Bill Overview
Title: Securing America’s Mineral Supply Chains Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses various matters related to mineral resources and ensuring adequate supply chains for them, with a particular focus on minerals that are critical to the U.S. economy and national security and critical energy resources. For example, the bill modifies various requirements related to permitting and other aspects of mining on federal land, including specific modifications related to critical energy resources; restricts mineral withdrawals on federal land and prohibits moratoria on or reversals of certain mineral leases, claims, or permits without congressional approval; establishes programs and requires activities to advance technologies for critical mineral production, carbon mineralization, and recovery of critical minerals from mine waste; provides support for workforce development related to mining; permits the inclusion of certain fuel minerals (e.g., uranium) on a list of minerals that are critical to the U.S. economy and national security; and requires efforts to diversify supply chains and promote domestic sources for critical energy resources.
Sponsors: Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals working in or dependent on the mining and critical mineral supply industries
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The legislation focuses on ensuring a steady supply of critical minerals, which are essential for various industries, impacting individuals working in tech, defense, and energy sectors globally.
- Internationally, workers in mining and technology development industries, including those in countries supplying or relying on minerals exported to the U.S., would be affected by this legislation.
- Global consumers of technologies and goods that rely on critical minerals may also be indirectly affected due to changes in supply chain dynamics.
Reasoning
- The target population for the policy is individuals engaged in the mining and critical mineral supply industries, which includes miners, engineers, and industry workers and is estimated to be around 1,000,000 in America.
- The bill provides measures for workforce development related to mining, affecting job prospects and skill enhancements, and could increase wellbeing for individuals entering or currently within the sector.
- The policy could lead to some environmental concerns among residents near mining areas due to the promotion of domestic mining operations.
- The enhancement of supply chain dynamics for critical minerals could stabilize markets dependent on these resources, providing economic security that indirectly benefits a wider population.
- Cost and technology development constraints mean initial impacts may be limited, with gradual long-term effects as technology and reforms mature.
Simulated Interviews
mining engineer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about the policy as it suggests more job stability and potential growth in the mining sector.
- Increased focus on domestic sources might reduce dependency on foreign minerals, which can help secure my job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
software developer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I am not directly working in mining, the policy supports the stability of lithium supply which is critical to my industry.
- Supply chain stability can help keep costs down, which is beneficial for my projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
graduate student (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that increased mining could negatively impact local ecosystems.
- However, the focus on technology advancements might mitigate some environmental damage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
oil and gas worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional inclusion of fuel minerals like uranium creates potential job growth and security in our sector.
- I support initiatives that strengthen national energy independence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
chemical engineer (Reno, Nevada)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Technological advancements in critical mineral production offer promising career prospects.
- This bill aligns with the direction of my research and professional interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
environmental activist (Augusta, Maine)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential for increased mining on federal lands is concerning for those interested in conservation.
- I hope the technological advancements in mining are sufficiently regulated to minimize ecological damage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
mining laborer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that increases domestic mining activity could secure my job.
- I'm concerned about safety and conditions in the industry with more intensive mining.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
policy advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy strengthens national security and economic resilience.
- It's essential to support strategies that enhance domestic mineral supplies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
tech entrepreneur (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's push for innovative technology in mineral recovery aligns with my business objectives.
- Enhanced supply chain reliability is key to my company's growth objectives.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
auto industry worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Securing a domestic supply chain for critical minerals is crucial for the automotive industry's future.
- I'm hopeful that this policy strengthens the industry and my job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $1900000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2400000000)
Year 3: $1850000000 (Low: $1350000000, High: $2350000000)
Year 5: $1800000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $2300000000)
Year 10: $1750000000 (Low: $1250000000, High: $2250000000)
Year 100: $1600000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $2100000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill promotes technological advancement and workforce development, which require substantial upfront investment.
- Balancing environmental concerns with increased mining activities will require regulatory oversight and funding.
- Global market conditions could impact the necessity and effectiveness of promoting domestic mineral supply chains.