Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at The Federalist,
and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge. As always,
you can email the show at radio at the Federalist
dot com, follow us on x at fbr LST, make
sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and of
course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Sean Feiler, chief investment officer at
Equinox Partners, a Connecticut based investment firm founded in nineteen
eighty seven. Shawn is also an expert in all things mining,
emerging markets, rare earth, and minerals very important topics as always,
but increasingly so these days, and it is there that
we turn our attention to today. Shawn's recent column in
The Federalist, headlined how Trump can resolve a legal battle
between mining rights and religious liberty, examines the thorny interest
issues surrounding the Resolution mine proposal in Arizona. Sean, thank
you so much for joining us on this edition of
the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Matt, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I'm sure there are some in
our listening audience that know something about this mine proposal
would be one of the largest copper minds in the world,
if I understand this correctly, But it also involves some
very key First Amendment issues. Obviously, can you give us
an overview of what the project proposes and what the
argument is.
Speaker 3: So it is, it's the largest copper mine in the
United States when it's developed, and it will be the
third largest in the world. It's a very high grade
rich underground copper mind in Arizona, about sixty miles east
of Phoenix, and it is going ahead. So the federal
land transfer to facilitate the mine is going to be
consummated in August, and I think that's the right outcome.
The problem is the Biden administration made a regrettable argument
that this does not burden the apaches religious liberty. They
celebrated variety of rituals on the site for hundreds of years.
The Biden administration won that case, and so while the
mine's going ahead, which is the right decision, it's going
ahead in a way that damages religious liberty for all Americans.
Speaker 1: That's an important point because, as you mentioned, there is
a long history of the use of this site as
a religious site for the Apache tribe. And of course
the understandable argument is if the government or if private
industry can come in and take over sacred sites in
the name of public interest, that does raise some serious
questions about what the government or private interest with the
help of the government, can do elsewhere as well. It
is not just the Apache nation that is dealing with
this issue or could deal with this issue moving forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so there is a unique conflict between.
Speaker 3: Animists Native Americans and their position in federal land or
they're using federal land that they don't own in the
mining industry. So that is a a conflict that exists,
I think, not uniquely, but overwhelmingly between Native Americans and
the federal government we comes to federal land use. And
in bringing this case, the Apache lost in the Ninth Circuit,
and unfortunately, bringing the case that they did, they made
the situation much worse for everyone else. And so you
now have a federal government that is empowered, based on
the Ninth Circuit ruling to restrict religious worship on federal
land for pretty arbitrary reasons.
Speaker 1: What is the best compromise here, as you said this
was the right decision because it certainly is in the
broader public interest. We all know the critical nature of
making sure that we have the resources to support our
economy and our society moving forward. And we've become a
lot more dependent, of course, on other countries, particularly countries
that don't particularly like us that much, and that is
a difficult position to be in. I think everybody, including
the Biden administration, understands that. But there is a broader
issue that goes beyond just the public interest. Now it
is the eternal notion that we have in our own faith,
our own conscience, and those sorts of things. What is
the right compromise in your estimation moving forward? And what
can the Trump do entering into this discussion, Well, what should.
Speaker 3: Have happened is the Biden administration should have made the
case not that this destruction of the Apache side of
worship did not burden the Apache religion. It obviously does.
It destroys one of their sacred sites. The Biden administration
should have made the case that this is in America's
we have compelling national interest in developing this mind and
that is the.
Speaker 2: Criteria set forth in Riffra.
Speaker 3: The religious Restoration Freedom Restoration Act from nineteen ninety three,
and so it should have met that hurdle. That would
have been the right argument, and that would have then
created a pathway for the government to use federal land
to develop minds, but not created a pathway for the
federal government to arbitrary the restrict religious practice on.
Speaker 2: Federal lands where there's no mind being developed.
Speaker 3: Now, the question for the Trump administration is having won
the right to proceed with this mind based on the
wrong argument, the wrong president coming out of the Ninth Circuit,
what do you do now? It's not clear they can
undo this decision. The Supreme Court refused to hear the
decision in May of this year. They only had two
votes to accept the case. So I think they'll have
to prove that America has a compelling national interest in
developing minds on federal lands in another case that would
hopefully challenge or change or modify this precedent in some
important way.
Speaker 1: So this decision under the Biden administration, and let me
make sure that I have this correct, it kind of
opened the door wide to federal interest, not keeping it
specific here in this particular case. If that is the case,
then what does that mean ultimately moving forward for the
public or American interest as in competition and direct competition
with First Amendment religious freedom rights.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So you had the Biden administration in a kind of
horrible and predictable, predictable.
Speaker 2: No fashion, as soon as this president.
Speaker 3: Was handed down by the Ninth Circuit, it you had
the US Force Reservice under Biden restrict Memorial Day Mass
that the Knights of Columbus had celebrated for sixty years
at a cemetery thirty miles south of Richmond, Virginia, on
the idea that you simply could The Biden administration then
reversed that restriction because.
Speaker 2: It was a little too crazy.
Speaker 3: But it gives you a sense in terms of the authority,
the arbitrary authority that this now Ninth Circuit president gives
to federal government that would be hostile to religion, and
it would, in theory, really allow them to prohibit religious
practice on federal land for almost any reason. It's just
if it was not specifically targeted at punishing a particular religion.
So this is a fortunate president and that has to
be overturned, reversed in some way so that's not abused
by a federal government that's hostile to religion in the future.
Speaker 1: Well, this should come as no surprise to anybody who's
been following politics in this country in recent years. Certainly
over the four years of the Biden administration, this was
an administration that was in many ways seemed to be
at war with the Christian faith in this country and
the free exercise of that faith. You can think of
myriad examples. So you know, maybe the current president doesn't
abuse those powers, but it certainly seems to set up
the ability to abuse this power.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's the So the troubling part of the
decision of the Ninth Circuit is that the Ninth Circuit
concluded that by destroying this site of religious worship for
the Apaches, that that was not a substantial burden. That
a substantial burden on the Apaches would be something that
compelled them to deny or behave in a way counter
to their religious beliefs, which if you think about the
general applicability of that and what that would mean, that
would allow obviously any kind of restrictions on a religious
practice if it didn't force you to do something that
was actually against your religion.
Speaker 2: So it's a. Really, it's a very unfortunate precedent.
Speaker 3: And the reason I wrote the piece is I think
there's relatively just a small population of people that are
interested in both religious liberty and mining, and there's a
lot of nuance in this case. I think in because
the path forward involves both mining and religious liberty. It's
just not it's not consistent with the argument either the
Trump administration, the Bide administration made, or what the Ninth Circuit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the word I think that describes this. In
reading your piece and looking more into this issue, because
I have to be honest with you, I didn't know
much about this issue, if much of anything about this
issue before reading your piece and looking further into it.
I am very familiar with mind battles we'll talk about.
In fact, I have a question just because I'm interested.
I toured a mind proposal what would have been a
massive copper mind in Alaska. But there are always these
kinds of battles. Usually when it comes to liberal administrations,
it's a battle for the environment or what they believe
to be the climate change, existential crisis or whatever. But
these are even there's significantly more nuanced this particular case
in Arizona. And I guess I understand the absolute importance
of this mind that is clear and should be clear
to anybody who's following geopolitics these days. That said, I
don't know how ultimately you make the definitive argument that
this wouldn't hurt the Apaches religious you know, pursuits, because
this is where they have practiced their their faith for
for many, many years. And whether you subscribe to you know,
protecting the Apaches or not, it would seem to have
broader impacts on all kinds of different faiths and set
up a you know, a problematic situation moving forward.
Speaker 3: That's certainly true. I think, you know, there is just
an inherent problem with a national mining policy that's really
evolved from the courts rather than from the political process.
And so we're decades into the reduction the destruction of
the American domestic mining sector, and that's a combination of
these kinds of restrictions, litigation, environmental regulations that are unduly burdensome.
And now that we have I think rightfully as a
country decided that and the Trump demonstration has been very
clear on this that we do want to develop our
domestic mineral wealth there has to be a path forward
to do that that's really political rather than just the
legal process. If we're going to get to a reasonable place.
And the next big I think battle in this is
going to be in Alaska to copper mind. That Trump
supporter and secretary for the candidate for the Secretary of
the Treasury, John Paulson is now the largest ownerant and
that's interesting. He just put a billion dollars into this project,
buying half the asset from Barrack. And that also is
going to be a conflict with Native Americans, not over
religious liberty fights, but over environmental concerns. But that again,
is a project like this that needs to go ahead.
It is a you know, in from the perspective of
the mining sector, these are high quality, not particularly environmentally
deletorious or problematic minds that need to be permitted if
we have any.
Speaker 2: Hope of actually having a domestic mind industry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is I assume you're referring to what was
years ago called the Pebble Mind Project. Is it still
under that name, Donlin Creek, Okay, this is that different
from the Pebble Mind Project or the names change.
Speaker 2: It's it's different. It's a different project.
Speaker 1: Okay, I see I refer to the Pebble mine project
because I remember flying in the Bush Country in twenty
thirteen for a publication I was working for and I
was looking at the mine and I got to meet
the people on the ground who were invested in that,
and they had battled for years with the Obama administration,
the EPA, and Gina McCarthy, who was the EPA administrator
at that time. It was roadblock after roadblock, including a
huge constitutional issue of due process, which where you had
the EPA basically closing down the project before they could
even make their case, and that I wrote extensively about that.
Where has that project gone? As you said, it's a
little bit. It's different in many ways from what's going
on in Arizona, but the similarities of the broader in
packs are still there.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm not knowledgeable enough to give you an update
on the Pebble project, but I can tell you that
with Paulson putting a billion dollars in dolland crete to
buy that asset from Barrack, I think they have a
high level of conviction that that is going to go
ahead and be permitted in the current administration. Billion dollars
even for a man of John Palson's means, is still
a lot of money. And you know, again there's it's
one of those projects where you have the local tribes
are supportive of it because of the economic benefits. You
have tribes more distant that are opposed because they're not
direct beneficiaries. And then we have a legal system in
the United States that allows, you know, for really a
lot of not particularly merit based objections to these projects
to be held up and in the right administration from
an environmentalist perspective or anti mining perspective, if you get
an Obama or a Biden, then a very thin argument
on any grounds that opposes mining has done quite well
in the courts and with the administration. So you know,
it's a real problem for the companies trying to develop
these assets because they have decades and billions of dollars
into these projects and just can't get the projects to
a final investment decision and can't reap any of the
financial benefits from having developed these assets. And so long
as that's the high level loss on where we are
in the mining industry in the United States, it's really
hard to entice mining companies to spend a lot of
money not just developing projects, but looking for new projects
to develop in the United States, and so that's part
of the reason why our domestic mind industry is in
such bad shape.
Speaker 4: Rule Number one of investing is compounding. Is the royal
road to riches.
Speaker 5: The Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski every
day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the
economy and how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 4: If you're saving money and you let compounding work, it's magic.
It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of
when you will be wealthy.
Speaker 5: Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 5: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the process is absolutely insane. Having covered this story
years ago, we are what in fifteen twenty years into
the making of some kind of a mind. There we're
talking with Sean Feiler, chief investment officer of Equinox Partner.
It's a Connecticut based investment for founded in nineteen eighty seven.
John is also an expert on all things mining emerging markets,
rare earth and minerals. That's what we're talking about today,
specifically about a copper project in Arizona. Not just a
project that is certainly an American America's interest, but it
also has implications, broader implications on religious rights. Back to
your thought, as I said, the insanity surrounding the regulation
and the long process has to absolutely make investors say
at least pause. There is obviously a massive upside for
investors in these kinds of minds, but the allowances, the
permissions are subject to change in our political system. You
mentioned before that there is a political answer to all
of this. I would imagine that political answer has to
come it within Congress to establish clear, defining laws that
restrict agencies, government agencies from overburdening these investors, these companies
as they try to move forward in the public interest.
Where did those issues stand today in terms of legislation, Well,
it's hard.
Speaker 3: Right this is you know, we can pass apparently one
piece of legislation every year out of Congress.
Speaker 6: The current political configuration, and rewriting NEBA or the National
Environmental Protection Act is not an easy thing to do,
would be a challenging political thing to do, it's not
clear that the administration.
Speaker 3: Has made the case to do that in a way
that would be politically compelling. Right, So you have executive orders.
The Trump administration, to its credit, put out a really
positive executive order on March twentieth to increase mineral production
here in the United States.
Speaker 2: It makes the right arguments, but if you.
Speaker 3: Look at from a policy perspective, what they're trying to
do to cure some of the largest deficits.
Speaker 2: We have in terms of mineral availability in the United States.
Speaker 3: It's mining in the Ukraine, it's mining in Greenland, it's
mining in the DRC right, it's mining on the seabed floor.
There's lots of places that are very difficult to mind
that seem to this administration easier than right here at home.
Speaker 2: In the United States.
Speaker 3: And that is a real, i think, indictment of just
how bad the situation is. Domestically. I think there's some
possibility of moving forward under this administration. Mining projects in
red states, but mining state and blue states are still stuck.
We have mining projects in Maine and in California that
there's nothing wrong with the project. In one case, it's
actually an existing mind brownfield.
Speaker 2: Site that would be redeveloped.
Speaker 3: And the local political opposition to these minds is irrational,
it's ideological, it's it's.
Speaker 2: Almost religious in its character. It's an environmentalist that have.
Speaker 3: A total opposition to mining in any form, ever, anywhere
near them, and that has to be cured in some way.
And it's not clear politically how you solve it.
Speaker 1: The environmentalist and some of them, as extreme as it is,
they almost feel like a cult. And perhaps they'll argue
for their religious protections of course, and their extremist mining
positions or anti mining positions, I should say. I mean,
the Arizona case does raise some fundamental questions, and it
also suppose is exactly what you were just talking about.
How long has this project been proposed? As you say,
it's got the green light, it is moving forward. But
I knowing this industry, knowing the regulation surrounding it, this
wasn't a walk in the park obviously to get to
from point A to point B.
Speaker 3: So the asset was discovered in nineteen ninety five, thirty
years ago, and it was stuck because it's under federal land,
and so they needed congressional legislation to transfer the land
to riotinto and BHPR the two owners, they're a British
and Australian company that are the owners of this mineral deposit.
And John McCain and Jefflake, and the Congressional delegation in
Arizona in twenty and fourteen had this transfer of four
hundred and twenty two acres of land to Rio Tinto
inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act of that year
and it passed Congress. So you actually had a congressional
legislation affecting this land transfer to these companies so they
could develop the mine. And now we're, you know, a
decade on from when that passed, eleven.
Speaker 2: Years on from when that passed, And.
Speaker 3: It took the Trump administration four years to get the
Forcery Service to issue the final environmental impact statement, and
then the Biden administration they were sued by the APACHES,
which put it into this Ninth Circuit decision that came out.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty four spring.
Speaker 3: But the Bide adminstration then totally abandoned the process of
getting the MIND permitted in the first place and wouldn
an issue to study because the Biden administration had no
interest in seemed like developing the MIND at all. So
You're eleven years in and two point seven billion dollars
if you go all the way back to the capital
spent on the project since nineteen ninety five. So it's
been a long and tortuous path, and I think even
now that it's going ahead, it's not clear that it
is an endorsement to spend more money on mining projects
here in the United States because of the.
Speaker 2: Way it's gone hit.
Speaker 1: It is almost criminal how the developer is proposing these
projects are treated throughout the process, and as we mentioned,
it's always subject to change. What about that area that
I mentioned before the Obama administration second term, in particular
in the EPA, basically shutting down or attempting to shut
down projects before the those who are proposing them have
a chance to make their case. Where does that stand now?
And how much did the Supreme Court's decision chevron those
kinds of cases that ended bureaucratic deference the experts in
the federal agencies. How much is that playing into minds
and mind development in America today.
Speaker 3: It's a good question that I do not know the
answer to. It's not my particular area of expertise in
terms of the legal process, as it relates to Niba,
and certainly not under the Bomb administration. I just don't
know exactly where that stands. I can tell you that
in Blue states the federal government has there's really no
strategy the federal government has, even under this administration, to
get those states to move projects forward. You do now
for the first time have funding out of the Export
Import Bank, in out of the Defense Department for domestic minds,
and so providing some capital to the mines in counties
and the states where they can get permitted. And then
I think it also is going ahead. And I think
it's also once the project has received an FID and
final approval and is under construction and has been capitalized.
I think it would be very awkward or hard for
a new administration to come in and stop it once
that capital has been spent and the mine is up
and running. That's just not that's not something we've seen.
We've seen that in some Latin American countries. I just
don't think we'll see that in the United States.
Speaker 1: You mentioned before that the Trump administration is very interested,
to say the least, in exploration elsewhere beyond the United
States of America, and that does expose the problem, the
regulation problem here in America, all the hurdles therein one
of the big areas of exploration and potential. Agreement, of
course comes in a war torn country right now, that
being Ukraine, and the war with Russia and Ukraine rages on.
At the same time there is this deal. Are you
familiar with where things stand or up to date on
where things stand on this rare earth minerals deal between
the United States and Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a little crazy. So the original iteration.
Speaker 2: Of the deal.
Speaker 3: Is going to count, by Trust's math, with three hundred
and fifty billion that we'd put into Ukraine as part
of the capital that was going to be paid back
by Ukraine as a result of this joint venture that
then was struck out of the final draft that was signed.
So it's only incremental investments into Ukraine that would be
counted in our capital investment into the mining joint venture
with the government of the Ukraine.
Speaker 2: I think the problem with the deal is that it doesn't.
Speaker 3: Include existing mining projects in Ukraine, so it would be
perspective mining projects in Ukraine. The other issue is that
obviously there's still a war there. They are I have
depleted their infrastructure, they've depleted their manpower. It's not not
a location that the mining companies I'm familiar with are
eager to go invest in, and so I think what
it created was a way for the US to prevent
Russian and Chinese mining companies from coming in should a
new deal arise, and provided some implicit security investment in
the United States in Ukraine on the part of the
United States should a mining project develop in the Ukraine.
But I think it's much more political than having much,
if anything to do with critical minerals and mining in
Ukraine that's just not happening anytime soon.
Speaker 2: And the same thing is true in Greenland.
Speaker 3: You know, these are difficult, remote projects, lots of capital,
it's not obviously clear that they're going to be developed
or or economic if you were to develop them, And
the same things true in Eastern DRC. There there's some
very economic projects to develop, but obviously not an easy
environment to operate in. So I just think these deals
all have a heavy political overlay on them and aren't
going to really solve the short term mineral and critical
mineral problems we're having in the United States.
Speaker 1: What impact, if any, does the war between or the
ceasefire wherever we stand as we talk today between Israel
and Iran. What impact does that have? Obviously it has
certain impact on energy. What impact, if any, does that
have on mining exploration, rare earth minerals, all of that.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean only very tangentially to the extent that
we've depleted munitions that use critical minerals, right, I think
it just increases the desire on the part of the
defense contractors and the DoD to go find better sources
for minerals they need in that as part of that
supply chain. You know, that's a deal that has to
be done with China. China has seventy percent of the
world's rare earth production from a mining perspective, but ninety
plus percent from a processing perspective. So the Chinese have
been very strategic in not just mining the rare earths
that they have that the world needs, but in processing
the rare earths that are mined elsewhere in China, so
that they really do have a stranglehold over that supply,
which is one of the again ironies going back to
the Resolution mine in Arizona is the largest shareholder in Ria.
Tinto is a Chinese peristatal company, And because we don't
have available smelter capacity in the United States copper smelter
capacity in the United States, for the copper concentrate that's
going to be produced out of the Resolution mine, that
copper concentrate is very likely going to be shipped to
China to be processed. So the amount of damage that
we've done to our domestic mining industry over decades, reversing
that and putting us back in a position where we
would not only mine the process the minerals that we
produce here domestically is just is a herculean task and
it requires a very different mindset when it comes to
permitting and financing of this sector.
Speaker 1: No doubt about the damage we have done to the
mining industry over the last half century. In particular, I
grew up in a small Wisconsin college town in Platteville,
Wisconsin that used to four years have a mining school.
In fact, right around the small city there's a mound
that has the world's largest m on it. It represented
the mining school mining tradition of course in southwestern Wisconsin
in that region of the country. All of that's gone
now and it has been a process obviously of decades,
But how much how dependent are we on China in
terms of our needs and what will this mine in
Arizona do to improve that or to break some of
that dependency.
Speaker 3: Well, so this one mine would produce million pounds of
copper a year, and so the global markets a little
over fifty billion pounds, so two percent of the global production.
But we only produce two and a half billion pounds
in the United States earrently, So it would be a huge,
almost forty percent uptick in terms of our domestic mine
production in copper, and it would last for forty years.
Speaker 2: So this is.
Speaker 3: Absolutely is a world class project, absolutely strategically important for
the United States to go ahead with this mine. But
picking up on your first point about just the human
capital we have, right, we've the industry is controlled by Chinese, Australians, Canadians.
Speaker 2: Global firms mainly that are not American.
Speaker 3: America only has two of the fifty largest mining companies
in the world are American Freeport and Numont, and a
lot of their assets are overseas. And so when you
spend time with the mining companies, it's not that there's
no Americans, but we are a very distinct minority in
most of these larger mining houses, the C suite and
all the way down to the actual miners themselves.
Speaker 2: So it's that is going to take a long time
to reverse.
Speaker 1: That is a sad story. My grandfather was a miner
in southwest Wisconsin. They mined Galina. It's a lead mining area,
of course, and yeah, there have been certainly problems environmentally
over the years, but the regulation that the industry has
experiences has been absolutely devastating and it has ripped apart
the mining industry so much so that we're reliant on
foreign powers in foreign countries again, foreign countries that are
clearly our enemy in trying to deal with this. As
the President attempts to make America great, do you think
he can make mining American mining great again in the
United States?
Speaker 3: He has a very competent guy, David Copley. We brought
in as the chair of the National Energy Dominance Council
that has overseen this EO Executive or that the Trump
administration put out on March twentieth.
Speaker 2: So I think that's a good start.
Speaker 3: And there's clearly when you talk to the different government
agencies that touch upon mining, there's clearly a direction for
them to do something to get to make progress to
get projects permitted. I do think the White House and
the President himself is going to have to continue to
invest and invest more political capital into the mining sector.
If we're actually going to revive the domestic mining sector in.
Speaker 2: The United States. He's going to have to come up
with a.
Speaker 3: Strategy to pressure blue states to green light and permit
mining projects. He's going to have to convince the courts
that America has a compelling national interest in mind development
on federal land, and so that we don't get hung
up like we did in this fight of a resolution
on the idea that there's another path forward other than
declarity of the Kapellian national interest. There's going to have
to be government financing for some of the minds. They're
simply not the private capital available for the development of
some of these projects in the United States.
Speaker 2: So's a long, long list of.
Speaker 3: Things that need to be done, and none of it's easy.
So I'm optimistic that it happens, but there's still an
enormous amount of work to do, and it's really hard
to do any of it with the Congress we have,
and so I think just the level of difficulty here
is really really high.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're not going to solve the issue long term,
as we know with executive orders. We've lived that experience
obviously over the last several years in this country. But
to end where we began, you believe that we can
do all of this, We can explore, we can expand
mining in this country for those critical minerals without having
to open wide the government control over faith areas. You
believe that that is manageable. There are compromises that can
be made.
Speaker 2: That's one hundred percent true.
Speaker 3: The Native Americans and animists involved in nature worship on federal.
Speaker 2: Lands are going to be uniquely affected.
Speaker 3: But having a precedent that really understands the importance of
mining and damages religious liberty for everybody that uses federal
lands and for any religious practice that has nothing to
do with mining, just as a very unfortunate way to
get started down this.
Speaker 2: Process. So that's where we are today.
Speaker 3: Hopefully with Donalin Creek or with the next mine in
Q that's going to go through this legal process and
need federal government support, we get to a better decision
and eventually a better precedent out of the courts on mining.
Speaker 1: Such an important issue. For the future of this country,
for the future of this republic nearing two hundred and
fifty years in the making. Thanks to my guest today,
Sean Feiler, chief investment officer of Equinox Partners, you've been
listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm
Matt Kittles, Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be
back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom
and anxious for the frame.
Speaker 3: I heard the fame voice the reason, and then it
faded away. Mm hmm.