February 9th, 2025
Overall, I’m quite happy with both versions. The only principle-based contention is the mineral ore export ban. Other provisions will most likely be an amicable give-and-take.
Personally, I prefer an export tax to an export ban. I would even be willing to go for some cost-based and performance-based incentives for refining. The five-year window in the Senate version is not enough time to develop a real mineral refining capacity. Given how porous our borders are, it is also very difficult to enforce. On the other hand, an export tax will also help generate revenues for developing the government’s capacity to value minerals the right way. Of course, I will defer to the leadership’s instructions on the House’s final position.
I will of course await the consensus of my panel’s members. Other provisions seem within reason, so I think we will not disagree all that much on the other provisions. A few rate adjustments, here and there, but no radical disagreements.
The transparency provisions in both versions are consistent with international best practices, and in the case of Mongolia, these provisions were a greater win than any rate adjustment, helping them gain some 1.2 billion USD in back taxes. So, I’m 90% satisfied with either the Senate or the House version’s provisions in that area.
This is the closest a mining fiscal regime has come to being enacted, ever. We can easily resolve the disagreeing provisions through one meeting. So, I’m optimistic we will make it.