Shifts in federal policy have significantly influenced how mining investors approach large domestic projects in the U.S., particularly during the Trump administration. In an interview, John Shively, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, noted that executive orders and regulatory changes from that era represented a distinct change in tone compared to the prior Obama and current Biden administrations. This transformation could impact investment confidence throughout the U.S. mining sector.
The Pebble Project in Alaska, identified as the largest untapped copper mine in the country, experienced a preemptive veto effort from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Obama administration. Shively highlighted that this instance has been frequently cited by major companies as a barrier to U.S. investment not due to environmental regulations, but because of the uncertainty it injected into the permitting process. Such unpredictability complicates the ability of investors to evaluate risk for projects requiring significant capital and extended timelines, a challenge common among large mining firms like Freeport-McMoRan and Southern Copper.
Shively believes that the shift in federal policy during the Trump administration emphasized the importance of responsible resource development, which positively influences investor confidence. He pointed to recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and wetlands permitting that may facilitate future U.S. mining investment.
He clarified that investors prioritize predictability and a transparent permitting framework rather than seeking deregulation. Regardless of the EPA veto’s eventual outcome, the implications of regulatory signals will likely shape the direction of mining investment capital, impacting various sectors including copper and precious metals.
Why this story matters
- The shifts in federal mining policy highlight the changing landscape for domestic investment.
Key takeaway
- Predictability in permitting processes is crucial for attracting long-term investments in the mining sector.
Opposing viewpoint
- Some critics argue that prioritizing resource development could undermine environmental protections.
