mining and minerals
industry is declining. As my colleague, Mr. Noel, will describe in his
testimony that the domestic specialty metals manufacturing base is
declining as well.
These strategic metals are found in both the defense/aerospace and
critical civilian infrastructure. For the purpose of this testimony,
the critical civilian infrastructure can be defined as automotive,
commercial aircraft, computers, telecommunications, electronics,
electrical transmission, and medical applications. In other words,
these are market sectors which help maintain this country's world
leadership and quality of life.
In many instances, the applications are hidden, or buried deeply in
the systems where these metals perform critical functions. Examples
would include beryllium in aerospace/defense systems, precious metals
in high-performance electronics, and rare earth metals in electro-
optics.
Characteristics of Strategic and Critical Metals
Strategic and critical metals have common characteristics. They are
most often found in high-performance applications, where there are
requirements for combinations of high temperature resistance, high
strength requirements, and corrosion resistance, etc. These classes of
metals are used for high reliability, e.g., nickel-based superalloys
for aircraft turbine engines, gold-plated connectors in automotive
ignition systems, and silver-plated contactors in electrical
transmission. Furthermore, they are enabling in their applications,
e.g., beryllium optics in surveillance satellites, precious metals in
electronic components for computer, and copper beryllium and precious
metals in automotive electronics. Usually, they are the most expensive
solution, because competitive materials have already been eliminated
for non-performance in the particular application.
As shown in Table 2, these metals are pervasive in systems that
serve both aerospace/defense and the critical civilian infrastructure.
In all cases, they are the material of choice, i.e., they are used
because of performance requirements. In most of the cases, they are
enabling to the operation of the particular system.
Beryllium and Its Alloys: Case Study
The manufacturing of beryllium and its alloys is a case study which
demonstrates the interdependence of mining and specialty metals
production. Beryllium is mined and extracted from minerals in Utah by
Brush Wellman (a ``Western issue''). The ore concentrate is shipped to
their primary metals production plant in Ohio (now it becomes an
``Eastern issue''). Brush does secondary fabrication of its beryllium
products in plants in Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania,
and Rhode Island. They have distribution centers in California,
Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey (it's really a ``Domestic issue'').
Brush also has distribution centers globally, serving over 5,000
customers for beryllium products globally.
In his testimony to Congress <SUP>1</SUP>, Deputy Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz stated, ``The Department of Defense is undergoing a
substantial transformation of the Armed Services. ... by pursuing a
host of transformations including precision, surveillance, networked
communications, robotics and information processing.'' That beryllium
is critical to 4 out of 6 of the Secretary's goals can be demonstrated
by examples of both current and developmental systems that use
beryllium because of its unique properties. Specific examples are shown
in Figures 1 to 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Prepared Statement for the Senate Armed Services Committee
Hearing on Military Transformation'', by Deputy Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz, April 9, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Homeland Security--``U.S. forces must protect critical
bases of operations and defeat weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery.'' Beryllium is a key structural element in both the
PAC-3 system and those interceptor systems under development.
<bullet> Deny Enemies Sanctuary--``Space denial capabilities, such
as ground-based lasers ... require the development and acquisition of
robust capabilities to conduct persistent surveillance of vast
geographic areas and long-range precision strike.'' Beryllium is used
in long-range surveillance systems, guidance, and is in development as
seekers in new missile and ground-based lasers systems.
<bullet> Projecting and Sustaining Forces--``increasing U.S.
advantages in stealth, standoff, hypersonic and unmanned systems for
power projection; and developing ground forces that are lighter, more
lethal, more versatile, more survivable, more sustainable, and rapidly
deployable.'' Beryllium is used extensively in reconnaissance
satellites, FLIR's, improving stand-off ranges for virtually every new
generation targeting device, and battlefield surveillance, including
the tank commander's sight on the M1A2 Abrams.
<bullet> Enhancing Space Capabilities--``become more dependent on
space systems for communications, situational awareness, positioning,
navigation, and timing.'' Applications of beryllium include instruments
and critical structures in reconnaissance and surveillance satellites,
defense weather satellites such as NPOESS, and the new generation of
military communications satellites.
Mr. Wolfowitz goes on to describe systems under development, and in
all cases, beryllium plays an enabling role:
<bullet> Joint direct attack munitions (JDAM's) and other
precision guided munitions
<bullet> Stealthy F-22's
<bullet> Development of missiles defenses, including the Airborne
Laser program
<bullet> Enhanced electro-optical capability for Global Hawk and
other UCAV upgrades
<bullet> Precision weapons--weapons that are precise in time,
space, and in their effects
<bullet> Missile defense--pursuing parallel technologies to meet
the same objectives--for example, the kinetic kill boost vehicle and a
space-based laser (beryllium is critical to both concepts)
Thus, beryllium processing clearly demonstrates the linkage between
mineral resources in the Western U.S. and metals manufacturing in the
Domestic industrial base.
Precious Metals Perform Critical Functions in the Civilian
Infrastructure
Precious metals are often portrayed by opponents of hardrock mining
as unnecessary metals, but they perform critically enabling functions
in the civilian infrastructure. Between 25 and 55% of the so-called
noble metals mined and produced domestically are used in critical,
high-reliability electronic applications because of their combination
of oxidation resistance, electrical and thermal conductivity, and their
resistance to corrosive environments. These high-reliability
requirements dictate the selection of precious metals for many
applications in a wide variety of industries, including the electrical,
electronics, automotive, telecommunications, semiconductor, computer
and medical industries. Examples of typical applications can be found
in Table 3 and are illustrated in Figure 5 of this testimony.
Because of their high intrinsic cost, precious metals are often
plated or laminated onto base metals to give added strength and to
lower the cost of the component. Although gold remains the industry
standard in many of these applications, gold and gold alloys as a cover
over palladium and palladium-silver alloys are often used.
One of the major uses of high-reliability components containing
precious metals can be found in automotive electronics. Under-hood
interconnects for computerized ignition systems, mass air flow sensors,
automatic transmissions, cruise control devices, anti-lock braking
systems, and new generation suspension control systems all are made
more reliable by employing precious metal containing components.
Society benefits extensively from the use of these electronic
components because of the increased safety, increased fleet mileage,
and decreased emissions of the modern automobile.
Silver finds many used in both medicine and in electrical
transmission. While silver's importance as a bactericide has been
documented only since the late 1800's, its use in purification has been
known throughout the ages. Silver also has a variety of uses in
pharmaceuticals forming the most powerful compounds for burn treatment,
for example. Silver is the best electrical conductor of all metals and
is hence used in many electrical applications, particularly in
conductors, switches, contacts, circuit breakers, and fuses. Thus,
silver enhances the quality of life and safety even in our own homes.
To portray the usage of precious metals as trivial, as has been
done by opponents of mining, is to totally ignore the benefits and
increased quality of life we all enjoy from the judicious application
of precious metals in the critical civilian infrastructure.
The Value of the USGS Mineral Information Team
The USGS Mineral Resource Program's Mineral Information Team is the
only comprehensive source of statistical data on Mining and mineral
commodities both domestically and internationally and is critical to
the mining industry and to the nation as a whole. As a net importer of
minerals, including many strategic minerals, the United States' ability
to develop and implement global mineral-related strategy could be
severely compromised without the availability of reports produced by
this program. In addition, the analytical expertise of the program's
mineral commodity and country specialists is vital to answering mineral
related questions of a domestic and an international nature. A loss or
reduction in expertise for tracking the world ``hot spots'' with
respect to strategic and critical materials could negatively impact
U.S. intelligence and national security. As a world leader, the U.S.
must have a comprehensive and essential understanding of the worldwide
commodity markets necessary for strategic and critical materials
necessary to a healthy economy.
Summary and Conclusions
The purpose of this paper has been to demonstrate the linkage
between hardrock minerals and the pervasive use of strategic and
critical metals in the Domestic industrial base
1. Strategic and critical metals are derived from hardrock
minerals, both domestic and foreign.
2. Component manufacturing is located across the country but
primarily in Eastern (non-mineral) states and is dependent on hardrock
minerals as the source of primary metals.
3. Both domestic aerospace and defense and critical civilian
industries are dependent on a shrinking industrial base for their
strategic and critical metals.
4. Continuation of the USGS Mineral Information Team will assure a
comprehensive and essential understanding of the worldwide commodity
markets necessary for strategic and critical materials necessary to a
healthy domestic economy.
A well-conceived minerals and metals policy should protect and
encourage maintaining both the development of domestic mineral
resources and the strategic and critical metals industry. We have lost
or are losing these capabilities as we speak. They have been
precipitated by a series of unwise political decisions largely over the
last 10 years which discounted the importance of a U.S. minerals base.
I look forward to working with Resource Committee members and my
mining colleagues to reconstruct these vital elements of our national
infrastructure.
Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I
sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and would be
glad to answer any questions you may have.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.005
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
I would now like to recognize Robert J. Noel, Advisor of
the Metals Affordability Initiative Consortium.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. NOEL, EXECUTIVE ADVISOR TO THE METALS
AFFORDABILITY INITIATIVE CONSORTIUM
Mr. Noel. Good morning, Madam Chair and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee. The purpose of my testimony is to
discuss aerospace metals, the Metals Affordability Initiative
Consortium, and the need for Government support of the
industrial base.
The key defense metals are aluminum beryllium, nickel base
superalloys and titanium. The unique basic metal properties are
further enhanced by key elemental alloying additions. All these
metals are derived from hard rock minerals, either domestic or
foreign. Metals by weight are 67 percent of our military
aircraft structures, and on the average 80 percent of the gas
turbine propulsion systems.
The U.S. industrial base that produces these systems
consists of supply chain of metal producers, component
producers and original equipment manufacturers of both
propulsion and aircraft systems. The MAI consortium of 15
companies has manufacturing facilities throughout the United
States and is not concentrated in any one region. The aircraft
OEMs are Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. The
engine OEMs are Pratt-Whitney, General Aircraft Engines, Rolls
Royce and Honeywell.
In the recent economic conditions the impact has been most
severe on the metal and the metal parts producers. In the
category of metal producers we have Allegheny Technologies in
their Oremet Division, Brush Wellman, Carpenter, Special
Metals, Timet; and the component producers are Howmet, PCC and
Ladish.
Two examples of consolidation in the industry. One is in
the area of titanium which is a very important aerospace metal.
The manufacturing of titanium sponge is the initial step in
making this crucial metal. In 1990 there were three or less
sponge producers with a total capacity of 30,000 metric tons.
Today there is one domestic sponge producer, Timet, with a
capacity of 8,600 metric tons.
A second example is Ladish, my former employer. It supplies
aerospace metal components for gas-driven engines, aircraft and
space. Peak employment was 5,300 employees in 1979. Current
employment level is less than 800.
In addition to the consolidation that is occurring in these
industries, there are other factors. Obviously, there are huge
global issues that have resulted in intense competition. There
is also foreign government industry investment.
We also have technology issues. Company-funded research and
development is declining. We see workforce and skills eroding.
We definitely have a concern for the availability of
engineering talent to support our industrial base.
There is a perception that the aerospace specialty metals
businesses are performing well, but in truth the five metal
producers lost money in 2002, and additional losses are
expected in 2003. These metal producers supply 90 percent of
the specialty metals for the aerospace and defense industry.
The other aspect of the financial situation is there is on the
average a 35% reduction in R&D expenditures. We feel one of the
answers to the problem is emphasis on technology, and that
feeling was supported by the Commission on the Future of the
U.S. Aerospace Industry.
MAI was a consortium formed in 1998. Our theme is ``Using
technology innovation to transform and sustain the specialty
metals industrial base.'' The collaborating Government agency
is the Air Force Research Laboratories at Wright Patterson Air
Force base.
We consider this as a template for Government-industry
collaboration. The objective of MAI is to take core
technologies through the manufacturing development, and then
work with the systems offices to insert those in military
systems. The technology work that has been done to date has
yielded a return of $650 million on the Government investment.
This effort is cost shared by the industry at a minimum rate of
25 percent, and they have contributed $16 million.
MAI currently has 14 active projects with total value
Government funded component of 39 million which came largely
from congressional additions to the DOD budget. We are
currently working with the C-17 systems, the F-15 and C-130 to
insert key technologies. We are also working with the key
propulsion systems offices to insert technologies as well.
In summary, aluminum beryllium, nickel base superalloys and
titanium are essential for U.S. military aircraft and space
systems. These metals and their alloying elements are all
derived from hard rock minerals.
Both domestic aerospace and defense and critical civilian
industries are dependent upon a shrinking industrial base for
strategic and critical metal components.
The specialty metals producers showed financial losses in
2002 that are projected to continue in 2003.
The Metals Affordability Initiative Consortium has
demonstrated technology successes, a significant return on
Government investment, which has come largely from
congressional additions to the DOD budget, and is working to
insert these technologies in defense systems.
In our opinion, the keys to transforming the specialty
metals industrial base are technology innovation, Government-
industry collaboration, and a metals policy that includes
financial support for core technology programs and technology
investment.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Noel follows:]
Statement of Robert J. Noel, Executive Advisor to the
Metals Affordability Initiative Consortium
Good morning Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this critical
issue to the United States Aerospace Specialty Metals Industrial Base.
My name is Bob Noel. I am a retired Ladish Co., Inc. executive with
39 years experience in the specialty metals business with the most
recent position being Vice President of Business Development/
Technology. I have also served as a Trustee of the Forging Industry
Education and Research Foundation since 1989 and am currently Chairman
of the Technology Roadmap Committee. Since February of 2002, I have
served as Executive Advisor of the Metals Affordability Initiative
(MAI) Consortium.
The purpose of my testimony will be to discuss Aerospace metals,
U.S. specialty metals industrial base, the importance of technology,
and the Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI) Consortium performance,
and the need for government support of the industrial base.
Metals and Applications
The key defense metals are aluminum beryllium, nickel base
superalloys and titanium. The unique basic metal properties are further
enhanced by key elemental alloying additions. All of these metals are
derived from hardrock minerals, either domestic or foreign. As Hugh
Hanes described in his testimony, metals represent the major portion of
U.S. military propulsion, aircraft, and space systems. Typical
applications are shown for the F-22 aircraft, F-135 engine and a space
rocket engine in Figures 1 though 3.
U.S. Aerospace Specialty Metals Industrial Base
The industrial base that produces military systems consists of a
supply chain of metal producers, component producer's, and original
equipment manufacturers of propulsion and aircraft systems. The Metals
Affordability Initiative (MAI) Consortium of 15 companies is most
representative of the specialty metals industrial base. The member
companies are Allegheny Technologies, Boeing, Bush Wellman, Carpenter
Technologies, General Electric Aircraft Engines, Honeywell, Howmet
Castings, Ladish, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Pratt and Whitney,
PCC, Rolls Royce, Special Metals and Timet. A minimum of two companies
represents every element of the supply chain. These companies have
manufacturing facilities through out the United States and are not
concentrated in one region. The companies and their position in the
supply chain are shown in Figure 4.
Industrial Base Consolidation
The entire specialty metals industrial base is affected by
consolidation, downsizing to fit available business volume,
globalization, and high capital cost needs. The impact has been most
severe on the following metal and parts producers:
Metal Producers
<bullet> Allegheny Technologies (Oremet Titanium)
<bullet> Brush Wellman
<bullet> Carpenter
<bullet> Special Metals
<bullet> Timet
Component Producers
<bullet> Howmet Castings (An Alcoa Business)
<bullet> PCC Structurals (Acquired Wyman Gordon)
<bullet> Ladish
Titanium is a very important Aerospace metal. Manufacturing of
Titanium sponge is the initial step in the metal production process. In
1990 there were three U.S. sponge producers--Timet, RTI and Allegheny
Technologies (Oremet) with combined capacity of 30,000 metric tons.
Currently there is one domestic sponge producer B Timet with a capacity
of 8600 metric tons. The U.S. sponge capacity growth and decline are
illustrated in Figure 5.
Ladish is a metal forging producer that was founded in 1905. It
forges Aerospace metals for gas turbine engines (Propulsion), aircraft
and space applications. Peak employment was 5300 employees in 1979. The
current employment level in less than 800. Their business is focused on
the high technology segment and is very capital intensive. The 10,000
ton isothermal press shown in Figure 6 is used primarily to produce
nickel base superalloys for gas turbine engines and is used to
illustrate the high equipment capital needs.
Industrial Base Perspective / Economic Performance
The Aerospace metal industry from 1990 to 2003 was affected by the
following conditions:
1. U.S. Aerospace Industrial Base Reductions
<bullet> OEM's reduced with very significant consolidation
<bullet> Metal suppliers and component producers also reduced
2. Global Factors
<bullet> Intense competition
<bullet> Foreign government industry investment
3. Technology Issues
<bullet> Company funded Research and Development declining
<bullet> Workforce/skills eroding with engineering talent
availability concern
A general economic perception is that the Aerospace specialty
metals businesses are performing well. A review of the metal and
component producer's financial performance is illustrated in Table 1.
The results show significantly lower stock prices caused by
deteriorating financial performance. The five metal producers lost
money. These suppliers produce 90% of the specialty metals for
aerospace and defense industry. The declining financial performance has
resulted in an average 35% reduction in Research and Development
expenditures.
In an analysis of the industry and the competitive threats, an
essential element is technology innovation. The Commission on the
Future on the United States Aerospace Industry findings on the role of
technology was ``A recurring message we hear from the inputs the
commission received is that investments in technology will provide the
KEY enablers to our nation's future aerospace capability...''
Metals Affordability Initiative Consortium
The Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI) Consortium was formally
started in 1998. The objectives were to provide a source of funding to
advance Metals Technology and maintain the U.S. Defense Aerospace
Specialty Metals Industrial Base. The theme is ``Using Technology
innovation to transform and sustain the Specialty Metals Industrial
Base.'' The collaborating government agency is the Air Force Research
Laboratories at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. The MAI consortium has
grown to fifteen companies.
The Technology programs have been very successful with a projected
return on government investment of over $650-million which exceeds 15
to 1. The government investment is supplemented by a minimum cost share
of 25% or $16-million through FY03. A key to the technical success is
collaboration. We also consider MAI as the template for Government-
Industry Collaboration.
MAI currently has 14 active projects with the government funded
component at $39-million, largely from Congressional additions to the
DOD budget. The key technology projects with system interest and
opportunities are:
<bullet> Electron Beam Melting of Titanium Slabs
<bullet> Friction Stir Welding
<bullet> Laser Additive Manufacturing
<bullet> Thin Wall structural Castings
<bullet> High Yield Casting of Turbine Airfoils
<bullet> Roll Forming of Engine Casings
The objective of MAI core technologies is to take metals and
process technology concepts through manufacturing process
demonstrations. The mature core programs are demonstrating technical
success and meeting business case goals. The next step is insertion
into military systems. The four technologies selected for insertion
into the C-17 are illustrated in Figure 7. Each technology offers a
total systems cost benefit. The application of these technologies is
pervasive and can be applied to other systems such as the F-15 and C-
130.
Airframe and propulsion systems have different engineering design
considerations. Gas turbine engine components operate at higher
temperatures and there is significant use of nickel base superalloys.
The two processes identified for insertion into the F-135 are shown in
Figure 8. The roll forming process can be used for titanium and
superalloy cases. The casting process innovation being applied to
airfoils will also result in a system performance improvement.
Summary and Conclusions
1. Aluminum, beryllium, nickel base superalloys, and titanium are
essential for U.S. military aircraft and space systems. These metals
and their alloying elements are all derived from hardrock minerals.
2. The U.S. Specialty Metals industrial base consists of metal
producers, component producers, and OEM's with operations located
throughout the US.
3. Both domestic aerospace and defense and critical civilian
industries are dependent on a shrinking industrial base for their
strategic and critical metal components.
4. The specialty metal producers showed financial losses in 2002
that are projected to continue in 2003.
5. The Metal Affordability Initiative (MAI) Consortium has
demonstrated technology successes, a significant return on government
investment obtained largely from Congressional additions to the DOD
budget, and is working to insert the core technologies in defense
systems.
6. The keys to transforming/sustaining the U.S. specialty metals
industrial base are technology innovation, government-industry
collaboration, and a metals policy that includes financial support for
core technology programs and technology investment.
Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I
sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and would be
glad to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Noel.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Gibbons to introduce our
third witness.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Indeed, we are all pleased when one of our constituents has
an opportunity to visit the Hill, but we are even more pleased
when they take time to testify before the Committee, and Ann
Carpenter, a constituent of mine from Reno, Nevada has a
longstanding association with the mining industry, as advisor
to the Women's Mining Coalition, brings I think not only a new
perspective but a new view or vantage of how important the
mining industry is, not just to the industry or the industrial
base but to the population base that we have that works these
industries, and I am very pleased to welcome Ann Carpenter to
our Committee, and certainly look forward to her testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to say a few
words about our next witness.
Ms. Carpenter. If I can just take a minute before my time
starts and we could put the graphs up. I have a couple of
graphs that illustrate some alarming trends that I would like
to talk about.
Mrs. Cubin. Could you either raise that or pull it out more
so the panel can see it? And if Mr. Renzi and the folks back
there would like to move over someplace, they can do that, or
you can stay and we won't look at your faces any more.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF ANN S. CARPENTER, CONSULTANT, DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, ADVISOR AND PAST PRESIDENT
OF WOMEN'S MINING COALITION
Ms. Carpenter. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of
the Committee, for this opportunity to testify.
My name is Ann Carpenter. I am a current Advisor of the
Women's Mining Coalition and a past President. This is a grass
roots organization with members nationwide, representing the
broad spectrum of jobs and the industry diversity.
I am a professional exploration geologist with over 20
years of experience doing mineral and exploration development
both here in the U.S. as well as internationally in a number of
different companies overseas. My testimony will discuss the
alarming downward trends that we see in mineral development
here in the U.S., and the long-term impacts.
The downward trends include a drastic decrease in
exploration spending since 1997, translating to fewer new
discoveries here in the U.S. Both of these figures are compiled
from using some USGS data. Figure 1 is on the bottom and it is
also page 5 in my testimony. Figure 2 is on the top and that is
page 6 in my testimony.
Exploration for mineral resources has continued globally
even through the low gold market, but what we do see instead
here in the U.S. is a radical decrease in exploration spending
here. Investing here in the U.S. is one of steady decline. Our
market share, the expenditure of exploration budgets here. In
1997 and pre-1997 they were 30 to 50 percent and they have
decreased to less than 10 percent expenditures. In other words,
if I spend $10 million in exploration expenditures, I am
spending less than a million here and over 9 million overseas.
Why is this occurring? I try to detail in my testimony five
different issues that are important to me, but these are not
the only issues that are contributing to it. There is a lot of
uncertainty in operating here in the U.S., and a lot of it is
due to many different factors, but these five I am going to
summarize:
Revision to the 3809 regulations started in 1996, taking
all the way to 2001; the Millsite opinion further fueled this
uncertainty; inconsistencies in the interpretation and
implementation of regulations; the bonding crisis; and access
issues.
From my personal perspective I was negotiating in 1997 to
have a $2 million budget to spend in the U.S. developing
mineral projects. The company that I was working with, they
were a little bit tenuous because of the revisions of the 3808
regulations, but they were ready to go ahead. As soon as the
Millsite opinion came out by the former Solicitor Leshy, they
left this country faster than anybody I have ever seen. The
negotiations ended, and instead the investing company perceived
that it would be less risky from a regulatory perspective to
work in Africa than here. Well, I have worked in Africa. I
understand risks there, and that spoke volumes to me.
Other uncertainties are wrapped up in access. Conservation
restrictions from the Federal and State have grown roughly from
about 10 percent in the 1960's to better than 45 percent today,
and as much as 55 percent when we include the Roadless
Initiative. These impeded mineral development on Federal
ground, and a lot of what we see is that these impediments come
and these restrictions come without doing full detailed mineral
assessments.
I worked overseas, like I have indicated, and there has not
been a place that I haven't worked where this one recurring
question comes up. ``Why are you here taking my minerals?''
They understand that there is economic development that goes
with it, but it is an important question to me because then I
question both our mineral policy and our foreign policy. A lot
of times they will answer that question by saying, ``We
understand you can't really access or permit your resources.''
But another thing that they make statements around is that they
perceive that we are developing minerals there while we are
saving ours here at home.
Mining is difficult and mineral resource development is
difficult no matter where you go in the world, but at least in
other countries, as one senior mining executive says, and a lot
of us feel in the field, I know that if I meet the regulatory
and the legal requirement, I will get a permit. I do not know
that in the U.S. I never know if or when I will finally get a
permit even if I can demonstrate that the mine will be in full
compliance.
A mineral economist concluded recently that the most recent
threat and the most serious threat to the mining industry's
long-term sustainability in the U.S. is the regulatory changes
in the final 4 years of the Clinton administration, including
the revisions of the 3809 regulations and the Millsite opinion.
I implore you, let us work together to reverse these
radical decreasing trends, these downward trends. Let us
develop and implement a working mineral policy here in the
U.S., and let us provide for the national and economic security
now and into the future.
I appreciate the time and the opportunity to speak before
you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Carpenter follows:]
Statement of Ann S. Carpenter, Consultant, Domestic and International
Mineral Development, Advisor and Past President, Women's Mining
Coalition
Chairman Cubin and members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee
today. My name is Ann Carpenter. I am an advisor to and past president
of the Women's Mining Coalition and work as a professional exploration
geologist in the domestic and international mineral development arena.
Today I will discuss impediments to mineral exploration and development
in the U.S. and impacts to our domestic mining industry. I am here
representing the Women's Mining Coalition.
The Women's Mining Coalition was organized in 1993 and is a
grassroots coalition supporting environmentally responsible mining. WMC
membership is diverse and nationwide, representing many sectors of the
mining industry, including coal, energy, metals, construction
materials, stone, industrial minerals, and the vendors and
manufacturers who provide goods and services to the mining industry.
I have a bachelor's degree in Geology from Montana State University
in Bozeman, Montana and have more than 20 years of experience in the
mining industry. I have worked throughout the Western U.S.--from Alaska
to Southern California and east to Colorado. Additionally I have worked
in the international exploration arena--in Mexico, Peru, Argentina,
Chile, and Africa--evaluating mineral properties and company
acquisition opportunities, and assessing the mineral potential of
several countries for various companies. My work experiences have
focused on the exploration for and development of metal deposits (gold,
silver, copper, lead, zinc), with some additional ventures into the
industrial mineral sector.
BACKGROUND
Today I would like to discuss the impediments to mineral
exploration and development here in the U.S., and concerns for the
long-term viability of our domestic mining industry from the
perspective of an exploration geologist. Exploration is the ``research
and development'' arm of the mining industry. It is crucial and
necessary in order to keep a flow of projects in the production
pipeline, supplying us with the raw materials we need.
The mining industry is an important part of the U.S. industrial
base. This industry provides many of the raw materials required for
housing, transportation, power generation and transmission,
communications, the tech-industry, health care, agriculture, and the
arts. Mined materials are also used to create and maintain a clean
healthy environment. Mining contributes to the nation's overall
standard of living, contributing to the health and well being of not
only all Americans, but people the world over.
The U.S. has seen a drastic decrease in the exploration for and
development of mineral resources since 1997, not all of which is
attributable to decreases in metals prices. Exploration for mineral
resources has continued globally even through low metals prices, yet
the U.S. has lost market share in mineral development. At an ever
increasing rate, investment dollars are being spent on projects
overseas instead of here in the U.S. This has occurred even though the
U.S. is highly regarded for its diverse geologic terrains and related
mineral resource potential.
Exploration for mineral resources is a very risky business--the
statistics for success are staggeringly low. Approximately 1 out of
1000 projects reviewed will progress to an advanced-stage exploration
and development phase. Making a mine out of an advanced-stage project
is dependent on many variables, and mine decisions do not come easily
or cheaply.
Investment capital to advance exploration properties generally
comes from what is termed the ``junior market''. Historically, these
have been small companies who secure their funding from the venture
capital markets in Toronto, Vancouver, London, and other places around
the globe. Investors assess properties and investment opportunities
based on many factors, two of which are key--the mineral potential of
any given area and the political stability of the country where the
property is located. Both are considered when reviewing for investment
attractiveness (to determine if investment dollars will be well spent).
The exploration projects of the small companies today often become the
development projects of larger operators tomorrow.
The Fraser Institute (an independent Canadian economic and social
research and educational organization) has conducted an annual survey
of metal mining companies since 1997, assessing how mineral endowments
and public policy factors affect exploration and development
investment. Since 1998, the survey has expanded from just reviewing
Canadian provinces to also include a number of states in the U.S. and a
growing number of nations globally. In 2002, the survey was expanded to
review the investment attractiveness of 45 jurisdictions including the
Canadian provinces and territories (except Prince Edward Island),
selected U.S. states (this year Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), Argentina, Australia, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Indonesia,
Kazakhstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines,
Russia, South Africa, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
Many in the mineral exploration community use this survey when
considering investment risks and where best to spend exploration
dollars regarding mineral resource development globally. Over the last
3-5 years, states in the U.S. have lost ranking in this survey. For
instance, in 1998, Nevada ranked number 1 in the Policy Potential
Index, number 4 in the Mineral Potential Index, and number 1 overall
(Investment Attractiveness Index--IAI). By 2002, Nevada's ranking
fell--to number 2 in the Policy Potential Index, to number 8 on the
Mineral Potential Index, and to 4 overall. Table 1 compares the
Investment Attractiveness Index for the 1998-99 Survey to that of 2002.
In almost every case, the states lost ranking in the 2002, losing out
to other Canadian provinces and countries around the world. Three
states (ME, MI, MO) are not being considered in the 2002 survey.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.006
Appendix A has figures and brief summaries from the Fraser
Institute 1998-99 Survey. Figure 5 in Appendix A illustrates how the
states ranked against one another. Appendix B has some of the figures
from the 2002 survey, and Chart 1 illustrates how the states ranked
against one another (from the 2002 survey data).
Some have suggested that the mineral potential of the U.S. has been
tapped out, as stated by one Department of Interior official who
suggested in 1999 that all of the gold in the U.S. had already been
found (personal communication, 2003, John Dobra, Associate Professor of
Economics, UNR). As an exploration geologist, I find this statement
lacking reason or scientific basis. Several new discoveries in Nevada
were made in 2001, well after this statement was made. These have
mainly been at or near existing mine sites where most exploration
dollars are being spent.
New discoveries are the result of focused scientific investigation,
committed investment dollars, and ever changing and evolving
technologies. These help to advance the understanding of geologic
processes and mineral deposition, leading to mineral resource
discoveries. Mineral deposits continue to be found in newly discovered,
grassroots areas, as well as in ``mature'' geologic settings where
mineral deposits have been previously discovered and defined. Advances
in the geologic and exploration-related sciences during my career, have
led me to revisit historic mining districts I had previously explored
because they are ``prospective'' once again as a result of the advances
in geologic sciences, data collection techniques and new technologies.
As an example, Nevada has been a world leader in gold production
from surface open-pit mining operations since the 1970s. These are
typically large, lower grade deposits, produced utilizing
technologically advanced techniques. More recently with newer
technologies and advances in the geologic understanding of mineralized
areas, significant higher-grade underground deposits have been
identified and developed--in areas where modern underground mining has
not been the norm.
Despite these new discoveries, mining companies are investing less
money in the U.S. and instead spending their research and development
(exploration) dollars off shore.
I have personally experienced a drastic decrease in the funding of
U.S.-based mineral exploration and development projects. My experiences
are but a small window into the larger decreases seen in the
exploration sector of the mineral development industry. Companies I
have worked with since 1996 have chosen to cancel budgets here in the
U.S. and re-channel their funds to ``less politically risky places''
such as Africa. That was a chilling statement, made to me by an
investment client in 1997 in the face of the controversy surrounding
the revisions of the 3809 Regulations and the Millsites Opinion--both
of which created such an unstable investment climate that my client and
others in the investment community decided to take their exploration
and development dollars overseas. That exodus has not stopped since
1997.
TRENDS-IMPACTS
Regulatory and policy uncertainties initiated by the revisions of
the 3809 Regulations and fueled by the Millsite Opinion, regulatory
inconsistencies, bonding crisis, and access issues continues to deter
the development of new mines in the U.S., with investment dollars being
spent overseas at an ever increasing rate. The Fraser Institute 2002
survey reports that senior mining companies are now spending only 7% of
their exploration budgets here in the U.S., while junior companies
might be spending 10% on U.S. exploration projects. This is a radical
decrease--seriously down from highs of roughly 50% of budgets being
spent in the U.S. in the recent past (Figures 1 and 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.008
During the 1990's while the rest of the U.S. economy was booming,
there was a serious decline in U.S. mining activity, a decline that
continues today with some of the trends and impacts illustrated below:
<bullet> Since 1996, there has been a 73% decline in new claims.
<bullet> Exploration expenditures have continued to steadily
decrease and grassroots exploration has virtually disappeared in the
U.S. More money is consistently being spent on overseas projects.
<bullet> Mid-size producers and ``juniors'', generally where most
exploration investment dollars come from, have chosen to invest
overseas rather than in comparatively equal opportunities in the US.
<bullet> Large mining companies are replacing depleted domestic
reserves by acquisition of producing properties through mergers rather
than exploration for new prospects.
<bullet> Mining schools are being lost outright; some are being
closed, and others are being consolidated and assimilated into other
programs at universities--losing their mining focus and expertise.
<bullet> Greater challenges related to economic and national
security issues.
The results--U.S. is exporting mining investment dollars and
engineering talents and innovations to countries where metal mining is
expanding at an ever increasing rate. As well, other losses include tax
and related revenues and jobs at the local, state, and national levels;
an increase in foreign reliance on foreign produced minerals and
products; and other related negative economic impacts to rural American
communities where mineral resources are generally, and more likely to
be developed.
An Exploration Geologist's View
As an exploration geologist, I am particularly sensitive to this
decrease in exploration funding here in the U.S.--not only when
considering my own ability to make a living, but more importantly when
considering the severe impact on rural communities due to this
downturn. Mineral exploration activities are commonly focused in remote
regions of the American west. Decreases in exploration spending here in
the U.S. directly impact rural communities in these areas. Below are
some of the very basic expenditures ``in the day of the life'' of an
exploration geologist:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.009
Taking this a step further, in a good year I might work in the
field approximately 200 days, living and working away from my home and
staying in rural communities throughout the west. That equates to
approximately $28,000 in expenditures funneled into rural communities.
If 100 geologists were working regularly to explore the nation's
mineral resources, this number might jump to roughly $2.8Million
dollars. These are dollars that would likely be spent in rural
communities if exploration and development were being encouraged here
in the U.S.--based on just 100 geologists working. This is a very
conservative estimate of exploration spending.
The calculations above only include the most basic of expenditures,
and do not begin to summarize the truly large expenses related to
additional exploration investments--rock sampling, assaying, drilling,
engineering evaluation, metallurgical testing, to name but a few--and
are further examples of jobs and revenue possibilities in a strong
exploration climate, for many communities across the west.
IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPING MINERAL RESOURCES
``Mining is difficult no matter where you go in the world. But at
least in other countries I know that if I meet the regulatory and legal
requirements, I'll get a permit ... I don't know that in the U.S.--I
never know if or when I'll finally get a permit--even if I can
demonstrate the mine will be in full compliance.'' Senior Mining
Executive, 2003
I have been witness to a declining mineral development business
here in the U.S., while watching and participating in a relatively
stable minerals exploration and development industry overseas. I have
personally experienced radical decreases in funding and eliminations of
budgets for U.S.-based exploration programs due to the
``uncertainties'' that are associated with U.S. laws, regulations, and
policies regarding mineral development. Most companies willing to
invest in mineral properties worldwide regard the U.S. as highly
prospective for mineral discovery, but highly risky regarding
regulatory processes and policies, with an increasingly cumbersome and
negative permitting regime.
The perceptions of ``uncertainty'' are and continue to be
aggravated by many factors. I will discuss five, including: the
revisions to the ``3809'' regulations; the release of the former
Solicitor's Millsite Opinion; inconsistent interpretation and
implementation of existing regulations; the bonding crisis, and access
issues.
Negative Impact of the 3809 Revisions
The Bureau of Land Management's October 2001 revisions to its
Section 3809 regulations were necessary to achieve consistency with the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in its
report, ``Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands,'' completed in 1999. The
NAS study, requested by the governors of the Western States and
mandated by Congress, established a clear and scientifically based
benchmark for appropriate environmental protections associated with
hardrock mining on federal lands. Importantly, the revised 3809
regulations include improved bonding provisions, ensuring that adequate
funds be guaranteed for reclamation of mining operations, a change that
was supported by the mining industry. One of the key findings by the
NAS team was that the existing regulations were generally adequate in
providing environmental protection. The NAS team also indicated the
greatest improvements that could be realized regarding the 3809
regulations would be if there were more consistent interpretation and
implementation in the field, as well as better agency management and
staff training. These recommendations have yet to be implemented in the
field.
Although the U.S. mineral industry was supportive of updating the
3809 regulations and worked with DOI and others to achieve this, the
revision process initiated a climate of uncertainty regarding
regulations. This was then followed by the 1997 Millsite Opinion, which
fueled the exodus of mining-related investment dollars from here in the
U.S. to properties overseas, which continues today.
Negative Impact of the Millsite Opinion on U.S. Mining
The General Mining Law authorizes staking mining claims on public
lands for the purpose of exploring for and developing ``locatable''
mineral deposits, including base metals (copper, lead, and zinc);
precious metals (gold, silver, and platinum group metals); uranium; and
certain industrial minerals including gypsum, lithium, borates, barite,
diatomite, and some clays and limestones. This law also defines several
different types of claims including lode, placer, millsites, and tunnel
sites that are used for different applications in specific situations.
In 1997, the Department of the Interior (DOI) Solicitor issued an
opinion on the use of millsite claims, applying a maximum allowable
ratio of one-to-one between lode claims (approximate 20-acre claim
staked on valuable mineralized land), and millsite claims (5-acre claim
staked on non-mineralized ground, to be used for mining facilities and
infrastructure). The Millsite Opinion is wrong and has no basis in law
or policy; this arbitrary ratio is a radical departure from the way in
which the Department of Interior interpreted and administered the 1872
Mining Law since its inception. In 125 years of judicial
interpretation, not one case has addressed or discussed or implied a
ratio between lode claims and millsite claims. Furthermore, the opinion
is expressly contrary to long-standing BLM and USFS policy:
<bullet> 1991 BLM Manual at Section 3864.1.B provides ``A millsite
cannot exceed 5 acres in size. There is no limit to the number of
millsites that can be held by a single claimant.''
<bullet> 1990 USFS Manual at Section 2811.33 provides ``The number
of millsites that may legally be located is based specifically on the
need for mining or milling purposes, irrespective of the types or
numbers of mining claims involved.''
<bullet> The California State BLM office has records indicating
that multiple millsites have been the practice since at least as far
back as 1903.
Nothing in the 1872 Mining Law suggests a one-to-one millsite-to-
lode claim ratio. Rather, the criteria used by federal land managers to
evaluate the appropriate use of millsite claims was that the land
should not be mineralized and there should be a demonstrated need for
the land upon which the processing and ancillary facilities were built.
The Millsite Opinion is a back-door administrative attempt to change
the U.S. mining law to remove the existing right to use as much of the
surface of non-mineralized public land (millsite claim) as is
reasonably needed to support the development of a mineralized claim
(lode or placer)
An Example--Exploration Stopped
The 1997 Millsite Opinion has helped to fuel the perception of
regulatory uncertainty here in the U.S., contributing to shifting
mining investments overseas. I personally had $2 Million U.S. pulled
from a proposed U.S. exploration budget and channeled to Africa--
because the exploration company perceived that it would be less
``risky'', from a regulatory perspective, to work in Africa than here
in the U.S. This occurred in 1998, and was the direct result of the
unease caused first by the revision process of the 3809 Regulations,
and seriously exacerbated by the 1997 Millsite Opinion.
An Example--Mine Development Stalled
According to Greg Hahn, President and CEO of Summo USA Corporation,
the company's initial goals prior to 1999 were the development of
copper resources in the U.S. that were too small for the major copper
producers. Their current focus has shifted to copper projects primarily
outside of the US. This shift is a direct result of the adverse
investment impacts created by the former Solicitor's Millsite Opinion.
As well, the uneven leverage afforded anti-mining groups in opposing
and appealing projects, and the uncertainties in the regulatory and
permitting arenas creates a negative investment climate here in the US,
further prompting this company to seek investments offshore. The table
below in part illustrates this:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.010
Inconsistent Interpretation & Implementation of Existing Regulations
The USA needs a dose of ``environmental realism based on good
scientific/ engineering policies.'' Evaluations Manager, senior mining
company (Fraser Institute 2002 Survey)
Mining is a modern, high-tech, environmentally responsible industry
providing minerals essential to the nation's economic growth, to its
national security and to American's quality of life. Laws and
regulations governing mining should provide clear and consistent
environmental guidelines, facilitating compliance efforts by
exploration and mine operators. This would begin to reduce regulatory
uncertainties, helping to attract needed capital to the domestic mining
industry.
I have first hand experience managing permitting requirements on
exploration projects (Notices of Intent and Environmental Assessments).
As well, I was the company lead in 1997 on a team completing a detailed
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) through the Bureau of Land
Management on a proposed mining project within 50 miles of Reno,
Nevada. This EIS was completed in less than 18 months on a complex mine
proposal.
Through my various permitting experiences, and comparing notes with
my peers addressing similar permitting concerns, the mounting
inconsistencies surrounding interpretation and implementation of
existing laws and regulations creates a major hurdle in mineral
development here in the U.S. This translates to serious permitting
delays and related elevated costs to projects. One result is a
lengthened permitting process, with an EIS taking at least by 2-4 times
longer to complete now than it did 5 years ago. This does not factor in
the possible lengthy delays brought on by lawsuits--which has become a
``next step'' by groups opposing mining here in the U.S.
Other areas of uncertainties in the permitting process include:
<bullet> Uncertainty and legal confusion over recent developments
involving Native American sites
<bullet> Endangered Species Act
<bullet> Uncertainty regarding possible new Mining Law legislation
<bullet> Uncertainty of legal appeals
<bullet> Transparency issues--agencies not operating to the same
transparent standards as the industry is required to, such as was seen
at the Crandon Mine Project, WI (``Under the Guise of Environmental
Protection'' EPA Revealed, National Wilderness Institute report, 2000).
Bonding--Predicaments & Impediments
Some form of financial assurance is a prerequisite to obtaining
permits, and this has traditionally been in the form of a surety bond.
Mining companies, both large and small, are experiencing increased
difficulty in securing the necessary bonds to satisfy financial
assurance requirements under various regulatory programs. Today, surety
bonds for mining related obligations are virtually unavailable at any
price, with or without collateral. Below are some reasons for this
downturn:
<bullet> The Enron, K-Mart, Global Crossing and W.R. Grace
bankruptcies
<bullet> September 11, 2001 terrorist activities (insurance
industry lost about + of its $150 billion pre 9-11 capital)
<bullet> The surety industry is experiencing increasing losses on
non-mining obligations
<bullet> Mine reclamation bonds represent less than 1% of the
surety business line, but have the longest tails
Regulatory impediments have contributed to the surety industry's
decision to place its capital in businesses other than mining, ones
with more favorable risk/reward profiles. Such impediments include:
<bullet> Large bond amounts, inflated due to excessive
contingencies, speculative assumptions, and other cost factors (3d
party, Davis Bacon, excessive overhead, etc.). All of this results in
an increase of approximately 40% above the actual cost of reclamation.
This includes exploration projects as well.
<bullet> Glacial pace at which BLM (at least in NV) reviews and
approves bonds
<bullet> Severe reluctance to release bonds once the reclamation
work has been completed
<bullet> Complex and constantly changing regulatory schemes
The mineral development industry needs assistance in addressing
bonding impediments toward finding a workable solution.
Access Issues
According to the GAO, as of September 30, 1993, the federal
government owned approximately 650 million acres and was managing 271
million acres (43.7%) for conservation purposes. In the ensuing ten-
year period additional lands have been acquired and are designated as
managed for conservation purposes through various administrative and
legislative processes. Some of these designations are listed below:
<bullet> California Desert Protection Act--7.7 million acres
<bullet> Clinton's National Monuments--approximately 4 million
acres plus
<bullet> Previous Administration's Roadless Rule--60 million acres
These designations increased the total federal acreage managed for
conservation purposes from approximately 44% in 1993 to 55% at present.
These numbers do not include endangered species habitat.
Lands managed for conservation purposes and military reservations
are generally not open to mineral entry. Additional land designations
and programs that impact access and impede mineral exploration and
development include:
<bullet> Time restrictions on physical exploration of a prospect
that involves building access roads, drilling or trenching, in order to
accommodate the mating, early life stages, feeding and watering or
migrating habits of threatened and endangered species. In Eastern
Nevada there are numerous examples where exploration drilling of
prospects adjacent to operating mines was severally restricted for
these purposes.
<bullet> Withdrawal of areas prospective for mineral discovery
from mineral entry, such as Crown Butte (defined and designated mineral
reserves) and the Sweet Grass Hills (existing claims and ongoing
mineral exploration projects) in Montana
<bullet> Indian Sacred Sites (one of the reasons given for setting
aside the Sweet Grass Hills and the denial of Glamis Gold's permit in
California)
<bullet> Land exchanges
<bullet> Having a prospect or discovery in close proximity to an
area that has been set aside for conservation purposes, even if it has
been expressly left out of the conservation area because the area is
prospective for or is known to contain valuable mineral deposits (Crown
Butte - Montana)
<bullet> Wilderness Study or Roadless Areas (RARE I & II Lands,
which are now incorporated in the Roadless Rule)
Many of these withdrawals and designations occurred without review
for: mineral potential; renewable and/ or non-renewable energy
potential; and impacts to existing communities. In some cases, known
mineral and energy resources were dismissed--as was the case with the
Grand Escalante-Staircase Monument listing. These numbers are
conservative and do not include other actions by the previous
Administration, such as former Secretary Babbitt's removal from mineral
entry of almost 3 million acres. This occurred in the first 9 months of
1999, and includes twenty-year moratoriums for mineral entry over
areas--Crown Butte and Sweet Grass Hills in Montana--with known,
defined and engineered mineral resources.
In contrast to the lands set aside for conservation purposes,
mining in the U.S. has impacted approximately 6 million acres slightly
more than two tenths of a percent. About 45 percent of the areas
impacted by mining have been reclaimed and many other areas are still
actively being mined.
IN SUMMARY
The U.S. needs to ``Get back to the reality that the U.S. is
dependent on metals to make the economy grow and prosper--same with
energy.'' President, junior mining company (Fraser Institute 2002
Survey)
The permitting and regulatory processes have become slower and more
litigious with each passing year. We have seen many viable projects
taken into the courts after interminable permitting reviews, studies,
and processes. As a result, the investment community is taking its
monies overseas; we are losing jobs, revenues, and income to this
flight overseas; and we are becoming more reliant on foreign sources
for the minerals that we consume daily.
For me, the displacement of the domestic mining industry raises a
poignant dilemma.
In all of the places overseas I have had the opportunity and
pleasure to work, one recurring question is always asked of me by the
locals--``Why are you here taking my minerals?'' Is this a question of
mineral or foreign policy, or a combination of both? Most of the time,
the question is rhetorical or they will answer it with this
assessment--in the U.S., we are not allowed to access and permit our
own resources, so we are forced to travel to other countries to find
the materials that we need to feed our consumption.
If we are to reverse the current downward trends in the domestic
mining industry, maintain our leadership role in the development of
mining technology, environmental practices and enhance our market share
of this crucial industry, we will have to develop a comprehensive
Domestic Minerals Policy.
I believe one of the factors that have hampered the legislative
process in the development of a strong Domestic Minerals and Energy
Policy is the perception that Americans are opposed to mining in the
U.S. and believe that federally managed lands should be set aside for
purposes other than resource development. Survey research does not
support that perception. According to a nationwide survey of 800
registered voters conducted by Market Strategies for the National
Mining Association last year,
<bullet> 90% believe we need ``a National Minerals Strategy to
ensure our quality of life in the future'';
<bullet> 73% say lands owned by the United States should be open
to mining, provided the land is reclaimed [as required by law];
<bullet> Only 22% say these lands ``belong to the public and
should be set aside for future generations to enjoy and should not be
used for mining, forestry or ranching.''
Mining is a difficult venture no matter where the project is
located around the globe. The modern mining industry must address many
issues and concerns while developing projects--social-cultural
considerations, engineering requirements, possible environmental
impacts, economic needs, and many other concerns. Evaluations are
completed within detailed and lengthy studies and communications.
Investors and the people developing mineral projects should be able to
operate with some level of confidence--if the regulatory requirements
and laws are met, then mineral resource development can follow. That is
a confidence realized more often on overseas projects. There are just
too many inconsistencies in implementing the established regulations
here in the U.S. to achieve that same level of confidence. The
protracted, uncertain and contentious permitting processes here in the
U.S.--for all aspects of mineral development, from exploration through
production--creates an excessively uncertain investment atmosphere and
has lead to a diversion of exploration funds to countries with more
streamlined, transparent and expedited permitting processes. More and
more investors view other countries more positively than the U.S.,
where monies can be put to work to benefit local and national
economies.
Solutions
Many in the mining community believe that the inconsistencies and
uncertainties related to permitting mine projects can be addressed.
Below are suggestions toward correcting some of these inconsistencies:
<bullet> Provide firm time guidelines and deadlines--for both the
information gathering and review processes.
<bullet> Review the adequacy of BLM and Forest Service staff and
resources devoted to regulating mineral exploration and mining
operations.
<bullet> Update technical and policy guidance documents on a
regular basis.
<bullet> Increase and improve agency and stakeholder participation
in the NEPA process from its earliest stages.
<bullet> Expedite the review of permit applications for
exploration projects affecting fewer than 5 acres of Forest Service-
managed lands.
<bullet> Require financial assurance for all mining and
exploration activities that are not classified as casual use.
<bullet> Mandate Plans of Operation for any mining or milling
operation regardless of size.
<bullet> Develop criteria and procedures for modifying Plans of
Operation.
<bullet> Adopt regulations that define temporary closure and
require interim management plans.
<bullet> Plan for and assure long-term, post-closure management of
closed and reclaimed mines.
<bullet> Provide authority to issue administrative penalties and
develop clear guidelines for involving other state or federal
enforcement authorities.
<bullet> Modify existing environmental laws and regulations to
allow and promote industry cleanup of abandoned mines and remove
institutional and legal barriers currently thwarting such cleanup.
<bullet> Secure Congressional funding for aggressive and
coordinated research programs on the environmental impacts of hardrock
mines.
<bullet> Require the losing party to pay all costs and attorney
fees if they challenge agency decisions in court.
As one mineral economist concluded recently--the most serious
threat to the mining industry's long term sustainability in the U.S. is
the regulatory changes made in the final four years of the Clinton
administration--including revisions to the 3809 Regulations and the
Millsite Opinion. Let's work together to reverse these impediments and
turn around the current trend towards offshore investment and greater
reliance on foreign mineral sources. Let's work to develop and
implement a working National Minerals Policy that serves to provide
national and economic security now and into the future.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8357.011
NOTE: Appendices A and B have been retained in the Committee's
official files.
______
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Ms. Carpenter.
The Chairman now recognizes Douglas B. Silver.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS B. SILVER, PRESIDENT,
BALFOUR HOLDINGS, INC.
Mr. Silver. Thank you for inviting me to speak here today.
I too am a geologist. I am an American citizen and I do 90
percent of my work abroad, working principally as a mineral
economist, helping people finance and value mines. It gives me
a unique perspective because I do not work too much in the
United States.
Others before me have spoken about the supply/demand
picture for strategic minerals, and you should be aware that
this list has changed over the century as the material needs of
the country have evolved. For instance, the early list focused
on wartime commodities, but the nature of war has changed as
new alloys are developed with each new generation of armament.
Similarly, the material needs of society have also shifted with
new technologies. These changes should trigger an important
dialog on what constitutes ``strategic'' in today's world.
From my perspective, however, I see several trends in the
U.S. economy that provide guidance for the future of strategic
minerals. I see an economy where service industries dominate
over basic industries. Just look at the profits of the
investment bankers over those of the mining industry. But
unlike banking, mining creates tangible value while investing
creates paper profits. One can only guess how long the world's
money can shift away from value creation toward value
harvesting. The new economy is a virtual economy. We are
building a virtual Nation where the engines of growth have
little or no underpinning in hard assets. But the virtual
Nation is premised on a false reality. Today's economy reminds
me of an upside down pyramid where wealth and its attendant
luxuries depend on a very narrow base of true value creation.
This structure creates an inherently unstable platform, one
that can fall with very little assistance.
We also see that tourism and recreational industries carry
enormous political weight in Washington. This has spawned an
era of NGO's and special interest groups that are well
financed, yet provide no income to the U.S. economy. Their
contributions are both philosophical and intangible, but
because their agendas tend to be for a specific purpose, they
serve a select few under the pretenses of serving the majority.
Their power is immense, yet they pay no taxes and create few
jobs. Despite their noble intentions, they are a drain on the
economy.
The American dream includes the right to own one's home.
This hope has seen massive expansions in populations and their
special needs. In my home State of Colorado, I see many middle
Americans also purchasing second homes in the mountains. But
where does the land come from for these new residences? It
comes from the agricultural lands and other rural areas,
resulting in less land being available for basic industry. We
also see more and more lands being set aside for recreational
users, lands whose commercial contributions to the tax base and
job creation are being limited by their restricted use.
Special interest groups often talk about ecosystems and
rightly so. The reduction in available land for mineral
exploration and development is reaching the point where our
industrial ecosystem is severely threatened. It seems that
every time a new deposit is discovered in some remote region,
that area instantly becomes a beehive of sacred sites, premier
vistas and unique habitats. What most do not realize is that
the geologic processes responsible for building mountain ranges
are also responsible for developing ore deposits. So as each
new vista view is set aside it is preferentially depleting our
natural resource base.
So I ask you to think about the following issue. Today the
world's largest mineral companies tend to be public companies,
so why is the United States the wealthiest Nation in the world
and the largest consumer of metals, yet is the home to so few
mineral companies? Based on research conducted by my firm, U.S.
domiciled companies only represent 11 percent of the world's
public mineral companies. Approximately one half of the U.S.
companies are active, but only about 20 are focused on hard
rock minerals, the balance being focused on coal and industrial
minerals. Wouldn't you think the largest consumer of metals
would also be the largest supplier of metals?
The proof is in the fact that Newmont Mining, the world's
largest gold producer and an American company, derives 57
percent of its annual production from overseas. Ever wonder
why? We found no evidence that the lands had been thoroughly
explored, but there is plenty of evidence that there is less
land available to explore and that the difficulty in conducting
even simple exploration on Federal lands serves as a strong
incentive to work elsewhere.
The proof is in the fact that the mineral investment in the
State of Montana is so bad that only the Russians are willing
to take on the risk.
The proof lies in the Government's abandonment of the U.S.
Bureau of Mines, the severe budget cuts to the U.S. Geologic
Survey and the decisions you are currently making that are
compromised by the lack of information you are currently
receiving. Ask the Mineral Information Team at the USGS how
many positions they have vacant and why they have no budget to
fill these slots. Take the time to understand that these
positions were identified as important, yet those responsible
for slashing their budgets felt the information will have no
material impact on your ability to make smart decisions.
By contrast, Canada represents 58 percent of the known
mineral companies including the vast majority of exploration
firms. Why has Canada become the leading home for public
mineral companies? The answer lies in Canada's commitment to
developing its natural resources. I believe the Canadian
Government strives to create solutions that permit the
cohabitation of special interest groups and the engines of
production, while ours avoids confrontation with the NGO's at
the expense of commerce. Unlike our Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Canadians utilize global reporting standards.
Unlike the EPA, the Canadians recognize the legal rights of
working people to use their lands for commercial purposes.
Unlike the United States, the Canadian insurance industry seems
to work hard at providing bonding for new mine development
because it understands the importance of commerce to the
national economy.
This brings us back to the issue of strategic minerals. In
my opinion, all minerals are strategic, especially when they
are no longer available to society. Strategic is what we call
phosphate when 99 percent of our imports come from Morocco.
Yttrium, an element used in television screens and magnets, is
strategic because more than one half of our imports come from
China. We import almost 70 percent of our manganese from Gabon
and South Africa. Any mineral or metal that requires
substantial import should be considered strategic. This means
that all metals and minerals are strategic.
I would like to leave you with two concepts to think about.
What do we as a Nation want to do with our minerals? Will
we always have the economic and military might to fulfill our
natural resource needs by any means we deem necessary? If we
believe we will, then we should continue along the current and
past administration's policies of ignoring the domestic mineral
industry. I can only surmise that Washington's lack of progress
reflects your comfort levels with these existing policies. But
like a drug addict, the longer you ignore the problems, the
harder it will be to kick the bad habit. From my observations,
the difficulties of exploring or developing a hard rock mine in
this country are immense. They will only get worse if you
continue along your current path.
If you believe that the strength of a Nation is founded on
the abundance and employment of its natural resources and that
basic industries play a critical role in building lasting value
for the national economy, then we need a dramatic shift in the
Federal Government's attitude about U.S. minerals and how we
intend to manage them.
We need a Government that is proactive in its support of
mining. Action items I would like to see include the courts
quickly identifying frivolous lawsuits filed by the elitist and
permit companies to seek monetary damages if the case is deemed
to be frivolous. A typical U.S. mine takes 10 years or longer
from discovery to production, whereas elsewhere in the world
this discovery will be placed in production in four or 5 years.
Discovery is typically made in the first year. Two or 3 years
are then spent in conducting follow-up work and completing
feasibility and determining the economic viability of the
project. Most mines take 1 year--
Mrs. Cubin. Could you sum up your statement?
Mr. Silver. Ma'am, there are a lot of issues in the mining
industry that need to be addressed, and we see the inactivity
of the Federal Government as being the biggest single problem
we have. We don't care which way you go, but we really wish you
would pick a direction so we can get on with our business.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Silver follows:]
Statement of Douglas B. Silver, President, Balfour Holdings, Inc.
Thank you for inviting me to speak today. Others before me have
spoken about the supply-demand picture for strategic minerals. This
list has changed over the past century as the material needs of the
Country have evolved. For instance, the early lists focused on war-time
commodities, but the nature of war has changed as new alloys are
developed with each new generation of armament. Similarly, the material
needs of Society have also shifted with new technologies. These changes
should trigger an important dialogue on what constitutes ``Strategic''
in today's modern world.
From my perspective, I see several trends in the U.S. economy that
provide guidance for the future of Strategic Minerals. I see an economy
where service industries dominate over basic industries. Just look at
the profits of the investment bankers over those of the mining
industry. But unlike banking, Mining creates tangible value, while
investing creates paper profits. One can only guess how long the
world's money can shift away from value creation toward value
harvesting. The New Economy is a virtual economy. We are building a
Virtual Nation where engines of growth have little or no underpinning
in hard assets. But the Virtual Nation is premised on a false reality.
Today's economy is starting to remind me of an upside pyramid where the
wealth and its attendant luxuries depend on a very narrow base of true
value creation. This structure creates an inherently unstable platform;
one that can fall with very little assistance.
We also see that tourism and recreational industries carry enormous
political weight in Washington. This has spawned an era of NGOs and
special interest groups that are well financed yet provide no income to
the U.S. economy. Their contributions are both philosophical and
intangible. But because their agendas tend to be for a specific
purpose, they serve a select few under the pretenses of serving the
majority. Their power is immense, yet they pay no taxes and create few
jobs. Despite their noble intentions, they are a drain on the economy.
The American dream includes the right to own one's home. This hope
has seen massive expansion in populations and their special needs. In
my home state of Colorado, I see many middle Americans also purchasing
second homes in the mountains. But where does the land come from for
these new residences? It comes from agricultural lands and other rural
areas, resulting in less land being available for basic industry. We
also see more and more lands also being set aside for recreational
users: lands whose commercial contributions to the tax base and job
creation are being limited by their restricted uses.
Special Interest Groups often talk about ecosystems and rightly so.
The reduction in available land for mineral exploration and development
is reaching the point where the Industrial Ecosystem is severely
threatened. It seems that every time a new deposit is discovered in
some remote region, that area instantly becomes a beehive of sacred
sites, premier vistas and unique habitats. What most do not realize is
that the geological processes responsible for building mountain ranges
are also responsible for developing ore deposits. So as each vista view
is set aside, it is preferentially depleting our natural resources
base.
So I ask you to think about the following issues. Today, the
world's largest mineral companies tend to be public companies. So, why
is the United States the wealthiest nation in the world and the largest
consumer of metals, yet it is the home to so few mineral companies?
Based on research conducted by my firm, U.S.-domiciled companies
represent only 11% of the world's public mineral companies.
Approximately one-half of these U.S. companies are active but only
about 20 are focused on hard rock minerals (the balance being
principally focused on coal and industrial minerals). Wouldn't you
think that the largest consumer of metals would also be the largest
supplier of metals?
The proof is in the fact that Newmont Mining, the world's largest
gold producer and an American company, derives 57% of its annual
production from overseas. Ever wonder why? We have found no evidence
that the lands have been thoroughly explored. But there is plenty of
evidence that there is less land available to explore and the
difficulty to conduct even simple exploration on Federal lands serves
as a strong incentive to work overseas.
The proof is in the fact that mineral investment in the State of
Montana is so bad that only the Russians are willing to take on the
risk.
The proof is in the fact that the number of staked claims in Nevada
dropped precipitously when the annual rents were doubled.
The proof lies in the Government's abandonment of the U.S. Bureau
of Mines, the severe budget cuts to the U.S. Geological Society and the
decisions you are currently making that are compromised by the lack of
information you are currently receiving. Ask the Minerals Information
Team at the USGS how many positions they have vacant and why they have
no budget to fill these slots. Take the time to understand that these
positions were identified as important yet those responsible for
slashing their budgets felt the information will have no material
impact on your abilities to make smart decisions.
By contrast, Canada represents 58% of the known public mineral
companies, including the vast majority of exploration firms. Why has
Canada become the leading home for public mineral companies? The answer
lies in Canada's commitment to developing its natural resources. I
believe the Canadian government strives to create solutions that permit
the cohabitation of special interest groups and the engines of
production while ours avoids confrontation with the NGO's at the
expense of commerce. Unlike our Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Canadians utilize global reporting standards. Unlike the EPA, the
Canadians recognize the legal rights of working people to use their
lands for commercial purposes. Unlike the United States, the Canadian
insurance industry seems to work hard at providing bonding for new mine
development because it understands the importance of commerce to the
national economy.
This brings us back to the issue of strategic minerals. In my
opinion, all minerals are strategic, especially when they are no longer
available to Society. Strategic is what we call phosphate when 99% of
its imports come from Morocco. Yttrium, an element used in television
screens and magnets, is strategic because more than one-half of our
imports come from China. We import almost 70% of our Manganese from
Gabon and South Africa. Any metal or mineral where we require
substantial imports should be considered strategic. Any metal that
provides underpinning value for our Virtual Nation should be considered
strategic. This means that all minerals and metals are strategic.
I would like to leave you with two concepts to think about.
1. What do we, as a nation, want to do with our minerals? Will we
always have the economic and military might to fulfill our natural
resource needs by any means we deem necessary? If we believe we will,
then we should continue along the current and past Administrations'
policy of ignoring the domestic minerals industry. I can only surmise
that Washington's lack of progress reflects your comfort levels with
these existing policies. But like a drug addict, the longer you ignore
the problems, the harder it will be to kick the bad habit. From my
observations, the difficulties of exploring or developing a hard-rock
mine in this country are immense and will only get worse if you
continue along your current path.
2. If we believe that the strength of a nation is founded on the
abundance and employment of its natural resources and that basic
industry plays a critical role in building lasting value for the
national economy, then we need a dramatic shift in the Federal
government's attitude about U.S. minerals and how we intend to manage
them.
A. We need a government that is proactive in its support of
mining. Action items I would like to see include having the
courts quickly identify frivolous lawsuits filed by the
elitists and permit companies to seek monetary damages if the
case is deemed to be frivolous. A typical U.S. mine takes ten
years or longer from discovery to production whereas elsewhere
in the world this discovery could be placed into production in
four or five years.. Discovery is typically made in the first
year of exploration. Two to three years are then spent
conducting follow-up work and completing feasibility studies
that determine the economic viability of the project. Most
mines take approximately one year to construct. This suggests
that five years are spent fighting for our rights in the
courts. Hardly seems fare to me. Can you imagine how Congress
would function if we only approved your budget once every ten
years? The courts need stronger measures so that everyone's
rights are protected, regardless of their perceived political
correctness.
B. We need an SEC that adopts global standards rather than
develops its own eclectic sets of rules. I understand that its
intention is to protect the shareholders. But its morass of
unwritten regulations and conditional approvals are preventing
management from fulfilling their fiduciary duties.
C. We talk about preserving the future for our grandchildren,
but do little or nothing to preserve and transfer the technical
expertise of our aging talent pool. I am 48 and am considered
one of the young ones in our business.
D. We do little to insure that our mining schools survive.
There is an argument that we need less mining education because
there is less mining in our country. But what we do not realize
that there is less mining because there are too many
impediments to building a mine. Consequently, students choose
other majors forcing the schools to close or cut back. This
results in less education and cutting-edge research that could
provide solutions to today's problems.
E. What worries me the most is the government's lethargy. It
was quite evident that Clinton's administration was against
Mining but I must confess that I have not observed any
contribution by President Bush's people either. Meanwhile our
existing mines are being depleted which increases the nation's
need for foreign supplies in the same way we have strong
foreign dependence on oil. This worries me.
Now I know that your policies reflect the will of the people, but
you also need to take a leadership role in protecting their interests
by insuring there are inexpensive supplies of future metals. The same
supplies that keep the price of cars affordable, that protect our high
standards of living and keep our rural communities prosperous. We
miners stand with pride as our forty-year old copper mines continue to
operate, but we have grave concerns that there is little new supply
being sought to replace them. Making money in mining is a tough
business, particularly when the industry has to compete so ferociously
at the global level. But when the U.S. government inhibits progress
through its inactivity, and makes no effort to support its basic
industries, global forces will draw this talent pool and capital
expenditures to those regions where it is wanted. So I implore you to
let us know our fate.
Thank you.
______
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
I would like to start the questioning with Ms. Carpenter.
If we improved our policies toward availability of Federal
lands for minerals development, do you believe that we can find
significant amounts of specialty minerals within our borders to
reduce our reliance on foreign supply?
Ms. Carpenter. Absolutely, Madam Chairwoman. The advances
in understanding of geologic processes, the advances in
technologies provide us with opportunities that are infinite.
I've traveled across the West looking at mineral deposits, and
I continue to go back to zones or in areas that I've looked at
previously because the science has changed, the technologies
have changed. It's an ever-dynamic process. And to say that
once you have walked across a piece of ground and you can make
an assessment that there is nothing there is wrong.
Mrs. Cubin. In your testimony, you discussed a survey of
American attitudes toward mining on public lands. What were the
results of that survey?
Ms. Carpenter. In that survey, it was a survey conducted by
Market Strategies for National Mining Association. In that
survey some of the summaries were 90 percent of the people
surveyed believe that we need a national mineral strategy to
ensure our quality of life in the future. 73 percent say lands
owned by the United States should be open to mining, providing
the land is reclaimed as required by law. And only 22 percent
say that these lands belong to the public and should be set
aside for future generations to enjoy.
Mrs. Cubin. Could you tell me, just list a few things that
you think ought to be included in the national mineral policy
that you recommend.
Ms. Carpenter. In my testimony, starting on page 14 and
going to 15, I think there are 14 suggested recommendations,
suggested changes. Some of them are: Provide firm time
guidelines and deadlines within the permitting process and
within the regulations; review the adequacy of BLM and Forest
Service staff and resources devoted to regulating mineral
exploration and mining operations; expedite the review of
permit applications for exploration projects; secure
congressional funding for aggressive and coordinated research
programs on the environmental impacts of hard rock mines. It is
a broad spectrum. And finally, require the losing party to pay
all costs and attorney fees if they challenge agency decisions.
We find that to be an incredible impediment.
Mrs. Cubin. I sympathize with that and agree that it would
be and is a terrible impediment. Unfortunately, we try to do
that with all parts of public lands, whether it is harvesting
timber, whether it is bringing up coal, whether it is grazing.
Whatever activity it is on the public lands, frivolous lawsuits
seems to be the method that the opposition has chosen to keep
people from using the public lands. And it is a very
frustrating situation, although I agree with you very much, and
I think we should continue to try to make that happen.
Mr. Hanes, how will our downward trend for minerals
production and manufacturing in general affect our economic
future, and especially, how can we rebound from the situation
that hurts small business interests virtually in every region
of the country?
Mr. Hanes. That is a profound question. I am not sure I can
even treat it adequately. But if you look at the sector that I
am most familiar with, that is what we have classified as
strategic metals sector, as my colleague Mr. Noel described, we
are under economic pressures from a lot of directions. Some of
that is simply economic pressures. We are dependent on the
aircraft industry, for example, in general, both military and
commercial. And you see a lot of that decline in particular in
the post-9/11 period.
But the way that we can reverse this trend, in my opinion,
is to pay, you know, more attention to those applications of
these strategic and critical metals that are, frankly, hidden
in these systems. I mean, you know, people are just simply
unaware. And I talk about that a little bit in my testimony,
the criticality of these small components that make these very
sophisticated systems work. And in order to do that, you need
to sustain the productive capability here in this country. And
it can be--if indeed, in a lot of those critical applications,
for example, we don't have that manufacturing capability, it
can be in fact a weapon of economic warfare.
I mean, there are some examples that are talked about and
critical components that go into tactical missile systems, for
example, that are generated in China that suddenly became a
little bit--and this is sort of--and I am not sure I have
factual information here, but you hear stories where these
critical components, all of a sudden during the Iraq campaign,
became a little less available. And so people were unable to
upgrade systems and supply systems that were required. There
are just any number of those kinds of components that need to
be sustained.
Bottom line is that, you know, protectionism probably isn't
the answer. It is, really, assuring that we have the strong
manufacturing and technological base to support that
sophisticated manufacturing here in this country, to assure
that it is available in the future.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you. Mr. Silver, you mentioned in your
testimony that Canada has a commitment to developing its
natural resources. About 10 to 15 years ago, a number of the
mining provinces were headed down the same predicament that we
are currently facing. What turned things around in Canada? Do
you know?
Mr. Silver. Yes, I think the thing that you'd notice the
most difference is at the Federal level. The Canadian Federal
Government seems to go out of its way to get people to work
toward a solution quickly. A good example is this brand-new
nickel deposit that has been found in Labrador called Voisey's
Bay. A lot of groups were against it being constructed. The
government got everybody to sit down, and in a period of two or
3 years they came to a solution. Now the project is moving
ahead. We don't see that from the U.S. Government. So I think
it is the proactive role that the Federal Government takes in
getting people together and pushing them toward finding an
answer.
Mrs. Cubin. It seems to take forever for the Federal
Government to get acting. We have known for years that we were
going to have a natural gas shortage and that there would be a
crisis. And just to get the problem to the attention of the
American people and the media sometimes seems overwhelming. But
I certainly think that we need to begin, and hopefully this
hearing will be a beginning, for a national mineral policy or
to at least expose the need for one. Because frankly, I haven't
heard much talk about that in Washington. I think there a few
people, mostly on this Committee, that are aware of it, but
otherwise I think there is just really a void in information in
this regard.
Mr. Noel, as the domestic mining industry declines, so does
the enrollment in related educational programs. This is
substantially reducing the number of qualified professionals in
the mining industry. Is a comparable decline occurring for
programs tailored to high-tech and manufacturing?
Mr. Noel. This is kind of a subjective answer to your
question, based upon observation, but I think if you go to many
of our more outstanding technical universities, there is a
predominance of people from outside the United States that go
to these schools. And I think typically in the past what we
have seen is that by and large they have relocated and they
have come and they have actually become American citizens and
have supported our industry.
The Forging Industry Educational and Research Foundation,
we have 12 schools we work with. In discussions in Ohio State
in particular, when you go to some of these schools, now as you
talk to these students, their intent is no longer to stay here.
Their intent is to go back to their native country and to work
and develop industries of that country. And so I think
everybody sees that the American youth is more--is interested
in, really, pursuing jobs in the service segment of our country
as opposed to get into the basic hard industrial sector. And
many of us become very concerned about the ability to have the
engineering capabilities to continue the advance of technology
for both military and commercial aircraft.
Mrs. Cubin. But the connection would be if jobs aren't
available in the United States, why would students go into
these type jobs and why would foreign students who are trained
here stay?
Mr. Noel. Well, I think the issue that you have here is
there is no question there--you know, as far as there has, it
has been a declining or consolidating industry, but one of the
things that we--for example, you need a stable source of
funding going into the technology sector. And with that, people
are looking at the technology functions within their company,
can stabilize their staffing, and they can go out and attract
and retain people over long periods of time rather than be
subjected to the economic cyclicality, which is you are
bringing people in, you are laying people off, that sort of
thing.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you. Now I recognize Mr. Gibbons for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me turn to Mr. Hanes first to ask a question, because I
am curious on some of your testimony. When you hear some people
say that we ought to be more reliant on recycling, the use of
certain materials and metals and minerals that we produce, for
example, hardened steel, that are included in communication
processes or communication devices, how easy or how readily is
our developed recycling process to take advantage of recovering
those, to put those back in the market?
Mr. Hanes. Well, if you start with the metal beryllium, of
which I am most familiar, the manufacture of beryllium, it is
based on recycling everything you possibly can. It is a very
expensive commodity to win in the first place. But ultimately,
you lose in the process the ability to recycle. Either
technology no longer exists or it is not economically feasible
or any number of reasons. If you put beryllium in copper to
make beryllium copper, you can never get the beryllium back to
make a beryllium metal component for a defense application, for
example. If you put molybdenum in steel, you cannot get that
back to put it into a superalloy, for example. You know, there
are just basic laws of physics and chemistry that apply to that
part of the process.
If you take the case of a precious metal inlay in a copper
strip that is converted into a connector or a contactor that
goes into an automotive ignition system in an automobile, the
cost of recovering that precious metal, you know, back from
inside of this very complicated structure is very high,
although there are recycling companies that do that. But
ultimately, you lose a percentage, you know, depending on the
laws of physics, chemistry, and economics, you lose a
percentage. So, you know, the concept, I think one of the
favorite expressions of some of the opponents of mining is to
say, well, if you need gold, you simply melt down all the
jewelry. Well, eventually you run out of it and you have to
find primary metal again.
So it is a lot different from industry to industry to
industry, but the bottom line is it is all governed by, you
know, physics, chemistry, and economics.
Mr. Gibbons. And consumption. Some of these--
Mr. Hanes. And consumption, correct. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons. What I would like to do is turn to Ann
Carpenter and Mr. Silver, if I could, and propose this. When I
was in Chile, I talked to Placer Dome's people there in their
operation. And from the time they discovered their copper
deposit until the time they had it into production was less
than 2 years. What has been your experience with the time from
discovery to the time of production of a mine in the United
States?
Ms. Carpenter. For example, I permitted a mine in 1997. It
was the completion of it, roughly. I am not solid on that. But
we did an EIS, an environmental impact statement, and it took
us a year and a half. And it was a complex mine project, about
a million and a half ounces, pit lake issues, a lot of
environmental considerations and mitigation concerns. If I were
to try to do that, just the permitting side, here, we are
looking in the field at five to 10 years easy.
Mr. Gibbons. Five to 10 years. And what is the average
investment in the process before you ever get to production
going through this permitting cycle and through the phase that
you need to go through before you can stick the first shovel in
the ground to get your first return on that investment? How
much do you usually invest?
Ms. Carpenter. Excluding litigation, the litigation
variable--5, 10 million dollars.
Mr. Gibbons. So you have $5-10 million just through the
permitting process. That doesn't count for any of the
development of, say, the mill site or the equipment--
Ms. Carpenter. Or the mine, yes, right.
Mr. Gibbons. Or the mine itself.
Ms. Carpenter. Right.
Mr. Gibbons. What if you included all of that by the time
you got to the 10-year point?
Ms. Carpenter. Well, for instance, I think the Glamus
project, the Imperial project that was stalled recently even
after it had gone through the permitting cycle, I believe they
spent-- if I might be able to ask a couple of my colleagues in
the audience, if that is all right?
Mr. Gibbons. Sure.
Ms. Carpenter. Including capital costs, that estimate is
$65 million.
Mr. Gibbons. So they have got an investment of $65 million
out there with an uncertainty, including a delay in the time to
get that mine into production.
Ms. Carpenter. Exactly.
Mr. Gibbons. And as a result--
Ms. Carpenter. Those are estimates that I would want to
have the opportunity to look back on it.
Mr. Gibbons. As a result, a normal business company is
going to look at that and say, golly, this is something I have
great questions about, whether or not I want to invest $65 in
an uncertain future at an uncertain date, knowing that I could
take the same $65 million and go down to South America, I could
go to some other country and within 16 months have production
and a return on that same money using the same environmental
standards, using the same production and the same technologies
that I would have used in the United States.
Ms. Carpenter. Yes. I would say that.
Mr. Gibbons. So it is discouraging. Mr. Silver, I want to
ask you, too, the same question. And if you could, I know my
time is up, but Madam Chairman has extended me the graciousness
of going over my 5 minutes. The same type of a question,
because your testimony very clearly alludes to the fact that it
is the delays, the uncertainty, the legal cost adding up that
make it unattractive for industry to remain in the United
States. Now, I would like to hear.
Mr. Silver. Yes, Chile is a good example, too, because in
Chile mining has a primacy over all other land use. So it is a
wonderful country for miners to go to.
What you see in most foreign countries is that there is a
set path that is dictated by regulations. And as long as you
keep within that path and you achieve the objectives and you
submit the proper paperwork--
Mr. Gibbons. Excuse me. So what you are saying is even in
the United States, if you complete your permitting process to
the standards that were required in the permitting and the
environmental impact statement, there is no guarantee.
Mr. Silver. There is no guarantee and it is actually, I
think it is getting worse. You see a lot of people filing
injunctions or trying to obfuscate the process at the 12th hour
despite the millions that have been spent in the adequate time
zones. And I think it is a very simple thing. You were
mentioning before about budget cuts in the Federal Government.
We are not asking the Government to spend a lot of money. We
are saying just streamline the process. You can actually save
money. Just make the process efficient and stick to it. Don't
allow somebody to come in at the last minute and change the
rules. Don't bend over backwards to give a special interest
group another year, because you are destroying industry. And
that is a risk that is unacceptable anywhere in business.
Mr. Gibbons. One final thing that I want to ask about is
the legal status. Oftentimes you see groups file lawsuits even
though the environmental impact statement is clear in its
purpose, clear in what you are going to do. The plan is set, it
meets all the standards, and yet there is a lawsuit filed. What
is the purpose of filing that lawsuit against you?
Mr. Silver. Well, it is very simple. It is simple delay. If
they can delay, it is expensive for the operating company. If
you delay a project by 1 year, you will knock as much as 15 to
20 percent off its net present value. If they do that two or
three times, the project is gone.
Mr. Gibbons. So delay is --
Mr. Silver. Delay is a tremendous tool for the opposition.
But we have less rights than they do, because the delays are
built into the system. We don't have the right to say the
Government's decided this and they are sticking with it.
Mr. Gibbons. I guess my final question--thank you, Madam
Chairman, for your yielding me this--would be to Mr. Noel. What
is your impression of the future of the mineral industry in the
United States? Where do you think we are going?
Mr. Noel. Well, to me the--you know, I am looking at what
comes out of the mineral industry and how it goes into metals
and what the future of the metals industry in the United
States. And as far as the metals industry, you have key
companies that have unique positions, like Timet and Henderson
Nevada, that--you know, they have a $100 million sponge
facility that is operating at 60 percent of capacity. And
obviously one of the key issues there is absorbing their
depreciation expenses on that facility. I mean, that is a huge
concern. You know, at the current level of consumption, that is
a business that is in trouble. You look at Special Metals,
which is a primary producer of superalloys. They are in chapter
11.
So the question is, these are elements of both our
commercial aviation and military defense systems. I believe we
need this capability. And as this cycle prolongs, and the
latest projections are that this probably will occur the last--
you know, once the rebound and commercialization, they said
2005. And if they said ask me again next month and it is
probably going to be 2006.
But I am really very concerned that these companies will
survive in a fashion or form that will be able to support our
needs. And I think it will be a huge loss to this country if
that would happen. And they are--these are guys that are not--
they are the prominent suppliers in their industries, and they
are struggling at this point in time. So that is the reason we
feel that the defense manufacturing supply chain has to work
together. If we all work together and collaborate, you know, we
can be more effective and more efficient.
And the key to survival is technology. And you look at what
is the major issue, it is globalization. How do we respond to
globalization? We feel it is technology, it is speed, it is
collaboration, it is investment. So we see clearly a troubled
sector. You go up the next step in the supply chain to the
component producers, shape isn't as bad. They are generally at
break-even points, but those businesses are going to be
consolidated. Many of the smaller companies, I doubt they will
survive the cycle.
So, I mean, it is a very troubling situation, with no clear
path or no clear recovery point on the horizon.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I apologize to Mr. Cole for taking so
much of his time that would be available to him. Thank you,
Madam Chairman, for extending me the gracious time. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Certainly. I recognize Mr. Cole for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Silver, your testimony was so nuanced that I want to
probe it a little bit. I wish there were a lot more people here
to hear what you had to say, quite frankly, because it was so
much to the point. But let me ask you a couple of fairly simple
questions.
First, I would assume from your testimony, obviously there
is an enormous price differential producing abroad as opposed
to producing here in a variety of areas in basic metals. How
much of that differential, if you could categorize it broadly,
is due to problems of permitting here as opposed to problems of
supply? Or cost of production?
Mr. Silver. That is a great question, because once the
mines are built in the U.S., they are very competitive on a
global scale. I mean, we do have higher labor costs, of course.
Future environmental costs are built into the models, but we
have better technology, we are more efficient, so we can keep
our costs down and be very competitive at the global scale. So
the producing side is not as big an issue as trying to be
allowed to build the thing.
Mr. Cole. So you are pretty comfortable, if we could get
the regulatory side under control, that we would both have the
sufficient supplies and technology to be very competitive and
essentially self-sufficient in a variety of areas?
Mr. Silver. Yes. There is no evidence from all of our
research that shows the U.S. is either picked over in the
commodities we have traditionally done or that the future mines
are going to be excessively expensive. The only evidence we see
is this delay and the access.
Mr. Cole. Let me ask you this question and preface it with
a comment. A lot of the--I know a lot about the oil and gas
industry, not very much about hard metals extraction. A lot of
the resistance in oil and gas that we meet is based on ideas
about production that are about 50 or 100 years out of date. I
mean, there really is sort of a vision in people's minds that
we have a bunch of wooden oil wells up about 10 feet apart and
that is what an oil field looks like today. And of course it
doesn't. And we labor sometimes under the mistakes of the past.
Well, we do have environmental problems--we have tremendous
environmental problems around lead and zinc extraction in
Oklahoma, a huge Superfund site there, where clearly what was
done a century ago was an abomination, a waste of the resource.
Contrast, if you can for me, what the environmental
consequences of hard metal are today, how much different and
better the technology is compared to 50 or 100 years ago.
Mr. Silver. OK. One of the things I find most interesting
is that the people who don't like the mining industry assume we
are using 100-year-old technologies. And in fact, if you use
old technologies, it is expensive, because you don't fix the
problems. The new technologies that are being developed today
are light years ahead of what it was 100 years ago. And as a
consequence, the industry spends a lot of effort trying to use
better technology because it in fact reduces cost. So the
argument that we don't use modern technology is just simply not
true, and it is not to our advantage to not use the best
available technology.
Mr. Cole. Let me direct this question, if I may, to Ms.
Carpenter, although any of you would be--I would be delighted
to hear from you.
Clearly, I mean, there are sort of competing environmental
visions that you run into. One is everything needs to be
preserved pristine. The other is let's use what we need to use,
but let's do it responsibly and let's restore it once we are
done.
Tell me just broadly where the industry is at in terms of
its ability, once an area is tapped out, so to speak, in terms
of productive capacity, to restore or otherwise minimize
whatever environmental consequences where they are actually
mining a particular metal.
Ms. Carpenter. Very good question. And again, it lends back
to the technological advances. I work quite a bit doing
reclamation work on projects for clients that are leaving this
country and going elsewhere. So they are closing their projects
out. And I share a lot of my data across the sectors in the
mineral industry, including construction materials, the coal
industry, hard rock. And the advances that people are doing,
the advances, the technological advances, the scientific
advances have all led to incredible reclamation efforts and
much better than we saw even 10 years ago. And I would offer
that, with the advances in technology and the understandings
that we see and the idea-sharing, we are coming up with much,
much better reclamation efforts.
And it is a constant stream of--again, another dynamic
area--where we are always seeking for better efficiencies on
it. It is toward the bottom line, but we also want a better
final product.
Mr. Cole. Let me ask you this question. Would it be fair to
say that, you know, once we get past the permitting processes
and into production that this country is actually a leader in
terms of restoration and--you know, after an area is exhausted?
Ms. Carpenter. It is absolutely true. Wherever I have
worked overseas, they have commented exactly on that.
Mr. Cole. Well, could you argue that, but would it be fair
to argue? It might be pushing the point, but would it be--and
don't hesitate to disagree. It would be fair to argue, you
could make the case it is environmentally more responsible to
mine here because--you know, if our policies drive us to other
countries that don't have the technology or the commitment to
deal with the environmental problems, then you are going to
have, frankly, in the global sense, worse environmental damage
in some of the places that you are working than you would have
if you worked inside this country where we have the resources,
the technology, and frankly now, the ethos to make sure the
environment stays relatively, you know, undamaged.
Ms. Carpenter. I would encourage you to get on the
Sacramento Bee website and look for a Tom Knudson article
called ``State of Denial.'' And it addresses that in
particular. In his article, he shows, or sort of illustrates
that preservation stops at the border. And by exporting our
production, our consumption needs elsewhere, we can't do it to
the same quality that we can here.
I would suggest, and I believe this strongly, that we
should be exporting our knowledge and proving--we are
environmental--we are leaders in the world on our technologies,
in this industry and others, and in our environmental successes
and regulations. And they find it pretty hypocritical that we
keep exporting out our--wherever I have worked, anyway--our
consumptive needs when they know that we can do it to such a
high level at home. And they strive for those high levels.
Mr. Cole. I see my time is probably up, Madam Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you. I would like to make a statement
that before Federal policy can ever be changed or moved, we
have to identify the problem and we have to show people in very
concise terms that there is a problem. And one way we could do
that is for you to help us identify a mineral or some minerals
that are critical to our national defense or to commercial
aviation or something, and really as many as possible, that in
the short term are really going to cause a problem for us. And
if we can demonstrate this to the administration, then possibly
we can get a national mineral policy on their radar screen and
we can begin to elevate the importance of this issue. Because I
am convinced it is very important. And I would be glad to work
with Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Cole, anybody on the Committee to pursue
this further.
So I would appreciate it if you could help us with that.
Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. Madam Chairman, I had just one statement. Of
all this testimony that we have received before this Committee,
this is probably some of the most important with regard to our
mineral industry and where we are going.
I think one of the things we have forgotten about the
Governmental agencies that deal with these industries, and many
times we have seen and I am sure some of these companies have
seen some of our own internal Federal and State agencies derail
permitting processes through coordination with organizations
who are opposed to mining and other resource development. And
we need to bring in those agencies and find out the underlying
premise and the issues that they are dealing with when it comes
down to their opposition to the mining industry as well.
We are seeing the industry here come up and talk about
their frustrations, and I think we need to deal also
effectively with our own Governmental agencies that add to that
frustration.
Mrs. Cubin. That, and additionally the reticence of an
agency to make a statement about policy when in fact they are
very aware that certain policies might be beneficial.
I would like to make an announcement. John Rishel, who
worked for this Committee and was passionate about national
mineral policy and he was passionate about making mining for
hard rock minerals in the United States more available and more
profitable, while at the same time protecting the environment--
there is a memorial for John today at 4 p.m. in Longworth Room
1334, this room. So anyone who would like to attend that would
certainly be welcome. And I think John certainly is deserving
of a memorial to bring out the contributions that he made. So
thank you very much.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
members for the questions. Once again, members of the
Subcommittee may have additional questions, and we would ask
that--we will get them to you and ask that you could respond
within 10 days, at which time the record will close.
If there is no further business in front of the
Subcommittee, then we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the record by the
Mineral Policy Center follows:]
Statement of Lexi Shultz, Legislative Director, Mineral Policy Center
The Antiquated 1872 Mining Law Subsidizes Environmental Destruction and
Public Health Risks:
There are several ways in which the outdated 1872 Mining Law has,
by subsidizing the mining industry, actually encouraged environmental
destruction. First of all, by selling off public lands at below market
prices and letting the industry have free access to $240 billion worth
of public minerals, the law has blocked taxpayers from getting a fair
return on their resources and encouraged the mining industry to overuse
public lands.
Second, by failing to provide land managers with the discretion to
deny mines once valid mining claims have been established, the law has
elevated the interests of the mining industry over all other possible
uses and interests in the land, including those of taxpayers, other
businesses benefiting from the land, public health and the environment.
That is, under the 1872 Mining Law, federal land managers must approve
mining operations with valid claims, even if tourism would be a more
economical use of the land, even if drinking water and public health
would be compromised by the presence of a mine in the area, and even if
the land is of particularly crucial significance for the health of an
ecosystem.
Third, by omitting any standards to address the specific
environmental problems caused by mining, the law has failed to prevent
mining-related pollution, leaving a legacy of 12,000 miles of polluted
streams and rivers, air pollution, contaminated drinking water, and
disrupted habitat. While the mining industry must comply with the same
environmental laws that every other business in America must comply
with--the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and others--these
laws do not protect against contamination of groundwater from heavy
metals and chemicals like cyanide. Nor do these laws directly address
acid mine drainage caused by rain and snow falling on mining wastes, or
the metal-laden dust and particulate matter created by mining
operations. Considering that modern mining produces more waste than all
other sources combined, including municipal waste, and that mining
contamination can last for hundreds or thousands of years, it is
inexcusable that everything possible is not being done to prevent this
pollution from occurring in the first place.
Fourth, the law lacks any standards either for the reclamation of
mined-out lands or for the mining industry to bear the financial
responsibility from that cleanup. As a result, the law has encouraged
mining companies to simply walk away from mines once they are done,
leaving taxpayers with devastated public lands and an enormous cleanup
bill. The Mineral Policy Center has estimated that taxpayers will
eventually have to pay $32 to $72 billion to clean up the more than
half a million abandoned and polluting mine sites across the country.
Seventy of these sites have been designated as Superfund sites because
of the enormous damage to human health and the environment that they
are causing. Each of these sites alone may cost in excess of $100
million to clean up. Moreover, because the mining industry knows that
it will not be liable for the full costs of cleaning up abandoned
mines, it has no incentive to minimize the amount of pollution it will
produce in advance.
The Consequences of Mining on the Environment and Human Health have
been Devastating:
The consequences of the 1872 Mining Law's outdated and misguided
policies have been devastating, both to the environment and to human
health around the country. Consider the following examples taken from a
report produced by the Mineral Policy Center entitled ``Burden of
Gilt.''
In Montana, windblown particulates from old mine tailings piles in
and around Butte deposited heavy metals on high-school baseball fields
in such dangerous concentrations that the fields had to be excavated
and the topsoil had to be replaced. The city's water treatment plant is
built on old tailings deposits that contain dangerously high
concentrations of copper, zinc, cadmium, arsenic, and lead. Sediments
from mine tailings have contaminated more than 35 square miles of
groundwater in the Butte area.
In Idaho, lead levels in Silver Valley soil downwind from the
abandoned Bunker Hill silver mine--designated as a Superfund site--were
found to be more than 30 times higher than maximum levels deemed
``safe'' by the Environmental Protection Agency. Virtually all of the
179 children living within a mile of the site were found to have
potentially brain-impairing levels of lead in their blood.
In New Mexico, after a molybdenum mine near Questa was inactivated
when prices fell in the mid-1980's, tailings from the mine continued to
contaminate the Red River, killing fish and destroying wildlife
habitat, and also contaminated wells relied on by Taos County
residents.
In Colorado, the Summitville cyanide-leach gold mine sent a flood
of cyanide and heavy metals into the Alamosa River, killing fish and
destroying 17 miles of the river, when its 45-acre waste pile flooded
and leaked. The Galactic Resources Mining Company paid only minimal
fines and a $4.7 million performance bond before filing for bankruptcy.
The state and the EPA have already spent $130 million to clean up this
Superfund site, and estimate that the job will take another $45 million
of taxpayer money to complete.
In Montana, the Pegasus Gold Corporation went bankrupt, leaving
taxpayers to pick up the approximately $100 million bill to clean up
the now defunct Zortman-Landusky mine.
The Antiquated 1872 Mining Law Must be Comprehensively Reformed:
It is clear that, under the current provisions of the 1872 Mining
Law, far too much environmental destruction and far too many public
health risks have occurred. In order to prevent these horror stories
from being repeated, and in order to protect public lands and the
Americans who own those lands, the entire 1872 Mining Law must be
reformed. This reform must be undertaken comprehensively and with the
goal of protecting the interests of taxpayers and the environment, not
just those of the mining industry. Accordingly, the law must be
reformed with three basic principles in mind:
Fair Return to the Taxpayers. The mining industry should be
required to pay fair market value for both public minerals and public
lands. For minerals, the mining industry should pay a 12.5 percent
royalty, which is the same as the royalty paid by the oil industry for
drilling on public lands and by the coal industry for mining above
ground on public lands. Since mining companies pay royalties for mining
on both state and private lands, there is no reason why they cannot
give federal taxpayers the same consideration. For public land, the
practice of ``patenting,'' selling land for $2.50 to $5.00 an acre,
should be permanently abolished. Mining companies should be forced to
engage in arms-length transactions with the federal taxpayers, just as
they would if they were dealing with private entities. The taxpayer-
subsidized ``free lunch'' must end.
Pollution Prevention. The best way to protect clean water, clean
air, and wildlife habitat is to prevent pollution in the first place.
Reform of the law must include environmental standards that will
address the specific environmental problems caused by hardrock mining,
including groundwater contamination, runoff, and other such problems.
These standards must also deal with the reclamation of mined-out lands
so that these sites do not become a hazard in the future. Moreover,
where no amount of environmental safeguards could adequately protect a
particular region, whether because of its importance for drinking
water, for wildlife habitat, for recreational opportunities, or any
other reason, land managers must be given the discretion to deny mines
in order to protect those interests. Finally, in order to minimize the
potential for destruction, the mining industry should not have access
to unlimited amounts of public land for the dumping of mining wastes.
Polluter Pays. The mining industry must be required to pay for the
clean-up of both depleted mines and any mines for which pollution
prevention failed. These costs should be borne by the industry that
caused the pollution or degradation of the land. In this way, taxpayers
will not have to shoulder what should be a normal cost of doing
business for an industry taking advantage of public resources, and the
mining industry will have an incentive to mine as responsibly and with
the least disruption as possible.
The Mill Site-Mine Site Issue is the Law and Must be Enforced:
There is one provision in the 1872 Mining Law that has the
potential to protect taxpayers and the environment, by limiting the
amount of public land available for the dumping of toxic mining wastes.
This provision provides that mining companies may have a mill site of 5
acres, to be used to process or dump overburden and ore, for each 20-
acre mineral claim. Despite industry claims to the contrary, this
provision has been a part of the law since 1872. And despite industry
claims to the contrary, the law does not allow unlimited numbers of
mill sites for each mineral claim. If it did, there would be no need
for the law to have limited the size of mill sites to 5 acres--it could
simply have provided that mining companies be allowed to have a mill
site of unlimited size.
The fact that this portion of the law has been inconsistently
enforced until recently is highly unfortunate and may have led to
otherwise avoidable environmental degradation. However, this fact does
not alter the provision's legal authority.
Nor does this provision mean the end of mining, as the industry
claims. Mining companies can do land exchanges, apply for special use
permits, or, in some instances, reconfigure their mines to mine
underground. While these alternatives may not be as favorable to the
mining industry as having access to unlimited amounts of public land at
little or no cost, they are the only options that can even begin to
give taxpayers and the environment a fair shake.
Because the law is finally being enforced the way it was written,
the industry may try to push weak or ``sham'' reform. Mineral Policy
Center opposes any attempts at reform of the 1872 Mining Law that do
not adequately address the needs of taxpayers, the environment, and
public health.
Conclusion:
It is time to put an end to the taxpayer-subsidized environmental
destruction and public health risks caused by the outdated 1872 Mining
Law. What is needed is meaningful comprehensive reform of the law that
will fully protect the interests of taxpayers and the environment.
______
Statement of Stephen D'Esposito, President, Mineral Policy Center
Mineral Policy Center Supports Responsible Mining Polices and Practices
Mineral Policy Center supports responsible mining policies and
practices: responsible mining policies that give taxpayers a fair
return for valuable land and mineral assets, and that eliminate
government subsidies to mine on public lands; responsible mining
policies that require mining companies meet adequate environmental
protection standards; and responsible mining policies that recognize
that on some public lands there are resources, and other uses, that may
be more valuable than mining, including the protection of
environmentally significant areas. Currently, federal law does not
offer adequate environmental or taxpayer protections.
Mineral Policy Center recognizes that some mining companies seek to
operate in a manner that protects our environment. But the 1872 Mining
Law is actually a disincentive for responsible industry action. The
1872 Mining Law sends the wrong signal to mining companies. It rewards
irresponsible behavior. Until it is reformed it will serve as a haven
for bad actors and fail to reward those who act responsibly.
Those who most vociferously oppose environmental reform of the 1872
Mining Law, may be those companies who do not believe they are poised
to operate successfully in an environment that mandates and rewards
environmental performance.
Successful mining law reform will balance the interest of mining
companies with those of taxpayers, citizens who seek to protect land
and water resources, and future generations who will benefit from well
managed public lands.
131 YEARS LATER, ITS TIME FOR MINING LAW REFORM
One hundred and thirty-one years is too long. It is time to reform
the 1872 Mining Law. Written to encourage the development of the mining
industry, and the settlement of the western United States, the mining
law is a relic of a bygone era--a time when mining was a pick-and-
shovel affair, when men moved on horses and in covered wagons.
<SUP>1</SUP> The mining law's roots may also have a humanitarian
origin, to deter violence that resulted from claim jumping.
<SUP>2</SUP> One hundred and thirty-one years after its passage, its
original purposes accomplished, it is time for reform.
Today, the prospector's pan has given way to giant earth-moving
machines that cam literally crumble mountains and dig pits the size of
small towns. Panning for gold nuggets has given way to the use of
potentially lethal chemicals such as cyanide that leach microscopic
flecks of ore from massive piles of pulverized rock. Today's
prospectors are multi-national corporations and their mine sites occupy
thousands of acres of our public land.
While there are technical and engineering solutions to many of the
environmental problems that mining can cause, technical solutions are
only part of the answer. They will not be enough to fully address the
broader environmental, economic, social, and cultural issues that this
Subcommittee, and all Members of Congress, must grapple with. Reforming
the mining law is not, after all, just a matter of a technical fix. It
is one thing to design a safe and efficient mine, it is quite another
to design public policy that results in good decisions about the use of
public land and resources. Good public policy must provide a basis for
weighing environmental, social, economic, and cultural issues, as well
as technical issues.
MILLSITE CLAIMS AND THE 1872 MINING LAW
With the enforcement of the millsite limit of the 1872 Mining Law,
it appears that we may have a new ally in the fight for mining law
reform, the mining industry.
Organizations Representing Millions of Members Support the Millsite
Decision
MPC believes the millsite opinion, effectively enforcing limits on
mine waste dumping on public land, is based upon an accurate reading of
the 1872 Mining Law. While it is widely accepted that the Mining Law's
millsite restriction does not meet the needs of some of today's mining
operations, neither does this antiquated law meet the needs of
taxpayers, communities near many of today's mines, or the environmental
health of our public lands. The massive waste piles produced at many of
today's mines have outgrown the mining law.
However, the solution to this problem is not to create a special
exemption from the part of the mining law that some in the industry
find troublesome. The solution is comprehensive reform that will
balance the needs of the industry, taxpayers and the environment. We
should engage in a public debate about reforming all of the mining law,
not just the part that the mining industry does not like.
In a March 23, 1999, letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce
Babbitt and Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck, Mineral Policy
Center, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra
Club, The Wilderness Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
Okanogan Highlands Alliance, Western Organization of Resource Councils,
and Grassroots Environmental Effectiveness Network (GREEN) petitioned
the government to reject the Plan of Operations for the Crown Jewel
Mine because it was over the millsite claims limit. To quote from the
letter: In this case, the federal land agencies must determine whether
to approve a mining plan that is proposed on public lands that do not
contain valid mining and millsite claims under the 1872 Mining Law. A
number of other proposed open pit gold mines on federal land face
similar issues. The most pressing examples include the Imperial Project
in southern California and the Yarnell Mine adjacent to the town of
Yarnell, Arizona. Thus, your decisions at Crown Jewel will have
ramifications across the West.
On March 25, 1999, the U.S. Departments of the Interior (DOI) and
Agriculture (DOA) released a joint decision stating that they were
``unable to approve the proposed Plan of Operations'' for the Crown
Jewel Mine in the State of Washington. <SUP>3</SUP> The plan for this
large open-pit, cyanide-leach gold mine was rejected because it did not
comply with the requirement of the 1872 Mining Law that limits
claimants to one 5-acre millsite claim for each mining claim.
The March 25, 1999 decision references the November 7, 1997,
Solicitor's Opinion entitled ``Limitations on Patenting Millsites Under
the Mining Law of 1872.'' This 1997 opinion reviews the millsite limit
in detail. The conclusion is unequivocal: ``the plain language of the
mining law indicates that only one 5-acre millsite claim per mining
claim may be patented.'' <SUP>4</SUP>
Before the March 25th decision, mining companies were sometimes
permitted, albeit illegally, more than one 5-acre millsite claim per
mining claim. Although the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) have permitted multiple millsite claims in some
instances, they had no legal basis under the mining law, or under
regulations, for such approvals.
The Solicitor's Opinion notes that the current BLM's Handbook for
Mineral Examiners may be the source of the problem. It provides for the
granting of multiple millsite claims per mining claim. However, as the
Solicitor makes clear, ``no authority is cited for these statements.''
While this explains why some BLM field staff may have approved plans of
operations that were over the millsite limit, it does not change the
fact that the limit exists in the Mining Law.
This is Not Just About Land Use
The recent millsite ruling addresses a fundamental environmental
problem--today's mines are dramatically larger and produce more waste
than the pick-and-shovel operations that the mining law was written to
govern. Management of this waste presents a significant public policy
challenge since waste from mines often pollutes surface and groundwater
resources with acid mine drainage and heavy metals such as arsenic. The
Mining Law does not address these environmental concerns directly. To
the extent that it deals with them at all, it addresses them through
the millsite limit. This de facto environmental safeguard should not
simply be jettisoned, it should remain in place until the Mining Law is
reformed to include such protections by design.
History Supports the Millsite Decision
There is ample evidence that Congress, DOI, and many in the mining
industry understood the strict millsite limit contained in the Mining
Law. Prior to 1960, the Mining Law allowed millsite claims only in
connection with vein or lode claims, not with placer claims. In 1960,
Congress explicitly amended the mining law to permit the location of
millsites in connection with placer claims. <SUP>5</SUP> The
legislative history of the amendment makes it clear that Congress and
DOI understood both the millsite limits in the existing statute and the
amendment, which permitted only one five-acre millsite claim in
connection with a placer claim. The amendment was passed and signed
only after input from the DOI caused Congress to remove language that
would have permitted millsites ``for each individual claimant'' and
allowed for a larger millsite claim of ``10 acres for each individual
claimant.'' <SUP>6</SUP> The amendment was changed as requested by DOI,
which sought to have the millsite limit for placer claims match that of
lode claims. The report language was explicit:
[T]he word ``ten'' was stricken and the word ``five''
inserted in lieu thereof.
The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the area of a
millsite in conjunction with a placer claim to 5 acres of land
to make it conform with the allowable millsite acreage for lode
claims which has been the statutory requirement since 1872 ...
[T]he words ``for each individual claimant'' were stricken so
as to impose a limit of one 5-acre millsite limit in any
individual case preventing the location of a series of 5-acre
millsites in cases where a single claim is jointly owned by
several persons ....
In 1968, the leading mining industry trade association (the
American Mining Congress, the predecessor of today's National Mining
Association), in a statement submitted to the Public Land Law Review
Commission, acknowledged that the law permits only one millsite claim
per mining claim. ``When the mining law was enacted in 1872, provision
was made for the acquisition of five-acre millsites to be used for
plant facilities on mining claims. The typical mine then was a high-
grade lode or vein deposit from which ores were removed by underground
mining. The surface plant was usually relatively small, and acquisition
of five-acre millsites in addition to the surface mining claims--
adequately served the needs of mines ``Today, the situation is
frequently different--A mine having 500 acres of mining claims may, for
example, require 5,000 acres for surface plant facilities and waste
disposal areas. It is obvious that such activities may not be acquired
through five-acre millsites.'' <SUP>7</SUP> (emphasis added)
In 1974 in United States v. Swanson, 14 IBLA 158 the Interior Board
of Land Appeals stated that: [A] claimant is entitled to receive only
that amount of land needed for his mining and milling operations, and
this amount can embrace a tract of less than five acres. The statute
states that the location shall not ``exceed five acres.'' ... The
reference to five acres in the statute is clearly a ceiling measure,
not an absolute, automatic grant.
In 1979, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
confirmed this interpretation of the mining law's millsite provision.
There could be as many millsites as there are mining claims, and each
millsite would be at most one-fourth the size of the typical 20-acre
claim, so that millsites, in the aggregate, would be one-fourth the
size of the ore body encompassed by the claims.
The Impacts of Enforcing the Millsite Opinion
Will this be the end of mining on public lands? No, there are
mining methods, such as underground mining, that do not necessarily
require such vast amounts of space for processing and waste dumping. It
is also important to remember that open-pit mining takes place on non-
federal lands. In those instances, mining companies successfully
assemble the necessary lands through acquisition, leases, or by
purchasing mineral rights. As the Solicitor's Opinion made clear,
mining companies can seek to acquire necessary millsite acreage through
land exchanges and special use permits. Both methods do require the
company to meet additional hurdles and land managers could exercise
discretion to prevent ``unnecessary'' or ``undue'' degradation of
public lands. But these are not unreasonable conditions.
The decision may have an impact on marginal, low-grade deposits.
But there is no reason why federal policy should be used to subsidize
the mining of such deposits on public lands. In fact, it should be the
government's policy to create a level playing field for all mining
companies--whether the land is owned by the federal government, the
state, or private citizens.
We do not expect open-pit mining to end on public lands as a result
of this opinion, nor would we expect, does DOI or the Forest Service.
The Millsite Limit Should be Enforced Until the Mining Law is Reformed
We do not think that the law should be effectively amended, and
weakened, to suit the needs of a number of mining companies or even an
entire industry. We should not look at this problem from the wrong
side. The underlying problem is not the millsite limit. The millsite
limit is a symptom. The problem is the outdated 1872 Mining Law. It
does not fit today's mining industry, it does not protect taxpayers,
and it does not protect the environment. Let's fix the underlying
problem, not just treat the symptom.
Some believe that our reading of the millsite limit under the 1872
Mining Law is legally flawed. We disagree. But for those who hold this
view there is an obvious remedy and it is not this Subcommittee or the
Congress. It is the courts.
Some believe there is an urgent need to address this issue because
of concerns about retroactivity. We do not think a rush to judgement on
these important issues should be driven by such concerns, and we do not
believe this issue should be applied retroactively. If necessary, we
would support a resolution or amendment specifying that there would be
no retroactive application of this issue to currently operating mines.
Our objective is not to penalize mining companies that may have
benefited from the incorrect application of the Mining Law by either
DOI or the Forest Service. Our objective is that this provision now be
applied.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE 1872 MINING LAW
The 1872 Mining Law allows for public land giveaways and taxpayer
subsidies to the mining industry. And it fails to protect our
environment and our public lands. Of course, those who crafted the
mining law in 1872 could not envision the potential environmental
impacts of modern mining. The environmental legacy of this outdated law
is all too clear. A 1989 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office
found that the Mining Law ``runs counter to other national natural
resource policies and legislation.'' <SUP>8</SUP> The GAO found that
the mining law ``no longer promotes mineral development'' and can
result in ``needless damage'' to public lands. <SUP>9</SUP>
Let's Cleanup Our Nation's Abandoned Mines
Estimates of abandoned mines, range from at least 200,000 to over
500,000, scattered across the country. The abandoned mine problem
should serve as a wake-up call. Cleanup costs could be as high as $72
billion. <SUP>10</SUP>
We should immediately implement a national program to clean up the
hundreds of thousands of unreclaimed and abandoned mine sites. MPC
estimates that there are 557,000 abandoned mine sites nationwide, with
an estimated cleanup cost of $32 to $72 billion. The Western Governors
Association has identified abandoned mine sites in 10 states in need of
priority cleanup. In Alaska, the abandoned Treadwall Mine is pockmarked
with vertical shafts, open portals and pits, and a dangerous highwall
500 feet tall. Because the site is adjacent to the cities of Juneau and
Douglas it receives extensive use by the public. Washington state
residents are struggling with a toxic legacy at the Holden Mine where
acid mine drainage from waste rock and 18 million tons of tailings have
rendered 12 miles of nearby river biologically dead. In Utah, the
abandoned Temple Mountain site is home to 300 open uranium mines with
moderate to high radionuclides. <SUP>11</SUP> Californians are still
living with the festering Iron Mountain Mine, which is predicted to
continue leaching acid for at least 3,000 years. And that is just to
name a few.
Reclamation of sites like these would restore valuable lands,
eliminate public safety and health threats, and create up to 10,000
jobs. <SUP>12</SUP> The question is not whether it should be done, but
how it should be funded. Potential sources of funding include a mineral
royalty, rental fees, and through other sources such as a reclamation
fee. Establishment of this fund should not be delayed.
We Should Permanently End $2.50 An-Acre Public Lands Giveaways
Although an annual moratorium is in place, the 1872 Mining Law
allows public land giveaways at the bargain-basement rate of $2.50 or
$5.00. This was a bargain in 1872, today it's a steal. Patenting is not
necessary to mine on public lands.
According to the Department of Interior, during the Mining Law's
first 120 years, 315 million ounces of gold, 5.5 billion ounces of
silver, 79.5 million tons of copper, 19.2 million tons of lead, and
13.9 million tons of zinc were mined in 13 western states. In 1994 we
estimated the value of these minerals at more than $231 billion. That's
just the minerals under the land, it doesn't take into account the
value of the land.
Taxpayers Deserve a Fair Royalty
When a mining company mines on public land, they do not pay a
royalty. When they mine on private or state land, mining companies pay
a royalty that can range from 5% to 18%. What is the justification for
not requiring a royalty for mining on public lands? There is none. The
coal, oil and gas industries pay a fee when they mine on federal lands.
Why not the hardrock mining industry?
Consider these excerpts from the testimony of Dr. W. Thomas
Goerold, a noted minerals economist to the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Mineral Resource Development and
Production, on September 13, 1990:
``Current domestic hardrock mineral producers sometimes claim that
paying for federal minerals would be so burdensome that it would force
a significant portion of them out of business. A cursory examination of
the evidence does not support these claims. Producers of leasable
minerals found on federal lands have paid royalties and land rentals
since 1920 and no one questions the health of these industries.
Moreover, miners of hardrock minerals have a long history of routinely
paying royalties and rental payments when these same minerals are found
on state or private lands.''
``Hardrock mineral miners maintain that there is still a
fundamental difference between hardrock minerals production and other
businesses, as well as between hardrock minerals firms and other
mineral producers that pay land rental and royalty fees to the Federal
Government for use of publicly owned resources. Contrary to industry
claims, these purported distinctions do not justify the privileged
treatment accorded producers of hardrock minerals. The Office of
Technology Assessment supports this view. The OTA believes that the
distinctions between leasable (generally energy and chemical minerals
requiring government permission and payment of lease and royalty fees)
and locatable minerals are more artificial than real.''
Do hardrock miners on federal lands have more importance than
automobile manufacturers, retail store owners, or any other business
not eligible for similar government subsidies? Are hardrock miner
producing minerals from federal lands more important than these same
producers mining state or private lands?
One argument advanced by mining interests against the imposition of
royalties for federal hardrock minerals is that the Federal Government
already taxes the profits of these companies. This is a misleading
argument--most non-mineral businesses do not obtain the inputs to their
firms from the federal government at no cost, yet virtually all pay a
federal income tax. Royalty and rental free mineral operations are
analogous to a gift of steel and rubber to automobile manufacturers, or
free office rental to an accounting firm, courtesy of the U.S.
Government. <SUP>13</SUP>
There are also federal land parcels in Minnesota, Missouri and
Ilinois where miners pay royalties for extraction of hardrock minerals.
And even on federal lands, mining companies are willing to pay
royalties, to other mining companies but not to the taxpayer.
<SUP>14</SUP> In October 1993, Newmont Mining Corporation leased 1872
Mining Law claims on BLM Land at Grassy Mountain in Oregon from the
Atlas Corporation. Newmont paid a $22.5 million cash bonus and a $5 net
smelter royalty production.
A net smelter royalty of between 8% and 12.5% should be enacted.
The proceeds from this royalty should be used to fund abandoned mine
cleanup.
We Should Let Mining Compete With Other Land Uses
131 years ago it may have been possible to make a case that mining
deserved preferential treatment on public land, over all other uses.
Today there is no social or economic good that justifies this
preferential treatment. There are public lands that deserve protection,
and there are public lands that are more suitable for other economic or
recreational purposes.
Land managers should have the authority and discretion to protect
environmentally significant public lands, weigh other land uses, and
deny permits for poorly planned mines. A mining permit application must
clearly demonstrate, before mining begins, how the mining and
reclamation project will occur so as to minimize environmental impacts.
Land managers must have the authority to deny mining permits in
environmentally fragile areas, or critical wildlife habitats and areas
otherwise found to be unsuitable for mining.
We Should Protect Our Public Lands and Environment
Environmental safeguards must protect water resources and prevent
significant long-term environmental damage. It is worth noting that a
1987 study by the EPA rated problems related to mining waste as second
only to global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion in terms of
ecological risk. The report concludes ``with high certainty'' that the
release to the environment of mining waste ``can result in profound,
generally irreversible destruction of ecosystems.'' In a 1985 report
the EPA stated that mining for hardrock minerals, asbestos, and
phosphate alone generates 1 to 2 billion metric tons of waste each
year, and that ``perhaps 56% of the waste generated could be considered
potentially hazardous to human health or the environment.'' Mining has
polluted 12,000 miles of rivers and streams and 180,000 acres of lakes.
<SUP>15</SUP>
Environmental safeguards should include provisions for water
protection, full cleanup and reclamation, environmental operating
standards, enforcement requirements, and guarantees that the mining
company will pay for full closure and cleanup. We are all familiar with
the Summitville nightmare. In 1992, the Summitville Consolidated Mining
Company declared bankruptcy and walked away from its environmentally
disastrous cyanide, heap-leach gold mine in the San Juan Mountains of
southern Colorado. Taxpayers, meanwhile, have been left with a
devastated landscape and an enormous cleanup bill. So far the State and
EPA have spent $130 million dollars to reclaim and restore the site,
and expect to spend another $45 million dollars before the job is done.
<SUP>16</SUP> With a reclamation bond of $4.7 million <SUP>17</SUP>,
taxpayer liability equates to approximately $170.3 million. This is
today's problem because the taxpayer bill is still mounting.
The Public Should Participate in Mining Decision on Public Lands
The public must have the right to fully participate in mine
decisions on public lands. This includes access to information, the
right to comment on permit and regulatory actions, the right to
petition the government to designate an area unsuitable for mining, the
right to file citizen complaints, the right to accompany an inspector
to a site, and citizen suit provisions to compel enforcement. The
public must have the right to fully participate in mine decisions on
public lands.
ZORTMAN-LANDUSKY, A REFORM CASE STUDY
The Zortman-Landusky Mine (ZL) is a prime example of why the 1872
Mining Law needs urgent reform The Zortman-Landusky mines is located on
BLM managed lands in the Little Rocky Mountains of Montana. It is the
home of the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes of Fort Belknap who have
a strong cultural and spiritual connection with the Little Rockies. In
fact, Spirit Mountain, where the mine site is located was considered a
sacred site.
This was a large-scale open-pit cyanide heap leach gold mine. It
was the largest gold mine in Montana and it mined the lowest grade ore
in the United States. It caused more land disturbance per amount of
gold extracted than any other gold mine in the U.S. During typical
operations, more than 55 tons of ore are processed to yield a single
ounce of gold.
During its operation, Zortman-Landusky experienced a litany of
cyanide solution leaks and spills, stability failures, surface and
groundwater contamination, bird and wildlife fatalities, and other
problems. Streams emanating from the mine area, including water flowing
onto the reservation, were seriously polluted with acid and heavy
metals. The mine experienced numerous cyanide spills. There have been
severe problems with acid streams and fish kills. Following a major
spill, cyanide appeared in domestic drinking water in a mine worker's
housing unit south of the mine.
The mine was operated by Pegasus Gold Incorporated. Responsibility
for the mine's troubled track record rests not only with Pegasus Gold,
but the 1872 Mining Law and weak environmental safeguards.
Things got worse when the stock of Pegasus plunged in late 1997 due
to the falling price of gold and legal troubles. Pegasus declared
chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 16, 1998.
Today in the state of Montana, government officials estimate that
this recently abandoned open-pit cyanide heap-leach gold mine could
cost state taxpayers $8 million in cleanup costs. <SUP>18</SUP> An
independent mining engineer has estimated that the cleanup bill to
taxpayers could be an additional $90 million. It is estimated that
Pegasus produced $360 million worth of gold at the mine and returned $0
to the taxpayer. And it is likely that the taxpayer will get stuck with
a substantial cleanup bill.
During the bankruptcy proceedings, the company outraged both state
officials and the public when it sought to pay executives a bonus of $5
million, just as state officials revealed that taxpayers could get hit
with a cleanup bill of $8 million. And in June the company appointed by
the state to handle reclamation, was fired because it had already spent
its entire annual budget in just six months.
There has been a history of problems like this with cyanide process
gold mines in Montana. As a result, in 1998, Montana voters passed a
ban on all new cyanide process mines.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR COMPREHENSIVE MINING LAW REFORM
It has been ten years since the last significant attempt was made
to reform the mining law. There is too much at stake on our public
lands, in our Western communities, for American taxpayers, and for the
mining industry, to delay further.
Over the years, a number of bills have been introduced under the
reform label that are actually not true reform bills because they fail
to adequately address the fundamental environmental and fiscal
shortcomings of the mining law. These bills typically contain miniscule
royalties and wide loopholes for escaping royalty payment, fail to
address important environmental protection issues, and do not allow
land managers to weigh other uses of public lands. One telltale sign of
a sham reform bill is the use of a ``net proceeds'' royalty. The ``net
proceeds'' royalty allows companies to deduct so many costs before
paying a royalty that the taxpayer ends up with almost nothing.
Some will argue that now is not the time to reform the mining law
because mining companies are already suffering as a result of today's
low mineral prices. But mineral prices have, and always will,
fluctuate. It is in the public's interest to take action that will
stimulate other commercial and non-commercial uses of our public lands,
including preservation. And it is in our best interest to pursue
environmental objectives that will lead to job creation in mining
communities or former mining communities, such as abandoned mine
cleanup. Taxpayers deserve a fair royalty and our public lands deserve
environmental safeguards, whatever the price of metals happens to be.
Policies that provide public subsidies to mining companies create
an incentive for inefficient mine operations on public lands, perhaps
in places that are best used for other purposes. These subsidies lead
to an unfair economic advantage for some companies and may result in
inefficiencies and over-supply. The net impact of such policies is to
make mining more attractive on federal lands than on other lands. ``The
Federal government, by forgiving this normal mineral business cost, has
distorted the distribution of economic activity, discouraging mining on
private, state, and tribal land and encouraging it on Federal land.''
<SUP>19</SUP> Continuation of this policy is not in the country's
economic interest.
It is time to put an end to the subsidies and favors that mining
companies receive on public lands. The net results of 1872 Mining Law
reform will be healthier communities and healthier ecosystems, jobs
creation, and, we believe, a healthier mining industry. <SUP>20</SUP>
A mining industry that is rewarded for its environmental
performance, and penalized for its environmental mistakes, will be a
healthier industry, both in the United States and around the world. It
is in the interest of this Subcommittee to create incentives for better
environmental performance on our public lands. Improved environmental
performance will increase the competitiveness, marketability, and
performance of U.S. mining companies.
The United States economy has developed to the point that mineral
development no longer needs preferential treatment on our public lands.
The way we manage and use our public lands today will have an impact on
the landscape and opportunities we pass on to future generations. The
federal government has a duty to manage those lands in a manner that is
in the public interest, not in the short-term interest of a particular
industry. Is it wise to allow management of our public lands to be
governed by a 19th century law that no longer reflects, and in fact,
runs contrary to popular opinion? Sixty-seven percent of all Americans
say no. <SUP>21</SUP>
To summarize, we recommend that Congress permanently end public
lands giveaways to mining companies, impose a fair royalty for mining
on public lands, create an abandoned mine cleanup program, and end the
policy of giving mining companies first-use of our public lands. Thank
you.
``... After eight years in this office, I have come to the
conclusion that the most important piece of unfinnished
business on the nation's resource agenda is the complete
replacment of the Mining Law of 1872.''
Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, 15 January
1969
ENDNOTES
<SUP>1</SUP> Federal Land Management: The Mining Law of 1872 Needs
Revision, GAO Report/RCED-89-72, March 1989, 2.
<SUP>2</SUP> Multiple Conflicts Over Multiple Uses, Reform of the 1872
Mining Law: A Primer, John L. Dobra, ed. Terry L. Anderson,
Political Economy Research Center, 1994, 39.
<SUP>3</SUP> The ``Crown Jewel Mine Decision,'' U.S. Department of the
Interior, Solicitor John Leshy, Mar. 25, 1999.
<SUP>4</SUP> Limitations on Patenting Millsites Under the Mining Law of
1872, U.S. Department of the Interior, Solicitor John Leshy,
Nov. 7, 1997.
<SUP>5</SUP> Pub. L. No. 86-390, 74 Stat. 7 (1960), codified at 30
U.S.C. sec. 42 (b) (1994).
<SUP>6</SUP> The original bill was introduced in 1959 as S.2033. 105
Cong. Rec. 8734 (1959).
<SUP>7</SUP> American Mining Congress, The Mining Law and Public Lands,
at 29, Jan. 11, 1968.
<SUP>8</SUP> Federal Land Management: The Mining Law of 1872 Needs
Revision, GAO Report/RCED-89-72, Mar. 1989, 3.
<SUP>9</SUP> Ibid
<SUP>10</SUP> Mineral Policy Center estimates. See MPC methodology in
Mineral Policy Center, Burden of Gilt, June 1993, 28-31.
<SUP>11</SUP> Abandoned Hardrock and Noncoal Mines in the West, Draft,
Western Governor's Association, March 24, 1998.
<SUP>12</SUP> Burden of Gilt, Mineral Policy Center, June 1993, 3.
<SUP>13</SUP> Dr. W. Thomas Goerold, Testimony before the Senate
Subcommittee on Mineral Development and Production, Sept. 13,
1990.
<SUP>14</SUP> Ibid
<SUP>15</SUP> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fish Kills Caused
by Pollutioin, Fifteen Year Summary 1961-1975, Apr. 1978, 8.
<SUP>16</SUP> Gold mine cleanup progresses, The Denver Post, June 16,
1999.
<SUP>17</SUP> Summitville Consolidated Mining Company Inc./Galactic
Resources Inc./Galactic Resources Ltd., Summitville Mine Site,
State of Colorado, Division of Minerals and Geology, Feb. 1,
1993.
<SUP>18</SUP> Mining company sues state over cleanup plans, Great Falls
Tribune, Sept. 3, 1998.
<SUP>19</SUP> American Mining Congress, The Mining Law and Public
Lands, at 29, Jan. 11, 1968
<SUP>20</SUP> Mineral Policy Center, Thomas Michael Power, Not All That
Glitters, 1993.
<SUP>21</SUP> Findings from a National Bipartisan Survey of Voter
Attitudes Toward Mining Law Reform, Prepared for MPC et al by
Frederic,/Schneiders Inc., September 1994.
______
BILLINGS GAZETTE
June 17, 2003
Stillwater purchase approved
Jan Falstad
DENVER--Given the choice between possible bankruptcy or being
controlled by a Russian mining giant, Stillwater Mining Co. investors
chose the Russians.
The sale of a majority of Stillwater stock to Norilsk Nickel of
Moscow marks the largest purchase yet of an American corporation by a
Russian company.
Following Monday's special shareholders meeting in Denver,
Stillwater Chief Executive Frank McAllister said the stock sale will
accomplish three things: ``We brought financial stability to our
company. We brought time to restore confidence in palladium and
increase demand. And we preserved the jobs.''
Stillwater vice president John Stark said 62 percent of the
company's investors voted on the proposal. Investors representing 22
million shares voted ``yes'' to the Norilsk deal, while those holding
about 5 million shares said ``no.''
Also Monday morning, McAllister announced the Federal Trade
Commission had waived any antitrust concerns over the sale. With the
federal roadblocks gone, McAllister said acquisition will be completed
quickly.
``The closing will take place in the next two weeks,'' he said.
After the vote, union president Brad Shorey, reached in Columbus,
said he was disappointed.
He said a majority of the 1,030 miners represented by Local 8-001
of the Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers
International Union rejected the buyout.
He said he has never supported giving Norilsk controlling interest
in the only American platinum and palladium mine and he worries about
upcoming labor negotiations. The PACE contract expires in July 2004 and
negotiations start soon.
``If we ended up in a labor dispute, what makes you think we're not
doing exactly what they want?'' Shorey said. ``They could ride the line
and play at good faith bargaining, while pushing us into a strike.''
Norilsk Nickel has been facing labor problems at the mines it owns
near the Arctic Circle.
Dave MacAusland, who owns a small business in Portland, Ore., and
owns a cabin in Red Lodge, asked if investors could express their
opinions before the final votes were cast Monday.
After a testy exchange, McAllister let MacAusland speak.
His emotional comments focused on why the United States would cede
control of its only platinum and palladium mine--one of three major
mines in the world--to any foreign corporation.
After speaking for 10 minutes, MacAusland received a round of
applause from several other shareholders, the only applause of the
meeting.
McAllister responded by saying the United States is already
dependent on the world for many metals we formerly produced. America
consumes half of the world's the world's palladium, but Stillwater
produces only 5 percent. So, the U.S. is already a net importer of
palladium, he said.
Another investor asked McAllister what alternatives to the Norilsk
sale the company was considering.
``I cannot answer about alternatives,'' he said. ``Obviously, we're
in a very desperate and serious state at this time.''
Stillwater's board twice rejected another offer by American
investors to raise $100 million for Stillwater by selling more shares.
McAllister said that deal wouldn't have generated the cash needed
to pay operating expenses and to pay down high debt.
As to fears the Russians would shut down the Nye or East Boulder
mines in order to sell more of their own palladium, McAllister said
that won't happen.
``They can't pick up the mines in the mountains of Montana and move
them to Russia,'' he said.
No one representing Norilsk attended the Denver meeting at the
Hyatt Regency Tech Center.
Carl Edstrom, a metals engineer and investor from Arvada, Colo.,
asked why the costs of production at Montana's mines jumped from $178
per ounce of palladium five years ago to $354 per ounce today.
McAllister blamed low production at the East Boulder mine, where
the concentration of the ore was much lower than expected.
Platinum and palladium are interchangeable in the most common use
for catalytic converters. So McAllister said he'll try to convince auto
makers to switch from platinum, costing $680 an ounce, to palladium
which has fallen from more than $1,000 an ounce to $180.
After the meeting, Dennis Schmidt, a retired wheat farmer and
investor from Lawrence, Kan., said he still was doing a ``slow burn''
about the loss of value in his 20,000 shares.
``The management ought to be in jail for arranging this transaction
and going through with it,'' he said.
McAllister said the company has enough cash to perhaps make it
through this year, but has no ``rainy day'' fund left if something goes
wrong.
This stock sale accomplishes a lot, which he said Montana
politicians understand, but workers don't grasp yet.
``The employees are worried about their jobs just as I am'' he
said. ``Well, it's done and they still have their jobs--the majority of
them still have their jobs.''
McAllister also said with the cash influx he's excited to pursue
some other business activities outside of mining.
``Will we do something else? I hope so,'' he said.
He wouldn't comment on what ideas he has, except to say Stillwater
will conduct palladium research and promotion and will expand a small
sideline in Columbus that recycles catalytic converters.
McAllister is eligible for up to a $2 million transaction bonus for
negotiating the Norilsk deal. The board will determine the exact
amount. He also remains as Stillwater's top executive unless the new
board controlled by Norilsk changes management.
JP Morgan, which handled the financing, gets $5 million.
The high costs of attorneys to handle Washington, D.C., legal and
lobbying work haven't been tallied yet, McAllister said.
The powerful firm of Baker Botts lobbied the deal through the
federal agencies. The lead lobbyist was James Baker, son of the former
secretary of state.
Half of the $100 million in cash Stillwater will receive when the
agreement is closed goes to pay off debt.
Norilsk is one of the world's largest metal producers and it mines
palladium as a byproduct of copper and nickel production near the
Arctic Circle.
Critics said mining palladium as a byproduct means Norilsk pays
only $24 per ounce, a fraction of the $354 price tag at the Montana
mines.
Even though Norilsk trades publicly in Russia, Russian secrecy laws
don't allow the company to report how much palladium it is producing or
has stockpiled.
Without that crucial data, critics say Norilsk's accounting isn't
transparent or generally accepted.
When the deal was announced last November, Norilsk agreed to pay
Stillwater $341 million for 51 percent of the company stock.
Stillwater would get $100 million in cash and the balance in metal,
877,000 ounces of palladium.
Since then, the price of palladium has dropped dramatically. That
means the total sale price today is around $258 million or $83 million
less than anticipated.
When the sale is completed, Stillwater will issue 45,463,222 new
shares of common stock to a subsidiary of Norilsk called Norimet
Limited.
Norilsk has the option of buying up even more shares up to 56
percent ownership if the stock price stays below $7.50 for two weeks
after closing.
Stillwater's stock closed up 21 cents Monday at $4.83.
Union president Shorey said some miners who are financially able to
quit said they will.
``They won't work for a Russian-controlled company,'' Shorey said.
``At first I thought it was because they were older, but it's young and
old people.''
The mood at the mine Monday was watchful, Shorey said.
``From this day forward, we're going to be holding our breath to
see what happens.''
______
THE PLAIN DEALER
(Cleveland Plain Dealer)
May 22, 1994
FORTUNE HIDDEN UNDER DESERT
CLEVELAND FIRM WANTS TO BUY LAND WITH RARE ORE FOR $26,487
KEITH EPSTEIN PLAIN DEALER BUREAU
In the harsh desert of western Utah south of the Great Salt Lake, a
desolate plateau of scrub and sagebrush stretches to the horizon. It is
home to gophers, jackrabbits, rattlesnakes and the occasional coyote.
Groundwater is too brackish for crops. The nearest house is 40 miles
away.
``Nobody's ever wanted to homestead out there, and nobody ever goes
to a place like that to live or have fun,'' observes industrial
geologist Lee Davis. ``To the ordinary fella, it would seem
worthless.''
But this desert, owned by America's taxpayers, conceals a vast
fortune. Beneath 2,548 acres alone is a rare bertrandite ore, which,
when processed, could be worth up to $15 billion.
Brush Wellman Inc., a Cleveland-based mining company, wants to buy
those acres from the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management
for a mere $26,487--around $10.40 an acre.
That would be one of the richest lodes ever purchased from the
government--worth potentially almost as much as last week's highly
publicised sale of land with perhaps $18 billion in gold to a Canadian
mining company. ``The biggest gold heist since the days of Butch
Cassidy,'' Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt complained on Monday as he
transferred 1950 acres in Nevada to Toronto-based American Barrick
Resources Corp. for a mere $9,765. ``It is a ripoff.''
Babbitt is powerless to stop the sale because, for many years,
Congress has declined to curb sales of precious public property. Dirt-
cheap prices meant for grizzled miners of 122 years ago are still on
the books.
Babbitt vows to insist upon replacing such sales with royalties
that produce a ``reasonable return'' to taxpayers. But the House and
Senate are far from agreeing on how to do so.
While Brush Wellman disputes some figures in this article, arguing
that its high cost of exploration and development should be considered,
the company agrees with the bottom line: By paying the government just
thousands, it can obtain land worth millions.
``Nobody's disputing that,'' said Hugh D. Hanes, vice-president of
environmental and government affairs. ``It's a relatively small amount
(returned to the Treasury) in comparison to what's in the ground.''
Similar stories are unfolding elsewhere. In Oregon, for one,
Denver-based Newmont Mining Corp. hopes to spend $1,560 for 60 acres
containing most of an estimated $373 million in gold--and tens of
millions more in silver.
For five months Western senators have been stalling final action to
replace the 1872 mining law. While they dawdle, companies continue to
wrest from public lands some $1.7 billion in gold and other minerals
each year--with little or no direct compensation to the federal
treasury.
That amount is only the General Accounting Office's guess.
Government officials don't know how many millions of tons of precious
minerals there are on federal lands, or what it's all worth--
complicating any attempts to set a fair asking price.
``We don't have good facts,'' Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
acknowledges. Babbitt told a congressional committee he was ``really
astonished'' when trying to learn from his own employees the volume and
value of mineral production on public lands, data that companies
consider confidential.
``The answer I got was, `we don't have any','' Babbitt said.
The tale of Brush Wellman's beryllium bonanza illustrates how
government and corporations often cooperate to advance corporate
interests, sometimes without fairly compensating taxpayers.
At stake is the future of 432 million acres of publicly owned
lands--and the untallied treasures they contain. These lands are
managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
This article was assembled using corporate documents, government
records, interviews with company insiders, and a computer-assisted
analysis of $131,336 in campaign contributions to members of Congress
by Brush Wellman executives, lobbyists and committees. Checks are not
illegal
The checks that flow each year to politicians from Brush Wellman
and its employees are neither illegal nor random.
As Hanes acknowledged: ``The company tends to support those people
that are supportive of the company.''
Two company supporters, Republican Reps. James Hansen of Utah and
Paul Gillmor of Port Clinton, have received $41,400 from Brush since
1988.
An example of that support occurred last November, when the duo
came within 45 votes of getting the company exempted from House mining
rules requiring higher fees and royalties.
The congressmen argued that, without a financial break, the company
might be forced to shut down the mines. America's only domestic source
of beryllium would thus be jeopardized--and that, they said, elevated
the exemption to a matter of national security.
But Pentagon documents show that the military is ``over goal'' in
its stockpile of beryllium metal. Nor does it need beryl ore or a
beryllium-copper alloy.
Far from being concerned about secure supplies of Brush Wellman's
products, the Pentagon now wants to sell 24,221 tons of beryllium
materials worth $122.9 million.
Explains Beth Offenbacker, spokeswoman for the National Defense
Stockpile Center: ``We feel we don't need it.''
Brush Wellman, Gillmor and Hansen all say they intended only to
fight for workers' jobs and the local economy.
They say they've done nothing that violates official rules or laws.
By all accounts, they are correct--and for that they can thank not only
campaign finance laws, but the General Mining Law of 1872, a statute
dating to the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. Brush coverts
bertrandite
Brush Wellman's sophisticated methods of extracting a fortune from
the rocks by refining minerals into products with far-reaching
technological applications would have dazzled even the hardiest, most
crusty ``Forty-niner.''
Like other modern mining companies, Brush uses a chemical process
to leach ore. Like other modern companies, it literally can move
mountains and create cratered moonscapes.
Brush converts the bertrandite ore, found in Utah, Brazil, Africa,
India and China, into light-weight, harder-than-steel beryllium. Its
uses include satellites, nuclear reactors, airplanes, computers and
cars.
Brush Wellman's products are in nuclear warheads. Every strategic
missile in the U.S. arsenal contains beryllium, as did the ``smart
bombs'' dropped on Iraq during the Gulf War.
What President Grant had in mind--around the time of Custer's last
stand--was to encourage exploration and development of the western
wilderness.
He wanted it used, opened up and settled. Thus, he offered to
``patent'' cheap land titles--for miners, not multinational
conglomerates that sometimes scar the landscape and foul waters. But
Utah and federal mining officials say that Brush Wellman's
environmental record is impeccable--better than law currently requires.
For years, aggressive lobbying by mining corporations and railing
by western politicians has thwarted attempts to revise the
anachronistic law. Politicians such as Sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M.,
often complain of a ``war on the West.''
But the Clinton administration's vow to seek market-based fees for
use of federal lands for mining, grazing and timber-harvesting has
created new pressure for reform.
``Just the first step in an assault on the west,'' Sen. Conrad
Burns, R-Mont., complained during last year's debate on ranchers' fees.
Clinton, who made electoral gains in the usually Republican west,
isn't likely to go too far in alienating his newfound western friends.
Nor is the public lands brawl strictly east versus west.
Today's mines are more likely to be run from corporate boardrooms
in Toronto or Cleveland. In fact, 33 companies now mining on public
lands purchase $901 million in equipment and supplies that translates
into jobs in the east, a fact not lost on eastern congressmen.
In Ohio, four companies besides Brush--Oglebay-Norton, Cleveland
Cliffs, Dresser Industries and AEP--have mined on public lands. A
fifth, Timken, is a major supplier of heavy mining equipment. House
votes for royalty
In November, the House voted overwhelmingly to end the practice of
selling cheap land to mining companies. Instead, companies would pay
the government 8% of the processed minerals' value.
Amounting to some $100 million a year, such a royalty--
significantly lower than the 12.5% coal, natural gas and oil companies
have been paying for years--would hardly make a dent in the national
debt.
And it would only begin to help pay for cleanups of thousands of
old abandoned mines, many of which are fouling land and waters in
locations throughout the Western United States.
Over time, such a royalty would have cost companies such as Brush
Wellman hundreds of millions.
Thus, the industry supported a Senate-backed end to the land sales
that imposes what environmentalists regard as a ``sham'' royalty--2% of
the value of minerals before they are processed.
Companies also could deduct major business expenses.
Since then, key members of the House and Senate who are supposed to
reach a compromise have only dawdled, and now lobbying has intensified.
Last month, for instance, Hanes made his pitch to key members as part
of an industry-sponsored ``Hardrock Minerals Day.''
Meanwhile, mining companies are wisely hedging their bets by
seeking to ``patent'' their claims more quickly than ever. These are
legal and administrative steps they must take before the government
grants them title to the land.
As Congress began seriously debating an end to cheap land sales,
mining companies scrambled to start applying for purchases. There's a
``patent rush'' out there--a frenzy to buy before it's too late.
In California and Nevada, for instance, more than 100 applications
are pending; a few years ago, there were never more than 40 at any
time.
``Companies know that something will eventually happen (in
Congress), and with a foot in the door they may be able to keep that
door open,'' observes Walter Phelps, who heads the Bureau of Land
Management's office in Utah.
Interior Secretary Babbitt has tried to stall some sales--including
the gold mine now lost to the Canadian company--until Congress passes a
new mining law. A federal magistrate criticized Babbitt, saying this
amouted to little more than a ``shameful de-facto moratorium'' on
issuing mining patents.
Brush Wellman officers, meanwhile, hope that the company is far
enough in the process that the eventual reform of mining laws will not
apply; the company will be ``grandfathered'' in. If not, the company
threatens a lawsuit.
``Our concern,'' says Hanes, ``is protecting the investment we've
made in the patenting process.''
By that, he means the money spent on lawyers--about $1 million--to
prepare eight different applications. Moreover, Hanes says the company
has spent more than $8 million on exploration, and that investing in
Utah was a ``bet-your-company'' move in the first place.
``Hardly a giveaway,'' he said. ``We're not getting a free ride.
The ore we mine on public lands requires a major up-front investment.''
Regula seeks reform
``A specious argument,'' responds Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Navarre.
``First of all, they don't have to buy the land to mine it. And their
investment is part of doing business whether they own the land or lease
it. The fact is, nothing goes to the government.''
For several years now, Regula has persuaded his House colleagues to
ban the cheap land sales--only to be stymied in the Senate where, he
complains, ``westerners always kill any mining reform. It's
outrageous.''
To date, some 3.2 million acres of federal land--an area the size
of Connecticut--have been sold, some for as little as a few dollars an
acre.
And, Regula says, some land has even been sold back to the
government after companies have squeezed what they could from the
land--at a profit.
Davis, who was there on the plateau of sagebrush at the beginning
of the beryllium mine, in 1968, complains that environmentalists and
eastern politicians have distorted the issue.
``The idea that mining companies are getting ground cheap and not
paying the government much is completely wrong,'' says Davis, who was
Brush Wellman's chief geologist until retiring three years ago. ``We
pay an awful lot of state taxes and we help a lot of economies locally.
``And,'' he adds, ``we'd be happy to give the land back to the
government. After we've mined it.''
______
MINERAL POLICY CENTER
PLAYING ON AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS
mining companies' false argument on ``strategic metals and minerals''
Seeking to boost profits under the guise of national security,
mining corporations promote mining in the U.S. as a source of strategic
minerals. In reality, most mining in the United States is for metals
totally unrelated to national security. At the same time, metals mining
puts U.S. taxpayers, western communities and our environment at risk.
<bullet> For years, the federal government has been selling off
excess supplies of ``strategic metals and minerals'' to private
entities.
<bullet> A storehouse of these materials was set aside after World
War II under the Pentagon's strategic minerals program. But in 1992,
Congress deemed most of the storehouse unnecessary and authorized the
sale of the bulk of these materials.
National security should not be exploited as a distraction from the
real issues and problems of hardrock mining.
<bullet> The vast majority of mining on U.S. public land is for
nonstrategic purposes. 85% of gold mined in America is used for
jewelry.
<bullet> Metals like gold and copper--which never appeared on the
Pentagon's list of strategic minerals--generated more than $5 billion
in 2001 for multinational mining companies.
<bullet> Many strategic metals and minerals must be imported, as
they don't exist in America's ore bodies. No amount of mining on
American land will make our country less dependent on other countries
for these materials.
Hardrock mining operations endanger public health.
<bullet> Toxic chemicals released in mass quantities by mines
include lead, arsenic and mercury.
<bullet> 335 million pounds of lead were released by mines in
2001, according to the industry's own reports to EPA. Lead poisoning
can permanently damage a child's brain, nervous system and kidneys. It
can impede growth and cause hearing loss, learning difficulties,
vomiting, headaches and appetite loss.
<bullet> 336 million pounds of arsenic were released by mines in
2001, according to the industry's own reports to EPA. Arsenic consumed
by humans can cause cancer of the bladder, liver and skin, according to
the National Academy of Sciences. Arsenic is associated with birth
defects, as well as damage to the human heart, blood vessels and
nervous system.
<bullet> 4.3 million pounds of mercury were released by mines in
2001, according to the industry's own reports to EPA. Mercury is a
potent neurotoxin. Children and infants exposed to mercury often
experience delays in developing motor skills like walking and talking.
New concerns center on increased numbers of women with elevated blood
mercury levels, as this dangerous toxin can transfer through a placenta
to a developing fetus, or to a newborn through breastfeeding.
American taxpayers are continually fleeced by multinational mining
companies.
<bullet> Multinational mining companies have taken $245 billion
worth of precious metals and minerals from land owned by U.S. taxpayers
without paying a cent in royalties over the past 131 years. In
contrast, coal, oil and gas companies pay 8% to 12.5% royalties--a
total of $35 billion between 1994 and 2001 alone.
<bullet> A tax break amounting to $100 million per year is given
to hardrock companies based on the declining value of minerals, even
though the industry never pays for the minerals in the first place.
<bullet> Taxpayer costs to clean up more than 500,000 abandoned
mines littering the U.S. landscape could total $32 billion to $72
billion.
<bullet> Taxpayers could be liable for $12 billion to clean up
costs currently operating mines, according to the Center for Science in
Public Participation.
Devastating environmental consequences of hardrock mining continue
to grow.
<bullet> The nation's #1 toxic polluter is hardrock mining,
releasing 2.8 billion pounds of chemicals like arsenic, lead, mercury
and other heavy metals in 2001, according to the industry's own reports
to EPA.
<bullet> Portions of 40% of western watersheds are contaminated by
mining, according to EPA.
<bullet> Half a million abandoned mines litter the U.S., emitting
acid mine drainage and other pollution.
<bullet> More than 70 hardrock mines already have become Superfund
sites.
<bullet> Mine pollution includes everything from heavy metal
contamination to cyanide spills and acid mine drainage. Streams
seriously affected by acid mine drainage and heavy metal contamination
are biologically dead.
Real reform of the 1872 Mining Law is needed to protect taxpayers
and the environment.
<bullet> Strong environmental standards for hardrock mining should
be enacted to protect western communities and valuable water resources.
<bullet> Hardrock mining companies should be required to pay an
8%-12% royalty to taxpayers for taking precious minerals from public
lands--just like coal, oil and gas companies do.
<bullet> Giveaways of public land to multinational mining
companies for less than $5 an acre should be permanently ended.
<bullet> Special places, like wilderness areas and sacred sites,
should be protected from irresponsible and destructive mining
practices.
<bullet> Western communities should be allowed to have greater
input into mining proposals that will directly impact the economic and
public health of their area.