Permitting reform key to challenging China’s critical minerals dominance: US mining lawyer 

The G7’s strategy to strengthen coordination on critical minerals is notable for recognizing that securing supply chains requires far more than opening new mines, according to a US lawyer specializing in mining and natural resources. 

The Group of Seven countries agreed in June that no single country should supply more than 60% of their imports of rare earths by 2030 in an effort to reduce their reliance on China.

China dominates global supply chains for critical minerals, controlling over 70% of global refining capacity for a wide range of products, and in rare earths, currently extracts roughly 69% and refines over 90% of global rare-earth elements.

In an interview with MINING.COM, Denver-based Womble Bond Dickinson Managing Partner Scot Anderson said the group’s push to diversify critical mineral supply away from China reflects a more comprehensive understanding of what it takes to bring projects into production, including investment in processing, infrastructure and permitting. 

“I like the completeness of the approach,” Anderson said. “It’s not just about getting minerals out of the ground. It’s everything it takes to get a mineral out of the ground and into the market—not just the mining, but also the processing and all the infrastructure required to actually make that all work.” 

While governments have increasingly focused on securing supplies of lithium, copper, rare earths and other strategic minerals, he cautioned that building an alternative supply chain will take years. 

“We’ve got a long way to go to build the infrastructure that’s necessary to actually compete with China,” Anderson said. 

China continues to dominate processing across many critical mineral supply chains, leaving Western economies with few alternatives in the near term. 

“Right now, they’ve got control of the playing field,” he said. “We’re playing catch-up.” 

Even if G7 countries meet their long-term diversification targets, China is expected to remain a major supplier. 

“In the near term, procuring minerals from China is not optional. In the long term, procuring minerals from China is also probably not optional,” Anderson pointed out.  

Permitting remains a major bottleneck 

Anderson said that permitting reform, particularly in the United States, remains one of the biggest obstacles to expanding domestic mining. 

Federal agencies continue to struggle with staffing shortages and limited technical capacity, while lengthy environmental reviews and litigation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) routinely delay projects for years, he said. 

“I’m convinced you can still do responsible mining without taking 20 years to get a permit.” 

Recent efforts by the Trump administration to accelerate approvals have drawn praise from industry, but Anderson warned that permitting cannot simply be rushed. 

“Six weeks is probably too quick to do it right. But 20 years is way too long to do it right.” 

Instead, he pointed to permitting timelines in established mining jurisdictions such as Chile as a more realistic benchmark. 

“If other mining jurisdictions can get a permit done in three years, then a three-to-five-year window seems more than adequate time to do it and do it right.” 

Anderson also emphasized that project developers should engage regulators and local communities early in the process to reduce the likelihood of legal challenges. 

“Getting ahead of community engagement and telling the story of the project is one of the best ways to avoid legal challenges down the road.” 

New mines still essential 

Although recycling, mine waste reprocessing and circular economy initiatives will all contribute to future supply, they cannot replace new mine development, Anderson said. 

“The demand for copper, lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earths is so huge that recycling isn’t going to fix that because we don’t have enough of the raw material to recycle yet.” 

He said governments should continue supporting recycling technologies while recognizing that primary production remains indispensable. 

“We definitely need new mines — We need a lot of processing,” Anderson said. “You can’t rely on magical thinking. You’ve got to get in the dirt and work it.” 

He also sees promise in recovering critical minerals from historical mine tailings and coal waste, describing such projects as a faster pathway to production that can also deliver environmental remediation benefits. 

Questions remain over stockpiles 

Anderson also questioned whether governments have fully considered how strategic critical mineral stockpiles would operate during supply disruptions. 

“Stockpiling has clear benefit in the near term, but I don’t know that it’s quite the panacea that people characterize it as,” he said. 

He also expressed caution over government-backed price support mechanisms designed to encourage investment in new mines. 

While price floors may help offset China’s ability to influence commodity markets, he warned they could distort competition over time if they become permanent. 

“I can see the benefit of that as a defensive mechanism. I’m just wondering whether we’ll eventually return to a truly competitive market.” 

Ultimately, Anderson said, no single policy will solve the West’s critical minerals challenge. 

“It’s funny how there’s always the mineral of the day,” he said. “Three years ago it was lithium and nickel. Now it’s antimony and tungsten. The fact is we need a lot of different things, and we’re way behind.”