On January 20th, 2025 Pres. Donald Trump signed a flurry of executive orders and directives to rollback many of the Biden-era’s policies. The recent executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” aims to significantly boost domestic energy production across various sectors. A key focus lies on streamlining regulations and accelerating the development of critical minerals and nuclear energy resources. This strategy has the potential to fuel a nuclear renaissance, enhancing energy security and independence for the United States.
The order recognizes the critical role of critical minerals in modern technology, from renewable energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels to advanced manufacturing and defense applications. By prioritizing domestic mining and processing of these minerals, the United States aims to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, many of which are located in geopolitically unstable regions. This move strengthens supply chains, enhances national security, and supports the growth of key industries.
Furthermore, the order emphasizes the importance of nuclear energy as a reliable, carbon-free source of electricity. The United States possesses vast uranium reserves and advanced nuclear technology, making it well-positioned to lead in this sector. By streamlining the licensing and permitting processes for new nuclear power plants and supporting research and development in advanced reactor technologies, the order seeks to revitalize the nuclear industry. This could lead to a significant increase in nuclear power generation, providing a stable and abundant source of electricity while reducing carbon emissions.
A nuclear renaissance would have profound implications. It would enhance energy security by diversifying the nation’s energy mix and reducing dependence on volatile global energy markets. Additionally, it would contribute significantly to decarbonization efforts, aligning with national climate goals. Furthermore, a revitalized nuclear industry would create high-skilled jobs and stimulate economic growth in related sectors.
However, the successful implementation of this executive order will depend on several factors. Addressing public concerns about nuclear safety and waste disposal will be crucial. Continued investment in research and development of advanced reactor technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), is essential to improve safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Finally, fostering international cooperation on nuclear energy technologies and ensuring the responsible use of nuclear materials will be vital for long-term success.
In conclusion, the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order presents a significant opportunity to bolster domestic energy production, enhance national security, and advance climate goals. By prioritizing the development of critical minerals and nuclear energy resources, the United States can pave the way for a nuclear renaissance, ensuring a reliable, clean, and abundant energy future
From top left, Robert Friedland (Executive Chairman Ivanhoe Electric), Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (“MBS”), Minister Bandar Alkhorayef (Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources of Saudia Arabia) at FMF 2025
The global transition towards a greener economy has ignited a fierce competition for critical minerals, the essential building blocks for technologies like electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels. This scramble for resources has placed immense pressure on mining and exploration activities, reshaping global supply chains and driving significant investment in the sector. Currently, the Future Minerals Forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is playing a pivotal role in shaping this evolving landscape.
Current Affairs in Critical Minerals Mining and Exploration
The current state of critical minerals mining and exploration is marked by several key trends:
Surging Demand: The demand for minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements is skyrocketing, driven by the global push for decarbonization and technological advancements. This surge has led to increased exploration efforts and the development of new mining projects worldwide.
Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: The concentration of critical mineral production and processing in a few countries, notably China, has raised concerns about supply chain security and potential geopolitical risks. This has prompted nations to diversify their sources and invest in domestic production and processing capabilities.
Environmental and Social Concerns: Mining activities often have significant environmental and social impacts, including habitat destruction, water pollution, and displacement of communities. There is growing pressure on mining companies to adopt sustainable practices and ensure responsible sourcing of minerals.
Technological Advancements: Innovation in mining and processing technologies is crucial for improving efficiency, reducing environmental impact, and unlocking new sources of critical minerals. This includes advancements in exploration techniques, extraction methods, and recycling processes.
Global Forces Involved in Securing Resources and Critical Supply Chains
Several key players are vying for influence in the critical minerals arena:
Governments: Governments are playing a crucial role in securing critical mineral supplies through strategic partnerships, investments in domestic production, and the development of regulatory frameworks. They are also increasingly focused on promoting sustainable mining practices and ensuring responsible sourcing.
Mining Companies: Mining companies are at the forefront of exploration and extraction activities, investing heavily in new projects and technologies. They are also facing increasing pressure from investors and consumers to adopt sustainable and ethical practices.
Downstream Industries: Companies in sectors like automotive, renewable energy, and electronics are heavily reliant on critical minerals and are actively involved in securing their supply chains through direct investments, offtake agreements, and partnerships with mining companies.
Financial Institutions: Banks, investment funds, and private equity firms are providing crucial funding for mining and exploration projects, driving innovation and expansion in the sector.
Current Investment Capital Allocation
Investment in critical minerals has seen a significant uptick in recent years, with capital flowing into various segments of the value chain:
Exploration and Development: A significant portion of investment is directed towards exploration activities to discover new deposits and develop new mining projects.
Mining and Processing: Investments are being made to expand existing mines, develop new processing facilities, and improve extraction and refining technologies.
Recycling and Circular Economy: Growing attention is being paid to recycling and circular economy initiatives to recover valuable minerals from end-of-life products and reduce reliance on primary mining.
Research and Development: Investments in R&D are crucial for developing new technologies and sustainable practices in the critical minerals sector.
The Future Minerals Forum and its Impact on Future Mining Investment
The Future Minerals Forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has emerged as a key platform for global dialogue and collaboration on critical minerals. The forum brings together government officials, industry leaders, investors, and experts to discuss the challenges and opportunities in the sector.
The forum is particularly significant for future mining investment for several reasons:
Promoting Investment Opportunities: The forum showcases investment opportunities in the mining sector, particularly in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, attracting global capital to the region.
Fostering Collaboration: The forum facilitates partnerships and collaborations between governments, mining companies, and investors, creating a conducive environment for investment.
Driving Sustainable Development: The forum emphasizes the importance of sustainable mining practices and responsible sourcing, encouraging investments that align with environmental and social goals.
Shaping Global Policy: The forum contributes to shaping global policy discussions on critical minerals, influencing investment trends and regulatory frameworks.
The Future Minerals Forum is playing a crucial role in shaping the future of the critical minerals sector, driving investment, promoting sustainable development, and ensuring a secure and responsible supply of these essential resources for the global economy.
The dusty plains and rugged mountains of the western US whisper tales of gold rushes and silver booms. These days we are more likely to see lithium, copper, REE, and uranium booms turning heads with high-tech exploration and proprietary devices humming above the fertile ground. For centuries, mineral exploration has carved its mark on this landscape, fueling economic growth, sparking frontier expansion, and leaving behind a legacy of both prosperity and environmental scars. But what does the future hold for mineral exploration in this iconic region?
Golden Echoes: The history of the West is intertwined with the pursuit of minerals. The California Gold Rush of 1848 painted the region with a frenzy of prospectors, forever altering its demographic and economic trajectory. Subsequent discoveries of copper, lead, and silver cemented the West’s reputation as a treasure trove. These explorations were often rough-and-tumble affairs, leaving behind abandoned towns and environmental concerns. Many of these towns are still lively communities while others are barley visible on a modern road map with over grown roads and rusted out gas stations.
Shifting Sands: The 20th century saw a shift towards larger, mechanized mining operations, focusing on base metals and industrial minerals. While bringing economic stability, these ventures raised concerns about water usage, land reclamation, and pollution. Public awareness led to stricter environmental regulations and a decline in traditional large-scale mining. In reality, the high-minded “save the environment” folks only accomplished pushing those jobs and resource production over-seas, something that is now a big concern for our local supply chain security.
Green Gold Rush: But the Wild West’s geological story is far from over. The 21st century has brought a new wave of exploration, fueled by the demand for minerals crucial for the green revolution. Lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements, needed for batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels, are now drawing prospectors to forgotten corners of the West. This “green gold rush” offers environmental benefits, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, but also poses new challenges, such as ensuring responsible sourcing and minimizing ecological impact. The ‘elephant in the room’, of course, is uranium and nuclear power (the ONLY baseload power capable to replacing carbon sources of energy).
Technological Treasure Hunter: Technology is revolutionizing mineral exploration. Advanced geophysical surveys, data analysis tools, and even drones are helping prospectors identify potential deposits with greater accuracy and efficiency. This can minimize environmental disruption and open up previously inaccessible areas, but also raises concerns about land access and data ownership. Additionally, technological advancements have made current small modular reactors (SMRs) intrinsically safe and quite lucrative for the electrification transition.
The Human Terrain: The human dimension remains crucial in shaping the future of mineral exploration in the West. Communities must have a say in how their land is used, and mining companies must operate with transparency and accountability. Striking a balance between economic development, environmental protection, and community interests will be key to ensuring a sustainable future for both the land and its people. But this has always been the case, the only things that has changed in the last 100 years ago is nearly every aspect of human life. It is naïve to measure yesterday’s faults against today’s norms, but such is the usual criticism.
Looking Ahead: The western US stands at a crossroads in its mineral exploration journey. The lessons of the past, the technological advancements of the present, and the challenges of the future demand a nuanced approach. Collaboration between government, industry, academics, and communities is essential to develop responsible and sustainable practices that not only unearth natural resources but also build a thriving, environmentally conscious future for the Wild West. If we don’t do it someone else will and in a more environmentally costly manner without our oversight.
The Earth’s crust holds a treasure trove of minerals, vital for everything from smartphones to wind turbines. Your local geology holds more under your feet than you will most likely imagine… unless you are a geologist, miner, prospector, or metallurgist. Yet, the buzz of pickaxes and drill rigs exploring for these hidden riches seems muted in recent times. The question begs: where has all the investment for mineral exploration gone?
It’s true, mineral exploration spending has seen a decline in the past decade. Compared to the heady days of the early 2010s, when commodity prices soared, exploration budgets have tightened. Usually, price begets sentiment and with $2,000 gold one would think that investors would be flocking towards producers and explorers alike. So, where’s the beef? But to say it’s vanished entirely is painting an incomplete picture. The story here is one of shifting sands, not barren deserts.
The Green Shift: The tide is turning towards minerals critical for the green energy revolution. Lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements, once niche players, are now rockstars, with demand skyrocketing fueled by electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines. Investment in exploration for these “clean energy minerals” is booming, with lithium exploration spending alone nearly doubling in the past year. This, in the face of a current slump in lithium price. Here price and sentiment have diverged. Weird. Furthermore, even in the face of the “green revolution” our governing bodies and regulatory agencies can seem to pivot fast enough to provide a clear path forward.
The Risk Factor: Mineral exploration is a high-risk, high-reward game. It’s like searching for needles in a vast haystack, with most endeavors ending in dust. I’ve heard in the past, only 1 in 100 prospects will actually find something (this might as well be 1 in 1,000 with current investment levels). This inherent risk has pushed investors towards safer bets, especially during commodity downturns. Additionally, environmental concerns and complex permitting processes further dampen enthusiasm for traditional exploration methods. All while other countries and other ‘Super Regions’ (such as being promoted by Saudi Arabia) could easily surpass more traditional mineral rich nations and producers.
Tech to the Rescue: However, innovation is changing the game. New technologies like drone-based surveys and advanced data analysis are lowering exploration costs and increasing the odds of finding viable deposits. This is attracting renewed interest from investors, particularly in greenfield (undiscovered) areas. Very few patches of ground haven’t seen some level of prospective interest, state-funded geologic surveys, or past exploration and diggings. But usually, if you look more closely, these bygone districts only saw activity when the mule and shovel were the best extraction methods available. Modern economies of scale provide the heavy lift anymore. Perhaps it is time to re-visit these storied districts?
The Geopolitical Puzzle: The global map of mineral exploration is also being reshaped by geopolitical factors. Tensions between major economies have prompted countries to secure domestic sources of critical minerals, leading to targeted investments in exploration within their borders. This trend is likely to continue, adding a layer of complexity to the global picture. In recent months China has restricted export of critical minerals such as graphite, Russian uranium supplies are in unsavory hands, and Kazakh well-fields lack the needed sulfuric acid to keep up in-situ recovery. These are symptoms of coming shortfalls and supply chain issues. Beware!
So, where has all the investment gone? It hasn’t disappeared, it’s simply undergone a metamorphosis. It’s flowing towards greener pastures, driven by the surging demand for clean energy minerals. While traditional exploration faces headwinds, technological advancements and a shift in priorities are opening new avenues for investment. The future of mineral exploration is likely to be defined by a strategic blend of technological innovation, green ambitions, and geopolitical maneuvering. But all will be for not if local governments and permitting efforts continue to find obstruction and uninspired political maneuvering.
The question, then, becomes not just where the investment has gone, but where it should go. A sustainable future demands responsible and efficient exploration practices, coupled with investments in recycling and resource substitution. The battery of today will NOT be the battery of the future. And the coveted energy source of now will inevitably turn more nuclear over time. Finding the right balance between meeting our mineral needs and protecting the environment will be the true test for the future of mineral exploration. And as past sins continue to the poster child for how not to mine, these same deposits and districts hold the key for future, sustainable extraction. Only through modern mining can we properly clean up the past wrongs. Taxing your way into reclamation is the most inefficient use of tax-payer funds when that same populous needs the minerals locked up in fought-over, legacy mining areas. The only reason the ski bunnies of today are able to easily access Colorado slopes is due, quite literally, because of mine roads carved into some of the steepest terrain within the North American cordillera.
This post, of course, merely scratches the surface of a complex and evolving issue. Further research into specific regions, policy issues, mineral districts, and technological advancements can paint a more nuanced picture of where the investment is heading and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. But one take way from this is clear: we need to get out of our own way!
Current estimates might have humanity’s control of fire dating to nearly 1 million years ago. Carbon combustion, in all its various forms and sophistications, is still our main energy source today. The car you drive today, with all its bells and whistles, is still, quite simply, a very sophisticated campfire. And it is this burning of carbon-based fuel that seems to have run its course of usefulness, or more importantly its welcome… as we wrestle with climate change and the need to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Within this context, uranium and nuclear energy have the ability to give humanity a new fire, a new energy source… and one that is free from the carbon-cycle.
Uranium might have started its time with humanity in infamy, but its usefulness as a dense fuel source will redeem itself in due time. 1,000,000 : 1 is the ratio of energy per unit of uranium to unit of carbon-based fuel sources. For every unit of coal, natural gas, or petroleum it takes 1,000,000 more units of that fuel to equal just one unit of uranium. This math will win out all cost/benefit analysis thought experiments thrown at it. It is a monumental, gigantic, herculean (even) orders of magnitude greater fuel source than all carbon-based fuel and it is clean as well.
Nuclear energy is the cleanest form of baseload power that we already utilize as a reliable source of energy. Here in the US there is a fleet of 120 reactors that have been quietly producing 20% of our nation’s baseload power for decades. It is clean not only because it is carbon-free, but it also contains 100% of all its waste products within the reactor and this material can be stored safely long-term. The same cannot be said for coal-fired power plants that continually release not only CO2 into the atmosphere but many other toxins, volatiles, and yes, even naturally occurring uranium and other radioactive elements are emitted from coal-fired power plants.
This is not an unknown statistic for those that study these effects on the human population. In this regard it would be safer to live next to a nuclear power plant than to live next to a conventional, coal-fired power plant, where deaths are accounted for by the tera-watt per hour. In fact, by contrast, those living next to a nuclear power plant would receive their equivalent annual dose of radiation from that power plant by simply eating a banana (which has Potassium-40 in it, did you know?)
Ionizing radiation needs to be respected not feared. Radiation dose needs to be understood not irrationally demonized. And NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) needs to be normalized, since anyone living in the Western US quite literally live atop ground that emits gamma radiation everyday. The uranium and its daughter products, that make up the majority of all radioactive isotopes, have been with us for millennia and will continue to be here long after we’ve decided to educate ourselves about it or not.
It is in our geology, our bones, and in our environment… down to a certain parts per billion in sea water. And it can be mined cleanly here in the US and processed to be put into modern, small modular reactors that address previous design short-comings to ensure 100% safe power for our future. These deposits come in many forms but most can be traced back to a granitic or volcanic source within the basement rock of the continent we live.
The most abundant source of uranium that is currently mined within the US is called “roll-front” uranium. These deposits occur in aquifers and fluvial sandstones beneath your feet in places like Central Wyoming and South Texas. You’ve probably driven by the “mines” that produce these ore bodies, but you probably wouldn’t have noticed. The in-situ mining method doesn’t move any dirt, it is a well field of injection and collection wells that add oxygen to the reduced aquifer environment to mobilize the uranium.
Roll-fronts were first called “geochemical” fronts, referring to the redox boundary within the aquifer that defines them. A roll-front uranium ore body is quite simply where the uranium found naturally within the aquifer drops out of solution due to a reducing environment. In cross-section the system is a “C-shape” due to natural permeability found within the middle of a fluvial sandstone, where the aquifer is able to ‘push’ the roll-front further into the reducing side. The lower and upper limbs (or the “tails”) of the roll-front are where the permeability decreased due to a facies change from fluvial sands to perhaps a mudstone, siltstone, or shale.
Between the 1950’s and 1980’s uranium production came from numerous mines in the Western US and supplied fuel for baseload power for decades. But these reserves have dwindled and new production will be needed to power the nuclear reactor fleet already in use. But what will happen as we continue to transition away from carbon-based fuel. Renewables will only be able to replace coal-fired power plants so far. In fact, renewable energy within the current energy mix can’t replace coal-fired power plants.
The future of energy production, transportation, and the electrification of our world requires an “all-of-the-above” energy mix. And uranium is a key component to that energy mix and should be considered as a ‘critical’ mineral (though it is not currently listed as such by the USGS). All of the elements required to implement the transition for the energy and transportation sectors need to be part of that list and we need to exploit each one of those resources that are found within our borders. Uranium, gold, silver, lithium, REEs, PGEs, base-metals (Cu, Co, Zn, Sn, etc.) will all be required to make the electrification transition a reality. And all of these elements are found right here in the US where domestic production of these minerals is not only possible but needed for our economic and energy security.
There is a global shift to the domestic production of minerals. This is happening across the world and is having ripple effects both up stream and down stream in this forward looking economy. It might seem somewhat backward to look inward for stable economic pillars for the global economy. But I might argue the opposite in the face of the ESG (economic social governance) paradigm we, as a species, seem to be self-implementing in this post-pandemic world. It is a natural step to draw from domestic natural resources, should we want to have a greater say in how those resources are produced. It might be the hallmark of the Dotcom boom that most of the materials that built it came from a supply chain wholly opaque to the consumer. And perhaps that system was built with the exact purpose of keeping such machinations obscured from the public eye. Nonetheless, it is perhaps an outdated mode given the current global climate. Imagine the backlash in today’s global economy. Imagine if all companies adhered closely to the transparent ESG paradigm.
As a quick re-cap, the Environmental/Social/Governance paradigm is a global movement for business to be conducted in a transparent way that responds to the socially responsible investor. But in reality it is a current day risk mitigation that takes into account “non-financial” factors when assessing sustainability. In a mineral industry context, the days of a mine’s sustainability equaling its mineral resource or mine life is long past. In truth, this reality has been long-coming and began decades ago here in the U.S. with NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act, 1970). While NEPA is a laudable step towards sustainability, it’s main problem is it’s scope; it only affected the U.S. In short, NEPA was one step forward, two steps back for domestic production of minerals here in the U.S. While the U.S. implemented what is known today as the “NEPA process” other jurisdictions, such as China or Russia, continued business as usual. In this way, the U.S. has continually become less a producer and more a consumer, not only when it comes to mining but across all sectors.
Why does this shift matter? And how could this global transparency and awareness bolster a budding domestic mineral industry? In a way, the ESG paradigm could be harnessed to level the playing field between the un-regulated, “Wild West” mineral producers and the well-regulated non-producers.
We stand at a crossroads. Should the U.S. source it’s resource needs from within or continue to push the social/environmental liability elsewhere? If COVID taught us anything, global supply chains can be swiftly eroded and being self-reliant, even within an ever-expanding global economy, will pay dividends. And in the context of the socially responsible investor & ESG, we should all be able to pull the veil back and see exactly how the sausage is made.
In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as part of their Vision 2030 initiative, they are pivoting towards a future that is diversified to include domestic production of green metals, energy metals, and other precious & base metals production. The Kingdom is most obviously known for its hydrocarbon production, but there is a long history of gold and copper production as well. The Arabian Shield is geologically very old and host to untold riches that have yet to be exploited. In fact, the USGS during the 1950s thru 70s had numerous field mapping campaigns to try and encapsulate these resources outside of the scope of oil & gas.
If a key player within the supply of current fuels has the wherewithal to begin to pivot towards the future, surely the U.S. can find the backbone to do the same. But there is one question that would need to be answered before that could happen: Can we reconcile the fact that, in order to build the green future of the electrification transition, we will need to mine minerals? Current policy from the Biden administration seems keen to promote domestic production of minerals but actual investment from the Dept of Defense is looking beyond our borders to non-domestic mineral resources. This is quite discouraging given the vast endowment of natural resources the U.S. already has within its borders.
I’ve seen this bumper sticker, found in many a mining town, that goes something like: “If it’s not grown… it’s mined.” There’s nothing like some bumper sticker wisdom to solve any problem, right? Seriously though, this might seem like an over simplification of a complex problem, but is it? Resources, by their very definition, are something that must needs be exploited. Now. This exploitation can be done ethically, with all stakeholders at the table, or we can continue to allow other countries to do our dirty work for us. In short, if we don’t mine it cleanly (per our own NEPA regulations) then someone else will mine it however they see fit (without regulatory oversight, most likely). To be honest, unregulated mining is the most profitable (for the mining company)… that’s why it was done that way historically. So then, what is the point of ESG (or any set of standards, for that matter) if we are not all playing by the same rules?
The domestic production of minerals (aka, mining) is ultimately the logical conclusion of the green energy thought experiment. Don’t shoot the messenger when you find out that in order to transition away from carbon you will need to invite some other elements to the party. As Hunter S. Thompson encapsulated so eloquently, “Buy the Ticket… Take the Ride!” If the goal is to electrify our energy and transportation sector by means of transitioning away from carbon sources of fuel, then the only alternative is a suite of other elements/minerals. These minerals have be enumerated in the critical minerals list put out by the USGS. And here is the good news: all of the elements found on the critical minerals list can be found here within the U.S.
It’s no secret to those who’ve been paying attention. Minerals equal life. And in order to produce said minerals, they must be mined. The only true debate left is when, where, and how. When will we start to mine these minerals that are required to move forward? Where will we decide to mine these minerals so we can have a say in how they are produced? And how will we do so in an ethical, socially responsible, and sustainable way?
It’s not a giant feat by any stretch. Many of these questions can be answered by visiting your local phosphate, lithium, copper, or gold & silver mine found thought out the Western U.S. They have been quietly producing these vital minerals for decades. The problem now, of course, is there are precious few of them opening up anew. Many of these deposits have a long, battle-worn history of achieving the hard-won state of “in production,” and perhaps rightly so. But it’s it about time we found a more cooperative solution to guiding the mineral producer through the NEPA process and onto actual mineral production. I can see more opportunities to help the miner and the conservationist alike through cooperative permitting. But that sort of “kumbaya” moment doesn’t make for sexy headlines for the 24 hour media cycle to sell. And few environmental activist firms would be able to set up shop with that kind of business model.
Leading up until the 1860’s silver had a set price, about $1.29 per ounce. And it had stayed that price since 1792 with the inception of the Mint Act. What changed in the 1860’s to bring about the first drastic price change? And what effect did that change have on the Western US?
Silver Price – keys events in the last one and a half century
Historically speaking, the price of precious metals has been a currency base and set price by the government. Of course, until Nixon fianlly floated the dollar and removed the gold standard altogether in the early 1970’s. But that is later on in the story, so let’s rewind to the start again.
The first significant change in silver price after setting it’s price with the Mint Act at $1.29/ounce was the US Civil War. The debt from war drove the price of silver up. In tandem with this was budding silver mining in Nevada, which became a state at the same time that the Comstock Lode in Virginia City was taking off. Seemingly over night, silver price had tripled ($2.94/ounce) and supergene silver ores in Nevada were ripe for the picking. Not only did Virginia City take off at this time but other towns such as Belmont, Eureka, and Austin in Central Nevada were getting their start during this era as well.
The bimetallic monetary system from the 1792 Mint Act began to unravel with Coinage Act of 1873 which effectively de-monetized silver. This in turn created weakness in demand and with increased silver production in the Comstock and elsewhere throughout Nevada this led to a steady declining price. Still more government policy, in the Sherman Silver Act of 1890, attempted to correct for a price that had dipped below its previous fiat of $1.29/ounce thru the purchase of silver and minting of coins. However, this policy ultimately resulted in the Panic of 1893.
The complete abandonment of silver within a bimetallic monetary system came about thru the Gold Standard Act of 1900. Gold became the sole precious metal where paper notes could be exchanged for gold on demand. Thus, silver continued its decline in price lasting nearly until the end of WWII but seeing a nadir during the Great Depression.
One noteworthy price rebound was a brief spike centered around the war debt from World War 1. During this time the Monitor Belmont Mining Company built a flotation mill on the site of the orginal Highbridge Mill at Belmont, NV (circa 1915). This brief episode capitalized on the price rebound of silver and reprocessed some of the old mine dumps as well as dewatered some old mine level for additional underground mining efforts.
Monitor-Belmont Mill, Belmont, NV (built 1915 on site of original Highbridge Mill)
The turning point for silver came about thru the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944, where countries adopted the dollar as the world’s reserve currency backed by gold, which was set at $35/ounce by FDR (a devaluation of the metal by 70% at that time). Again, throughout Nevada there was a brief lived interest in silver district such as Belmont, Tonopah, Austin, and Eureka during this war time era.
Interestingly enough, the majority of the silver mining that put Nevada, “the Silver State”, on the map, came from the period of time when silver price was at historic lows. Aside from the initial spike in price due to the Civil War, silver mining was continually chasing down a declining silver price until the Great Depression. Any and all silver mines and deposits from that time would have suffered from a continual need to mine more and more high grade ores. This continual pressure would have driven many out of business and forced many to leave much that is economic today still in place.
By the time Nixon completely dissolved the Gold Standard in the early 1970’s, silver had already benefited from several decades of rebound. So by the time the Hunt Brothers caused a run on physical silver bullion by 1979 we still haven’t seen its equal. When you adjust for inflation, peak silver price in 1979 is nearly $42/ounce in today’s money.
So it would seem that silver has seen a long-lived macro bull market from its nadir in Great Depression era. And this would be true at face value except for one important fact. Silver’s base price of $1.29/ounce, when adjusted for inflation, is closer to $6/ounce in today’s money. This means that since the end of the Civil War until the end of the Gold Standard was simply one big silbver price trough. And realistically, in today’s electrification future since the Dot Com era and now with solar panels and EVs becoming so much more prevalent, we are finally in an era where a) the government is not price fixing silver’s value and b) the industrial worth of the metal can be freely expressed in terms of it’s value outside of a monetary system.
Additionally, silver is mined moreso as a byproduct theses days; chiefly from gold mines that aren’t mining for the white-colored metal. In the Silver State there are several abandoned silver-dominant districts that has been entirely overlooked by gold exploration companies time and again. And as I’ve written in a previous article, these silver-dominant systems could also be an excellent source for other critical minerals.
Below are some charts for reference with links to the source of this data. Each chart is logrithmic and inflation adjusted with recessions marked out in grey. These are 100 year charts, so they don’t reach as far back as my original data set above, but they tell the story nonetheless.
The US has a challenge to face: balancing regulatory oversight with mineral needs and the ability to realize those needs in our backyard.
The US has ample critical minerals, precious metals, base metals, and other natural resources needed for the electrification of the energy and transportation sectors. The US also has robust regulatory oversight and a permitting process (NEPA) that, in theory, should provide a predictable, timely path for a deposit to become a mineral asset for the electrification transition. This is, of course, based on the assumption/need to decarbonize the energy and transportation sectors. In this light, it is a potentially bi-partisan, progressive issue that could provide many collaborative ‘win-wins’. However, in reality this has failed to play out.
The mineral industry across the US has experienced, instead, a protracted permitting process troubled with last-minute changes, litigation, and back-tracking of previously made decisions. This is unsustainable within an industry that already endures a 10 year permitting process whereas other nations with similar environmental laws are seeing this done in a 2 – 3 year window. Current worse case scenarios are seeing permits taking 15+ years with hundreds of millions of dollars spent to only have it all taken away with last-minute, frivilous litigation and back-tracking.
Recently, the US military has been looking to invest in Canadian mining projects, banking on the fact that US permits are more risky than investing in “friendly” neighboring countries. US tax payers are seeing their tax revenue spent to bolster other nation’s mineral wealth. It would be better to keep that money here locally and invest in our own home-grown natural resources. It is a true indictment of our US permitting process when the US military is strategically investing across the border instead of on our own soil.
How can we find common ground and opportunites to mutually benefit from critical mineral production?
Current legislation, such as the Infrastructure Law, CHIPs and Science Act, & the Inflation Reduction Act, are collectively providing $135 billion to build the US electric vehicle future, including critical mineral sourcing and processing and battery manufacturing. And most recently, on October 19th, the White House announced $2.8 billion in grants for domestic critical mineral projects.
So, there is money available, but will mineral projects be able to capitalize on these opportunities in time? There is money available, but will that money actually reach the ground where it is needed? Only time will tell as more often than not the exploration and mineral sector is subject to the whims of one political administration to the next and the already cyclical nature of the sector also has to pay attention to the 4 year election cycle as well.
Nonetheless, the NEPA process already has some baked-in streamlining with MOUs between key federal agencies that in theory provide for non-duplicative work when reviewing a permit. But this is not always followed or policed by a lead agency. And this isn’t helped either by the venture capital markets that tend to bring in outside money from Australia and Canada into the Western US. There are few and far between US-based mining companies and even less of these companies are actively exploring for the next generation’s mineral wealth.
This is a long-term, systemic problem that comes from a simple truth about the mineral industry: a single deposit will be owned by, explored by, & peddled by numerous companies over numerous cycles before it may ever see actual production. These mineral deposits have to run the gaunlet of economic cycles, political cycles, commodity-needs cycles (one cycle’s trash is the next cycle’s treasure), as well as benefit from sound exploration geology to expand upon known mineralization. It doesn’t help if on top of all these systemic challenges the permitting process has become increasingly mired in special interest and unpredictability.
Is it time to play the long-game like China?
Our global competition for these minerals and the ability to process them and make a useful end product is very stiff. China has out-paced and out-performed the US at every turn, all while we continue to be grossly reliant on their mining and manufacturing prowess. We are a consumer nation with little production to call our own. How will we fare if relationships abroad continue to sour? Where will we turn for our resources if we haven’t invested in our own backyard?
China is able to play the long game. They can see the long-term worth in something, take a loss on the project for years, in order to realize long-term gains decades from when they began the project. Where is our will as a nation to come together on such projects? This sort of longview is impossible if we can only plan as far as the next election cycle.
Setting these myriad global/political issues aside we need to come together as an industry, as a nation, and as a people to find common ground between ideological difference. The US can truly benefit from sourcing our mineral needs from within our borders. And no one need lose out in the process. We have the resources, the regulations, and the self-determinating spirit. If we stopped wasteful in-fighting and educated ourselves and the public about our home-grown natural resources we could realize true wealth here in the US.
The current 2022 USGS list of Critical Minerals includes 50 minerals (updated from the 2018 list to exclude some curious selections, for sure) that have some implications on exploration efforts within the US. Inclusion or exclusion from the list is variably important to actual exploration efforts as many ore systems include a number of elements found on the list irregardless of inclusion. One example of this is a silver-dominant district (and most likely many others too) found in Central Nevada.
The critical mineral pie chart above puts all fifty elements into six categories for simpler evaluation. Chief among these categories is the base metal group where one can find such critical minerals as aluminum, antimony, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and zinc (to name a few). Second, the rare-earth and lathanides (seemingly a co-mingled designation with many overlapping elements therein) make up sixteen critical minerals. Third, the platinum group contains five critical minerals. Alkali and alkali earth metals includes evermore important lithium. Lastly there are a handful of metalloids (arsenic & tellurium) and light elements (fluorspar & graphite (Fluorine & Carbon in specfic forms)).
Silver-dominant ore systems here in Nevada (aka the “Silver State”) can be defined as a precious metal system where the silver to gold ratio is at least 20:1, but more often 100:1, such as Tonopah, Belmont, Austin, Eureka, or the Comstock of Virginia City silver camps. All of these camps date to the 1860’s or thereafter and hearken both to the first days of Nevada statehood as well as Nevada’s historic silver rush. Since this era many of these systems have been overlooked, ruled out, or re-worked as gold systems even though the orginal silver-dominant designation still fits best.
Geologically, these silver-dominant ore systems are found within volcanic or sediment hosted systems. The style of emplacement can vary between low-sulfidation to high-sulfidation epithermal systems and can also very between inclusion or exclusion of base metals as part of their overall geochemistry. But there seems to be a trend towards base metal inclusion within the sediment-hosted silver-dominant ore systems. These type of ore systems found typically within Paleozoic carbonate sequences across Nevada tend to either epithermal veins, carbonate replacement, or skarnoid.
The above image was taken while prospecting in one of these silver-dominant carbonate replacement ore systems with inclusion of base metals. Eight critical minerals foudn within this silver-dominant system are included in the current critical mineral list from the USGS. The above picture is a “quartz after calcite” vein texture common in these ore systems. The drusy quartz texture is infilled quartz-bearing fluids that came along after earlier calcite veining within the host carbonate rocks. In this case the host carbonate is actually a dolomite, suggesting a much longer history of alteration of the Paleozoic units.
More commonly these systems have been called silver-lead-zinc deposits. This is due to the relative importance historically for this smaller list of historically critical minerals, especially arising in need during war time. In conjunction with these periodically significant eras, there is more broadly a cyclical nature to these metal markets. The ‘boom/bust’ cycle of precious metals leaves its mark upon the landscape and it mosttly to blame for the fragmentary development of these historic camps across the Western US.
While prospecting within the un-named silver-dominant ore system in Central Nevada there were found numerous critical minerals either directly associated or adjacent to the silver endowment. One assayed sample came back with a stunning 19.5% aluminum kick. Within this same sample was found manganese, copper, arsenic, nickel, barium, cobalt, zinc, and antimony in anomalous to higher grade values. This could in turn be considered a polymetallic system or even a poly-critical systems (if there is such a term).
This begs the question of whether or not many (if any) of these systems have ever truly been looked at in this context. From unrealized value within historic districts, to the processing challenges for polymetallic ores, to revitalized exploration for new value chains found within similar to adjacent systems; these aspects of the search for critical minerals within the US open up endless possibilities for the mineral exploration geology field.
The “new eyes on old rocks” idiom is again reinforced. Many of these legacy districts could benefit from simple re-processing of old tails and dumps, though realistcially such re-processing would only be worthwhile if new mining were to occur in tandum. However, this discussion for me has more to do with a larger picture of mineral development in the US. There needs to be a more predictable path for these mineral endowments to achieve production. Minerals need the support and backing of the US government regardless of politics or cyclical economics. Our competitors, such as China and Russia, are playing the long game. They see the need for and fund a project that might lose money for decades before realizing the long-term gains. Without this level of support it will be difficult to impossible to realize the critical mineral endoment found under our own feet. Until regulations and the NEPA process become streamlined, these ore systems will continue to be overlooked and under-funded.
These silver-dominant ore deposits can be pathfinders for the critical mineral endowments that the US need at this moment. The only question is whether or not a simple list will turn into an inventory of value for us all.
Here in the US we are blessed with both a rich mineral endowment and robust environmental regulations. However, these two forces that ideally could work together to create a more perfect mineral industry are instead at odds with one another through a series of unfortunate ideological mis-steps. There is no doubt that legacy mining efforts here in the Western US have left many areas in need of proper reclamation and clean-up, to say the least. But what the environmental movement chooses to forget is that many of these problems were created prior to the NEPA process and our robust regulations. So while the US minerals market struggles to navigate modern mining within favorable geologic settings other nations, such as China and Russia, continue to exploit their minerals, and those of other nations, unimpeded and without any true oversight of their methods. This has created a huge misdirection of efforts to provide the modern world with much needed mining while also conducting this mining in a clean and efficient manner. Here in the US we can boast robust environmental regulations, yes. But we can’t boast a robust mining sector that provides for our mineral needs. We have pushed much of that burden elsewhere and continue to ignore the very real environmental harm done by global mining efforts.
How do we balance this disconnect? How can we re-patriate our mineral needs while also adhering to our robust regulations? This step needs to happen while we still have time. The US, now more than ever, needs to find cooperative ways to satisfy two seemingly opposing forces: mineral needs and the environment. If you are reading this on a computer, smart phone, or even on paper contemplate the minerals and industrial processes that went into bringing you these words. We, as humans, impact the very earth we stand upon each day without much thought put behind our every actions. The amount of minerals required for each person to thrive in this world is greater than most might realize. And so we need to educate ourselves and others about these realities and then find creative solutions to meet these needs here at home. An ounce of local stewardship of our natural resources will be worth more than the pound of consumerism culture the US has become in modern times. We spend more money pushing the environmental impact of our actions onto other nations when we could have instead realized that growth and benefit for ourselves here in our own backyard.
So the challenge becomes an ideological one, not a physical one. We have the minerals, the raw materials to build the bright future available to us all. With the rise of EVs, solar power, and the electrification of our world we will require more and more minerals each year. If the goal is to move away from carbon sources of energy then minerals are the only alternative. This means more mining and more infrastructure required upstream to process these raw materials into products, materials, and energy. But this challenge is won or lost before the first drill rig is mobilized or the first ton of dirt moved. This challenge needs to have buy-in from all stake-holders.
The mineral explorationist needs to see how their actions impact later generations just as much as the environmentalist needs to realize how their obstruction simply pushes the impact onto other jurisdictions. If this mineral production is not done in our own backyard it will be done somewhere else without the oversight our regulations provide. And in the process we will lose out on the economic benefit that comes from producing our own materials for our own needs. The need won’t go away. Humanity will continue to grow. Our only choice is whether or not it will thrive.
So how should we proceed? What lessons can be learned from the past? The paradigm of ‘us vs. them’ needs to be set aside. There are so many opportunities for cooperative development in the world of mineral development. Many of the issues that are decried by the geologist and environmental activist alike could be addressed through responsible mining of the critical minerals needed to build our modern society. For example, many of the legacy mine sites that require reclamation and clean-up still hold many of the critical minerals we need to produce. The most cost-effective way to clean-up these sites is thru active mining. This may seem counter intuitive but it is true. The money generated by active mining would easily pay for the clean-up required. Typically, the chemicals that are contaminating the aquifer or making the soils toxic are directly associated with the critical minerals that need to be produced. Cooperative efforts such as these could help heal the divide between these seemingly opposing groups.
But perhaps such simplistic and naïve hope belies the more realistic forces at work today. Perhaps none of these groups are here to be good stewards of our nation’s mineral endowment. For one, there are few and far between US-based mining companies. The vast majority of the venture capital that makes it to our shores comes from either Canada or Australia. We, as a nation, have forgotten what it means to own and produce our own resources. Instead we have become consumers rather than producers. And then on the other hand, environmental activism is rarely as altruistic as it might seem. These environmental groups rarely go after the mining company themselves. Rather, they litigate with the regulatory agency that issued the permit to explore or mine. They attack the very agency that is doing their work for them and then the agency settles this litigation by paying them off. Thus the obstructionist engine is fueled. Allowing them to find the next species or special interest in need of protection.
This model is unsustainable. If we prioritize mineral production in our backyard we can lead by example. We can realize the rich mineral endowment of the US while also implementing our environmental regulations. This is a true ‘win-win’ that can illustrate our values of self-sufficiency and good stewardship. The alternative is more in-fighting and continued regression into a consumer culture that is blind to the sources of the things we consume. I’d like to say the choice is ours, but realistically these forces are beyond the reach of most of us. The best we can do is to stay educated and strive to educate others. Awareness and intelligent debate will have to take the place of true power until there is such a ground swell to progress past the old ‘us vs. them’ paradigms that the global forces in play choose cooperative compromise in order to realize the bright future already laid out before our feet.
Mineral Exploration Geology - finding value in the world around us 