*

Lobbying campaign to launch ahead of US political

conventions

*

Critics argue revived Bureau of Mines would not solve

existing

issues

*

Reviving the bureau would require new funding from

Congress

By Ernest Scheyder

July 5 (Reuters) - Mining trade groups plan to push

Washington to revive and expand the long-dormant Bureau of

Mines, an effort aimed at streamlining how the U.S. government

regulates and supports critical minerals production and timed to

coincide with the 2024 presidential election.

The lobbying campaign, details of which have not previously been

reported, is set to launch this month ahead of the Republican

and Democratic political conventions. It will contrast scattered

U.S. mining oversight with Australia and other countries where

senior mining-related agencies report directly to heads of

government, according to three sources with direct knowledge of

the effort.

Lithium, copper and other critical minerals are used in many

electronics and demand is expected to surge further in coming

years for production of electric-vehicle batteries. China is the

world's largest producer or processor of many critical minerals.

U.S. mining policy is currently administered through

multiple agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, the

Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Mine Safety and Health

Administration.

The bureau closed in 1996 during budget cuts. The push to

resuscitate it and add new responsibilities would, supporters

argue, allow Washington to craft a unified critical minerals

policy for permitting, research funding, and industry grants and

loans that could stretch between presidential administrations

and help the U.S. better compete with China.

"Mining decisions right now are spread across multiple

government agencies, and that makes transparency and

accountability very difficult," said Rich Nolan, head of the

National Mining Association trade group, which is spearheading

the push alongside the American Exploration & Mining Association

and the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME).

The SME, which represents academics and others conducting

mining-related research, is crafting a position paper that the

two other groups will use to lobby members of Congress,

according to one of the sources.

The groups acknowledged that they are not likely to succeed

this year but hope to in the next Congress, which runs from 2025

to 2027, the source said, adding that there is no estimate yet

for how much funding a revived bureau would need.

"If a new bureau could bring some efficiency to a

duplicative and inefficient permitting process, it could be a

huge benefit to the country," said Mitch Krebs, CEO of Coeur

Mining ( CDE ), a Chicago-based silver miner.

Critics of this latest plan note that the original Bureau of

Mines never oversaw mine permitting and that mines could still

face opposition from conservation groups and environmental

regulators.

"The Bureau of Mines coming back into existence is not going

to fix any of that," said Michelle Michot Foss, the fellow in

energy, minerals and materials at Rice University's Baker

Institute for Public Policy. "There's nothing serious on the

table that would make the mining industry function better than

it is now."

Additionally, the bureau would need to be elevated to a

cabinet-level agency if the goal is to have it report directly

to the president, a step that would require congressional

approval.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for

comment.

Founded in 1910 after a string of mining disasters, the

bureau grew to a staff of more than 4,000 by 1960 that inspected

mines, conducted minerals-related research, studied specialized

metals for the space age and operated a helium-separation plant

that supplied NASA.

In 1996, its $152-million annual budget was eliminated as

part of a budget deal between Republicans and then-President

Bill Clinton.

Rhea Graham, who was appointed by Clinton in 1994 as the

first Black woman to lead the bureau, was given only 90 days to

close it.

"When the bureau was closed, a signal was sent about how we

as a nation valued science and how science funding was more

precarious than perhaps people think it is," Graham said.