Dei Gratia Minerals

In Claire Jenns's new article in Mining Technology & MINE Magazine , DGM Principal Gregory Wischer commented on the possibility of reviving the US Bureau of Mines: Gregory Wischer, founder of critical minerals consultancy Dei Gratia Minerals, confirms that a coordinating agency for the permit process “could be very beneficial”. “The industry needs unique knowledge to understand what projects should and shouldn’t be permitted,” he says. ... “Both candidates agree on keeping mining and processing projects in the US,” says Wischer. “In terms of government efficiency, it makes sense to bring back a centralised agency.” There are two obstacles thwarting this lack of political opposition: competing departmental interests and potential costs as the US Government is already weighed down by a $33.1trn national debt. Wischer provides an example: “The DOE will support mineral projects for energy transition goals, versus the Department of Defense supporting materials for munitions. They could push back on ceding funding to a new entity.” https://lnkd.in/ePRKQWqq

In MINING.com, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer discusses five actions that the next US president can take—unilaterally—on day one of a new admin to bolster US mining of critical minerals: stockpiling, subsidies, procurement, tariffs, and permitting. https://lnkd.in/eFSeQBJR Stockpiling. The president could tap the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund and the Defense Production Act (DPA) fund for mineral stockpiling. The Eisenhower Admin used DPA funds for stockpiling during the Cold War, and the president still has this authority (50 USC §4533). Subsidies. The next admin’s Department of Energy could deem mining projects eligible under the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing direct loan program by issuing a draft rule that adds “mining” to 10 CFR 611.2 “Eligible Project” (3). Procurement. The next admin’s Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council could issue a draft rule that adds a new part to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, requiring that acquisitions of specified clean energy technologies contain a certain threshold percentage of minerals extracted in the US. Tariffs. The next president could (likely) impose tariffs on any mineral imports immediately under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The only prerequisite is a national emergency declaration, similar to the Trump admin's now-expired critical minerals executive order. Permitting. The next admin’s US Army Corps of Engineers could issue a regulatory guidance letter directing district engineers to prioritize the review of approved jurisdictional determinations for sites of potential mine projects. Previously, most US mining projects required Clean Water Act section 404 permits—which trigger the National Environmental Policy Act—but the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) circumscribed the areas requiring these permits, possibly lowering the permitting requirements for many mine projects. Determining whether a project requires a section 404 permit, however, can take up to one year based on the district.

In a new article by Eliot Chen in The Wire China on proposals for a revamped US minerals stockpile, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer discussed China’s minerals stockpile and its lessons for modernizing the US minerals stockpile: “By expanding the mandate for the U.S.’s minerals stockpile, Washington would potentially be taking a page out China’s playbook. Through the National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration and its forebears, China has long been ‘the master of the game’ when it comes to leveraging its stockpiles, says Gregory Wischer, principal at Dei Gratia Minerals, a critical minerals consultancy.” “‘China’s stockpile has a dual purpose: one is defensive and the other is economic, to support domestic industry when prices get too high for downstream industries like the electricity sector, and then conversely when prices are too low and domestic producers like copper smelters have difficulty remaining profitable,’ he says.” https://lnkd.in/eBn4fCQg

In Utility Dive, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer discusses how the next presidential administration could amend agency rules and update guidance for funding from the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act to encourage clean energy programs to source US-produced minerals. https://lnkd.in/gqFQTJjk

In a recent article by Rachel Frazin in The Hill on the Department of Labor’s new report on child and forced labor, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer commented: “If [a] material is going to be produced in a manner that violates labor and safety standards, that material should be…tariffed at a higher rate,” said Greg Wischer, founder of consulting firm Dei Gratia Minerals. But he noted implementing such tariffs could have “trade-offs” because it could reduce demand for minerals from already low-income countries, worsening conditions on the ground. https://lnkd.in/e3j4RpKp

In Barron's, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer and Morgan Bazilian discuss how demand-side policies can help spur US mineral production. For example, the US government could adopt Buy American Act procurement rules that establish a content requirement of US-extracted and processed minerals in mineral-intensive goods like electric vehicles—and it could also limit agency waivers to these rules. https://lnkd.in/gXFKD3xv

For the Atlantic Council, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer and Morgan Bazilian discuss how Congress should establish a physical mineral stockpile that can meet US military demands in a five-year conflict (as was the case in the early Cold War) and influence domestic mineral prices to incentivize US mineral production. https://lnkd.in/gYjmxJwH

In Mining Journal, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer explores how tariffs helped revitalize US tungsten mining in the 1920s, amid low prices caused by China’s huge production of cheap tungsten ore. Today, Chinese firms’ production has similarly caused low prices for minerals like cobalt and nickel. https://lnkd.in/eY9hFHYP “In 1918, the United States was the second largest producer of tungsten ore after China….After World War I, however, tungsten prices fell, including below the cost of production for many US mines….The US Geological Survey attributed the price collapse to ‘the large imports of the very cheap and rich ore from China.’” “The resulting price conditions made US mining of tungsten—even high-grade deposits—cost-prohibitive….US tungsten mining shut down in 1921 and remained shut down in 1922. China continued to mine and export cheap tungsten ore, and imports of tungsten ore continued to enter the US.” “Yet, calls for tariffs…led Congress…to impose a duty of 45 cents per pound on tungsten contained in ore, effective September 22, 1922. All imports of tungsten ore and concentrates stopped when the tariffs took effect, and they remained stopped until 1925.” “US tungsten mining restarted in 1923, the year after the tariff imposition, and gradually increased to pre-World War I levels by 1925. The US Bureau of Mines noted that US tungsten production was only possible with tariff support, given China's continued tungsten production amid low prices.” To increase US mineral production, the US government today should impose tariffs on minerals with domestic reserves: “If sufficiently high, tariffs can incentivise domestic mineral production by increasing the price of imported minerals, which increases the price competitiveness and thus the demand for domestically produced minerals.”

In RealClearMarkets, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer and Lyle Trytten discuss how technology—namely, large-scale commercialization of existing technologies—can help increase the mineral supply. https://lnkd.in/eHGrNY-V

In MINING.com, DGM Principal Gregory Wischer outlines a tariff policy to increase US mineral production. https://lnkd.in/eEZu5UHf