[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
______
THE ROLE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH IN
ESTABLISHING A ROBUST U.S. SUPPLY CHAIN
OF CRITICAL MINERALS AND MATERIALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-226 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
RANDY WEBER, Texas Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York Vice Ranking Member
TOM KEAN, New Jersey PAUL TONKO, New York
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
November 30, 2023
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Mr. Ryan Peay, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Resource Sustainability, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon
Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Dr. Jef Caers, Professor of Earth & Planetary Science and
Director of Stanford Mineral-X, Stanford University
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Mr. Drew Horn, Chief Executive Officer, GreenMet
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
``Owner of US heavy rare earth mine licenses separation
technology,'' Oak Ridge National Laboratory............ 45
Dr. Dustin Mulvaney, Professor of Environmental Studies, San Jose
State University
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 58
Mr. Thomas E. Baroody, President & Chief Executive Officer, K-
Technologies, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 64
Written Statement............................................ 66
Discussion....................................................... 73
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Ryan Peay, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Resource Sustainability, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon
Management, U.S. Department of Energy.......................... 116
Dr. Jef Caers, Professor of Earth & Planetary Science and
Director of Stanford Mineral-X, Stanford University............ 131
Mr. Drew Horn, Chief Executive Officer, GreenMet................. 132
Dr. Dustin Mulvaney, Professor of Environmental Studies, San Jose
State University............................................... 136
Mr. Thomas E. Baroody, President & Chief Executive Officer, K-
Technologies, Inc.............................................. 139
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Haley Stevens, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
Sarah Venuto, President, the American Critical Minerals
Association................................................ 146
Article submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives
``Considering the Deep Sea as a Source of Minerals and Rare
Elements,'' Ocean Conservancy.............................. 148
THE ROLE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH IN
ESTABLISHING A ROBUST U.S. SUPPLY CHAIN
OF CRITICAL MINERALS AND MATERIALS
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank
Lucas [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Lucas. The Committee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess of the
Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``The Role of Federal
Research in Establishing a Robust U.S. Supply Chain of Critical
Minerals and Materials.'' And I recognize myself for an opening
statement.
Good morning. Today, the Science Committee will examine the
role that the Federal research agencies can play in developing
a robust domestic supply chain of critical minerals and
materials. Critical minerals like lithium, graphite, cobalt are
essential to our Nation's, our country's energy independence,
national security, and economic growth. With applications in
healthcare, defense systems, smartphones, and advanced energy
technologies, these resources are essential to our modern way
of life and our clean energy future.
Despite substantial domestic reserves, an alarming majority
of the critical minerals used in the United States are sourced
abroad. In fact, the United States has a net import reliance of
over 50 percent of 31 of the 50 mineral commodities designated
as critical by the U.S. Department of Interior and relies
completely on imports to supply a dozen of these commodities.
This heavy dependence on foreign supply chains, including those
of adversarial nations, puts the United States and its allies
at risk.
Today, China controls 60 percent of worldwide production
and 85 percent of the processing capacity of critical minerals.
As a result, the United States has a 50 percent net import
reliance on China for about 26 mineral commodities. As more
advanced technologies enter the marketplace, we can only expect
the global demand for critical minerals to increase. It's never
been more important to protect ourselves by developing
sustainable supply chains for these critical resources both
domestically and with like-minded allies. Ensuring a stable
U.S. supply of critical minerals and materials starts with
encouraging responsible production and the use here at home.
Federal research agencies like the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have a
central role in reducing U.S. dependence on foreign resources
of critical minerals by supporting domestic mineral development
and innovation. Just as DOE lead the way to the shale
revolution through innovation and advanced technologies, the
Department stewards important research in critical minerals and
materials research and development (R&D). DOE prioritizes the
development of new mineral alternatives through innovation in
material sciences, the creation of a circular supply chain
through recycling, and the identification of new mineral
resources through advanced extraction approaches. These cross-
cutting activities are carried out through various offices
within the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, the
Office of Science, and the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, just to name a few.
In 2013, the Department created the Critical Minerals
Institute of Ames National Laboratory to accelerate solutions
to the supply chains of critical minerals. This consortium of
industry, academia, and National Labs allows for their
individual expertise to come together to tackle the most
difficult challenges facing this sector.
Recently, the Department has also started a Mine of the
Future program, looking into major technology gaps in the
Federal Government's supply chain of these materials and how to
address them. I look forward to hearing from our DOE witness on
how this initiative is progressing.
Similarly, the National Science Foundation funds basic
research and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) education initiatives to advance critical mineral
mining technologies and strategies to better utilize existing
domestic resources. However, the United States is facing a
workforce gap that will hamper our goals of securing our
domestic supply chains. It is imperative that we continue to
support and nurture talent in every community across the
country.
The ongoing activities at NSF are an important part of the
whole-of-government approach to securing the domestic supply
chain of critical minerals and materials. The Committee has
prioritized Federal critical minerals R&D in recent years by
providing updated guidance to both DOE and NSF through the
Energy Act of 2020 and the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. I
look forward to hearing from my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle as we continue to review the Administration's
implementation of these important laws.
A robust domestic supply chain of critical minerals is
important not only for U.S. national security and economic
growth, but for global environmental stewardship and
humanitarian efforts. Through innovation in advanced critical
materials technologies, we can increase domestic production of
critical minerals and materials, while minimizing our need to
outsource this work to other countries that do not share our
core values or standards.
I'm looking forward to speaking with our panel of experts
on how we in Congress can ensure that the United States regains
its footing in this field, and I want to thank our witnesses
for their testimony, and I look forward to a very productive
discussion.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]
Good morning. Today, the Science Committee will examine the
role that Federal research agencies can play in developing a
robust domestic supply chain of critical minerals and
materials.
Critical minerals like lithium, graphite, and cobalt are
essential to our country's energy independence, national
security, and economic growth. With applications in healthcare,
defense systems, smartphones, and advanced energy technologies,
these resources are essential to our modern way of life and our
clean energy future.
Despite substantial domestic reserves, an alarming majority
of the critical minerals used in the U.S. are sourced abroad.
In fact, the U.S. has a net import-reliance of over 50 percent
for 31 of the 50 mineral commodities designated as critical by
the U.S. Department of Interior and relies completely on
imports to supply a dozen of these commodities.
This heavy dependence on foreign supply chains, including
those of adversarial nations, puts the United States and its
allies at risk. Today, China controls over 60 percent of
worldwide production and 85 percent of the processing capacity
of critical minerals. As a result, the U.S. has a 50 percent
net import reliance on China for about 26 mineral commodities.
As more advanced technologies enter the marketplace, we can
only expect the global demand for critical minerals to
increase. It has never been more important to protect ourselves
by developing sustainable supply chains for these crucial
resources both domestically and with like-minded allies.
Ensuring a stable U.S. supply of critical minerals and
materials starts with encouraging responsible production and
use here at home. Federal research agencies like the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation
(NSF) have a central role to play in reducing U.S. dependence
on foreign sources of critical minerals by supporting domestic
mineral development and innovation.
Just as DOE led the way to the shale gas revolution through
innovation in advanced technologies, the Department stewards
important research in critical minerals and materials research
and development. DOE prioritizes the development of new mineral
alternatives through innovation in material sciences, the
creation of a circular supply chain through recycling, and the
identification of new mineral resources through advanced
extraction approaches.
These cross-cutting activities are carried out through
various offices including the Office of Fossil Energy and
Carbon Management, the Office of Science, and the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, just to name a few.
In 2013, the Department created the Critical Materials
Institute at Ames National Laboratory to accelerate solutions
to the supply chains of critical materials. This consortium of
industry, academia, and the National Labs allows for all their
individual expertise to come together and tackle the most
difficult challenges facing the sector.
Recently, the Department has also started a ``Mine of the
Future'' program looking into the major technology gaps in the
federal government's supply chain of these materials and how to
address them. I look forward to hearing from our DOE witness on
how that initiative is progressing.
Similarly, the National Science Foundation funds basic
research and STEM education initiatives to advance critical
minerals mining strategies and technologies to better utilize
existing domestic resources.
However, the United States is facing a workforce gap that
will hamper our goals of securing our domestic supply chains.
It is imperative that we continue to support and nurture talent
in every community across the country.
The ongoing activities at NSF are an important part of the
whole-of-government approach to securing the domestic supply
chain of critical minerals and materials.
The Committee has prioritized Federal critical minerals R&D
in recent years by providing updated guidance for both DOE and
NSF through the Energy Act of 2020 and the CHIPS and Science
Act of 2022.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle as we continue to review the Administration's
implementation of these important laws.
A robust domestic supply chain of critical minerals is
important not only for U.S. national security and economic
growth, but also for global environmental stewardship and
humanitarian efforts.
Through innovation in advanced critical minerals
technologies, we can increase domestic production of critical
minerals and materials while minimizing our need to outsource
this work to other countries that do not share our core values
and standards.
I'm looking forward to speaking with our panel of experts
about how we in Congress can ensure that the United States
regains its footing in this field.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today, I
look forward to a productive discussion.
Chairman Lucas. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for an opening
statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning to all of our witnesses. This is an important hearing,
and I want to take a moment of personal privilege to, among all
these great experts, note that Dr. Mulvaney is right from San
Jose State University in my district. He's one of the Nation's
foremost experts on energy technologies supply chains, has
published extensively on those subjects. And I know that it's a
hassle to get here from San Jose, so I certainly appreciate
your being here, along with the other excellent witnesses.
As we know, this Science, Space, and Technology Committee
has played a leading role in addressing our needs for a
sustainable supply of critical materials through contributions
to the CHIPS and Science Act and, in particular, the Energy Act
of 2020, which guided most of the funding for these activities
provided in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
As a nation, we're moving quickly, as quickly as we
possibly can, to reach our goal of net zero emissions to
address the climate crisis. But to do that, we need to rapidly
scale a broad suite of clean energy technologies that include,
for example, the hydrogen electrolyzers supporting the regional
hydrogen hub network, which I'm happy to say will include
California, and the batteries used in many electric vehicles
(EVs). However, several of these technologies are currently
dependent on critical materials from nations that
unfortunately, are not our friends.
Thanks in no small part to our recent bipartisan
legislative efforts, we started on the path to addressing the
climate crisis and our clean energy future, but that future is
threatened and our progress may well be halted if we do not
have a sustainable supply of critical materials to build these
technologies.
To that end, I'm encouraged by the progress that the
Department of Energy has made to identify the specific
materials threatening our clean energy supply chains, and I'm
particularly happy to see the Department's promotion of
research into innovative solutions to improve manufacturing
efficiency, recycling, and the use of more abundant
alternatives that can save significantly reduce our need for
these materials going forward. These efforts show that we can
protect the environment and strengthen our economy at the same
time, and there's no good reason for our Nation to make a false
choice here.
I also applaud recent announcements from the national labs
that have been hard at work researching domestic sources of
critical minerals. Just last week, an analysis conducted by
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab just up the road from my
district found that the California Salton Sea has a significant
potential as a domestic source of lithium with enough of this
critical material to support 375 million batteries for electric
vehicles. That discovery may prove to be critical as we move
forward to our efforts to wean ourselves from a fossil fuel
world.
The bottom line is that we have to continue to work toward
securing a sustainable supply of the materials we'll need to
tackle the climate crisis head on. But at the same time, all of
the communities that we deserve, certainly--we serve certainly
deserve to live in a safe and healthy environment, and I think
this hearing is a good step toward striking that balance. We--
as we move forward to develop domestic supplies, we need to be
mindful of the impact on communities and how those impacts can
be reduced or eliminated.
I look forward to today's conversation, and again, Mr.
Chairman, I thank you and the witnesses for what I am sure will
be an enlightening morning. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Lucas, for holding
this very important hearing. I thank the witnesses for being
here today, including my very own district's Dr. Mulvaney. As
you know, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has
played a leading role in addressing our needs for a sustainable
supply of critical materials through contributions to the CHIPS
and Science Act, and in particular through the Energy Act of
2020--which guided much of the funding for these activities
provided in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
As a nation, we are moving as quickly as possible to reach
our goal of net-zero emissions to address the climate crisis.
But to do that, we need to rapidly scale a broad suite of clean
energy technologies that include, for example, the hydrogen
electrolyzers supporting the regional hydrogen hub network, and
the batteries used in many electric vehicles. However, several
of these technologies are currently dependent on critical
materials from nations that, unfortunately, are not always our
friends.
Thanks in no small part to our recent bipartisan
legislative efforts, we've started on the path to addressing
the climate crisis and enabling our clean energy future. But
that future is threatened, and our progress may well be halted
if we do not have a sustainable supply of critical materials to
build these technologies. To that end, I am encouraged by the
progress that the Department of Energy has made to identify the
specific materials threatening our clean energy supply chains.
And I'm particularly happy to see the Department's
promotion of research into innovative solutions to improve
manufacturing efficiency, recycling, and the use of more
abundant alternatives that can significantly reduce our need
for these materials going forward. These efforts show that we
can protect the environment and strengthen our economy at the
same time--there is no good reason for our nation to make a
false choice here.
I also applaud recent announcements from the national labs
that have been hard at work researching domestic sources of
critical minerals. Just this week, an analysis conducted by
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that California's
Salton Sea has significantpotential as a domestic source of
lithium--with enough of this critical mineral to support 375
million batteries for electric vehicles.
The bottom line is that we must continue to work diligently
towards securing a sustainable supply of the materials we'll
need to tackle the climate crisis head-on. But at the same
time, all of the communities that we serve certainly deserve to
live in safe and healthy environments, and this hearing is a
good step towards striking that balance. As we move forward to
develop domestic supplies, we need to be mindful of the impact
on communities and how those impacts can be reduced or
eliminated.
I look forward to today's conversation, and thank the
witnesses again for being here today. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back. And, as always,
I appreciate her comments.
Let me introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. Our
first witness today is Mr. Ryan Peay. Mr. Peay is the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Resource Sustainability
at the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Fuel and Carbon
Management.
Our second witness witnesses Mr. Jef Caers. Mr. Caers, he
is a Professor of Earth and Planetary Science, as well as the
Director of the Stanford Mineral-X at Stanford University.
Our third witness is Mr. Drew Horn, the CEO (Chief
Executive Officer) of GreenMet.
Our fourth witness is Mr. Dustin Mulvaney, a Professor of
Environmental Studies at San Jose State University.
And I'd now like to recognize the gentleman from Florida to
introduce our final witness.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to
introduce our next witness, Mr. Thomas Baroody, the President
and CEO of K-Technologies also known as K-Tech. With his
engineering background, he's held numerous leadership roles in
mining and chemical processing companies before starting his
own business. K-Tech is based in Lakeland, Florida, which is in
my home district, and is a shining example of the innovation
that comes from the private sector to strengthen our critical
mineral supply chain.
Under Mr. Baroody's leadership, his team has been focusing
on processing techniques such as continuous ion exchange and
continuous ion chromatography to extract rare earth elements
(REEs) and minerals. And, as Members of this Committee know,
the United States is in a race against our adversaries to
secure the minerals and processing technology in this sector.
Critical minerals are essential for advancing our domestic
production of semiconductors, weapons systems, and new
technologies.
For those who don't know, Florida plays a significant role
in feeding our Nation, not only with agricultural products, but
also by producing fertilizer. There are some challenges,
though, with the storage and the management of the byproducts
from the mining that produces that. But through these new
extraction technologies, these byproducts from the mining can
be harnessed instead of importing these minerals from overseas.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Baroody about the role
of small businesses in unleashing domestic minerals to support
our economy and our national security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. I thank the gentleman for that
introduction.
I now recognize Mr. Peay for five minutes to present his
testimony. You may proceed, sir.
TESTIMONY OF MR. RYAN PEAY,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR THE OFFICE OF RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY,
OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY AND CARBON MANAGEMENT,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Peay. Good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member
Lofgren, and esteemed Members of the Committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today and discuss DOE's
work on critical minerals and materials.
Demand for new clean energy technologies, aerospace and
defense technologies, and consumer electronics, to name a few,
will continue to put pressure on the supply chain for critical
minerals, materials, and rare earth elements. China maintains a
dominant position in the midstream processing capabilities for
several different critical materials. Dependence on a single
source for these materials leaves the United States and our
allies vulnerable. We must ensure sufficient worldwide supplies
of critical materials from responsible sources to protect U.S.
national security and enable a clean energy and industrial
economy.
However, that alone will not be sufficient to establish
resilient supply chains. A lack of processing and refining
capabilities often poses a greater risk to supply than the
sources themselves. This provides both a challenge and an
opportunity for the United States to diversify supply chains,
improve labor and environmental standards, and create new
technologies that can be deployed domestically. DOE's Critical
Materials Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment
Program is meeting this challenge with a strategy consisting of
five pillars: diversify and expand supply, develop
alternatives, materials and manufacturing efficiency, circular
economy, and enabling activities.
To implement this strategy across the Department, we have
created the Critical Materials Collaborative to integrate
applied RDD&D (research, development, demonstration, and
deployment) to accelerate the development of transformational
technologies that will be foundational to domestic critical
material supply chains.
There are four main methods to diversify supplies of
critical materials: recycling, recovery from secondary and
unconventional feedstocks, responsible domestic mining, and
assessing a broader range of international sources. Two areas I
want to focus in on are unconventional feedstocks and the
future of mining.
Secondary and unconventional feedstocks encompass many
potential sources, such as coal and coal byproducts, coal
waste, hard rock mine tailings, and acid mine drainage. There
are billions of tons of coal waste and coal ash that had been
generated over the past two centuries and remain in waste piles
and impoundments. These feedstocks represent a significant
opportunity to diversify the supply of resources, while
remediating longstanding environmental impacts and creating
jobs in mining and energy communities.
There is also a real need for new and innovative approaches
to the future of domestic mining. That is why DOE is evaluating
the potential for research to advance technological solutions
and revolutionize mining that uses a more surgical approach to
extract minerals in a manner that minimizes surface and
environmental impacts and improves public confidence in
responsible mining techniques.
Technology development areas for a Mine of the Future
program would include advanced drilling technologies, novel
geophysics, digital subsurface applications, and situ mineral
extraction, novel processing and tailings management.
Analytical support activities, including data collection and
developing a traceability capability are also critical.
Mr. Chairman, critical minerals and materials are crucial
to the way we live our lives every day. They are required in a
wide range of strategic industries. U.S. reliance on foreign
sources for these materials is neither sustainable, nor secure.
Further investments and efforts to diversify domestic supply
chains, develop the Mine of the Future, and other research will
help the U.S. meet our domestic and global supply and security
needs and protect U.S. consumers in the competitiveness of
domestic industry and manufacturing.
I appreciate the Committee for its bipartisan support of
our critical materials research over many years, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peay follows:]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Dr.
Caers for five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JEF CAERS,
PROFESSOR OF EARTH & PLANETARY SCIENCE
AND DIRECTOR OF STANFORD MINERAL-X,
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Dr. Caers. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify today. My testimony will document that a secure and
resilient national supply of critical minerals and materials
cannot be achieved without new domestic discoveries of critical
mineral deposits.
Benchmark Minerals has estimated that about 300 new mines
will be needed during the next decade alone. Most of these
mines require new discoveries. Currently, the NSF and DOE do
not fund innovation in mineral exploration. Two months ago, the
NSF announced inaugural awards for an ambitious program, the
NSF Global Centers, large awards up to $10 million, aimed to
foster collaboration with U.S. allies Australia, Canada, and
the United Kingdom across three main areas: critical minerals,
energy, and climate. Critical minerals projects received
$250,000 in funding, while energy and climate projects received
$76 million.
Yet at the same time, the funded energy projects in green
hydrogen, upgrading the electrical grid, and renewable energy
require vast amounts of critical minerals. Some of these would
today be sourced from Russia and processed in China. The DOE
announced last September $150 million to strengthen the
domestic critical mineral supply with no mention of exploration
or the need of making new domestic discoveries.
Legislation passed by Congress, the CHIPS and Science Act
and the Energy Policy Act of 2020, call for research and
development of new ways of mineral exploration, including the
use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, and
the study of ore forming processes to have a mentally
responsible production of domestic resources, as well as
workforce training for exploration of critical mineral
resources.
In my written testimony, I cover six misconceptions that
are routinely offered countering the need for increase in
domestic exploration and funding such activities. One
misconception is that we just need to find replacement
materials. This is indeed important research, but why bet on a
single horse? Not all materials can easily be replaced or, more
importantly, at a timescale we find ourselves today in the
energy transition.
Recent research published in Nature has shown that lithium
in the right combination with nickel and cobalt provides the
largest energy density, combined with the best thermal
stability. There is no replacements in the table of elements
between nickel and cobalt, and lithium is the third largest--
lightest element in the entire universe.
My overall assessment is that United States is funding
technological innovation in all parts of the circle of critical
materials economy except any innovation to discover where in
the United States these minerals actually are. As an analogy,
the government's funding new technology in farming, but has no
good soil to farm on. While the USGS (United States Geological
Survey) is tasked to assess 50 critical minerals in 50 States
by 2029, without innovation in mineral exploration, this will
never happen.
Less than a year ago, I founded Stanford Mineral-X, a new
program in critical mineral exploration. Mineral-X is now the
only U.S. research program in mineral exploration with
committed funding in the millions of dollars. All of our
proposals to innovate the critical mineral supply chain in the
United States have been declined by NSF and DOE. As a
consequence, it is mostly now funded by foreign companies.
During the last APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) in
San Francisco, I personally presented Mineral-X to the
President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, resulting in the planning
of Mineral-X research to be developed to use--be used to
develop a more sustainable supply chain in Indonesia. Why this
interest? Together with Coble Metals, a startup company in
Silicon Valley, Mineral-X has built technology that is founded
on rigorous data science and comprehensive artificial
intelligence to accelerate critical mineral exploration now
actively employed in 60 assets over three continents. That
technology today is not used in the United States.
Finally, I'd like to provide recommendations on how we can
address this alarming situation. I propose for Congress to
fully fund the Critical Minerals Mining Research and
Development Program authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act,
and to encourage partnerships with allied nations, Canada,
Australia in a national program similar to the NSF Global
Centers at the level of $25 million. Artificial intelligence,
geosciences, and environmental justice are foundational to such
a program, and my written testimony has detailed proposals on
how to achieve this. If finding critical minerals is one of the
defining challenges of this century, its most revolutionary
technology--AI--may well hold the key to unlocking them. Let's
start using that in this country as well.
Again, many thanks for the opportunity today, and I'll be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Caers follows:]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Horn for
five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DREW HORN,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GreenMet
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Lucas, Ranking
Member Lofgren, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on this important topic of
leveraging Federal research dollars to achieve a robust
American supply chain for critical minerals. My name is Drew
Horn, and I am the founder, President, and CEO of GreenMet. We
are a private company working to develop American critical
mineral and clean energy supply chains. Our efforts serve to
reduce U.S. overreliance on imports of critical minerals and
metals, particularly from adversaries, thereby strengthening
U.S. national security. In other words, Mr. Chairman, America's
critical mineral security is national security.
As the new American conduit between private capital and
critical mineral innovation, GreenMet has unique privilege of
representing the complete private sector policy interests that
support and sustain reliable and uninterruptible U.S. supply
chains of critical minerals from mine through manufacturing. It
is from that lens that I address the Committee today.
Public-private partnerships are the most effective way to
harness Federal research dollars and incubate, accelerate, and
scale innovations in all segments of the mineral supply chains
from mining to manufacturing. In the context of the critical
mineral supply chain, not all minerals or elements are of equal
priority to our national agenda. Federal research dollars must
be allocated toward those projects that achieve our economic,
energy, and national security needs.
For example, we absolutely need the rare earth neodymium to
produce rare earth magnets. However, only magnets containing
added dysprosium and terbium can resist extreme temperatures
required for critical military and civilian uses to include
electric vehicle supply chains and motor services. Our
adversaries in China and Russia recognize this and restrict
access to these heavy rare earths wherever and whenever they
can.
By directing applied research funds further upstream, the
United States can continue to bolster its capabilities in
mining, processing, refining, and metallurgy, all steps that
lead to true domestic manufacturing. I urge the Committee to
fully consider that we can develop our own superior U.S.
capabilities in this sector and that we can do more than simply
re-shore from adversaries to options that provide only a slight
decrease in vulnerability.
A good recent example of prioritizing upstream funding is
the DPA (Defense Production Act) Title III language in the IRA
(Inflation Reduction Act) that is intended to fund critical
domestic projects based off the latest R&D. Two projects well-
suited for this type of funding are the Wyoming-based Bear
Lodge Rare Earth Project and Missouri-based Caldera tailings
reclamation project at Pea Ridge, between which we can meet all
domestic heavy rare earth demand without looking outside our
own borders.
GreenMet is proud to support both as they would seek to
provide the U.S. Government with the most cost-effective and
practical path to secure an uninterruptible supply chain for
heavy rare earths from mine to separated rare earth oxides.
These oxides are vital for high-strength permanent magnets
required for defense, offshore wind turbines, and electric
vehicles, and innumerable uses in clean energy. We must ensure
our R&D efforts and national labs are focused on meeting our
national priorities.
These efforts must be matched with large-scale investors
and commercial leaders and manufacturing so that this research
serves as a true catalyst and enabler for commercial large-
scale U.S. growth, successful research grants to facilitate
breakthrough developments and incubate those new methods to the
point of a viable commercial handoff. Just yesterday, our
partner Caldera announced they will be licensing Oak Ridge
National Lab's advanced extraction technique to separate rare
earth elements in mined ore. Their Pea Ridge mine has high
amounts of the key rare earth element dysprosium, and now,
through federally developed technology, they will be able to
separate that and other critical elements and minerals in a
more efficient and environmentally friendly manner.
We have another partner that is leading the world in vapor
metallurgy technology and is looking to use this technology to
cleanly and efficiently transform mineral waste piles, also
known as tailings, into metals essential to our energy and
national security applications.
For minerals in American mines to their end products in
American manufacturing plants, our industries benefit most from
federally funded R&D that goes beyond laboratory and
demonstration products such that we can achieve full
commercialization as rapidly as possible. To that end, projects
developed through Federal R&D dollars must automatically
qualify for fast tracking of any follow-on permitting required
to commercialize.
The time for bold bipartisan congressional action is now.
In summary, we need Congress to ensure we are investing our
Federal research dollars across the entire mineral supply chain
to enable America to be more secure and self-sufficient.
Furthermore, when allocating these precious taxpayer dollars,
we must be expeditious in meeting--in moving innovations
through the complete project development lifestyle. By doing
so, we can establish the United States as the world leader in
responsible, clean, ethical, and cost-efficient production of
minerals.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again, and I look forward to
taking any questions from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Mulvaney for
five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DUSTIN MULVANEY,
PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES,
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Mulvaney. Good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member
Lofgren, and other Members. Thank you for the invitation today.
Experts widely agree that there are serious risks posed by
weak and fragile critical mineral and material supply chains to
national security, domestic industries, and critical
infrastructure sectors. I would like to emphasize continued and
further support in several areas of research and regulation
that would make critical mineral and materials supply chains
more resilient and improve social and environmental outcomes.
Federal investments in research and development for
critical minerals and materials will be greatly enhanced with
comprehensive and enforceable standards. This includes policies
that require extended producer responsibility, green design,
and setting high benchmarks for recycled content in new
materials, helping foster emerging domestic markets in recycled
and recovered materials. These efforts in tandem with
investments in research and development and setting
comprehensive rules and standards will enhance critical
material and mineral supplies and strengthen domestic supply
chains. This will further reduce the need for primary
extraction in mining activities and reduce the burden on local
landfills, material recovery facilities, and the communities
that they're located in.
The new battery regulation in the European Union released
is a good starting point that could be replicated here for
other products that contain critical minerals and materials.
These rules require battery producers meet specified social and
environmental standards across the entire lifecycle of the
product, including an end-of-life management plan. Today, only
10 to 15 percent of lithium-ion batteries are collected in the
United States. Recycling efforts could recover cobalt, nickel,
manganese, lithium, graphite, aluminum, copper that would bring
environmental benefits as well. Recycling can augment critical
mineral and materials supplies. Some estimates suggest that
recycled supplies could satisfy up to 25 percent of lithium, 35
percent For cobalt and nickel, and 55 percent for copper by
2040.
The reason these materials go uncollected is a lack of
rules and regulations that require recovery and collection.
According to the GAO (Government Accountability Office), most
critical minerals such as rare earths are not collected for
recycling on a large scale in part because of variations in
recycling programs. U.S. recycling collection infrastructure is
also outdated. Germanium and gallium are two critical minerals
that are representative of challenges posed by a lack of
extended producer responsibility. We do very little recycling
of LEDs (light-emitting diodes), scrap materials, and everyday
devices and appliances containing germanium and gallium-based
semiconductors including microwaves, Blu-ray players, and other
electronic products. No gallium is recycled in the United
States, and only small amounts of germanium are recovered and
exported for recycling. The United States should develop
regulations and invest in more efforts like the recently
developed Defense Logistics Agency Program for recycling
optical-grade germanium. That will result in supplying up to 10
percent of the materials needed for the next generation of
equipment in a few years.
Finally, avoiding toxic materials in electronic products
and devices are also critical to adjust an equitable circular
economy. Effective public policy that reduces toxic exposures
can help ensure workers and communities where recycling and
recovery facilities are located will not be harmed by the
operations of these infrastructures. Utilizing the purchasing
power of the Federal Government could also be used to set some
of these standards through procurement.
Waste is also an important resource for critical metals.
Policies and practices that encourage waste and tailings use at
mine sites is another strategy to augment critical mineral
supplies. Recovering from mine waste could be pursued alongside
environmental remediation where work to process materials may
be underway for cleanup already.
Material recovery in mining and downstream processing in
the market is optimized for profitability, not maximizing
materials or byproducts. More incentive to develop byproducts,
recover materials at smelters, or increase recovery rates could
help drive up the recycling of these materials. Smelters in the
United States, for example, are not designed to recover many
critical minerals. For example, there are no domestic smelters
that can recover cobalt.
We can increase the resource efficiency of many of the
materials we use today as well. A photovoltaic module today,
thanks to increased resource efficiency, uses about five times
less silver than a module 10 years ago. Similarly,
semiconductor wafers for the same technology are two to three
times thinner than just a decade so we could avoid using
polysilicon. This is translated to lower energy inputs and
silicon feedstocks needed for the solar industry.
Some critical materials--minerals are used dissipatively in
lower concentrations than found in ores, and these should be
avoided. Some screenings of critical minerals have found that
most have dissipated use rates over 50 percent, which is
consistently much higher than other metals.
The social and environmental benefits of developing a
circular economy for critical minerals and materials supplies
are manyfold. Other implications of expanded recycling
collection systems for materials include job creation,
infrastructure investment, and workforce development.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you and look
forward to any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mulvaney follows:]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Baroody for
five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. THOMAS E. BAROODY,
PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
K-TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Mr. Baroody. Good morning, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member
Lofgren, and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for
the invitation to be on this excellent panel today.
As one of the representatives of the private sector, it is
my hope that I can provide information and perspective as you
consider the vital topics of Federal research and prudent
taxpayer spending married with the private sector initiatives
and risk-taking in critical minerals. Time is of the essence,
and the task is urgent. Rare earth elements are available from
multiple sources such as high-grade mineral ores, low-grade
ionic clays, waste materials like phosphogypsum, coal mining,
tailings, and end-of-life magnets.
Each source requires different methods to liberate the
valuable rare earths. For practical economic purposes, these
initial processes must be undertaken at the source location.
Intermediate products from the source location are exported
primarily to China as a mineral concentrate. These intermediate
products are then processed to produce the purified rare earth
oxides which feed the metal and alloy manufacturers, who in
turn supply the magnet manufacturers. Presently, the final
stage of REE processing is performed by an environmentally
unfriendly solvent extraction process, which is independent of
the rare earth source. China is a heavy and dominant player on
this end of the business.
I would like to talk today about some of the successful
projects K-Tech is engaged in and what we're doing to advance
the goal of bringing critical minerals into the United States.
K-Tech has specialized in developing and bringing to market
chemical processing applications to extract desirable
commercial-grade elements and other materials. We have been
researching and developing our CIX/CIC technology for
application to rare earth separation and purification for
several years and are seeing excellent results. The CIX/CIC
process has numerous advantages over the conventional solvent
extraction route in terms of economic safety, environmental
impact, and size of the production plant, with much lower
capital and operating costs.
Rainbow Rare Earths is an innovator in bringing rare earths
to market. They have focused on permanent magnet rare earth
elements neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium.
These elements are categorized by the U.S. Government as being
vital in both the short term and the medium term. Rainbow,
which is traded on the London Stock Exchange, desires to have
its products processed and used in the United States, North
America, and allied European markets. Their corporate strategy
meshes well with the Department of Energy's July 2023 critical
minerals assessment. That strategy document focuses on
diversifying and expanding U.S. suppliers, developing
alternative manufacturing processes, enhancing manufacturing
efficiency to reduce waste, and international engagements that
benefit the United States.
Rainbow is developing its Phalaborwa project in South
Africa to recover rare earths from phosphogypsum and has opted
for K-Tech's CIX/CIC process for the separation and
purification of the rare earths. The South African project,
along with a future one in Brazil, present a unique opportunity
for K-Tech to utilize its process, allowing separated rare
earth oxides to be produced independently from China for sale
to the United States and allowing development of a U.S. supply
chain. If Rainbow is successful in developing a Brazilian
operation like it plans in South Africa, the back end of the
process facility--that's K-Tech's system--could be logically
located in the United States. I understand that Rainbow has
started the project--the process to consider potential sites
for a commercial plant in the United States. This would greatly
benefit U.S. production of critical rare earth materials.
K-Tech is currently concluding bench-scale testing on the
Phalaborwa material from South Africa and has assembled a pilot
plant for Rainbow South African material at its Florida
facility. The process in Florida will allow production of
separated rare earth battery metal oxides on a commercial basis
in the United States. That represents a major step forward in
bringing this type of supply to the United States.
I would also like to stress we are doing something else
that makes the United States unique, developing significant
intellectual property that ensures our Nation is the technical
logical leader for decades to come. My colleague Wes Berry, the
company, and I hold eight patents, soon to be nine, and K-Tech
and Rainbow are jointly progressing a patent application for
our process in the United States.
K-Tech is highly supportive of the Federal Government's
effort to support domestic and foreign sourcing, processing,
research, and funding. The Departments of Energy, Defense,
Commerce, and the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC)
are playing a key role in unlocking capital to promote
opportunities in critical minerals. Rainbow has entered into an
option agreement whereby TechMet has the right to invest $50
million to fund a substantial part of the equity component of
Rainbow's project in South Africa. The DFC is an important
shareholder in TechMet.
In conclusion, the United States has always led the world
in the field of science. At K-Tech, we are devoted to further
science that leads to better and practical outcomes in the area
of critical minerals. I would like to thank the Committee for
the opportunity to provide you with testimony today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baroody follows:]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, and I want to thank the
witnesses for their testimony.
The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Establishing secure and abundant supply chains of critical
minerals and materials is a global grand challenge. Now, I'd
like to hear from each of you, if the United States continues
to rely on foreign nations to supply and process these
resources, what kinds of vulnerabilities are we exposing
ourselves to in the terms of national security, economic
expansion, clean energy potential? The floor is yours,
gentlemen.
Mr. Baroody. I'll answer that from a rare earths
perspective and some of the other critical metals. China is a
big producer of rare earths, both intermediate products and the
finished products. They account for anywhere from 80 to 90
percent of the rare earths produced and used in the world
today. I think we need to bring the chain over here to the
United States and have the United States be the producer of
record that can carry forward and offset this tremendous
dependence on China.
Chairman Lucas. Please, Doctor.
Dr. Caers. Yes, I'd like to talk about two elements,
lithium and copper. Lithium, as you perhaps know, half of the
world's lithium is mined in Australia. The biggest mine is
called the Greenbushes mine, and the majority ownership in that
mine is China. So even though we think about Australia as a
friendly country, lots of mining and processing is actually
done by China.
The Salton Sea component, I don't share the optimism of my
colleagues in the lab, and so do many experts internationally
on lithium, and the reason for that is that about--the lithium
concentration in Salton Sea is very low, about 200 ppm (parts
per million). I compare that with, for example, Chile has a
1400 ppm lithium. One of the big problems with lithium
extraction or called direct lithium extraction (DLE) is the
many impurities, as well as other elements that are existing in
these brines such as calcium and magnesium. Now, battery-grade
lithium is about 99 percent pure lithium, so to go from a dirty
brine so to speak into a 99 percent--7 percent lithium is
something that has not been shown to be at scale. Only pilot
plants have been shown to work but not large manufacturing.
In terms of copper, I'd like to note that the United States
is actually mining copper at a decreasing concentration, now at
0.39 percent. Just to give you an idea of what that means, it
means that if you excavate 1 ton of copper, you get 14 and--1
ton of material, you get 14 ounces of copper. If you do this in
Zambia, what you are doing with Coble Metals, you get about 200
ounces of copper. That means that we in this country have to
move 10 to 20 times more material into--on the earth to do
that. So that means that if we continue mining this way, it's
just not responsible. We have to discover deposits with high-
grade copper. These are just harder to find, and that's also
why my testimony was more around discovery, but particularly
discovery of high-grade material and not constantly mining this
very low-grade copper deposits.
Chairman Lucas. Anyone else wish to touch that? Yes, Mr.
Horn.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, I think that what you're referring
to talks about vulnerability from not just a national security
perspective, but from an economic security perspective and even
environmental. You know, my background is in some ways not as
distinguished as my fellow witnesses here. I'm just a former,
you know, Green Beret with an MBA, so I kind of have a tendency
to state things bluntly, maybe too bluntly at times.
But I would say, you know, right now, if we don't take
corrective action, the situation is dire. We are in an
existential crisis right now where two of our largest
adversaries control everything that we need to conduct any sort
of strategic engagement with them, should it come to that. And
while we hope that that won't happen, we've seen what's
happened in Ukraine. We've seen some of the events in Gaza.
We've seen some of the events that are building in the South
Pacific. We simply cannot allow vital materials to be dependent
upon the interest of our adversaries who have in the past shown
they will leverage that position much to their favor and to our
disadvantage.
So I would say we have the materials here in the United
States. We used to control this industry. I think we can,
again, should we take the necessary corrective action. We have
the best technology. We have the highest standards of
oversight, environmental and social protection. Bear in mind
that folks driving Teslas sadly need to be aware of where some
of those materials are sourced from.
And I will say that some of the material sourced as a part
of the electrification are simply coming from child slave labor
run by the PRC (People's Republic of China) on the other side
of the planet. We cannot allow our electrification and our
technology transfer to be dependent upon such deplorable
techniques, tactics, and practices. We have the ability and the
need to own this again in the United States.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you. My time has expired. I now
recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren, for her questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
the entire panel for very instructive testimony.
You know, I was talking to some of my constituents not too
long ago, and they were talking about rare earth as if it was
so rare, it couldn't be found. And that's--actually, that's not
the definition of rare earth. So it's really unfortunate in a
way that that's the title, and it's really a matter of
identifying and exploiting this opportunity for our benefit.
But I wanted to turn to the situation of the Salton Sea and
lithium. Dr. Caers, your recent answer was depressing. I chair
the California Democratic Delegation. We had--you know, we meet
every week, and one of the topics was the lithium in the Salton
Sea. And some of the information we were receiving was really
more optimistic than what you have just described. Obviously,
the concentration level is low, but also, it doesn't need to be
mined. I mean, it's--it needs to be extracted from liquid,
which is a whole different implication. What do you see--and I
want to ask Dr. Mulvaney and others here--that--is there an
opportunity to apply our science community to methods that
might make this resource more accessible to us in your
judgment?
Dr. Caers. Yes, so to make it more accessible, we have to
understand the entire system better. So the Salton Sea is a
geothermal brine, so these are fluids or--that sit in the
subsurface. So one of the things that's actually not quite
understood is how are these fluids moving in the subsurface?
How is this affecting the groundwater system? Because once you
start pumping material out, you know, the earth starts to react
by--in various ways, so that is not very well understood. So I
think more funding needs to go in understanding the entire
system.
The other thing we have to understand also better is the
environmental consequences of the direct lithium extraction. If
indeed the direct lithium extraction is not as good as it
should be, then we still need to use freshwater and
evaporation. So we need to--and that, of course, in the Salton
Sea is a big issue.
The other thing is that in the Salton Sea--and my colleague
will talk more about that--is the environmental justice
concerns. I have a student Sergio Lopez who was the first
person to go knock on people's door in the Salton Sea and
actually talk to the community. People who do environmental
science, people who work in industry, I think, you know, it
will be also great for them to get more involved with those
communities and see what their needs are. So see it more as a
system approach, and I think that will help us better
understand what the consequences are of extraction.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you for that. You know, the Salton Sea
actually was a mistake was its origin. It's not--and now, of
course, it's an environmental hazard with the winds. And what
was described to us yesterday was extraction but then recharge
to avoid the subsidence issue that is of concern.
Dr. Mulvaney, do you have any comments on this? Is this
going to be an important resource to us or not?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think it depends. I think there's a lot
to--that still has to play out there. I am working with an
environmental justice group in the area. I'm on the Lithium
Valley Equity Technical Advisory Group, so I don't have the
technical background that my colleague to my right here has.
But there are issues with water use and things like that that
still need to be sorted out and evaluated. But I'm not sure we
know the full answer. There are three current developments in
progress right now where they're working on this. One is just
doing straight-up lithium extraction, one's doing it with
geothermal, and then there's an existing geothermal plant
that's also working on lithium development.
I think a lot of this is also dictated by the price for
lithium. If people have been following the market, the price of
lithium has fallen pretty significantly, so that might dictate
whether or not the Salton Sea is economically viable mining,
and obviously, it's very--commodities with their prices
bouncing around makes things a bit more challenging. But I
don't know if we have the answer yet.
Ms. Lofgren. Right. My time is almost up, but I'm hoping
that after this, you can describe more of the recapture of
lithium because, obviously, if we're only recycling 10 to 15
percent, we're wasting a lot of a resource. How much of it is
in consumer goods? How much in commercial goods because that
would lead to different endeavors in terms of recoveries.
My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for
five minutes for his questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn, what has been your experience of converting
federally funded R&D projects into full commercialization? Mr.
Horn?
Mr. Horn. Federal funding is key to unlocking private
capital and to moving projects forward. I've seen multiple
examples of successful deployment across the spectrum from
battery materials such as the lithium that's been described, to
rare earths. Referencing several projects in California from
the previous conversation, there's several that have been
supported in various capacities by Federal research and
development dollars, and I think that it's brought about the
right kind of development that you're looking for.
I think there needs to be more. I speak representing the
investor base that's looking to pour private capital into the
right projects here, and I can tell you that the appetite for
their deployment is entirely enabled and encouraged by
deployment of these Federal funds. So I'd say that they're
critical, and I hope that that answers the question to the
degree you're looking.
Mr. Posey. Yes, it does. Thank you very much.
What could Congress do to encourage it?
Mr. Horn. I think proper oversight and allocation of
funding to state the obvious. The biggest thing needed would be
to ensure that public capital is directed toward projects that,
you know, simply put, are winners. You know, as I stated in my
testimony, we've got multiple projects our partners are working
on that would essentially provide the entire U.S. demand for
heavy rare earths that go into every single EV, phone,
commodity, you name it. So that is within our fingertips'
reach, should we be able to provide additional funding capital
and commonsense permitting to allow us to bring this to full
commercialization. It's very close.
Mr. Posey. As another witness mentioned previously, China
announced export restrictions on germanium and gallium and
recently included natural and synthetic graphite. You know,
will these export restrictions harm our national security, our
space industry, our supply chain? And, you know, Mr. Horn and
Mr. Peay, I'd like you to respond to that.
Mr. Horn. We're incredibly vulnerable right now. The
Chinese Government has shown their hand and their plan. They
have not made any attempt to hide it or to even distract from
what they plan to do, and they have done it sequentially now
with multiple materials, much as they did previously when the
Japanese were trying to optimize their own rare earth
capabilities. So, as we stand right now, if we don't take
drastic, immediate action to open up U.S. opportunities, we'll
be in a situation where we will not be able to compete in vital
national security areas that put our entire security at risk.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Mr. Peay?
Mr. Peay. Yes, we don't know exactly what the impact is
going to be yet, but this leaves us very vulnerable. It's why
the work we're doing is so important and why we have to look
across the entire supply chain from diversifying and expanding
our supply, to developing alternatives, to working on our
materials and manufacturing. As I said in my testimony, you
know, it's not enough if we just can extract the raw materials
trying to control the entire midstream. And so it's not just
them cutting us off from gallium and germanium, but their
control of the midstream has--also puts us in a very vulnerable
position.
Mr. Posey. In your written testimony, you mentioned
equitable social performance as part of the process at the
Department of Energy's approach to build a new domestic
commercial infrastructure. You know, what does that mean?
Mr. Peay. So we need to be just as--we need to be very
concerned about responsible labor standards and responsible
production here in the United States when we do extraction. And
so other countries have abhorrent standards for child labor,
for environmental standards, and so as we bring these
industries back onshore, we need to make sure that we're doing
things responsibly here in America.
Mr. Posey. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chairman Lucas and Ranking
Member Lofgren, and thank you to our witnesses for your
expertise.
I want to start by emphasizing the importance of
transitioning to a clean energy economy to lower costs for
families but also, importantly, to cut greenhouse gas
emissions. And recognize--we all recognize that renewable
energy technologies, solar panels, advanced batteries,
transmission lines will all require significant amounts of
critical minerals. That's not in dispute.
Many of these high-demand minerals can be found in vast
quantities and deposits in the deep ocean seabed, so I want to
raise the concern and the issue about deep-sea mining. I know
Ranking Member Lucas mentioned the Salton Sea, but deep-sea
mining is something I'm concerned about. I want to note that
the International Seabed Authority prohibits deep-sea mining on
international sea floors, but some coastal nations--Norway, for
example--are investing in deep-sea mining technologies to ramp
up stocks of critical minerals.
I work on a lot of ocean health issues, so I'm raising this
issue because I note that deep-sea mining can present
significant risks that could harm marine life, ecosystems.
Sediment agitation, for example, could expose buried organic
carbon, disrupting water flow and nutrient cycling for deep-sea
life. The released carbon dioxide could then increase ocean
acidification, which is an issue that we've been working on in
a bipartisan basis that affects our marine life and shellfish
industries, for example.
So, Mr. Peay, you state in your testimony that the
Department of Energy is exploring investments in surgical
mining techniques and technologies. Deep-sea mining techniques
do involve--typically involve--including remote devices--large
remote devices that crawl along the seafloor and use grinding
wheels to break up the hydrothermal vents. So do these surgical
methods apply also to deep-sea mining? And what research is the
Department of Energy conducting to understand the environmental
effects and technological barriers to deep-sea mining?
Mr. Peay. Yes, thank you for your question. So we're
currently not doing any deep-sea mining research. I'm aware of
some of the projects and work you're talking about. What we're
looking at with the future of mining is really that we
understand that there's--in conventional mining, there's a lot
of challenges. There's a lot of environmental impacts, a lot of
waste material that comes from it. But our department has a lot
of expertise on the subsurface, and we want to leverage that to
try to find ways to extract ore without having to do large open
pit mining, without putting people underground in underground
mines. You know, it's kind of similar to what we did in shale
on how we can understand the subsurface. Can we access the
minerals, pull it out without having a lot of waste that comes
up. And so that is what we're evaluating. This is not a program
that we have started yet. We're evaluating if this is an area
that DOE can provide help to industry and to our country.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that.
I'm going to ask Mr. Mulvaney. Considering the increased
demand for critical minerals and the unknown long-term
environmental effects of deep-sea mining, can you talk about
what research might be needed to determine the viability of
deep-sea mining as a potential alternative to land-based
mineral extraction?
Dr. Mulvaney. I'm not as familiar with the deep-sea mining
issues specifically. But in general, when we're looking at
opening up new areas for resource extraction, things like
programmatic environmental impact statements or marine spatial
planning could help identify where the particular conflicts are
and to see whether or not there are possibilities for agreement
on where there might be less disruption, whether that's on land
or sea.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. Is anyone on the panel
doing any research on--Dr. Caers?
Dr. Caers. Yes. So with Coble Metals, we looked into deep-
sea mining as these nodules contain cobalt.
Ms. Bonamici. Correct.
Dr. Caers. There has been extensive research on the effect
of moving materially on the ocean floor. There is a project in
Peru that's shown that if you start doing that, the plumes, the
bentonite blooms will travel hundreds of kilometers away from
the source that you're disturbing.
So deep-sea mining, it's often shown as, we're going to
just pick the nodules up from the floor. That's not where--how
it works. You really start to excavate things. The alternative
to me--and coming back to this laparoscopic mining--is just
again, hydrate deposits. For example, in--we're working in--
Cape Smith is the northern part of Quebec where there's already
a mine called the Raglan mine, which is 3 percent nickel, and
you can mine that very laparoscopically. Essentially, the ore
body is only 500 meters wide with an underground mine. If you
stand there at that area, you will see a building.
So while in the United States we're mining at such low
grade that we have to use these very large open pit mines. So
not all mining is the same, and the mine program that the DOE
has----
Ms. Bonamici. I see my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, as I
yield back, I request unanimous consent to enter into the
record a briefing paper from Ocean Conservancy about the
overall risks and uncertainties that deep-sea critical mineral
extraction poses to climate adaptation.
Chairman Lucas. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Webster, for five minutes for questions.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, each
one of you, who has come. It's a very interesting subject and
also a very timely one.
I guess the one thing that caught my mind when I was
listening to the testimony was from Dr. Mulvaney. You spent a
good little section of your time talking about minerals and
other things that are not even--they don't even come close to
recapturing those, that they're just, I guess, thrown away or
whatever, done away with. So the actual recovery of some was
good, a few, but not all. What--where--what's the first step we
would take to increase the amount of reclaiming of the used
minerals?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think one of the major barriers to
particularly an emerging industry where you're just starting to
get end-of-life products at high--your volumes aren't high
enough. You need to have high enough volumes. An early action
item would be to have takeback and collection systems. Just
that step of reverse logistics, getting things from people's
homes back to a centralized location can make that recovery
process much cheaper to people who are interested in developing
recycling programs. We've seen in Europe, for example, the
development of a takeback and collection system in solar panels
has not only led to increased recycling rates--95 percent of
solar panels in Europe are recycled--but they also have
fostered a reuse market just by having large volumes of
materials recollected. So that would be my first action item is
to have some kind of takeback and collection system that falls
under an extended producer responsibility program.
Mr. Webster. So I've toured some--maybe one area like that
where this company collects computers. Maybe they pay for them,
I don't remember if they did or not, or just collect them. And
then they capture back silver, other things out of those. Is
that when you're talking about, something like that? They go
down and they take every little piece that's in there and
separate it out and gather the--what can be reused, and they do
it.
Dr. Mulvaney. Yes, that's correct. In Japan, for example,
they have very good collection of flat panel displays, even
cell phones that have indium tin oxide so they can recover the
indium. So--and again, that's all aided by having strong
takeback and collection systems that make it more economically
viable for people who are dealing with waste. You know, waste
industries don't get to pick what they--what they're dealing
with, so having someone bring things in concentrate, things
that are scattered across many households or businesses can
help foster those----
Mr. Webster. Does the government have a role in that in any
way?
Dr. Mulvaney. Either government or industry associations
are the two primary ways that you could develop a takeback and
collection system. Some States and some--and the European
Union, for example, have the waste electronic--waste and
electronic equipment directive that requires the takeback and
collection of any electrical equipment. We don't have anything
like that in the United States, which means that States are
left to design their own programs.
Mr. Webster. So is it profitable so that people would
engage in that activity?
Dr. Mulvaney. Yes. I think now, there are--you know,
Germany just opened a very, very large solar panel recycling
facility, and that's all because now they can go easily
collect, you know, several thousand solar panels at once
instead of having to go get, you know, 10 or 20 at every single
individual household. So just having that reverse logistics is
really, really, I think, a gamechanger for industries that want
to develop that.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Stevens, for five
minutes.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask
unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter by the
American Critical Minerals Association. They represent a
diverse swath of critical mineral supply chain from producers
to end users, and I want to thank them for this letter and
engaging their stakeholders with all of us here today.
Chairman Lucas. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Stevens. It's a good letter, Mr. Chair, I promise.
Chairman Lucas. You always have good letters.
Ms. Stevens. So I couldn't imagine a more important hearing
and topic for Congress, and so glad that we're approaching this
in a bipartisan way with a very diverse array of voices from
academia and the government and the private sector.
We hear you loud and clear that we are in a perilous and
risky moment as it pertains to, yet again, our overreliance,
particularly on the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), for critical
minerals and materials. And it's not just the materials or the
minerals themselves. It's the refining process, as Mr. Baroody
mentioned. Upwards of 90 percent has to take place in China.
And the directive of taking corrective action, as Mr. Horn
advised, is heeded here, not only in this Committee, but the
Select Committee on U.S. Strategic Competitiveness with the CCP
that I feel very privileged to sit on.
And so the question I do want to ask, though, is what is
the corrective action? Some of you mentioned in testimony that
we passed a CHIPS and Science Act, much of which came through
this very Committee, something that we were all very proud to
work on in a bipartisan way. Is that the type of model that
would work here, particularly with what we did with CHIPS, $52
billion, a large investment from the Federal Government, $52
billion dollars being administered by the Department of
Commerce? Before $1 was allocated, though, we received notice
that $200 billion of private sector investment was put into the
marketplace.
Now, it's not just as simple as that because we've got
another layer here that our environmentalists also care about,
which is permitting reform. So is there palatability here? And,
Mr. Peay, I don't want to put you totally on the spot on this
one because I got some questions for you, but maybe for our
academia and private sector partners, you could kind of chime
in here on corrective action we need to take because there's a
problem. There's been a problem for 15 years. We need to get in
front of it, and we need to make sure it's not just the United
States, too. Baroody, you're talking about, hey, United States
needs to do it. We've got trade relationships. You know, we've
got trade agreements we can pursue, too, here. We've got AUKUS
(Australia-United Kingdom-United States). We've got USMCA
(United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement). So next big bold ideas
about corrective action, anyone for the taking? Mr. Horn?
Mr. Horn. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. And I would say
in short, a part of your question, yes, that was absolutely a
step in the right direction, and in my opinion, it was
consequentially huge in motivating the private sector, the
investor base to actually mobilize and get more involved, and I
see that every single day.
As far as the trade and international relations, I think
that's a key part, and I think what it really comes down to is
transparency and accountability of all parties. You know, I
remember back in the 1990's, there was the blood diamond issue
where, basically, it became exposed that, you know, engagement
rings were being done on the back of violence and child slave
labor. That's happening again today. It should not be permitted
or allowed.
I think that the distinguished fellow panelists that are
speaking about scientific innovation and solutions absolutely
have solutions that are far superior to anything that the PRC
or the Russian Federation is using, but we yet allow our allies
and trade partners to use essentially that dirty supply. And
it's hard to compete with something that's done on the back of
slaves to be frank. So I think we need to have that level of
accountability and transparency on all the materials that go
into this energy transition and technological revolution.
Ms. Stevens. Right. And it likely isn't just the awareness
piece, which is so deeply critical, but it is guardrails. It is
rules for the road. It is bringing along our allied partners.
And certainly, the other piece to this is environmental
practices as well because we're all living here on planet
Earth.
But let me just conclude by saying this. This is a very
robust topic and one that we are going to continue to chew on
as the U.S. Congress, and we certainly welcome your input. I
will be submitting questions for the record. Recyclability and
synthesizing remains a topic of interest.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber,
for five minutes for questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peay, in your testimony, you raised the alarming fact
that out of the 50 critical minerals that the United States has
identified, we rely on foreign nations for more than 50 percent
of our requirements for 31 of those minerals. Perhaps more
alarming is that we rely entirely on foreign nations for
another dozen or so. That leaves about roughly seven critical
minerals that the United States is able to, quote, ``adequately
produced domestically,'' end quote. Can you tell--can you list
those seven minerals for us? Can you tell us what they are?
Mr. Peay. I'll have to--I don't have that off the top my
head, but I can get that for you.
Mr. Weber. OK. Please do get that for us because we need to
be working on that.
And you're aware that--and we need a lot of permit
regulations that need to be changed so that if we want to have
a mine that, I don't know, mines some of those minerals, in
some--in another hearing yesterday, I literally said that
sometimes it takes longer to get the permit than it does to
build the actual facility that's going to mine whatever that
is, and it shouldn't be that way.
So given--I'm staying with you, Mr. Peay. So given that
the--and I hope you'll stay with me. So given that the United
States produces energy more efficiently, cleaner, and safer
than any other nation, I'm inclined to believe that we can do
the same with critical mineral and processing. How do you
recommend Congress working with the DOE and EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency) to cut the red tape to get past those
permitting problems and actually for our domestic mining
industry to grow, which would lead us to a more--a secure
supply chain that we all need? Your thoughts?
Mr. Peay. Yes, so you're absolutely right that domestic
mining, the permitting takes an incredible amount of time. It
takes a long time to prove a resource. We can do better than
that, and we need to develop the technologies for what the
future of mining will look like where we can do it quicker,
more surgical in pulling up the ores that we need. So we need
to improve our drilling technology, our in situ extraction
technology, our mapping of the subsurface and find and
characterize where the minerals are so that we can be laser
focused on how we pull it up.
I don't have recommendations on the legislative changes to
make on permitting. That is kind of out of my purview.
Mr. Weber. But you would agree the permitting system is
broken?
Mr. Peay. I would agree it takes way too long and is an
impediment.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Caers, would you also agree that the
permitting system is broken?
Dr. Caers. That's not within my purview of understanding.
Sorry.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, stick around. We'll learn you some.
Mr. Horn, how about you?
Mr. Horn. I would say it absolutely needs reform,
significant reform if we want to meet any of our environmental
protection and manufacturing goals.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Mulvaney?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think that there could be improvements in
the permitting reform, but GAO reports that the No. 1 reason
for mine delays is because of insufficient mine plans and
insufficient information in those mine plans or major changes
to mining plans, so maybe, coupled with better science and
understanding of that subsurface, maybe people proposing those
developments would have a better idea of what their actual plan
would be, and that would actually help new projects move----
Mr. Weber. You think there could be problems with
permitting? What did you think about my statement that
sometimes it takes longer to get a permit than it does to
actually build a facility?
Dr. Mulvaney. That is--mining is a very disruptive
activity, so sometimes projects take a long time because they
have substantial impacts. They need to reach out to Native
American tribes, for example, and get, you know, consultation.
There's a lot of stakeholders involved. So, yes, I think things
can certainly be done faster. There's interagency coordination
that could be improved. I think that that was also a thing that
the GAO reported. But yes----
Mr. Weber. So that needs to be our focus.
Dr. Mulvaney [continuing]. I hear your sentiment. I
appreciate----
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Mulvaney [continuing]. That sentiment that is taking
too long. I'm not sure----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Dr. Mulvaney [continuing]. National Environmental Policy
Act permitting, I'm not sure that's the major problem.
Mr. Weber. Is it--I'm trying to get my glasses focused. Is
it Baroody? Is that how you say it?
Mr. Baroody. Baroody.
Mr. Weber. Baroody was my next guess. What--how about you?
Mr. Baroody. I think it does need some reform. For example,
look how long it takes to permit a nuclear reactor, much more
time to do that than it does to build one. And now we're going
to small modular reactors. We need to look at that very closely
because they can be, you know, a very--a panacea to help, you
know, small--bring nuclear reactors to into--into service that
can be small and portable and----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Baroody [continuing]. Things of that nature. So I think
there is a reform necessary in my opinion.
Mr. Weber. All right. Well, let the record show that at
least three out of five think that there's a problem. Isn't
that a majority?
So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. By Texas math.
The gentleman--I thank the gentleman.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Bowman, for five minutes for questions.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
My first question is to Mr. Peay. In 2022, the White House
implemented the Justice40 Initiative to Executive Order 14008,
which mandates that 40 percent of benefits should flow to
disadvantaged communities. How's the DOE ensuring that the
goals of the Justice40 Initiative are adhered to as extraction
ramps up around the country?
Mr. Peay. Thank you for your question. So we've embedded
this throughout the Department. We have people working on this
both from our office that reports to the Secretary, but also
all the way down to our program offices. We have individuals on
the team that are focused on our community benefit plans and
the Justice40 Initiative. And all of our funding--well, nearly
all of our funding opportunities and awards that go out require
a community benefits plan, and we've also been doing direct
engagement with communities now. An example is when you look at
some of the DAC (direct air capture) hubs and hydrogen hubs,
there's extensive community engagement that went into those
awards. And so it's deeply embedded, and then we're tracking
and reporting up, you know, all of our qualified programs.
Mr. Bowman. What have been some of the challenges you've
faced as you sought to embed the Justice40 Initiative in the
work that you're doing at the DOE?
Mr. Peay. Yes, I think--I mean, there's been several
challenges, some that is just as we're looking at ensuring that
we're meeting some of these different requirements. Some of the
work we do is inherently lab-based, and so ensuring that we're
figuring out which ones are qualified programs and what is not.
There's been a lot of learning and getting the resources that
we didn't have. We didn't have people trained or experienced in
kind of these community outreach programs, and so we've had to
hire new staff and train current staff on how to do that and
engage with communities better. So those have been some of the
challenges.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Mr. Baroody, in your testimony, you
mentioned that K-Tech has been working on ore recycling
operations in South Africa, a place that has been marred by
human rights abuses and environmental contamination in mining
industries. How can we ensure that all companies operating
internationally in places like South Africa reverse this trend
moving forward?
Mr. Baroody. Well, the company that's doing the work in
South Africa, Rainbow Rare Earths, has just put out an ethical
statement about that very issue that you just mentioned, and
they are going to take every step necessary to make sure that
everybody is treated equally, that the employment is--the
employees are hired regardless of background or sex or anything
like that. And so they're doing their job, I think, in South
Africa to help that situation along.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you. This next question is to anyone who
wants to respond. I introduced a bill called the Green New Deal
for Public Schools where we highlight the need for clean energy
in schools across the country. The critical materials
assessment report by the DOE identifies copper, platinum,
aluminum, and other minerals are essential--as essential for
clean energy technologies. How can we ensure that we prioritize
international collaboration on the materials that we need most
for clean energy? Yes, please.
Dr. Caers. Yes, I think international collaboration and
particularly with Australia is very important, and our
Australian allies are also struggling, as you know, with not
just the mining, but also the processing of materials which
gets shipped to China.
The second I would mention is Africa. Even though in the
DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), it's a very challenging
situation, I think it's a good opportunity now for the United
States to engage with the DRC, and actually, in Stanford,
Material-X, we've been starting to do that as well, and that
could just start from education and showing our goodwill to
kids there. And, for example, we are funding tens of
scholarships for female students in the DRC and Zambia, and
those things go a very long way. And I think the United States
can play a very important role there.
Mr. Bowman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the cardinal from Tennessee, Mr. Fleischmann, for
five minutes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
distinguished panel and the discussion today.
The distinguished Chairman referred me as the cardinal. I
am the Chair on Appropriations, the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, which funds all the wonderful work that our
National Labs do, DOE does, and the like, so I come to this
hearing with a strong support for our National Labs. I am the
Republican Chair of the National Labs Caucus. I work with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle on that, I think
they're our national treasures.
If I may, may be a bit parochial, my great State of
Tennessee, as well as numerous other Appalachian States, have
suffered substantial--or actually have substantial
unconventional sources of rare earths and other critical
minerals in the form of mine wastes, mineral sands, and other
streams. To the panel, how can we leverage these as national
assets?
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Congressman. I think you--you bring up
a very good point in terms of, I would say, two topics, one,
the successful commercialization of the great work that labs
such as Oak Ridge and others that--are doing in the innovation
space, and then also the, I would say, mobilization of material
recovery as a part of renovation of a lot of these metal dumps
and waste piles.
So what is, I think, not really understood is that there is
technology that does currently exist that actually can
economically transform waste tailings piles into valuable
battery materials and rare earths. We have a partner that's in
the process of building out a project that does it in Missouri
that essentially takes some of the highest grade tailings from,
you know, a couple hundred years of ore mining and production.
It's not as far away as people think. You know, in that
particular example, that was an Oak Ridge technology that is
now in the process being commercialized.
We see, for obvious reasons, significant interest in the
investors that are looking in this sector, understanding, I
think, that we're really talking about something that has
minimal downside. You're cleaning up areas that need that
renovation, and at the same time, you're optimizing some of the
key sources that would reduce in some of these cases such as
dysprosium and terbium, our reliance on China to nothing,
right? We would be totally self-sufficient and an actual
exporter. So I think we need to prioritize truly
commercializing the right technologies because I think we're on
the wave of an innovation revolution, should we do so
appropriately.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. I so appreciate your
answer to that question. It's spot on.
Would anybody else like to weigh in? I do have another
question. Yes, please, gentlemen. All of y'all.
Mr. Peay. I would just say quickly, so this is right in our
space that our program does on developing these unconventional
feedstocks. Early--earlier this month, I was in West Virginia
at one of our pilot facilities where we're doing this with acid
mine drainage. I've also been in North Dakota where we're doing
this with coal lignite. And through the infrastructure law we
have, we're going to do this at commercial scale with $140
million commercial-level project.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. And, Doctor?
Dr. Mulvaney. I'll just add that one of my--my
understanding, one of the challenges with using tailings and
things like that is characterizing what's actually in each
tailings pile. There's a lot of heterogeneity, so more research
to characterize those tailings. What's in them and what could
be extracted, I think, would be helpful.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
A follow up question on recycling, spent magnets and other
sources offer huge opportunities from which we can mine rare
earths. How could the government help encourage more recycling
and reuse of rare earths? And what do you see as the biggest
R&D challenges to recycling and the reuse of spent magnets?
Dr. Mulvaney. I'll start by saying I think Federal
comprehensive waste electronical and equipment management
standards, you know, we have a national takeback policy. We
landfill a lot of copper, for example. We landfill or send to
smelters materials that we can't recover and things like that.
So, you know, closing the loop, first step is to try to collect
those materials that would otherwise end up in waste flows
because once something ends up in a landfill, the percentage is
just too low to go back after it.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Well, it looks like I'm
just about out of time. Again, gentlemen, thank you so much for
a wonderful, comprehensive, informative hearing.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North
Carolina, Ms. Ross, for five minutes for her questions.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member
Lofgren, for holding this extremely important hearing, and to
all of our panelists for joining us today.
The importance of the hearing cannot be understated as we
work toward a clean energy future. In order to meet our goals,
we must address the need for critical minerals and materials
that help us produce that clean energy. The surge in demand for
critical minerals and materials is estimated to increase
between 400 and 600 percent in--up until 2040 to meet these
goals. And in my home State of North Carolina, which has been a
leader in solar energy and has the potential to lead the East
Coast in offshore wind energy, this is crucial.
My district is home to a robust workforce and educational
institutions that are helping our Nation transition to clean
energy, and I look forward to continuing to work with this
Committee to support my constituents and the challenges of this
transition.
My first question is even more pedestrian than most of my
colleagues' questions. What we have heard from the McKinsey
report in February revealed that there are workforce shortages
in mining. So even if we permit the mines, we build the mines,
somebody's got to work in the mines, and that the number of
mining engineering graduates in the United States has dropped
precipitously.
I represent NC State University, which is the land grant
university that produces a lot of these engineers. But there's
been a 39 percent reduction between 2016 and 2020, and a lot of
the projections indicate that we'll likely not have the
workforce supply, whether in mining, engineering, or other
fields, to fulfill our national mineral needs.
I'd like anyone on the panel to address how NSF, DOE, your
institutions should invest resources to best address this
workforce shortage? And whoever wants to start. Yes, Dr. Caers.
Dr. Caers. Yes, that's an excellent question. At Stanford,
you know, we don't have mining, and one of the reasons, of
course, is mining isn't attractive to the current new students.
But when you say we can do mining and revolutionize it with
digital and AI, suddenly, there are tons of kids in my class
that say we want to do mining. So I think it's not just looking
at the stream that we currently have of mining engineers and
mining engineering schools. It's also to tap into the new
population of students who want to do cool stuff with
digitization and AI and apply that to whatever they see because
many of those students are disappointed when they go into
commerce or they go into gaming and they have to do--apply
their AI to really unnecessary things. So I think that's where
we can make a big difference.
Ms. Ross. Does anybody else have anything to add? Yes, Mr.
Peay?
Mr. Peay. Yes. So developing an educated and trained
workforce is absolutely essential. So we talked about how we've
offshored the supply chain, but when we did that, we also
offshored our brainpower with that and all of our expertise. So
this is something we have to do. We've started doing some of
this already. You know, we have a university research program
in our office, and so we've--this year, we had two awards under
that, one to a minority-serving institution to look at geology,
and then the other is looking at improving critical minerals
from coal-based sources. But this is something we've got to
address as well.
Ms. Ross. Dr. Mulvaney, did you have anything to add? I do
have another question. Or did somebody--Mr. Horn?
Mr. Horn. Just very briefly, I would say it comes down to
redefining what mining truly is. Right now, we're talking about
mining that does cleanup, that empowers technological
innovation. You know, it's not the same kind of mining when,
you know, my great grandfather was a breaker boy in a coal
mine, getting underpaid and basically dying of black lung. It's
a very different story. It pays highly, and it's absolutely
critical to everything we're doing on the technical side.
Ms. Ross. OK. I'll submit my other questions for the
record. But I also think it's important for us to invest in our
community colleges because it's not just the people who do the
cool AI or figure things out. It's sometimes the people who
supervise the--that crew that's going to be out there. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa, for five minutes for question.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn, my colleague from California asked around the
question of lithium in the Salton Sea. I just happen to be the
Congressman contiguous to the Salton Sea. I'm--except during
Santa Anas, my district is upwind of the pollution that comes
off of that ever-drying body of sort of water. As it dries up,
when there are Santa Anas, it's a tremendous pollution. So in
my district, we have an odd situation. We want to mine because,
at the same time as we're mining, we're eliminating an
environmental waste. Many companies have already made
significant investments. They believe that there is, in fact,
usable quantities of lithium, and they're putting their money
where their mouth is.
Do you agree that that's the kind of thing, at a minimum,
that we should find a way to encourage when it's a known
pollutant, a known environmental problem, and the mining of it
actually will cleanup that pollutant?
Mr. Horn. Congressman, I would say absolutely. I think
there's a misunderstanding when it comes to lithium production
via DLE and other technology applications. So while we look at
a variety of technical applications of brine sources, they're
not all created equal, and it's really about matching the right
technology with the right ppm content in the brine, right? So
we have, you know, ppm projects that we're working on in the--
you know, Smackover region that are high in lithium. They
require a separate kind of technology than what I believe could
be used in Salton Sea and lower ppm bodies that I still think
with the right technology could be highly economical.
Mr. Issa. Well, you know, the late Sonny Bono spent most of
his career trying to save the Salton Sea, and when I inherited
the region, I, too, became concerned about a body of water
that, as it dried up, wasn't just environmentally a problem for
wildlife and in flyovers, but in fact is worth saving for other
reasons.
Back to the lithium, though, you said it's not a form of
mining that we've known in the past, that realistically, is
almost harvesting by comparison, not much different than taking
salt out of the ocean. So my question to you, and it's not
intended to be a political one, but I think it's important.
California has mandated effectively lithium batteries because
it's mandated EVs. At the same time, our Governor is in fact
taxing mining. Is there a message there that you can figure out
of why you would mandate something and then make it much more
expensive at a time in which batteries are the single most
determinate product for whether EV succeeds or not?
Mr. Horn. I would say it's a--you know, from my
understanding, a lack of understanding the connection, right? I
assume positive intent. I don't try to guess----
Mr. Issa. Right, nobody in their right mind would give you
a subsidy to buy an EV car and then make the subsidy offset by
artificially creating an increase in the price of the product.
Mr. Horn. Yes, it's counterproductive and counter-logical,
I think what there needs to be is a true understanding on how
we get to end results and how we do it in the cleanest and
safest and most socially protected manner possible, right?
Because what you're talking about with the lithium example, I
love it because we work in the DLE space, right? You're talking
about water purification. You're talking about beneficiation of
the actual environment, and that is the means that we're
producing, in my opinion, a preferable product compared with
slave labor done with open pit mining in Central Africa. I
mean, it's just--there's no comparison. And I challenge anyone
that believes in electrification to try and make the case that
it's OK to do that on the back of child slaves.
Mr. Issa. Let me ask a closing question for all the
witnesses, and it's not intended to be rhetorical, or it's just
intended to be a statement about the country we live in. Is
there any major mining or any major country in the world that
has better human rights, better work rights, or better
environmental rights when it comes to how you mine than the
United States? Or, to put it another way, aren't we the
cleanest, best place to mine if what we're looking at is mine
it here or mine it there? Either way, it's going to be mined?
Mr. Horn. Absolutely. I mean, we've talked about the amount
of time it takes to permit the cleanest mines in the world. You
know, that is a consequence because we have the highest
standards, flat out, in the world.
Mr. Issa. Anyone else want--is there a controversial--
controversy here, or that's a--pretty much a given that we do
it better and cleaner, and if we're going to have it done
somewhere in the world other than United States, it will be
less clean, it will be less environmentally fair, and it
certainly will be less fair to its workers. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Sorensen, for five minutes for his questions.
Mr. Sorensen. Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Lucas
and Ranking Member Lofgren for convening this hearing and our
witnesses for being present today.
The Inflation Reduction Act focused many of its critical
minerals provisions on tax credits, which are being implemented
through the Department of Treasury. Guidance from Treasury on
45X, the advanced manufacturing production tax credit, requires
that--manufacturers to sell their unprocessed, high-purity
aluminum to an unrelated third party before they can access the
credit. I represent workers at Arconic in the Quad Cities of
Illinois and Iowa who produce high-purity aluminum and shape it
into aluminum sheets or plate before they sell it to a third
party.
Congress intended for a wide array of companies to qualify
for 45X. However, Treasury's current guidance likely precludes
one of the largest domestic manufacturers of high-purity
aluminum from accessing the credit. Mr. Peay, how has the
Treasury Department relied on the expertise of you and your
colleagues at the Department of Energy as they work to
implement these highly technical tax credits?
Mr. Peay. Sir, this one is out of my purview, but I do know
that there's technical assistance that goes on between DOE and
Treasury.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. Also in my district, we
have an electric vehicle manufacturer Rivian in my district in
Illinois. However, according to the company, the structure of
the IRA does not allow the company to secure lithium
specifically from South America because the lithium cannot be
refined before it is imported. And so this does not allow the
company the access to the IRA tax credits. It creates an
immense cost and delays Rivian's path to profitability, which
secures the 7,000 workers in my district their jobs.
Mr. Peay, to you again, the intent of the IRA is to support
the domestic renewable energy sector. But with limited access
to refining capabilities in the United States, should Congress
take action to allow companies to access IRA tax credits when
they purchase critical minerals refined in an allied foreign
country?
Mr. Peay. So I know that's the intent of the tax credit. I
can't comment on if there should be legislative changes or
Congress changes to how it's implemented. I'd have to refer you
to Treasury for a comment on that.
Mr. Sorensen. Does anyone on our panel today find this
troublesome?
Mr. Horn. Congressman, I actually testified on this subject
before another Committee relatively recently, and I think what
it comes down to is proper oversight and implementation. These
are difficult, complicated measures to actually enforce an
impact, so I think that the way forward, which I think has been
started and is in progress with this Administration, is to have
central oversight from White House leadership, ensure that
there's that proper level of coordination and implementation of
a lot of these executive and legislative actions. So I think
what it really comes down to is further empowerment of some of
the White House coordinating entities in terms of ensuring
proper interagency collaboration and implementation.
Mr. Sorensen. Do you think that there's more work that
Congress should be doing on that?
Mr. Horn. I--my recommendation would be continued
encouragement of the White House to enable that level of
coordination and oversight related to that as well, too. I
believe that the White House desires and is attempting to do
that. Any way that they can be supported in that implementation
by the Congress, I think, would be beneficial for all.
Mr. Sorensen. In my last minute to you, Dr. Mulvaney, I
serve as the Ranking Member on our Committee's Space and
Aeronautics Subcommittee, I've heard from aerospace
stakeholders in my district that some companies are turning to
Europe for R&D dollars due to the funding landscape here in the
United States. These dollars come with requirements that some
of the work be done in that country providing the funding. Have
you found this to be a problem in the critical mineral sector?
Dr. Mulvaney. I understand it is, and I think my colleague
might be able to answer that even a little more clearly if
that's OK.
Mr. Sorensen. Correct.
Dr. Mulvaney. Do you mind speaking to that, Jef?
Dr. Caers. Well, yes, so as I mentioned in my statement,
all of our funding has come from foreign governments or--not
from companies or institutions because the United States is not
investing in this particular area of mineral exploration. And I
think what we have done with the group is also look at this as,
you know, Americans, right? Which country should we be
collaborating with, and which companies should we be
collaborating with? And we've clearly said in our group, there
are companies and countries we will just not collaborate with.
But it will be better for the United States to support much
more in the mineral exploration from inside so groups like
myself don't have to go outside the country to get funding.
Mr. Sorensen. Let's make it in America.
Dr. Caers. Yes.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you all. I yield back.
Mr. Williams [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Obernolte from
California is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to
all of our witnesses on this really critically important topic.
Mr. Peay, I wanted to start with you if I could look around
Max's big head. So you said something in your testimony that I
thought was really important. You said that the lack of
processing and refining often poses a greater threat than the
actual supply of critical minerals themselves, and I've
absolutely found that to be true. In my district is the
Mountain Pass rare earth mine, which is the only active rare
earth mining and processing facility in not only the United
States but North America right now. So they really fill a
critically important niche in our national security and our
access to critical minerals.
But I can tell you--and also the--to your point, they've
developed an incredibly innovative technique for processing the
rare earth materials onsite rather than transporting them and
processing them elsewhere, which I think is, you know, really
admirable. But in my time in Congress, it seems like every year
something comes up with that mine having trouble with sometimes
it's Federal agencies, sometimes it's State agencies, sometimes
it's local agencies, sometimes it's a permitting problem,
sometimes it's a problem with emissions. And it's just--they
struggle every single year, and most of those impediments are
government-caused. What can the Department do to help companies
like MP Materials that owns that mine keep that kind of mining
and processing facility here and--the capability here in the
United States?
Mr. Peay. Yes, so Mountain Pass, is a very important
resource for us, and to your point, ships nearly all of its
rare earths to China. So what we need to do is focus on
expanding the U.S. supply base and doing that through
traditional mining, through improving our traditional mining
through things like unconventional feedstocks, recycling,
having more secure international partners. And then all the
projects that DOE is working on throughout the supply chain,
it's--you know, it's a private-public partnership when we do
these things, and moving things to commercialization as quickly
as possible is really key.
Mr. Obernolte. I hope we can all keep working together on
that. It's a real problem.
Also, I next wanted to ask the whole panel a question that
has really been weighing on my mind and that's very pertinent
to this topic of critical minerals because so many of the
critical minerals now are going into the supply chain for
electric vehicles. And we started with a problem with supply
with electric vehicles. We had a Natural Resources Committee
hearing last year in which the testimony was we'd need to
quadruple worldwide copper production to convert the current
year's manufacture run of vehicles to all electric.
And now, as time goes on, it becomes clear that we have a
problem with greenhouse gas emissions because if you include
the emissions of mining, the materials that go into the motors
and the batteries, and the emissions that are involved in
recycling within their lives, you know, it's not a slam dunk
that EVs are cleaner. It depends on how much you use them. So,
you know, really, it's gotten people thinking about what we can
do to improve that. So give me some hope here. Is technology
going to provide us with a solution to that? Or should we be
looking at other technologies such as hydrogen? You know, what
does the supply chain look like there?
Mr. Horn. Congressman, I think it's really about looking at
holistic intent and implementation once again. Kind of just to
go back to your previous question about MP, I think there's a
lack in follow-through in terms of permitting tied to Federal
awards of financing, right? I think that, you know, MP has been
the subject of multiple DPA awards. Why would there not be
mandated permitting tied to that for implementation? Similarly,
with technological implementation into the sector--and I don't
think it's as simple as someone would try to portray it as
simply EV-related. It's really more about technological
innovation across the board because these elements are just as
critical in defense and technology implementation across the
board.
But what it really takes is essentially doubling down on
the right technologies. But we have to look at technologies not
as science projects, but as options to commercialize and
outcompete our competitors and to provide a better series of
products because that's currently what we have. That's what
we're looking to invest in with GreenMet and other companies
that we're working with. That's the way forward.
Mr. Obernolte. Right. Thank you. Well, in my remaining
seconds here, let me just point out that the urgency of
onshoring the production of those materials, particularly as it
concerns solutions like electric vehicles where we're trying to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions because we can control the
emissions of mining and processing that occurs here. If we
allow the offshoring of that production, we are just also
offshoring those emissions, and we have no control over how
our--the emissions that do occur, and so that adds urgency to
the testimony that we've received tonight--today.
But I want to thank you very much for your service and your
testimony here, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Ms. Salinas is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and thank you to the Chairman and
the Ranking Member for holding today's hearing and to our
witnesses for participating.
Mr. Peay, you addressed the Department's work to develop
alternative technologies to reduce our dependence on critical
minerals, and we had a robust conversation today. ESS, a
company based in my district, received such support from ARPA-E
(Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy) over 10 years ago
and is now a reliable provider of large-scale iron flow
batteries for grid storage applications. Do we have the right
Federal incentives in place to balance the need for ongoing R&D
with the need to accelerate adoption of existing technologies
that potentially have the capacity to reduce future dependence
on critical minerals?
Mr. Peay. Yes, so that valley of death between research and
commercialization is always a major concern. One of the really
exciting things about the infrastructure bill funding is the
fact that we're bridging a lot of that. I mean, we've been
doing work now for 10 years on getting rare earth elements out
of these unconventional feedstocks, and that started just in
the lab, and then we've had pilot projects. But now with the
infrastructure law, we're going to be doing this at commercial
scale, and so having the funding to bring public and private
partners together and get projects to commercialization really
is key.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And when DOE supports the R&D
behind such technologies, are there additional tools outside of
what we've been seeing in the Inflation Reduction Act to help
private industry bridge that gap from lab to commercial
viability? So what more can we be doing outside of what the
Inflation Reduction Act is proposing?
Mr. Peay. Yes, so there was one section in the bill that I
think would be good to get funded, which is 40210, critical
minerals mining and recycling research. And so that was
authorized but not appropriated in the infrastructure law, and
so we think that is important. And then what more to do, and
I've talked about this already, but I'll say that, again, is
really investing in--so we know, whether we do recycling or
unconventional feedstocks or international imports, that we
still need to have a domestic mining capability, and so
investing in ways to improve it, to do it better, do it
cleaner, safer, less impact, that is really key. And having
research here at DOE and with partners at USGS is really key.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And this is for the panel. As
several of you have already mentioned, China dominates
processing for many critical minerals, and some materials are
heavily concentrated in few countries. I serve on the
congressional Executive Commission on China, where we recently
held a hearing on China-dominated cobalt supply chain, and I'm
worried that the lack of U.S. involvement from companies, we
really have no domestic cobalt refining capacity and no U.S.
mining companies operating in the DRC. And it really limits our
ability to influence both labor and environmental standards of
these operations. How can we improve public-private
collaboration to encourage U.S. industry to participate
actively across the entire supply chain for these materials?
And anyone who wishes to answer.
Dr. Mulvaney. I can start. Setting standards like recycled
content standards, I think, could help. There was recent
research out of the University of California Davis that found,
for cobalt, a realistic recycled content requirement could be
11 to 12 percent cobalt, 7 to 8 percent lithium, or 10 to 12
percent nickel by 2030. So that would--just know--just setting
recycled content standards sends a signal to the market and
developers of recycling industries to know that there is a
potential home for the materials that they're recovering and
making.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
Dr. Mulvaney. So it's one place to start.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Yes, Dr. Caers.
Dr. Caers. Yes. So specifically to cobalt, cobalt is often
an element that co-occurs with other things, right? It's not
copper, zinc, and things like that. I think that Alaska in
particular is a good territory to think about that. There's a
lot of zinc mining going on. That means there's a lot of
tailings available, and there's very likely also a lot of
cobalt in these tailings and copper. And, as my colleague said,
one of the difficulties with that is still the characterization
of that material.
The second thing that I can say is that if we are doing
that, we're going into the tailings, why not just look at the
waste stream itself today, right? So instead of, say, dealing
with the waste that's already been generated, let's deal with
the waste that we're generating today, and I think there's a
lot of opportunities there.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you again to the panel. I yield back.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Babin
from Texas for five minutes.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Horn, as we've all heard today, rare earth and critical
materials are an important part not only of consumer products,
but also defense products such as missile guidance systems and
aircraft engines. And China uses its supply chain dominance as
geopolitical leverage, even threatening embargoes against the
United States and other Western nations.
The United States identified this vulnerability decades ago
and is in the process of shoring up rare earth supply chains,
including building processing facilities in my home State of
Texas and my neighboring State, Oklahoma. According to one of
the leading cyber forensic firms in the world, Mandiant, the
Chinese Communist Party has engaged in an influence campaign
known as DRAGONBRIDGE, comprising a network of thousands of
inauthentic accounts across numerous social media platforms,
websites, and forums that have promoted various narratives in
support of political interests of the People's Republic of
China. Mandiant reported that one of these campaigns is
specifically directed at the United States' rare earth industry
and intended to prevent any competition to the Chinese
Communist Party near monopoly on these rare earth elements and
critical minerals.
Specifically, Mandiant found evidence that DRAGONBRIDGE
targeted two projects, those that I mentioned in Texas and
Oklahoma, that could alleviate dependence on China. This
astroturfing campaign conducted by the Chinese Communist Party
manufactured environmental concerns and expressed opposition to
the development of the projects. It looked like real stuff, but
not.
We've seen this tactic before because, in 2018, this
Committee produced a report highlighting exactly how Russia
used similar tactics to undermine U.S. natural gas production.
U.S. mineral extraction and processing regulations and safety
practices far exceed China's. Furthermore, Chinese-backed
companies are known to use child and forced labor. What impact
would further limitations on U.S. production spurred by Chinese
Communist Party propaganda have on the United States' national
security and economic competitiveness? And have we seen any
elements of these Chinese Party influence campaigns seep into
U.S. regulatory policy? Very briefly, if you can.
Mr. Horn. I'll try to answer that quickly, Congressman.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Horn. So, you know, I guess to first state it really
comes down to a comprehensive look at what's going on.
DRAGONBRIDGE is real, and it's the obvious solution. My
previous career as a Green Beret, I did a lot of analysis on
enemy use of what they have in terms of overall effect. The
Chinese have realized very effectively that they can use their
financial resources to influence, impact just about anything.
And so DRAGONBRIDGE is an example of how they have done very
adeptly mobilization of resources that can stop U.S. projects.
I can't speak to you the level that they've influenced the
U.S. Government. I know that they have tried in every way
possible to do so in every other aspect of our society. And I
can say that if we do not correct this, not only is this a
national security threat, it's a big boon to child slavery and
strip mining on the other side of the planet that cannot be
forgotten as we look at this electrification focus.
Mr. Babin. Amen. Thank you very much.
Dr. Mulvaney, a lot of conversation today is rightly
focused on how we can bolster U.S. critical material supply
chains. What are the U.S. public and private sectors doing to
research alternatives to rare or costly critical minerals
rather than trying to increase production? And are there
specific research programs underway to identify more abundant
or cost-effective alternatives to these materials?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think the lithium-ion battery spaces may be
a place where we're starting to see some of that, and some of
it's in research and development. Sodium-ion batteries, for
example, may offer partial solution to replacing some of the
lithium-ion batteries. Even in the industry itself, we've seen
a big shift from lithium-ion batteries with cobalt and
manganese and nickel to batteries that don't contain any of
those materials or much lower quantities. So----
Mr. Babin. OK, thank you. Back to Mr. Horn, China employs a
command economy with state-controlled industrial policy. Here
in the United States our strength is our vibrant and innovative
private sector. What is the private sector doing in terms of
R&D on critical material mining not directed by the Federal
Government? And what advantages does private sector R&D have
over state-directed R&D?
Mr. Horn. I would advocate that the combination is the most
effective. However, in my opinion--and obviously, I'm biased
because I'm speaking from a private perspective--I think that
private R&D is really what drives that commercialization. But I
think Federal can assist that and increase it. I think what we
once again really need to look at is doubling down on the right
technologies that can truly be commercialized to actually
outcompete the Chinese because I absolutely believe that we
can. I believe we have several we're working on. We'll create a
premium product and do it in a more cost-efficient and
environmentally protected manner.
Mr. Babin. Thank you. Thank you for your service, too.
I have another one, but I'm out of time, so I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Williams. Mrs. Foushee is recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to all the
witnesses for appearing before us today.
I am proud that North Carolina and my district, North
Carolina's 4th, are national leaders in research and
development and in producing clean energy technologies like
solar-powered energy. We are creating clean jobs and a clean
energy ecosystem as we strive to meet the Biden
Administration's goal set forward to transition our energy
infrastructure and our economy toward a cleaner future away
from reliance on fossil fuels.
Last September, Secretary Yellen visited my district in
Durham and in Chapel Hill to highlight the promise of solar and
renewable energy and how Federal investments that we're making
today will pave the way toward a more sustainable and
prosperous future. And earlier this year, I joined President
Biden in my district on his Investing in America tour, where
Wolfspeed, a semiconductor manufacturer, announced the largest
investment in manufacturing in North Carolina history. And
instead of relying on minerals made overseas, we are bolstering
our domestic supply chain in chips that will be made in my
district that will be used to power electric vehicles and
batteries that will be produced in North Carolina just down the
road from my district at VinVast, which is an auto
manufacturer.
RTI, an independent nonprofit research institute
headquartered in my district, is a partner of multiple offices
within DOE, including yours, Mr. Peay, DOE's Office of Fossil
Energy and Carbon Management. RTI's Energy Division is helping
to lead the way in R&D and in demonstration of innovative
process technologies in the areas of gas separations, syngas
processing, catalysis, CO2 capture and utilization,
and biomass conversion. I'm hopeful and inspired by their work
that, through advancements in science, we can help promote
national and worldwide goals of reliable, sustainable, and
economically viable energy supplies beyond fossil fuels.
So, Mr. Peay, can you talk about other leading-edge
research priorities of DOE and your office that we in Congress
and on the Science Committee should be learning more about?
Mr. Peay. Yes, so our carbon management program, as you
mentioned, is critically important. I want to talk about
another thing we're doing, though, that is a priority for
myself and for my boss, which is our work on methane mitigation
and our methane mitigation technologies. And there's a White
House initiative and task force around methane and reducing
methane. But something we're doing right now is around creating
a framework for consistency on how we are measuring methane and
reporting it and verifying it. And we're working with
international partners on that initiative.
So it is very important that we address methane emissions
and--from the oil and gas sector and that we do it quickly.
It's where we can make the biggest impact in really the
shortest amount of time, and we're really encouraged with the
work in that area.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that.
Dr. Mulvaney, in your testimony you mentioned utilizing the
purchasing power of the Federal Government to help set producer
standards to aid in recovering critical materials and minerals.
Can you please expand on this? And can you also describe the
types of requirements that could be tailored to improve
industry design standards?
Dr. Mulvaney. Sure. The Environmental Protection Agency
recommends the EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool) standard be used for Federal procurement of
computers, for example. And recently, we, as part of a joint
committee, established an ultra-low carbon solar standard,
which requires that manufacturers of polysilicon and some of
the supply chain pieces that go into solar panels are made in a
sustainable way with very low carbon. That, I think, helps with
the domestic production issue because a lot of the solar supply
chain today is in China and is in very coal-intensive
electricity grids.
So, you know, expanding the types of products that are
purchased through the EPEAT programs, I think, would be a good
example of how the Federal purchasing could drive more domestic
manufacturing and build a domestic supply chain.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you. That's my time, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Mr. Williams. The Chair recognizes Mr. Franklin from
Florida for five minutes.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Sir.
Mr. Franklin. Mr. Baroody, K-Tech has a long history of
partnering with local universities who enter into cooperative
agreements with National Labs like the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL). In your experience, what are some
of the benefits of working with both the leading National Labs
such as PNNL and universities such as Florida Polytechnic
University?
Mr. Baroody. Thank you for the question. They have good
staffs that can help us work because we're a small company, and
we have a limited staff. So they can take the workload off of
us for a lot of things that they do well, and that we can help
them and direct them in the way that we think can be most
efficient for the use of their people.
And we are actually submitting, together with the Florida
Institute of Phosphate Research (FIPR) and the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, a bid to the Department of
Energy to extract rare earths from phosphoric acid sludges,
which is another place where you can find a lot of rare earth
materials. And the sludges are a byproduct of the phosphoric
acid refining process, and they tend to be waste products.
And one of the things I always wanted to say is that, how
do you reduce mining? Well, use the products that are already
there like the phosphogypsum that we're doing--dealing with in
South Africa. We're going to clean that up, by the way, and the
gypsum is going to be created as a result of taking the rare
earths out and the fluoride out. It's going to be sold to third
parties. It's going to be able to be used for wallboards. It's
going to be able to be used for agricultural purposes and road
base materials. So that's a that's another way that things can
be done effectively.
Mr. Franklin. Well, I hope you're successful in that
project with phosphogypsum because, obviously, we have a lot of
that in Florida, and if we can stabilize that material and also
turn it into a good, that would be a huge win-win, so I
appreciate the efforts there.
With--mentioning the Florida Institute of--Florida
Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute, FIPR, Dr. Patrick
Zhang there has said that we could satisfy nearly 50 percent of
the U.S. demand for many of the critical rare elements--or rare
earth elements just from Florida alone. That's a bold
statement. If he's even directionally accurate to any degree,
that would be wonderful news, and because I also know there's a
lot of smart people in other places working on things like
that. Do you share his optimism?
Mr. Baroody. Well, I do in a way. We have to do the test
work to make sure it works and it's economical. I think that's
the key behind a lot of this research is, is it economical?
Mr. Franklin. Right.
Mr. Baroody. Because if it isn't economical, then there's
no sense in doing it. And you have to be careful about how--you
know, you're not going to create a bigger mess after you've
done this than you started with. But I think he's got a good
idea. I mean, there's--the gypsum in Florida, there's a billion
tons of gypsum and 24 stacks in central Florida.
Mr. Franklin. Right.
Mr. Baroody. And so that's a problem for the long term. Now
it's somewhat mildly radioactive, so that has to be dealt with,
too. But I think there's ways to go about doing that, and the
rare earths in the gypsum in Florida is not quite the same as
it is in South Africa or Brazil because they come from
different deposits that were mined. They're igneous deposits in
South Africa and Brazil. The deposits that were mined for
phosphate in Florida and many other places in the world like
Morocco and Saudi Arabia are from sedimentary deposits where
the rare earths don't tend to concentrate as much in the gypsum
and there's not as much in the raw ore to start with. So--but
there's good potential there, I think, for that.
Mr. Franklin. OK.
Mr. Baroody. And I can raise one other point? There's
fluoride in the gypsum stacks in Florida. It's very acidic.
It's about 1 percent fluoride saturated through all of that
billion tons of gypsum. The United States is almost totally
dependent on imports of fluoride for use in making hydrofluoric
acid and the derivatives of hydrofluoric acid.
If you can take the--we have a process at Technologies that
has been patented, and we--we're promoting it with several
companies that we can take the fluoride out of the pond water,
make hydrofluoric acid and a silica product that can be
utilized in tire manufacturing and things of that nature, and I
think that needs to be looked at, too, as well.
Mr. Franklin. OK.
Mr. Baroody. So, anyway, I just wanted to bring that up.
Mr. Franklin. Great. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
other questions I'll submit for the record, but I yield back.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Lee for
five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our
witnesses for your time and expertise on this critical area of
research of resource development.
The history of mining in the Pittsburgh region is
intertwined with the economic development that fueled our
Nation's growth. Needless to say, such growth came at a
significant cost to the environment and the communities that
call this region home. We've come to a time of reckoning where
we have to realize and adapt to the fact that the resources we
try to extract from the earth can't mean we send communities to
an early grave.
Critical minerals are essential to U.S. energy independence
and economic growth. They're vital components in clean energy
technology such as solar panels, wind turbines, electric
vehicles, and transmission systems. What's more critical is
that we do all in our power to serve, protect, and empower
people, the human element, when considering how to shape our
regulatory environment.
A few weeks ago, before the--or, excuse me, the
Thanksgiving holiday, I and my colleagues here voted to avoid a
government shutdown. Since we resumed work, it seems that
appropriations bills are no longer a priority in 2023, which is
sad, seeing that the NSF, through the CHIPS and Science Act of
2022, has been authorized to support research and development
to advance critical minerals mining strategies and technologies
but has not been appropriated any funding to process with such
work. Therefore, it's reducing the amount of mining needed
through improvements in battery technology, second-life
applications for vehicle batteries and better recycling is key
to reducing harm. In my State of Pennsylvania, the Center for
Critical Minerals at Penn State is working to identify
innovative ways to extract these valuable materials in more
sustainable ways from an abundant source of pollution in our
State, coal waste.
And in light of ongoing conflicts and humanitarian crises
around the world, I would be remiss to highlight how our demand
for these critical minerals that are found abundantly and
extracted in nations like Congo often result in child and
exploitative labor, environmental abuses, and safety risk.
While many of our duties are in service to our own constituents
here domestically, we can't forget that the ramifications of
our actions have global consequences. We must remain thoughtful
and vigilant.
Dr. Mulvaney, what are the technological gaps that
currently exists that limit mineral extraction from waste
materials and corresponding assessment of quality and quantity
of those recycled materials?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think, as we said earlier, the
characterization of what's actually in the waste, this is
sometimes one of the challenges. The toxicity that--where we
might have materials that are valuable bound up in materials
that are potentially toxic, that could be another barrier to
recovering some of these materials. But that's--you know, these
are things, I think, that could be figured out and with more
investment in looking at those strategies, I think, you know,
closing these gaps is really critical to getting that circular
economy in those materials.
Ms. Lee. What existing and developing environmentally
sustainable approaches are there for the extraction,
separation, processing, and manufacturing of critical minerals.
Dr. Mulvaney. Could you repeat that one more time?
Ms. Lee. Yes. So what are the existing and developing
environmentally sustainable approaches? So, as we're talking
about, you know, extraction and manufacturing, are there
environmentally sustainable approaches that we could
prioritize?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think some of the non-mining techniques
might be areas that we start with. I think, you know, despite
the concerns about direct lithium extraction, for example,
there are potentially opportunities there to recover materials
from those resources.
Ms. Lee. Dr. Horn, China dominates processing and refining
of the critical minerals essential to a clean energy
transition, and yet the methods they use to process and refine
these minerals and elements are extremely disruptive to our
environment. How can Federal research funding help us compete
with China's monopoly on processing and refining and ensure
that we're truly achieving clean energy?
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Congresswoman. I don't want to sound
overly optimistic because I know a lot of this has been about
threats, but the technology really is there from a U.S.
perspective and in ways where we can cleanly outcompete PRC
industry, right? They're working with a command economy. They
have no regulations, no oversight. We have all of those, and
what it has resulted in is decades of research that is now
coming into commercialization. So there are technologies that
can take tailings, even coal waste, and economically turn it
into battery materials in various forms. And so I think we need
to support those technologies, especially the ones that have
investor interest and potential to go fully commercial and
double down on that, and then that is the way we will get there
organically.
Ms. Lee. Thank you so much, and thank you to the panel. I
yield back.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five
minutes.
Quick question. Mr. Peay, is your father General Binnie
Peay? My father-in-law is Colonel Marshall McCree, and I'm
still trying to convince my wife that it was a good idea to--
that he allowed her to marry a nuclear submarine officer. So he
is quite beloved in our family.
Mr. Peay. Well, thank you.
Mr. Williams. Yes, our families knew each other.
I want to jump in. I have a little bit of experience in
mining and treating acid mine drainage and trying to
precipitate metals out and treat different waste streams out of
leech mines, for example, out of tailing mines for the gold
industry and a lot of research around that. I would not pretend
to be an expert, but I've touched it a few times, including
binder for backfill in nickel mines in Ontario, et cetera. So
I'm super interested in this.
But I want to, if I may, have the juxtaposition between Mr.
Horn and Mr. Caers, is that right? And, you know, I hear the
national security mandate. I certainly share that concern and
that priority that we get moving on this, and yet I find, Mr.
Caers, your testimony that we need to do it in a--we need to be
exploiting these minerals and where they exist and in
concentration to make them economically viable and
environmentally responsible. I know we will do that.
But, Dr. Caers, do you mind first, you know, saying--do we
have enough information right now to start--if we had investors
to go attack these, do we know where these minerals are today?
Dr. Caers. I would say that the answer to that is no. So
the Department of Interior has been tasked to map the entire
United States through the USGS. But I've talked to my
colleagues at the USGS, and they're wonderful geologists, but
they do not have the technology innovation equipped to do that.
I work for a startup company in Silicon Valley, Coble Metals,
that have 150 people employed. Half of them are data scientists
and artificial intelligence experts, and half of them are
geologists, and they are mapping very large areas in the world,
including entire countries. I don't see that present currently,
that technology and that innovation present----
Mr. Williams. If I may just, you know, the critical mineral
list is long and growing. Let's focus just on uranium. Just
given the history of the cold war--and I know USGS, you know,
collects core samples and keeps them for a long period of
time--it seems like we would have discovered a lot of the good
sources for uranium. I see yellow cakes up to $80 a pound, and
it may actually be viable, you know, if we were to start
domestic mining. Do we have enough information to restart
uranium mining?
Dr. Caers. I am not familiar with the uranium part. Sorry.
Mr. Williams. OK. Mr. Horn, to you, do we have enough
information to jumpstart and accelerate this in the prescribed
manner that has the concentration to make it economically
viable instead of----
Mr. Horn. I would respectfully disagree with my colleague
and say that we absolutely do. I'll just give a little bit of a
vignette to try and reinforce that. So my chief geologist led a
lot of the government efforts previously, spending a career at
USGS and DOE. I think he would be the first to contend that
it's going to be the private sector that needs to lead to the
proper utilization and optimization of tailings and other
resources.
I understand probably that you're aware as well that not
all tailings are created equal. Acid mine drainage, gob piles,
though I wish we could turn them all into cash and paydirt, it
just can't be done with the current technology. However, there
is current technology that can do it. I can show you, you know,
if you'd like, a tailings pile that I believe has a defendable
NPV (net present value) of $3 billion based off of the
concentration. Is that every tailings pile? No.
And I would say as far as uranium, we have as much
resources as we need a domestically as well, especially if
you're using advanced methods of recovery. ISR (in situ
recovery) recovery, which is being opened up and developed in
Texas right now, that can be the solution, rather than relying
on Russian-influence sources that are no longer available.
Mr. Williams. I just want to give Mr. Peay an opportunity
to jump in here because you sit at the nexus of a lot of this
kind of data. How do you feel about our knowledge that we could
go out and successfully begin exploiting opportunities to
buildup our ability to mine critical minerals?
Mr. Peay. Yes, I mean, I think we are in a great position.
Our work on unconventional feedstock, that's taken 10 years to
get where we are today is about to explode, and there's a
massive amount--significant amount of critical minerals that we
can get from unconventional feedstocks. The work we have done
in our office on the subsurface for years on oil and natural
gas and shale, the work that geothermal has done can be
revolutionary to the mining industry, so we have a lot of
opportunities here domestically.
Mr. Williams. I just want to respect my colleagues. Thank
you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Casten, for five minutes. Thank
you for your answers.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate you all
being here. Good news is we're nearing the end.
The--I want to just level set a little bit, and, Mr. Peay,
I want to get to a question for you because I've never seen a
good answer to the question that I have in my intuitive head,
so as you listen to this, tell me if you think my intuition is
wrong.
Let's say all of us got together tomorrow and we want to go
out and build a coal plant. We're going to require hundreds,
thousands of tons of material, for steel, for aluminum, for
copper, for rare earth metals, for the high-temperature parts
of the combustion system, the catalytic controls on the back
end for--to take out the acid-rain-forming compounds, maybe
electrostatic precipitator, and then we're going to get the
whole thing built, and then we're going to need hundreds,
thousands of tons an hour of coal to run the thing, plus the
diesel fuel to cart the coal ash away, plus all the trucks
bringing the water treatment chemicals in.
If, on the other hand, we built a solar field and some--you
know, some wind turbines and some efficiency, we'd also need
thousands of tons of stuff, different tons of stuff, to be
sure, but then we don't need any ongoing stuff. I'm using the
technical term.
So, Mr. Peay, has DOE or anyone done an analysis of how
many tons of stuff do we have to dig out of the earth in a
carbon-intensive world every year? And how many tons of stuff
do we have to dig out of the world every year in a carbon-
neutral world every year?
Mr. Peay. So what we need to do in the near term is about
four to six times what we're currently doing, but----
Mr. Casten. I get the transition, but I guess I ask the
question--and if you don't know the answer, that's fine, but
I--you know, there's a rich conversation here. And I agree with
everything that everybody said. We should have environmental
justice concerns and everything else. But we--you know, Chevron
did some bad stuff in Ecuador. That's a serious environmental
justice problem, right? And if we need less stuff, then those
issues become smaller.
Mr. Peay. Yes, I mean, I think one of the--you know, the
key pieces--and when we talk about some of the international
supply concerns around critical minerals versus a fuel like oil
and natural gas is, you know, we don't constantly need it, and
it's not immediately disruptive to our economy, even when there
is a supply shock. It is something that we can continue to
reuse. It goes into products. It's not something that's
dependent on an ongoing, daily basis. So there are differences.
It's not a one-for-one.
Mr. Casten. Yes. And the national security issues are
obviously--and they're different, right? There was a time when
we were nervous about German coal, but, you know, we've moved
on.
Dr. Mulvaney, I want to shift to you. I really appreciate
all of your--you keep reminding us of the value of recycling,
and I appreciate that. This Committee, last term, we had a
field hearing not far from my home, which was convenient out by
Argonne talking about battery recycling technologies. And I
wonder if you could just level set us again on this one. My
understanding is that of all of the plastics we currently put
into the recycling stream, not all the plastics will use, what
we put in, what, maybe 5 to 10 percent gets recycled? Do I have
that right, actually like turned into something useful?
Dr. Mulvaney. Yes, a lot of it's down-cycled, so it goes
into different quality products as you can't really recover the
polymers.
Mr. Casten. Well, I'm talking about something just gets
thrown away because I don't rinse out my milk jug or, you
know----
Dr. Mulvaney. Right. Yes. Probably, yes.
Mr. Casten. So I guess what I'm wondering is, are there
lessons from our failure to effectively structure a plastics
recycling industry that we should not repeat as we think about
recycling industries for these critical minerals so that we
actually get closer to 100 percent recovery?
Dr. Mulvaney. Probably not in the sense that household
plastics and things like that, they're usually just waste
management issues for the local communities. I think there are
lessons to be learned from other metals recycling. So, for
example, I often hear something like 90 percent of all the
steel is--we've ever made is all still in products because we
recycle that pretty continuously, and those are lessons that we
can--those are--that's a great example of a circular economy,
and I think we can continue to drive thing--drive the loops in
that direction.
Mr. Casten. Yes. There's a rich conversation about gold
versus silver on that front as well.
So I guess I just leave--and if you have any comments now
or for the record, one of--when we did this field hearing, one
of the takeaways from the scientists we had there was that the
battery recycling facilities we're building right now are
recycling up to a chemistry that is useful for today's
batteries but is almost certainly not going to be useful for
the batteries--the battery chemistries we're going to be using
13, 15 years from now when that material enters the recycling
stream. And their recommendation to us was that we should be
thinking about what we need to do from a policy perspective to
get purity of materials that's--can enter into a lot of
different chemistries.
And if any of you have thoughts, and I'm--my time's up
here--on what should we be doing. Is that a business issue, is
it a regulatory issue, to try to make sure, as we build out
this recycling, that we're building recycling facilities that
are going to be useful for the materials that we're going to
need once they get into that value chain?
And I'm going to have to yield back unless the Chairman
will yield anybody time to answer that question.
Mr. Collins [presiding]. We've got a number of people that
are wanting to ask questions, so--all right, thank you.
The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes.
Very interesting topic. You know, I sit on the House
Natural Resources Committee as well and have spent quite a bit
of time going across the country with field hearings, just
start out with and let you know that. And a lot of these field
hearings we've been having is on critical minerals and the lack
of being able to get permits to even mine, and to the point to
where, you know, we're down to three smelters, and 80 percent
of our mining that we do is processed in China. And, of course,
we want to bring everything back home, even including chips,
which you can't manufacture chips here because you can't mine
the critical minerals to get it. So it's in every Committee
that we sit in, it seems like everything is going back to how
do we get back to the United States and how do we do our
critical mining?
And, Dr. Caers, I got a few questions. In your testimony
you mentioned that Mineral-X receives funding primarily from
foreign investors. Who's the largest foreign investor, would
you say?
Dr. Caers. Morocco.
Mr. Collins. Morocco?
Dr. Caers. Yes, we do lots of work on the phosphate value
chain in Morocco. For example, as my colleagues at--Morocco
phosphate is--creates a lot of waste, and we're using
artificial intelligence to design a new system of mining and
processing----
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Dr. Caers [continuing]. In Morocco. We'd love to do that in
the United States. We just can't get any funding.
Mr. Collins. So China has made it a point to let everybody
know that by the end of 2045 or 2049, whichever one, that they
want to be the leader in everything, socially, economically,
space, the whole nine yards. And they have been very good at
getting the technology from the United States in one of two
ways. Either they do investments as a foreign company or they
outright steal the technology. Either way, they get it. And so
how do you ensure that research security in this industry, this
critical industry, and safeguard these advancements so that
they don't end up in the hands of countries like China?
Dr. Caers. Well, I can only talk to artificial intelligence
because that's the technology that we're using. And I think
it's critical that not only we've been developing this AI for
what we're doing now, generative AI, open AI, things like that,
but also develop AI for upskilling technology in these sectors,
the mining industry, et cetera. So I think that's a great
opportunity for the United States to be a leader. We are a
leader in artificial intelligence, but we can also be a leader
of using artificial intelligence in traditional industries, and
that is not happening today. And I think that's very important
because I see a lot of work done in China on using artificial
intelligence in various resources industries, and so I think we
need to invest in that such that the Chinese----
Mr. Collins. Are they an investor?
Dr. Caers. No, they don't invest in us.
Mr. Collins. OK.
Dr. Caers. Yes.
Mr. Collins. All right. Mr. Horn, I also want to echo thank
you for your service. It's people like you let my kids grow up
to be free, and we owe our veterans a debt of gratitude we
probably could never repay.
But--and I also--this isn't my question, but you mentioned
coal and how we could--we actually--coal waste, you can take
care of it now. And I find it funny. I was just visiting a
power generation plant near my home, coal generator, had four
units. They closed one from a neighboring State. It was the
cheapest power they could produce, and clean. But yet, from a
public perspective, they quit using coal to manufacture power
in a time when we have record inflation and people are spending
more than ever on everything from food to energy. So I thought
that was kind of telling what you had to say there.
But in your testimony, you stated the need to streamline
the government regulatory process for critical mineral mining.
What regulatory hurdles currently stand in the way of
innovation and commercialization for mining critical minerals,
and what can Congress do to help remove these things?
Mr. Horn. Well, thank you, Congressman, and thank you for
your kind words.
I mean, it's a challenge dealing with this subject because
we don't want to lower ourselves to the Chinese standard,
right? And what we do every time, we buy materials that are
sourced through their slave labor, their disastrous
environmental policies as we adopt their terrible policies as
our own. We cannot do that. So I'm not advocating for China to
replicate what they're doing. What I'm advocating is we take a
holistic look at this. Much like you indicated that there can
be uses for coal that are actually environmental pluses, right?
Remove carbon from the atmosphere. It's things of that nature.
We need to do the same thing with consideration of
permitting, right? We've got a partner who is in the process of
permitting a mine that has, essentially, like I said, the rare
earth--on a heavy perspective--solution that would allow many
other projects to work in the United States to include some
that were brought up today such as MP Materials and others that
need those heavies in order to actually convert to the true
optimization that we're looking for.
So I would say what there needs to be is truly end-state-
driven evaluation of the permitting process, and there needs to
be tight oversight over every single one of these agencies from
Congress to ensure that implementation is allowing a lot of
these key projects to move forward to give us the environmental
solutions that we're looking for.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I know I'm out of time, but, Mr.
Peay, I want to echo that. Thank you for your service as well.
So, with that, the Chair yields to Mr. Lieu of California
for five minutes.
Mr. Lieu. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to
the witnesses for your time and your expertise.
I'm a Democrat, so I don't oppose government intervention
in the free market, provided certain conditions are met. I just
want to know if those conditions are met. And I'm curious why
in this particular industry we want to increase U.S. taxpayer
dollar funding. I'm not opposed to doing that, but I just want
to ask some basic questions. And let me just first--I don't
think it's sufficient to say, oh, because it's helpful to the
defense industry, therefore, we should put U.S. taxpayer
dollars into it. There's lots of things that are helpful to our
national security, such as educating our children well, having
a trained workforce. I can think of 57 things that we would,
you know, put Federal funding to do.
So my first question is pretty basic, and it follows on
something I thought Professor Caers said. So you said we're the
leader in artificial intelligence, and yet, we don't apply this
to mining or rare earth minerals, and we should have more
investment. But why doesn't the private sector figure that out?
Why doesn't the private sector just go in here and go, hey, we
can do all this stuff and then sell these rare earth minerals
for a lot of money? Why does the government have to be involved
in subsidizing private industry here? Anyone can answer that.
Mr. Horn. Yes, I'll take a first stab at that, Congressman,
if you don't mind. So----
Mr. Lieu. Yes.
Mr. Horn [continuing]. Having served as a senior government
executive and now in private sector, I've seen a little bit of
both sides of the fence. And I will say it's very complicated.
The constraints in the free market that our companies operate
under, profitability is mandatory essentially, there needs to
be a business case for everything that's done. And we're
currently competing against several adversaries that have
command economies that use zero regulation and oversight and
use State money essentially to outcompete what I believe are
our better products, services, and manufacturing.
So my view of government funding in this sector is that
it's essential to serve as a catalyst to get the private market
truly into this space where they can outcompete some of these
adversaries. I would not say it should be eternal funding, but
I would say short-term funding to kind of spur this new
activity and investment calculus that's, I think, drastically
needed right now.
Mr. Lieu. OK. Thank you. Are there certain rare earth
minerals that the United States simply doesn't have even if we
were to try to mine it? Or do we know that?
Mr. Peay. I mean, I believe we have access to all the rare
earth metals--rare earth elements, unless someone wants to
contradict me to that. The problem is we don't have the rest of
the supply chain.
Mr. Lieu. And why is it that we don't have--why is it that
China has all these processing facilities and nobody else in
the world does?
Mr. Peay. I mean, we used to have it, right? It--I mean, we
used to lead the world in processing rare earths decades ago,
and then through some of the reasons that were talked about,
you know, a country that can manipulate its markets has been
able to, just through economics, things have moved over there
because we can't compete, and so the industry was allowed to
move to China. And essentially, we just stopped doing it, and
now we're realizing as a country that we put ourselves in a
serious position.
Mr. Lieu. So what you're saying is we could next year just
start processing these things or building facilities to process
these minerals, just that it won't be profitable? Is that
basically what you're saying?
Mr. Peay. So it's not just about building the facilities in
the industry for doing the refining and processing. The other
problem is when it's gone away, we've lost the entire
workforce, all the education, the people skilled in trades and
engineers and that whole process. And so it's not as easy as
just saying, well, let's, you know, have the Defense
Department, you know, use the DPA and get something built.
We've got to build back the entire capacity that was lost.
Mr. Lieu. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Horn. If I could just add to that, and I don't want to
play geologist, I think the only rare earth element that we
don't have is promethium because it has to be constructed. It
doesn't naturally occur. But it's not of high use anyway. I
guess what I would say is that we are close in a lot of those
areas to actually commercializing things, more so than people
would realize.
There is a workup period, though. There is a workup period,
and there is a high standard that the private sector is
looking, right? When I propose a project, my investors are
expecting a 10X return or they're going to say it's safer to go
to another industry. That's what we're up against, and that
means that it takes some time and some incentives from the
Federal perspective to actually outcompete the other options in
commercial real estate and other sectors.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko from New
York for five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank Chair
Lucas and Ranking Member Lofgren for holding this hearing and
thank our witnesses for being here today to share their
expertise on this very important topic.
Last Congress, I was proud to work with my colleagues to
pass sweeping legislation to accelerate our clean energy
transition, create good-paying jobs, and advance our scientific
research enterprise. As implementation of these legislative
efforts is underway and the demand for critical minerals
continues to grow, we must ensure that they are an enabler
rather than a bottleneck for the clean energy transition. This
is why it is essential that we work now to guarantee that
critical materials are being sourced in a sustainable, in an
ethical, and in an informed and environmentally sound manner.
One facet important for protecting human rights and upholding
high labor and environmental standards is, indeed,
transparency. We must be able to see where materials are coming
from and going to.
So, Dr. Mulvaney, in your testimony, you discussed
components of the recent EU battery regulation. Another portion
of this regulation is increasing supply chain traceability with
technologies like the digital identifiers, also referred to as
battery passports. So, doctor, what role do you think the
development of tools like these for traceability could play in
strengthening clean energy supply chains?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think those tools could play a big role. We
definitely need to have more visibility into these supply
chains. I see this with the solar industry, for example. The
solar industry went into turmoil for a couple of years with the
accusations of forced labor, and they couldn't figure out where
materials were coming from. We've been advocating for, you
know, transparency in supply chains for a very long time. They
still can only look one tier deep in their supply chain, so we
need to be looking tier two, tier three all the way back to
where the materials are actually sourced from. So I think a
combination of those tools but also requirements to look
further and deeper into the supply chain are critical.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you.
And, Secretary Peay, in your testimony, you also
highlighted the need for mineral source traceability and
verification capabilities. Can you expand upon DOE's efforts in
this space, please?
Mr. Peay. Yes. So as we're looking at improving domestic
mining, part of that is to ensure that we're having
traceability of our minerals, and then we need to understand
the international supply chain as well so that we know that
what we're getting has been responsibly sourced.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And would anyone else care to comment
on the need for supply chain transparency? Mr. Horn?
Mr. Horn. I would just state the obvious, that it's
absolutely essential. Transparency, accountability, you know,
honesty of sourcing is how this sector needs to be built. There
needs to be no secret, and I honestly believe that daylight is
the best disinfectant to prevent against anything that we don't
want to be supporting. So there are nefarious forces out there
that see well-intended desires to push forward with energy
transition and other things of that nature that are looking to
capitalize on it in a negative way. We could prevent that by
mandating transparency and accountability across the supply
chain.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. In addition to bringing visibility to
supply chains, I believe there's work to be done to ensure that
safe and effective recovery, recycling, and reuse play a role
in these supply chains. It is crucial that we prepare now for
rapid growth of different types of waste from increasing and
evolving clean energy technologies like batteries and solar
panels or even wind turbines. To do this, we must improve and
expand our current toolbox of technologies and strategies.
Secretary Peay, in your testimony you discuss diversity--
diversifying supplies of critical materials, including
recycling from end-of-life systems like wind turbines and
exciting DOE initiatives like the wind turbine materials
recycling prize. Can you speak to any gaps you see in the
technologies or infrastructure needed for recycling different
types of products and how efforts like these can help close
them?
Mr. Peay. Yes, and so something that was mentioned earlier
is about how the needs and purities will change in the future
from the products that'll be coming to end of life, and so our
Office of Science is doing some of that work on fundamental
chemistries to look at some of these products, and that's
really important. And then everything we can do to make
recycling more efficient will be able to help what's already
happening in industry because we're already seeing some great
companies getting into this like Redwood Materials and others.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Well, I'm out of time. But, Mr.
Baroody, I had a question for you, but I'll have the Committee
get it to you, and we'll get it in writing.
Thank you, gentlemen, again for your expert testimony and
input. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Miller of Ohio for five
minutes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I'd like to thank the Chair and the
Ranking Member for holding this morning's hearing, which has
now gone into the afternoon, and for our witnesses for joining
us here.
Before this hearing, my team and I talked with some
companies in my district in northeast Ohio that work daily with
the critical minerals and materials we're focusing on now to
hear about some of the specific challenges they're facing. I
think the most common issue that I heard about in these
conversations was the short supply of graphite, as well as some
others. So I'm glad that the Committee is addressing the issue
of critical minerals and materials today.
My first question is for Mr. Horn. Mr. Horn, I understand
that GreenMet looks at innovation and technology trends in the
sector. How can emerging technology areas like artificial
intelligence and machine learning be leveraged to enable us to
strengthen our mineral security and avoid the shortages I'm
hearing about from my constituents?
Mr. Horn. Thanks for the question, Congressman. I would say
that AI can be implemented into all technical innovation across
the entire supply chain. The projects that we're looking at
with our partners to implement it span for mineral sourcing and
scouting similar to what some of the other witnesses have
spoken up to. I think there's a lot that can be done there that
AI can optimize.
We're also looking at capabilities of automating portions
of the metallurgy and separation cycles in U.S. facilities
where, you know, I honestly believe we can outcompete the
Chinese on a cost basis because we can actually find ways to
use implementation to outprice them on their own labor
practices, which I think is--it sounds impossible. I think it
can be done. I stand by that challenge.
So I think AI and technology can be implemented in a way to
give us an innovative edge over our adversaries in China and
Russia and allow us to actually produce the kinds of revenue
and returns where investors and companies like myself can bring
in larger commercial entities to double down and truly support
the U.S. reemergence as the dominant producer in this category.
Mr. Miller. Yes, thank you for that answer, and I could not
agree more with your assessment.
My next question is for any of the witnesses. In each of
your opinions, does the United States have the necessary
workforce needed to develop a domestic supply chain for
critical materials? And if not, what are some of the hurdles
that we will face in trying to meet this need? For any of the
witnesses, please chime in.
Dr. Mulvaney. I'll start and say no, we don't have that
right now. And I think one strategy perhaps to advance the
workforce is to embed in funding opportunities, workforce
development opportunities like the Justice40 Initiative, I
think, could be paired with apprenticeships and internships and
things like that working in these industries, so--to get
students excited, to get the workforce excited. So that--but
the answer is no, I don't think we have the workforce yet.
Mr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Peay?
Mr. Peay. I'll add to that. Yes, getting both university-
level training and trade training is really important. We've
lost a lot of these skill sets as this industry has moved
overseas. We have a relatively small program on university
training research, and we've been able to do some work on
critical minerals at universities. So it's things like that if
we can expand--and I do like the idea of how you can pair
things with funding opportunities to get training for people
new to these projects would also be super beneficial.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. One thing I'd add, Congressman, is I think a lot
can be done from the private sector, right? I fully endorse and
support academic and government efforts. However, I think
there's a misunderstanding, especially with some of the younger
generations, my own included, in the nature of these jobs, how
high paying they can be, how essential they are to
technological innovation. You know, it doesn't matter how old
you are, but if you'd like an iPhone or a tablet or any forms
of social media, this is critically essential for all of those.
Mr. Miller. Yes, and I don't mean to just jump in, but,
look, I'm 35 years old, which means that I didn't graduate from
high school too long ago, OK? And so when I was going through
the high school process, everyone told me that I needed to go
to college. Otherwise, I was never going to be successful, OK?
I wanted to be a United States Marine. I ended up doing that
anyway but after I went to college. But it wasn't what I wanted
to do.
And we have jobs out there right now within the trade
industry, which is down 2 percent across the board, so it
doesn't surprise me to hear all of you say that we don't have
the need that we have. But we have carpenters right now in the
State of Ohio, we're 2,000 short to build the Intel project,
which is a billion-dollar project that we have in the State. If
we are down 2 percent across the trades, and we have no one to
work in your industry in critical minerals and materials, which
is vital to what this Administration is pushing, once again,
vital to what this Administration is pushing and their agenda,
how do you get there? And it's--I mean, make it make sense.
And I don't mean to go on a rant, but it's simply not true.
We have jobs out there that will pay over $100,000,
steelworker, pipefitter, carpenter, welder, to elevator
technical operator. The most-needed job in all of Ohio pays
$160,000. I can go on. I'm over my time. But we do have a
serious need within this country when it comes to technical
education and reinvigorating that work ethic within our younger
generations.
And, Mr. Horn, I agree, your generation and mine,
unfortunately, you know, we need to step it up and the ones
underneath us and not get indoctrinated by social media.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mullin from
California for five minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am somebody who
graduated from high school a very long time ago.
Thank you to our witnesses. Dr. Mulvaney, great to see you
again, sir. I had the privilege of asking you some questions at
our Natural Resources Committee, on which I sit. We discussed
rare earth mineral collection and recycling programs or the
lack thereof. We discussed--and you have all mentioned--the
mineral supply chain is increasingly important as we continue
to make progress on a range of new technologies.
Since we spoke, my office did some additional research on
the circular economy and took a look at what Europe is doing on
this and its waste from electrical and electronic equipment or
the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) directive
that you had mentioned. Thank you for bringing that to my
attention.
So my question is for you, Dr. Mulvaney, or others if they
want to chime in. If the United States were to pursue something
along the lines of this directive, what are some of the top
lines from the WEEE that you would recommend that we mirror?
And are we starting from scratch in the United States, or is
there some movement on this already?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think the takeback and collection system
and the recycled content are probably two--the top headlines
there. And I think some States are starting to develop these
for particular products. So California, for example, has a
bunch of State-level extended producer responsibility programs
for other sectors that have waste issues, mattresses, paint
waste, stuff like that, that costs local governments a lot of
money to dispose of. So I think that that's one piece.
And I'll just add one thing that I think is really
important about takeback and collection, which is the
prevention of fires. We've had a lot of fires that have
happened at municipal waste recovery facilities, and they're
usually caused by pretty small consumer electronic batteries.
So by having takeback and collection programs, we could avoid
costs on local governments. Those are million-dollar
facilities, often.
Mr. Mullin. One of those was in my district, as a matter of
fact, inspired some State-level legislation that,
unfortunately, did not make it across the finish line. But
thank you for that.
And then just a quick follow up, some of the lessons maybe
from the EU's experience that we should take into account as we
move forward in our own approach?
Dr. Mulvaney. Well, I think on the optimistic side, when
the EU set up these takeback and collection programs for solar
panels, they found reuse markets. And obviously, reusing these
devices that generate electricity still at pretty high
quantities, 80 percent, 70 percent of their initial capacity,
is a lesson to be learned. By--just by stockpiling these
materials, you could find second uses of them more often.
Mr. Mullin. All right. Thank you for that. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Frost of Florida
for five minutes.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A strong critical mineral supply chain is essential, but we
can also support alternatives to critical mining that can help
fuel a clean energy future. Mining critical minerals is safer
and more efficient than mining dirty fossil fuels, but that
doesn't mean that it's 100 percent safe. Critical mineral
mining can present challenges to workers' health, our forests,
wildlife, and indigenous populations, something I learned a lot
about. I just did a trip to Chile, Colombia, and Brazil, and
specifically, when I spent time in Brazil and Chile, we met
with a lot of indigenous leaders and populations that brought
that up. It's why I'm glad that the Biden Administration is
thinking about how we can mine sustainably, but we can also
decrease demand for mining and support the alternatives.
Dr. Caers, there are alternatives to critical mining out
there such as sodium-ion batteries, but I know there's
challenges to their use. What guidance is needed from Federal
agencies to help the research and development of commercially
viable alternatives?
Dr. Caers. Yes, sodium is a very interesting--sodium will
definitely be used for stationary, but it's likely not going to
be used for EVs in the next foreseeable future, and that's just
to do with the material properties of thermal stability and
also heavier. So that means that we are pretty much--you're
going to work with the lithium-ion battery for--particularly
for EVs.
I think what the challenge is perhaps that can be is to
really look at how mass manufacturing of batteries needs to
work because we can always invent a battery in a lab and then
even do a pilot or make a battery, but to get that to mass
manufacturing is a huge challenge because, you know, there are
technologies such as the solid-state battery that people talk
about, but it's very difficult to mass manufacture them. So we
always tend to forget about this mass manufacture. So
investment in manufacturing and the technology to do that is
equally important in this way.
Mr. Frost. Thank you. Mr. Peay, the DOE sees the value of
critical mineral recycling, spent batteries, earbuds, et
cetera. What are some ways that DOE is working to make critical
mineral recycling a practical way to mitigate the needs for new
mining?
Mr. Peay. Yes, so we're looking at every part of the supply
chain, and so from diversifying supply to looking at
alternative technologies that we can have, so better alloys,
materials. Recycling is a key part of that process that we're
looking at as well, and so what are things we can do to improve
some of the chemical processes in recycling or some of the--or
just some of the processing steps that we go through? But those
are some of the key items we're looking at.
Mr. Frost. How can Congress assist in encouraging the
research and development of this recycling?
Mr. Peay. So just continued support that we've been
getting. We really appreciate the bipartisan support that this
Committee has given and what the infrastructure law has been
able to take from the--from lab scale and get--deploy now is
key, and so the continued support is much appreciated.
Mr. Frost. Thank you. Thank you. It's important to remember
that a shortcut to meeting demand is reducing demand, and we
can reduce the demand for critical mineral mining by increasing
usage of commuter rail, EV, powered mass transit, et cetera.
Urban planning that encourages safe and practical commuting by
biking or walking is helpful, too, and I want to give a shout-
out to Orlando Bike Coalition and Orlando YIMBY in Sunrise,
Orlando, for the work that they do at advocating for that at
our local municipal level.
As we meet the demand for critical minerals to achieve a
clean energy future, let's also promote alternatives to make
our green economy as safe as possible. Thank you so much for
being here, and I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
I thank the witnesses for taking the time to provide this
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The
record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and
written questions from the Members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Ryan Peay
Responses by Dr. Jef Caers
Responses by Mr. Drew Horn
Responses by Dr. Dustin Mulvaney
Responses by Mr. Thomas E. Baroody
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Haley Stevens
Article submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici