Start of a new mining boom?

[Assembler]

Does any of this give hope to the small scale miner? Is there a chance we wont have all our minerals continue to be locked up?

Sec. 4. Revocation of and Revisions to Certain Presidential and Regulatory Actions. (a) The following are revoked and any offices established therein are abolished:

(x) Executive Order 14072 of April 22, 2022 (Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local Economies);


The following is from Section 9:
Sec. 9. Restoring America’s Mineral Dominance. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Administrator of the EPA, Chairman of CEQ, and the heads of any other relevant agencies, as appropriate, shall identify all agency actions that impose undue burdens on the domestic mining and processing of non-fuel minerals and undertake steps to revise or rescind such actions.

(b) The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture shall reassess any public lands withdrawals for potential revision.

(c) The Secretary of the Interior shall instruct the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to consider updating the Survey’s list of critical minerals, including for the potential of including uranium.

(d) The Secretary of the Interior shall prioritize efforts to accelerate the ongoing, detailed geologic mapping of the United States, with a focus on locating previously unknown deposits of critical minerals.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 20, 2025.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[IDAu]

Sec. 4. Revocation of and Revisions to Certain Presidential and Regulatory Actions. (a) The following are revoked and any offices established therein are abolished:

(x) Executive Order 14072 of April 22, 2022 (Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local Economies);


The following is from Section 9:
Sec. 9. Restoring America’s Mineral Dominance. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Administrator of the EPA, Chairman of CEQ, and the heads of any other relevant agencies, as appropriate, shall identify all agency actions that impose undue burdens on the domestic mining and processing of non-fuel minerals and undertake steps to revise or rescind such actions.

(b) The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture shall reassess any public lands withdrawals for potential revision.

(c) The Secretary of the Interior shall instruct the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to consider updating the Survey’s list of critical minerals, including for the potential of including uranium.

(d) The Secretary of the Interior shall prioritize efforts to accelerate the ongoing, detailed geologic mapping of the United States, with a focus on locating previously unknown deposits of critical minerals.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 20, 2025.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/

I'm tired and maybe reading this all wrong. But it looks like a huge step in the right direction.

However, if I'm not mistaken at best this is all federal and will not override state laws right? So environmental state law withdrawing sections are still likely to stay the course. California will still remain dredge free, etc.

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

A great example of how far out the DOI has gone take a look at todays ruling of an issue from the past:

Department Of Interior Bans Unlikely Animal Friendships

U.S. Department of the Interior announced Wednesday that it was enacting a ban on unlikely animal friendships, effective immediately. “Starting today, any animal found frolicking or snuggling with an animal of another species—for example, a chimp cuddling a puppy or a magpie preening a pig—is in violation of the law and will be prosecuted accordingly,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum

https://theonion.com/department-of-interior-bans-unlikely-animal-friendships/

gotta love some onion

 

[Assembler]

gotta love some onion

Even if not everyone likes a onion............LOL.

 

[Assembler]

I'm tired and maybe reading this all wrong. But it looks like a huge step in the right direction.

However, if I'm not mistaken at best this is all federal and will not override state laws right? So environmental state law withdrawing sections are still likely to stay the course. California will still remain dredge free, etc.

Yep it is a lot to read for now. Stay tuned in as others start reading for themselves just where some of the money is going to / for to start with.

 

[Assembler]

New Interior Secretary Advances Trump Agenda, Signs 6 Orders

by Andreas Exarheas|Rigzone Staff | Thursday, February 06, 2025 | 7:38 AM EST

New Interior Secretary Advances Trump Agenda, Signs 6 Orders

“The lands and waters of this country belong to the American people for the benefit and enjoyment of all Americans … we won’t stop until these lands and waters are protected for the next generation,” he added.

A statement posted on the DOI's site this week announced that U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum 'advanced President Trump's agenda by signing six Secretary's Orders'.

The statement outlined that, as part of these orders, the DOI “will immediately identify all emergency and legal authorities available to facilitate the identification, permitting, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, distribution, exporting and generation of domestic energy resources and critical minerals”.

The DOI will also “identify all emergency and other legal authorities available to expedite the completion of all authorized and appropriate infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects” the statement noted, adding that the secretary “will report the use of such authorities and submit recommendations for exercising certain authorities as necessary to the President”.

https://www.rigzone.com/news/new_in...da_signs_6_orders-06-feb-2025-179553-article/

 

[Assembler]

I'm tired and maybe reading this all wrong. But it looks like a huge step in the right direction.

However, if I'm not mistaken at best this is all federal and will not override state laws right? So environmental state law withdrawing sections are still likely to stay the course. California will still remain dredge free, etc.

I sent you a PM that may help you see a little.

 

[IDAu]

I sent you a PM that may help you see a little.

Yes, I've seen all of that but I don't know how it pertains to mining.

Getting rid of the federal crap is a good start, but it doesn't sound like it's going to make a difference if most of the bans are at the state level. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Assembler]

The following is a shorten version of some issues to read for yourself. Not everyone wants to read 7 pages of this so I post this short version of some very important issues concerning the miner:


"Use of Mining Claims for Mine Waste Deposition, and Rescission of

M-37012 and M-37057" M-37077 (May 16, 2023); and

actions to review and, as appropriate, revise all relevant critical habitat

designations promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that

such actions are based on the best scientific data available and that they take

into consideration the economic impact and impact on national security, and in

consideration of the Secretary's statutory authority to exclude areas as

outlined in section 4(b )(2) of the Endangered Species Act;

o actions to review all relevant internal regulations, policies, and guidance to

ensure the lawful implementation of section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act

actions to review and, as appropriate, revise all undue burdens on the domestic

mining and processing of nonfuel minerals;

o actions to review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands,

consistent with existing law, including 54 U.S.C. 320301 and 43 U.S.C. 1714;

o actions to update the U.S. Geological Survey's list of critical minerals,

including the potential to include uranium; and

o actions to prioritize efforts to accelerate the ongoing, detailed geologic

mapping of the United States, with a focus on locating previously unknown

deposits of critical minerals.

Sec. 5. Implementation. The Deputy Secretary is responsible for implementing all aspects of

this Order, in coordination with the Assistant Secretaries and the Solicitor. In the absence of a

Deputy Secretary, the Assistant Secretary - Land and Minerals Management will carry out the

responsibilities assigned to the Deputy Secretary in this Order.

Sec. 6. Effect of this Order. This Order is intended to improve the internal management of the

Department and to assure implementation of the above-referenced EO. This Order and any

resulting report or recommendations are not intended to, and do not create any right or benefit,

substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its

departments, agencies, instrumentalities or entities, its officers or employees, or any other

person. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the provisions of this Order and any

Federal laws or regulations, the laws or regulations will control.

Sec. 7. Effective Date. This Order is effective immediately and will remain in effect until it is

amended, superseded, or revoked, or the action plans referenced in section 4 are submitted,

whichever occurs first.

Date: FEB 03 2025

https://www.doi.gov/document-library/secretary-order/so-3418-unleashing-american-energy

 

[Assembler]

Yes, I've seen all of that but I don't know how it pertains to mining.

Getting rid of the federal crap is a good start, but it doesn't sound like it's going to make a difference if most of the bans are at the state level. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The 9 Mining Acts of Congress will play a very strong part / factor here with the State issues.
After all does not the "Miner" want to benefit the "People" in order to continue to work the "Claim"?

Go re-read the intent of the Acts of Congress to get an idea of what is to be taking place.

 

[Assembler]

gotta love some onion

I did not even know about this. Yep a spicy onion is good to have around........lol.

 

[Assembler]

Yes, I've seen all of that but I don't know how it pertains to mining.

Getting rid of the federal crap is a good start, but it doesn't sound like it's going to make a difference if most of the bans are at the state level. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Some Agencies and even a State now has until February 18 to comply:
Burgum gave agency officials until 18 February to submit plans on how to comply with his order.

 

[Assembler]

The secretary and the Department of the Interior are responsible for the management and conservation of most federal land along with natural resources, leading such agencies as the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Geological Survey, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Park Service.

 

[Assembler]

Yes, I've seen all of that but I don't know how it pertains to mining.

Getting rid of the federal crap is a good start, but it doesn't sound like it's going to make a difference if most of the bans are at the state level. Correct me if I'm wrong.

United States Department of the Interior/Subsidiaries

https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...YvuDcgQ44YBKAF6BAgvEAM&biw=1360&bih=614&dpr=1

Many States have been influenced by past Acts of Congress.
So can you point out links and the wording of the "State" 'Bans' you refer too??

 

[Assembler]

Yes, I've seen all of that but I don't know how it pertains to mining.

Getting rid of the federal crap is a good start, but it doesn't sound like it's going to make a difference if most of the bans are at the state level. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Clarify just how one is "Banned" from the act of "Mining"??

 

[IDAu]

Clarify just how one is "Banned" from the act of "Mining"??

Many states mine included have practically outlawed dredging except a couple very small specific sections. California its basically a complete outlaw. And the ban comes from a state department not Federal.

I also think you’re mixing up DOI with DEI. You keep referencing Mining and then sending me private messages with links addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion…

 

[Assembler]

Many states mine included have practically outlawed dredging except a couple very small specific sections. California its basically a complete outlaw. And the ban comes from a state department not Federal.

I also think you’re mixing up DOI with DEI. You keep referencing Mining and then sending me private messages with links addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion…

Should be easy to quote and provide the links to such wording then.

A directive of say "DEI" is totally separate from the "Duties" of DOI and the subsidiaries thereof.

 

[Assembler]

This could have some impact on the operations of the DOI?

GSA plans moving staff to Interior headquarters, as its tech shop anticipates more shakeups

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/work...s-as-its-tech-shop-anticipates-more-shakeups/

Jory Heckman@jheckmanWFED

February 6, 2025 5:31 pm

“As the size of the federal government is reduced, there’s going to be a larger need for software, both big pieces of software that go across multiple agencies, and then many small implementations of software. Again, this is what TTS has been living and breathing, even before this administration came in,” Shedd said.

DOI
Managing Public Lands as of 2024:

2,400 operating locations part of the locations will have GSA staff moved to now.

70,000 employees

610,000 volunteers

 

[Assembler]

Should be easy to quote and provide the links to such wording then.

A directive of say "DEI" is totally separate from the duties of DOI and the subsidiaries thereof.

In an effort to point out the “Ban” question here is the case from

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

No. 16-35262 D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01975-CL

OPINION

https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/u...2-OR-Suction-Dredge-Ninth-Circuit-Opinion.pdf

The court found the Oregon law properly affects only one kind of potentially destructive mining, and bans it in only some streams, so the state law does not unduly infringe on any “right” to mine under federal laws

The ban applies to 20,688 miles of streams, or nearly one-fifth of all streams in Oregon.

In 2009, 934 miners applied to suction dredge in Oregon. In 2012, 1,941 miners applied to suction dredge.

Oregon’s mining ban was championed by state senator Dr. Alan Bates of Ashland. Dr. Bates was a fly fisherman who died in office in 2017 while flyfishing with his son on the Rogue River.


Will there be a order to revaluate the lands now by the DOI and US. Survey Office??

The conventional understanding of fundamental rights in constitutional law recognizes three theoretically distinct issues: the existence of the right, the infringement of the right, and the government justification for the infringement. In practice, however, judicial inquiries regarding these categories of right, infringement, and justification often seem indistinct and intrinsically connected to each other. More specifically, courts have directed their attention to the first and third of these inquiries, only rarely addressing as a primary matter the question of what constitutes an infringement of a right.
Does the word inalienable come to mind here?

 

[Assembler]

Will there be a mining boom taking place over the next number of years?
Perhaps the DOI will make this in press release or statements?