Oversight hearing titled “Deep Dive: Examining the Regulatory and Statutory Barriers to Deep Sea Mining.”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Their congressional delegates, all Republicans, I would note, have called on BOEM to enter into a formal coordination and consultation agreement with these territories before moving forward. The Trump administration is entirely ignoring these calls, which should give all of us pause. In my home state of Arizona, we've seen responsible mining be an economic benefit and job-creating engine, but we've also seen what happens when mining interests override community concerns. We've seen how legacy contamination poisons drinking water for generations. We've seen how tribal nations are left out of decisions that affect their sacred lands.
I don't want to see Pacific Island communities face the same fate. And the promised jobs from these deep-sea mining operations just don't add up. And let's be clear about the environmental risks. Scientists tell us that deep-sea ecosystems are extraordinarily fragile. A NOA monitor test site has not recovered after 50 years.
We don't fully understand these ecosystems, and we certainly don't understand what large-scale industrial extraction would do to them. 40 countries have announced their opposition to deep-sea mining. The international community is urging caution, and yet this administration wants to issue permits for mining in international waters. Permits that may not even be enforceable and could be illegal because the company is doing the actual work are headquartered in countries bound by the United Nations treaty. Pursuing deep sea mining will further isolate us from our allies, undermine the international legal framework we helped create, and potentially compromise the freedom of navigation principles that our military depends on, all for an industry that has never turned a profit.
That's not a national security strategy. If we're serious about securing critical mineral supply chains, there are far better options. We could invest in recycling in a circular economy, recovering minerals from products we've already made, instead of extracting new ones. We could extract minerals from the tailings of existing mines, mining waste that's already been brought to the surface. We could work with our allies to build a diverse, resilient supply chain.
And where responsible mining could be done with proper environmental review, tribal consultation, and community consent, we should pursue it. On land, under modern regulations, with royalties that benefit American taxpayers. I hope today's witnesses can explain why deep sea mining deserves the massive government investment it would require, when proven alternatives exist right here on American soil. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I would now like to turn to the ranking member on the full committee, Mister Huffman, for his statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will cut to the chase. Deep sea mining is a solution in search of a problem, pushed by desperate companies, open to cash in before investors and others look too closely. Advocates for this industry are trying to rush the process to lock in permits and commitments before their proposals face real scrutiny, because the moment they do, they fall apart. The question we should be asking is, why is this administration playing into their hands?
And who actually benefits? Certainly not the American taxpayer. It's not the communities in American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands who've made their opposition crystal clear. It's not American workers or national security. The only beneficiaries are a handful of CEOs and investors, several of whom are here to testify today.
This reminds me eerily of our asteroid mining scheme, where we did a similar exercise of political theater. Simply put, with today's technology, there's no credible case that extracting minerals from the deep sea is cheaper than mining and processing on land. Not a case at all. It's not feasible or commercially viable, and not worth it. The industry's own track record tells you everything you need to know.
Remember, Nautilus Minerals and their Solwara 1 project in Papua New Guinea? They made all the same promises that we're going to hear today. Jobs, minerals, profits. And then they went bankrupt, leaving Papua New Guinea holding the bag. Just last year, Lowkey Marine Minerals, which bought out Lockheed Martin's contracts when Lockheed decided to get out of this losing business, just filed for bankruptcy because they couldn't raise capital.
The metals company has spent hundreds of millions, only to have their timeline slip from 2025 to 2035. And here's the dirty secret about mining in international waters that's rarely mentioned. Now the US can pretend. We can beat our chest and issue all of the unilateral permits that we want to pretend we're issuing. But the companies that actually do the work, the ship owners, the equipment operators, the processors, all of them are headquartered in countries that are party to the UN convention of the law of the sea.
And those countries prohibit deep-sea mining outside the international framework. So what happens when we issue these so-called permits? The United States actually just becomes an international pariah. And those minerals never make it to the surface before the Swiss-flagged vessels and the Canadian processing facilities get sued into oblivion for violating international law. Even mining in US waters makes no sense and has no proven benefits for Americans.
Any minerals extracted from the Outer Continental Shelf will go straight to China for processing, because we don't have the facilities here. So much for reducing reliance on our adversaries. No proven benefits, but plenty of known and unknown harms. And the communities that'll be most affected, they are saying no. Don't do this.
American Samoa and Guam's legislatures voted unanimously to reject Bomb's deep-sea mining proposal. The Northern Mariana Islands have raised serious concerns. These are American territories. Their fisheries, their cultures, and their ways of life are worth more than this speculative industry. Let's be honest about what it would actually take to make deep-sea mining work.
Massive government subsidies just to make extraction marginally viable, and billions more to build processing facilities, so these minerals don't just get shipped straight to China. Why would we spend all that money to prop up a speculative industry with a track record of failure when there are proven ways to get the minerals we need right here on American soil? And instead, this administration wants to gamble on an industry that has never turned a profit anywhere in the world. We need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask why in the world, out of all the countries on Earth, do these companies see The United States as the most fertile ground for making an end run around our and the global community's laws? Why do they think the country that prides itself on strong environmental and labor standards is most likely to subsidize their scheme, their failed business model, and their questionable investments?
With the Trump administration at the helm, we're at the bottom of the barrel. These companies will do all they can to leave the American people footing the bill. They'll try to cut a deal because everything's transactional, we know, with this administration. I'd like to hear from our witnesses why American taxpayers should take that bet, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I wanna recognize the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Westerman, for his opening statement.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Staubert, for holding this timely oversight hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being here to testify before the committee today. But now our reliance on China for critical minerals is widely known. China currently controls approximately 60% of global critical mineral production, 90% of processing, and 75% of manufacturing. These minerals are essential to America's national security, to our economy, to our energy infrastructure, and really to nearly every other aspect of our daily lives. This committee has repeatedly emphasized the importance of these minerals and of securing the American mineral supply chains.
While interest in research into harvesting polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor has been consistent since the 1970s, no company has ever received a commercial recovery permit in the U. S. Waters or international waters. That could change soon. The metals company, one of our witnesses today, has submitted an application to commercially harvest these nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton zone.
This significant milestone illustrates the pivotal moment the industry finds itself in. Today, American companies are leading the charge to not only utilize these resources but also to develop new and exciting technologies and methods to harvest polymetallic nodules from the seafloor in a manner that is both more efficient and environmentally responsible than was ever imagined. Ultimately, the minerals we're talking about today will be mined. The question before us is whether The United States will responsibly produce them, or whether it will be done by adversarial nations. If we ignore this opportunity and sit on our hands, China will simply expand its control of critical minerals by capturing the market for offshore resources.
The choice is unmistakable. We simply cannot remain hostage to China for these minerals. We must enable responsible exploration and development of these resources so that we can secure our own critical mineral supply chains. Our national and energy security, and economic competitiveness depend on it. Chairman Stauber, I appreciate you holding this hearing, as we need to ensure that the permitting process for accessing these minerals makes sense.
We have heard concerns that the current permitting structure is out of date and does not provide the certainty necessary to spur investment. Recognizing the need for reform, President Trump signed Executive Order 14285, directing the executive branch to streamline the permitting process for deep sea mining. By examining the permitting process and potential improvements to Oxlade and Dishmere, we can begin to create a more predictable and common-sense permitting regime. I once again want to thank the members, the witnesses, and the public that have joined us here for this meeting today. I'm looking forward to hearing more about how American ingenuity and changes to the permitting process will make it possible to reinvigorate domestic mineral dominance and secure American critical mineral supply chains.
And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We will now begin our witness panel. Let me remind the witnesses that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the on button of the microphone. We use timing lights.
When you begin, the light will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red. I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will allow all the witnesses to testify before member questioning. Our first witness is Mister Gerard Baron.
He is the chairman and CEO of the Metals Company and the Metals Company USA, which is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. Mister Baron, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 5
Chairman Stauber, ranking member Sarai, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on regulatory and statutory barriers to keep seabed mining. This emerging industry has the potential to transform.
Speaker 5
This emerging industry has the potential to transform America's critical mineral dependence into dominance for centuries. On land, China has established control over the global strategic minerals supply chain for geopolitical and commercial advantage. Offshore, however, the United States holds two key advantages over adversaries. Firstly, an established regulatory regime to govern the industry exists. And secondly, American companies are ready to transition from exploration to commercial production.
And we must cement this lead now. China has identified deep seabed minerals as a strategic priority and is investing heavily. I commend the administration for recognizing critical minerals as a national security matter, and offshore minerals as part of the solution. And the executive order 14285 on unleashing America's critical offshore minerals sent a clear signal, and the industry response has been remarkable. In the nine months since TMC estimates that NOAA has received over a dozen applications, and the area under US application may now rival China's holding and the total exploration areas under the International Seabed Authority.
Following the EU, the metals company USA submitted two exploration license applications and the first ever commercial recovery permit application. I commend NOAA for mobilizing its resources to review these applications and recognizing permitting timelines as the most immediate barrier. Within two months, Noah developed a new consolidated application process, adopted yesterday, which will reduce timelines while boosting efficiency and predictability for advanced and responsible operators. TMC USA has completed the required exploration, environmental data gathering, and technology development to proceed to commercial recovery. And as of today, has submitted an application under this new process.
And with permitting timelines addressed, my testimony focuses on statutory refinements. After years of bipartisan work and consultation, Congress adopted Dishmar in 1980, and NOAA issued final implementing regulations for exploration licenses in 1981 and commercial recovery permits in 1989. Dishmar predates and inform the international regime and allied nation seabed legislation. It operates fully within US environmental laws, including NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. And under DSHRA, Noah conducted the Sikxi Long, domes program, a programmatic EIS known as the domes area now, including the CCZ, issued exploration licenses, and approved site-specific EISs.
EIS. And a 2024 audit confirmed the statute remains workable, with no insurmountable barriers to commercial development, especially paired with NOAA's consolidated rule. That said, Dishpro could benefit from targeted modernization. Firstly, codified the consolidated permitting process in Dishmar to help advance American companies like TMC USA move efficiently to commercial operations. Secondly, establish statutory time limits for each review step, and clear recourse if the administrator misses deadlines to improve predictability.
And third, to streamline the environmental review by consolidating NEPA oversight under NOAA, avoiding duplicative permitting from other agencies. Many baseline and monitoring activities for exploration are now routine and no longer need repetitive EIS reviews. And fourth, to ensure regulatory stability, investors need assurance that permits issued through due process and due across administration include stabilization mechanisms in the statute or permit terms. Fifth, they clarify that minerals recovered from U. S.
Companies, under U. S. Permits are treated as domestic for tariff purposes, aligning with industries like fishing. Sixth, to add criminal penalties alongside the existing civil ones to deter bad actors. The illegal boarding of TMC USA affiliates' vessel by Greenpeace in December 2023 highlights the need to deter activist groups for endangering American vessels, crews, and operations.
And amendments should protect US companies while upholding environmental safeguards, security, and safety at sea. Seventh, to tailor financial obligations to the industry maturity. Early-stage operations should avoid fees for mature industries. Consider corporate structures and when marketable products are realized. And finally, to anticipate market manipulation by adversarial nations, China has used subsidies, predatory pricing, and export controls to distort land-based markets, and similar tactics could target offshore efforts to block American access to supply chains.
And I urge you to adopt safeguards in Dishmar or in other legislation. In closing, the scale of this opportunity is immense. Polymetallic nodules on the abyssal seafloor contain nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, in concentrations that can rival mineral dominance and fuel US supply chains for centuries. And the leadership that built America's offshore industries now applies to the deep seabed minerals. With a proven framework, engaged regulator, and administration guidance, the US can secure first mover advantage and anchor this industry at home.
I thank the subcommittee for its time, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Our next witness is mister Oliver Gunasecra. He is the cofounder and CEO of Impossible Metals Incorporated, and he is stationed in San Jose, California. Mister Guna Sekre, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 6
Chairman Stolberg, ranking member Ansari, chairman Westerman, ranking member Huffman, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Oliver Gunasekara. I'm the CEO and co-founder of Impossible Medals. I came to this country 20 years ago. As a proud, naturalized citizen, I have been inspired by the innovation that is only possible here in America.
I founded Impossible Metals because I believe critical minerals have the same strategic importance today that coal and oil had in the early centuries. The nations that control their supply will shape the future. Deep sea critical minerals are essential to AI data centers, to defense systems, to power grids, and batteries. The need is surging. The World Bank forecasts a more than fourfold increase in demand by 2050.
The administration has taken bold action to unlock America's offshore critical minerals. Deep sea mining is inevitable. The only question is whether the United States will lead this new industry or whether we will allow China to dominate it. Beijing has spent more than a decade positioning itself to control deep-sea mining. It holds the most exploration licenses at the International Seabed Authority, operates the world's largest deep-sea research fleet, and is working to shape the global rules that will govern the industry.
China's approach relies on legacy technology that vacuums the seafloor. We cannot let them set the standard. American innovation is our competitive advantage. We have invested tens of millions of dollars to pioneer a new way to protect the environment while still securing these minerals using the newest AI and robotics technology, simply technology that was simply unavailable ten years ago. Our underwater robots hover above the seabed and use AI-driven robotic arms to collect mineral-rich nodules one at a time.
We avoid visible life, minimize sediment disturbance, and plan to intentionally leave around 90% of the nodules untouched to preserve the habitat. And because of high mineral grades and low infrastructure costs, we can invest in environmental responsibility and still win on price, making these projects resilient to Chinese dumping. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead. We have extraordinary resources, an estimated 1,000,000,000 tons of nodules in our own waters. We have the best technology, and we have the skilled maritime and robotic workforces.
With the right policies, this industry could generate 300,000,000,000 in domestic economic output and more than 100,000 American jobs over the next decade. Congress should seize this opportunity by updating our statutory frameworks and making the investments needed to anchor a new American export industry. First of all, we should codify the executive order. Representatives EASIL's legislation would ensure this commitment to seabed minerals endures beyond any single administration. Secondly, fix permitting pace and certainty.
To invest, companies need predictable timelines and confidence that leases will be honored. Chairman Westerman and representative Golden Speed Act would do this exactly. Third, invest in the infrastructure to scale the industry domestically. Direct the national defense stockpile to include deep sea nodules to stimulate demand and strengthen military resilience, support domestic processing facilities, and accelerate mapping of mineral resources in the U. S.
Waters. By acting decisively, the United States can ensure energy abundance, create thousands of quality jobs, and lead a critical global industry to the future. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony. Our next witness is Doctor Andrew Thaler. He's the founder and CEO of Blackbeard Biologic, science and environmental advisors, and he is stationed in St. Michael's, Maryland. Doctor.
Thaler, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 7
Mr. Chairman, madam ranking member and members, good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to speak today. I am a deep sea ecologist with more than 15 years of experience researching the environmental impacts of deep sea mining, and my expertise includes deep sea ecology and marine technology. My goal today is to give the committee an objective overview of the reality of deep-sea mining. While I have significant concerns about the long-term environmental harms that can result from mining the deep sea floor, I am not an absolutist against all forms of deep sea mining.
Polymetallic nodule mining, in particular, has promise. However, I do think there are significant environmental as well as practical hurdles that need to be addressed before any commercial mining is permitted. While we frequently talk about deep sea mining as a single cohesive industry, in reality, it is three different industries targeting different ore types, with wildly different impacts to the marine environment. Recent executive orders and RFIs take an inclusive approach to deep-sea mining permitting. So I think it is important to keep in mind that policies developed for policy for polymetallic nodule mining will be inappropriate and insufficient for seafloor massive sulfide mining at hydrothermal vents or ferromanganese crust mining on seamounts.
In looking at the viability of a deep-sea mining project, I consider three overarching questions. First, is it urgent? Given the current surpluses in the nickel and cobalt markets, the lack of domestic refining capacity within the United States, and the current pace of technological development, the urgency of deep sea mining for polymetallic nodules does not exist. Current proposals involve a significant amount of stockpiling of nodules due to a lack of refining capacity, and the cheapest place to stockpile a nodule is to leave it on the seafloor. Second, can it be conducted in a manner consistent with environmentally responsible best practices?
For hydrothermal vents and seamounts, I do not believe deep sea mining is viable. These ecosystems are too small and too fragile. For polymetallic nodules, I remain optimistic that there exists a path forward that respects the ecosystems of the deep sea. But limitations to our knowledge of the long-term impacts and the evolving state of technology mean that I am not yet confident that we have reached that point. While my colleagues in the industry insist that the abyssal plain, the vast flat areas of the ocean floor that lie two to four miles beneath the surface, is more akin to a desert than a rainforest, the opposite is true.
The deep abyssal plain is more biodiverse than tropical rainforests, with more unique species and genetic novelty than almost any other ecosystem on the planet. High biodiversity, coupled with low abundance of individuals, makes these species especially vulnerable to extinction. Nodule fields provide unique habitat, and species abundance within nodule fields can be 2 to 3 times higher than the background abyssal plain. The direct impact to the seafloor from the mining tool and the benthic plumes, which smother the area immediately surrounding the extraction, leave permanent scars. With species recovery still depressed decades after mining occurs, nodule fields take millions of years to form, and recovery occurs over centuries.
While I am supportive of the efforts undertaken by mister Baron and mister Ganasikhara to address these impacts, ultimately, the science shows that we should consider any impact to the seafloor environment around a mining site to be permanent. Beyond the seafloor, there are questions about the impact of midwater and surface plumes that can spread chemically polluted waters for hundreds to thousands of miles, impacting marine prey species as well as commercially important fish species. There's the production of marine noise, which persists throughout the lifetime of the mining operation, and there's the physical presence of ships in relatively untrafficked areas, which increases the risk of ship strikes to whales and other marine life. Third, and in my view most important, does the project have local support? Within the US, mining will occur in areas connected to people with strong personal and cultural ties to these waters.
Lack of local support has practical, logistical impacts. A mining operation off the coast of American Samoa will depend on American Samoan businesses and services. Without a good faith effort to build inroads in local communities, the realities of overseeing a large offshore operation become exponentially more challenging, expensive, and complex. The responses to recent RFIs have revealed near-universal bipartisan community opposition to deep sea mining in American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. A rush towards commercial mining without first building significant relationships within these communities is unlikely to produce a successful venture.
One only needs to look to offshore wind development in New Jersey to see how a lack of local support can hinder development. In international waters, there's an international community to address. Deep sea mining is, by necessity, an international endeavor, and partner states such as Japan and Korea are party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Mining in the CCZ under US permits without the support of the ISA will lead to significant legal challenges, further slowing progress on the international mining code. This lack of urgency, environmental unknowns, and local opposition do not justify a rush to expedite permitting for deep sea mining.
Deep sea mining has many issues, both environmental and practical, that are still unresolved. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony. Our final witness is Mr. Eric Malido. He is the president of the National Ocean Industries Association, and he's stationed right here in Washington, D.C. Mister Molido, it's great to see you again, and you are now recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 8
Chairman Stauber, ranking member Huffman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Eric Molido, and I'm the president of the National Ocean Industries Association or NOIA. At NOIA, we represent all segments of the offshore industry, including offshore oil and gas, offshore wind, offshore minerals, and offshore carbon sequestration. Our membership includes project developers and the entire supply chain of companies that make up the offshore resource development system. This includes geophysical contractors, vessel service companies, deepwater riser system engineering, autonomous underwater vehicle manufacturers, and many others.
The offshore sector is a proven leader in solving energy challenges, delivering diverse sources of energy and minerals to the global economy. Ocean mineral exploration, development, and processing presents a substantial opportunity for countries worldwide to secure vital supplies of critical minerals and rare-earth elements. Ocean minerals include shallow water deposits such as phosphorites and heavy mineral sands, deep sea deposits, primarily sulfides and cobalt-rich crusts, and perhaps of greatest present interest to industry, polymetallic nodules with high concentrations of cobalt, lithium, manganese, nickel, and rare earth elements. This is a polymetallic nodule right here in my hand. In dense areas, there can be thousands, in many cases, tens of thousands per square kilometer.
When you scale across millions of square kilometers combined with the critical minerals and the heavy sands, the heavy metal sands and the cobalt and ferro manganese crusts, there is potential for billions of tons of critical mineral and rare earth resources for our supply chains to help run our economy and to compete with China. So when you're thinking about the economic potential that is there, it's vast. You're talking billions of tons of critical minerals that could supply our critical industries such as defense, manufacturing, biomedical services, aeronautical space. Everything depends on this. The US Department of the Interior has the authority to evaluate the US Outer Continental Shelf for mineral development potential and to lease offshore acreage for critical mineral development.
In fact, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management at Interior has already issued regulations allowing leasing for critical minerals. Concurrently, international waters have been the focus of extensive mineral exploration for decades. The National Ocean And Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, different than NOAA, has authority for ocean mineral exploration from the deep seabed beyond our national jurisdiction pursuant to the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. And just yesterday, NOAA released a new rule to modernize its regulations and streamline the permitting process under the law. NOAA commends the government for recognizing the maturity and significant technological advancements of this industry.
NOAA supports the consolidated exploration license and commercial recovery permit review process. Public policy will play a central role in the ability of the US to lead an ocean mineral exploration, development, and processing. We urge congress to continue working with the administration to advance a regulatory framework for domestic waters that is predictable and science-based, including leasing and time-bound permitting pathways, provide open access to exploration, regulatory certainty, and security of tenure for companies satisfactorily executing permitted activities. In international waters, this includes increased clarity in application review and permit issuance processes, supporting developers as this emerging industry transitions to commercial production, and modernizing the law to the present day. NOAA is a big supporter of permitting reform to boost confidence in investing in US managed and approved projects.
We support the SPEED Act. We support its provisions for streamlined permitting, judicial reform, and permit certainty. And whether through the legislative or the regulatory process, the ocean mineral exploration industry similarly needs the certainty of a swift, clearly defined permitting, oversight, and approval process to build the confidence to invest and to build and to develop these critical resources that our economy so sorely needs. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank the witness for his testimony. The chair will now recognize members for five minutes of questions, and I'm now gonna recognize myself for five minutes. Mister Malido, I appreciate the acknowledgment in your testimony, how important it is for the United States to start mining minerals like cobalt, nickel, and copper to meet ever-increasing demand. In your opinion, what will happen to our economy if we continue to turn a blind eye and refuse to produce those minerals domestically?
Speaker 8
Thank you, chairman. That's a great question. And I think what we're looking at is a situation where the debate is no longer about whether mineral production of critical minerals in the ocean environment is gonna happen, but where and under whose rules that's gonna happen. And if this was a marathon, China is at mile 20, and we're just starting out. We need to get into this race, and we need to win this race because, of course, from a national security standpoint, the consequences are tremendous when facing an adversarial rival like China and the communist party of China.
But, economically, when you're not able to secure domestically the supply of critical minerals that we rely upon for everything, you're looking at the potential for lost jobs, weaker industries, shifting manufacturing outside The United States, increased inflation, slower long term economic growth. What you would end up seeing with these types of trends is that the US risks becoming a technology designer but not a technology builder. So it's dire, and the consequences from an economic standpoint would certainly be devastating if we continue to cede power to China. Thank you. Mister Baron, could you elaborate on why it does not make sense for every phase of.
Speaker 5
Yes. The modernization that was reflected yesterday shows how the industry has evolved. And, Dishma required every step to require an EIS. So, for example, our company, we've spent more than 3 quarters of $1,000,000,000 over the last 14 years, much of it on environmental work, for example. We have no exploration work to do.
And there's a very nice solution which has been acknowledged, and that is to integrate the NEPA rules. And they can decide what are the important things that need monitoring. They can decide what is going to have an impact on the environment. But the way the rules stood, which, of course, dates back to 1980, every step of the way, even if it involved no at-sea activity, needed an EIS, which
Speaker 1
is a little bit impractical. Thank you. And how does the current process impact permitting timelines?
Speaker 5
Well, very positive. And I think the other, very important amendment was to enable a NOA to consider a commercial recovery permit application at the same time as considering an exploration license application. And, while we were permitted through a different organization, we don't have an exploration permit through NOAA quite yet. Yet we've done all of the work that would typically be done. So this is a very important change, and we have a high degree of confidence that this year, we will see our permits granted for our commercial recovery permit application.
Thank you. Mister Gunasakare, in.
Speaker 1
Your testimony, you touch on China's interest in deep-sea mining. In your opinion, are the Chinese close to being able to extract deep-sea minerals?
Speaker 6
Yes. China has been very active over the last decade. They hold more exploration areas in the UN framework than any other country. They have the largest deep-sea fleet. They have multiple state owned and private companies investing in collecting deep sea mineral technologies.
So they have been investing very heavily over the last decade. And this is now a race. And if we're not careful, they will win.
Speaker 6
I think it's all around the problems that we are now in with critical middles. You know, right now, for the last 25 years, we've kind of ceded that to China. And we're now realizing that our economies are completely dependent on it. Our military is dependent on it. And China has shown that they will weaponize in the recent trade negotiations around rare earths.
It's a strategic vulnerability to the US, and this is a resource of such scale and such potential low cost that we can really win as long as we invest and don't let China own this area.
Speaker 10
You, mister chairman. Mister Byron and mister Gun Gunsinkra, has either of your companies submitted an unsolicited request for the lease sale of areas surrounding Guam to Boeing?
Speaker 6
We have not, but we have for American Samoa. We requested the start of the process.
Speaker 1
I will now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Hoffman, for his five minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Baron, are there any commercial deep-sea mining operations anywhere in the world today? No. Thank you for that acknowledgment. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have a history of companies that have tried and gone bankrupt in this space.
Your own timeline has slipped from 2025 to 2035. Why, in the face of all of this, is the United States the most attractive place in the world for your company right now? What is it about the US regulatory environment at this moment that attracts you?
Speaker 5
Well, firstly, the reason why there is no commercial activity is because, up until the current administration, most activity was happening through the international body, which, of course, despite being established in 1994, has not been able to achieve the one goal they set out for, and that was to put in place a set of rules. If I may correct you with regards to our timeline, as we announced this morning, it is our plan to be in commercial production by the end of next year, 2024. So I'm not sure where you heard 2035. I think the permitting framework is very important commercially, and the best way to protect any environment is to regulate it. And, of course, America used to lead this industry back in the nineteen seventies and eighties, and then they stood aside while the international community tried to get their act together.
But the rules always existed here. And the reason why America is so interesting to us is because there is a legal framework, and because reindustrialization for western economies is absolutely essential. And I think in the last decade, we've seen developed economies like America be happy to let go of industries, cede control to countries like China. But these secure supply lines are critical to economies of few futures, and they can play an important part there.
Speaker 3
So as I understand it, other countries have tried to get commercial operations up and running within their exclusive economic zones, and they've been unable to do that. You've chosen the United States. You've cited the rule of law, regulatory framework, etc. Let me suggest that there may be another reason why you have chosen The United States, because it's a potential loophole. 168 countries around the world are bound by the law of the sea treaty.
We are not. You can't get permits in any of those other countries because of their legal obligations and international law. So you're here. And let me ask about your supply chain. Does the metals company own the vessels that you would use for commercial operations?
Speaker 5
Well, the requirement is that those vessels will be US vessels, and that will be the case. Noah has rules that are very explicit with regards to that supply chain. And, of course, you know, this administration has.
Speaker 3
So they would be US flagged, the vessels would be flagged in a country that is not a party to the law or treaty? That's right. Yeah. Are you processing partners in the law of the sea treaty countries like Canada?
Speaker 5
No. Not Canada. We have been exploring, processing our materials in Japan. But what you'll learn through the course of this year is that the administration is very keen that we come and build that processing, they want to financially support that on USA soil. The last time a processing plant was built for nickel in this country was in 1954.
The last time a processing plant was really built here was 1980, and that was for aluminum. And so you need to be able to invest in these centers on the ground if you're going to secure the supply lines. And that's absolutely it.
Speaker 3
Partners you're considering are these. These are all countries that are in the Law of the Sea Treaty. Right?
Speaker 3
Okay. For the vessels. Right. But I am asking about the processing. And for the processing.
And for the processing. You do the processing in the United States.
Speaker 5
That's our plan. And we're currently talking to the administration about what they could do to help us fast track the establishment of that on USA soil.
Speaker 3
So you are depending on The United States not only granting this unusual permitting, but standing up an entire industry that doesn't exist right now for the processing?
Speaker 5
Well, what I would what I'm depending on is the desire to reindustrialize. And I hear a lot of people talk about there being more efficient ways, but there are no resources in the USA of the size and the quality as polymetallic nodules. And so it's an opportunity for my own.
Speaker 3
Appreciate your answer. Thank you. I am out of time, mister chairman. Let me just say, I think it is sad that we are platforming essentially a venture capital fundraising charrette for an industry that has such a dismal track record and such a wishful path to ever achieving success. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I'll recognize this, Mister Rezell, for five minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you all for being here today and providing us with this good testimony and information. I see every day how closely our economy, our national security, and our way of life are tied to water. Energy production, shipbuilding, ports, fisheries, and military readiness are all critical to our region. They depend on reliable access to essential resources.
That's why I introduced the Unleash America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resource Act to support and expand domestic seabed and mineral development. This bill strengthens Americans' economic and national security by accelerating the responsible development of critical mineral resources found on the ocean floor. These minerals are essential for advanced technologies, renewable energy infrastructure, and defense systems. Yet the United States remains dangerously reliant on foreign supply chains to meet this growing demand. On the Gulf Coast, we understand that responsible offshore development and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive.
We've seen firsthand that with clear rules, science-based decision making, and strong oversight, offshore activity can support jobs, strengthen supply chains, and protect our coastal resources at the same time. Mister Guna Sakhru, the administration has estimated that a domestic seabed mining industry is projected to create 100,000 American jobs in shipbuilding, robotics, manufacturing, and mineral processing. How can a stable regulatory framework ensure that these industrial jobs are secured within the US coastal economies?
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question. I think having a stable framework really allows for industrial and industry partners to invest. What we need to see is this is a brand new industry, a bit like offshore oil and gas in the 1970s. That didn't really exist, industry with a huge number of jobs and GDP. And what we need to see is support from the administration, from Congress, to make it very clear what the time frames are and what's the certainty.
And that will then allow industry to invest, and that will unlock a lot of jobs. And as you mentioned, shipbuilding, processing, robotics, support infrastructures, marine science. All of this will grow rapidly as this industry matures.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much. Mister Barron and mister Gunnar Sakhru, what role does regulatory certainty play in ensuring these resources are developed safely and sustain sustainability?
Speaker 5
Well, regulatory certainty is critical, and we've invested almost 1 billion dollars without that regulatory certainty. But there aren't many companies as ambitious or bold as us, perhaps. But to move into commercial production, it's just sensible that we need regulatory certainty. And, of course, America has that. America was able to put in a regulatory environment back in 1980.
And so the international comparison is this group down in Jamaica who, since 1994, have failed to achieve that. The one task they were set. So, you know, cheers to America.
Speaker 6
I see people concerned about the environmental concerns, but innovation is how we solve our problems. And having regulatory circuitry will just drive more innovation, more investment, more jobs.
Speaker 11
Thank you. What policy changes do you recommend to open access to these mineral resources?
Speaker 6
I think having clarity on timelines, you know, understanding precisely all of the steps that we need to go through from exploration to commercial recovery, and being crystal clear exactly what the time frames are for that. In addition, I'd like to see codifying of the executive order to make sure that there is certainty to our investors that no matter what new administration happens, this work will continue.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Mr. Case for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you very much for allowing me to wave back on to my former committee. Mister Baron, yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its new rule, modernizing deep seabed mining permits for companies in the high seas, right. And yesterday, you released a press release. Your company released a press release praising NOAA's actions. Either yesterday or today, and correct me on which it is, you filed the first ever permit under that NOAA rule, which allowed you to allow you to pursue exploration and commercial recovery in the Clarion-Clipperton zone.
And today, you also had a major news release announcing that you had filed that. That is a very tightly coordinated timeline. Did you have advance notice of when NOAA was going to release its roll? And did you have advance information on what that role would contain?
Speaker 5
No. We saw the rules when everyone else did, and that was when they were published in draft form. I think it was last Friday. We filed our application today, and, of course, the rules went into the federal registry yesterday that there was a draft floating around on the government website on Friday. It is out, job.
Speaker 9
Had a whole permit prepared, and you knew exactly what the rules were going to be, yeah. In order to file that permit. A draft rule is a draft rule, but a final rule is a final rule. The final rule was yesterday, and yet you filed your permit right away.
Speaker 5
Well, I can assure you we did not see those rules before anyone else did. And did you know what was in them? Well, we had lobbied hard for some of the inefficiencies that were, and, of course, Noah ran a process where they went and sought advice from industry participants. So we did not know that it is our job to make estimates about what makes commercial sense. We obviously knew the president had issued an executive order, so we knew there was a will and an intent.
And so, you know, we were prepared for every situation. And, you know, we have a very hardworking team, a very talented.
Speaker 9
team. Yes. I understand. It just seems very tightly coordinated, as if you had advanced notice and you knew exactly when you were gonna do it and what the foundation was gonna be. Have you provided Noah with a wish list of where you want to mine in the open seas, the High seas?
Does Noah have your wish list?
Speaker 9
an application. No. Does Noah have your wish list of where you want to file applications in the High Seas? Has asked you for that? Have you given it to Noah?
Speaker 5
Well, when you make a commercial application, you have to define your area. You have to give coordinates over which area.
Speaker 9
Let's Mister Baron, let's not get trapped here. I'm asking you for your wish list, not your application. Have you said where you want to submit your applications? Does no one know where you want to submit your applications? That's my question.
Speaker 5
I'm confused by your question because we've already submitted our application.
Speaker 9
Okay. So you don't have any other planned applications right now? Sorry.
Speaker 5
Well, we've applied for two things. We already have an exploration application, and today we applied for a combined exploration and commercial recovery permit. Correct. And that's where Let we.
Speaker 9
Let me simply suggest, I think that there's a very tight connection between Noah and your company industry right now. And I don't think there's any effective oversight by NOAA. Think you guys are in bed together to go out here and mine in the high seas. I'll just leave it at that.
Speaker 9
We'll see where evidence leads on that one. Is it correct that the actions that we are taking in our administration right now and which you are very enthusiastic about are, in fact, contrary to the law of the sea as it is administered right now and are, in fact, contrary to the International Seabed Authority's moratorium on mining in the high seas. Is that correct? No. Is it not correct?
No. So any country in the world, even if they're a party to the law of the sea, can go out there today and start mining on the high seas as NOAA's application allows you to do, and without being in contravention of international seabed authorities' current rules? Any country can, unless they have signed.
Speaker 5
UNCLOS. So, well, that's what I'm saying. But those countries have given up their right. They have agreed to a friend.
Speaker 9
who understands that. I'm just trying to make the point that we are going rogue in the world on this. Is that right? No. Can China go out there and do it right now?
Speaker 9
To the law of the sea. That's right. So they're not doing it. So the stuff that you're talking about China, you know, spooking everybody, China is abiding by the law of the sea at the moment, and we are not. Because they signed a treaty.
Speaker 1
Correct. I understand that. My time's up. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Case.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Gosar for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mister Gunnar Sacra, I love your comment. You know, the technology is gonna save us. Unfortunately, we did something very bad a decade ago. We went from first to file, to first to discover.
Our first to discover, to first to file. And that's plummeted us from number one in the world to now below number 10. But the innovation still comes. Okay? So all of you four, are you all aware that there's another process now for processing metals called these micro concentrators?
Speaker 12
Yeah. So there are three demos from what I understand, and they've gone to scale. In fact, I'm from Arizona, and one of the big copper mines is gonna be opening up here shortly, and it's over by Kingman, Arizona. They could not get any smelting done in Utah. They could at Canaccord.
They couldn't even do it in Southern Arizona. So they were gonna send it to Mexico, which then sends it to China, and then they take it over. So what we looked at was these mica concentrators. They use limited water. They're a closed system.
They pulverize all the ore to a fine powder. They let us use electrolysis and surfactants to get all these things off there. It's amazing. Okay? And then we're gonna do plug-and-plays.
So how many times do you take out? You have to have so many of these plug-and-plays. And what it does is it takes everything off. So if you got copper, you got manganese or cobalt, all these things come up. That technology is gonna be really cool.
So would that change your mind if you could, if that is possible in this country with these micro concentrators?
Speaker 6
I believe so. I think there's a lot of innovation happening on the mineral processing side, and we absolutely do need to do mineral processing here in The States. It's a critical vulnerability not to do it.
Speaker 12
So what if I told you that we've already set this up because we set ourselves up because of the Carter doctrine? And the Carter doctrine was where we gave China all our innovation. Free. Free. Okay?
Now when you go back to the United States, a comment was made by the ranking member that there's nothing for us to do. And, mister Baron, you made the accurate statement about when the processing loss was done. Okay? So they created this process, and I love the environmental laws. I love them.
We gotta buy by them, but they created this because they said no mining. No mining whatsoever. So they've directed us down this pathway. Would you agree? Is there a gun secret?
Speaker 6
Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, we have to be able to build and do some heavy industries, including mining and mineral processing. It's critical for our national security. We cannot cede all of this control to China.
Speaker 12
Okay. You're very passionate about this and oil and gas and all this. And we're gonna need all the electrons. We can get as soon as we can get them because they're growing so fast. So do you see similarities between oil and gas and these mineral extractions?
Speaker 8
Oh, absolutely. If you would have talked about our industry being in 5,000 feet of water and 20,000 pounds per square inch of pressure and 400 degrees of heat out in The Gulf drilling.
Speaker 8
Been actually developing resources under those conditions. It was not even dreamed of ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, and we're doing it. We're getting 25,000 barrels per well. Technology drives us toward success, and that's what we're gonna see in this industry right here.
Speaker 12
See, I agree with you. See, we had a stockpile of manganese over at this welding place in Arizona. It was used during World War Two for the manganese, and it had all these tailings pilings. We actually got more out of those tailings today than they did during World War Two. So I just find it very fascinating we find ourselves in this jam, but it's the other side who has said, no.
You can't do this. You can't do this. You can't do this. It's not about no. It's about what it takes to get to yes.
That's the biggest key here. You know, you can either take it from China and take it with a pound full of sugar, or you can do it here and use a pound full of energy and innovation.
Speaker 8
We went from energy dependent to the world's largest oil and natural gas producer in the world because we developed the technologies to get oil and gas out of rocks that we were told we couldn't get out of. Yeah. And we're gonna do the same thing with these.
Speaker 12
So the little module, I wanna get back to you because I got one in my office. The big one, Paul, this big. And they thought it was a petrified egg as at going through the TSH screening. And it only had so much fun, and it was costing me to leak to my plane. But, anyway, it's filled with nibidium in it, if I think you said it right.
And the innovation is just gonna be interesting to find this. So when you're disturbing this seaboard, sea life or whatever, they're lifting it out of sand in most cases. Are they not?
Speaker 8
I'd prefer to defer to the companies that are actually deploying the technologies. I could talk generally about it. I know there's a lot of different technologies out there that are being designed to do it with as little environmental impact as possible, but we got the companies here.
Speaker 6
Yes. Our technology that we've spent the last 5 years developing is a hovering robot. It doesn't land. It doesn't generate a sediment plume. It uses AI, it picks the nodules one by one.
If we detect life like an octopus or its eggs, we don't disturb it. It's the cleanest form of mining you can imagine. Literally, you would come back a few days later, and you wouldn't even be able to tell that the mining has occurred because we're only gonna remove a small percent, say 10%.
Speaker 5
And maybe to correct the record. Ah, there you go. Maybe to correct the record before, these ecosystems don't recover. You know, this is a bulk commodity. We have an estimated 2,000,000,000 tons of these on our license areas, and we have to pick them up with the greatest efficiency and the least impact.
And our very heavy investment in environmental research has proven that these areas recover very fast. In fact, in 2022, we ran commercial trials. We went back a year later to the same area to see how the area had been recovering. We found that the activity was actually increased in some areas because there's so little food down there that when you make a disturbance, the critters go looking for food. And we found nodules in the highest impact areas, cleared of sediment.
And they were cleared because organisms had crawled over them looking for nutrients. So I think, you know, the environmental critics, activists, have got way out over their skis on this. And, you know, I think it's absolutely the winning case. The best place to be getting our critical minerals from is from polymetallic nodules.
Speaker 12
By the way, my mine came from the Mojave Desert. Yes. I remember. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Representative Grajalba for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent Arizona's 7th Congressional District, a state with many tribal nations that have fought for generations against mining projects forced onto their land without consent. When indigenous voices are ignored, the result is always the same. Sacred place is destroyed, water is contaminated, and communities are left to deal with the damage long after the corporations move on. Arizona's experience shows us where this road leads.
Before Congress allows deep sea mining to move forward, we must stop, listen, and put real protections in place, protections that respect indigenous sovereignty, protect sacred ecosystems, and ensure communities are not forced to carry all the risk for someone else's profit. Mister Thayer, we just heard some bold claims about timeline, ships, processing in the United States, all starting this year. Do these ships exist? How long would it take to stand them up? And is any of this legitimate?
Speaker 7
Very much. Thank you very much for that question. I'm not sure I don't know the specifics of the state of completion with Mr. Barron's systems. I know with Impossible Metals that they are still in prototype development phases and have several years of experimentation left to do to prove the system is viable.
Speaker 13
Thank you. The mister Gunesacra. I don't wanna mispronounce. American Samoans came out overwhelmingly in opposition to seabed mining in the waters surrounding their island. In response, BOEM has doubled the size of the potential lease area.
In your opinion, what should happen when indigenous peoples oppose mining offshore of their coastlines? And should they have input in the permitting process?
Speaker 6
We absolutely need to have engagement with coastal communities, and that's the purpose of the RFI to start that engagement. The potential leasing is a very long and multistage process that's likely to take a few years, and the RFI kicks off the engagement. So it's very important to have the engagement of the local people and get their input. And, ultimately.
Speaker 13
To follow-up on the specific question, though, when indigenous peoples oppose mining offshore of their coastlines, should their input be a part of the permitting process?
Speaker 6
Absolutely. Federal law mandates that their input is to be considered. It's part of the RFI. But I do think there are benefits for the coastal communities that should also be considered in the form of.
Speaker 13
Right. I understand that, but I wanna make sure that when we're talking about this, the indigenous tribes that are impacted are consulted. And right now, that process isn't happening. And so a follow-up question to you, sir. You've often spoken about how mining can benefit local communities.
What benefits has Impossible Metals guaranteed to the people of American Samoa?
Speaker 6
So we are at the beginning of this process. So we're starting our engagement with the community. We have voluntarily offered a profit share to the community. In
Speaker 6
We have formalized, we have verbalized that agreement, and we are very willing to make a binding commitment.
Speaker 13
Okay. And thank you. Mister Thaler, in your estimation, will there be any deep sea mining profits to share with the American Samoan people in the near- to medium-term?
Speaker 7
In the near to medium term? I think this is still a very highly experimental industry that is still in the phase of developing. I think there are many years of investment yet to go before any realized profit is seen, possibly, if ever. So I don't believe in the near to midterm we'll be seeing costs.
Speaker 13
Thank you. In response to Bohm's request for information about deep sea mining offshore American Samoa, Samoans raised many concerns, including potential disruptions to the tuna fishery, which is the territory's main economic driver. They also spoke eloquently about the deep cultural significance of the ocean, its centrality to the Fa'a Samoa and the Samoan way of life, and how deep sea mining can interfere with sacred cultural practices. Mister Thaler, compared to the promised profit sharing, when would American Samoa potentially feel these harms?
Speaker 7
So the most immediate harms I can see that would be directly felt by the peoples of American Samoa is if there is a negative impact on the fisheries. Mhmm. And that would be at the odds probably before commercial mining begins, during the scale up towards commercial mining, when there are productions of midwater plumes that could potentially impact commercially important fishing.
Speaker 13
Thank you. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this testimony from indigenous leaders in Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
Speaker 13
Thank you. It warns, quote, the people, cultural identity and survival are inseparable from the sea. Polluting or industrializing the deep sea ocean threatens the ability to continue these religious and cultural practices, and jeopardizes the continuation of indigenous knowledge and healing traditions. I think that it's really important Arizonans know all too well what it means to live with mining law that part prioritizes corporate profits over the public good. Before we rush into deep sea mining, and history repeats itself, we here in Congress must make sure that we have a better system in place.
One that takes indigenous sovereignty seriously, protects the environment, and one that is sacred and shares the benefits along with the risks. Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my time to the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee's prehearing memo notes that there are no facilities in the US capable of refining the critical minerals found in polymetallic nodules. Mister Barron, your written testimony indicates that TMC has processed nodules into high-grade critical minerals. Where are those refinement operations taking place, sir?
Speaker 5
Well, to date, they've been taking place in Japan. And it is acknowledged that America needs to build a facility to be able to process these materials. And as I mentioned earlier, we are having constructive talks with the administration about what can be done to fast-track. We announced about a year ago, that Korea's Inc was becoming a shareholder of our company. Of course, outside of China, they are probably the world's leader in the refining of these materials.
And the reason why they invested in our company was because they have an interest to come and help us put processing and refining facilities on the ground in the USA.
Speaker 5
Well, we are quite advanced in looking, and we have a shortlist. But I can't reveal where that is at the moment. But it'll be somewhere with a deepwater port and an abundance of affordable energy and a very available workforce as well. Mister Gon...
Speaker 10
Gonessicria, where's Impossible Metals planning to process their nodules?
Speaker 6
So we are in an investigation phase. I think the choices could be we would encourage the government to stockpile them initially, because I think that will spur investment. But I think there's also the opportunity to use friendly nations, for instance, Japan or potentially even in the Middle East. But ultimately, we do need to build facilities here in the U. S.
Speaker 10
Thank you. So also based on both of you, based on our conversations with both TMC and Impossible Metals, the land, power, and water use of current technologies don't make it feasible for small islands like Guam to become critical mineral refinement centers. If refinement centers are not built in Guam or other US territories, what's the actual economic benefit of deep sea mining for our communities, and how many jobs are we talking about here? What will our people be paid?
Speaker 5
Yes. Well, unfortunately, we have a very close relationship with Pacific Island countries, particularly the Kingdom of Tonga and Nauru, and who had been very supportive of our development activities. Activities. But unfortunately, they don't have the infrastructure to allow us to build on the islands. However, when I look at the idea of building on USA soil, there are many construction jobs.
There are many direct and indirect jobs. In fact, the direct jobs would be around 830. And in total, when you add indirect jobs to that, the number gets closer to 10,000 jobs, a processing facility that we have in mind. So they're substantial. But, of course, one of the most important facts or reasons for building on USA soil is resilient supply chain because these critical minerals are the foundation of many other industries.
And when 70% of our current nickel supply, for example, is in the hands of Chinese and rainforest nickel coming with a tremendously high environmental impact. And, of course, you don't want to have all of your supply coming from the hands of an adversary. You need to build your own independent supply, and that's what this resource allows for America.
Speaker 6
I think there will be opportunities around academic institutions. There's a huge opportunity to study and characterize the environment. Just as the University of Hawaii has a lot of experience, I think that's an opportunity for the Pacific Islands to build up their expertise and their proximity to the actual resource.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Chair. And I'll recognize this representative, Dexter, for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Had to figure out how to use this microphone. So thank you to the witnesses for being here, certainly for some familiar faces. So thank you for making the trip. Deep sea mining permitting is moving forward with a concerning lack of transparency.
I'm sure you've heard that, especially around leasing proposals and deep-sea ecosystems and how they would be affected. So my line of questioning is gonna focus on those. This, at the same time that BOEM doubled the potential leasing around American SMOA, the agency admitted that the, quote, presence of any minable ore body is unknown, unquote. Still, BOEM is moving forward with an environmental assessment even when it is not clear that our ocean management agencies know what they should be assessing. So NOA, BOEM, and BSE asked the national academies to put together a suggested research strategy for deep sea mining, including, quote, identification of information needed to establish baselines found at proposed mining sites and surrounding areas, unquote.
That research strategy is still being put together. So, Doctor. Thaler, as a researcher, does it sound to you like Noah, Bohm, and Bessie have the information they need to meaningfully evaluate the environmental impacts of mining, deep-sea mining?
Speaker 7
For that area, I do not believe so. We're still very early in the process of discovery. And as you said, we are in the process of putting together research programs for that area. I think because of that, it is a little preemptive to begin talking about commercial permitting in regions where there's still so much exploration left to do. And I think the fact that there is such an enormous amount of unknown still there also creates tremendous uncertainty for the mining companies as well.
And so for those reasons, it should be the US academic institutions that conduct that initial research to understand and characterize the area.
Speaker 15
I couldn't agree more. And I just wanna respond to Mister Barron's claims of environmental benefits of deep sea mining. Earlier in this hearing, I ask unanimous consent to enter the record. The New York Times article, titled, what scientists found when a deep sea mining company invited them in. And it reports that the metals company funded, studied the number and diversity of small animals in the path of the vehicle fell by over 30%.
I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you, sir. Moving forward, I know that I feel rushed because I wanna get through all these questions. It is just clear to me, I agree, that we need more data and transparency, and I'm concerned that BOEM is moving forward with just an environmental assessment, not an environmental impact statement before leasing off American Samoa. And this means the agency will not have to publish any draft planned for public scrutiny before moving forward with leasing.
Doctor Thaler, to be clear, are these the kinds of environmental impacts that concerned citizens could monitor on their own, like citizen scientists can monitor pollution from mines on land?
Speaker 7
So I have worked quite significantly with citizen science programs, and I've worked extensively on developing ocean sensor systems for under-resourced communities to monitor their own marine and ecosystems in coastal areas. The reality of deep sea mining is that it is very far offshore, operating in extremely deep water. It requires extremely sophisticated equipment to conduct. Once commercial deep sea mining is underway, really, the only entities that will have the capacity to conduct monitoring will be the mining companies themselves.
Speaker 15
And as much as I would like to trust but verify, it sounds like verifying without the use of the mining company themselves, it would be very difficult. Is that accurate?
Speaker 7
It would be very difficult without significant partnerships with observer and oversight institutions, observers on the boats, the potential for live feed from the robotic assets that's being broadcast, all of which is tremendously expensive, and would require the consent of the mining companies as well.
Speaker 15
So I do have another question I'd like to get back to if I have time. But for Mr. Baron and Mr. Ganasikara, will you commit to both working closely with regulators in this way to make sure that necessary information is publicly available both for environmental assessments and operations?
Speaker 15
Thank you. I appreciate that. And I would ask, Doctor Thaler, do you agree that collapsing the exploratory and extractive permitting process effectively makes the exploratory part a checkbox? My concern is that it may further limit the data and research being done before companies launch into extraction.
Speaker 7
My concern with collapsing the exploratory framework is that, while we know very little about any specific region of the deep sea, we do actually know quite a bit about the overall impacts on the deep sea. And so there is a significant amount of work to be done on the part of the mining companies to demonstrate that while we have known impacts of significant, often irreversible harm to the sea floor, they need to demonstrate that their specific technologies and their specific approach minimize those impacts in specific areas. The reality is the deep sea is not uniform. It is very different across large areas of the ocean. And so we need to have that opportunity to fully develop appropriate biological baselines and identify areas of particular environmental importance within specific mining regions, before any commercial activity can be permitted.
Speaker 15
Very good. Thank you, mister sheriff, for your indulgence, and thank you both for your agreement to transparency and accountability.
Speaker 1
Okay. The chair now recognizes Representative Hagament from Wyoming for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you. Critical and rare earth minerals sustain our national defense and underpin our modern economy, as we know it. Yet the United States is 100% import reliant on 12 critical minerals, and over 50% reliant for another 29. China is the dominant producer of these minerals. China processes over 90% of the world's rare earth elements and the majority of other necessary critical minerals.
For example, it processes 80% of the world's lithium. Mr. Baron, in your testimony, you established pretty clearly that China has established control over the strategic mineral supply on land, but that offshore could be a very different story. Do deep sea deposits exist in the US and allied waters in a manner and in a quantity that can help to facilitate a reduction in our national reliance on foreign adversaries?
Speaker 14
You tell me how much the deep sea mining opportunity exists in international waters, and what does that mean for the competition between the United States and China?
Speaker 5
Our focus has been in the Clarion Clipperton zone, which, of course, America has access to because they are not a party to the treaty, UNCLOS. And as we heard earlier, it's estimated there are more than 21,000,000 tons of these nodules in that area. And I think it's widely acknowledged that the metals company is the leader in research and resource assessment in that area. And so even though China have the most licenses, I think it's agreed that we are by far the most advanced, to the extent that we could be in commercial production if we receive a permit this year or by the end of next year. And that's an opportunity for America to play catch up to an industry that had dominated back in the seventies and then went and stood aside.
But this administration saw the opportunity, the need to address the supply of critical minerals, and this is the most immediate pathway to solving that problem.
Speaker 14
Well, this is about national security as well as providing the resources that we need, isn't it?
Speaker 14
Mister Gunasikhara, as the US government considers ways to facilitate deep seabed mining, will we run into other challenges with the need to process these minerals? In other words, what are some of the other challenges we're going to see as we proceed in this area?
Speaker 6
Well, ultimately, we need to have both the mining and the processing because at the end of the day, it's the actual metals, the nickel, the copper, the cobalt, the manganese, and the rare earth elements that our industries require and today are very much dependent on China. And so we do need to invest in not only the mining but also the processing. And we think stockpiling is a great strategy to stimulate that investment. We can also, in the short term, rely on friendly nations. But long term, we need to build new infrastructure here.
And the fact that we now have energy dominance means we're in a very strong position, because we have the energy needed to process these minerals.
Speaker 14
So what is the, what is the industry doing to address both the mining as well as the processing?
Speaker 6
Well, I think the companies here, mine and Gerard's, are very much focused on the collection and the mining side of things. And we are working with partners to figure out how we're going to do the mineral processing. And there are a lot of innovations. You know, America is very good at innovation. There are people that have been looking at recycling batteries.
Right now, there isn't as much demand for that, but that technology could be adapted to processing of the nodules. Okay. So that's a good opportunity.
Speaker 14
What could we as Congress do? This is a fact finding mission. That's why we're here today. What could Congress do to overcome any of the processing challenges or to support innovative solutions in this particular area? Do you have ideas of what we need to do to make sure that we do not lose the opportunity to take advantage of this situation?
Speaker 5
Well, we are very focused on processing, as well as offshore, and that's why we recently welcomed Koreas Inc as an important shareholder to our company. And think it's up to industry, companies like ourselves, to provide these solutions, and it's up to the administration to stretch out the hand of friendship by making permitting more reliable, as they are doing, by making sure that some of the loan funds that are meant to attract industry, whether it's to help evolve this industry or whether it's to encourage more nuclear energy or more abundant energy supply, are also made available to this industry on a like-for-like basis, and the rest can be done by industry. I feel very confident that the industry is up to that challenge. And we don't need price guarantees. We don't need offtakes.
These are big markets. We don't need to be underwritten, per se. We just need to be on a more level playing field.
Speaker 14
So what I really like is you say that the free market system will work. If we let it work, we just need to make sure you have the tools to be able to proceed. So thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you very much, chair. And I recognize this representative Begich from Alaska.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question, mister Gunasekara, a question for you regarding the resources that exist in American waters. You've emphasized that 52% of US coastal and ocean waters have been mapped. We got 48 left. And Alaska, my home state, is one of the least mapped regions of US waters.
Can you speak to how accelerated mapping and resource assessment would benefit both national security and states like Alaska that are eager to understand what resources do exist in our waters?
Speaker 6
It's critical. I mean, for industry to invest, we need to understand what resources exist, and we ultimately need to do full resource definition, understanding precisely what is the economic value. Once that's done, it becomes relatively easy to raise money because of the economic returns. And I think it's a little crazy that we haven't mapped all of our federal orders. I think for national security, we should absolutely be doing that.
And on the current plan, I think it's gonna be around 2040, by the time this is complete.
Speaker 16
You know, it's interesting you mentioned that. One of the things that we've noticed over the last several years is that the Chinese have been coming up to Alaska in conjunction with the Russians to perform seabed mapping exercises, in addition to, I'm sure, other things. Mister Baron, you've noted that China is not standing still. They hold more exploration licenses than any other country, and are actively seeking to dominate this industry. What specific legislative or regulatory actions would best protect American seabed mining companies from the kind of market manipulation China has used to crush competitors in other mineral sectors?
Speaker 5
Well, the first step was delivered yesterday by the amended regulations, and, you know, we applaud the administration and NOAA specifically for making those changes, allow faster permitting process. So I think those steps are already happening. These two three reviews that are underway are very interesting because I think it's well established that China is supplying those materials at below cost. Call it dumping. Call it whatever you wish.
But I think markets sort themselves out, and I think this administration's approach is a very healthy one. And I think the tools are there, and examples like what Noah delivered yesterday are exactly what was promised, and they delivered it with Five Star service.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Mister Thaller, given that other witnesses have described American technology specifically designed to minimize environmental impacts, like Impossible Metals selective collection system that leaves up to 90% of nodules untouched, at what point would you consider the technology sufficiently advanced to support responsible commercial operations?
Speaker 7
Thank you for that question. I am actually very optimistic about the technology that Impossible Metals has proposed. However, they're still in very early development stages. They're still developing prototypes. And, you know, we need to see scaled-up environmental impact assessments, full environmental impact studies.
We need to see independently verified environmental impact studies coming from academic institutions. But, you know, I think the approach that Impossible Metals is taking in looking at reducing the amount of nodules collected from any given place is an interesting approach, and one that I am very optimistic to see the results on. I think the fact that this is now we're entering almost the fourth generation of deep-sea mining technology. We saw the early technology was dragging a beam trawl across the bottom of the ocean. Real easy to do, incredibly destructive to everything.
They had slightly more sophisticated benthic sleds in the 70s and 80s. These tracked crawler systems with the vacuum systems are kind of the third generation where there's still, you know, it's a heavy piece of equipment dragging across the sea floor, pumping up large amounts of sea floor. And now we have even more sophisticated systems coming online. I think that's a fundamental acknowledgement by the industry that there are environmental harms and that even those who want to continue to develop the industry have, you know, the environment as a core part of what their approach is. And, you know, I encourage this continuous iteration on the technology to find something that we can reach at least a begrudging consensus on.
Speaker 16
Thank you. And final question to mister Malitto. You noted that China dominates global rare earth mining and processing. Over 60% of mining, and more than 90% of processing. Alaska has watched China corner markets and critical minerals, while federal regulations have blocked our own responsible development.
What specific reforms would most effectively signal to investors that America is serious about competing with China in this space?
Speaker 8
Well, I think that the legislation that mister Azzel has introduced is a great step because it codifies the executive order. We've heard some good recommendations about what BOEM can do through Interior in terms of making sure that we have clear timelines, clear steps in the process. Once you meet those, you can continue all the way to commercial recovery. That's a big part of it. That that's really the justification for the rule change that came out yesterday was that you need to have the certainty that once you explore and find, you'll get to produce.
So that was a big change. And just, you know, making sure that, you know, Congress stays on top of the agencies, NOAA and BOEM, because administrations change, and we wanna make sure that we have stability. The speed act is huge. You know, we are an organization that represents fossil fuels, mining, and renewables, and that helps everyone, and we wanna make sure that we have certainty in the process and the permits and in the judicial side of the house, so that companies can invest with certainty.
Speaker 16
Thank you. And, with that, I see my time has expired. I appreciate everyone's testimony today. We value your feedback, and thank you for your participation.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, chair. And I'll recognize this Miss Radogan for five minutes.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ansari, for allowing me to participate in today's energy and mineral resources hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. The topic of today's hearing is one that stands to have a major impact on my home district of American Samoa. As has been reiterated several times today, the critical minerals issue is also an issue of national security. With one of the highest rates of military enlistment in the nation, and being on the front lines of Chinese encroachment in the Pacific, the people of American Samoa understand very well.
However, I want to highlight for my colleagues and the other interested parties present the potential cultural and economic impact this type of deep sea activity may have for small island territory. To the indigenous people of American Samoa, the ocean is not just the backbone of our local economy. It is sacred. I understand that we are discussing federally controlled waters, but as it stands, the people of Samoa are opposed to deep-sea mining in and around the territory. We have yet to be convinced the benefits will outweigh the costs of this occurring so close to our beloved waters.
Therefore, if the United States government is going to follow through on this venture, I must insist that we do so with the people of the territories in mind. First and foremost, our fishing stocks and the seafloor need to remain intact. Fishing is our lifeblood, and if the technology is not ready or will disrupt the ecosystem, we simply can't proceed. Secondly, if the government does proceed, I ask that we explore and prioritize plans which directly bolster the economies of the communities closest to the mining activity. Perhaps through a trust fund for residents or by investing in local infrastructure.
This is a tactic we've chosen to combat Chinese influence. We would do well to remember who, where, and what it is we are trying to protect. With the committee's permission, I'd like to enter into the record the comments I submitted for BOEM's request for information and interest on commercial leasing for outer continental shelf minerals offshore American Samoa, which contains further details of my stance on the matter. In it, I echo the governor, all our local leaders, and the people's clear wishes not to mine in and around our islands, and to ensure a minimum distance of at least 50 miles, preferably further, as is consistent with other commercial activities.
Speaker 17
Current Sikara, what timeline do you see for adoption of green tech versus legacy tech across the board? And how do you think your or similar technologies' potential is to limit irreversible ecosystem damage?
Speaker 6
Yes. Thank you very much for your question. We've spent the last 5 years developing our technology, but it is not yet at production size. We're working to scale up the technology. Have done deep sea testing, but it will probably take about another 3 years before we are ready for commercial deployments.
And we are committed to doing an environmental impact assessment and a mining test with independent scientists to actually monitor the impact, and we have an agreement with the German government to do that next year.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Gunnar Zakara. In your testimony, you mentioned that should Impossible Metals receive the contract to extract minerals near American Samoa, you would voluntarily dedicate 1% of the profits to the territory. How would this offer of profit sharing change if the federal government were to provide its own subsidy to the territory based on the lease?
Speaker 6
It wouldn't. We encourage the federal government to share revenues and lease fees with coastal communities as is done in the Gulf Of America for offshore oil and gas. That's something that we would like to see. But we have committed, no matter what. We will voluntarily commit 1% of profit.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Chair. And that recognizes Miss King Hines for five minutes.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to wave in. I wanna first start off by saying, as someone who is living the reality of living in the US Indo Pacific theater, I recognize the strategic competition we're in with China, and we need to be smart about it. I also believe in innovation. I believe that we should bolster our domestic supply chains and not be reliant on China. And I also believe that we should have a regular regulatory system that works.
But I also believe in something just as strongly. You know, in places like the Marianas, American Samoa, Guam, we don't get the luxury of being wrong. And any decision impacting our ocean is permanent. There's no fix it, and there's no move it somewhere else. I was born there.
I'm gonna die here. I'm just here, you know what I mean, like a military being deployed, right, as a member of Congress. Because the ocean is not just, you know, deeply tied to our identity or culture, especially at a time when our economies are collapsing. The ocean is a refrigerator for many of the people in our community. And Mr.
Gunasikara, you know, thank you very much for coming over to the office to have a conversation about your innovation and your technology, what you're trying to do with it. Because a lot of the confusion, right, with regards to this ongoing conversation is a lack of understanding about the process where everything is at. And as you know, because you have been tracking, when the RFI came out, people in American Samoa, the people in Guam, and people in the Marianas came out and said hell nah to seabed mining, right? But that's related to their belief that mining companies do not think that, or they believe that you think that you should not go through the NEPA process, right? Like the full EIS process.
And I want to give you the opportunity to go on record and to, you know, to clarify that, please.
Speaker 6
We're to a NEPA environmental review. I think it is essential to collect baseline information and then do an environmental impact assessment combined with a mining test to see what the impacts would be, and only then do we have the data. And I think it's very important that communities are involved. And I support the RFI because it starts the dialogue. We're right at the beginning.
It's going to take many years before we would potentially be actually mining.
Speaker 18
Okay. So I I've heard both mister Baron and yourself, you know, talk about faster permitting, right, to just get a little bit more clarity with regards to timelines. And so I wanna get a little bit more clarity from you. What exactly are you asking the federal government to shorten, remove, or combine? And which environmental or community protection steps are you willing to leave untouched?
Because these are, you know, this is where the concern from our communities is coming from. Right?
Speaker 6
We really want to have community engagement, but we want that to be a high quality engagement.
Speaker 18
And what does that mean? What does high-quality community engagement mean?
Speaker 6
It means that we have real data that we can share. So there has been data collected in the environment. We can show what the impact of collecting will be. We don't feel it makes sense to have an RFI when there is no new data. So it's about having a high quality engagement versus having a huge number of engagement where there is no new data.
Speaker 18
Okay. So, you spoke about your technology minimizing disturbance. And I'm directing my questions to you because you seem to have been the first to respond to some of our community concerns. And thank you for doing that, by the way, right? And so what measurable thresholds can you commit to ensure that, you know, for example, plume size, turbidity, the footprint, right, is not damaging?
Speaker 6
Well, that's the whole reason we designed our technology. It does not have a sediment plume. It doesn't land. It hovers. It doesn't have a riser system.
It doesn't have a mid water plume. We have gone to great lengths to really minimize the environmental impact, and the fact that we can selectively collect and avoid all visible life. So that's the whole reason I created the company, it's what all of our team is focused on. How do we create a collection system that absolutely minimizes the environmental impact?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Mr. Moylan for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you for allowing me to wave with my colleagues from the CNMI and American Samoa. As you can see, we're united here today to protect our homeland. And I represent Guam. It's a small island in the Pacific where the ocean is not something we talk about in theory. It is how we live.
It feeds our family. It holds our history, and it connects our people to generations before us. So when decisions are made and discussed here in Washington about mining the ocean floor near our islands, I need this committee to understand something very clearly. Those decisions do not feel distant to us. They feel immediate.
The people of Guam and the NMI have spoken, American Samoa as well. Our governor has spoken. Our legislature has spoken. Our community has spoken. They have not, they are not asking for slow progress.
They are not ask, they are asking not to be sacrificed. So right now, the fear is that the decision could be made far away by people who would never see these waters, while island communities are left to live with the consequences forever. We understand the need for minerals, but no national strategy should move forward by putting the burden on the communities that have already carried so much. The Ocean Island Guam is not an empty space on a map. It is our home.
And my message today is simple. If our waters are going to be discussed, then our voices must be heard, not as an afterthought, but as a requirement. And, mister chairman, I would like to ask these voices be heard too, and enter into the record several. The Guam legislation resolution 13238 passed unanimously and calling for a moratorium on deep sea mining, objecting to Boeing's proposal for RFI for commercial leasing offshore the Marianas, calling for a suspension of the RFI and full assessment of deep sea mining with meaningful territorial consultation.
Speaker 10
Also, mayor's council of Guam, resolution 2601 adopted unanimously, formally declaring the opposition of any exploration, leasing, development, and commercial deep sea mining in waters adjacent to or affecting Guam until sufficient credible evidence exists, and such activity will not harm our islands or people.
Speaker 10
And a letter signed by Guam's top elected officials opposing BOM's proposed commercial leasing in the Marianas.
Speaker 10
And finally, sir, the coalition letter signed by over 5,000 individuals addressing BOEM that calls for a halt of deep sea mining in American Samoa and The Marianas and engaging in consultation with island communities.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question now is for Mister Barron. Environmental scientists have stated that seabed collection using the coala create these sentimental sediment plumes, and it can disrupt water columns and pose risk on to fisheries and local ecosystem. So the impacts on local Pacific communities and economics are deeply impacted because of this. Now TMC has claimed that their seabed collectors create less sediment, and water columns, and this disruption, than other collectors.
Has this claim been reviewed by independent scientists, sir? Well, firstly, environmental considerations are very dear to my heart, and it's one of.
Speaker 5
the reasons why we spent 100s of millions of dollars on environmental programs.
Speaker 10
Thank you, sir. How about the technologies of AUVs may result in even less disruption? So why has TMC, pursuing not pursuing the seabed collection in this rather than the AUVs?
Speaker 5
Because we need to go with what's commercially viable now, and we encourage innovation. And, but at the moment, innovation is innovative designs like, although there's many years away, and we're looking at commercial production next year.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. I'm running close to time. I just wanna close by saying, mister chairman, since the president's executive order expediting deep sea mining, we published an interest in American Samoa and NC and MI have been expressed. My constituents have been frustrated and angry by the apparent lack of territorial consultation and lack of information given to our island. I would like to invite the members on this subcommittee to join me in Guam and to speak with my constituents about the deep sea mining and all the issues affecting, so we have the people of Guam.
We are not that we are not against this. We are against the actions taken without consultation or consent and the federal actions that happened to us instead of with us. So the people at Guam are simply asking Washington to not only hear us, but to listen to us as well, even when it is not the answer the federal government is looking for. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Marlin. The chairman also recognizes representative Crank for five minutes.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. China currently holds the most exploratory leases issued by the International Seabed Authority. And of the 22 exploratory leases granted for fifteen-year terms, China holds five, the most of any country, while Russia holds two. That means nearly 30% of current expiration leases are controlled by our adversaries. I serve on the House Armed Services Committee.
This is pretty important to me, and it is certainly important to our country. Meanwhile, the United States is already heavily reliant on China for the extraction, processing, and refinement of critical minerals. According to the US Geological Survey's 25-minute mineral commodities report, the United States is more than 50% net import reliant for nonfuel mineral commodities, and China is the largest supplier providing 21 minerals. To reduce our dependence on foreign adversaries, the Trump administration is committed to restarting domestic mining and cutting back regulatory burdens that have effectively shut down hard rock mining in the United States. Additionally, the administration signed the executive order to unleash offshore mineral exploration and extraction.
Given that polymetallic nodules on the ocean floor contain high concentrations of key critical minerals. We have to consider offshore extraction as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce reliance on China. Mister Baron, I raised concerns in our last hearing over the amount of exploration leases China holds. Based on your testimony, the United States seems to be catching up. From your perspective, what are some of the advantages the United States have in extracting seabed minerals?
Speaker 5
Well, the first one is a regulatory environment. As I mentioned, China signed the treaty of UNCLOS, and so they are bound by the rules that are yet to be established by the International Seabed Authority. The United States were a persistent objector and did not wanna participate in that treaty. And so they retain their right to those critical minerals on the seafloor. And in 1980, put in place the legislation, Dishmar, that govern both exploration and commercial recovery activities.
So permitting regulatory certainty is the first thing. And then, of course, it's an awakening to the fact that the American economy imports 100% of its nickel, its cobalt, its manganese, and 50% of its copper. And that needs to change. And so I think regulatory certainty, but an awakening to the reality of the dire situation and the high dependence that America has on some of its adversaries.
Speaker 19
Yeah. Another concern with China's dominance in this area is their ability to dump minerals.
Speaker 19
Onto markets to undermine domestic mining projects. A cobalt mine scheduled to open in Idaho. Yeah. Experienced this firsthand. It was forced to delay operations, and China dumped cobalt on the market. Is this a concern for the metals company?
And if so, are there steps the United States can take to help insulate domestic producers from China's deceptive marketing practices?
Speaker 5
I think markets work themselves out. And when there is no domestic supply, then it's hard to protect. When there is domestic supply, then it's easier to protect. And funny enough, when we look at processing on USA soil, it's actually cheaper to refine and process those materials here than in China or there in Indonesia or in Japan. The reason?
Available abundant energy. Energy is by far the biggest cost input. So America has a natural advantage, and, you know, I think those other market factors can work their way through.
Speaker 19
Yeah. I'd like to yield the remaining time to Mister Gosar, if I could.
Speaker 12
Hey, the gentleman from Colorado. You know what I see a lot here is I have a little saying. It's called trust is a series of promises kept. So I see the American Samoa, the Mariana Islands, and I think we really gotta keep our promise to them. But with that, I want to come back to technology.
Okay? I think all of you, particularly Mister Gunsicker and Mister Baron, are really intent about technology. This is what I hold in my hand. And if we can make these processes easier, so, for example, like, someone brought up lithium. Was it Mr. Baron?
Where Slumberjay now, a seismic company, has morphed into this concentration of lithium, and they use abundant amounts of water. Well, someone would say that it'd be a deterrent in Arizona. No. It's a blessing. We have a little one large aquifer, our big lake under the city of Buckeye.
And by utilizing that, they're cleaning the water. When they add a filter that's made out of basalt, they can give you the tap water. That's what we have to get back to, is using all these aspects along with our environmental laws and innovation to make it all work. So I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I wanna thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 PM on Tuesday, January 27. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.