Ukraine Pushes U.S. Congress for Russia Sanctions Before Election Recess

By RFE/RL staff - Sep 04, 2026

• The Senate overwhelmingly approved the Russia and Iran sanctions legislation 86-11 on August 7, but its path through the House remains uncertain.
• 
  
• Ukraine says tougher tariffs on major buyers of Russian energy could significantly reduce Moscow’s ability to finance its war.
• 
  
• House Democrats support stronger pressure on Russia but object to giving President Trump broad tariff and sanctions-waiver authority.
• 
  

Ukraine’s top sanctions official says he remains optimistic about prospects for a sweeping Russia sanctions bill in the US Congress despite growing uncertainty over when the House of Representatives will take it up, as lawmakers face a sharply shortened legislative calendar ahead of the November elections.

Vladyslav Vlasiuk, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s sanctions commissioner, spent this week in Washington meeting lawmakers and congressional staff as Kyiv presses Congress to advance the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026.

The legislation passed the Senate on August 7 by an overwhelming 86-11 vote, reflecting rare bipartisan agreement. The bill would give the president additional authority to impose punitive tariffs on countries that continue buying Russian fossil fuels. It also includes provisions targeting Iran, which Vlasiuk said is engaged in close military-industrial cooperation with Moscow.

But the measure faces a more complicated path in the House, where some Democrats have expressed reservations about provisions that would give President Donald Trump additional authority to impose tariffs.

Republican leaders announced on September 3 that the final two weeks of the pre-election House session are canceled, severely curtailing what had been a full legislative calendar for September.

House members are expected to leave Washington no later than September 17 and not return until mid-November. The House will reconvene for one additional week of business after next week’s Labor Day break.

The compressed calendar has increased pressure on supporters of the sanctions legislation. Senior Republican aides told RFE/RL that the bill remains a GOP priority, provided Democrats “get their ducks in a row.”

Democratic aides, in response to RFE/RL inquiries, expressed cautious optimism about the measure, underscoring uncertainty over whether Speaker Mike Johnson will bring it to the floor.

Vlasiuk: ‘Good Chance’

Vlasiuk said he held roughly 20 meetings with lawmakers and congressional staff during his Washington visit, including discussions with members of both parties.

He said the Ukrainian delegation encountered broad support for increasing pressure on Russia and that no lawmaker told him outright that they would oppose the legislation.

“Everyone agreed that it was necessary to increase pressure on Russia,” Vlasiuk said at a briefing at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. “No one said that he definitely would not support this bill.”

He described Ukraine as “quite optimistic” about the level of support for the legislation, including among Democrats.

One potentially important route would be for the House to consider the bill under suspension of the rules, a fast-track procedure generally used for legislation expected to command broad support. Vlasiuk said that was among the realistic scenarios for moving the bill forward.

“I think that there is really good chance that this bill will be brought onto the floor,” he said.

Vlasiuk has previously identified the week after next as Kyiv’s preferred window for a House vote. With the House calendar now compressed, that period could provide one of the last opportunities for a vote before lawmakers leave Washington.

Asked by RFE/RL whether the momentum surrounding the bill was still there, Vlasiuk pointed to what he characterized as continued bipartisan backing for Ukraine.

“There is a lot of support for Ukraine on the Hill,” he said, adding that Kyiv has been “very vocal” in stressing the urgency of passing the bill. “At the same time, well, I mean, let’s wait and see,” Vlasiuk said.

Democrats Wary Of Trump Powers

The principal obstacle is not broad disagreement over confronting Russia, according to Thomas Melia, a former senior State Department official and Senate Foreign Relations Committee deputy staff director who is currently with the Free Russia Foundation.

In an interview with RFE/RL, Melia explained that Democratic leaders have several reasons for hesitating. One is that the legislation is not strictly necessary for the administration to impose sanctions, he said. Trump already possesses significant authority to sanction Russian individuals and entities.

The bill’s principal value, in Melia’s assessment, is therefore partly political and symbolic: Its bipartisan backing would demonstrate congressional resolve to increase pressure on Moscow.

But Melia said the House Democratic leadership was not sufficiently involved in negotiating the version that ultimately emerged from the Senate.

That concern is particularly relevant to Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who has expressed general support for tougher pressure on Russia but has raised concerns about provisions of the legislation.

There is also a substantive concern: The final version of the legislation gives the president additional tariff authority. Melia said that has created hesitation among Democrats who are wary of giving Trump another instrument that could be used broadly against US trading partners.

Melia also emphasized another change from the bill’s earlier form: The final version makes the sanctions optional rather than mandatory.

That distinction matters, he said, because the original legislation’s political force came in part from its mandatory sanctions provisions and overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate.

After the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, the administration backed a version of the legislation but sought changes that made sanctions nonmandatory and added tariff authority, Melia said.

The result, in his view, is a weaker measure than the original. Melia said the final version nevertheless retains substantial political significance because of the broad bipartisan support that surrounded the tougher proposal.

Kyiv Backs Tariffs

Vlasiuk defended the tariff provisions, arguing that they could make sanctions substantially more effective. “This is a powerful instrument which will allow to amplify the effect of the sanctions,” he said.

He argued that tariffs and sanctions can have similar economic effects but differ in their ability to be circumvented.

“Sanctions can be adapted, sanctions can be evaded, tariffs cannot be adapted or evaded,” Vlasiuk said.

He also rejected concerns that countries could be arbitrarily targeted under the bill, saying the legislation establishes criteria based on purchases of Russian fossil fuels.

In particular, he pointed to China and India, which Ukraine considers central to Russia’s continued ability to sell its energy exports.

Vlasiuk said the pressure could represent “a huge blow” to Russia’s ability to finance its war against Ukraine.

Ukraine also supports the bill’s inclusion of Iran, he said, citing Tehran’s close military cooperation with Moscow.

“Everyone understands how close cooperation is between the military-industrial complex of these countries,” Vlasiuk said. “Therefore, Iran is very well-deserved.”

House Vote Window Narrows

The political stakes are heightened by the House’s decision to cancel its final two weeks of pre-election legislative work.

The chamber is expected to depart Washington no later than September 17, although Republican leaders have said members could be recalled if the Senate advances a party-line budget reconciliation package. That scenario is not currently expected.

Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Republican who has supported the sanctions effort, described the lack of congressional action as a serious failure.

“This is a real shame. It passed 86-11 in the Senate,” Bacon said. “Congressional inaction on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and on Putin’s crimes is a real failure. The history books will not be kind.”

For Kyiv, the urgency is not simply legislative.

Vlasiuk warned that Ukraine faces another difficult winter after months of Russian missile and drone attacks. He said 160 people had been killed in missile and drone strikes in recent months.

“We have to increase the pressure over Russia to make them change their plans, to make them really negotiate,” he said.

He argued that passing the sanctions bill now would have two effects: It could eventually increase economic pressure on Russia, while immediately sending a political signal to both Ukraine and the Russian government.

There is, he said, an element of inertia in sanctions policy. Even after legislation passes, implementing measures can take days, and producing a significant effect on Russia’s economy can take weeks.

“But at the same time, the very fact of passing this sanction bill,” Vlasiuk said, would send a “strong signal of support to Ukrainian people” and a “really strong signal to Russian government.”

By RFE/RL

Turkmenistan Moves to Tackle Major Methane Leaks

By Eurasianet - Sep 04, 2026

• UN satellite monitoring recorded 192 methane alerts in Turkmenistan over the past year, with eight major emission sources subsequently stopped after corrective action.
• 
  
• Ashgabat is pursuing broader modernization of its oil and gas infrastructure while participating more actively in international methane-monitoring and reduction programs.
• 
  
• The methane campaign coincides with Turkmenistan's efforts to deepen trade links across the Caspian and diversify its economic and energy relationships.
• 
  

UN data shows that Turkmenistan is making repairs to its energy infrastructure to seal major methane leaks, according to a report published by the Guardian. The improvements appear linked to efforts by Ashgabat to emerge from a self-imposed isolationist shell. 

The UN’s Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) has identified natural gas-rich Turkmenistan as one of the world’s leading sources of methane leaks. According to MARS, Turkmenistan had three of the six worst leaks detected over the past six months, and nine of the top 50. Methane, a component of natural gas, is a major contributor to global warming.

MARS describes itself as a “global satellite detection and notification system providing actionable data on very large methane emissions around the world.”

Overall, MARS brought 192 instances of methane plumes to the attention of Turkmen officials during the last year. Turkmenistan addressed about 40 of the cases, providing details about the leaks and proposing plans to plug them. According to the Guardian report, the government has repaired at least eight significant leaks, while quoting a UN official as describing the Turkmen action as “an incredible first step.” 

A July commentary published by the TDH state news agency indicated that plugging methane leaks is continuing and is part of a broader plan to update the country’s natural gas infrastructure. 

The upgrades are aimed at “strengthening the material and technical base of all structures of the domestic fuel and energy complex,” TDH contended. “Work in this area is being carried out in accordance with modern requirements.”

“The hydrocarbon potential of the Motherland and the opportunities opening up before it is directed towards strengthening the national economy,” the TDH commentary added. Watchdog groups note that Turkmenistan’s media environment is one of the most tightly controlled in the world, and positions reflected by Turkmen media outlets closely adhere to state policy.

An apparent motivation for authoritarian-minded Turkmen leaders is a desire to move away from their traditional isolationist tendencies and cautiously open the country, long regarded as a ‘hermit kingdom,’ to the outside world. 

As part of this slow opening, Turkmen officials have expressed interest in integrating the country into the emerging Middle Corridor trade network and are exploring possibilities for exporting a significant volume of its natural gas to Western markets. China is currently the primary consumer of Turkmen gas.

Turkmenistan signed on in 2024 to the Global Methane Pledge, a joint US and EU initiative that seeks to achieve a 30 percent reduction in global methane emissions by 2030, based on 2020 levels. 

A Turkmen government plan approved for 2025-26 outlined the country’s intention “to reduce methane emissions by 2030 through radical modernization of energy infrastructure and implementation of other relevant measures.”

According to a report distributed by the Business Turkmenistan outlet, researchers at the country’s Academy of Sciences have developed what is characterized as a “new-generation biological product” using “local raw materials” that is “capable of effectively neutralizing methane emissions directly in the soil layer.”

“Turkmenistan is demonstrating its commitment to sustainable development principles: the country … is actively introducing advanced environmental control standards in the energy sector,” the report adds.

By Eurasianet

 China Rare Earth Firms Freeze U.S. Exports Weeks Before Xi-Trump Summit

By Charles Kennedy - Sep 04, 2026

Despite having secured export licenses, some Chinese rare earth producers have stopped shipping these materials to the United States over fears of repercussions from China's authorities, sources familiar with the development told Reuters.

The renewed standoff in rare earths comes weeks before Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to visit Washington for a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump at the end of this month.

A few Chinese suppliers have been refusing to export rare earths to the U.S. since the beginning of August, according to Reuters' sources.

That's when China announced is it placing the Responsible Business Alliance (RBA), the organization behind the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) and its RMAP assessments, together with the labor rights organization Verité, on its countermeasure list.

The Chinese rare earth firms are wary of being punished by China for complying with the RMI guidance and due diligence procedures, one of Reuters' sources said.

Other firms from China have been avoiding rare earths exports to the U.S. despite having licenses because they have preferred not to be entangled in the geopolitics and unpredictable trade behavior of the two rivals.

Despite improvements in some areas, such as targeted policies and investment support for rare earth supply chains outside China, the global critical minerals market remains heavily concentrated in leading suppliers, with China being the leader in the mining and refining of many of the metals, International Energy Agency said in a July report.

The global critical minerals market remains highly concentrated, and new threats to supply security have emerged in recent months as China has curbed exports of some rare earth elements, the IEA said.

The Chinese government introduced major export controls on heavy rare earth elements last year.

Although further expanded controls have been suspended until November 2026, their full implementation – if China decides to go through with it – could put an estimated $6.5 trillion per year of downstream production outside China at risk across the automotive, high-tech, defense, and energy sectors, the IEA said in its annual Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2026 report in July.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

China rare earth firms halt some US shipments over geopolitical worries, sources say

Reuters | September 4, 2026 |

Samples of rare-earth minerals from the Bayan Obo mining district are on display at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences in May 2025 in Beijing, China. (Image: Grist | VCG via Getty Images.)

Some Chinese rare earth suppliers are declining to ship to the U.S. for fear of repercussions from Beijing, three sources said, underscoring how access to the materials remains an issue for the U.S. weeks before President Xi Jinping visits Washington.

U.S. officials have repeatedly asked China to stick to commitments made in Busan and Beijing over the past year to ensure the smooth flow of rare earth export licences. The persistence of the problem has put it on the U.S. planning agenda ahead of Xi’s September 24 visit, a source familiar with the work said.

A handful of Chinese suppliers have refused to ship rare earths to U.S. companies since early August when China imposed sanctions on the Responsible Business Alliance (RBA), a U.S. supply chain monitor, a separate source with direct knowledge of the situation said.

With China deploying its own trade compliance weapons, the companies were wary of punishment from Beijing for complying with the due diligence framework of the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI), a global mineral supply chain audit programme connected with the RBA, the source said.

Other Chinese rare earths companies had already stopped shipments to the U.S. to avoid entanglement in geopolitics in recent months, two other sources familiar with the trade said. One cited four instances where Chinese firms declined to send material for fear it could be resold to banned users.

The sources declined to be named given the issue’s sensitivity.

Reuters was unable to determine the total number of Chinese suppliers who had refused to move shipments destined for U.S. clients.

A U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity told Reuters that the administration continues to press Chinese counterparts to address China’s lack of compliance with the Busan agreement, as well as other bilateral concerns.

Tight supply

While exports of many rare earths or related magnets have rebounded since China imposed restrictions in April 2025, the prices ofcertain rare earths and critical materials like yttrium, indium phosphide and tungsten that have military applications or are used in sensitive industries including aerospace or chipmaking remain near record highs with tight supply.

Other industries affected by licence delays include medical devices and energy.

Exports to the U.S. of yttrium have risen this year but are still only about half 2024 levels despite large shipments to other countries, Chinese customs data shows. Some U.S. companies have been waiting more than six months for mineral licences, said two of the sources, declining to identify them.

“China has been very effective in using rare earth export controls to impose restraint on the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security,” said Reva Goujon, a geopolitical strategist at Rhodium Group, referring to the U.S. agency responsible for various restrictions targeting China.

“Supply chain chokepoints will come into focus, but I would expect Beijing to loosen up critical raw material controls a bit around the summit to deflate U.S. allegations that Beijing is not upholding the Busan truce,” Goujon added.

The U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Trade Representative, State Department and China’s ministry of commerce did not respond to requests for comment.

China’s ministry of foreign affairs said China was committed to maintaining global critical mineral supply chains.

Beijing said its August decision to sanction the RBA and other U.S. auditing firms was a response to a series of FCC restrictions since December targeting Chinese electronics testing labs, drones, consumer routers, submarine cables, advanced robotics equipment and power inverters.

When U.S. officials have raised the rare earths issue in meetings, Chinese officials countered by saying the FCC actions were a violation of the Busan truce, said one of the sources who was briefed on the interaction.

However, after two months without yttrium exports, China sent 27 tons of the material to the U.S. in July, the second-highest monthly shipment since January 2025.

Several U.S. firms also report recently receiving multiple licences after long waits, two sources said, with some firms anticipating an increase in approvals around the summit.

Licence approvals are even more limited for Indian and Japanese buyers, two sources familiar with the matter said. Chinese suppliers are overwhelmingly refraining from shipping material to Japanese firms, one of them said.

Japan’s Trade Minister Ryosei Akazawa has previously said Japanese companies have faced delays in permits and prolonged customs inspections for critical minerals including rare earths. His ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday

China exported no ‌terbium to Japan between January and August of this year, from 20 tons over the same months last year. Gallium shipments were 65% down in the same period, while yttrium was down 98%, Chinese customs data showed. Gallium and terbium are used in small amounts to make high performance rare earth magnets.

“While processes have been streamlined, our member companies still face issues with implementation,” the European Chamber of Commerce in China told Reuters in a statement. “What our members would like to see is a commitment to implement a transparent and predictable application process that provides reliable access to rare earth elements.”

(By Laurie Chen and Lewis Jackson in Beijing, Solomon Cefai in Singapore and Trevor Hunnicutt in Washington DC; Additional reporting by Kevin Krolicki in Beijing and Kentaro Okasuka in Tokyo; Editing by Kate Mayberry)

How The U.S. Fell Behind China On Nuclear Power

By Haley Zaremba - Sep 04, 2026

• The US runs 96 reactors across 28 states, but the average unit is 44 years old, past the 40-year license most were built for.
• 
  
• China added 34 gigawatts of nuclear capacity in the past decade. The US added one plant: Georgia's over-budget, years-late Plant Vogtle.
• 
  
• A National Interest report argues the real holdup isn't just red tape. It's financial models too narrow to capture what nuclear actually delivers.
• 
  

The United States is the largest producer of nuclear power in the world, solely responsible for about one-third of global output. As of today, the U.S. has 96 operating commercial nuclear reactors in 57 power plants across 28 states. However, while that fleet remains highly productive, the domestic nuclear sector is rapidly aging out. All but two of the nation’s nuclear reactors are Gen II models, meaning they were constructed before the year 2000. The average reactor age in the United States is 44, when the vast majority of those reactors were initially only licensed to run for 40 years.

In the past decade, the United States added just one nuclear power plant – Georgia’s controversial Plant Vogtle. In the same time period, China added a staggering 34 gigawatts of nuclear capacity. At this rate, China is on track to overtake both France and the United States to become the world’s largest nuclear power producer within the next five years.

“By a wide margin, China will have the world’s most dynamic and significant nuclear industry through 2035,” Damien Ma, energy lead analyst for Gavekal Technologies, wrote in a recent report, as quoted by the South China Morning Post in June. “Construction efficiencies mean China can build a new plant in about six years, compared with more than a decade for the latest Vogtle reactors in the US,” Ma went on to say.

But why is the United States lagging so far behind China, especially when the Trump administration is so eager to “produce lasting American dominance in the global nuclear energy market”? Part of the reason is that the United States is out of practice, with a workforce that no longer knows how to build a nuclear power plant. Another reason is the miles and miles of red tape and regulatory hurdles that it takes to get a new reactor plan off the ground under the oversight of the (understandably cautious) Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But the biggest reason, as always, is money.

Nuclear power plants require an enormous amount of up-front capital to develop. And nuclear megaprojects, as any megaproject, tend to go over deadline and over budget. When Plant Vogtle finally came online in 2024, it was years late and billions of dollars over budget. While Plant Vogtle provided indispensable learning experiences that would likely help to streamline future projects, its high-profile reputation as a bloated disaster has proven to be a potent deterrent for would-be investors in similar projects.

“With each reactor a multi-billion-dollar endeavor, coupled with long development and construction phases and a complex regulatory process, investors are reluctant to invest in nuclear projects during the development phase, which can become ‘bet the company’ decisions for the developer/owner,” The National Interest wrote in a recent report. But, the article argues, this is because we’re thinking about the economics of nuclear energy all wrong.

This is because financial modeling is narrowly focused on project-level returns within the time frame of a given license, even though most power plants can operate efficiently for double that timespan. And, more importantly, these financial models fail to capture the broader long-term benefits associated with nuclear, including energy security and public welfare. Moving beyond traditional financial models to incorporate more sophisticated economic impact models could more accurately account for the long lifespans of nuclear reactors and the broader societal benefits they bring about, ultimately helping to reassure would-be investors and incentivizing the mobilization of government funds.

More sophisticated modeling would also help to make sure that each new plant can be better optimized to deliver these greater benefits. “Nuclear projects are important for public welfare and critical infrastructure with political implications, but they are costly and finite in number. This means that each potential plant should be fully scrutinized to maximize social utility,” writes the National Interest. This is particularly critical at a time that the AI energy demand boom is pushing the private and public sector to develop new energy resources as fast as possible, with diminished regard for public wellbeing, environmental impact, and oversight and safety measures.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

Rosneft CEO: China Calls The Shots in Oil Markets, Not OPEC

By Charles Kennedy - Sep 04, 2026

China and its crude oil buying behavior in the spring and summer have stabilized global oil markets as Beijing, not OPEC, is calling the shots now, according to Igor Sechin, chief executive of Russia’s biggest oil producer Rosneft.

China has strengthened its position of the ultimate swing buyer on the global market and has taken the initiative from OPEC, said the executive, who is considered to be a close ally of Vladimir Putin and who has been a long-time critic of OPEC.

“China has successfully turned from a major consumer and importer into an active market leader,” Sechin said at an economic forum in Vladivostok in Russia’s Far East.

“China took the initiative out from OPEC this year and without joining any cartels, it has managed to stabilize the global market by slashing its crude oil imports by about 5.5 million barrels per day (bpd),” Russia’s top oil executive said.

Arguably, the biggest cushion the market has had this summer was China’s crude oil import behavior. The world’s largest crude oil importer had amassed an estimated up to 1.4 billion barrels of crude in commercial and strategic stockpiles before the Iran war. The huge cushion allowed it to slash imports when the Strait of Hormuz closed, and prices spiked.

Ever the opportunistic buyer, China withdrew from the spot market amid the Middle East crisis, and by slashing this import demand, Beijing single-handedly offset part of the lost supply.

The market appeared to have underestimated China’s ability to be as flexible in its crude oil imports as to slash purchases by as much as 40% in June compared to pre-war levels.

In addition, during the crisis, China has also seen soaring EV use, a massive switch to coal, and rising shares of power generation from renewable energy sources.

“I believe that further growth of the strategic and commercial reserves will strengthen China’s role in the energy market, amid OPEC’s fading influence a shrinking number of members,” Sechin said.

Earlier this year, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of the cartel’s biggest producers, quit OPEC effective May 1 to pursue its national interests.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

ECOCIDE

BLM Moves to Fast-Track Oil Permits in Alaska Petroleum Reserve

By Julianne Geiger - Sep 04, 2026

The Bureau of Land Management wants to cut the permitting time for some oil and gas projects in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to as little as 60 days, according to a Friday press release.

The proposed rule would replace separate case-by-case reviews for qualifying production sites with a standardized process covering common, repeatable activities that BLM says have already been studied extensively. Rights-of-way and some drilling permit applications meeting predetermined criteria could receive decisions within 60 days.

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska covers roughly 23 million acres on Alaska’s North Slope. About 3.5 million acres are currently under lease.

There are considerably more leases to develop after this year.

BLM’s March NPR-A auction drew bids on 187 tracts and generated more than $163 million, the highest revenue ever collected in a lease sale for the reserve. The auction also produced the largest number of tracts receiving bids and the second-largest acreage total sold in a single NPR-A sale. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and a Repsol-Shell consortium were among the successful bidders.

Getting acreage leased and getting oil out of it are two very different timelines in Alaska.

Operators still need drilling permits, rights-of-way and approvals for roads, pipelines, pads and other permanent infrastructure. BLM says more than two decades of permitting work in the reserve gives it enough environmental data to standardize reviews for projects similar to infrastructure already approved there.

The proposal followed a petition from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association requesting a uniform approval process and a 60-day timeline for qualifying projects. BLM is preparing an environmental impact statement alongside the new rule.

The agency has already rescinded a 2024 rule that restricted development in the reserve and reopened nearly 82% of the NPR-A to oil and gas leasing.

The administration has also expanded leasing elsewhere in Alaska, including this year’s first auction of drilling rights in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The NPR-A proposal now enters a 60-day public comment period ending November 9. For companies holding acreage from the record March auction, the more immediate number is 60 days, which is the proposed clock for turning at least some permit applications into decisions.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com

 

Frontieras, Western Fuels to build coal processing facility at Dry Fork mine in Wyoming 

Staff Writer | September 3, 2026 | 

Dry Fork mine. (Image: Western Fuels Wyoming )

Houston-based Frontieras North America, Western Fuels — owner and operator of the Dry Fork mine — and Western Fuels Association, a not-for-profit fuel supply cooperative have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to jointly develop a mine-mouth FASForm processing facility at Dry Fork in Campbell County, Wyoming. 

Dry Fork is an open-pit coal mine located eight miles north of Gillette, in the Powder River Basin.

The MOU establishes a framework for the parties to negotiate long-term agreements covering a ground lease for a facility site at or adjacent to the Dry Fork mine; a coal feedstock supply agreement for Wyoming sub-bituminous coal, contemplated at up to approximately 2.7 million tons per year initially and up to approximately 5.4 million tons per year at full build-out; a diesel offtake agreement under which Western Fuels would purchase ultra-low-sulfur diesel produced at the facility for its mining, haul, and member operations; and a logistics arrangement that could engage Western Fuels Association’s rail and transportation capabilities to move FASForm’s product streams. 

The agreements are each expected to carry an initial 30-year term. 

Frontieras North America is commercializing its patented FASForm Solid Carbon Fractionation technology, which, rather burning coal, disassembles coal in a reducing atmosphere through a continuous, closed-loop, zero-waste process, separating it into clean solid carbon (FASCarbon), ultra-low-sulfur diesel, naphtha, and other high-value products, the company said.  

Under the MOU, FASCarbon produced at the Wyoming facility could be railed to WFA’s member utilities under separate commercial terms or transacted into international markets, making WFA and Frontieras a new global supplier, Frontieras North America said.  

As the nation’s largest coal-producing state, Wyoming is the anchor for the company’s plan to scale FASForm technology across the West — both through standalone mine-mouth facilities and through FASGEN, Frontieras’ co-location platform that integrates FASForm units directly into existing coal-fired power plants, it said.  

The Dry Fork Mine sits within the Gillette mine-mouth generation cluster, where more than 1,200 megawatts of coal-fired capacity operate within a few miles of the resource.  

Frontieras  said a facility at Dry Fork Mine would position it at the logistical center of one of the densest coal-power corridors in the country, positioning the company to extend its co-location strategy to the coal-fired utilities that power the region — and a fast-growing share of US data-center and industrial demand. 

“Frontieras shares our conviction that coal has a real and lasting future, and its FASForm technology gives us a way to transform Dry Fork mine production into fuels and products our members and the market genuinely needs,” Western Fuels CEO Adam Anderson said in a news release.  

“We are looking ahead to determine opportunities that expand this relationship across the full Western Fuels cooperative — broadly serving our member utilities and their communities,” Anderson said. 

“Wyoming produces more coal than any other state, which makes it the natural place to prove this resource can be commercialized — not just mined,” Frontieras North America chief commercial officer Andrea Moran said. “A mine-mouth site at the Dry Fork Mine puts a FASForm facility directly on top of that feedstock — no rail, no barge, no distance between the coal and the finished fuels and products we make from it.”  

Those are the economics that make commercialization work at scale and pairing them with Western Fuels’ operational strength is exactly how we intend to grow this platform across the West,” Moran said.