I had another flashback today.. as an undergrad at Cal Forestry, I was required to take a forest policy class (teacher was Hank Vaux, for people who remember him) -and two quarters of forest economics, with two quarters of an econ prerequisite, and forest sociology). I remember thinking “what a waste, who cares about the 1872 Mining Act?” And here we are 50 years later, and the 1872 Mining Act is of interest.
My question to legal minds: do forest plans and RMP’s have a nexus with the Mining Act, or does the Forest or BLM unit just do an environmental analysis and decision.. and is “don’t mine there” an alternative in such analyses?
The 60-Day Waiting Period: The presidential proclamation explicitly states that the land is not open for mineral entry or staking claims until 60 days post-announcement. Because Kimmerle Mining filed seven claims on July 14—less than 24 hours after the announcement—legal experts note these initial filings are technically unauthorized and invalid. However, the company can simply refile them once the waiting period expires on September 11. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
No Immediate Right to Mine: Staking a claim only reserves the rights to the underlying minerals against other prospectors. It does not grant permission to dig. Kimmerle Mining must still clear extensive federal environmental reviews and obtain permits from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or U.S. Forest Service before any extraction begins. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Pending Tribal and Environmental Lawsuits: A coalition of tribal nations (including the Hopi, Pueblo of Zuni, and Ute Mountain Ute) represented by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) alongside groups like Earthjustice are actively suing the administration. They argue the Antiquities Act allows presidents to create monuments but does not grant them the constitutional authority to revoke or shrink them. If the courts rule the monument’s reduction was illegal, all new mining claims will be permanently voided. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Apparently, this also happened the last time the Monument was shrunk.
Easy Peasy Mine: Following the 2017 reduction of Bears Ears National Monument, Kimmerle Mining staked claims and opened the small “Easy Peasy” exploratory mine, excavating roughly 30 tons of ore before operations ceased due to low uranium market prices and the site was reburied. [1, 2]
**********************
This (from Google AI) was also interesting..
Pending Tribal and Environmental Lawsuits: A coalition of tribal nations (including the Hopi, Pueblo of Zuni, and Ute Mountain Ute) represented by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) alongside groups like Earthjustice are actively suing the administration. They argue the Antiquities Act allows presidents to create monuments but does not grant them the constitutional authority to revoke or shrink them. If the courts rule the monument’s reduction was illegal, all new mining claims will be permanently voided. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The Appalachian region of the eastern United States contains an estimated 2.3 million metric tons of undiscovered, economically recoverable lithium, enough to replace 328 years of U.S. imports at last year’s level, according to new research by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The southern Appalachians hold an estimated 1.43 million metric tons of lithium oxide, concentrated in the Carolinas, and the northern Appalachians hold an estimated 900,000 metric tons, concentrated in Maine and New Hampshire, according to estimates in a new USGS scientific paper published in Natural Resources Research. The lithium is present in pegmatites, large-grained rocks similar to granite.
“This research shows that the Appalachians contain enough lithium to help meet the nation’s growing needs – a major contribution to U.S. mineral security, at a time when global lithium demand is rising rapidly,” said USGS Director Ned Mamula. “USGS mineral science is the leading edge in the effort to restore America’s mineral independence by mapping our nation’s mineral resources. Everything else follows on the science: permitting reform and other policy changes to support investment in clean, responsible mining to 21st century standards, and mining workforce training for new American jobs. The United States was the dominant world producer of lithium three decades ago, and this research highlights the abundant potential to reclaim our mineral independence.”
The United States had one sole producer of lithium and relied on imports for more than half the lithium used last year, factors that contributed to its inclusion on the 2025 List of Critical Minerals published by the USGS. Lithium is used in the lithium-ion batteries that power computers, military equipment, vehicles, phones, electric tools, and energy-grid storage, as well as in aerospace alloys. Additional lithium is imported into the United States every year inside finished products made elsewhere and containing lithium-ion batteries. While Australia is the world’s largest producer of lithium, China is second, and accounts for the majority of world lithium refining and consumption.
The USGS projects that world production capacity for lithium will double by 2029, driven by increasing demand. Lithium supply security has become a priority for technology companies.
Map showing concentration of lithium in pegmatites in the northern Appalachians, and showing use cases for 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide, the amount USGS scientists estimate is economically recoverable from the Appalachian region.
The estimated 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide in the Appalachian region would be enough lithium for batteries in:
1.6 million grid-scale batteries large enough to stabilize an electric grid
130 million electric vehicles
180 billion laptops, or a 1,000 year-supply of laptops for the world (at 2025 levels)
500 billion cellphones, or 60 cellphones for each person on earth
**************************************
Shout- out to USGS Public Affairs.. within hours, I received an answer to my question.
You may have seen this press release on lithium in the Northern Appalachians. While indeed there are National Forests in New England, there are many NFs in the Southern Appalachians as well.
Here’s my question
I read your media reports about the lithium in the northern Appalachians, but didn’t find any links to a similar study about the southern Appalachians. I wonder whether there is a map that overlays the newly found minerals over land ownership… specifically the Forest Service?
Here’s their answer:
The southern Appalachians assessment has not been published, but is expected in the next few weeks, and we’ll send out another news release.
USGS mineral resource assessments don’t look at land ownership, they look at geologic formations. So you would have to do such an overlay.
I am sadly lacking in GIS skills, so maybe the Forest Service is going to do that? Or perhaps we could get a volunteer? Seems like it would be useful info to many.
I could keep going.. with strategic minerals or potash or whatever.. but I thought I finish for now with uranium. I had never heard of the federal uranium leasing program.
***************
Here’s a concrete list of the main currently operating or recently active uranium mines/projects on federal land (or involving federal mineral estate)—along with who runs them and whether they’re U.S.-owned.
I’ll separate (1) confirmed active/producing, (2) permitted/standby but ready, and (3) federal leasing tracts so you can see the real picture.
1) ACTIVE uranium mines on federal land (very small number)
Wyoming (core of U.S. production — mostly BLM land)
These are primarily in-situ recovery (ISR) operations, which are usually on federal mineral estate managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
🔹 Lost Creek ISR Project (Wyoming)
Operator: Ur-Energy
Status: Active production
Land: Mix of federal mineral estate + private surface
Ownership:
🇺🇸 Public company, but Canadian-listed (foreign-controlled capital)
🔹 Smith Ranch–Highland (Wyoming)
Operator: Cameco
Status: Historically largest U.S. uranium producer (intermittent production)
Land: Includes federal mineral estate
Ownership:
🇨🇦 Canadian company
🔹 Nichols Ranch ISR (Wyoming)
Operator: Energy Fuels
Status: Production-ready / intermittent
Land: Includes federal mineral estate
Ownership:
🇺🇸 U.S.-based company (one of the few major domestic ones)
🔹 Ross ISR Project (Wyoming)
Operator: Ur-Energy
Status: New satellite mine feeding Lost Creek
Ownership: same as above (foreign-listed)
👉 Reality check:
These Wyoming ISR projects account for most U.S. uranium production
Wyoming has “almost a dozen authorized uranium mines”, but only a few are actually producing at any given time
2) PERMITTED / STANDBY mines on federal land (can restart quickly)
These matter because they’re often counted in “active operations” even when idle.
The Rio Tinto Kennecott Visitor Experience is dedicated to educating the public about Kennecott’s key role in modern life, safe mining practices, and responsible environmental stewardship. Learn about our history and see first-hand the gigantic scale of our operation, vehicles, and artifacts. Discover how ore gets processed and refined to become 99.99% copper, an essential element in today’s infrastructure, manufacturing, and technology.
Our Kennecott mine has operated for 120 years, providing domestically -sourced copper to the United States and beyond. As we look towards the energy transition, Kennecott will continue to play an important role by responsibly mining and smelting this critical mineral for our electric vehicles, our renewable energy, and numerous other vital applications.
*******************
Another ChatGPT question: how many copper mines are currently operating on federal land in the US and are they owned by US corporations? When I do ChatGPT I will (from now on) post the whole thing with the summary at the top who aren’t into the details. It’s Chat’s summary and not mine. I’d be interested in whether in the future, you all would prefer I just post the summary items and link to the rest. Here’s the link to this one. Hopefully you don’t need to pay for ChatGPT to read it, if you do, let me know.
*************
📊 What this shows (pattern)
Count (realistic, production-weighted)
~8 major copper mines clearly involve federal land
These account for the majority of U.S. copper output
Key insight
Even where mines are “U.S.-owned”:
They often operate under the 1872 Mining Law framework
They rely on federal mineral rights (public land)
And they may involve:
foreign partners (Morenci)
global supply chains and financing
🧭 Bottom line
The U.S. likely has ~8–10 major copper mines operating on (or partly on) federal land
Most are operated by a U.S. company (Freeport-McMoRan)
But:
At least one of the largest is fully foreign-owned
And joint ventures are common
************
Here’s the rest of the info.
Short answer: there is no single official count of “copper mines on federal land”, but we can triangulate a reasonable picture from federal data and industry sources—and the ownership is mostly not U.S.-only.
1) How many copper mines are operating (total vs. federal land)
The U.S. Geological Survey reports roughly ~25 operating copper mines in the U.S. in recent years (with ~17 producing nearly all output).
Meanwhile, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found 872 active mining operations of all types on federal land (hardrock + others), but does not break them down by commodity (e.g., copper).
👉 The key complication: Most large U.S. copper mines are not purely “on federal land”—they typically sit on a patchwork of land ownership:
patented private mining claims
federal (BLM or Forest Service) land
state or private surface land
Congressional testimony notes many major copper mines have “mixed ownership (private and U.S.)” and are often adjacent to or partially on federal land rather than entirely on it.
2) Realistic estimate of copper mines on federal land
Because of that mixed ownership structure:
Only a subset of the ~25 U.S. copper mines operate on (or partly on) federal land.
Based on known major mines and land status (Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada), a reasonable estimate is:
👉 ~10–15 major copper mines have some operations on federal land (not necessarily 100% of their footprint)
Examples include:
Morenci Mine (partly on federal land)
Sierrita Mine (BLM/Forest interface)
Bingham Canyon Mine (mixed ownership)
Safford Mine
These few account for the vast majority of U.S. copper production.
3) Are they owned by U.S. corporations?
Mostly no—ownership is heavily international.
Major operators of U.S. copper mines:
Freeport-McMoRan (U.S.-based)
Rio Tinto
BHP
Sumitomo Group
What that means in practice:
Some mines are majority U.S.-owned (e.g., Freeport-McMoRan operations)
Many are joint ventures with foreign firms
Some are primarily foreign-owned
Major U.S. copper mines on / involving federal land
My question was “what mines currently permitted on federal land are owned by US corporations?” It was kind of a test because I wanted to see if Chat GPT understood permitting and the 1872 Mining Act.
***********************
There isn’t a single clean, public list of “all currently permitted mines on federal land owned by U.S. corporations.” That’s not because it’s secret—it’s because the U.S. doesn’t track or publish mining data that way. Federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service oversee hundreds of individual plans, notices, and leases, but ownership, permitting status, and land tenure are fragmented across systems.
That said, you can identify major active or permitted mines on federal land and who owns them. Below is a grounded snapshot of prominent examples—focusing on U.S.-based corporations or companies with major U.S. ownership stakes (some are joint ventures with foreign firms).
Major active/permitted mines on federal land (examples)
Gold (primarily Nevada – largely on BLM land)
These are among the clearest examples because Nevada gold mining heavily overlaps federal land.
Status: Active, multiple mines and processing facilities
One of the largest gold-producing complexes in the world
Goldstrike Mine
Owner: Barrick Gold
Status: Long-running active mine on federal land
Turquoise Ridge Mine
Owners: Barrick + Newmont
Status: Active underground mine (federal land)
Phoenix Mine
Owners: Barrick + Newmont
Status: Active
👉 These Nevada operations are part of Nevada Gold Mines, which includes 10 underground and 12 surface mines on largely federal land.
Other metals (U.S.-linked companies on federal land)
Bald Mountain Mine
Owner: Kinross Gold
Status: Active open-pit mine (BLM land)
Rochester Mine
Owner: Coeur Mining
Status: Active (notably U.S.-based company)
Round Mountain Mine
Owner: Kinross Gold
Status: Active
Robinson Mine
Owner: KGHM (foreign-controlled)
Status: Active
Coal (federal leasing system – mostly U.S. companies)
Coal is different: mines operate under federal leases with royalties rather than mining claims.
Examples (Wyoming Powder River Basin, largely federal land):
North Antelope Rochelle Mine
Owner: Peabody Energy
Black Thunder Mine
Owner: Arch Resources
Coal mining on federal land accounts for a large share of U.S. production and is dominated by U.S.-based firms.
Uranium (recent restart example)
Pinyon Plain Mine (near Grand Canyon)
Owner: Energy Fuels
Status: Recently active under existing federal claims (controversial location)
Notable as a modern example of a U.S.-owned company mining federal land
Key reality check (important context)
There were ~500+ approved hardrock mining operations on federal land since 2000, with hundreds active at any time.
As of ~2023, Interior reported ~500 active plans of operation plus hundreds of smaller notices.
Ownership is mixed:
Many mines are run by foreign-headquartered firms (Barrick, Kinross, etc.)
Even “U.S.” mines are often joint ventures
The U.S. system (Mining Law of 1872) allows both individuals and corporations to hold claims on federal land.
Bottom line
There is no authoritative public list of “currently permitted mines on federal land owned by U.S. corporations.”
But in practice:
The largest active federal-land mines are concentrated in Nevada (gold) and Wyoming (coal)
A subset are owned or co-owned by U.S. companies, especially:
Newmont Corporation
Coeur Mining
Peabody Energy
Energy Fuels
If you want, I can build a more exhaustive dataset (e.g., all BLM “plans of operation” tied to corporate ownership and flag which are U.S.-controlled vs foreign). That’s doable, but it requires stitching together multiple federal datasets.
On April 16, the U. S. Senate voted 50-49 to invoke the Congressional Review Act to overturn a 20-year ban on mining on more than 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest upstream of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The President is expected to sign it. Under the CRA, federal agencies must submit new regulations to Congress before they can take effect. If Congress disapproves by a simple majority, the agency can never issue another rule “in substantially the same form.”
This is the first time Congress has used the CRA to overturn a management decision on national forest land, although the ban on mining was in a public land order mineral withdrawal. by the Secretary of the Interior. The title of the joint resolution is:
“H.J.Res.140 – Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.”
While this resolution describes the Secretarial Order as a “rule,” federal land management agencies have never considered their land management decisions to be regulations, and so have never submitted them for congressional review, apparently leaving them vulnerable to review now. Last year, Congress employed the CRA to invalidate several BLM resource management plans. We discussed that here.
During the CRA’s first 20 years of existence, it was used only once. But President Trump and Republicans have worked to dramatically expand and weaponize the CRA. It appears the current Congress sees no limits to what kinds of agency decisions it may review and reverse. It’s not hard to imagine the chaos this could cause for federal land management, especially with regard to land management plans. Plans revised (and presumably amendments) after the passage of the CRA in 1996 would be vulnerable. Another example, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has proposed a CRA resolution to eliminate the resource management plan for the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument.
Potential litigants are circling, one referring to the situation as “extraordinarily legally questionable.” Our prior discussion touched on the question of how a lawsuit might arise.
“The U.S. Forest Service is 100 percent opposed to mining in this watershed,” said Marc Fink, director of the Public Lands Law Center and a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. In 2016, the Forest Service determined that a sulfide-ore copper mine, such as the one Twin Metals is proposing, could cause “extreme” and “serious and irreplaceable harm” to the area. “This clearly goes against the science and the administration’s own agencies,” Fink said.
I thought this piece by Eric Biber of Berkeley Law School was interesting on permitting reform and mining law. It seems like the idea of producing minerals and energy domestically is catching on, perhaps recent threats by China is moving this pragmatic point of view forward. In a sense, the permitting reform movement is the expression that “no” is ultimately not a complete answer for various forms of development, and it’s not a “good guys vs. bad guys” issue.
The whole piece with background on the clash between the 1872 Mining Act and more recent laws, but I felt bad about just copying the whole thing (and it’s open source), so below are the latter paragraphs:
There are good arguments, even environmental ones, for some level of federal support for mining activities on federal lands. Decarbonization requires development and large-scale deployment of a range of clean energy technologies that depend on a range of minerals, including rare earths. Reliance on imports from other countries – especially China – for those minerals leaves the US vulnerable to external political pressure (as China has done multiple times in constraining rare earth exports).
But it is also true that the mining industry in the United States has a history of significant environmental damage. And while it may well be the case that modern mining in the US will be less environmentally damaging than mining in other parts of the world, we still may wish to ensure that mining here achieves high environmental standards.
There’s a deal to be done here. Modern mining cannot be performed without large areas for disposal of waste rock. Creating a legally secure pathway for allowing for that disposal is an important step to helping advance domestic minerals production. But the public – the owners of these lands – should get both guarantees that the overall mining production that is the basis of that waste is meeting high environmental standards, and that the public is getting some of the value of the mineral production activity that is based on the public lands. (Right now, mining operations pay minimal amounts for their use of the public lands.) Any fix to the Rosemont case should thus include (a) providing land management agencies with the clear power to reject individual mine proposals, and setting lands aside from mining production where other resource values from those lands are high; (b) establishing appropriate fees paid for by mining operations to ensure that clean-up from mining operations meets high environmental standards; (c) a fee for use of the lands for waste disposal that reflects a reasonable share of the value of the overall mining operation (taking into account the necessary risks and uncertainties of mining). (The second component is also in the Problem Solvers Caucus proposal.)
The goal here – as should be the case in any discussion of permitting reform – is, as far is possible, to set rigorous standards, but provide clarity and certainty about those standards and their applications. The former helps us achieve environmental goals; the latter will make it easier for regulated parties to meet those standards, and in many cases advance activities that are essential to achieving important environmental objectives
Caitlyn Kim/CPR News Old mining sites like this can found all across Colorado. Some mining claims go as far back as the 19th century.
A big shout-out to Trout Unlimited, who has been working on this since.. it seems like forever (more than 25 years, according to Senator Heinrich). one take from Utah:
Pres. Joe Biden has signed Rep. Celeste Maloy’s (R-UT) Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act into law. Co-led with Reps. Mary Sattler Peltola (D-AK) and Susie Lee (D-NV), this legislation will establish a pilot program under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow “Good Samaritans” – such as non-profits, local governments, and state agencies – to obtain permits to clean up abandoned hardrock mines.
“Today, we celebrate Utahns having more freedom,” said Rep. Maloy. “With this bill signed into law, Utahns can bypass bureaucratic hurdles and senseless lawsuits to clean up abandoned mines for the benefit of their communities. This achievement is the culmination of decades of bipartisan work, and I want to thank everyone who helped get this commonsense bill across the finish line.”
“Despite having no legal or financial responsibility to do so, state agencies, non-profits, and advocates are eager to contribute to abandoned hardrock mine cleanup efforts,” said Rep. Peltola. “But, right now, over-burdensome permitting requirements bar them from doing so. Too often, government red tape prevents good work from getting done—that’s why passing our Good Samaritan bill is huge for mine cleanup throughout Alaska!”
“Abandoned hardrock mines in Nevada and across the country are poisoning our waters, threatening Tribal lands, and their hazardous landscapes have injured and killed Americans. For 25 years, bills like this one to clean up these mines have stalled because of Washington politics. Today, we made history by finally empowering nonprofits and agencies that are willing and able to assist this long overdue clean up,” said Rep. Lee. “Because of commonsense bipartisanship, our nation is now on a path to cleaner waters and safer landscapes.”
The Senate companion legislation is led by Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Jim Risch (R-ID).
“After years of red tape and unnecessary barriers, Good Samaritans willing to clean up long-abandoned mine sites can finally move forward with meaningful remediation. I’m proud to have led the Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act with Senator Heinrich and look forward to the positive impacts this law will have on our land and water in Idaho,” said Senator Risch.
“Our Good Samaritan legislation is now the law of the land, after more than 25 years of hard work to get it over the finish line. Good Samaritans will no longer face hurdles preventing them from helping to protect the land, water, fish, and wildlife our communities rely on. This victory belongs to every single person who rolled up their sleeves to fix this longstanding roadblock, and I’d like to thank those who have carried the baton to get us to this point. Now it’s time to get to work to clean up abandoned mines in New Mexico and across the country, making our water cleaner and lands safer,” said Senator Heinrich.
Tradeoffs | Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun photo of Idaho Stibnite Mine on Payette NF
We have spent some time discussing “ways the FS might improve” and “ideas for the new Admin.” But I’ve noticed a drop-off in responses by current employees who are vital to the discussion, and I attribute it to end of the year annual leave. I’m expecting those folks to be back the 6th of January or thereabouts. I’m taking off the 23rd to the 6th. For the next few days, I’ll be posting topics of general interest that have been postponed due to “improving the Forest Service” discussions. We have also spent time talking about ideas like “naturalness” for federal lands, and it seems like many projects are in themselves unnatural, from ski areas to mines, so perhaps the goal should be to design needed projects in ways that promote naturalness and environmental sensitivity. I don’t think “don’t do it” can be a final answer for many uses.
Energy and Mining Roundup
*****************
Big Tech Goes Nuclear and Natural Gas
The problem with predicting the future is that it seldom works. Hence a bias for agility (what we might call adaptive management) over believing in predictions. There are surprises that occur that are fairly unpredictable. One such is the rise of AI, or data centers, and the Big Tech desire for round-the-clock electrical energy, large amounts of it. They apparently don’t want to wait for battery technology or other renewable storage technologies to emerge This has led them to take a deep dive into both nuclear and natural gas. David Blackmon has an piece discussing the natural gas vs. nuclear aspects in Forbes without a paywall. Nuclear seems to be approaching a renaissance, driven by unpredicted energy needs of data centers.
Which raises a question.. there are many obstacles to the intended wind and solar buildout across the US; public pushback, the sheer scale of the materials and labor and maintenance needed and so on, when folks are saying our existing grid is in bad shape. Pretty soon, after the data centers are going, people are going to start asking “was that national buildout ever realistic? is it still needed? What should the role of industrial wind and solar be in a nuclear future?
On September 20, 2024, the same day Governor Hobbs sent her letter to the Forest Service, the Forest Service responded to Attorney General Mayes’s request for an environmental review of the mine. Although it stopped short of saying it would conduct the review the attorney general and the governor are asking for, the agency did commit to take a look at recent scientific publications cited by the attorney general and said it would compile a report and communicate its findings.
But what if there were States that were fine with mining under current environmental and health standards?
Wyoming appears to be such a state. Check out the stories in Cowboy State Daily on starting up old uranium mines (just search on uranium on their site), e.g. recent buy of uranium processing plant.
UEC officials say they are seeing a huge demand for uranium right now, from multiple players, thanks to the rising use of artificial intelligence.
“I mean, that’s all you hear lately,” UEC Vice President of U.S. Operations Brent Berg has told Cowboy State Daily previously. “How all the big tech companies continue to dominate the news flow for nuclear. Amazon did three deals recently for small modular reactors. Google has made a commitment for reactors to power a data center by 2030.”
In fact, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta have all said they expect nuclear power to run the huge data centers they foresee needing as they incorporate advances in artificial intelligence to their operations. TerraPower is backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
The trends for artificial intelligence and nuclear power are putting Wyoming front-and-center, and not just because it has the largest uranium reserve in the United States and its climate is conducive to artificial intelligence centers.
Wyoming has been working to innovate in the nuclear space for some time now, and it’s also working with a major submarine power plant maker to evaluate tiny nuclear reactors as one way to help augment the stability of electrical grids.
Remember Yucca Mountain?
Matthew Wald has an interesting post in the Breakthrough Substack today.
Hopeful news about Canada successfully siting a place for waste storage
The recent breakthrough is that the Canadian Waste Management Organization, a utility-owned nonprofit, says it has reached agreement with a tribe and a municipality to host a permanent repository. The site is in northwest Ontario, about 130 miles northeast of International Falls, Minn., and is located between the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, known as WLON, and the township of Ignace. It was one of two sites that were willing and had suitable geology. When completed, the repository’s underground tunnels will cover an area about 2 kilometers by 3 kilometers, or about 1.2 miles by 1.8 miles. Canada’s goal is for an “informed and willing” host. Canada embarked on that process in 2010. The United States is now following the same approach, as the path of last resort, following the stalemate at Yucca Mountain. Congress chose Yucca, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, over the objections of Nevada, but the effort was checkmated by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada after he became the Democratic leader in 2005 and then Senate Majority leader. Yucca is still technically the law of the land, but Congress has not appropriated significant money since 2012 to get it licensed.
The article has interesting history in the US and elsewhere. There was a Blue Ribbon Commission, who reported back in 2012 recommending “consent-based siting” and in May 2024 the Department of Energy initiated the process (better late than never, I guess).
I wasn’t aware that the feds are on the hook for this: “A Multi-Billion Dollar Leak at the Treasury.”
But moving them to a single federally operated site would allow the department to begin accepting wastes from the utilities they signed contracts with in the 80s and 90s. The contracts called for the government to start receiving shipments in January 1998, and the courts have ruled that the government must pay for breaching those contracts, reimbursing the utilities for all their extra costs.
The audit, in November, estimates the compensation that the government will have to pay until it starts taking the waste, but does not give a date for that event. Twelve to fifteen years is probably the earliest that can be hoped for. It says in a footnote that the government’s liability is “in the range of between $37.6 billion and $44.5 billion,” of which $11.1 billion has already been paid. The fact that operators are applying to extend their licenses to 80 years means the government’s tab is getting bigger. And the money does not come out of the Energy Department’s budget; it is paid for by the Treasury’s “Judgment Fund,” the same account you collect from if you sue because your car was rear-ended by a government car. The fund is automatically replenished, without a vote by Congress, which has reduced the visibility of the problem.
****************
Idaho Windfarm Not Popular with Public, Elected Officials
I think we’ve spoken of this before. One BLM retiree I spoke with, who had worked in the area, didn’t think this should have been approved due to sage grouse issues and the location of the Japanese internment camp, as well as the opinions of the local community and state officials, apparently including the Governor.
Fortunately, if new Admins were to follow up as with the Alaska Roadless decision, a new Admin could simply issue a new ROD from the old EIS, thereby saving government employees and the public time and expense. Anyway, this is apparently not “consent-based siting.”
*******************
Not Enough Conflicting Uses on BLM, Why Not Data Centers?
This policy memo outlines the key considerations for leveraging federal lands to develop AI-centric computing hubs. It begins with an analysis of the legal and regulatory foundations that enable such endeavors, then explores how carefully structured PPPs can incentivize private investment while ensuring alignment with national goals. Subsequent sections will detail essential siting criteria, highlight potential candidate regions, discuss how to integrate lessons learned from renewable energy initiatives, and recommend criteria for environmental, security, and workforce considerations. Together, these insights map a course forward that marries private-sector capabilities with federal stewardship, ultimately enhancing America’s AI infrastructure, competitiveness, and national security.
************************
The Strategic/Military Importance of Antimony at Forest Service Mine
It’s interesting how much we discuss vegetation for “what the FS should be doing” as in Jim’s “naturalness”. But there are other uses to which that concept does not apply.
Doomberg, a financial analyst/energy site rarely mentions the Forest Service so I took note of this:
“Meanwhile, the US is urgently working toward reopening the Stibnite mine in Idaho. Despite widespread local opposition to the plan, government approval could come in a matter of days. We would be shocked if final approval is not granted. This report is from early September:
“The US Forest Service issued a draft record of decision Friday authorizing a gold mining company to resume operations at Stibnite Mine in Central Idaho’s Payette National Forest, a proposal that would become one of the largest gold, silver and antimony mines in the United States. Friday’s draft record of decision begins a 45-day objection period where the public can comment on the draft record of decision and a 45-day resolution period. After that, the US Forest Service can issue a final record of decision, which supporters of the project said could happen before the end of the year….
Officials with Perpetua Resources, formerly Midas Gold, are seeking approval to resume mining at Stibnite Gold Mine. In a statement released Thursday, officials with Perpetua Resources said they plan to mine for gold and unlock the United States’ only reserve of a mineral called antimony, all while cleaning up historic mine waste. Perpetua Resources says antimony can be used to develop liquid metal batteries and ammunition.”
But what was most interesting to me was the background info on antimony, again, from Doomberg.
It is difficult to overstate antimony’s role in military applications. A small amount of antimony alloyed with lead significantly hardens the material, making it far more suitable for ammunition. The widely used Lyman #2 alloy consists of 90% lead, 5% antimony, and 5% tin, whereas the popular Hardball casting alloy contains 92% lead, 6% antimony, and just 2% tin. Pulling antimony out of these formulations is no easy task, as the high-precision casting machines used to produce bullets are optimized for specific recipes. The US might be a global leader in bullet manufacturing today, but if a chronic antimony shortage were to materialize, production would all but grind to a halt.
Antimony is also used in the manufacture of “tanks, submarines, warships, communication systems, night vision goggles, infrared sensors, and other military technology.” During World War II, Japan’s invasion of China choked off the supply of antimony to the US, setting off an urgent search for domestic sources. It was discovered that antimony could be recovered as a byproduct of gold production at the Stibnite mine in central Idaho. Stibnite would go on to produce 90% of the country’s needs during the war, and its operations continued until 1997.
Today, the US sources 80% of its antimony needs via imports, predominantly from China. A significant lead-acid battery recycling supply chain fills in the remainder of its supply. The escalating trade war has sent prices soaring to record heights, with benchmark prices up sevenfold from 2020 levels.
I don’t know if this means the next Admin is required to carry through with the public involvement process or the segregation period? Seems like it might have been better to start sooner.
BLM, USFS initiate process to engage public on proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal for important New Mexico watershed while segregation is in place
SANTA FE, N.M. — Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland today initiated a two-year segregation period to temporarily withdraw approximately 165,000 acres of public lands in the Upper Pecos watershed in Santa Fe, New Mexico, from new mining claims and the issuance of new federal mineral leases, subject to valid existing rights.
The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service will now initiate a process to propose that the Secretary of the Interior implement a 20-year withdrawal to help secure the region’s water and air quality, cultural resources, critical fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational values. The withdrawal, for lands in San Miguel and Santa Fe counties, would encompass multiple Pecos River tributaries, including Dalton Canyon, Macho Canyon, Wild Horse Creek, Indian Creek, and Doctor Creek. The proposed withdrawal area includes approximately 163,483 acres of National Forest System lands and 1,327 acres of Bureau of Land Management-managed public lands.
The Upper Pecos watershed provides intact, pristine habitat—including habitat for Rio Grande cutthroat, brown, and rainbow trout—and helps deliver clean water to downstream agricultural users and local communities. Since 2022, the Pecos River tributaries and nearby wetlands have been recognized as crucial Outstanding National Resource Waters by the State of New Mexico. The lands also offer outstanding opportunities for recreation, including hiking, backpacking, fishing and hunting.
Lands in the Upper Pecos are of cultural importance to Indigenous Peoples, including the Pueblos of Jemez and Tesuque, who have relied on the abundant natural resources in the watershed since time immemorial and continue to utilize the area for ceremonial practices. The greater Pecos River Valley is also home to traditional communities and acequia agriculture, which relies on a healthy watershed.
For several years, members of the New Mexico delegation have introduced legislation for a permanent withdrawal of the Pecos watershed; only Congress can effectuate a permanent withdrawal.
In order to inform the Secretary’s decision, the BLM will publish an announcement in the Federal Register in the coming days, initiating a 90-day public comment period to gather input on the proposal. During the comment period, the two agencies will host at least one hybrid public meeting. The agencies will provide date, time, virtual access and location information for the meeting at least 15 days in advance.
