by Helen Sabin, Corvallis
The debate over the Sheep Creek rare-earth project should not be about whether America needs critical minerals. It should be about whether federal agencies and the US Forest Service are being asked to accelerate a project based on promises that have not yet been demonstrated.
U.S. Critical Materials (USCM) has made ambitious statements about Sheep Creek’s potential, including plans for exploration, development, processing and ultimately production. But a company’s stated intentions and promises are not the same thing as demonstrated capability.
USCM is privately held. Its own public statements indicate that it is still pursuing multiple sources of financing, including equity investment, strategic partnerships, federal grants, offtake agreements and potential investment from end users to be able to operate.
That raises an obvious question: If the financing and development plan is not yet secured, why should the federal government assume that the company’s mine development and exploration will occur as described?
There is an important distinction between saying, “We intend to build a mine,” and demonstrating that the company has the resources, expertise, engineering, permits, financing, infrastructure and technical plans necessary to do it.
The public should not be asked to accept optimistic projections as established facts and we will NOT accept promises – WE want PROOF.
Nor should FAST-41 be used to give a project an aura of certainty that it has not earned.
FAST-41 was intended to coordinate and improve the permitting process for major infrastructure projects, NOT to substitute government confidence for a lack of evidence and fact.
The Forest Service should therefore step back and say “we will conduct a thorough environmental assessment of Sheep Creek before allowing the project to advance under an expedited framework.”
That assessment should examine not only the devastating environmental consequences of mining, but also the realistic scope of the proposed operation.
What will actually be built? How much water/electricity will it require? Is water available that isn’t owned?
What roads and infrastructure will be necessary? Who pays? What happens to waste rock and processing residues?
Do they have Insurance to repay anyone hurt from their actions?
What are the blasting and wildfire risks to the area/reservoirs?
What are the reclamation obligations? If approved with a CE and they fail, will they declare bankruptcy and walk away leaving the USFS and citizens to hold the bag for not requiring a full review?
And, critically, does this company have the financial resources and contractual commitments to pay for all of it? Make them PROVE IT!
The USFS must give USMC the full environmental review it deserves for their unfulfilled promises and lack of transparency and remove it from the Fast 41 listing.
Leave a Reply