by Scott Osterman, CEO, U.S. Critical Materials, Darby
Representative David Bedey’s recent comments regarding U.S. Critical Materials’ request for a legal determination from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality are disappointing, not because DEQ reached a different legal conclusion than we advocated, but because he chose to question our motives rather than the issue’s merits.
He accused our company of showing “contempt for the state of Montana and the people who live here.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
The question we presented to DEQ was straightforward. Before any work began, before a single piece of equipment entered the site or any ground was disturbed, we asked DEQ to determine whether our proposed exploration program, which would disturb approximately 0.3 acres of land and already be subject to an extensive review process under the U.S. Forest Service, required a separate exploration license under the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act.
We did exactly what responsible companies should do when there is a legitimate question about how a statute applies: we asked the regulator charged with administering the law. We sought clarity before proceeding, not after the fact.
That is not contempt for Montana. It’s respect for Montana’s laws and the regulatory process.
Had we simply moved forward without seeking guidance, Representative Bedey might rightly have criticized us for failing to engage with state regulators. Instead, we proactively approached DEQ, laid out legal reasoning, requested a formal determination, and accepted the Department’s decision. We will continue working through Montana’s established permitting process. That is what good-faith compliance looks like.
Representative Bedey also suggested our project should end. I respectfully disagree.
The Sheep Creek Project is in its earliest exploration stage. We are talking about a small exploration program, not a mine. Our current proposal involves approximately 0.3 acres of disturbance while federal agencies evaluate whether commercially viable rare earth deposits even exist. Those minerals are essential to national defense, advanced manufacturing, energy technologies, and countless products Americans rely on every day.
Throughout this process, our company has been transparent with regulators, local officials, and the public. We have established our headquarters in Darby because we intend to be part of this community for the long term. We recognize earning trust takes time; we welcome honest discussions about our project.
The irony is hard to miss. We are being accused of disrespecting Montana because we asked Montana regulators to interpret Montana law before undertaking any work. That is precisely the opposite of contempt.
Reasonable people can disagree about the interpretation of a statute. They can also disagree about mining policy. But no company should be condemned for seeking legal clarity before acting. That approach protects the public, respects regulators, and ultimately strengthens confidence in Montana’s permitting process.
Helen Sabin says
“Asking a legal question isn’t contempt.”
No, Scott. Asking a legal question isn’t contempt.
But how convenient that the entire argument begins and ends with the fact that US Critical Materials asked DEQ for a legal determination — as though asking the question somehow makes the underlying question irrelevant.
The issue wasn’t whether USCM was allowed to ask. Of course you were allowed to ask. The issue was why USCM apparently needed DEQ to tell you whether Montana’s mining law applied to what you wanted to do.
And then there’s the part conveniently missing from this victory lap: DEQ didn’t give you the answer you wanted.
You say you “accepted the Department’s decision.” Wonderful. That’s not exactly a heroic act of corporate virtue. It’s called following the law.
And describing the Sheep Creek proposal as merely “0.3 acres” is a little like describing a drilling operation by measuring only the size of the hole. The public is entitled to consider the roads, trucks, blasting, exploration activity, water, wildlife, dust, radioactive materials, and—most importantly—what this exploration is ultimately intended to lead to.
It’s also worth remembering that “we’re only exploring” is not the same thing as “there will never be a mine.” Exploration is generally the step that comes before determining whether you can economically develop the resource.
So yes, Scott: asking a legal question isn’t contempt.
But neither is asking very inconvenient questions about what happens next.
Montanans are entitled to ask those questions before the first drill, blast, truck, or shovel goes into the mountains.
And perhaps the most important question of all remains:
If Sheep Creek ultimately proves commercially viable, what exactly is US Critical Materials’ legal water supply for an actual mining operation in a basin where water rights are already heavily constrained?
That question doesn’t sound like contempt to me.
It sounds like due diligence.
Tracy says
You disrespect Montana and the people of Ravalli County for continuing this mess. We dont want you here. Go Away!