0.8 C
Belgrade
Supported byspot_img
spot_img

Stakes High for Energy Transition Metals: Proposed US Mining Law Revision Sparks Clash Between Industry and Environmentalists

Member of Europium Groupspot_img
Supported byspot_img

The energy transition that requires vast amounts of minerals like copper and lithium to move the economy from dependence on fossil fuels to renewable sources of electricity has created a shift in the tension between environmentalists and the mining industry.

Conservation groups find themselves opposing mining projects that aim to extract metals like copper and lithium needed to make electric vehicles, wind farms and solar panels. They worry that, even though the end goal will help decrease carbon emissions, a rush to develop the mines may skirt environmental protections put in place over the years.

One of the latest battlegrounds is the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. Introduced by Democrat and Republican legislators from mining-heavy states Nevada, Idaho and Alaska, the measure aims to explicitly allow mining companies with claims on federal land to dump rock waste on public land next door, even if those adjacent claims aren’t proven to contain valuable minerals.

Supported by

This has been the practice under the General Mining Act of 1872, which governs hard rock mining of minerals including gold and copper under land owned by the United States and leased by miners.

Over the century and a half of the law’s existence, mining has evolved from pickaxes to large industrial operations that remove much more ore and waste rock than the hand-held shovels of yore. Mining companies often deposit that waste on adjacent unprofitable claims rather than on top of land that contains valuable minerals.

Conservation groups have been contesting that. In 2019 a district judge sided with environmentalists and tribes fighting the Rosemont open-pit copper mine in Arizona owned by Canadian miner Hudbay Minerals Inc. In 2022 a federal appeals court upheld the decision that the company’s only valid claims were on land it could prove contained valuable minerals, thus preventing the mine from putting waste on other claims in the area.

Ramifications of the Rosemont decision have been rippling through the mining industry. Based on the precedent, a judge blocked a Nevada molybdenum mine owned by Colorado-based miner New Moly LLC and South Korean steelmaker Posco Holdings Inc. Another judge said the Bureau of Land Management erred in its decision to approve the Lithium Americas Corp. Thacker Pass project in Nevada but stopped short of vacating the decision.

“If judges use the original outline of the law, there are a lot of mines in the U.S. that could be challenged in this way,” Simon Jowitt, mining industry consultant and associate professor of economic geology at the University of Nevada Reno, told Benzinga.

 

Source: Benzinga

Supported byElevatePR Digital

Related News

India set to decide on import restrictions for metallurgical coke

India is set to make a decision soon on whether to implement import restrictions on metallurgical coke, a crucial ingredient in steelmaking. According to...

AMMC targets major production milestones by 2030 with ongoing development projects

Almalyk Mining and Metallurgical Combine (AMMC) has set ambitious production goals for 2030, aiming to achieve annual output of 500,000 tons of copper, 50...

Kazatomprom partners with Jordan uranium mining company on joint uranium exploration and extraction

Kazatomprom, Kazakhstan's national atomic company, has entered into a collaboration with Jordan Uranium Mining Company (JUMCO) to jointly explore and extract uranium in Jordan....

Saudi Arabia boosts mining sector to secure global mineral supply and support clean energy transition

As part of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 initiative, the country is making significant strides toward creating a sustainable economy driven by clean energy. To...
Supported by
Supported by
Supported by
error: Content is protected !!