The world is in the midst of an energy transition- shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy. To further the energy transition and continue mitigating the climate crisis, we need lithium, and other critical minerals. Currently, the lithium supply chain is dominated by China who has a near monopoly on the processing of lithium. The U.S. produces very little lithium domestically, with just one open and operating mine, Silver Peak in Nevada. This current situation presents some national security concerns. We need lithium- for electric vehicles, solar power, and even our phone batteries. However, prospective mines in the U.S. are routinely stopped by community concern- manifesting in court challenges, permit denials, and even good old fashioned protests. Community opinion is very important with mining projects, and developers (and now the academic community) use the term “the social license to operate” to describe this phenomenon.
The Social License to Operate (conceptualized on the right) is the last and informal barrier to opening a mining project, and refers to the consent of the community surrounding the project. If the community has not granted the SLO, it means they’re unhappy and in all likelihood, that mine is not going forward. When a project gains economic legitimacy, which means the community will economically benefit from the project being in their community, it can achieve acceptance- in theory. After the project is given the consent of the local government in the area, socio-political credibility, it moves into the approval range. Only after the developer has established trust with the local community, can the project move into the final category of the social license to operate- psychological identification.
This concept to date has not been examined at length in the United States. It was first developed by mining companies to better understand why some communities are on board with projects, and why others push back. Since then, it has been studied by scholars in various developing nations, primarily in South America. It has also been examined briefly in Australia, the world’s leading producer of raw lithium; these studies served as methodological examples for this project.
To ascertain the main reasons for support and opposition, in the domestic lithium industry, I examined six mines, in two pairs each. All the paired mines were as similar as I could make them, with one key difference that I theorized could affect the project’s ability to attain the social license to operate.
Through the analysis of local newspaper articles, I was able to determine the main reasons for support and opposition for each project.
The main reasons for support were what I expected to find from the literature. Many residents were excited about the new jobs and community development the mine would bring to the area. It was surprising to find reasons for support from outside sources, like geopolitical concerns and fighting climate change. These reasons were mainly found at projects that had serious environmental concerns, like Rhyolite Ridge. Residents acknowledged the concern with the endangered species, however, expressed that the project would do more good overall for the country, and planet if it was allowed to go forward.
The main reasons for opposition were similarly what I expected to find. Environmental concerns are always at the forefront of mining debates, however, trust is truly inherent in all of these reasons. The community doesn’t trust that the mine won’t impact their water supply or species in the area. They don’t trust that the developer will actually implement necessary safeguards to prevent the pollution of their drinking water or air.
Through this analysis, I was able to determine that the main indicator of a project’s ability to attain the social license to operate is economic legitimacy. However, it seems that trust has a larger role in the United States than in developing nations. Similarly, I found that the largest barrier to attaining the SLO is the lack of trust, not environmental concerns, which was previously thought. At the end of the day, we need lithium to continue living our modern lives, and in order to create the needed domestic lithium industry, developers first need to establish trust with local communities.
Shannon Halinski is a senior at Indiana University’s Paul H. O’Neill School of Public & Environmental Affairs.
Leave a Reply