Stephen Stapczynski
THE $6 billion (R74bn) Resolution Copper Project in Arizona was discovered almost two decades ago and was slated to become North America’s largest copper mine. But don’t expect production to start any time soon.
Co-owners Rio Tinto Group and BHP Billiton waited 10 years to get the federal approval in December to gain access to the land. It will probably take another five years to get permits from various federal, state and local agencies for the over 1km-deep shaft in Arizona.
The tortuous bureaucratic process to approve new mining projects in the US is among the slowest in the world, hindering access to mineral resources that the National Mining Association values at $6.2 trillion. It is drawing criticism from mining executives and has spurred a Republican-backed push to reform mining laws.
Very slow
“The US, by and large, is the longest of the permitting exercises,” Diane Garrett, the chief executive of Romarco Minerals, said.
Romarco began applying for permits for its Haile gold mine in South Carolina in January 2011 and got federal approval in November. Because the mine is on private land, fewer agencies can weigh in on permits than for projects on public land, and the process is typically faster.
Yet, in one case, a federal agency asked the Toronto-based company to duplicate a study it had already completed for Haile, delaying the process by a year.
“These permits should not drag on,” said Garrett, who has also developed mines in Latin America.
Jean-Sébastien Jacques, the head of Rio Tinto’s global copper and coal business, said the permitting process in the US was “very slow” compared with other countries.
The bill
“The current system is complex and often duplicative among various federal agencies,” he said last week at a US Chamber of Commerce round-table conference advocating for shorter permit wait times.
Accelerating the process is the goal of legislation sponsored by Representative Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican.
It would cap environmental reviews at 30 months and limit lawsuits against projects. Similar legislation was passed by the House of Representatives in the past two sessions and failed in the Senate.
The bill would set strict permitting timelines for the development of “critical minerals”, which he broadly defined as gold, copper, coal and almost anything else that could be extracted. “This bill’s aim isn’t to do a favour for the mining industry,” said Amodei. “Minerals play a key part in domestic policy, monetary and fiscal policy, and also have strategic importance.”
Opponents, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said the bill would undercut environmental judicial reviews, and its definition of critical minerals was too broad. – Bloomberg