Lead to Succeed - Ryan Sistad

In this episode of Lead to Succeed, host Steve Arwood welcomes Ryan Sistad, Executive Director of Better In Our Back Yard, for a timely conversation about resource development, environmental responsibility, and the economic future of the Upper Peninsula. Ryan shares how his organization supports responsible industrial development by promoting policies that balance job creation, environmental standards, and U.S. resource independence. The discussion touches on the Copperwood project, the national importance of critical minerals, and what communities can do to advocate for smart, sustainable development.

Learn more about InvestUP at https://www.investupmi.com. Connect with us on social media at https://www.linkedin.com/company/invest-up-mi/. 

Transcript

 Steve Arwood   5:54
 Well, welcome to another edition of Lead to Succeed sponsored by InvestUP.
 Our show highlights topical issues, people of interest, and important activities affecting the economy and prosperity of the Upper Peninsula.
 Today I'm really excited to have these conversations because it's so timely.
 Ryan Sistad, he is Executive Director of  Better In Our Back Yard.
 And you are sitting in Duluth today.

 Ryan Sistad   6:30
 Yes, I am.

 Steve Arwood   6:31
 How is the weather in Duluth?

 Ryan Sistad   6:34
 It's a little muggy. It's been raining. It's about 40°. I'm sure many in the UP would relate to this, but it's that time of year where it might be 40° here one day and 70° down in the Twin Cities. So April's a tough month for Duluthians to come to grips with all the rest of the state is, you know, approaching.

 Steve Arwood   6:52
 Yeah.

 Ryan Sistad   6:56
 You know the thick of spring and heading into summer.

 Steve Arwood   6:58
 Yeah, you might know from my golf shirt that I'm not in the Upper Peninsula today and I'm not in Duluth, but I will be heading back relatively soon. So Ryan? Your organization, it's very interesting. You advocate for the responsible extraction of our natural resources as core to our fundamental economy. But you have a unique approach. It's not confrontational. It's more educational. Can you give us a little bit of the genesis of your organization and what its mission and principles are?

 Ryan Sistad   7:38
 So you know Better In Our Back Yard. Our mission is to promote responsible industrial development, and what we look at as responsible industrial development is supporting projects or industries that we believe can grow the local economy wherever that project or industry is, while still protecting the local environment and better impact areas. We were founded roughly six years ago and our target audience at the time was strictly just young professionals. So my first year running Better In Our Back Yard, we did a lot of local events in Duluth at colleges, and we'd have small little networking events to hopefully get young professionals. At, you know, vendor companies or mining companies to attend, you know, get young people more excited about the industry in general, and then another reason why we were created too is Minnesota. And I know other states are like this too. But there's a lot of NGOs or non-government organizations in Minnesota. Some are pro-industry, some advocate against the industry, and unfortunately in Minnesota, it seems like there's more NGO's that are anti-industry than there are NGO's that are pro-industry. And so in the area we have roughly 4 NGOs, big players that are looking to stop mining in northeastern Minnesota, so similar.
 To the UP of Michigan, you know, we've been mining iron ore for a little over 135 years.
 We have six to seven operating taconite mines, but we're also blessed with over 90% of US nickel reserves. Over 88% of US cobalt reserves and over 1/3. Of us copper reserves, the other known nickel reserves that people talk about is actually the nickel that Eagle mine is currently mining in the UP.

 Ryan Sistad   9:17
 So there's a lot of proposed projects in the area that have been looking to mine copper, nickel for years, one being twin metals, Minnesota, the other being New Range Copper, nickel, formerly known as Polymed. And these NGOs have been looking to stop their projects for years. 

 Steve Arwood   9:26
 Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   9:30
 They’re funded, they're working with millions of dollars in the bank, and they wake up each and every day looking to stop these projects and to stop economic development.
 On the iron range, which is pretty sad because our economy is very similar to the UP of Michigan where you know as industry has been going kind of on a slow tilt and as jobs have been going overseas or maybe different parts of the country, communities have been hurting, We've experienced population drops in certain communities on the iron range by over 30%, and so when I saw that and when COVID hit II felt that we really needed to rebrand ourselves in association to be a pro industry group that’s playing defense but playing offense and educating people on issues. This is why we need permanent reform. This is why we need energy independence. This is why we should mine copper nickel here in Minnesota so that we can get the critical minerals necessary for EV batteries in a responsible way and not sourcing our cobalt from countries like Congo who have huge child labor issues or getting our nickel from India, a country that's still practicing deforestation.
 And then when Indonesia mines its nickel, they sell it to China. And then China's processing that nickel with coal-fired power plants only to sell it to the US for EVs that we think are going to be saving the environment.
 And so we just like to educate people on those policies and from that, I gave you a long answer to this, the model that we developed in Minnesota has been proven to be scalable across different states.
 So, fast forward a few years after COVID, we are technically in Wisconsin and Michigan.
 We help out Enbridge with the Great Lakes Tunnel project. Line 5 relocation project. Wisconsin, we just announced this week, actually that we're helping out Highland with their copperwood project in Michigan. And we've expanded. Idaho, Arizona, Nevada. And Alaska as well in addition. So we're in eight states now.

 Steve Arwood   11:22
 Good, good. So the Upper Peninsula Michigan is much like northern Minnesota. I mean experienced all the same issues. The population decline ,and the presence of opposition to responsible extraction or natural resources, whether it's timber, whether it's minerals, daconite you know it runs the same gamut. But we've repeatedly called to invest over 80% of the residents of the Upper Peninsula, supporting safe and effective responsible mining. Why does this not?I probably answered my own question, but why does that not resonate? Because.
 You know, over in the Western UP where we're experiencing opposition to development of Copperwood the folks over there, there's not that many of them, obviously.
 Local residents, but it's hard for them to fight TikTok influencers and what they say is a ghost.
 They feel like they're fighting a ghost. They don't see the opposition in the community, they don't see the opposition engaged in the community. They don't see major members of the opposition living in the community. And it's really difficult for them to think through how do we overcome this and say, hey, we live here, this is an economy we've in large lost and experienced the same kind of population declines that you've talked about and hospital closures and schools you know, with very, very small graduating classes. What can they do?
 Other than you know, speak as loud as they can. But how do they? You know, how do they win that discussion? I'm not saying win it, but how do they take part in that discussion that competes with all that money and all that outstate influence?

 Ryan Sistad   13:36
 Are you asking how local residents can start winning the argument?

 Steve Arwood   13:42
 Yeah, I'm thinking in the context of your experience. What you know, how can they look at that situation over there and say, OK. Here are some fundamental things we can do to promote our community as wanting U.S. investment.

 Ryan Sistad   13:56
 Well, what I noticed with NGO's when I came in and I started  just learning how to do my role is they're very good at focusing on the emotion. So with Highland, when Eagle was going through permitting, or you know they like to claim these projects can destroy the local environment, they can destroy Lake Superior. You know, we need clean water and we obviously support clean water and with twin metals. They're in the rainy river watershed in Minnesota, so, opposition groups will claim that the boundary waters are at risk, which, when you know going into production and with N Med, you know they're in the Lake Superior watershed. So opposition groups will just switch the argument up a little bit and say this is going to destroy Lake Superior and where I think the mining industry can and this is, you know, this is on me too with Better In Our Back Yard. We need to get better at this. I need to be on Tiktok more. I need to learn how to do more Instagram reels. More too is to not necessarily focus on the facts, but focus on the emotional side of what these projects and industries do for local communities. We need to talk more about how hospitals are shutting down in the region because of bad policy coming out of urban areas. We need to amp up the fact that the people that are against these projects are not from the region, and if they do live in the region, it seems like 9 times out of 10 I get passionate about this. They're retiring to the area. They're not from the area. They didn't build their career. They didn't support their family there. They're living there and they want to retire there and they don't want to be thinking about a mine being built within. A certain radius of where they're looking. To ride off in the sunlight, if you will. And so I would say that, and one thing I've noticed with NGO's too is no one, whether you're pro mining or against mining, no one ever wants to be a reason why. someone lost a good paying job. No one would ever want to admit that. But that's the policies that they're supporting. They're what they're wanting. They're advocating for policies that's going to take away someone's job or stop the potential of creating great paying jobs in the region. Like, I mean you look at.
 Like a project like Copperwood, that kind of that kind of economic impact could be a game changer for the up and you know, we have opposition groups that are looking to stop it and that needs to be highlighted because the more that I've learned with groups that are.

 Steve Arwood   16:01
 Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   16:08
 Against these projects, they don't care how much copper it takes to build a wind turbine or how many tons of copper are in a wind turbine.
 They don't care that there's a potential, potentially, that every Tesla or Rivian or EV that you see out there. The highway that the Cobalt and those EV batteries might have started with child slave labor. They don't come to grips with that and they don't want us to say that. So the more that we highlight that and the more that we actually show real life, people who are actually natively impacted by the things that they're supporting, I think is something that we should jump on. And when I started, I just noticed the industry was very focused on the facts, which is, which is obviously important. But it seems I think it's going to be the emotions that when the argument is over.

 Steve Arwood   16:48
 Yeah. Well, I noticed that they all carry these.
 And you know the critical elements in those by and large, come from places that you know don't much care for us and don't much care how they treat their environment or how they treat their labor.

 Ryan Sistad   17:01
 Yeah.

 Steve Arwood   17:08
 But, but there's an incredible and you know as well, there's an incredible disconnect between that reality. And the opposition to something locally. I've always said if you're true to form, you'd want the highest safety labor, environmental regulations as possible, know your source and it's a little bit disingenuous too, with some of the ESG statements. You see some from some of the large corporations too, who you know have had an opportunity to maybe advance development of their supply chain here in the US, but anyway, turning to that because that's kind of the conversation of the day.
 The president. The tariffs. The call to reinvest is reassuring. Make our own do more. How do you see that playing out for the extractive industries? Because you know as well as I do, it's very difficult to permit a mine. It's very difficult. Well, we've basically given up our metal refining capacity to other countries because nobody wants to do it anymore. Or in some cases, it almost becomes impossible to do anymore. So these huge pieces of infrastructure.
 Both getting out of the ground, processing it, and manufacturing into something that we've kinda let go over time, and now we're being called to put it all back together. What is that?
 What does that mean to you? When you think it through, OK? Is this an opening? Is this just a small window of time when you know certain things are going to happen? Or is this true? Could this truly be a game changer, I mean?

 Ryan Sistad   19:06
 I think it's all the above. I think it's a small window of opportunity, and it's a game changer.
 This administration has made no apologies for being pro-mining.
 I mean, the previous administration did some good things for some critical mineral projects, including grants to Eagle mine with RevEx technology. They did some good stuff, but they would always shy away from actually saying the word mining, and what's been refreshing about this administration is that they're talking about mining their time, how they want to add copper to the critical minerals list. You know the White House has already deemed copper critical from their perspective. We're hoping that the USGS will follow suit here within the year,  but I think there is a small window of opportunity. I mean, we got Senator Gary Peters out of Michigan, who's a Democrat that has proposed pro-mining legislation already in this session.
 So where I see the opportunity here is that we're going to see some Democrats, 'cause unfortunately that, you know, mining has become partisan in many ways, but there are some I would call, you know, labor.
 Democrats.
 Like in Nevada or even in Michigan, that all of a sudden now might feel a little bit more comfortable being a part of pro mining legislation. So that's where I see the opportunity where I think we're actually gonna see some bills go through the Senate and through the house where, you know, both Democrats and Republicans are gonna be voting in favor because this is that kind of window of opportunity where.
 We're gonna see some Democrats that are in some purple areas of the country that are probably gonna go with this. And I think the time is now to take action, and that's through executive orders, on permanent reform,m and that's through the House and through the Senate in terms.

 Steve Arwood   20:34
 No.

 Ryan Sistad   20:40
 Passing bipartisan bills that allow for good permitting reform because, on average, right now it takes nearly 30 years to permit a new mine in the US that's on federal lands. And I know Michigan has its issues, but man, I know Minnesota is extremely jealous of the fact that you're able to permit Eagle and also permit copperwood.

 Steve Arwood   21:00
 Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   21:00
 I mean, it's a huge accomplishment in comparison to some other states in the country, including Minnesota.

 Steve Arwood   21:06
 Yeah. Well, for agents, for federal agencies, maybe not so much Michigan, because we are blessed that we have our own permitting authority.
 It is a very stringent and tough permitting authority, and I was around when that was being put together, in large part because of Eagle mine, and I think a lot of the NGO's, the mainline NGO's in Michigan. That was part of that discussion, I think it took the view that if you can meet these standards. Good for you. If you can't meet the standards, that's just good for everybody. So you know we have a very stringent, very tough, a very responsible mining hack. But we also have all these agencies and maybe more in Minnesota. I mean, you have the in some instances you have to deal with the US Army Corps on certain things and other things.
 How does that shift? You have 3 1/2 years of administration left and it takes that many years to permit a mine. How do we compress and go and then how do we maintain? And I know that maintaining it is a political question, but what can we get done in the next 3 1/2 years, assuming that that?
 Ryan Sistad   22:29
 Well, see. I would argue that you just take massive action and create premier form and not only pass premier form bills in the short term, but pass bills that are there to stay regardless of who's in power at the presidency.

 Steve Arwood   22:34
 Yeah. Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   22:44
 And then also take some good ideas from Canada and Australia. In Canada, for example, I know like in Minnesota they say that that was fully a copper nickel mine. In northeastern Minnesota, just outside of Hoyt Lakes. It technically was fully permitted over five years ago, but it's still stuck in litigation because Ng OS had time to file lawsuits against the very agencies that deem N Met as a mine that could protect the local environment. And in Canada, when you get your permits, you get your permits, and you can start production. You can start construction. You know, there's NGOs that can still litigate against the project, but as long as they have permits in hand, they can begin construction.

 Steve Arwood   23:22
 Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   23:25
 So I would just say, to answer your question. Implement permit reform, taking massive action both in the Senate and the House and in the White House, to ensure that you know within these 3 1/2 years, by the time there's a different administration, permanent reform is in place.
 And it was done in a bipartisan fashion during that time frame, but it's done in such a way where we can permit mines in a three to five-year timeline.
 And I would say the number one most important thing, or two different things. And they are equally important. NGO should not have the ability to sue agencies that issue permits, and stop construction. They should not have that ability, in my opinion, and also with the agencies. They need to be held accountable for providing good timelines for projects looking to be permitted in the US, so that they know when they're gonna get their water permit or when they're gonna.
 Get their permit to mine so that there's more certainty for investors, and the more certain that the T that you can create for these projects, the more investment that we're gonna see coming to the US. So I don't know if that answers your question, but I would say massive action and using some of the things that other countries have used as well that have been good for their projects and also implement permanent form in such a way that we can permit these projects without circumventing the environmental safeguards that we have in place, which I believe can be done.

 Steve Arwood   24:40
 Yeah, I mean it's a traditional legal strategy of many of the NGOs at least over in our state, where it's all ready to go, and they go to court and ask for a TRO on the grounds that the permit was illegal. Or some public input didn't happen, and oftentimes it's just another layer, right that you have to pull aside. But I also believe in the back of my head, it's also another opportunity to fundraise to keep the coffers full, to keep the opposition.

 Ryan Sistad   25:13
 Yeah. Well, they have, to your point too.

 Steve Arwood   25:20
 Moving.

 Ryan Sistad   25:23
 A few weeks ago when President Trump signed that executive order on critical minerals. There's some people within the mining community that were like, oh, I wonder what the Ng OS are going to say. They're kind of worried about that. And I.
 Like with their messaging and I joke, but it's true.
 It's like, well, they're probably behind the scenes, secretly excited about this 'cause this gives them another reason to send out an e-mail blast and get a bunch of money donated to their groups.

 Steve Arwood   25:46
 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 Ryan Sistad   25:47
 I mean anything.
 So it's just your point.

 Ryan Sistad   25:50
 And it's just more justification for them to fundraise.
 They're still gonna no matter what, they're gonna find a way to stay funded.

 Steve Arwood   25:53
 Yeah.

 Ryan Sistad   25:56
 I mean, that's their business model.

 Steve Arwood   25:58
 Oh yeah, it is.
 And I sometimes believe that the longer they remain opposed to something for no scientific, practical or economic reason, the better off it is for them.
 But anyway.

 Ryan Sistad   26:10
 Yeah.

 Steve Arwood   26:13
 Critical minerals. You talked about copper potentially getting.
 I guess it's considered either a critical material critical mineral if it does get that status, what does that gain those that are exploring for or found or wish to mine copper?
 What? What does that bring to that element?
 I know that in the previous administration it might have meant some type of federal.
 I don't know now what that means.

 Ryan Sistad   26:50
 That's a good question.
 I really don't know either.
 I would just say that I think it adds to the value of the project or the importance of the project like North Bend and Minnesota like outside of copper, they're targeting nickel, cobalt and platinum group metals.

 Steve Arwood   26:59
 Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   27:04
 All those are deemed critical, and if they get copper added to the list, I don't know how. If you're in the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy, how do you not put a heavy focus on those projects when every mineral that they're targeting?

 Steve Arwood   27:06
 Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   27:17
 Is critical.
 So I would say it adds to the argument.
 For these projects of why they should go through.
 But yeah, to answer your question with the difference, I mean it like for example, with the Inflation Reduction Act, when that was passed there were tax incentives for companies going after critical minerals domestically or even with like our allies, like in Canada, Australia, I.

 Steve Arwood   27:22
 Mm.

 Ryan Sistad   27:35
 Don't know what that looks like this year, but I would say my first thoughts are there needs to be.

 Steve Arwood   27:37
 Yeah.

 Ryan Sistad   27:41
 Maybe there's legislation that's passed that OK, like, if you're a project targeting copper or any other critical mineral, maybe you should be automatically added to fast 41.
 I don't know what that looks like, but to answer your question, I haven't seen anything that's too round breaking, but to your point, I know in the previous administration there were certainly incentives. If you're a project going after critical minerals.

 Steve Arwood   27:54
 Mm hmm. Yeah. Just did Crystal Ball and some things that may or may not happen or could happen. Do you see this administration putting money behind this call to reshore, reinvest, build new mines, build new production, and new infrastructure for refining. You know the product, it's almost such a huge undertaking, it kind of is analogous. It's still like the war production board during World War II, where the government and industry got together and said, OK, this is what we're going to do. And I know it's not that dramatic, but do you think there's a need for this? The federal government, as they find all this other excess spending that they're reducing, that kind of redirect that says, OK, we're going to help create. A copper refining capacity in the United States. Do you think that's in the cards or should it be in the cards? I don't know.

 Ryan Sistad   29:04
 I think every I think anything that could potentially help new refineries be built their mines be built should be in the cards sort to speak. I mean I think anything should be open to discussion because the previous administration wasn't that friendly to mining, I'd argue.
 But some of the good things that they did was having EU of E develop partnerships like with Eagle like or the Department of Energy developing.
 I shouldn't say DoD.
 I mean, I think the DoD would do some stuff with Eagle and I know the Department of Energy helped out with Rev X and Eagle's partnership and talent.
 I know Talmudes had some interest in Michigan and the DoD has partnered with talent on some stuff under the Biden administration. I thought all those were good things and to answer your question, I think with this administration.

 Steve Arwood   29:39
 Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   29:46
 They're from my perspective.
 They're from what I've seen. I can't prove it, but just from how they do things, it seems like their first option is how to do like or their first priority is, how do we create an environment for these projects to thrive with or without the government's help?
 And then I think from there then, they're gonna reevaluate, OK.
 Now we've created this environment for them to thrive. Which projects should we help out now?
 Like to make sure that this is a streamliner, that it's better and I don't necessarily see it with mining, but I could see it with the midstream, to your point with the copper refineries and everything. I mean, I've seen some articles where I read an article last month about you.

 Steve Arwood   30:12
 Mm hmm.

 Ryan Sistad   30:23
 Trump is throwing out the idea of do we start building copper refineries and smelters or critical mineral refineries and smelters on DoD lands? Those are some interesting thoughts.

 Steve Arwood   30:33
 Yeah.

 Ryan Sistad   30:34
 And so yeah, I think it's all the above, but I would argue that their first priority, at least from what I've seen, is more or less not necessarily giving out funding.
 But how do we create an environment for these projects to thrive so that we can get back to building things again in America in a timely fashion?
 But you know what you just said in terms of the federal cut spending and redirecting that into industry, I think the logic is very sound.

 Steve Arwood   31:02
 Well, you just think it had, under current circumstances, let's say we did have a producing copper mine and that copper had to go to a smelter out of the country.
 And then the copper cathode had to come back.
 It may stand at the same ownership, I don't know, but it is now subject to tariff. I mean, how does that all work out?
 So, there's a lot of these.

 Ryan Sistad   31:24
 Well, potentially then. The irony is that.

 Steve Arwood   31:25
 It's a lot of these parts that have to be thought through. I mean in a longer term.

 Ryan Sistad   31:31
 And potentially, I mean, yeah, potentially. But like the irony, I think behind it, with or without tariffs is why would we be selling to China regardless anyway? I mean, even if China was an ally.

 Steve Arwood   31:41
 Yeah.

 Ryan Sistad   31:42
 Like, why would you? I mean, wouldn't you feel better knowing that the copper that was a mine in America was refined in America? And then from there, wherever it ends up is where it ends up?

 Steve Arwood   31:44
 Yeah.

 Ryan Sistad   31:51
 And so it just seems a little, the logic seems backwards. Having to send it to the other side of the world.
 To turn it into the product that needs to be turned into let's let's mine.
 And in America.

 Steve Arwood   32:02
 Exactly. Exactly. OK. Well, this has been a great conversation. What's your hot project right now that's front to center?

 Ryan Sistad   32:17
 Just growing  Better In Our Back Yard. We advocate a lot for good policy and educating people on why we need these projects and in the meantime behind the scenes we've been expanding pretty quickly. And as I mentioned earlier Copperwood joined us.
 We've been advocating for line 5 for the last few years and we're continuing to grow.
 So those are some of the projects and then we do quarterly events in Minnesota that usually get anywhere from 2 to 500 people at events and our Members are pretty engaged with us.
 So yeah, all the above. We're working on anything and everything with the industry and with growing the association.

 Steve Arwood   32:54
 Well, great, Ryan, it's great to talk to you for folks that wanna know more about the organization, you can Google  Better In Our Back Yard, correct?

 Ryan Sistad   33:05
 That's right, absolutely.

 Steve Arwood   33:05
 All right,  Better In Our Back Yard. Thanks a lot, Ryan. I really appreciate your time and those of us that work in the UP and toward the prosperity of that peninsula and its history, we appreciate what you're doing very much. Thank you.

 Ryan Sistad   33:24
 Appreciate it, Steve. Thank you. Thank you for having me.

 Steve Arwood   33:26
 Have a good day. 

 Ryan Sistad   33:28
 You too.