REGIONAL— The Trump administration has issued new guidance that could all but scuttle any significant environmental review of potentially hundreds of energy and minerals projects on federal lands throughout the country.
The Department of the Interior announced its plan in an April 23 press release that cites a national emergency declared by President Trump, which would allow federal regulators to limit environmental review of even the most potentially damaging new mines or oil and gas projects to just 28 days. Currently, reviews for such major projects typically take 2-3 years to complete.
The Trump administration is citing a purported national energy emergency as justification for sharply limiting environmental review for major projects. Trump declared the emergency on Jan. 20, despite the fact that he entered office in January with U.S. oil and gas production at an all-time high.
“The United States cannot afford to wait,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “President Trump has made it clear that our energy security is national security, and these emergency procedures reflect our unwavering commitment to protecting both. We are cutting through unnecessary delays to fast-track the development of American energy and critical minerals.”
Among those critical minerals are copper and nickel, the two primary minerals being sought by Twin Metals and NewRange Copper here in northeastern Minnesota.
The emergency declaration allows the administration to adopt an environmental review process established to address needs during true emergencies, such as at times of declared war, to meet the dire needs of the military or the public. The U.S. currently produces more energy than it consumes and has been a net exporter of oil and gas for the past several years.
Real or performative?
As with the follow-up to many of the orders and decrees issued by President Trump since his inauguration, there may be much less to the DOI’s latest pronouncement than meets the eye, and it’s doubtful it will have any impact on the proposed mining operations in northeastern Minnesota.
Whether or not federal officials opt to adequately study new mine proposals in the state, any new mines in Minnesota will require a state environmental impact statement and subsequent permitting, a process that has taken years in the recent past.
That’s some consolation to Kathryn Hoffman, CEO of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. “Let’s be honest, any EIS completed in 28 days would be a joke,” said Hoffman. “A document like that is not likely to get a lot of respect from state regulators here. But in states that don’t have their own environmental review process, it could be the only alternative.”
While the state and federal governments cooperated on the environmental review process on the proposed PolyMet mine in the late 2000s, Minnesota opted against a shared effort with the first Trump administration during an initial review of the Twin Metals’ mine plan. It’s highly unlikely the state would participate in a 28-day environmental review of a sulfide-based mine in a region with the state’s most pristine water quality.
Third District Sen. Grant Hauschild, who has been supportive of mining projects in northeastern Minnesota, said he objects to an effort to shortchange environmental review. “I believe in our state environmental standards and processes,” he said.
Hoffman said she doubts even many mining companies will request the expedited review process proposed by the Trump administration. “I think some will want to do a better job than that if only to build a relationship with the communities where they operate. Realistically, only the worst actors would try to take advantage of this.”
Ingrid Lyons, of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, agreed, calling the administration’s action “an open invitation to industrial interests to bypass scrutiny.”
Were state officials even inclined to go along with the Trump administration’s perfunctory environmental review, lawsuits would likely prevail in court without sufficient data to address the complexities of mine permitting. That’s a key point, according to Hoffman. “For the most part, such approaches aren’t effective because they don’t lower the bar for judicial review.”
Support for streamlining
While the Trump administration’s move is unlikely to have much impact, Hoffman said it’s just the latest in a string of administrations, including Obama’s and Biden’s, that have issued executive orders to streamline environmental review and project permitting, although she acknowledged no previous administration has suggested completing an EIS on a mining project in 28 days. “This is not new, it’s just newly outrageous,” said Hoffman.
But all of the recent attempts to streamline the review process, according to Hoffman, are premised on the notion that environmental review is intentionally slow just to slow projects down. “The push for streamlining misunderstands why environmental review takes time,” Hoffman said. “Mining projects are incredibly complex. The global average from exploration to construction is 16 years. This is how it’s done everywhere.” And despite lengthy studies, mines still regularly have major failures that pollute the environment.
Hoffman said that environmental reviews need a certain level of rigor to be credible, and that takes time. It also requires that federal agencies have staff qualified to assess the quality of environmental reviews— and Hoffman noted that the Environmental Protection Agency, among other federal agencies, has been shorthanded for decades, which contributes to the delays. “Now, almost all folks qualified to do that kind of work have been fired,” she said. “Who is left to even review a study?”
Policies at odds
While Trump’s self-declared energy emergency is ostensibly aimed at boosting production of U.S. domestic energy and critical minerals, that goal faces steep challenges from the other Trump administration policies, none more so than tariffs.
The business press has been awash in recent weeks about the negative impacts of Trump’s economic policies on industrial sectors, few harder hit than the energy patch, where company share prices have fallen steadily and many industry observers now expect a recession in the sector. Fears of a broader recession, brought on by Trump’s chaotic trade policies, have sent oil prices lower in anticipation of weaker demand— and lower prices invariably lead to cutbacks in production.
“Tariffs on imported steel and aluminum have increased costs for drilling equipment and infrastructure, potentially hindering production expansion and innovation within the sector.” That’s according to Zachary Frazier, an Oklahoma landman based in Tulsa, writing for the trade publication Oklahoma Minerals.
While some of Trump’s efforts to slash environmental protections may be welcome in the mining and energy sectors, the impact of Trump’s other economic policies may overwhelm any positive impacts from regulatory changes. Worries about weaker growth as a result of Trump’s tariffs put a halt to the rise in copper prices, which peaked at $5.24 a pound in late March. The price dropped to $4.14 a pound in the immediate aftermath of the administration’s imposition of retaliatory tariffs, although prices have recovered partially since most of those tariffs were lifted shortly after they were imposed. Meanwhile, the tariffs are expected to increase the cost of many of the components used in mining operations, everything from piping to valves to machinery.
At the same time, Trump’s efforts to discourage purchasing of electric vehicles runs the risk of restricting the market sector that had been expected to drive higher demand for minerals like copper and nickel.