Search Documents

By Diego A. Dávila Novoa

The United States is correctly recognizing copper as a strategic material increasingly tied to artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure such as data centers, grid modernization, electricvehicle (EV) charging stations, electrification, defense manufacturing, industrial reshoring, energy security and long-cycle economic competitiveness. Recent years have seen rising concern around future copper deficits, accelerating electrification demand, geopolitical fragmentation and the strategic vulnerability associated with concentrated mineral supply chains. As a result, significant volumes of copper cathodes have increasingly flowed into the United States through a combination of Comex positioning, arbitrage opportunities relative to the Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE), inventory relocation, tariff anticipation and broader long-term supply-security considerations. However, an important structural distinction is beginning to emerge inside the system — one that remains materially underrecognized across portions of industry, finance, policy, government and institutional planning frameworks. Accumulating copper cathodes inside the United States is not automatically the same as expanding the country’s ability to industrially utilize copper at scale. That distinction matters enormously because the cathodes themselves are not the final product. Their strategic relevance only materializes once the material is transformed into qualified conductive systems capable of supporting real electrical infrastructure deployment across the broader economy. Copper cathodes inside warehouses may improve availability. But availability alone does not automatically create executable electrical infrastructure. The strategic value emerges only once conductive material becomes integrated into functioning industrial systems capable of supporting AI infrastructure; grid infrastructure; utility modernization; electrification; heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems; EV charging infrastructure; defense manufacturing and broader industrial deployment. This increasingly shifts the discussion away from copper availability alone and toward a broader question of industrial synchronization involving conductive transformation capacity, fabrication capability, electroplating ecosystems, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) qualification, manufacturing scalability, logistics integration, workforce capability, permitting timelines and downstream deployment infrastructure. The challenge emerging inside the United States is therefore not necessarily geological scarcity. Rather, the bottleneck increasingly appears to be migrating downstream into the industrial interfaces required to convert material availability into executable infrastructure deployment, particularly as domestic transformation, fabrication, plating, qualification and deployment ecosystems attempt to scale under infrastructure constraints, long industrial lead times and evolving tariff structures affecting portions of the downstream conductive value chain.

Sep 1, 2026

By Debra Struhsacker

For the last few years, critical minerals have been in the news as policymakers and the media highlight the important role critical minerals play in all aspects of the U.S. economy, technology, infrastructure, manufacturing, energy systems and national defense. These discussions focus on how critical minerals are the foundational inputs to everything modern societies build and use. They even play a role in the foods we eat because some fertilizers consist of minerals like phosphates, potash and lime. Many experts predict that the global demand for lithium, copper, rare earth elements, graphite, nickel and other critical minerals will soar in the next decade as countries pursue electrification objectives, build artificial intelligence (AI) data centers that must have massive amounts of always available electricity, and develop high-tech defense equipment built with rare earth magnets and other critical minerals (International Energy Agency, 2025). The U.S. Congress defined minerals for the first time in the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, stating: “The term “materials” means substances, including minerals, of current or potential use that will be needed to supply the industrial, military, and essential civilian needs of the United States in the production of goods or services, including those which are primarily imported or for which there is a prospect of shortages or uncertain supply, or which present opportunities in terms of new physical properties, use, recycling, disposal or substitution, with the exclusion of food and of energy fuels used as such.” (30 U.S.C. § 1601(b)(2)) Although most critical “minerals” are actually metallic elements rather than minerals, this article will refer to them as “minerals” to conform to the congressional definition and the current critical minerals dialogue. Forty years later, Congress enacted the Energy Act of 2020, which amended the 1980 Act to add the following definition for critical minerals: “The term ‘‘critical mineral’’ means any mineral, element, substance, or material designated as critical by the Secretary under section 7002(c) of the Energy Act of 2020.” (30 U.S.C. 1601(2)(b)(1)) The Energy Act of 2020 directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to identify critical minerals, to develop a Critical Minerals List (CML), and to update the CML at least every three years or more frequently if determined necessary by the Secretary. The USGS published the first CML in February 2022 (USGS, 2022). The 2022 CML identified 50 minerals critical to the U.S. economy and national security. In November 2025, the USGS finalized its 2025 CML (USGS, 2025a, 2025b) to include 60 minerals (Fig. 1), stating: “Critical minerals underpin industries worth trillions of dollars, and import dependence puts key sectors at risk.” In developing the CML, Section 1606(c) of the Energy Act of 2022 directs the USGS to include minerals that: 1. Are essential to the economic or national security of the United States. 2. The supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption (including restrictions associated with foreign political risk, abrupt demand growth, military conflict, violent unrest, anticompetitive or protectionist behaviors, and other risks throughout the supply chain). 3. Serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product (including energy technology, defense, currency, agriculture, consumer electronics and health care-related applications), the absence of which would have significant consequences for the economic or national security of the United States. This law also requires the Secretary to consult with the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Energy and the U.S. Trade Representative in designating minerals, elements, substances and materials as critical.

Sep 1, 2026

By Rajesh Raitani, Emily Haas

The Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME) MINEXCHANGE SME Annual Conference & Expo hosts innovationrelated content across division sessions each year. The development and integration of automation, robotic systems, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), internet of things (IoT), digital twins, drones, remote monitoring and other intelligent systems have regularly been showcased as advancements that can be used to improve safety, efficiency and sustainability across the industry. Although the presence of these conference topics is evident, it is unclear if they are just an expressed interest of industry visionaries and experts or if they may be early indicators of emerging trends. To date, there has not been a systematic analysis of the presence, fluctuation and focus of conference topics over the years. Some sources support the analysis of conference data to help identify emerging trends, opportunities and interests. For example, the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) completed an analysis of conference programs from 1978 to 2014 to highlight historical milestones and emerging trends within their profession — an effort that assisted with future conferencing planning and other professional events (Reed and LaPorte, 2015). These authors identified several topics that appeared prevalent in the peer and gray literature that were not as prominent in conference offerings. They also indicated that the conference theme had minimal influences on the submission topics (Reed and LaPorte, 2015). In another effort, creators made links between tweets that used conference title hashtags during the Association of College and Research Libraries conferences from 2011 to 2019 as a form of trend analysis (Hennesy et al., 2021). Finally, related efforts have occurred in the text mining of journal article titles to identify latent topics and unique terms in the scientific literature (Ravikumar et al., 2023). Analyzing paper and conference titles has received attention in recent years to help propose and predict research topics (Wang et al., 2022). For example, Wang and colleagues (2022) indicated that trends revealed in paper titles can be useful for proposing more authoritative sessions at major conferences to align with industry trends. Consequently, an abbreviated activity was undertaken by SME’s Industry Innovation Strategic Committee in 2025. The goal was to (1) reveal stable and shifting priorities around innovation, (2) inform respective division planning for subsequent conference sessions and (3) ascertain whether the association is meeting members’ expectations around innovation-related content throughout the year. SME’s Industry Innovation Strategic Committee focused on the identification and dissemination of these tools in the field, and reviewed technical session titles from annual conference programs from 2016 to 2026. Using keyword frequency, theme clustering and division-specific tagging, the committee identified themes that seemed to be gaining traction, fading, remaining consistent, or changing in detail and scope regarding emerging technologies. This short article serves as both a retrospective view and possible planning tool for shaping future conference programming and, if applicable, inform impactful and relevant initiatives.

Sep 1, 2026

By William Gleason

During a mining roundtable at the U.S. Department of State on Aug. 7, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. Government will invest $3 billion in critical minerals and battery projects as part of a push to increase domestic production, boost national security and support industrial policy. Part of this investment includes $180 million earmarked for education and workforce development for the mining sector, including up to $100 million to strengthen education in critical minerals and materials from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and $80 million from the U.S. Department of War (DOW) for investments in the Colorado School of Mines, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and Johns Hopkins University. The DOE’s Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation (CMEI) announced a notice of intent for up to $100 million to develop a new program called “Providing Opportunities for Specialized Education in Critical Technologies (PROSPECT).” The DOW investment will be used to build technology innovation hubs, form projectfocused partnerships between students and defense industry, develop new processes and prototypes, and certify hundreds of new students with advanced degrees in mining, geology and metallurgy. Department heads from the 14 ABETaccredited mining schools in the United States attended the meeting held at the Department of State. They were joined by Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick as well as several industry leaders including James Litinsky, chief executive officer of MP Materials; Vicky Peacey, president of Resolution Copper; Robert Friedland, founder of Ivanhoe Mines; Mitchell Krebs, chief executive officer of Coeur Mining as well as representatives from Rio Tinto, BHP, Energy Fuels and a number of other industry leaders. “I am not aware of another time in history when the leaders of the U.S. mining education community have been brought together with a sitting President, Cabinet officials, and industry leaders to discuss the future of American mining,” said Aaron Noble, Charles T. Holland Professor Department Head - Mining and Minerals Engineering and interim department head - Materials Science and Engineering at Virginia Tech. “Mining education was not on the periphery of the conversation; we quite literally had a seat at the table where national mineral strategy was being discussed. I hope we look back on this as an inflection point for American mining education.” The historic funding announcement comes in response to a critical need for more mining and processing engineers in the United States. The DOE estimates the industry will need 6,000 more mining engineers during the next decade. Noble said U.S. programs currently graduated fewer than 200 mining engineering graduates annually. Meeting that demand has been a challenge for many years. Enrollment in U.S. mining programs has declined by approximately 45 percent since 2015, and data compiled by the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME) and the Society of Mining Professors show enrollment falling from nearly 1,500 students eight years ago to fewer than 600 in 2023. The investments offer the 14 mining schools an opportunity to expand enrollment, modernize curricula, strengthen industry relationships and build a more stable workforce pipeline. Kray Luxbacher, executive director and head of the University of Arizona School of Mining Engineering and Mineral Resources, attended the roundtable. She said mining school department heads across the country are “fighting to grow enrollment to meet industry demand.” “This funding is an opportunity to change the trajectory of mining,” Luxbacher said, “to bring in students who didn’t grow up around mining, show them what a modern career in this field looks like and give our programs the resources to compete for their attention.”

Sep 1, 2026

By Paul O. Knorr

The Marine Minerals Administration (MMA), a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior, has responsibility over both energy and nonenergy mineral development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) under the OCS Lands Act (OCSLA). The OCS extends beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and encompasses the federal seabed. These responsibilities include all aspects of the department’s offshore energy and mineral resource management and conservation, safety oversight, environmental enforcement and related activities on the OCS, including activities pertaining to offshore critical minerals. The MMA’s Marine Minerals Program (MMP) is a matrixed program that manages U.S. offshore mineral resources including hard minerals, sand and gravel. As the sole steward of OCS critical and hard minerals, the MMP is responsible for understanding where critical minerals are located, identifying and understanding their environments, managing activities that affect these resources and implementing related federal policies. Several federal laws and regulations, such as OCSLA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), govern federally authorized or regulated activities. However, there are six U.S. federal rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that are particularly pertinent to inform MMP’s procedures: 30 CFR 580 and 280 (prospecting for minerals), 30 CFR 581 (leasing of minerals), 30 CFR 582 and 282 (operations in the OCS related to minerals), and 30 CFR 583 (negotiated noncompetitive agreements for sand).

Sep 1, 2026

By Carrie Smith

As demand for copper continues to climb alongside the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI), electrification and advanced manufacturing, the United States faces growing pressure to secure domestic supplies of the metal. Analysts expect global copper demand to increase sharply over the next two decades, as the production of electric vehicles, renewable energy and AI data centers ramps up. At the same time, new copper mines have become increasingly difficult to develop. In central Arizona, one project is taking a different approach. Located in the town of Florence between Phoenix and Tucson, Florence Copper recently became the first major new source of U.S. copper in more than a decade. In early 2026, the project began commercial operations after spending years developing its copper recovery process at a test stage. Rather than relying on an openpit or an underground mine, the operation uses in situ copper recovery (ISCR), a process that extracts copper from underground without blasting, hauling or constructing tailings facilities. The project is the world’s first greenfield commercial ISCR copper project and produces London Metal Exchange (LME) Grade A copper cathode on site, which allows the finished product to move directly to U.S. manufacturers without off-site smelting. Not only is Florence Copper a new copper operation that will help strengthen domestic mineral supply chains, but it is also a testament to whether certain copper deposits can be developed using a lower-impact approach. Traditional copper mining typically involves removing large volumes of rock from an openpit or underground workings before processing and transporting concentrate to a smelter. However, Florence Copper’s in situ process eliminates many of those steps. “Rather than extracting and processing massive quantities of mineralized rock, the ISCR process at Florence Copper leaches copper minerals into solution below ground before pumping a copper-rich solution to surface and processing it into pure copper cathode sheets on site,” said Sophie Dessart, manager of communications and public affairs at Florence Copper. The process takes place between 122 and 365 m (400 and 1,200 ft) below the surface within a naturally fractured copper oxide deposit saturated with groundwater. Operators inject a mildly acidic solution, comparable in acidity to household vinegar, through a series of wells. As the solution moves through the orebody, it dissolves copper minerals before recovery wells pump the copper-rich solution back to the surface. At the surface, the solution enters a solvent extraction and electrowinning (SX/EW) plant, where it is refined into LME Grade A copper cathodes. Once the copper has been removed, the remaining solution is recycled back into the wellfield, creating a closed-loop process that repeats throughout the life of the operation. Although Florence Copper only began commercial production this year, development of the deposit stretches back more than five decades. Copper was first identified on the property in 1969 after geologists recognized evidence of mineralization near Poston Butte. Its initial investigations focused on conventional mining methods before companies began evaluating the site’s potential for in situ recovery during the 1990s. In 2014, Trekor Metals (formerly Taseko Mines) acquired the project, and in 2017, construction of a production test facility began. Two years later, the pilot operation produced its first copper cathode using ISCR. Over the next several years, the facility safely produced more than one million pounds of copper while generating operational data that helped engineers refine commercial design. “The production test facility played a critical role by allowing Florence Copper to demonstrate the safety, effectiveness, compliance with permit conditions and overall environmental responsibility of the ISCR process while also generating valuable operational data to optimize performance at commercial scale,” said Dessart. The company completed construction of its production facility in fall 2025 and produced its first copper cathode in February 2026. Dessart said the project reached its construction and commissioning phase on schedule and within roughly 4 percent of budget. Florence Copper now expects to reach full production in 2027, with the capacity to produce 85 million pounds of copper annually. Over its projected 22-year mine life, the operation is expected to produce more than 1.5 billion pounds of copper cathode. At full production, the project is expected to increase U.S. copper cathode output by 5 percent compared with 2025 levels and make the country’s third-largest copper cathode producer. The timing of Florence Copper’s commercial launch coincides with a period of growing concern about future copper supply. According to S&P Global’s 2026 report, “Copper in the Age of AI: The Challenges of Electrification,” global copper demand could increase roughly 50 percent by 2040, reaching 42 Mt/a (46 stpy). The report projects that AI infrastructure alone will require significant volumes of copper, with a single hyperscale data center consuming as much as 50 kt (55,000 st). Without substantial new investment, the report warns the world could face a copper supply deficit approaching 10 Mt (11 million st) by 2040. But with the addition of Florence’s production, the U.S. could add a significant amount of the critical mineral to its domestic supply. “Florence Copper is emerging as a critical new source of U.S.-produced refined copper at a time when global demand is accelerating significantly,” said Dessart. “We are proud to serve as a new domestic source of U.S. copper, helping strengthen supply chains, support economic growth and ensure that the materials essential to electrification, innovation and national security are produced here at home.”

Aug 1, 2026

By Christian Connolly

The surface office’s shift change board shows 47 workers heading underground in the next hour. Before any of them descend, a safety manager works through a familiar routine with a clipboard in hand, moving down a printed roster, checking off names, and scanning a wall of safety helmets for current inspection stickers. At the same time, a crew foreman works through a binder searching for a certification card that should have been updated a month ago, while a desk spreadsheet behind them tracks personal protective equipment (PPE) assignments by serial number, last touched by hand. The new-hire onboarding process adds another layer of work. A fresh sticker is peeled and pressed onto the back of a helmet, with the number written on a paper log that will later be entered into the spreadsheet. It takes time, not because anyone is doing it wrong or slowly, but because this is simply how it has always been done. This daily routine represents where PPE management in mining still begins for some operations across North America. The administrative burden it places on safety teams compounds across every shift, crew rotation and piece of equipment that moves through the operation. For mines running multiple shifts across several active headings, with contractors rotating in and out alongside permanent crews, maintaining accurate records through manual systems alone is not just inefficient. It is a compliance liability waiting to surface.

Aug 1, 2026

By Jim McKinley

With a growing number of mines reaching closure and seeing closure costs materialize, regulators, lenders and banks are observing projects that fail economically by miscalculating these costs. Mine closure costs are often categorized as a type of liability, which is defined as the money owed by the company to offset effects from the project and the money available to pay for those debts, such as bonds. Often, decisions made before the first day of mining — such as co-disposal, dry stack tailings, waste segregation — can significantly change the bond calculation. Once the bond is calculated and funded, operators are encouraged to conduct closure research and use applied science for progressive bond release prior to final closure. However, the author has observed few instances of financially significant progressive bond release, as there are typically no robust procedures for bond return, either before or during closure activities. As a result, many companies decide that entering a state of care and maintenance (C&M) is less risky than attempting to fund closure activities with an unknown bond return mechanism. Although perhaps less risky in the short term, the primary long-term risk with entering C&M is that it increases the chances of the bond not covering the cost of closure and the chances of the government/regulatory agency inheriting the mine closure. Bonds are typically reevaluated on a regular cycle, such as five years, so every mining company goes through this financing challenge eventually.

Aug 1, 2026

By Ben Kudakwashe Mperekwa

Core logging represents one of the most critical control points in mineral exploration, serving as the stage in which geological observations are transformed into structured data that underpin interpretation, modeling and economic decision-making. Every geological model and resource estimate ultimately depends on how accurately drill core is logged, recorded and managed. Despite its importance, core logging is frequently treated as a routine operational activity rather than a data-critical process. In practice, inconsistencies in logging approaches, subjective interpretation and weaknesses in data management can introduce errors that propagate throughout the exploration workflow. These errors often remain undetected until later stages, where they can significantly affect model reliability and project evaluation. As exploration programs become increasingly data-driven, there is a growing need to improve not only how geological data are collected, but also how they are structured and integrated into downstream workflows. This article presents a practical overview of core logging practices, examines the evolution of logging systems and highlights key challenges and opportunities for improving data reliability from field logging through to resource estimation.

Aug 1, 2026

By William Gleason

Founded in 1891, Hecla Mining Company is the oldest precious metals company on the New York Stock Exchange and the largest primary silver producer in the United States and Canada. An innovative mining method at its historic Lucky Friday Mine in Idaho coupled with a low-cost, high-margin operation at its Greens Creek Mine in Alaska and production growth opportunity at the Keno Hill Mine in Canada’s Yukon Territory has positioned Hecla well for a period in which silver has retraced from its January all-time high but continues to hold above the previous cycle’s peak pricing. And while some precious metal producers have looked for expansion into other commodities, Hecla has turned its focus to its core identity as North America’s premier primary silver producer. In April, Mining Engineering had the opportunity to visit the Lucky Friday Mine. For more than eight decades, Lucky Friday has operated in one of North America’s most productive and geologically challenging silver districts, Idaho’s famed Silver Valley. As mining advanced deeper into the vein system, the same geological forces that created exceptional mineralization also produced increasing seismic hazards at the mine. This challenged the company to find a new way to manage the growing stresses associated with depth. Hecla found its answer with the deployment of the underhand closed bench (UCB) mining method, which was developed and implemented at Lucky Friday. The UCB method uses large-scale, deephole blasts to proactively trigger seismic events. The blasts destress the zone while fracturing the ore. More than 90 percent of the area’s seismic energy is released within a 12-hour window. “The constraint that resulted in the development of UCB was seismicity related to a corner geometry between two stopes,” Chris Neville, vice president and general manager of the Lucky Friday Mine, told Mining Engineering. “It was a well-understood seismically active area and was being managed by a common technique by withholding miners from the area after a blast. A very similar situation in the Lucky Friday vein in the 1990s had been managed using a destressing technique. The destressing would eliminate the need to withhold miners to keep them safe and return the stope back to double-shift rather than single-shift production. A blast pattern was executed and achieved the desired effect but also led to the question “What would happen if there were just a few more holes in the blast?” Hence, the UCB concept was sparked, which eventually spread to the rest of the seismically problematic mining areas and the main mining front on the Gold Hunter 30 Vein.” The UCB method changed the way things were done at Lucky Friday and the method received a number of industry accolades, including the prestigious Robert E. Murray Innovation Award from the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME) in 2022. The story of UCB is one of the most recent advancements in a decades-long effort to push deeper into one of the world’s most complex underground mining environments while improving safety, productivity and workforce utilization.

Aug 1, 2026

By Mike O'Driscoll

The future for the industrial minerals sector, and of mining in general, is being shaped by a new order of geopolitical and environmental factors. Last year’s foreword focused on an example of the former (U.S. tariff impact). Here, we shall focus on the latter, and in particular on mineral recycling. Mineral recycling is one of the two missions of the mineral industry right now; the other is decarbonization. Get these right and the industry will be more resilient to the challenges to come, plus making much-needed improvements to our environment. But mineral recycling should not be viewed as simply responding to environmental pressures, a checkbox on the corporate portfolio to allay fears and protests of damage to the environment, leading to charges of so-called greenwashing. While mineral recycling will be an important contributor to the circular economy and assisting in climate protection, it will also evolve as an essential alternative source of raw materials, presenting opportunities in mineral recycling project developments, and increased innovation and supply of pertinent processing and sorting technologies. This new era of industrial mineral recycling is already underway and gaining momentum. But it is not plain sailing, mindsets need to be adopted and correct processes employed. Key questions raised include: • How to go about getting involved in this sector? • Whether to vertically integrate? Invest for an in-house business/plant? • How much and how far to invest? What kind of processing/sorting technology is required? • Partner with/acquire an independent recycler? Join forces with same-sector end-use players? • What kind of logistics are involved? Permits for handling/transport? Costs? • Crucially: making grade acceptable, consistent and economic for customers?

Jul 1, 2026

By SME

The 44th Annual American Mining Hall of Fame Awards Banquet and Fundraiser, sponsored by the Mining and Minerals Education Foundation (MMEF), will be held Dec. 5, 2026, in Tucson, AZ. Proceeds from the event will fund an Education Outreach Program managed through The University of Arizona School of Mining Engineering and Mineral Resources. Each year, the MMEF honors a slate of individuals and companies who have made notable contributions to the advancement of the mining industry.

Jul 1, 2026

By Justin Vandenbrink, Ray DeLuna

In many mine development schedules the critical path is generally defined by ore definition, permitting, infrastructure design, equipment procurement and initial production. While permitting is recognized as a schedule driver, water-related baseline characterization and permitting are often underestimated within that process. When addressed explicitly, they can be reduced to a single line item scheduled to conclude shortly before operations begin, rather than treated as the long-lead dependency they often become in practice. That assumption has delayed projects, inflated capital costs and in some cases stopped development entirely. Water-related permitting is not a discrete step. It is a sequential, datadependent regulatory process that begins with baseline characterization, proceeds through multiple layers of agency review and often across multiple overlapping state and federal regulatory pathways. This article examines the disconnect between how mine development critical paths are typically defined and the influence water-related decisions ultimately have on schedule, capital and longterm liability. The evidence comes from two case studies: an ISR uranium project in Wyoming navigating a threetrack permitting process, and an abandoned copper mine in California where water liability is still being resolved years after operations ceased. Together, they illustrate a consistent principle: water is always on the critical path. The teams that manage it well simply start earlier.

Jul 1, 2026

By D. Morgan Warren, David Hanson, Alice Alex, Tom Meuzelaar, Heather Lawson, Sam J. S. Wright

Dynamic failures, or “bumps,” are a category of ground failure occurring in underground coal mines that involve the sudden expulsion of coal and rock debris into a working area of an active mine. They are an imperative safety concern for the global coal industry. Dynamic failure events have occurred in nearly every coal mining nation of the world, and there have been an estimated greater than 30,000 fatalities as the result of dynamic failure events globally (Bodziony and Lama, 1996; Kidybinski, 2011). Kidybinski (2011) describes them as “the most dangerous natural phenomenon creating a threat to life and health of miners working in hard coal mines.” In the United States, dynamic failures are significantly less common than in many other coal mining countries. However, when they do occur, they result in a proportionately extremely high rate of accidents and fatalities, with more than 60 percent of cases reported to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) resulting in worker injury up to and including death (MSHA, n.d.). The driving mechanisms behind these events are not yet fully understood. Research aimed at optimizing pillar design and mining practices has resulted in a significant decrease in ground control related fatalities including dynamic failure occurrence over the past three decades (Mark, 2024). However, events continue to occur, and new research focused on engineering controls has failed to yield continued, measurable results. It is likely that to produce a further reduction in the rates of dynamic failure accident occurrence, novel research must be pursued. Recent research performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Spokane Mining Research Division (SMRD) has sought to address this need through a focus on the complex interaction between mining induced stressors and risks innate to the host rock mass through improved incorporation of geologic variables into hazard assessment.

Jun 1, 2026

By Carrie Smith

Inside a mountain in Idaho Springs, CO, a century-old mine is taking on a second life. The Edgar Experimental Mine (EEM), once a key producer of valuable ore, now trains engineers and soon may host quantum experiments that could reshape computing. Edgar began as a working underground operation where miners extracted ore from narrow veins deep in the rock. What once produced silver, lead and gold now generates something less visible. In 1921, the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) transformed the mine into an educational facility for mining students, preserving the underground workings as a hands-on training environment. More than a century later, the same tunnels built for extraction are supporting a different kind of industry. Instead of chasing mineral deposits, researchers are using the mine’s depth to study quantum systems, particle physics and train engineering students. Today, a growing network of research laboratories operate inside Edgar. Among them, a new quantum facility is taking shape, where the Colorado Underground Research Institute (CURIE) will turn the mine into a hub for high-scale physics research. The development of the new underground facilities would not have been possible without the hard work of the CSM’s mining engineering department. Over the course of a year, the department worked tirelessly to create a suitable space for future experiments. “The mining engineering department provided the mining expertise, planning and student labor necessary to excavate and prepare the underground spaces required for the quantum laboratory,” said Lee Fronapfel, mine manager of the Edgar Experimental Mine. That work included drill-and-blast excavation, ground support installation, shotcrete application, concrete floor placement, ventilation systems and electrical infrastructure, among other necessary adjustments. “To support quantum research activities, larger underground excavations were created in areas of the mine with the greatest depth of rock cover,” Fronapfel said. “These locations were selected to help minimize environmental interference and provide the stable underground conditions required for sensitive quantum experiments.” Unusual coordination between physicists and mining personnel occurred. Two fields that rarely intersect worked together to create an underground environment capable of tackling some of science’s most complex questions. Now, these departments collaborate closely to ensure all work is carried out effectively. “Because the laboratories are located in relatively isolated areas of the mine, vibration and noise impacts are generally limited,” said Fronapfel. “However, occasional coordination is required to manage activities that could affect sensitive experiments. This is handled through direct communication between mine personnel and quantum researchers.”

Jun 1, 2026

By Gregory Abramov

Borehole mining (BHM) is a remotely operated waterjet mining method carried out through wellbores drilled and cased from the surface directly into the production interval. Mining operations are performed using a waterjet tool composed of at least two concentric tubular columns, which create two hydraulic passages: one for pumping high-pressure water down, and the other for transporting the produced slurry to the surface. At the lower end of the dual column, a bottom head is installed, equipped with a hydromonitor that generates a powerful water jet, and an eductor (jet pump). The tool is suspended from a drill rig via a swivel, enabling its rotation and advancement along the borehole. While the waterjet continuously cuts the rock and produces slurry, the eductor lifts the slurry to the surface. In a slurry collection tank or pond, the cuttings are separated and the clarified water is recycled. As ore is extracted, BHM stopes are typically formed that may remain open for an extended time before caving in.

Jun 1, 2026

By Greg Rankin

With commodity prices rising across the mining sector, from gold to strategically critical rare earth elements, more material has moved back into economic consideration. This has placed greater emphasis on reliable and defensible analytical results. When gold reached record levels earlier this year, material long considered marginal was suddenly worth another look. Stockpiles were revisited, lower-grade zones returned to the model, and economic assumptions were recalculated in light of a new price reality. That recalibration narrows the margin for analytical uncertainty. As projects operate closer to economic thresholds, small differences in assay results begin to carry greater weight across exploration programs, grade control and processing decisions. In many operations, the line between sending material to the mill or to the dump hinges on fractions of a gram per ton. This is true in gold projects adjusting cutoff grades or in rare earth deposits managing complex elemental distributions. At that scale, analytical data do more than confirm grade; they shape classification, recovery modeling and longterm resource estimates. No reserve is declared without defensible analytical data supporting the underlying resource model. In projects operating near cutoff, those laboratory results directly influence economic classification decisions. “The difference between a viable project and a marginal one can come down to analytical precision,” said William R. Sattlegger, P. Geo., chief executive officer of i2iVestcom Advisors Corp. and executive director of the Critical Minerals Conference. “Those numbers drive metallurgy, recovery and valuation models. If you lose confidence in the data, you lose confidence in the project.” Consider a deposit processing 20 Mt (22 million st) annually at a cutoff near 0.5 g/t. A shift of just 0.05 g/t in reported grade, whether from sampling variability or calibration bias, can alter how large volumes of material are classified. Across that scale, even small analytical differences can translate into meaningful economic consequences.

Jun 1, 2026

By Gregory Carli

Mining operations rely on high-duty, mobile and semimobile equipment to move rock, process ore, maintain roads and sustain site services. Typical mining fleets combine loading and hauling assets with production, logistics and maintenance equipment, which are all expected to operate at high load factors, over long hours and in harsh environments. The mining industry is under pressure to decarbonize their operations and to transition to lower-emission technologies. While decarbonization options are well understood for stationary process equipment, challenges remain regarding how to decarbonize heavy-duty mobile emission sources. This article presents the methodology and findings of a structured assessment of low- and zero-emission pathways for mobile mining equipment. The approach is data driven and equipment centric, evaluating technology readiness, commercial and technical viability, and the financial implications of alternative powertrains including battery electric, hybrid electric, hydrogen fuel cell/combustion and low-carbon fuels such as renewable diesel and biodiesel. Supporting infrastructure requirements are also reviewed. Baseline attributes such as engine/motor power, duty cycles, energy intensity and typical purchase price are compiled into an equipment matrix, with alternatives matched by output power to ensure performance comparability. Capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) are calculated conservatively from public sources, with OPEX combining energy/fuel costs and maintenance rates that reflect powertrain complexity.

May 1, 2026

By Tanya J. Gallegos, Mojisola A. KunleDare, James V. Jones III, Charlotte E. Riggs

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) provides scientific information for the Department of Interior and the nation, consistent with its original mission expressed in the Organic Act of 1879 (43 U.S.C. 31): “the classification of the public lands and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products within and outside the national domain.” Legislation such as the Energy Act of 2020 and the 2022 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (43 USC 31l) and recent executive actions (Executive Orders 14154 , 14153, 14241 Secretary’s Orders 3417, 3418, 3422, 3436) underscore the importance of mineral resources and focus USGS activities on mapping and assessing mineral resources, with a particular focus on those presently identified as critical, both in ground and above ground in mine wastes. This article reviews selected activities and accomplishments by the USGS Mineral Resources Program related to critical minerals in 2025. Highlights include a new List of Critical Minerals, a first-ever national mine waste inventory, international minerals partnerships, mineral resource assessment advancements, and national data collection activities and outcomes of the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI). The selected contributions are not comprehensive but are intended to demonstrate USGS leadership in critical mineral mapping and assessment, the importance of domestic and global partnerships, and the breadth of research activities that are responsive to national needs and priorities.

May 1, 2026

By U. S. Geological Survey

In 2025, the estimated total value of nonfuel mineral production in the United States was $112 billion compared with $106 billion in 2024. The estimated value of metal production in 2025 increased by 13 percent to $38.1 billion from a revised total of $33.6 billion in 2024. The total estimated value of industrial minerals production was $73.7 billion, 2 percent more than the revised total of $72.2 billion in 2024 (Table 1). Increases in production of certain nonfuel mineral commodities, along with increases in prices of some industrial minerals contributed to the overall increase in the total value of domestic nonfuel mineral production in 2025. For the industrial minerals sector, the production value of natural aggregates, which comprised approximately 60 percent of the total production value of all industrial minerals, increased by 4 percent even though production volumes decreased by 1 percent in 2025 compared with production in 2024. The largest percentage increases in production value in 2025, in descending order, were for dimension stone, wollastonite, potash, mica and portland cement. The largest percentage decreases, in ascending order, were for high-purity quartz, industrial sand and gravel, lithium carbonate, bromine and boron. For the metal sector, production decreased for several mineral commodities and prices decreased for several metals due to oversupply. Lithium, manganese and nickel had some of the largest percentage decreases in production value.

May 1, 2026