Articles Posted in Mining

Published on:

by and

The Trump administration has unveiled the first 10 mining projects designated for accelerated federal permitting under Executive Order 14157, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, which prioritizes expedited permitting, federal land leasing, and funding of mining projects (discussed in our previous blogpost here). Published by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council), the list — including gold, silver, copper, lithium, coal, and potash ventures — prioritizes ventures critical to reducing U.S. reliance on foreign minerals and advancing national energy and economic security goals.

The Permitting Council identified high-value projects as “transparency projects” on the FAST-41 Federal Permitting Dashboard created under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Notable ventures include:

  • Stibnite Gold Project (Idaho): A proposed open-pit gold mine in central Idaho, aiming to mine gold, silver, and antimony.
Continue reading
Published on:

by and

Following President Trump’s March 20, 2025, Executive Order (“EO”) 14157, “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production” (discussed in our blogpost here), and recent recognition of valid existing rights to continue mining for gold and rare earth elements at the Colosseum Mine (see our blogpost here blog), the administration has now taken decisive steps to advance one of the nation’s most significant mining projects: the Resolution Copper Mine in Arizona. On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Forest Service announced its intent to issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Draft Record of Decision (Draft ROD) within 60 days for the contested land exchange critical for the project. This move underscores the administration’s commitment to leveraging federal authority to fast-track domestic mineral production, even as legal and tribal challenges loom.

The Resolution Copper project, a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP, aims to develop the largest copper mine in the U.S., estimated to yield 40 billion pounds of copper over its lifetime. The mine hinges on a land exchange transferring 2,422 acres of Tonto National Forest land (Oak Flat, or Chí’chil Biłdagoteel to the Apache) to Resolution Copper in exchange for private parcels. Copper, recently added to the critical minerals list under EO 14157, is essential for renewable energy infrastructure, defense systems, and consumer electronics.

The Forest Service’s notice follows years of litigation and delayed consultations under prior administrations. The project is involved in pre-existing tensions with the San Carlos Apache Tribe and environmental groups. The Supreme Court is currently considering a petition filed by Apache Stronghold, a tribal advocacy group, to halt the land transfer (Apache Stronghold v. United States, No. 24-291). The petition argues that the project violates tribal religious rights and federal preservation laws.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

This week, the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”) publicly confirmed the ongoing rights of Colosseum Rare Metals, Inc. (“CRM”) to continue mining operations at the Colosseum Mine, located within the Mojave National Preserve (“MOJA”) in San Bernardino County, California.  The Department’s communication reaffirms that CRM holds “valid existing rights” pursuant to the California Desert Protection Act (“CDPA”) to conduct mine operations under its existing plan of operations, approved by the Bureau of Land Management prior to enactment of the CDPA.  These rights include the right to explore for and extract rare earth elements in addition to gold.  [See DOI News Release and X announcement here]

DOI’s recognition of Colosseum’s mining rights furthers the goals of President Donald J. Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order “Unleashing American Energy” promoting domestic energy and resource independence, and March 20, 2025 Executive Order (“EO”) 14157, “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production,” spotlighting and bolstering domestic mining.  [See prior JMBM Blog on EO 14157 here]  In its recent news release, DOI underscored the importance of supporting domestic mining: “The resumption of mining at Colosseum Mine, America’s second rare earth elements mine, supports efforts to bolster America’s capacity to produce the critical materials needed to manufacture the technologies to power our future. For too long, the United States has depended on foreign adversaries like China for rare earth elements for technologies that are vital to our national security. By recognizing the mine’s continued right to extract and explore rare earth elements, Interior continues to support industries that boost the nation’s economy and protect national security.”

DOI proving EO Policies are more than just words

Continue reading
Published on:

by and

On the heels of President Trump’s January 20, 2025, Executive Order “Unleashing American Energy” promoting domestic energy and resource independence, he is promoting United States natural resources with Executive Order (“EO”) 14157, “Immediate Measure to Increase American Mineral Production,” issued March 20 to spotlight and bolster domestic mining. The President’s latest effort to prioritize mining, and in particular critical minerals, should come as no surprise. In a January 2025 speech, President Donald Trump framed his administration’s vision for domestic mineral production, particularly rare earth minerals, which are currently dominated by Chinese production: “We’re going to environmentally free up our rare earth minerals… We have some of the best rare earth anywhere in the world, but we’re not allowed to use it because the environmentalists got there first. They use the environment to stop progress, and we’re not going to let that happen.” [EO 14157 can be found here.]

Consistent with this vision, the March 20 EO seeks to accelerate domestic mining projects, reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, and streamline regulatory processes, including by expanding the scope of critical minerals to include gold, copper, uranium, and potash, while addressing critical bottlenecks in mine waste management. The order also permits the National Energy Dominance Council (“NEDC”), established by the President’s February 2025 Executive Order “Establishing the Energy Dominance Council“, to add other minerals to be within the scope of the order.

The EO focuses on three core mechanisms to boost domestic mineral production: (1) expedited permitting, (2) federal land leasing, and (3) funding and financing. The EO also notably addresses the uncertainty surrounding mining waste management under the Mining Act of 1872, particularly after the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Rosemont Decision”). Some key points under the EO, and potential implications, include the following:

Continue reading
Published on:

by

By Kerry Shapiro

On September 9, 2021, the House Environmental and Natural Resources (“ENR”) Committee finished its mark-up of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation budget measure. Inserted at the very end of the 117-page mark-up is Section 70807: Hardrock Mining, which is a quiet attempt to reform the Mining Law of 1872.

The ENR Committee’s change would, for the first time, impose fixed royalties on all locatable minerals mined on Federal land. Under the terms of the proposed legislation, minerals, mineral concentrates, or products derived from locatable minerals, would be subject to royalty fees at the following rates:

  • 8% for all new mining operations
  • 8% for all new federal land added by plan modification to existing mining operations
  • 4% for mining operations with an existing approved plan of operations, or who submitted a plan of operations prior to the effective date of the legislation

All royalty percentages would be calculated based on gross income derived from mining. Continue reading

Published on:

by

On December 9, 2020, the California Energy Commission (CEC) appointed nine members of the new Blue Ribbon Commission on Lithium Extraction in California (Lithium Valley Commission).  The appointments were made pursuant to Assembly Bill 1657 (Garcia, Chapter 271, 2020) (AB 1657), which was signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 29, 2020.

AB 1657 requires the CEC to establish the Lithium Valley Commission to review, investigate, and analyze issues and potential incentives regarding lithium extraction and use in California, and submit a report to the Legislature documenting its findings and recommendations, on or before October 1, 2022.  AB 1657 also authorizes the CEC to appoint nine of the 14 members of the Lithium Valley Commission.

The nine members appointed on December 9, 2020 include:

Continue reading
Published on:

by

By Kerry Shapiro

Last week, President Trump signed an executive order with potentially wide-ranging implications for the mining industry and many other affected stakeholders. The order directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to review national monuments, particularly those larger than 100,000 acres, that were designated since January 1, 1996, and to recommend if any of those designations should be modified, resized or rescinded.

The Bears Ears National Monument Controversy

Continue reading
Published on:

by

BLM releases maps showing 1.3 million acres of proposed mining withdrawal

On January 13, 2017, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) released maps showing the areas that BLM, on December 28, 2016, proposed to withdraw from mining. The withdrawal is designed to “protect nationally significant landscapes with outstanding cultural, biological, and scientific values” and is part of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (“DRECP”).

What does the proposed withdrawal do?

Continue reading
Published on:

by

California Mining Update

AB 1142 and SB 209: What operators need to know about SMARA modernization
Changes will be effective January 1, 2017

by
Kerry Shapiro


This article was first published in The Conveyor magazine, a publication of CalCIMA.

On April 18, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law two bills that together provide the most significant update to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) in 25 years.  Assembly Bill (AB) 1142 (Gray) and Senate Bill (SB) 209 (Pavley) are the outgrowth of more modest changes in recent years, and of a promise by the Governor, in 2013, to reform SMARA from “top to bottom.”  Although the bills are not effective until January 1, 2017, operators must be aware of their changes and start planning for their implementation.

Most important in the near term are changes to SMARA’s inspections process, financial assurance approval process, reclamation plan requirements, and inspector qualifications.

Inspections Process

Beginning in 2017, operators must request, on their annual reports, an inspection date within 12 months of their prior inspection.  For inspections conducted in 2016, the 12-month date will be triggered for 2017.

Financial Assurances

The annual inspection date is the starting point for wholly new annual financial assurance review and approval processes.  Note the plural—under AB 1142 and SB 209, SMARA will now have (1) a process for financial assurance cost estimates (FACEs) for new or amended reclamation plans and (2) another process for annual FACE updates.  Each process sets new steps and deadlines that are tied to the annual inspection date.  Moreover, each process provides the Department of Conservation (DOC) a new right to formally consult with lead agencies and operators during the FACE review process, and to give DOC a new right to appeal a lead agency’s approval of a FACE.  Annual financial assurance review was already a SMARA requirement, but the new legislation formalizes the review process to provide greater clarity and transparency.

Corporate self-bonding is now permitted for companies worth more than $35 million, subject to regulations which will be approved by the SMGB.  Multiple operations can combine their assets to pass the financial test, but self-bonding is limited to 75% of the value of an operator’s FACE(s). Continue reading

Published on:

by

California Mining Update

AB 1142 and SB 209: What lead agencies need to know about SMARA Modernization
Changes will be effective January 1, 2017

by
Kerry Shapiro

 

On April 18, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law two bills that together provide the most significant update to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) in 25 years.  Assembly Bill (AB) 1142 (Gray) and Senate Bill (SB) 209 (Pavley) are the outgrowth of more modest changes in recent years, and of a promise by the Governor, in 2013, to reform SMARA from “top to bottom.”  Although the bills are not effective until January 1, 2017, lead agencies and operators must be aware of their changes and start planning for their implementation.

Most important in the near term are changes to SMARA’s inspections process, financial assurance approval process, reclamation plan requirements, and inspector qualifications.

Inspections Process

Beginning in 2017, operators will request, on their annual reports, an inspection date within 12 months of their prior inspection. (For inspections conducted in 2016, the 12-month date will be triggered for 2017.)  Lead agencies may reschedule inspections, and will have 90 days — not 30 days — to file Notices of Completion with the Department of Conservation (DOC).  However, the additional time comes with a catch: lead agencies must use their Notices to describe any problems at operations and their plans for correcting them.

Financial Assurance Approval Process

The annual inspection date is the starting point for wholly new annual financial assurance review and approval processes.  Note the plural—under AB 1142 and SB 209, SMARA will now have (1) a process for financial assurance cost estimates (FACEs) for new or amended reclamation plans and (2) another process for annual FACE updates.  Each process sets new steps and deadlines, tied to the annual inspection date.  Both processes provide DOC a new right to formally consult with lead agencies and operators during the FACE review process, and also give DOC a new right to appeal a lead agency’s approval of a FACE.  Annual financial assurance review was already a SMARA requirement, but the new legislation formalizes the review process to provide greater clarity and transparency. Continue reading