By Ernest Scheider
(Reuters) – Mining trade groups are planning a push in Washington to revive and expand the long-defunct Bureau of Mines, an effort aimed at streamlining how the U.S. government regulates and subsidizes production of critical minerals and that coincides with the 2024 presidential election.
The lobbying campaign, details of which have not been previously disclosed, is set to kick off this month ahead of the Republican and Democratic political conventions. It will contrast with the fragmented oversight of mining in the United States with Australia and other countries where major mining agencies report directly to heads of government, according to three people with direct knowledge of the effort.
Lithium and other base metals are used in many electronic devices, and demand for them is expected to rise further in the coming years to produce electric vehicle batteries. China is the world’s largest producer or processor of many base metals.
Mining policy in the United States is currently administered by multiple agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
The office closed in 1996 amid budget cuts. Proponents argue that pushing to revive it and add new responsibilities would allow Washington to craft a unified policy for critical minerals in terms of permitting, research funding, industry grants and loans that could span presidential administrations and help the United States better compete with China.
“Right now, mining decisions are spread across multiple government agencies, and that makes transparency and accountability very difficult,” said Rich Nolan, president of the National Mining Association trade group, which is leading the effort along with the American Exploration and Mining Association and the Mining, Metals and Exploration Association.
The Mining Professionals Association, which represents academics and others who conduct mining-related research, is drafting a position paper that the other two groups will use to lobby members of Congress, according to one of the sources.
The source said the groups acknowledged they were unlikely to succeed this year but hoped to do so in the next Congress, which runs from 2025 to 2027, adding that there was no estimate yet of how much funding the revived office might need.
“If a new office can bring some efficiency to the duplicate and inefficient permitting process, it could be a huge benefit to the country,” said Mitch Krebs, CEO of Core Mining (NYSE:CK), a Chicago-based silver mining company.
Critics of the latest plan point out that the original Bureau of Mines never oversaw the issuance of permits for mines, and that the mines could still face opposition from conservation groups and environmental regulators.
“Bringing the Bureau of Mines back is not going to solve any of these problems,” says Michelle Michot-Vos, a researcher on energy, minerals and materials at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “There’s nothing serious on the table that would make the mining industry work better than it does now.”
Moreover, it would be necessary to elevate the office to a Cabinet-level agency if it were to report directly to the president, a move that would require congressional approval.
“We continue to promote responsible and sustainable mining through the efforts of federal agencies like the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense,” White House spokesman Angelo Fernandez Hernandez told Reuters.
Founded in 1910 after a series of mining disasters, the office grew to a staff of more than 4,000 by 1960, inspecting mines, conducting mineral research, studying specialty minerals for the space age, and operating a helium separation plant that supplied NASA.
In 1996, its $152 million annual budget was eliminated as part of a budget deal between Republicans and then-President Bill Clinton.
Rhea Graham, appointed by Clinton in 1994 as the first black woman to lead the office, was given just 90 days to close it.
“When the office was closed, it sent a signal about how much we as a nation valued science and how funding science was more risky than people might have thought,” Graham said.
