The original U.S. Bureau of Mines was established on July 1, 1910, under the Department of the Interior. Its primary mission was to ensure the nation had adequate supplies of nonfuel minerals for national security and other needs. The Bureau’s work included research on the extraction, processing, use, and recycling of nonfuel mineral resources, while minimizing environmental impacts and protecting workers. It also collected and published statistical and economic information on all phases of nonfuel mineral resource development. However, in 1996, during a period of budget cuts, the USBM was closed down, facing significant backlash as critics argued that the nation was downsizing scientific research and funding. Both the American Exploration & Mining Association and the National Mining Association have announced plans to advocate for reviving and expanding the U.S. Bureau of Mines and BIOBY is 100% supportive of their efforts. Agencies like the United States Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) of Energy have been supporting various projects across the U.S. targeting critical minerals including Perpetua Resources's Stibnite Gold Project out of Idaho and Talon Metals Corp.'s proposed battery minerals processing facility in North Dakota. Reviving the bureau could offer a cohesive strategy where agencies are fully aligned on their critical minerals policy, covering permitting, research funding, and industry grants. Learn more below: https://lnkd.in/ghxnMEGb
Richard Perry
1mo
I agree! USBM research facility was located on the UNzR campus before it was closed. The process of gold heap leaching was developed there. It was synergistic with the Mackay School of Mines. Since it closed, advances in mineral processing in the zUS have languished. Bring it back, co-locate research facilities with the remaining Schools of Mines in the US.
At the time of closure (I worked there) you could fund the USBM for 8 years for the cost of a B-1 Bomber….big mistake at the time and needed more than ever to remain competitive globally.
Chris Franks
1mo
How would they be incorporated into a permitting process and what entity or entities would they replace? The last thing needed is another entity in the approval chain.
Keaton Turner
1mo
Turner Mining Group is 100% in support of re-establishing the U.S. Bureau of Mines and advocating for new mine permitting reform so that we can achieve domestic production of critical base metals here domestically to meet the growing demand over the next two decades. Rarely is more government the answer. But if we can get people that KNOW mining on Capitol Hill then we have a fighting chance at real permitting reform.
The US Bureau of Mines was absorbed into the US Geological Survey. Whether the USGS needs to increase its focus on mining and its management in the USA is another topic. But I don't believe we need to reinvent the wheel. The need is for USGS to become actively involved in promoting and discussing development of our mining industry with representation within Congress for the resources necessary to accomplish this goal. https://www.usgs.gov/search?keywords=minerals
Tom Meikle
1mo
After reading about the four fires in four years caused by incorrect use of a product, unless the US want another Mine Disaster, they need to give serious thought about reinstating the USBM. A single Overarching Authority for Mine Safety
Richard W. J.
1mo
They should have never gotten rid of this agency in the first place.
Yes.
David Mathewson
1mo
If it was brought back with the same mentality and philosophies of the prior organization… Good! But if it is run by today’s ideological Marxist Democrats, let the prior organization rest in peace!
Mine Manager
1moI always like more government. NOT!