When you're trying to finance a multi-billion-dollar mining project with a decades-long timeline, regulatory uncertainty is the enemy. It's hard enough to model copper prices and extraction costs without also wondering if the government might change its mind midstream.
That's the backdrop for a revealing conversation with John Shively, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, who says federal policy shifts during the Donald Trump administration fundamentally changed how capital evaluates large U.S. mining projects.
When Regulatory Tone Becomes Investment Signal
The Pebble Project in Alaska represents the largest untapped copper deposit in the United States. But its journey illustrates a broader problem that has rippled across the mining sector: preemptive regulatory action that introduces uncertainty into what's already an extraordinarily capital-intensive business.
Under the Obama administration, the project faced a preemptive EPA veto effort. Shively told MarketDash that this episode has been "repeatedly identified by surveys of major mining companies as a barrier to investment in the U.S." The issue wasn't environmental standards themselves, but rather the uncertainty injected into the permitting process.
When investors can't reliably price regulatory risk, they go elsewhere. That's a problem for developers and shareholders across major U.S.-listed miners like Freeport-McMoRan Inc (FCX) and Southern Copper Corp (SCCO), where capital discipline and permitting visibility directly shape long-term production planning.
Why Executive Orders Matter More Than You'd Think
Here's where things get interesting. Shively explained that executive orders issued during the Trump administration signaled a different regulatory posture, one that emphasized welcoming responsible resource development. That shift in tone matters because investor confidence responds to regulatory attitude just as much as to written rules.
It's not about deregulation. It's about predictability. Can you model the risks? Will the framework remain consistent, or will it change with the next administration?
Shively also highlighted recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to NEPA and wetlands permitting, which he believes could have a "major positive impact" on how companies assess future U.S. mining investments. This dynamic matters not just for individual stock investors, but also for those tracking diversified exposure through vehicles like the Global X Copper Miners ETF (COPX) and broader strategic-metals funds.
The Rule of Law Beats Political Cycles
Shively emphasized that what investors really want is a permitting framework grounded in "the rule of law and fair process," rather than outcomes that shift with political winds. Speed is nice, but certainty is essential.
Whether the EPA veto is ultimately reversed or not, the signal it sends will influence where mining capital chooses to deploy. That includes copper producers, precious-metals miners like Newmont Corp (NEM), and sector-wide ETFs that provide exposure across the mining landscape.
The underlying question is simple: if you're an investor allocating capital to projects that take decades and billions to develop, do you trust the regulatory environment to remain coherent? That's what changed under Trump, according to Shively, and it's what matters for future U.S. mining investment.