Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-020-00372-w

The Critical Minerals Initiative of the US Geological Survey’s Mineral

Deposit Database Project: USMIN
Jeffrey L. Mauk 1 & Nicholas A. Karl 1 & Carma A. San Juan 1 & Liam Knudsen 1 & Germán Schmeda 2 &
Clayton Forbush 3 & Bradley S. Van Gosen 1 & Morgan Mullins 4 & Patrick Scott 5

Received: 22 July 2019 / Accepted: 14 December 2020 / Published online: 8 February 2021
# This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2021

Abstract
The objective of the US Geological Survey’s mineral deposit database project (USMIN) is to develop a comprehensive twenty-
first century geospatial database that is the authoritative source of the most important mines, mineral deposits, and mineral
districts of the US. Since May 2017, the project has focused on critical minerals. Data for critical minerals that are produced as
products are relatively robust, whereas data for critical minerals that may be recovered as byproducts are commonly of much
poorer quality. Similarly, more is known about critical minerals that occur in conventional deposits than where those critical
minerals occur in unconventional deposits. For example, rare earth elements occur principally in deposits hosted by alkaline
igneous rocks, but there is potential for their production from phosphate rock mining, which is less documented. Lithium (Li) has
been recovered from pegmatites and brines, but other Li-bearing deposit types have been delineated that may go into production.
Cobalt may be produced as a byproduct or coproduct from a wide range of mineral deposit types, whereas rhenium is a byproduct
of copper ore. Significant opportunities for research exist that could help identify new sources of critical minerals, and may also
help increase production and recovery from existing sources.

Keywords Critical minerals . Geodatabase . USGS . Lithium . Rare earth elements . Cobalt

1 Introduction The US Geological Survey’s (USGS) mineral deposit da-

tabase project (USMIN) is working to develop comprehensive
The rate of technological change is astonishing and accelerat- twenty-first century geospatial databases that are the most
ing. Smart phones, electric vehicles, advanced defense sys- authoritative source of important mines and mineral deposits
tems, green technology, and many other applications rely on in the US and its territories. The purpose of the databases is to
an essential array of elements and compounds that were al- (1) provide high-quality data to support land management
most unused three decades ago. The uneven geological and actions and policies, (2) deliver digital data for integration
geographical distribution of these elements and the orebodies with other data sources, and (3) supply digital data and meta-
that produce them, combined with estimates of the geopoliti- data at no cost on the USMIN website to promote national
cal stability of source countries, have led to the development security and prosperity (https://www.usgs.gov/USMIN). In
of critical minerals lists by different nations and organizations. addition, USMIN databases are available from ArcGIS
Online (Esri) by searching for “USMIN.”
Since May 2017, USMIN has focused on critical minerals
in the US, which aligns with Executive Order 13817 of
* Jeffrey L. Mauk December 20, 2017, and Secretarial Order 3359 of
jmauk@usgs.gov
December 21, 2017. The final list of 35 critical minerals for
the US includes aluminum (Al) (bauxite), antimony (Sb), ar-
1
US Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 973, Denver, CO 80225, senic (As), barite, beryllium (Be), bismuth (Bi), cesium (Cs),
USA
chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), fluorspar, gallium (Ga), germa-
2
Present address: Boulder, CO, USA nium (Ge), graphite (natural), hafnium (Hf), helium (He), in-
3
Present address: Boise, ID, USA dium (In), lithium (Li), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn),
4
Present address: Longmont, CO, USA niobium (Nb), platinum group metals (PGM), potash, the rare
5 earth elements (REE) group, rhenium (Re), rubidium (Rb),
Present address: Monson, ME, USA
776
scandium (Sc), strontium (Sr), tantalum (Ta), tellurium (Te),
tin (Sn), titanium (Ti), tungsten (W), uranium (U), vanadium
(V), and zirconium (Zr) [1]. As of December 2020, we have
published databases on eight of these critical minerals: Co,
Ge, Li, Re, REE, Sn, Te, and W. The USGS Professional
Paper 1802, “Critical mineral resources of the United
States—economic and environmental geology and prospects
for future supply,” provides comprehensive information on
many of these 35 critical minerals [2]. The USMIN work is
partially supported by the Bureau of Land Management, and
USMIN collaborates with state geological surveys and the
minerals industry.
This paper begins by describing the USMIN databases. We
then summarize significant deposits, as measured by produc-
tion and resources, for five critical minerals in the US: REEs,
W, Li, Re, and Co. We critically assess knowledge gaps that
impede our ability to evaluate and estimate supply chain risk
and possible new sources of materials. We conclude by delin-
eating important avenues for future research to more fully
assess the availability of mineral resources to meet the glob-
ally increasing needs for critical minerals.
2 The USMIN Mineral Deposit Databases
The USMIN project is developing two types of databases that
contain (1) mine-related symbols shown on USGS topograph-
ic maps, and (2) information on the most important mineral
deposits in the US, particularly critical minerals. This section
provides a brief description of the former, and a fuller descrip-
tion of the latter.
2.1 USMIN Mine Symbol Database
The locations of mine sites in the US have been shown on
USGS topographic maps since the inception of these maps in
1884. Over 125 years, the processes used to construct topo-
graphic maps and capture mine site locations evolved from
field surveying, to photogrammetry, to digital techniques [3].
In 2009, the USGS moved from traditional printed topograph-
ic maps to a digital topographic map product based on eight
data layers from The National Map [4]. Mine sites and
mining-related features formerly shown on paper topographic
maps are omitted from the newest generation of digital topo-
graphic maps. Because these mine features provide an invalu-
able landscape-scale record of mining activities in the US, in
2013, the USMIN project began heads-up digitizing to capture
prospect- and mine-related features from digital versions of
the historic USGS 7.5- and 15-min topographic quadrangle
maps of the US. In August 2016, the first version of this
ArcGIS database, which covered 16 contiguous western states
and western Texas, was released to the public. The database
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
was revised in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 to include addi-
tional states [5].
2.2 USMIN Mineral Deposit Databases
The USMIN mineral deposit databases contain information on
mineral regions (districts) and deposits in the US. This section
describes the structure and content of these databases, which
are built in ArcGIS.
The USMIN mineral deposit databases contain three fea-
ture classes and eight tables that contain data for mineral re-
gions, deposits, mines, and surface workings; some databases
also contain data for prospects, and showings. All feature
classes and tables have a field, Last Updated (Last_Updt),
which shows when each object was last updated. Database
tables are linked through relationship classes in ArcGIS. The
Site Identification (Site_ID) and Feature Identification
(Ftr_ID) are fields used to link database tables.
Data used to compile the database must be in the public
domain; unpublished reports, personal communication, etc.
are not considered. In all cases, the database shows the source
of information for populating individual fields; in many cases,
this includes the page number within the citation where the
original data reside. Where there are no data, values are stored
as <Null>.
Database structure has changed over time to improve how
data are presented. Some changes since the initial release of
the REE database in 2017 include reporting only current re-
source records rather than initial and current; ordering string
fields, such as a list of commodities, alphabetically; and track-
ing USGS authors’ calculations in quantitative tables.
2.2.1 Location Point Feature Class
The Location Point (Loc_Pt) feature class contains point lo-
cations of mines, mineral occurrences (including deposits),
and mineral regions. In the database, all features have a point
location, except for Surface Workings polygons, which are
described below.
The Site Identification (Site_ID) field provides linkages
between database tables except for the References and
Surface Workings tables, which stand alone. The Site
Identifications contain a two-letter prefix that is the state ab-
breviation, so databases can be readily sorted on a state-by-
state basis. The Feature Identification (Ftr_ID) is a unique,
alphanumeric identifier that has a two-letter prefix that de-
scribes the type of feature: Mine Feature (Mf), Mineral
Occurrence (Mo), or Mineral Region (Mr); these are spelled
out in the Feature Group (Ftr_Group) field.
The Feature Name (Ftr_Name) provides the name of each
feature; to enhance continuity and improve sorting, most
names start with the most recognizable name for the area, such
as “Butte, Continental Mine,” “Butte, Butte Deposit,” “Butte,
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
Berkeley Pit,” and “Butte District.” The long history of many
mines and mining districts has led to name changes through
time, and these are captured in the Other Name (Other_Name)
field. The Feature Type (Ftr_Type) field describes the type of
feature; examples include deposit, open pit mine, shaft mine,
and mining district. The Commodity field lists the commodi-
ties that were produced or occur at each site, such as Cu, Zn,
and sulfuric acid. These commodities are aggregated from all
tables that relate to each feature.
2.2.2 Location Polygon Feature Class
The Location Polygon (Loc_Poly) feature class contains poly-
gons of deposits and mineral regions. If a source report shows
a location as a polygon, the polygon is digitized, and the
approximate centroid of the polygon is added to the
Location Point feature class. Attribute information about the
location is provided in the Location Point feature class. Mines
are represented as points in the database, even if footprints are
presented in source reports. Where possible, the approximate
extent of the mining operation area, determined from imagery,
is presented in the Surface Workings feature class (see
Loc_Poly_Sw).
2.2.3 Location Surface Workings Polygon Feature Class
The Location Surface Workings Polygon (Loc_Poly_Sw) fea-
ture class contains the approximate area of mining-related
activity, or “surface workings” as visible on Esri imagery.
These polygonal outlines have no corresponding point loca-
tion in the database, nor do they have links to other tables or
feature classes because the nature of the visibly disturbed area,
and its relationship to mining, are unknown. The attribute
information for Surface Workings contains the date of the
imagery and basic location information, including state and
county names. Surface workings must be at least 300 m in one
dimension to be digitized, and multiple workings that are
150 m or less apart are combined into one outline. No attempt
is made to distinguish between the types of surface workings
(e.g., roads, pits, leach pads, waste piles, etc.), even when
presented in source reports. The Location Date (Loc_Date)
field provides the date of imagery, as reported in the Esri
World Imagery base layer.
2.2.4 Site Table
The Site table is used to identify related features, such as a
deposit and the mines operating at the site. For example, Butte
and Butte District are both sites. The Butte site could have
several features, such as Butte, Berkeley pit; Butte, Butte de-
posit; and Butte, Continental mine. The Butte District site has
a single feature that represents the district. Table and feature
relationships are maintained through the Site Identification.
777
The Commodity field shows all commodities in relat-
ed tables, and approximate coordinates (Approx_Lon;
Approx_Lat) provide a general location of the site.
The Site table also indicates what information about
each site occurs elsewhere in the database. For example,
if the Resources field in the Site table contains the
value “Yes,” resource information is available in the
Resources table.
2.2.5 Geology Table
The Geology (GeolMinOcc) table contains information
about the geology of mineral deposits and prospects.
Accordingly, this table only includes mineral occurrences
(Mo). Mine features (Mf) and mineral regions (Mr) do not
occur in this table.
Important fields in this table include Commodity
(Commodity), Valuable Material (Value_Mat), Associated
Material (Assoc_Mat), Mineralization Style (Min_Style),
Mineralization Age (Min_Age), Host Age (Host_Age), Host
Name (Host_Name), Host Lithology (Host_Litho), and
Alteration (Alteration). As elsewhere, the Commodity field
lists the commodities that were produced or have resource
records at each site, such as Cu, Zn, and sulfuric acid. The
Valuable Material field reports the minerals—such as chalco-
pyrite and sphalerite—that contain the commodities. The
Associated Material field shows gangue minerals—such as
quartz, sericite, and pyrite—that occur with the ore minerals
but are not valuable. The Mineralization Style field describes
how the valuable materials occur, such as porphyry, veins, and
disseminated.
The Mineralization Age and Host Age fields provide the
ages of the mineralization and host rocks, respectively. The
Host Name and Host Lithology fields provide the name and
lithology of the host rocks, respectively. The Alteration field
describes the alteration that occurs in the deposit.
The information in the Geology table is shown as stated in
the source report. For example, if one source report states the
valuable material is spodumene, and another reports lepido-
lite, the Valuable Material field will contain both minerals.
The value in the Reference Identifier field is the primary
source report for the record, for example, “Kesler (1976)”
[6]. All information in the record comes from the primary
source report unless an attribute field value contains a number
in parentheses. If a record value is followed by a number in
parentheses, the Reference Identifier is given in the Remarks
field. Full citations for source reports are provided in the
References table.
2.2.6 Deposit Model Table
The Deposit Model (Dep_Model) table contains mineral
deposit model and geoenvironmental model
778
classifications for a deposit. The Deposit Model Number
Name DpMd_NoNm) field identifies the deposit model
by number and name, or only by name. If a number
appears in the identifier value, the feature has been
classified using a USGS deposit model [e.g., 7]. If there
is no number, the deposit model has been named based
on the literature or unnumbered USGS deposit models.
The Geoenvironmental Name (GEM_Name) field relates
to specific USGS deposit models in du Bray (1995) [8].
Because this table has both mineral deposit models and
geoenvironmental models, there are two reference identifiers
for this table: Deposit Model Number Name Reference
Identifier (DpMd_RefID) and Geoenvironmental Name
Reference Identifier (GEM_Ref_ID).
2.2.7 Resources Table
The Resources table contains reported resource and reserve
information for mineral deposits. Current resource data are
reported by resource classification for each commodity.
Resource values are recorded as shown in source reports, in-
cluding year reported, resource amount, units, and classifica-
tion system(s). If resources or reserves are reported for a group
of features rather than an individual deposit, the Feature
Identification will show “-1111” and the resource or reserve
is assigned to the “site” or Site Identification field that groups
those deposits in the Site table. This is common for mining
districts, where data may be combined from several locations
within a district.
Resources extracted from older sources might not be com-
pliant with current rules and guidelines in minerals industry
standards, such as National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) or
the Joint Ore Reserves Committee Code (JORC Code). The
definition of terms—such as inferred, proven, and probable—
that are used in various resource classification systems may
change through time. Inclusion of material in the database is
for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement
by the US Government.
The Material field reports material as listed in the source
literature. In many cases, the material is an element, such as
Cu, Mo, Re, or Ag. In other cases, the material reported by the
source is a compound, such as tungsten trioxide.
The Resource Date (Rsrc_Date) field provides the effective
date of resource estimates where available; otherwise, the date
of the source report is reported. For example, if there is a
resource reported in 1950 and that is the only record, it is
considered to be the current resource.
The Material Type (Mat_Type) field shows the re-
source material, such as ore, commodity, or brine. The
Material Amount (Mat_Amnt) field provides the amount
of Material using units listed in the Material Units
(Mat_Units) field. Units are reported as in the source
reference, and may include tons, tonnes, metric tonnes,
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
short tons, pounds, cubic meters, etc. Numbers that start
with a negative sign (−) indicate values that apply to
multiple records. For example, if a deposit has 1,000,000 tons
of ore with reported grades for tungsten, tin, and fluorite, the
Material Amount field would show −1,000,000 for each of
these commodities, and each commodity would have a sepa-
rate record.
The Grade (Grade) and Cutoff Grade (CutOffGrad) fields
provide grades and cutoff grades using units in the Grade
Unit (Grade_Unit) and Cutoff Unit (CutOffUnit) fields. The
Contained field shows the amount of the commodity in the
ore, and the Contained Units (Cont_Units) shows the units
for that value.
Grade and tonnage are used to calculate contained
resource, but many sources report only two of these
values. In those cases, USGS authors calculate the third
value, and add a decimal trailer of “111” to show that
the value was calculated. For example, if tonnage and
contained resource are provided, and the USGS authors
calculate the missing grade to be 0.05%, the value re-
corded in the database is 0.05111. Where a range in
values is provided for attribute fields such as Material
Amount, Grade, and Contained, the average of the
range is reported within the field and the range of
values is noted within the Remarks field.
For consistency, resource values are reported using the
International System of Units (SI units) in the following fields:
Material Amount SI (MatAmntSI), Material Units SI
(MatUnitsSI), Grade SI (GradeSI), Grade Unit SI
(GradUnitSI), Cutoff Grade SI (COG_SI), Cutoff Units SI
(COU_SI), Contained SI Commodity Amount
(CntSIComAm), Contained SI Commodity Unit
(CntSIComUt), and Contained SI Commodity (CntSICom).
If other units, such as US customary units, are used in the
source reports, SI unit values are calculated by USGS authors.
Together, the Contained SI Commodity Amount, Contained SI
Commodity Unit, and Contained SI Commodity fields show
the contained amount of a commodity, such as Li or Cu, in a
deposit’s resource. The consistency provided by these fields
allows direct comparison of different deposits, regardless of
the units reported in the original sources.
The Resource Classification (Rsrc_Class) field indi-
cates how the resource or reserve was classified in the
source report, such as proven, probable, or inferred. The
Resource Description (Rsrc_Descr) field shows how the
resource or reserve was reported in the source report, such
as resource, reserve, or ore reserve. If the resource is
compliant with current rules and guidelines in minerals
industry standards, the Resource Code (Rsrc_Code) field
shows the standard, such as JORC (the Australasian Code
for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources
and Ore Reserves), SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission) for filings such as 10-K annual reports,
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797 779

and CIM (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and
Petroleum) for National Instrument 43–101 reports.
2.2.8 Production Table
The Production table contains published production data for
mines, and most of the fields are the same as those in the
Resources table. Only mine features (Mf) or mineral regions
(Mr) can have production records. Production is listed by
commodity and reported as shown in the source reports. If
production is reported annually, production is totaled by the
USGS authors for the time defined by the Year From
(Year_From) and Year To (Year_To) values. If production
is reported for a group of features, the Feature Identification
will show “-1111” and the production is assigned to the “site”
or Site Identification field that groups those mines in the Site
table. As above, a value ending with “111” as a decimal trailer
indicates the value was calculated by USGS authors. Where a
range in values is provided for attribute fields such as Material
Amount, Grade, Contained, etc., the average of the range is
reported within the field and the range of values are noted
within the Remarks field. For consistency, production values
are converted to SI units by the USGS authors.
2.2.9 History Table
The History table contains information on the status of a mine,
prospect, deposit, or mineral region through time. Values in
the Status field indicate a type of activity—such as discovery,
active years, evaluations, or when a mine became inactive—
for the time stated in the Year From and Year To fields. This
information may not reflect the current status of a feature. For
example, if the attribute record shows the status of a mine is
“Active” and the Year From and Year To dates are 1925 and
1951 respectively, the mine was active from 1925 to 1951; it is
not known whether the mine is still active. The Status Detail
(StatDetail) field provides a summary of the history, as
paraphrased by the USGS authors, based on the cited source.
2.2.10 Description Summary Table
The Description Summary (Descr_Sum) table shows data that
do not fit into the data structure of other tables. These records
show the type of description, such as Geology, History,
Production, and Resources. The authors do not paraphrase
or combine descriptions, and therefore, when a database fea-
ture is described in multiple reports, the feature has multiple
entries.

120°W 110°W 100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W

REE deposits with > 24,000 metric tons REEs

Burgdorf-Warren Diamond Creek
Lemhi Pass Mineville
Long Valley
40°N
Bear Lodge

Iron Hill Wet Mountains

Pea Ridge
Hicks Dome
Mountain Pass
La Paz
30°N

Round Top

180°W 160°W 140°W

70°N
500

Kilometers
Metric tons rare earths
24,000 - 50,000
50,001 - 100,000
500 60°N
100,001 - 500,000 20°N

Kilometers 500,001 - 2,000,000

Bokan Mountain >2,000,000

Fig. 1 Location of REE deposits in the US that contain more than 24,000 metric tons REE in resources or reserves, or both. Data derived from [13]
 780

Table 1 Table showing endowment of REE deposits in the US that contain more than 24,000 metric tons REE in resources or reserves, or both. Data derived from [13]. Abbreviations: CIM Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, HREE heavy rare-earth elements, LREE light rare-earth elements, REE rare-earth
elements, REO rare-earth oxide, and TREO total rare-earth oxide

State Name Resource Metric Commodity Resource classification Description Code Deposit type Remarks
date tons

Colorado Iron Hill Carbonatite 12,210,000 TREO Carbonatite

Complex - total
Iron Hill Carbonatite 1979 9,610,000 TREO Probable Potential Resource Using a grade of 0.40%
Complex, Iron Hill Carbonatite TREO
Iron Hill Carbonatite 1979 2,600,000 TREO Unclassified Reserve Using a grade of 0.40%
Complex, Iron Hill Carbonatite TREO
California Mountain Pass - total 4,196,000 TREO+REO Carbonatite
Mountain Pass, Mountain 1952 614,000 REO Production Production n/a Production values calculated
Pass Mine from various sources
Mountain Pass, 2012 1,720,000 TREO Measured plus Indicated Resource CIM
Sulphide Queen Body
Mountain Pass, 2012 1,330,000 TREO Proven plus Probable Reserve CIM
Sulphide Queen Body
Mountain Pass, 2012 532,000 TREO Inferred Resource CIM
Sulphide Queen Body
Wyoming Bear Lodge - total 1,141,000 TREO Carbonatite
Bear Lodge 2014 746,000 TREO Inferred Resource CIM Inferred resources are
exclusive of reserves
Bear Lodge 2014 395,000 TREO Proven plus Probable Reserve CIM
Texas Round Top - total 520,000 TREO Resource CIM Peralkaline intrusion
Round Top, Round Top Deposit 2013 304,000 TREO Measured plus Indicated Resource CIM
Round Top, Round Top Deposit 2013 216,000 TREO Inferred Resource CIM
Idaho Lemhi Pass District 1979 368,000 TREO Indicated plus Inferred Reserve Veins
Idaho Long Valley Monazite 211,100 TREO Resource and Placer
Placer District - total Reserve
Long Valley Monazite Placer 1980 136,000 TREO Probable Potential Resource
District
Long Valley Monazite Placer 1980 75,100 TREO Unclassified Reserve
District
Colorado Wet Mountains Area - total 169,470 TREO+LREE+ Veins In veins and fracture zones
HREE
Wet Mountains Area 1988 65,600 LREE Probable Potential Resource
Wet Mountains Area 1988 44,300 HREE Probable Potential Resource
Wet Mountains Area 1988 26,600 LREE Unclassified Reserve
Wet Mountains Area 1988 17,700 HREE Unclassified Reserve
Wet Mountains Area 1988 13,000 TREO Probable Potential Resource
Wet Mountains Area 1988 2,270 TREO Unclassified Reserve
Alaska Bokan Mountain-Total 120,497 TREO+REO+REE REE-Th bearing
veins
Bokan Mountain, Cheri 2010 14,200 REO Indicated Resource
Bokan Mountain, Cheri 2010 1,920 REO Inferred Resource
Bokan Mountain, Cheri 2010 186 REO Inferred Resource
Bokan Mountain, Dotson; 2011 34,500 TREO Inferred Resource Resources consist of the
Bokan Mountain, I&L Zone Doston and I&L Zones,
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797

using a cut-off of 0.4%

TREO
Table 1 (continued)

State Name Resource Metric Commodity Resource classification Description Code Deposit type Remarks
date tons

Bokan Mountain, Geiger 2010 27,600 REO Indicated Resource

Bokan Mountain, Geiger 2010 19,500 REO Indicated Resource
Bokan Mountain, Geiger 2010 10,200 REO Inferred Resource
Bokan Mountain, Geiger 2010 4,690 REO Inferred Resource
Bokan Mountain, Geiger 2010 3,520 REO Indicated Resource
Bokan Mountain, I,L,and M 1989 1,250 REE Inferred Resource
Bokan Mountain, Upper Cheri 2010 1,790 REO Indicated Resource
Bokan Mountain, Ross-Adams 2010 1,060 REO Inferred Resource
Bokan Mountain, Sunday Lake 2010 81 REO Indicated Resource
Zone
Missouri Pea Ridge - total 104,500 REO+REE Iron oxide apatite
Pea Ridge 1990 72,000 REO Unclassified Reserve Estimated resource contained
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797

in the breccia pipes

Pea Ridge 1988 32,500 REE Probable Reserve Probable reserves for pipes
X11 and X13
New Mineville District 1980 94,400 TREO Unclassified Unclassified Iron oxide apatite In dumps
York
Idaho Diamond Creek District-total 71,100 TREO Veins
Diamond Creek District 1979 68,500 TREO Probable Potential Resource
Diamond Creek District 1979 2,600 TREO Unclassified Reserve
Illinois Hicks Dome, Hicks Dome Deposit 1978 61,700 REO Economically Resource Sedimentary breccia R1E resource
Exploitable above alkaline
intrusive complex
Arizona La Paz, La Paz Deposit-total 47,390 REE CIM Unclassified Resource estimate includes
Tc and Lower Plate
La Paz, La Paz Deposit 2011 41,400 REE Inferred Resource CIM
La Paz, La Paz Deposit 2011 5,990 REE Indicated Resource CIM
Idaho Burgdorf-Warren Monazite 1980 24,900 TREO Unclassified Reserve Placer
Placer District
781
782
2.2.11 References Table
The References table contains the citations of the maps and
reports from which all data for all tables or feature classes
were obtained. This table provides a detailed Reference
(Reference), and also assigns a short reference identifier
(Ref_ID) that is used throughout the database.
3 Five Examples of Critical Minerals
This section describes the largest deposits in the US of REEs,
W, Li, Re, and Co that have been published as part of the
USGS mineral deposit database. Together, these commodities
exemplify many of the characteristics of critical minerals. We
consider deposits in the US and its territories with past pro-
duction or resources that exceed specific cutoff values, so as to
consider only deposits that might be significant in a global
economy.
3.1 Rare Earth Elements
The US was the world’s largest REE-producing country from
the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, due to production from the
Mountain Pass mine in California. In the late 1980s, China
began mining REE deposits and quickly gained control of
global REE production, providing 95% of the global market
of processed REE by 2011. In 2019, the US had a net import
reliance as a percentage of apparent consumption of 100% for
REEs [9].
The REEs are an excellent example of a critical mineral
resource. In the twenty-first century, REEs have gained visi-
bility due to (1) the recognition of the essential, specialized
properties that REEs contribute to military applications, high-
technology consumer products such as smartphones and lap-
tops, and green technology such as wind turbines, as well as
(2) dependence on China for 85–95% of the world’s REE
supply [10, 11].
There are more than 240 REE minerals, but most REEs are
recovered from only three minerals and mineral groups: mon-
azite ((Ce,La)PO4); xenotime (YPO4); and members of the
bastnäsite group, such as bastnäsite (REE(CO3)F). In addition,
apatite (Ca5(PO4)3(F,Cl,OH)) is a potential source of REEs
because it can contain a substantial amount of REEs in its
crystal structure [12].
The only active mine in the US that is producing REEs is
Mountain Pass, California, and final processing of ore from
that deposit is completed in China. The most recent USMIN
database on REEs contains approximately 200 mineral dis-
tricts, mines, and mineral occurrences, but to simplify presen-
tation herein, we present only data on the largest 15 deposits,
which are those that contain more than 24,000 metric tons of
total rare-earth oxides (REO; Fig. 1; Table 1) [13]. This cutoff
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
value allows us to focus on the largest deposits, which show a
range of geological attributes and styles of mineralization. The
deposits with the largest REE endowments in the US are the
carbonatites at Iron Hill, Colorado; Mountain Pass, California;
and Bear Lodge, Wyoming (Fig. 1; Table 1) [13]. Proven and
probable reserves at Mountain Pass include 18.4 million met-
ric tons of carbonatite ore at an average grade of 7.98% REO
using a cutoff grade of 5% REO [14]. The resource at Iron
Hill, though large, contains only 0.40% total REO, which is an
order of magnitude less than the 5% REO cutoff grade at
Mountain Pass. However, Iron Hill appears to host the largest
hard-rock titanium resources in the US, and the second largest
niobium resources in the US, although neither has been devel-
oped [15]. The possibility of more limited areas within Iron
Hill with higher grade resources has not been adequately test-
ed, and it may be that, at some point in the future, the deposit
becomes economic as a source of several critical elements
[16]. The Bear Lodge carbonatite complex contains proven
plus probable reserves of 14.2 million metric tons of ore av-
eraging 2.78% total REO [17].
The Round Top deposit in Texas occurs in a peralkaline
intrusion. The substantial tonnage of the deposit—1.6 billion
metric tons—means that the contained resources are large
(Fig. 1; Table 1). The deposit has a very consistent grade, is
enriched in heavy REEs, and may be amenable to heap
leaching that might also recover byproduct Be, Li, and U
[18, 19]. However, the cutoff grade used to estimate resources
was 0.0428% Y equivalent [20], which is two orders of mag-
nitude less than the cutoff grade at Mountain Pass.
Many of the remaining largest REE deposits in the US
consist of vein deposits, such as those at Lemhi Pass in
Idaho and Montana, the Wet Mountains area of Colorado,
Bokan Mountain in Alaska, and the Diamond Creek district
of Idaho (Fig. 1; Table 1) [16, 21–23]. Placer deposits in
Idaho, such as the Long Valley and the Burgdorf-Warren dis-
tricts, also contain large resources (Fig. 1; Table 1) [24]. These
placer deposits are particularly intriguing because the source
rocks for the monazite in these deposits have not been identi-
fied. Further research or exploration might identify the source
rocks, which may contain relatively high-grade mineralization
in a limited area. Two iron oxide apatite deposits—Pea Ridge,
Missouri, and the Mineville District in New York—also have
large REE endowments (Fig. 1; Table 1) [23, 25]. The Hicks
Dome deposit in Illinois and the La Paz deposit in Arizona
also have potentially large resources (Fig. 1; Table 1) [23].
Clay deposits in southern China that formed from weathered
granites are the predominant global source of heavy REEs
[e.g., 26, and references therein]. The US contains REE-
bearing clay minerals that overlie weathered granites in the
southeastern US, but, at this time, there are no listed resources
for those occurrences [27].
In addition to these conventional resources, every year ap-
proximately 56,000 metric tons of REEs are mined,
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
beneficiated, and put into solution, but not recovered, by op-
erations associated with the global phosphate fertilizer indus-
try [28, 29]. These REEs occur in the phosphate minerals that
are dissolved to make fertilizer. Rare earth elements also occur
in other minerals that are not dissolved during the fertilizer
manufacturing process, and these minerals report to waste.
Metallurgical trials are currently underway to attempt to re-
cover REEs from the 2,000,000,000 metric tons of waste ma-
terial from phosphate mining operations in Florida, which
contains approximately 600,000 metric tons of REEs [30].
Similarly, coal-fired power plants produce ash that is
enriched in REE and other critical minerals [31–33]. Some
coal ash contains 0.1 to 1.5% REE + Y, which can exceed
the concentration of REEs in conventional deposits, so there
is considerable focus on the potential to recover REEs from
coal ash [34–37].
3.2 Tungsten
Tungsten (W) deposits have been mined in the US since the
late nineteenth century, but there has been little production of
W from mines in the US since price crashes in the 1980s.
Tungsten is necessary for strategic, consumer, and commer-
cial applications. Due to its strength, hardness, and high melt-
ing and boiling points, W is used in wear-resistant applica-
tions, specialty steel and alloys, and electrical and chemical
products. In 2019, the US had a net import reliance as a per-
centage of apparent consumption of more than 50% for W,
and W is now considered a critical mineral [9, 38].
Tungsten is invaluable for strengthening steel. During
World War I and World War II, there were W shortages due
to its demand for manufacturing armaments. As a conse-
quence, there are thousands of former mines in the US that
produced very small amounts of W—as little as 10 kg—that
would not be economic in a global twenty-first century econ-
omy. Therefore, the USMIN W data release included only the
largest 10% of deposits in the US, which are those with greater
than or equal to 215 metric tons of W metal [39]. These de-
posits occur in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Utah,
and Washington. We show the location of those deposits here-
in, and we tabulate the grade and tonnage values of the de-
posits that contain more than 10,000 metric tons of W metal
(Fig. 2; Table 2). There are many smaller W deposits and
prospects throughout the US in Connecticut, Maine,
Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, and Wyoming [40].
Tungsten most commonly occurs in the minerals scheelite
(CaWO4), ferberite (FeWO4), and hübnerite (MnWO4). Most
W ore is recovered from skarn, vein, and porphyry deposits
[41].
Tungsten nicely illustrates the benefits of reporting com-
modities by SI units for comparative purposes. Most W prices
783
and many W statistics are quoted in units of tungsten trioxide
(WO3). The short ton unit, which is used in the US, contains
20 pounds of WO3 and 7.19 kg of W. The metric ton unit,
which is used in most other countries, contains 10 kg of WO3
and 7.93 kg of W. Calculating all production and resources to
a common value, such as contained metric tons of W, allows
direct comparison of the endowment of different W deposits.
In the US, the largest resource of W (238,130 metric
tons W) occurs in the W-bearing veins of the Andrew
Curtis deposit in California (Fig. 2; Table 2). The vast
majority of this large reserve is in the inferred category,
and production from the deposit appears to have been
quite limited, so the resource should be viewed with cau-
tion. Porphyry Cu-Mo and porphyry Mo deposits at
CuMo, Idaho; Climax, Colorado; and Margerie Glacier,
Alaska have significant resources, and Climax has con-
tributed substantially to US W production. The largest
recorded domestic production of W is from skarn at the
Pine Creek deposit in California; other skarn deposits
with significant resources include Victorio, New
Mexico; Pilot Mountain, Nevada; Monte Cristo, Nevada;
Mill City, Nevada; and Brown’s Lake, Montana (Fig. 2;
Table 2). The tin greisen deposit at Sleitat Mountain,
Alaska, also has a significant W resource. Together, these
types of deposits—veins, porphyry, skarn, and greisen—
are consistent with the most significant W producers glob-
ally [41]. Skarn deposits typically have higher W grades
than porphyry deposits, although the two may have sim-
ilar total W endowments due to the greater tonnages of
porphyry deposits (Fig. 2).
Brine that underlies the Searles Lake borax deposit in
California contains 61,000 metric tons of W, making it one
of the largest W resources in the US. Work by the US Bureau
of Mines demonstrated that this W could be recovered from
the brine [42], but so far, W has not been produced from this
deposit. The large endowment of W in this brine, which at one
time formed nearly 50% of the US W reserves, has never been
adequately explained. There is clearly an opportunity for re-
search here, and in other brines elsewhere, to determine what
factors control W enrichment in brines, and whether other
large W brine deposits occur elsewhere.
3.3 Lithium
In the US, Li was first mined from pegmatites in South Dakota
in the late 1800s. In 2020, the only deposit in the US that is
producing Li is the Clayton Valley brine deposit in Nevada.
Because the US is not a significant producer of Li, it is pri-
marily imported to the US from Chile and Argentina. In 2019,
the US imported more than 25% of its Li, and Li is considered
to be a critical mineral [9, 38].
Lithium is necessary for strategic, consumer, and commer-
cial applications. The primary uses for Li are in batteries,
784 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797

120°W 110°W 100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W

a

W deposits with > 215 metric tons W

CuMo

Indian Springs 40°N

Springer

Mt. Hamilton
Pine Creek
Pilot Mountain
Climax
Searles Lake
Tungsten Queen

Andrew Curtis

30°N
Victorio

500
180°W 160°W 70°N
140°W
Metric tons W Kilometers

215 - 5,000
5,001 - 15,000

500 15,001 - 50,000

60°N
50,001 - 150,000 20°N
Kilometers
Margerie Glacier
>150,000

1.0

b
Springer
Pine Creek
Brown's Lake
Mt. Hamilton Andrew Curtis
Pilot Mountain

Indian Springs 1,0

00
0.1 ,00
0m
Grade in weight % W

Victorio etr
ic
ton
Sleitat Mountain s

Climax

Deposit Type 10
0,0
0.01 Margerie Glacier 00
Climax Mo me
tric
Porphyry Cu-Mo ton
10 Searles Lake s
Porphyry Cu ,00
Lode and placer scheelite deposits 0m CuMo
etr
Brine ic
ton
Skarn s
Sn Greisen
0.001
106 107 108 109 1010
Tonnage in metric tons
Fig. 2 a Location of W deposits in the US that contain at least 215 metric tons of W in resources or reserves, or both. b Grade-tonnage plot showing W
deposits in the US that contain at least 215 metric tons of W in resources or reserves, or both. Data derived from [39]

ceramics, glass, metallurgy, pharmaceuticals, and polymers. apparent decline of 19% between 2018 and 2019 [9, 43, 44].
Increased demand for Li in batteries fueled global Li production The commodity is traded in three primary forms: mineral con-
to increase by 82% from 2016 to 2017, and then to increase by centrates, mineral compounds (from brines), and refined metal
another 38% from 2017 to 2018, before experiencing an (electrolysis from lithium chloride). Lithium occurs in a variety
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797 785

Table 2 Table showing endowment of W deposits in the US that Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral
contain at least 10,000 metric tons of W in resources or reserves, or Resources and Mineral Reserves, JORC the Australasian Code for
both. Data derived from [39]. Abbreviations: CIM Canadian Institute of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves

State Name Resource Metric Resource Description Code Deposit type Remarks
date tons W classification

California Andrew Curtis - total 238,130 Lode and placer

scheelite
Andrew Curtis 1982 215,000 Inferred Reserve
Andrew Curtis 1982 17,100 Indicated Reserve
Andrew Curtis 1982 6,030 Measured Reserve
Idaho CuMo - total 187,430 Porphyry Cu-Mo
CuMo 2015 98,250 Inferred Resource CIM
CuMo 2015 89,180 Measured plus Resource CIM
Indicated
Colorado Climax - total 105,968 Climax Mo
Climax 1982 90,000 Unclassified Resource
Climax Mine 15,968 Production Production n/a Production from
1911 through 1995
New Mexico Victorio - total 100,000 Skarn
Victorio 2012 50,000 Inferred Resource CIM
Victorio 2012 30,000 Indicated Resource CIM
Victorio 2012 20,000 Measured Resource CIM
California Pine Creek - total 65,493 Skarn
Pine Creek Mine 60,093 Production Production n/a Production from
1918 through 1990
Pine Creek 1998 5,400 Unclassified Reserve
California Searles Lake 1959 61,000 Unclassified Reserve Brine
Nevada Pilot Mountain - total 26,106 Skarn
Pilot Mountain, Desert 2017 20,700 Indicated plus Resource JORC
Scheelite Deposit Inferred
Pilot Mountain, Garnet 2017 5,230 Inferred Resource JORC
Deposit
Pilot Mountain, Gunmetal, 176 Production Production n/a Production from
Garnet, and Dessert 1925 through 1957
Scheelite Mine
Nevada Indian Springs - total 23,022 Skarn
Indian Springs 2007 13,000 Indicated Resource CIM
Indian Springs 2007 10,000 Inferred Resource CIM
Indian Springs 22 Production Production n/a Production from
1970 through 1975
Nevada Springer - total 21,222 Skarn
Springer Mine 13,000 Production Production n/a Production from
1917 through 1958
Springer, Sutton Deposit 2013 6,707 Indicated plus Resource CIM
Inferred
Springer, O'Byrne Deposit 2013 1,077 Inferred Resource CIM
Springer, George Deposit 2013 437 Inferred Resource CIM
Nevada Mt. Hamilton 1978 17,000 Unclassified Reserve Skarn
Alaska Margerie Glacier 1991 15,000 Inferred Resource Lode and placer
scheelite
Montana Brown's Lake - total 12,600 Skarn
Brown's Lake 1991 11,000 Unclassified Reserve
Brown's Lake Mine 1991 1,600 Unclassified Production n/a
Alaska Sleitat Mountain 1991 10,378 Inferred Resource Sn Greisen
786 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797

120°W 110°W 100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W

Li deposits with > 15,000 metric tons Li a

Plumbago North

Kings Valley 40°N

Great Salt Lake

Clayton Valley
Bonnie Claire

Kings Mountain

Salton Sea Smackover Formation

30°N

Metric tons Li
15,000 - 50,000
50,001 - 100,000
100,001 - 500,000
500 500,001 - 1,000,000
Kilometers >1,000,000

20°N

10
Deposit Type b
Brine

Plumbago North Pegmatite

Piedmont Clay
1
Bessemer City Evaporite
Kings Mountain
Grade in weight % Li

Kings Valley

Rhyolite Ridge
Bonnie Claire
0.1
Clayton Valley-Zeus Clayton Valley-Cypress
10
Fort Cady
,00
0,0
Clayton Valley brine operation 00
me
Salton Sea tric
Smackover-Lanxess
ton
Smackover-Tetra s
0.01 Clayton Valley South
1,0
00
Searles Lake 10 ,00
10 0,0 Great Salt Lake 0m
,00 00 etr
0m me ic t
etr tric on
ic t ton s
on s
s
0.001
107 108 109 1010 1011
Tonnage in metric tons
Fig. 3 a Location of Li in deposits in the US that contain more than 15,000 metric tons Li in resources or reserves, or both. b Grade-tonnage plot showing
Li deposits in the US that contain more than 15,000 metric tons of Li in resources or reserves, or both. Data derived from [47]
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797 787

Table 3 Table showing endowment of Li in deposits in the US that Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral
contain more than 80,000 metric tons Li in resources or reserves, or both. Resources and Mineral Reserves, JORC the Australasian Code for
Data derived from [47]. Abbreviations: CIM Canadian Institute of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves

State Name Resource Metric Resource Description Code Deposit type Remarks
date tons Li classification

Nevada Bonnie Claire, 2018 5,370,000 Inferred Resource CIM Evaporites

Bonnie Claire
deposit
Nevada Clayton 1,684,000 Lithium-bearing clay
Valley-Cypress -
total
Clayton 2018 963,000 Inferred Resource CIM
Valley-Cypress,
Clayton
Valley-Cypress
deposit
Clayton 2018 721,000 Indicated Resource CIM
Valley-Cypress,
Clayton
Valley-Cypress
deposit
Nevada Kings Valley - total 1,401,300 Lithium-bearing clay
Kings Valley, 2018 589,000 Proven plus Reserve-Inclusive CIM
Thacker Pass Probable
Kings Valley, 2018 432,300 Inferred Resources CIM
Thacker Pass exclusive of
Reserves
Kings Valley, Stage 2 2010 260,000 Indicated Resource CIM
Lens
Kings Valley, Stage 2 2010 120,000 Inferred Resource CIM
Lens
Nevada Rhyolite Ridge, 2018 800,000 Indicated plus Mineral Resource JORC Resource values are only
South Basin Inferred reported for the oxides
of this deposit
Arkansas Smackover-Lanxess - 581,000 Lithium-enriched oilfield
total brine
Smackover-Lanxess, 2018 303,000 Inferred Resource CIM
West Unit
Smackover-Lanxess, 2018 164,000 Inferred Resource CIM
Central Unit
Smackover-Lanxess, 2018 114,000 Inferred Resource CIM
South Unit
Utah Great Salt Lake - total 1976 526,000 Closed-basin brine
Great Salt Lake, 1976 312,000 Unclassified Resource
South Arm
Great Salt Lake, 1976 214,000 Unclassified Resource
North Arm
California Salton Sea, Salton 2011 316,000 Unclassified In-situ Mineral Geothermal brine
Sea brine Resource
Maine Plumbago North 2020 217,000 Unclassified Resource Lithium-cesium-tantalum
pegmatite
North Bessemer City, 1986 158,000 Demonstrated In-situ Mineral Lithium-cesium-tantalum
Carolina Bessemer City Resource pegmatite
deposit
Arkansas Smackover-Tetra - 151,000 Lithium-cesium-tantalum
total pegmatite
Smackover-Tetra, 2019 96,000 Inferred Resource CIM
South Resource
Area
Smackover-Tetra, 2019 55,000 Inferred Resource CIM
North Resource
Area
North Kings Mountain, 1986 150,000 Proven plus Reserve Lithium-cesium-tantalum
Carolina Foote deposit Probable pegmatite
Nevada Clayton Valley brine 1986 117,735 Closed-basin brine
operation - total
788
Table 3 (continued)
State Name Resource Metric Resource
date tons Li classification
Clayton Valley brine 1986 72,000 Demonstrated In-situ Mineral
operation, Clayton
Valley brine
deposit
Clayton Valley brine 2017 45,735 Production
operation, Silver
Peak mine
North Piedmont - total 2018 84,000
Carolina Piedmont, Core 2018 45,000 Indicated
deposit
Piedmont, Core 2018 39,000 Inferred
deposit
of pegmatite minerals, such as amblygonite (LiAl(PO4)F), le-
pidolite (K(Li,Al,Rb)2(Al,Si)4O10(F,OH)2), and spodumene
(LiAlSi2O6), and in the clay mineral hectorite
(Na0.3(Mg,Li)3Si4O10(F,OH)2·nH2O) [45, 46].
To restrict the USMIN Li data release to significant de-
posits, we included only the deposits in the US with more than
15,000 metric tons Li [47], which is similar to the 10,000 to
18,000 metric tons Li that was used as cutoff values for peg-
matite and brine deposits by Kesler et al. [45, 47]. Past pro-
duction of more than 15,000 metric tons Li in the US has come
from pegmatite deposits of the Kings Mountain belt in North
Carolina, and from the Clayton Valley brine deposit in
Nevada (Fig. 3; Table 3). Past and current production in the
US mimics global production, where pegmatites and brines
are the predominant sources of Li [45]. The US has other
resources that have not produced Li, but contain more than
15,000 metric tons Li, including oilfield brines of the
Smackover Formation in Arkansas (Smackover-Lanxess),
closed-basin brines in Nevada and California, Li-rich clay
minerals such as those at Kings Valley in the McDermitt cal-
dera in Nevada, evaporites in the Bonnie Claire deposit in
Nevada, and the Great Salt Lake in Utah (Fig. 3; Table 3)
[46, 47]. In addition, geothermal fields, such as those in the
Salton Sea area of California, may produce Li in the future
from geothermal brines. The large Li endowments of uncon-
ventional deposits with Li-rich clay minerals—such as Kings
Valley and Clayton Valley-Cyprus—indicate that those de-
posits, if successfully mined, could make very substantial con-
tributions to US Li production (Fig. 3).
Because of their large apparent endowment or recent dis-
covery, two deposits deserve special mention: Bonnie Claire
in Nevada and the Plumbago North deposit in Maine (Fig. 3;
Table 3). Bonnie Claire is described as a lacustrine salt deposit
hosted in sediments. It has been explored by four vertical
reverse circulation drill holes with depths from 91 to 603 m;
the holes are 1.5 to 2.5 km apart [48]. A National Instrument
(NI) 43–101 Mineral Resource Estimate Technical Report that
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
Description Code Deposit type Remarks
Resource
Production n/a Closed-basin brine Production from 1967
through 2017
Resource JORC Lithium-cesium-tantalum
pegmatite
Resource JORC Lithium-cesium-tantalum
pegmatite
used a cutoff of 400 ppm Li, derived an inferred resource for
the deposit of 5.574 billion metric tons of sediment that con-
tains 5.37 million metric tons of lithium. The authors assert
that the deposit is bedded, and therefore its resources can be
estimated in a similar manner to other types of sedimentary
deposits, such as limestone, potash, soda ash, and coal [48].
Even though inferred resources have the lowest certainty of all
mineral resources and reserves, the very large spacing of the
drill holes means that the calculated resource should be
viewed with caution.
The Plumbago North pegmatite in Maine is a recent dis-
covery that was not included in the USMIN Li data release
[47, 49]. This albite-quartz-spodumene pegmatite contains gi-
ant crystals of spodumene and montebrasite that can exceed
11 m in length. Two bulk samples of the pegmatite yielded an
average concentration of 4.68 wt% Li2O, and preliminary re-
sults suggest approximately 10,000,000 metric tons of ore
[49], which makes it higher grade than the pegmatites in the
Kings Mountain belt of North Carolina, but with a similar total
Li endowment (Fig. 3). These preliminary results will un-
doubtedly be revised in the future, so they too should be
viewed with caution.
3.4 Rhenium
Rhenium (Re) is one of the rarest elements in the Earth’s crust,
with an average abundance of approximately 1 part per bil-
lion. Most Re occurs in the mineral molybdenite, where Re
substitutes for Mo. Rhenium is produced as a byproduct from
roasting Mo concentrates recovered from mining porphyry Cu
deposits. To our knowledge, there are no public records of Re
production from deposits in the US; all records herein
(Table 4), and in our original report, are resource values only
[50]. The USMIN Re data release provides descriptions of
more than 100 mining districts, mineral deposits, and pros-
pects within the US that contain documented resources of
rhenium (Re). In 2019, the US had a net import reliance as a
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797 789

120°W 110°W 100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W

Re deposits with > 1 metric ton Re a

Mount Tolman
Butte

40°N

Bingham

Morenci
30°N
Chino

Metric tons Re
180°W 160°W 140°W 1 - 100
70°N
500 101 - 300
301 - 500
Kilometers
501 - 1,000

Pebble >1,000
60°N
20°N

500 Quartz Hill

Kilometers

10-4
b
Pebble 10
,00
Ely-Robinson Twin Buttes San Manuel 0m
etr
Quartz Hill Bingham ic
Thompson Creek Tomichi
Mount Tolman
ton
Pima-Mission s
Grade in weight % Re

Silver Bell Pinto Valley Sierrita Butte

-5
10 Copper Creek Questa Chino
Urad-Henderson Morenci
Bagdad
Mineral Park
Climax
1,0
00
me
tric
CuMo ton
Deposit Type Ray s
-6
10 Miami-Inspiration
Porphyry Cu-Mo
Porphyry Cu
Porphyry Cu-Au 1m 10 10
etr me 0m
Porphyry Mo ic tric etr
ton ton ic
s ton
Climax Mo s
10-7
107 108 109 1010 1011
Tonnage in metric tons
Fig. 4 a Location of Re deposits in the US that contain at least 1 metric ton Re in resources or reserves, or both. b Grade-tonnage plot showing Re
deposits in the US with reported Re resources or reserves, or both. Data derived from [50]

percentage of apparent consumption of 82% for Re, and Re is
now considered a critical mineral [9, 38].
Because of its high melting temperature of 3186 °C, Re is
primarily used for high-temperature superalloys, such as those
used to manufacture turbine blades; it is also used in Pt-Re
catalysts to produce high-octane, lead-free gasoline. In 2008
and 2009, the price of Re reached an all-time high of
US$10,600 per kg, but due to increases in Re recycling and
a drop in demand for Re in catalysts, the price had dropped to
US$2844 per kg as of May 2019. Even though Re occurs in
790 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797

Table 4 Table showing endowment of Re deposits in the US with classification or code. Abbreviations: CIM Canadian Institute of
reported Re resources or reserves, or both. Data predominantly derived Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral
from [50], which does not report the type of resource or reserve Resources and Mineral Reserves

State Name Resource date Metric tons Re Resource classification Description Code Deposit type

Alaska Pebble 2017 2650 Unclassified Porphyry Cu

Utah Bingham 2017 714 Unclassified Porphyry Cu
Montana Butte 2017 585 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
Arizona Morenci 2017 466 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
Washinton Mount Tolman 2017 355 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
New Mexico Chino 2017 324 Unclassified Porphyry Cu
Alaska Quartz Hill 2017 302 Unclassified Porphyry Mo
Arizona Sierrita 2017 262 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
Arizona Pinto Valley 2017 230 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Au
Arizona San Manuel 2017 229 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
Arizona Twin Buttes 2017 216 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
Nevada Ely-Robinson 2017 200 Unclassified Porphyry Cu
Arizona Miami-Inspiration 2017 160 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
Colorado Tomichi 2017 154 Inferred Mineral Resource CIM Porphyry Cu-Mo
Arizona Pima-Mission 2017 135 Unclassified Porphyry Cu
Arizona Bagdad 2017 130 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
Idaho CuMo 2020 82 Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resource CIM Porphyry Cu-Mo
Arizona Mineral Park 2017 44 Unclassified Porphyry Cu
New Mexico Questa 2017 38 Unclassified Climax Mo
Colorado Climax 2017 35 Unclassified Climax Mo
Colorado Urad-Henderson 2017 33 Unclassified Climax Mo
Arizona Silver Bell 2017 31 Unclassified Porphyry Cu-Mo
Idaho Thompson Creek 2017 30 Unclassified Porphyry Mo
Arizona Ray 2017 22 Unclassified Porphyry Cu
Arizona Copper Creek 2017 7 Unclassified Porphyry Cu

porphyry Cu-Mo deposits in the US, the US has insufficient
processing capacity to meet domestic need for Re. Some Re is
recovered from Freeport-McMoran’s Sierrita facility in
Arizona, but the US also ships Mo concentrates to Chile for
recovery, and then imports the refined Re. Recycling of Re is
possible, and recycled material contributes appreciably to
global demand.
The largest Re resource in the US, by far, is the 2650 metric
tons in the unmined Pebble deposit in Alaska (Fig. 4; Table 4).
The 2019 global production of Re was 49 metric tons [9], so if
mined, the Pebble deposit might supply global demand for Re
for more than 50 years. The next largest Re endowments in
US deposits are the 714 metric tons in the Bingham deposit in
Utah, and the 585 metric tons in the Butte deposit of Montana.
Other deposits contain less than 500 metric tons Re resources
(Table 4; Fig. 4).
The Re concentration in molybdenite varies from about
100 to 3000 ppm in porphyry Cu deposits, ≤ 150 ppm in
arc-related porphyry Mo deposits, and ≤ 35 ppm in Climax-
type porphyry Mo deposits [51]. Rhenium typically is not
recovered from porphyry Mo deposits because these deposits
are typically much smaller than porphyry Cu deposits, and
because the molybdenite in porphyry Mo deposits typically
contains lower concentrations of Re. The potential causes of
the variation in Re content of molybdenites in porphyry de-
posits are numerous and complex, and range from variations
in source and composition of parental magmas to physio-
chemical changes in the shallow hydrothermal environment,
but oxidized high sulfide conditions seem to concentrate Re in
molybdenite [51, 52].
3.5 Cobalt
The properties of cobalt (Co) include ferromagnetism,
hardness, wear-resistance, low conductivity, and high
melting point. The principal uses for Co are in the cath-
odes of rechargeable batteries, and in superalloys used to
make gas turbine engines where high-temperature strength
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
is essential. The US had a net import reliance as a per-
centage of apparent consumption of 78% for Co in 2019
[9, 38].
Cobalt mineralogy is diverse; it occurs in a variety of sul-
fide, arsenide, sulfarsenide, and oxyhydroxide minerals. In the
US, Co could be derived as a byproduct from mineral deposits
that primarily produce other metals, including Ni, Cu, Zn, and
Pb. The USMIN Co data release provides descriptions of more
than 60 mined deposits and exploration prospects with past
production, or with resource and reserve estimates of 1000
metric tons or more of cobalt [53]. This cutoff value was
chosen to restrict the deposits in the database to those that
might make a significant contribution to US production. The
range of deposit types that may produce Co is diverse, and
includes laterite deposits (Puerto Rico), volcanic hosted mas-
sive sulfide deposits (Ducktown, Tennessee), Mississippi
Valley type deposits (Missouri), magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE de-
posits (Duluth Complex, Minnesota), iron skarn (Cornwall,
Pennsylvania), sediment-hosted massive sulfide deposits
(Black Butte, Montana; Idaho Cobalt, Idaho; Blackbird,
Idaho), and Kipushi deposits (Bornite, Alaska) (Fig. 5;
Table 5) [53]. Sediment-hosted deposits such as
Blackbird, Idaho Cobalt, Madison, and Black Butte
commonly have higher grades than other deposit types.
However, the largest Co resources in the US reside in
the magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE deposits of the Duluth
Complex in Minnesota, which have large tonnages but
low Co grades (Fig. 5). In 2019, the NorthMet deposit
in the Duluth Complex secured the permits necessary to
begin operations; its resource of 89,190 metric tons Co
could make a substantial contribution to the 9300 metric
tons Co that was reportedly consumed in the US in
2019 [9].
4 Discussion
The commodities described herein exemplify many of the
challenges and opportunities that are inherent with the growth
of the critical minerals industry. This section discusses some
of those challenges and opportunities.
The US is a free market economy that mostly practices free
trade. Therefore, developing and mining economically viable
deposits in the US must be competitive and economic in a
global market. For that reason, it is unlikely that some critical
minerals will be produced in the US at any time in the fore-
seeable future. For example, known Mn deposits in the US
have grades that are less than 20% Mn, and the US has not
produced Mn since 1973. The median grade of land-based
economic Mn deposits is 31%, so the very low grade and
potentially high extraction costs of US deposits make it un-
likely that the US deposits will be worked unless there are
major disruptions in global Mn supply [54–56]. Strontium
791
and tantalum are similar in that the US lacks identified de-
posits that are sufficiently large and high grade to be compet-
itive in a global economy [9, 57].
Most critical minerals are produced in very small quantities
compared to base metals, such as Cu, and bulk commodities,
such as Fe. Small volume production coupled with increasing
demand make many critical minerals particularly susceptible
to large price swings, such as the change in the price of Re
from US$10,600 per kg to US$2844 in a 10-year period.
Although the energy and minerals industries are well-known
for boom-bust cycles, these may be exacerbated for the critical
minerals. Where critical minerals are a minor component of
the manufacturing process, price swings may have little im-
pact on cost of production and economic viability. However,
where critical minerals are major components in manufactur-
ing, such as Te in solar panels or Li in batteries, commodity
price swings may put manufacturer’s profitability at risk.
Relatively small markets and rapid growth in demand also
make critical minerals production and sales susceptible to tur-
bulence, vulnerability, and disruptors. Lithium provides many
good examples of this. If it proves to be economically viable,
extraction of Li from Li-bearing clay deposits could add pro-
duction from resources that contain an order of magnitude
more Li than conventional pegmatite and brine deposits in
the US (Table 3; Fig. 3b). Similarly, extraction of Li from
oilfield brines, geothermal fluids, or the Great Salt Lake could
tap deposits that contain more Li than resides in conventional
US resources (Table 3; Fig. 3b). Extraction from these three
types of fluids would piggyback on processing plants that
already exist and are economically viable; the Li would be
recovered by adding another circuit to current operations.
This is noteworthy because many or most of the costs of
production have already been covered by construction of
existing plants and infrastructure, which eliminates most of
the usual costs of exploration, permitting, and construction
that precede operation for most mineral deposits. This sub-
stantially decreases risk, has great potential to increase return
on investment, and may result in lower production costs,
which would increase profitability. Future production from
new Li deposits in the US and globally, or greater recovery
of Li from recycling, could decrease the price of Li; this could
change deposits that are now less profitable to uneconomic.
The small market size and limited production of many crit-
ical minerals makes them potentially vulnerable to disruptors.
The best example of a possible supply disruptor may be REEs,
where the global phosphate fertilizer industry puts 56,000
metric tons of REEs into solution but does not recover these
REEs. The US phosphate industry could produce as much as
65% of the world’s total demand for heavy REEs [28, 29].
Like Li, operations already exist that are economically viable,
but the business model differs because in many cases the value
of the REE in the ore is equal to or greater than the value of the
phosphate [29]. Additionally, the estimated REE endowment
792 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797

120°W 110°W 100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W

Co deposits with > 1,000 metric tons Co a

Duluth Complex
Idaho Cobalt Black Butte

40°N

Cornwall

Madison

Ducktown
30°N

Metric tons Co
180°W 160°W 140°W
70°N 1,000 - 10,000
500
10,001 - 20,000
Kilometers 20,001 - 50,000
Bornite
50,001 - 100,000
67°W 66°W
>100,000
60°N Las Mesas
20°N

500 50 18°N
Brady Guanajibo
Kilometers Glacier Kilometers

10
b
Deposit Type
Magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE
Fe skarn
Iron oxide-copper-gold
1
Kipushi
Blackbird
Mississippi Valley-type
Grade in weight % Co

Ducktown Idaho Cobalt

Madison Ni-Co laterite
Sediment-hosted massive sulfide
Black Butte
Synsedimentary Cu-Co-Au
Las Mesas
0.1 Maricao
Volcanic-hosted massive sulfide
Guanajibo
Gasquet Pine Flat
1,0
Boss-Bixby 00
Brady Glacier ,00
0m
etr
Cornwall Bornite ic
ton
s
0.01 Duluth-Maturi
Duluth-Mesaba

10 1,0 10 Duluth-NorthMet 10
0m 00 ,00 0,0
etr me 0m 00
ic tric etr me
t on ton ic tric
s s ton ton
s s
0.001
107 108 109 1010
Tonnage in metric tons
Fig. 5 a Location of Co deposits in the US that contain more than 1000 tonnage plot showing Co deposits in the US that contain more than
metric tons Co in resources or reserves, or both. The Duluth Complex 10,000 metric tons Co in resources or reserves, or both. Data derived
contains three deposits with Co resources or reserves, or both. b Grade- from [53]
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797 793

Table 5 Table showing endowment of Co deposits in the US that Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards for Mineral
contain more than 10,000 metric tons Co in resources or reserves, or Resources and Mineral Reserves
both. Data derived from [53]. Abbreviations: CIM Canadian Institute of

State Name Resource Metric Resource Description Code Deposit type Remarks
date tons Co classification

Minnesota Duluth Complex, 167,155 Contact-type

Maturi - total magmatic
Ni-Cu-PGE
Duluth Complex, 2014 107,100 Measured plus Resource CIM
Maturi Indicated
Duluth Complex, 2014 47,000 Inferred Resource CIM
Maturi
Duluth Complex, 2014 10,060 Indicated Resource CIM
Maturi Southwest
Duluth Complex, 2014 2,995 Inferred Resource CIM
Maturi Southwest
Minnesota Duluth Complex, 89,190 Contact-type
NorthMet - total magmatic
Ni-Cu-PGE
Duluth Complex, 2018 42,000 Measured plus Resource CIM
NorthMet Indicated
Duluth Complex, 2018 30,000 Inferred Resource CIM
NorthMet
Duluth Complex, 2018 17,190 Proven plus Reserve CIM
NorthMet Probable
Minnesota Duluth Complex, 2017 89,000 Unclassified Resource Contact-type
Mesaba magmatic
Ni-Cu-PGE
Missouri Madison - total 51,844 Mississippi
Valley-type
Madison 2002 42,284 Resource
Madison 1981 9,560 Production Production n/a Production from 1944
through 1961
Idaho Idaho Cobalt - total 42,530 Syn-sedimentary
Cu-Co-Au
Idaho Cobalt, Ram 2017 18,000 Measured plus Resource CIM
Indicated
Idaho Cobalt, Ram 2017 16,000 Proven plus Reserve CIM
Probable
Idaho Cobalt, Ram 2017 7,100 Inferred Resource CIM
Idaho Cobalt, Sunshine 2006 1,430 Measured plus Resource
Indicated
Idaho Blackbird-total 38,289 Syn-sedimentary
Cu-Co-Au
Blackbird 1977 32,000 Reserve
Blackbird mine 1998 6,289 Production Production n/a Production from 1939
through 1968
Alaska Bornite - total 34,500 Kipushi
Bornite, Ruby Creek 2018 20,000 Inferred Resource CIM
Zone
Bornite, South Reef 2018 14,500 Inferred Resource CIM
Zone
Puerto Rico Guanajibo Deposit 1959 34,000 Inferred Resource Ni-Co laterite
Alaska Brady Glacier 1995 27,300 Proven Reserve CIM Kipushi
Puerto Rico Las Mesas Deposit 1959 27,000 Inferred Resource Ni-Co laterite
Pennsylvania Cornwall Mine 1985 23,000 Production Production n/a Fe skarn Production from 1732
through 1973
Tennessee Ducktown District 1973 18,000 Resource
Montana Black Butte - total 17,982 Sediment-hosted
massive sulfide
794 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797

Table 5 (continued)

State Name Resource Metric Resource Description Code Deposit type Remarks
date tons Co classification

Black Butte, Johny Lee 2013 11,000 Resource CIM

Upper Zone
Black Butte, Johny Lee 2013 1,300 Resource CIM
Upper Zone
Black Butte, Lowry 2013 4,100 Indicated Resource CIM
Middle Zone
Black Butte, Lowry 2013 800 Inferred Resource CIM
Middle Zone
Black Butte, Johny Lee 2013 720 Indicated Resource CIM
Lower Zone
Black Butte, Johny Lee 2013 62 Inferred Resource CIM
Lower Zone
Missouri Higdon 1959 14,000 Indicated Resource Mississippi
Valley-type
Missouri Boss-Bixby 1974 12,700 Resource Iron
oxide-copper-gold
California Pine Flat 1986 10,817 Probable Reserve Lateritic Ni
Puerto Rico Maricao Southwest 10,100
Group - total
1959 5,600 Inferred Resource
1959 4,500 Inferred Resource
California Gasquet 1985 10,000 Proven Reserve Lateritic Ni

of the waste slimes from Florida phosphate mines—600,000
metric tons [30]—exceeds, by almost an order of magnitude,
the 84,000 metric tons of REE oxides as indicated and inferred
resources at Bokan Mountain, Alaska [23]. If viable, recovery
Fig. 6 The 35 critical minerals in the US, showing their distribution
between products and byproducts
of REE from phosphate deposits as a coproduct of fertilizer
production, or as a product from waste slimes, would likely
disrupt most, if not all, REE producers on Earth.
Approximately half of the critical minerals occur as
byproducts that are recovered from mineral deposits
whose economic viability depends almost entirely or
wholly on other elements [11, 58; Fig. 6]. In many cases,
this leads to profound ignorance of the production and
recovery of these critical elements. If byproduct produc-
tion does not impact a company’s balance sheet, there is
no obligation to report that production to stakeholders or
to the public domain. This is nicely illustrated by Te,
where only one deposit in the US seems to have recorded
production values [59], even though Te has likely been
recovered from anode slimes from many porphyry Cu
deposits in the western US. There is an opportunity for
industry to collaborate with researchers to more complete-
ly document supply and production of critical element
byproducts. This could provide essential guidance on the
next generation of research topics that need to be ad-
dressed to ensure supplies of critical minerals.
Knowledge of the deportment of critical minerals
varies from excellent in the case of most critical mineral
products, to poor for many byproducts. The array of
analytical tools that are now available makes this an
exciting avenue for research that can provide first-
order constraints on the recoverability of critical min-
erals from different deposits and deposit types.
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
Where critical minerals are potential byproducts from de-
posits, the small market value of potential contributions from
these byproducts may provide little incentive to tackle mineral
processing challenges, which may hinder critical mineral pro-
duction. In a world where social license plays an increasingly
important role in determining whether prospects can become
mines [e.g., 60, and references therein], it becomes increasingly
important to ask whether operating deposits could derive addi-
tional, non-financial benefits from producing critical minerals.
Production of many critical minerals relies on a chain of
prerequisites, as illustrated by the possible recovery of Co
from the Bornite deposit in Alaska. Bornite lacks critical in-
frastructure, and cannot go into production before a road is
built to the site. Bornite is a Cu deposit, and therefore its
economic viability rests on its ability to produce Cu profitably.
The Co resides in co-occurring arsenian pyrite, and current
plans are to recover that Co from a separate metallurgical
stream [61]. Therefore, successful recovery of Co from
Bornite relies on (1) building a road to access the deposit;
(2) economic production of Cu; and (3) successful and eco-
nomic recovery of Co from a separate metallurgical stream.
Any break in this chain would prevent production of Co.
Many other byproduct commodities have similarly tenuous
production chains.
Many critical minerals report extensively to waste, and
some were never considered for recovery until relatively re-
cently [e.g., 11, 62, and references therein]. Consequently,
one potential avenue for critical mineral recovery is from
mine dumps and tailings of former operations [63].
Although conceptually appealing, it must be recognized that
weathering of ore materials may change the mineralogical site
of critical minerals, which in turn may significantly impact
mineral processing and recovery. As above, the array of an-
alytical tools that are now available makes this an exciting
avenue for future research.
Finally, as noted in the Introduction, the rate of technolog-
ical change is astonishing and accelerating. Advances in geo-
science will continue to reveal more about where critical min-
erals partition in rocks and minerals, and advances in metal-
lurgy and geometallurgy will lead to improved economic re-
covery of critical minerals from orebodies. The majority of
those advances will be incremental, but there will undoubtedly
be breakthrough technologies that revolutionize recovery of
individual critical minerals or groups of critical minerals.
Given the small markets of the majority of critical minerals,
these breakthroughs may disrupt conventional supply chains
of critical minerals.
5 Conclusions
In conclusion, the US is making progress with delineating
possible domestic sources of critical minerals. Key priorities
795
for future research include collaboration between industry and
researchers to better document current production of
byproduct critical minerals from different deposits.
Improved analytical techniques provide the ability to carefully
evaluate where critical minerals reside in ore and waste mate-
rials; and collaboration with metallurgists will be necessary to
optimize recovery using existing processes, and to develop
new recovery processes. Small market size and limited pro-
duction make critical minerals particularly vulnerable to dis-
ruptive changes—the next decade will undoubtedly bring
about unexpected quantum shifts in supply and demand.
Acknowledgments We thank Jesse Bellora, Meredith Burger, Tom
Carroll, Keith Long, and Tyler Reyes for their assistance in compiling
data releases for several critical elements. We dedicate this manuscript to
Keith Long, in remembrance of his many years of exceptional service to
the USGS. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive
purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Petty TR (2018) Final list of critical minerals 2018. Fed Regist
83(97):23295–23296
2. Schulz KJ, DeYoung JH, Jr, Seal RR, II, Bradley DC (eds) (2017)
Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and en-
vironmental geology and prospects for future supply. U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, Reston, VA. https://
doi.org/10.3133/pp1802
3. Usery EL, Varanka D, Finn MP (2009) A 125 year history of
topographic mapping and GIS in the U.S. Geological Survey
1884–2009, part 1: 1884–1980. ArcNews 31 (3)
4. Usery EL, Varanka D, Finn MP (2009) A 125 year history of
topographic mapping and GIS in the U.S. Geological Survey
1884–2009, part 2: 1980–2009. ArcNews 31 (4)
5. Horton JD, San Juan CA (2020) Prospect- and mine-related features
from U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- and 15-minute topographic quad-
rangle maps of the United States (ver. 5.0, July 2020) (2020) U.S.
Geological Survey data release. https://doi.org/10.5066/
F78W3CHG
6. Kesler TL (1976) Occurrence, development, and long-range out-
look of lithium-pegmatite ore in the Carolinas. In: Vine JD (ed)
Lithium resources and requirement by the year 2000. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1005. https://doi.org/10.
3133/pp1005
7. Cox DP, Singer DA (1986) Mineral deposit models. US Geol Surv
Bull. https://doi.org/10.3133/b1693
8. du Bray EA (1995) Preliminary compilation of descriptive
geoenvironmental mineral deposit models. U. S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 95–831. https://doi.org/10.3133/
ofr95831
9. U.S. Geological Survey (2020) Mineral commodity summaries
2020. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2020
10. Van Gosen BS, Verplanck PL, Seal RR, II, Long KR, Gambogi J
(2018) Chapter O. Rare-earth elements. In: Schulz KJ, DeYoung
JH, Jr, Seal RR, II, Bradley DC (eds) Critical mineral resources of
796
the United States—Economic and environmental geology and pros-
pects for future supply. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1802, Reston, pp 01–031. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802O
11. Jowitt SM, Mudd GM, Werner TT, Weng Z, Barkoff DW,
McCaffrey D (2018) The critical metals: an overview and oppor-
tunities and concerns for the future. In: Arribas R AM, Mauk JL
(eds) Metals, Minerals, and Society: Society of Economic
Geologists Special Publication Number 21. pp 25–38. https://doi.
org/10.5382/SP.21.02
12. Van Gosen BS, Verplanck PL, Emsbo P (2019) Rare earth element
mineral deposits in the United States. (Version 1.1: April 15, 2019).
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1454, Reston, VA. https://doi.org/
10.3133/cir1454
13. Bellora JD, Burger MH, Van Gosen BS, Long KR, Carroll TR,
Schmeda G, Giles SA (2019) Rare earth element occurrences in
the United States (ver. 3.0, March 2019). U.S. Geological Survey
data release. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7FN15D1
14. Molycorp Inc (2012) Molycorp’s rare earth reserves at Mountain
Pass increase by 36%. Molycorp Press Release, April 9, 2012.
https://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=
a9e8676e87fad805702b98564&pid=8bad5e9295&e=%
5BUNIQID%5D. Accessed 30 May 2019.
15. Van Gosen BS, Lowers HA (2007) Iron Hill (Powderhorn)
carbonatite complex, Gunnison County, CO - a potential source
of several uncommon mineral resources. Min Eng 59(10):56–62
16. Staatz MH, Armbrustmacher TJ, Olson JC, Brownfield IK, Brock
MR, Lemons JF, Jr., Coppa LV, Clingan BV (1979) Principal tho-
rium resources in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 805. https://doi.org/10.3133/cir805
17. Rare Element Resources Ltd. (2015) Bear Lodge critical rare earth
project, northeast Wyoming. Rare Element Resources Fact Sheet,
October 2015. https://www.rareelementresources.com/bear-lodge-
project/bear-lodge-project-fact-sheet#.XIlpkSJKjct. Accessed 30
May 2019
18. Pingitore N, Clague J, Gorski D (2014) Round Top Mountain rhy-
olite (Texas, USA), a massive, unique Y-bearing-fluorite-hosted
heavy rare earth element (HREE) deposit. J Rare Earths 32(1):90–
96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0721(14)60037-5
19. Pingitore N Jr, Clague JW, Gorski D (2018) Remarkably consistent
rare earth element grades at Round Top yttrofluorite deposit. Adv
Mat Phys Chem 8:1–14. https://doi.org/10.4236/ampc.2018.81001
20. Hulse DE, Newton MC, III, Malhotra D (2014) NI 43-101
Amended preliminary economic assessment Round Top project
Sierra Blanca, Texas. prepared for Texas Rare Earth Resources:
Gustavson Associates [Filing Date November 30, 2013]:
Gustavson Associates, LLC. https://sedar.com
21. Staatz MH, Sharp BJ, Hetland DL (1979) Geology and mineral
resources of the Lemhi Pass thorium district, Idaho and Montana,
with a section on description on selected thorium veins. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1049-A. https://doi.org/10.
3133/pp1049A
22. Armbrustmacher TJ (1988) Geology and resources of thorium and
associated elements in the Wet Mountains area, Fremont and Custer
counties, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1049-F. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1049F
23. Long KR, Van Gosen BS, Foley NK, Cordier D (2010) The prin-
cipal rare earth elements deposits of the United States—a summary
of domestic deposits and a global perspective. U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5220. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-90-481-8679-2_7
24. Staatz MH, Hall RB, Macke DL, Armbrustmacher TJ, Brownfield
IK (1980) Thorium resources of selected regions in the United
States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 824. https://doi.org/10.
3133/cir824
25. Day WC, Slack JF, Ayuso RA, Seeger CM (2016) Regional geo-
logic and petrologic framework for iron oxide ± apatite ± rare earth
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
element and iro n o xide copp er-gold depos its of th e
Mesoproterozoic St. Francois Mountains Terrane, southeast
Missouri. USA Economic Geology 111(8):1825–1858. https://doi.
org/10.2113/econgeo.111.8.1825
26. Li MYH, Zhou M-F, Williams-Jones AE (2019) The genesis of
regolith-hosted heavy rare earth element deposits: insights from
the world-class Zudong deposit in Jiangxi Province, South China.
Econ Geol 114(3):541–568. https://doi.org/10.5382/econgeo.4642
27. Foley NK, Ayuso RA (2015) REE enrichment in granite-derived
regolith deposits of the southeastern United States: prospective
source rocks and accumulation processes. In: Simandl GJ, Neetz
M (eds) Symposium on strategic and critical materials proceedings,
November 13–14, 2015, Victoria, British Columbia, British
Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines. British Columbia
Geological Survey paper 2015-3, pp 131–138
28. Emsbo P, McLaughlin PI, Breit GN, du Bray EA, Koenig AE
(2015) Rare earth elements in sedimentary phosphate deposits: so-
lution to the global REE crisis? Gondwana Res 27(2):776–785.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2014.10.008
29. Emsbo P, McLaughlin PI, du Bray EA, Anderson ED, Vandenbroucke
T, Zielinski RA (2016) Rare earth elements in sedimentary phospho-
rite deposits: a global assessment. In: Verplanck PL, Hitzman MW
(eds) Rare earth and critical elements in ore deposits. Society of
Economic Geologists: Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 18, pp
101–113
30. Zhang J, Alledini G, Jin Z, DePaoli D, Anderson C Characterization
study of an abundant secondary resource for yttrium and heavy rare
earths. In: Smart Mining: Resources for a connected world—2019
SME annual conference and expo, Denver, Colorado, 2019. p 209
31. Clarke LB, Sloss LL (1992) Trace elements: emissions from coal
combustion and gasification, Vol 49. IEA Coal Research London,
111 p
32. Kolker A, Scott C, Hower JC, Vazquez JA, Lopano CL, Dai S
(2017) Distribution of rare earth elements in coal combustion fly
ash, determined by SHRIMP-RG ion microprobe. Int J Coal Geol
184:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2017.10.002
33. Ratafia-Brown JA (1994) Overview of trace element partitioning in
flames and furnaces of utility coal-fired boilers. Fuel Process
Technol 39(1):139–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3820(94)
90177-5
34. Dai S, Finkelman RB (2018) Coal as a promising source of critical
elements: Progress and future prospects. Int J Coal Geol 186:155–
164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2017.06.005
35. Finkelman RB, Dai S, French D (2019) The importance of minerals
in coal as the hosts of chemical elements: a review. Int J Coal Geol
212:103251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2019.103251
36. Wagner NJ, Matiane A (2018) Rare earth elements in select Main
Karoo Basin (South Africa) coal and coal ash samples. Int J Coal
Geol 196:82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2018.06.020
37. Laudal DA, Benson SA, Addleman RS, Palo D (2018) Leaching
behavior of rare earth elements in Fort Union lignite coals of North
America. Int J Coal Geol 191:112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
coal.2018.03.010
38. Fortier SM, Nassar NT, Lederer GW, Brainard J, Gambogi J,
McCullough EA (2018) Draft critical mineral list—summary of
methodology and background information—U.S. Geological
Survey technical input document in response to Secretarial Order
No. 3359. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018–1021.
https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181021
39. Karl NA, Carroll TR, Burger MH, Knudsen LD, Long KR, Reyes
TA, Schmeda G (2020) Tungsten deposits in the United States (ver.
2.0, August 2020). U.S. Geological Survey data release. https://doi.
org/10.5066/P97NJLI4
40. Lemmon DM, Tweto OL (1962) Tungsten in the United
States, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. U.S. Geological
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2021) 38:775–797
Survey Mineral Investigations Resource Map 25. https://doi.
org/10.3133/mr25
41. Kesler SE, Simon AF (2015) Mineral resources, economics and the
environment, Second edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
434 p
42. Altringer PB, Brooks PT, Mc Kinney WA (1981) Selective extrac-
tion of tungsten from Searles Lake brines. Sep Sci Technol 16(9):
1053–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/01496398108057599
43. U.S. Geological Survey (2019) Mineral commodity summaries
2019. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/70202434
44. U.S. Geological Survey (2018) Mineral commodity summaries
2018. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/70194932
45. Kesler SE, Gruber PW, Medina PA, Keoleian GA, Everson MP,
Wallington TJ (2012) Global lithium resources: relative importance
of pegmatite, brine and other deposits. Ore Geol Rev 48:55–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2012.05.006
46. Bradley DC, Stillings LL, Jaskula BW, Munk L, McCauley AD
(2017) Chapter K. Lithium In: Schulz KJ, DeYoung JH, Jr., Seal
RR, II, Bradley DC (eds) Critical mineral resources of the United
States—economic and environmental geology and prospects for
future supply. U.S. Geol Surv Prof Pap 1802, pp K1– K21.
https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802K
47. Karl NA, Mauk JL, Reyes TA, Scott PC (2019) Lithium deposits in
the United States. U.S. Geological Survey data release. https://doi.
org/10.5066/P9ZKRWQF
48. Lane T, Harvey JT, Samari H (2018) Mineral resource estimate
technical report, Bonnie Claire lithium project, Nye County,
Nevada. prepared for Iconic Minerals Ltd. [Effective date
September 15, 2018]: Denver, Colorado, USA, Global Resource
Engineering, Ltd., October 30, p 96. http://sedar.com
49. Simmons WB, Falster AU, Freeman G (2020) The Plumbago north
pegmatite, Maine, USA: a new potential lithium resource. Mineral
Deposita 55(7):1505–1510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00126-020-
00956-y
50. Burger MH, Long KR (2018) Rhenium occurrences in the United
States. U.S. Geological Survey data release. https://doi.org/10.
5066/F7KP81F2
51. John DA, Taylor RD (2016) By-products of porphyry copper and
molybdenum deposits. In: Verplanck PL, Hitzman MW (eds) Rare
Earth and Critical Elements in Ore Deposits. Society of Economic
Geologists: Reviews in Economic Geology 18:137–164
52. Barton IF, Rathkopf CA, Barton MD (2020) Rhenium in molybde-
nite: a database approach to identifying geochemical controls on the
distribution of a critical element. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
37(1):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-00145-0
797
53. Burger MH, Schmeda G, Long KR, Reyes TA, Karl NA (2018)
Cobalt deposits in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey data
release. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9V74HIU
54. Cannon WF, Kimball BE, Corathers LA (2017) Chapter L.
Manganese. In: Schulz KJ, DeYoung JH, Jr., Seal RR, II,
Bradley DC (eds) Critical mineral resources of the United
States—economic and environmental geology and prospects for
future supply. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802,
pp L1-L28. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802L
55. Kilgore CC, Thomas PR (1982) Manganese availability—domes-
tic. U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8889
56. Mosier DL (1986) Grade and tonnage model of sedimentary Mn.
In: Cox DP, Singer DA (eds) Mineral deposit models. U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, pp. 231–233
57. Schulz KJ, Piatak NM, Papp JF (2017) Chapter M. Niobium and
tantalum. In: Schulz KJ, DeYoung JH, Jr., Seal RR, II, Bradley DC
(eds) Critical mineral resources of the United States—economic
and environmental geology and prospects for future supply. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, pp M1– M34. https://
doi.org/10.3133/pp1802M
58. Nassar NT, Graedel T, Harper EM (2015) By-product metals are
technologically essential but have problematic supply. Sci Adv
1(e1400180):1–10
59. Karl NA, Mauk JL (2019) Tellurium deposits in the United States.
U.S. Geological Survey data release. https://doi.org/10.5066/
P9XANDRN
60. Karakaya E, Nuur C (2018) Social sciences and the mining sector:
some insights into recent research trends. Resources Policy 58:257–
267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.05.014
61. Davis B, Sim R, Austin J (2016) NI 43-101 technical report on the
Bornite project, northwest Alaska, USA. Prepared for NovaCopper
Incorporated, 169 p
62. Hayes SM, Piatak NM, Seal RR, II (2019) Challenges of byproduct
recovery of critical elements. Proceedings of the 15th SGA Biennial
Meeting, 27–30 August 2019. Glasgow, Scotland, pp 1650–1653
63. McLemore VT, Frey B (2018) Making abandoned mine lands
(AML) profitable—workshop proceedings and abstracts. New
Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources: Open-File
Report 597
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.