Truth and Transparency
8 hours ago
Agreed, Mark doesn’t seem to be getting much love from anyone. He had a ton of support from Nebraskans in the beginning, but hearing what Ms. Beethe had to say and the fact they haven’t held a town hall there in many years, the local support is gone. They went from having a great presence in the area several years ago, occupying an office in nearby Tecumseh, attending town halls, getting locals to invest in the project, to completely ghosting the local investor community! They have a lot of damage control to do before they ever parade their presence there again.
The_Gman
19 hours ago
E.O. 14154 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing this interim final rule to remove the existing implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.,
as amended (NEPA), in response to Executive Order (E.O.) 14154,
Unleashing American Energy.
Among other things, E.O. 14154 rescinds E.O. 11991,
Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality,
which amended E.O. 11514,
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality,
and directed CEQ to promulgate regulations for implementing NEPA and required Federal agencies to comply with those regulations. E.O. 14154 also directs CEQ to issue guidance on implementing NEPA and to propose rescinding the NEPA implementing regulations. This interim final rule carries out President Trump's latter instruction.
See
Section II.A. As explained in Section II.B of this rule, CEQ has also concluded that it may lack authority to issue binding rules on agencies in the absence of the now-rescinded E.O. 11191. CEQ cited E.O. 11991 as authority in 1978 when it first issued its NEPA regulations. However, that Executive Order has now been rescinded, and CEQ therefore has determined that it is appropriate to remove its regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/25/2025-03014/removal-of-national-environmental-policy-act-implementing-regulations
danieldeubank
22 hours ago
As of today, March 14, 2025, there’s no officially signed EO on critical minerals from Trump’s current term that I can confirm with a specific title or number, but there’s strong indication of one in the works. Trump announced during his address to Congress on March 4, 2025, that he would "take historic action to dramatically expand production of critical minerals and rare earths here in the USA." Reports from Reuters and posts on X suggest this EO could have been signed as early as Wednesday, March 12, 2025, or might still be pending finalization.
The anticipated EO is expected to focus on boosting domestic production of critical minerals—like copper, lithium, cobalt, and rare earths—to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign adversaries, especially China, which controls much of the global supply chain. Key elements rumored to be included are:
Building refining facilities on Pentagon bases: This would leverage military land to process minerals, emphasizing national security and bypassing some regulatory hurdles faced by private projects.
Permitting reform: Streamlining bureaucratic processes to speed up mining and production, a priority echoed in Trump’s past EOs like 13817 (2017) and 13953 (2020).
Appointing a “Critical Minerals Czar”: A coordinator to oversee this push, similar to roles created in past administrations for other priorities.
No stockpile plan: Unlike some expectations, it reportedly won’t mimic the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for minerals.
This builds on Trump’s earlier actions—EO 13817 (2017) identified 35 critical minerals and set a strategy to secure them, while EO 13953 (2020) declared a national emergency over supply chain vulnerabilities. Recent moves in 2025, like EO 14156 ("Declaring a National Energy Emergency") and EO 14154 ("Unleashing American Energy") signed on January 20, 2025, also tie into this narrative by addressing energy and mineral shortages as security threats.
However, without an official document or White House confirmation as of my last update, the EO’s status remains “pending” or potentially just signed but not yet publicized in detail. The exact scope might still be under discussion, as plans can shift before signing, per sources like Reuters.
The_Gman
2 days ago
MINERAL COMMODITY SUMMARIES 2025
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Version 1.2, March 2025
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2025/mcs2025.pdf
For the 5-year period from 2020 through 2024, consumption declined for many mineral commodities indicating substitution of the material or potentially less domestic production of downstream products that required the raw mineral commodities. The largest decreases (greater than 25%) in consumption, in descending order, were for thallium, asbestos, bauxite, bismuth, industrial diamond (stones), and strontium. The largest increases (greater than 25%) in consumption, in descending order, were for indium, vanadium, natural graphite, industrial sand and gravel, platinum, niobium, and feldspar (fig. 12).
Substitutes: There is little substitution for molybdenum in its major application in steels and cast irons. In fact, because of the availability and versatility of molybdenum, industry has sought to develop new materials that benefit from its alloying properties. Potential substitutes include boron, chromium, niobium (columbium), and vanadium in alloy steels;
Events, Trends, and Issues: In 2024, U.S. niobium apparent consumption (measured in niobium content) was estimated to be 8,400 tons, an 8% decrease from that in 2023. One domestic company developing its project in Nebraska continued to secure financing in 2024. The project, would be the only niobium mine and primary niobium processing facility in the United States. According to the company, it has secured all necessary construction permits and contracted 75% of its planned ferroniobium production for the first 10 years of operation. According to the results of a 2022 feasibility study, the facility was projected to produce 7,450 tons per year of ferroniobium over a 38-year mine life.
In the United States, there is no current mine production of scandium but the polymetallic Elk Creek deposit in Nebraska contained a reserve of 2,600 tons of scandium.