Niocorp Developments Ltd (NB)

[Contrarian58]

I absolutely agree that the permitting and development process for critical minerals should be fast-tracked. The problem with the act as written is that it pretty much defines everything with a positive economic value as a critical mineral. Here's the text (my emphasis added):

The term strategic and critical minerals means minerals that are necessary—

(A)for national defense and national security requirements; (GOOD!)

(B)for the Nation’s energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production;(GOOD!)

(C)to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing, telecommunications, healthcare, and transportation infrastructure (HUH?); or

(D)for the Nation’s economic security and balance of trade.(OH, SO YOU MEAN PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING...)

The language in (C) and (D) are so broad that it gives mining a special status relative to other societal values (environmental protection, recreation, etc.) as established by a great deal of history, debate, and legislation. It's not wise to throw all of that out, and put mining as a priority above all else, simply because 60 minutes ran a scary story about Chinese rare earth minerals. The mining industry has a pretty abysmal historical record in the U.S., essentially the equivalent of our ancestors "slash and burn" approach to agriculture. The General Mining Act of 1872, still in effect, has led to tens of thousands of hazardous and/or toxic mines in the west (seen the Animas River lately?). The modern mining industry is nothing like the industry of 150 years ago, or even 50 years ago, but that is precisely because of all the laws and regulations that are now in place. That doesn't mean the process can't be improved however, and that's what the act should focus on, specifically for minerals critical to national defense and critical domestic uses.