They wrote in the article "Critical minerals order. Trump executive order calls for an American critical minerals strategy" (Mining News): "With this definition, the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) has identified 23 critical minerals – antimony, barite, beryllium, cobalt, fluorite or fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite, hafnium, indium, lithium, manganese, niobium, platinum group elements, rare earth elements, rhenium, selenium, tantalum, tellurium, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zirconium." More...
USGS has identified 3 critical minerals: barite, fluorite, graphite. The remaining 20 are metals!
They wrote: "The terms critical minerals and strategic minerals were first used in the United States during World War I."
Has passed 100 years, and they have defined only 3 critical minerals?
For me, it's not news that the USGS does not distinguish minerals from metals. I have written to him many times about this.
I was surprised by something else.
Why didn't anyone tell them about that for 100 years?
For me, it's not news that the USGS does not distinguish minerals from metals. I have written to him many times about this.
I was surprised by something else.
Why didn't anyone tell them about that for 100 years?
The negative consequences of this error: Investors will see the difference very well. Lead costs (METAL PRICE) $ 1.0 but lead concentrate costs (MINERAL PRICE) $ 0.2-0.3. Everyday, investors will have a significant loss of money ($ 0.7-0.8).
You can read also
You can read also
They in Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment don't know the difference between minerals, metals, rocks, mineral groups, metal groups and so on
What does THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION does not know about "Critical Raw Materials"?
Who marks my comments on this topic as Facebook spam?
ReplyDeleteColleagues.
ReplyDeleteThey block my comment in the Linked Group "Mining: Exploration / Geology".about "For me, it's not news that the USGS does not distinguish minerals from metals. Why didn't anyone tell them about that for 100 years?".
I will answer you. when they unlock me.
not spam to me and why is tungsten no longer considered strategic? It did not even make the list and it played a big roll on WW1
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi,
DeleteI consider it promising in some respects "PROSPECTIVE RARE METALS Mark II" https://beneficiation1.blogspot.com/2018/06/prospective-rare-metals-mark-ii-by-phd.html
They in The London School of Economics and Political Science don't know the difference between minerals, metals, rocks, mineral groups, metal groups and so on
ReplyDeletehttp://gladiolus1.blogspot.cl/2018/04/they-in-london-school-of-economics-and.html