Bill Overview
Title: Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2022
Description: This bill expedites the review of mining projects on federal lands and limits judicial review of mining projects.
Sponsors: Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide involved or impacted by mining activities
Estimated Size: 2000000
- There are approximately 7.75 billion people worldwide.
- Many countries are involved in mining activities and have populations living near mining sites or workforces tied to the mining sector.
- Environmental and economic impacts from mining activities can have global repercussions.
- Potential shifts in metal and mineral supply can affect international markets and industries relying on these materials.
- Environmental groups worldwide may be impacted by changes in legislation that potentially ease mining restrictions.
Reasoning
- The U.S. population targeted by the policy predominantly includes those working in or living near mining areas, tech and manufacturing sectors relying on mined materials, and environmental groups.
- A budget of $50 million in year 1 suggests focused impact, likely more regulatory and legal impacts rather than direct benefits or adversities to individuals.
- Over 10 years, the budget increase allows for broader impacts, affecting market dynamics and potentially shifting community support or opposition to mining activities.
- The target population for interviews should include people from across the spectrum of those directly and indirectly impacted: workers, local community residents, legal and environmental professionals, and manufacturers in tech.
- Including diverse geographic representation is critical given the spread of mining sites across the U.S. federal lands.
Simulated Interviews
Mine Safety Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the new policy could streamline processes and reduce delays.
- Environmental concerns will need addressing, but operational efficiency is important too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Environmental Lawyer (Boulder, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Limiting judicial review undermines community lawstandings.
- This policy might lead to increased environmental risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
Tech Startup Founder (Charleston, WV)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If materials become more affordable due to policy changes, it could benefit my business.
- We do need to think about sustainability long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Oil and Gas Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining permits is crucial for maintaining competitiveness.
- Concerned about perceptions of neglecting environment but see economic upside.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is detrimental to environmental movements and community voices.
- The expedited processes ignore ecological sustainability and public health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
Local Government Official (Butte, MT)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need balanced policies that safeguard both economic viability and community health.
- I worry this may undermine local governance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Mining Equipment Supplier (Reno, NV)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient permitting can boost our business prospects significantly.
- The potential for increased turnover is welcome, though competition might stiffen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
University Professor (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The impacts of this policy might be seen more in environmental data over time.
- Long-term, this change may impact natural landscapes significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Manufacturing Plant Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased access to materials could stabilize our supply chain.
- Must balance this with corporate responsibility demands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Federal Environmental Engineer (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expedited review might compromise thoroughness.
- Policies like this could change having unforeseen consequences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30600000, High: $71400000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31212000, High: $72828000)
Year 5: $53060400 (Low: $31836240, High: $74284480)
Year 10: $55143216 (Low: $33146347, High: $77222960)
Year 100: $89844192 (Low: $53906518, High: $125781866)
Key Considerations
- The expedited process could face significant backlash from environmental and community groups.
- Legal challenges to the reduction in judicial review are likely and could result in court costs and delays that might negate some of the intended efficiencies.
- Initial costs might be overshadowed by longer-term increases in federal revenues and costs associated with addressing environmental impacts.