Gene Rebeck’s recent article asks why so much of northern Minnesota’s industry is owned by companies headquartered outside the United States. It’s a fair question. But I’d add another: What happened to America’s own capacity to invest in mining?

Mining is capital-intensive. Developing a mineral deposit requires specialized expertise and the willingness to spend years, sometimes decades, before producing a pound of metal. International companies bring experience gained at mines around the world.

Our reliance on that expertise didn’t happen overnight. In 1996, the federal government eliminated the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which had supported mining research and mineral information for decades. Some functions continued elsewhere, but research capacity was lost. U.S. mining education also declined. According to the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, accredited mining engineering programs fell from 25 in 1982 to 14 in 2020. Even the University of Minnesota discontinued its program.

These changes didn’t cause foreign ownership by themselves. But alongside industry consolidation and shifting investment priorities, they weakened the domestic network of research, education, and expertise needed to sustain mining.

RELATED: What’s the Deal With That Iowa Steel Mill?

Foreign ownership isn’t unique to mining. According to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, 1,477 foreign-owned businesses employed approximately 160,000 Minnesotans in 2025. They span industries we depend on every day. Minnesota actively seeks international investment, so why should mining be considered inherently different?

Here’s what more than two decades working in mining taught me: Foreign ownership does not mean foreign environmental standards.

I’ve worked for two companies headquartered outside the United States and one headquartered here. My responsibilities included environmental management, protecting water, and meeting regulatory requirements. Our permit conditions, water-quality standards, monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight were determined by Minnesota and federal requirements, not the location of our parent companies.

That doesn’t mean ownership is irrelevant. Who controls strategic resources, where profits go, and where minerals are processed are legitimate questions. So are corporate transparency, financial strength, environmental performance, and treatment of workers. We should ask those questions of every company, regardless of nationality.

The jobs, meanwhile, are local. The people operating equipment, maintaining facilities, collecting water samples, and supporting these mines build their lives and communities here. Their work is no less Minnesotan because investors live elsewhere.

And our demand for minerals doesn’t vanish if we decline to produce them here. Instead, production shifts elsewhere, sometimes to places with weaker safeguards for workers, communities, and the environment. That deserves attention, too.

If we want more American mining companies, we need to rebuild American mining capacity: research, education, mineral processing, and an investment climate where projects can be evaluated on their merits.

The question shouldn’t stop at “Where is the parent company headquartered?” We should also ask: Where will the work happen? Whose standards apply? Who is accountable?

In Minnesota, we have the opportunity to demand high standards under our own watch. Let’s judge projects by their merits, not just their mailing address.