Bill Overview
Title: MINES Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to prepare an annual report that describes the involvement of Chinese and Russian governments and entities in mining and processing facilities exporting minerals to the United States, including subsequent implications for national security. The bill also adds requirements for information on Chinese mining in Afghanistan and a review of critical mineral designations in other periodic USGS reports.
Sponsors: Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-42]
Target Audience
Population: People working in mineral mining, processing, import industries, and government agencies related to these areas
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill involves the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), indicating that employees and stakeholders of this agency will be impacted.
- The bill requires reports about Chinese and Russian entities involved in mining and mineral processing, so employees within these industries and relevant governmental departments will be impacted.
- As the report influences U.S. national security policies, government officials and policymakers dealing with foreign policy and national security will be impacted.
- People employed in the U.S. mineral import industries may be affected by changes in policy or market conditions resulting from the reports.
- The bill's focus on Chinese and Russian mining could affect workers in these countries, as their operations will be scrutinized.
- Inclusion of Chinese mining in Afghanistan means local stakeholders and employees in Afghanistan in this sector will be affected.
Reasoning
- The population impacted by this policy includes USGS employees, government officials, and workers in the mineral import and processing industries. This is because the policy focuses on the involvement of foreign entities in mining operations and exporting minerals to the US, which directly impacts these groups.
- The budget restrictions suggest that the impact might not be expansive or profound but will target specific areas of concern, such as improving transparency and reporting on foreign influence in the mining sector.
- A significant portion of the individuals involved in these sectors will likely not see direct and immediate changes to their wellbeing, but rather long-term indirect effects as policy shifts impact market dynamics.
- Individuals in government roles may experience changes in workload or strategic focus as new data comes in.
- For mineral importers, the impact will depend on the findings of the annual reports and any ensuing policy changes that may affect trade dynamics.
Simulated Interviews
Geologist (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase my workload as we have to prepare detailed reports.
- Overall, it might help us understand and mitigate foreign influence in critical mineral supply chains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reports from this policy will aid in strategic decision-making regarding national security resources.
- Implementation will likely increase collaboration between different government bodies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Minerals Import Manager (Reno, NV)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might affect our supply chain if it leads to changes in regulations or tariffs.
- It will be crucial to stay updated with any findings from the USGS reports to adapt quickly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
CEO of a mineral processing company (Houston, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is essential to ensure the security of mineral supply chains, but increased scrutiny could complicate relationships with foreign suppliers.
- Our company might have to revise its strategic sourcing plans if US regulations tighten.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Investment Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will bring increased visibility into foreign influence over mining sectors, which is valuable for assessing risk.
- Predicting market shifts might become easier with more information from these reports.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides real-world data that could enrich academic discussions and research.
- Students will benefit from the practical examples of policy impacts on the mineral industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Finance Executive (New York, NY)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased oversight could impact our risk assessments for financing deals in the sector.
- Banks always need to understand global market influences to manage assets effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Navy Officer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Monitoring foreign influence in minerals is critical for national security.
- While I am not directly impacted, I appreciate efforts to safeguard national resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is likely that my workload will increase as companies navigate new compliance landscapes.
- These policy updates can affect how companies operate internationally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't directly impact my work or life.
- I think it's good that we're paying attention to where our resources come from.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The focus on foreign mining entities underscores the need for accurate and secure data handling, necessitating potential investments in cybersecurity.
- Coordination with other governmental and international bodies could incur additional costs or shift timelines.
- The bill's international focus might require diplomatic efforts or negotiation, potentially affecting broader foreign policy.
- Unanticipated geopolitical developments could affect the scope and intensity of report requirements, influencing future costs.