Western and Alaskan mineral exploration is key to American defense, security and resurgence
Paul Driessen
President Trump is determined to make America not just energy self-sufficient, but energy dominant. The USA already produces more oil and gas than any other nation, and he intends to unleash its full potential – for energy and for petrochemical feedstocks for 6,000+ pharmaceutical, plastic, paint, fabric, cosmetic and other products. As he puts it, “Drill, baby, drill!”
Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is the lifeblood of modern industrial societies. But they also need hundreds of metals and minerals, because nothing can be manufactured or grown, and no wells can be drilled, without them. That’s why the President has also launched similar initiatives for those treasure troves in Alaska and the Lower 48.
That call to action is “Mine, baby, mine!” and before that “Explore, baby, explore!”
The Stone Age didn’t end because our ancestors ran out of stones, nor the Bronze Age because they exhausted copper supplies. They ended because societies needed weapons and goods that were better, stronger, more durable – and innovators discovered iron substitutes, iron deposits and techniques for converting ores into finished products.
Indeed, every technological transformation throughout history required finding and mining previously unknown and unneeded metal and mineral deposits that suddenly became essential for progress.
Trump-47’s Executive Orders for drilling and mining – and ending offshore wind, Green New Deal and electric vehicle mandates, subsidies and programs – will dramatically reduce the need for millions of tons of copper, steel, cobalt, lithium, rare earths and other materials. However, they won’t end that need.
But now America can simply build more coal, gas and nuclear power plants – instead of 10,000 wind turbines and 10,000,000 solar panels, backed up by fossil-fuel generators … or huge battery warehouses like the one that recently became yet another conflagration in California.
However, today’s rapidly evolving server, artificial intelligence, aerospace, military and other technologies still mean we must find and produce materials that almost no one ever mined or even heard of until recently: rare earth elements, cobalt, lithium and scores of other critical strategic minerals.
China controls 60% of global rare earths production and processes 90% of it – including ores mined in the USA and other countries. It also controls cobalt and lithium production and processing, and almost all the processed graphite used in lithium-ion batteries for cell phones, EVs and grid-scale backup batteries.
That means the United States is dependent on this adversarial nation for numerous technologies; even Navy SEAL equipment requires 20+ minerals that are at least 50% imported, many from China.
This untenable situation was underscored last December, when China severely restricted exports of antimony, gallium and germanium, especially to the United States, because they are essential for both civilian and military technologies. The Middle Kingdom could block many more such exports, using exports as a weapon of diplomacy, extortion or war.
The situation makes no geologic sense either. The plate tectonic and geologic history of Alaska and the western states in particular have blessed America with countless, often enormous deposits of metals and minerals across the periodic table of elements. Some are well-known, while others have yet to be discovered, mapped or developed to serve changing, growing and increasingly strategic needs.
Even the 1964 Wilderness Act recognized this. Section 2 permits prospecting to gather information about mineral resources and requires “planned, recurring” mineral surveys, if those activities are conducted in a manner consistent with preserving “the wilderness environment.” There is no “end” date for this work.
Section 3 permitted mining claims and mineral leasing, exploration, drilling, roads, production, mechanized equipment, and other necessary operations and facilities, until midnight December 31, 1983. The only stipulation was that disturbed areas be reclaimed and restored “as near as practicable,” once mineral extraction had ceased.
However, federal bureaucrats ignored this clear language and stalled, stymied or prohibited all requests for permits to conduct such work, including recurring government mineral surveys and assessments.
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rupert Cutler’s comment to me in 1978 encapsulates their attitude, then and now. “I don’t think Congress should have enacted that provision,” he said. “But Congress did enact it, and you are obligated by your oath of office to follow the law the way it was written, not the way you think it should have been written,” I responded. Dr. Cutler simply walked away.
Successive generations of federal land managers – in consort with preservationists, courts, presidents and legislators – have banned or severely restricted even minimally intrusive exploration in huge wilderness, wilderness study, wildlife refuge, Antiquities Act, and even undesignated forests, deserts and grasslands – regardless of critical national needs or clear legislative language.
National parks should be off-limits. In most cases, these other lands should not.
By 1994, when I helped prepare perhaps the last detailed analysis, mineral exploration and development had been banned in federal land areas equal to Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming combined. That’s 420 million acres – 19% of the USA; 66% of all federal/public lands.
It’s gotten “progressively” worse, even though processes unleashed by plate tectonics, volcanism and other forces created some of the most highly mineralized deposits in North America, and the world.
State and local legislators, regulators, judges and activists have treated non-federal lands the same way. Even world-class deposits have been deep-sixed, often on questionable grounds.
This cannot continue. These areas must be surveyed and explored by government agencies and private companies. Vital and high-quality deposits must be made available for mining, under sound environmental principles, to meet the requirements of current and future generations.
Failure to do so violates the most fundamental principles of national defense, national security, responsible government and societal need.
Alaska’s Pebble Mine prospect has an estimated 55 million tons of copper ore, 3.3 billion tons of molybdenum, plus other metals needed for wind turbines, solar panels, EVs and other technologies; yet Biden’s EPA rejected permit applications even before mining plans were submitted. Other world-class Alaskan deposits of copper, cobalt, zinc, titanium, gold, silver, zinc and other metals also sit in limbo.
Biden officials also reversed mining permits for the world’s largest copper-nickel deposit, in Minnesota, and President Biden himself banned all mining in 225,000 acres of the state’s Iron Range.
The fate of the Kings Mountain lithium deposit (possibly 5,000,000 tons of Li) in North Carolina is likewise uncertain, as is that of many other excellent prospects, even though modern US laws and technologies would ensure far better environmental practices than elsewhere worldwide.
Some concerns are certainly valid, others exaggerated, still others reflective of a determination to block mining anywhere in the USA, or even de-develop and de-industrialize America and the West.
However, environmental and other considerations must always be balanced against needs for critical metals, minerals and energy to sustain modern societies and living standards. Making America Great Again – and responding to today’s national security threats and needs – requires changing federal and state perspectives, policies and laws to recognize this. It’s a simple matter of reality and common sense.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why would anyone mine precious materials to use on such wasteful applications. Precious resources should be used wisely not wasted.
Well said
Metals can be recycled. Often recycling is easier than mining in the first place.
Also, you don’t have hordes of rabid environmentalists to deal with when setting up a recycling operation.
Use the nut jobs love of “renewable” to get around their hatred of mining, then “recycle” the metals so they can be used in products that are useful.
Nah. Just ignore them and cut out the middleman.
Why not “mine” old landfills? 😎
That hardly invalidates his point about the criticality of availability of essential resources.
The general public need education about how little of the countryside is disturbed by mining. There are not many mines and most would fit inside a few square miles.
Miners – I was one of them in Australia – have faced this problem since the 1960s. The nasty words “dirty miner” have been implanted into the minds of many by unhappy folk who have next to no knowledge of mining.
How about it, you big miners of the present time? Why not mount a big publicity campaign to correct misconceptions?
BTW, one of the first of our corporate discoveries, the Ranger Uranium mines in the Northern Territory, was discovered before attempts to stop it by creation of a huge national park and world heritage area. We had it excluded from the park, but it became surrounded by it. Mining inside national parks is quite possible. There need not be destruction of Nature’s vitals. The United Nations has to be taken out of the loop for opposing mining. It is none of their business.
“The nasty words “dirty miner” have been implanted into the minds of many by unhappy folk who have next to no knowledge of mining.”
Same problem for loggers- who enviros think do nothing but rape forests. The enviros know zero about forestry while enjoying wood homes, wood furniture and paper products. And they don’t want to understand forestry- despite some of us foresters trying to enlighten them for decades – especially in Wokeachusetts.
Why did the large timber company’s restructure as REIT’s? Have you noticed
how the management of their timber grounds changed after that ?
I don’t pay much attention to what those big guy are doing. Presumably there’s a real estate boom going on- and you can make way profits selling real estate than growing timber. I never wanted to work for such outfits because I like practicing traditional forestry- growing high value trees then harvesting them. If I had worked for such companies I would now have a lot more money in retirement.
The timber grounds for those company’s were grants for building
the first railroads, every other section (640 acre chunks). on each side of the rail line. This was done for a couple of reasons, one of which was to provide
a basis for the local economy. Look at the price of housing since the
REIT’s were done. How can the next generation own a home at these
prices?
Our state government also gave these outfits an unwritten sweetheart deal tax wise for years.. The timber co’s provided jobs and managed the forests
which if you have spent time in the west are a huge percent of the
landscape in return for a very favorable tax situation. REIT’s were a new
tax structure. Once that went thru they simply did a clear cut and run, stripped
off the timber and sold out and left. Or did a deal with the greens and put it
into a conservation easement. The last sawmill up in Seeley Lake,
Pyramid Lumber in business for 75yrs
shut down last summer. As a forester I’m sure you are aware
of the resources required to manage millions of acres of timber ground.
We now have only a few sawmills left in the state.
The only management tool left is for the FS to burn
the timber ground which is what is now happening. Corporatism with
this level of federal backing is fascism, which if one opens your eyes is where this country has been in for quite a while. I would never allow any logging
without a forester marking the cut on our ground.
Certainly the vast majority of logging done in the past was poorly done- and some is still poorly done- even if a forester is involved. This has been my battle for half a century. There are several YouTube channels where the discussions are about construction and the trades. Many say that the quality of lumber today is very poor compared to the past. Some of this problem is that not much old growth is now being cut. But it’s also due to poor forest management. I’ve seen really good forestry- where the forests do get cut periodically- mostly thinning- and they look terrific. If you let a few years go by then show them to any enviro, they’d hardly know anything happened and they’d love such forests. One reason there is so much hatred of forestry is that so much has been poorly done. I used to have some videos on YouTube showing good forestry. I should put them back up when I get in the mood.
Years ago I needed a SMZ permit on a property I was
managing for my brother. The state forester came up
for the inspection and after a bit of small talk it came out
that we had quite a bit in common and what should have
been a 15 min deal turned into a half a day+ tutorial for my
property management on forestry. He was from Vermont
and owned Morgan horses. My family had Morgan’s from
the frontier days and was involved with the Remount
Service. His wife who I never met was a biologist and at the time
was in CA working with the Spotted Owl mess also was a Morgan
owner. He finished with leaving me a list of books that I obtained and
studied. He’s over in N Idaho last I heard. Life can take one down
some interesting paths if you let it.
“Or did a deal with the greens and put it into a conservation easement.”
I’m seeing a lot of that now in the Northeast. The forest owners can make out pretty good this way- but then in many cases any future management will be restricted or prevented- but not in all cases- some allow serious forestry work.
By the way, I won’t brag that all of my work turned out awesome. Managing a timber harvest is not easy- lot’s of things can go wrong. The owner could be a dick, the state service forester could be a dick, the logger could be a dick- sometimes the property is just plain difficult. I’d say almost every one of my projects had difficulties- the sort of problems seldom mentioned in forestry schools. But I always aimed for an A+ job, managed to resolve the problems and I’d say I average B+- which is a pretty good average for half a century.
The big pits that are often used as poster children for the anti-mine faction, are already required to be restored to their natural condition when mining is finished. Bonds are required for this.
How about a little perspective.
Mines and their impacts are now less consequential than when my uncle used a drag-line to uncover seems of coal in Western Pennsylvania. The 1950s. Such cuts were long distance and steep walled. My cousins and I played in these and found interesting rocks in the overburden. They were not required to be filled and recontoured. That came later. Similar with gas wells – when abandoned, they were not capped and the remaining mineral ladened water pooled at the surface (with some residual gas**) and ran into the streams.
The State of Pennsylvania has done remarkable work in cleaning up these messes.
My point is this: It is what is was. It is a lot to overcome.
**We could get near the edge of these seeps and toss lighted matches over the water and watch the little explosions.
Yes. And just looking at the pit in the photo at the head of the story, there’s also plenty of room for burying solar panels and wind turbines that have reached the end of their
usefuluseless lives.The scale of the big pits as amazing. I’ve only been to the Bingham Canyon Mine of Kennecott – about 50 years ago. I think it is now deeper.
If we crushed all the solar panels and wind blades – could we fill?
Feds OK Wyoming Idea To Use Old Wind Turbines To Fill In Coal Mines
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/01/13/feds-ok-wyoming-idea-to-use-old-wind-turbines-to-fill-in-coal-mines/
It’s the TOXIC mines that are the big issue. There is a toxic waste
disposal site near me. I can see it from miles away. It’s huge. Most
of what’s there came from the cyanide heap leach era. The mine
waste from the early hardrock mines is not much of a problem.
When it leaches off into a stream it disappeared within a few miles or
so, but these cyanide heap leach mines will be polluting for century’s.
The Zortman-Landusky is one but there are many others. The miners
came in, took the gold then declared bankruptcy and left their
mess for the taxpayers to clean up. They displayed the same integrity
as Hunter Biden and his family IMO.
If the US starts mining our own strategic minerals, will the CCP finally let Sen. McConnell retire home to gloat over his stacks of gold; like a melding of Yertle the Turtle with Scrooge McDuck!?
He looks about as tired as that poor little bat from the Wuhan wet market would have been after servicing all the pangolins to create the ChiCom-19 virus; a senatorial version of Brandon!!
It’s sad that they need diaper changing tables in senate bathrooms. McConnell is only slightly healthier than Diane Feinstein, and she’s dead.
All the fossils need to go home.
There needs to be a program to locate all the abandoned wells that were drilled for oil and gas, where oil and/or gas was found but the well capped or plugged.
Find whatever records there are about the wells’ capacity and quality. Include that data in lease auctions. The auctions should have the caveat that there’s a deadline to put the wells into production or the lease will lapse.
There’s not so much need to drill as there is to install pumps on good wells that already exist.
The ultimate stupidity of drilling an oil well just to do it was the last one drilled with Deepwater Horizon. It was in the process of being plugged and rushing the process (as partially forced by the government) was why it blew out.
Why go to all that time and expense to drill one of the deepest underwater oil wells ever done, to *not pump oil from it*?!
“You drill it, you pump it, if it’s not a dry hole.” should be the rule. If it’s a test well to probe the extent of an oil or gas reservoir, it should still be finished out to be able to tap it. Then if the main wells into that deposit peter out, move the pumps to the “test” wells. I do see there are such reasons to save good wells on land for future use – but that future use ought to be *required* to be done at some definite point. If the company that drilled it doesn’t pump it at all, auction the rights to the well to a company who will.
Underwater wells that are good should always be put into production. The expense of the job ought to be incentive to recover the cost of finding the resource by extracting it. There’s an untold number of abandoned underwater oil wells slowly leaking into the oceans. Could be into the thousands. Lots of them, the exact locations have been lost due to lost or misplaced records when companies went out of business.
In US waters there should be a program where companies search for lost underwater wells, open them up and if they’re good producers, either they get to lease the rights or if they don’t want to use the well, hold an auction where the company who found it gets reimbursed plus some profit on their expenses. If they find a well that’s leaking but has too little oil to be usable, pay them to securely plug it to stop the leak. Of course for that there would have to be outside people on the scene to prevent the company from plugging good wells just to collect the bad well bounty. The bad well bounty funds should come out of the lease auctions on the good ones.
Abandoning good oil and gas wells, intentionally or by company failures, has been going on for at least 100 years. There’s likely plenty of good, lost wells out there to support several companies discovering and exploiting them.
You want oil companies to produce a well, even if they will lose money on it, otherwise have the lease taken away from them.
How generous of you.
Good report, Paul. The huge Pebble deposit, held back from being developed by an alliance of the usual suspects, is located in the highest concentration of Giardia in the waters known, not in a vacation hotspot. The Mo Resource at Pebble is about 6 billion Pounds, but the other numbers are correct. Let Pebble Go!
What if the power companies had two rates — one for those who want to support “green” energy and another for those who want to support traditional carbon-based sources and/or save some money? It would create a market-based method of converting to “green” energy. Or not.
If the power companies had two rates, those of us who wanted reliable electricity would still have to subsidise the idiots.
My power supplier does have this. I can pay an additional ~ $0.10 /kWh for 100% “green” power. I wonder how many fools take them up on that.
Unfortunately, the battery fire at Moss Landing has now prevented my power company from selling “green” power at a higher price to it’s green minded customers. It’s all been shut down.
As it turns out, it is very difficult to separate “green” electrons from non green electrons on the same transmission lines, but you can definitely measure battery storage and call that green until it explodes.
Surely the electron sorter is approaching commercial viability.
cut trees, baby, cut trees!
Under the direction of professional foresters of course. 🙂
Cut and plant. That is the logger’s way.
In many areas there is no need to plant- the trees seed in on their own. It’s the art and science of silviculture.
Former President Biden and other renewable fanatics have no comprehension of what renewables can do and what they CANNOT do:
Trump is also enabling “Ship Baby Ship” with LNG export terminals and other energy exports that will also lower the cost of US domestic use.
While I agree with your post, it should be noted that some argue that shipping it out lowers the available product in the US and supply & demand makes the US price go up.
What those do not understand is part of ship baby ship is to produce enough extra for shipping. That extra supply will reduce the US domestic price.
Oil companies don’t like their profits to drop.
Yes indeed. Production will be increased to fulfill foreign demand and ship baby ship.
All of which will certainly will provide additional profiteering from exporting to foreign markets & enable relaxed domestic pricing.
I live in a mineral rich area and have a negative view of the mining industry
based on what I’ve seen over the years. George Ochenski over in Helena
wrote a piece about the modern age in mining recently,========>
https://dailymontanan.com/2024/02/02/montana-tunnels-another-mining-disaster/
The adage of when money is on the table a man’s true character will soon be revealed
is never truer than when looking at mining.
Mr Ed,
Your local newspaper reporter appears to be one of those I complained about earlier. People badmouthing an industry that they know next to nothing about.
My employer company managed the latter years of mining and rehabilitation of what, in the 1920s, was the largest and richest gold mine in the world. Mount Morgan, Queensland. The profits from this mine funded the birth of the Walter and Eliza Hall medical research group, now world famous, and also British Petroleum. Like many copper/gold mines, it had a large iron pyrite enrichment that is a prime cause of troublesome products like acid mine waters and difficult rehab when planting trees and grasses. We paid for the rehabilitation of the efforts of many folk who mined before us.
Like many parts of Life, it boils down to compromise. Are the benefits of the mine greater than the downsides? In most cases, the answer is a yes by a thousand to one majority, but there are folk determined to argue that balance. It is easy to do this given that mines are a disturbance and often an eyesore.
Large problems arise when regulating authorities get staffed by too many of these glass-half-empty, technically uneducated folk and the outcome is conflict, unworkable demands, legal actions and platforms giving critics more say than they deserve through merit.
I can take you to several places where my company alone conducted world class mining operations that were ended and rehabilitated to standards so high that most people cannot tell where the mining happened. I am proud of that, not apologetic, and I pity those who continue to be bitter and unhappy. Geoff S
Are you familiar with the vermiculite mine in Libby MT?
https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/382
The World Trade Centers in NYC were insulated with
vermiculite from the Libby mine, some 5000 tons. WR Grace
knew about the toxic effects but never said anything. 1000’s
of first responders had no knowledge of what they were getting
into. The dust killed a lot there. The regulating agency’s in MT knew
about the lethal effects and did/said nothing for years..
Another mine waste site is the open pit copper mine in Butte MT.https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/376
The Clarks Fork River starts near there and it’s so curious
that when you travel along the river 100 miles to the west there are
no boats or fishermen… No fish…Hmmm
To the west of where I now sit there was a phosphate mine/mill
operation that started after getting run out of Butte for being
a bad player..
https://fluoridealert.org/news/the-town-that-refused-to-die/
I know several of the people in the above story. There are
several nearby ranches that can’t be sold because of the toxic effects
from the mill which has been gone for decades. They also can’t have
any cattle production even today because of what the fumes did to the ground.
The EPA was formed at the time of this situation and declared that mine/mill the worst air pollution in the entire country. I remember what some of the air
pollution was like at that time.
I can go on at length but why bother..
Mr Ed,
Why not calculate the dollar cost of the harm from what you recount (not including psychological harm or indignation harm) and contrast it with the dollars value of product produced? You might even take it further and calculate the lives saved by the presence of the products of the mine, like now many people did not die from starvation because of better crop yields helped by the phosphate mine?
It is called a cost:benefit analysis, widely used by realists.
Geoff S
Give me a number of what someone’s life is worth. The Libby
WR Grace mine caused lung cancer, hundreds of people have suffered and
died. I have been personally effected by asbestos. I was never given
any notice of what the risks were, none. WR Grace the company running
the mine and mill knew for many years that a deadly type of asbestos was in the vermiculite as did the government agency regulators. They deliberately kept that information from the public in Libby and from their customers and workers. The high rise buildings in NYC were insulated with thousands of tons of this product.
After 9-11`there was a very high increase in lung cancer in those who
worked in that area and breathed the dust.
The state regulators were in on the lies and deception also. There
are literally millions of home around the country with this product in
them.
On the phosphate production mines
the entire phosphate mining industry in this area was permanently shut down
over the “bad actors” actions. A nearly new phosphate mill and several mines
were closed down that were not a “bad actor”. When these bad actors do what they do it gives the environmentalists the basis for their actions. These types
corporate players have no integrity ,none . We also have very rich uranium deposits in this area but there will be no mining because of the way the
past miners have operated. The miners all get lumped together because
of the actions of some. No one trusts them..
How about a law that dictates those who oppose the mining of critical minerals or the extraction of fossil fuels be forced to live without the products produced using those resources.
No more North Face? No more Patagonia? That would be devastating.
Very nice Paul.
Not to worry…the current process only requires that the permitting of a single mine survive the tenure of four presidents.