Meeting Future U.S. Mineral Resource Needs: The Role of the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resources Program (2025)
Chapter: 1 Introduction
1
Introduction
Mineral resources and the materials derived from them underpin the economy and modern society. Materials derived from raw minerals take advantage of chemical and physical properties that are specific to each chemical element (see Box 1-1 for useful definitions). Iron and the various steel alloys that use iron, for example, are strong and durable, making them ideal for constructing bridges, buildings, and machinery and for other uses. Aluminum is lightweight, making it ideal in the outer body panels of aircraft. Copper’s electrical conductivity makes it essential in electronic and electrical uses. Zinc is corrosion resistant, allowing it to serve as a coating on certain types of steel. Lithium’s light weight and electrical properties provide a basis for the rechargeable batteries needed for energy storage in electric vehicles, solar and wind power plants, and consumer products. Rare earth elements, especially neodymium, have magnetic properties that underpin the strongest, smallest magnets, which are essential in the most efficient electrical motors.
Due to the importance of these materials in all aspects of society, the availability of mineral resources is a topic of perennial interest to the nation. Where will new mineral production come from as we deplete known mineral deposits? What are the environmental and social consequences of mining and mineral processing, and how will we reduce and manage environmental impacts and social disruptions? How can we facilitate technological innovation that reduces the costs of discovering previously unknown deposits and of mining and mineral processing, as well as the broader social costs that come in the form of environmental and community impacts? How can we reduce the energy required to produce minerals from lower-grade ores? How can we assure the domestic availability of mineral resources as the global demand inevitably grows and evolves over time? Mineral production is a significant part of the U.S. economy; in 2024, its estimated total value was $106 billion, up from $105 billion in 2023. It included $33.5 billion from metal production and $72.1 billion from industrial
BOX 1-1
Definitions of Key Terminology
This box provides definitions for key terminology used in this report. Note, some users may use terms differently.
Mineral. In a scientific sense, a “mineral” is a naturally occurring inorganic element (such as graphite, C) or compound (such as quartz, SiO2) having an orderly internal structure and characteristic chemical composition, crystal form, and physical properties.a As used widely in government, industry, and this report, “mineral” is shorthand for any naturally sourced Earth material. In this broad sense, a mineral can be a chemical element such as copper or lithium; a mineral containing an element, such as the mineral chalcopyrite (a sulfide mineral containing copper); a metal or an intermediate product derived from a mineral, such as copper metal produced from chalcopyrite or lithium carbonate produced from the mineral spodumene; a rock such as limestone or granite; or an industrial material such as sand, gravel, or aggregates.
Mineral resource. A “mineral resource” is a concentration of one or more chemical elements in Earth’s crust that has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. This report, therefore, uses the term mineral resource more broadly than the legal concept of a mineral resource that industry uses when communicating with investors and reporting to governments. This legal definition of a mineral resource is narrower and refers to mineral occurrences that are known to exist in a geologic sense with some degree of certainty and might conceivably become technically and commercially viable for mining at some point in the future. Note that a “reserve” is even narrower in scope and represents a mineral occurrence that is known to exist with a high degree of certainty and is technically feasible and commercially viable under current economic conditions.
minerals production. In addition to increased primary production, the United States is increasing capacity for reprocessing scrap metals. Thirteen plants that process recycled metals were built or expanded in 2024 (USGS, 2025).
The urgency to act today to continue to build domestic metals production and to assure future domestic mineral availability is two-fold. First, growth in emerging technologies will likely change the demand rapidly for some mineral-derived materials. Will the United States and the world have the mineral resources necessary in sufficient quantities and at affordable prices to meet the requirements of these evolving technologies? Second, heightened geopolitical risks and potential restrictions to the international flow of minerals threaten national and economic security if global supplies of foreign mineral resources are disrupted (Baskaran and Wood, 2025). Will U.S. supply chains for minerals and materials be secure and resilient in the face of potential supply disruptions and substitutions?
Critical mineral. The Energy Act of 2020 defines a “critical mineral” as any mineral, element, substance, or material designated as critical by the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey because it is essential to the economic and national security of the United States, has a vulnerable supply chain, and serves an essential function in manufacturing a product. Note, many critical minerals are not minerals in a strict scientific sense but rather commodities in an economic sense.
Critical material. The Energy Act of 2020 defines “critical materials” to be “(A) [a]ny non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material that the Secretary of Energy determines (i) has high risk for supply chain disruption; and (ii) serves an essential function in one or more energy technologies, including technologies that produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy [referred to here as a critical material for energy]; or (B) a critical mineral [as designated by the Secretary of the Interior].”
In addition, two groups of chemical elements often are the source of confusion or misunderstanding:
Rare earth element. A “rare earth element” is one of a group of particular elements (lanthanide series excluding promethium plus scandium and yttrium) with similar physical and chemical properties and occurrence. The 2018 draft list of critical minerals included “the rare earth elements group,” whereas the 2022 list specified each separately.
Platinum group metal. A “platinum group metal” is one of a group of particular elements (platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium, and osmium) with similar physical and chemical properties and occurrence. The 2018 draft list of critical minerals included “platinum group metals,” whereas the 2022 list specified each separately, except osmium.
a See https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-difference-between-a-rock-and-a-mineral. Accessed April 7, 2025
Because mineral exploration is complex, time consuming, and expensive, and because characteristics of individual mineral deposits are variable, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and its research geologists play an important role in improving the understanding of mineral deposits so that exploration can be more efficient. Since its founding in 1879, the USGS has helped the United States meet its mineral needs. In particular, today the USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is the primary federal source for geoscientific data and information relating to the minerals sector, as well as for market statistics and strategic analysis of production, consumption, international trade, and overall material flows. MRP conducts foundational scientific research on mineral resources. It advises other federal agencies and Congress on issues that require minerals information and analysis to inform decision making, such as federal land use and military preparedness, and provides data for use by the broader public, including private industry and academia.
Importantly, MRP is a scientific and data-based organization and does not have a policy mission or regulatory authority. MRP is agnostic toward domestic mineral production; however, it produces knowledge, data, and analysis that support both public and private decision making.
At the request of the USGS, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) undertook a consensus study to assess MRP’s activities and help guide its future. The charge to the National Academies appears in Box 1-2. The National Academies convened an ad hoc committee of experts (see Appendix A for their biographical sketches) whose work resulted in this report. This report represents the third review of USGS mineral programs in the past 30 years (see Box 1-3).
For this report, the committee collected information using a variety of methods, including the following:
- Programmatic information provided by MRP leadership;
- Discussions with and written statements from MRP leadership;
- Site visits to the Geology, Energy, and Minerals Science Center in Reston, Virginia, and the Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center in Lakewood, Colorado, to hear from leadership and research staff and to tour laboratories and facilities (see Appendix C for agendas);
BOX 1-2
Statement of Task
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) will convene an ad hoc committee of experts to consider the USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) science portfolio (including mineral resource life cycle and supply chain research, data collection through its Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI), and products) and how well it meets current and future U.S. mineral resources needs. The committee will:
- Assess the alignment of MRP’s research and products with current needs of federal and non-federal MRP partners and stakeholders, including other USGS mission areas, federal agencies, tribes, and domestic and international partners;
- Identify gaps in the science portfolio that may preclude meeting those partner and stakeholder needs at present and in the future;
- Summarize the greatest challenges to meeting U.S. mineral resource needs over the next decade and recommend:
- Ways that MRP’s science portfolio, expertise, and role should evolve to address those challenges and the needs of its present and future partners and stakeholders, and
- How MRP can leverage its partners and stakeholders to better inform decisions related to mineral resource challenges expected over the next decade.
BOX 1-3
Previous National Academies Reports on Mineral Resources
Of the many previous National Academies studies on mineral resources and related issues, three are especially relevant for the current study.
The first two studies focused directly on USGS minerals activities. In the first study, the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) reviewed the program plan of the Mineral Resource Survey (as MRP was then called) just following a period of significant change at the USGS—reduction of approximately 50% of the staff and absorption of both the National Biological Service and the minerals information function of the former Bureau of Mines (now the USGS National Minerals Information Center) into the USGS. It was a period of reduced USGS emphasis on the basic science of mineral deposits and increased emphasis on resource assessments, environmental aspects of mineral production, and timely provision of minerals information.
The second study (NRC, 2003) reviewed MRP’s response to the 1996 study, evaluated its minerals information function, and examined changes in the MRP customer base—all as part of an overall review of MRP.
Both studies highlighted the challenges of managing the balance between conducting basic research on mineral resources—the traditional role of the USGS in the minerals area—and providing scientific and market information and analysis to inform decision making in both private industry (e.g., information to guide mineral exploration and mine development) and the government (e.g., analysis to inform land-use decisions and discussions of minerals and national security).
The third study, Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy (NRC, 2008), was not a program review but rather a broad consideration of which minerals are critical for domestic industry and emerging technologies, the potential constraints on the availability of these minerals, and the likely impacts of supply restrictions on the U.S. economy. It described and evaluated current and future mineral information, databases, and research that could enhance the understanding of critical minerals in a global context—with an eye toward supplying the data and analysis for informed decision making that would help avoid disruptions to mineral supply.
- Meetings and written statements from other federal science agencies (National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration) to learn about their interests and activities in minerals as well as their interactions with MRP;
- Meetings with foreign national geological survey representatives including from the British Geological Survey, Geoscience Australia, and the Geological Survey of Canada; and
- Questionnaires sent to (1) USGS employees, (2) state survey employees (distributed with the help of the Association of American State Geologists), and
- (3) data users (distributed with the help of the Geological Society of Nevada and the Society of Economic Geologists) (see Appendix B for these questionnaires).
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized as follows:
- Chapter 1 provides the context for this report.
- Chapter 2 describes grand challenges to meeting U.S. mineral resource needs over the next decade and MRP’s potential role in meeting these challenges.
- Chapter 3 provides an overview of government activities related to mineral resources and a brief introduction to MRP activities.
- Chapter 4 describes and assesses the three main areas of MRP science activities: mineral information and supply chain analysis, mineral resource research and assessments, and the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative. It also highlights cross-cutting activities in the mine waste program.
- Chapter 5 discusses MRP’s mission, project selection and evaluation procedures, implementation strategy, budget, and staffing.
- Chapter 6 evaluates MRP data acquisition and dissemination efforts.
- Chapter 7 discusses MRP’s current and potential stewardship of government, academic, industry, and public stakeholders and partners.
- Chapter 8 describes seven high-level recommendations for MRP with examples of how they could be implemented.
- Appendixes A, B, and C provide, respectively, biographical sketches of committee members; questionnaires the committee sent to USGS staff members, state geological surveys, and users of MRP information; and site visit agendas.
Within each section in Chapters 4–7, a broad overview of MRP’s current state regarding that topic is presented, followed by challenges facing MRP, opportunities for enhancement, and an overall conclusion.
