New year, new U.S. government administration. The mining industry faces significant challenges, and industry leaders have made an interesting proposition for answering them. In advance of MINEXCHANGE, Senior Mining Engineer Tim Arnold offers his perspective—and his continued optimism.
Several reform bills were introduced last year, and SME and partners are now calling for a new federal authority that could transform U.S. minerals policy—many say for the better.
In just a few weeks, the halls of the Colorado Convention Center in Denver will be buzzing with conversation about what a new year and a new government administration might mean for mining in the United States. Mining professionals attending the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration’s (SME’s) annual conference, MINEXCHANGE, have already witnessed unprecedented bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress for domestic mining reform, casting more than a glimmer of hope to an industry that faces long permitting times, a complex regulatory environment, and a growing workforce deficit. Several reform bills were introduced last year, and SME and partners are now calling for a new federal authority that could transform U.S. minerals policy—many say for the better.
Mining after the U.S. Bureau of Mines’ dissolution
First, some history: In 1995, Congress voted to stop funding the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM), which for decades had been the single federal source for economic, scientific, safety, and technological information related to mineral resources and extraction. In addition to its role in disseminating information and promoting mine safety, the agency was known for its research and development of mining technologies, such as heap leaching technology to extract minerals from ore. USBM’s dissolution in 1996, which scattered some of its former responsibilities among other agencies, marked the end of a centralized government body that tracked and responded to industry needs.
In this crucial moment, the nation lacks a unified strategy for promoting responsible domestic mining that will help close the critical minerals deficit and secure supply chains.
Fast forward to 2025, and the nation’s need for critical minerals—to support clean energy and new technology—has grown, and so has our dependence on foreign sources. In this crucial moment, the nation lacks a unified strategy for promoting responsible domestic mining that will help close the critical minerals deficit and secure supply chains. Suddenly, the absence of the USBM seems hard to ignore.
“The lack of a single source for domestic mining policy, research, and oversight contributes to our notoriously complicated and lengthy permitting process, which often requires coordination between multiple federal agencies—delaying permitting and raising start-up costs,” says Senior Mining Engineer Tim Arnold. “On average, it takes much longer to permit mines in the U.S. than in Canada and Australia—nations with equally rigorous environmental standards.”
Over the past 40 years, Tim has seen the mining industry through the lens of his work as a laborer, a mining executive, and, most recently, a consulting engineer. Having watched the industry evolve since USBM’s shuttering, he’s wondered whether resurrecting the agency, or creating something similar, might give U.S. mining the clarity, efficiency, and innovation it needs right now. He’s not alone.
A proposition to fill the void
Last summer, SME, in cooperation with the American Exploration & Mining Association and the National Mining Association, published a concept paper proposing the National Materials and Minerals Council: a federal council led by a new cabinet-level chief minerals advisor to the president. The council would conduct minerals-industry and economic research, support the development of a U.S. critical-minerals strategy, and coordinate strategy implementation among the many federal agencies involved in mining.
“A strategy for closing the critical minerals deficit and reducing foreign dependence would be a strategy for improving and expanding domestic mining,” says Tim. “Developing and implementing such a strategy from the cabinet level offers certainty that would encourage mining companies. It would also require federal agencies to operate under a single directive, which could reduce interagency conflicts and redundancy that delay mine permitting.”
“A strategy for closing the critical minerals deficit and reducing foreign dependence would be a strategy for improving and expanding domestic mining.”
The role of coordinator in the execution of a critical minerals strategy would distinguish the council from the USBM, which generally stayed out of mine permitting and regulation. As designed, the National Materials and Minerals Council would provide technical assistance to agencies that permit mines, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
Tim is also encouraged by the proposed council’s revival of USBM’s focus on mining research and development. “The USBM brought us heap leaching and other innovative technologies. The Department of Energy’s research has improved hydraulic fracturing. Federal research could do a lot to promote domestic mining while reducing its environmental impact.”
Advocacy continues, and there’s reason for hope
SME’s proposition has made important strides. Last fall, U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper and Thom Tillis introduced the “National Critical Minerals Council Act” to the Senate. The bill, which would bring the council to life, must now be introduced to a new Senate. SME and its partners will continue to advocate for it.
Tim, who served as president of SME in 2016, is hopeful. “What the Trump administration aims to accomplish to reform domestic mining remains to be seen,” he says, “but the urgency to secure our critical minerals supply has never been greater, the technologies so advanced, and the ideas for reform so promising.”
Let’s connect at MINEXCHANGE
Bring the discussion to our booth (#801) at MINEXCHANGE. Let’s chat about your important work, your plans, and how Barr’s mine engineering expertise can help. Catch us at our presentations as well:
-
Professional Development Luncheon for Young Professionals, Tim Arnold (keynote speaker), senior mining engineer: Monday, February 24, 11:30 a.m., Mile High 3AB
-
Avoiding Highwall Slope Failures Involving Draglines: Lessons Learned from Operational Experiences (technical session), Russ Sheets, senior geotechnical engineer: Tuesday, February 25, 2:05 p.m., Room 704
-
Modern Process Design for Iron Ore (technical session), Boyd Eisenbraun, senior process engineer: Tuesday, February 25, 2:45 p.m., Room 709
About Tim Arnold
With more than four decades of experience that spans a wide spectrum of work, Senior Mining Engineer Tim Arnold is a trusted professional in the hardrock mining industry. He has devoted most of his time to operating or developing mines, working in a wide spectrum of roles—from providing hourly labor to serving as a company executive. Tim’s experience ranges from scoping studies through final feasibility studies, detailed design, and construction.
As an operator, Tim managed mines with industry-leading commitments to safety, and worked on several projects surpassing $1 billion in project value. He has extensive experience with mine permitting, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, state and local permitting, and community relations. In 2016, Tim served as the president for the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME). In 2019, he received the William Lawrence Saunders Gold Medal from the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME), and was awarded an Honorary Membership to the organization in 2021.
Related articles and projects
Q&A: From operations-based site experience to practical geotechnical mining solutions
Russ Sheets is a senior geotechnical engineer in Barr’s Bismarck, North Dakota, office. Russ has nearly 20 years of experience using geological information to understand site conditions and make recommendations for mining projects. Having worked on projects from the pre-feasibility stage through mining, he interprets and analyses geologic data to develop practical solutions for stable designs that mitigate geohazard risks. We chatted with Russ about the many factors that come into play when developing inventive solutions to the complex mining challenges you’ll encounter in the field.
NEPA support for coal mine expansion
Barr completed an environmental assessment on 120 acres of land for Bronco Utah Operations’ Emery Mine expansion in Emery County, Utah. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has authority to issue rights-of-way and initiate NEPA actions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The first phase of the expansion involved obtaining federal NEPA approvals as well as a state mining permit. Barr worked closely with the BLM field and state offices to coordinate initial public involvement and scoping for the NEPA environmental assessment. In the project’s second phase, Barr led the team conducting the EA for the 3,114-acre “leased by application” BLM surface land and coal to extend the mine’s life by 20 years. During the course of the project, Barr has worked with eight county, state, and federal agencies and continues to provide numerous other forms of support for Bronco’s current operations at the Emery and Hidden Valley mines.
Permitting, environmental assessment, and design for copper-nickel mine
The NorthMet project—Minnesota’s first permitted copper-nickel and platinum-group-elements mine—will produce 32,000 tons of ore per day, processing it in a refurbished taconite plant. Barr has been instrumental in helping NewRange Copper Nickel (formerly PolyMet Mining) develop the project, providing both environmental and engineering services. As the lead environmental consultant since the mine was first proposed in 2004, Barr collected the baseline data required to support evaluation of the high-profile project, performed impact modeling and analyses to assess the project’s potential environmental impacts, and supported PolyMet in preparing applications for the key permits needed for the project. Early in the project development, Barr worked closely with PolyMet to develop a conceptual project definition and prepare a definitive feasibility study. We have continued to support the project’s advancement by developing conceptual- and permitting-level designs. Through siting studies and alternatives evaluations, our engineers helped PolyMet design a project that would be economically feasible yet minimize potential environmental impacts.