Folks working on "critical minerals", how do you feel about the "minerals" part of it? I mean, we are not really talking about minerals but metal in most cases, and then there is hydrogen and potash... I'm conflicted between the accuracy and the popularity of the term 🧪⚒️ - ThreadSky

adrianaguatame.bsky.social • 17 days ago

Folks working on "critical minerals", how do you feel about the "minerals" part of it? I mean, we are not really talking about minerals but metal in most cases, and then there is hydrogen and potash...
I'm conflicted between the accuracy and the popularity of the term
🧪⚒️

Comments

pygalge.bsky.social•17 days ago

I suspect the issue is with popular usage.
Mineral is generally something we extract from the ground.
Metal is generally the refined product -- for metals, usually the refined element or, sometimes, alloy or metallic compound.
And to astronomers metal is anything heavier than helium.

geolizzy.bsky.social•17 days ago

I think it’s ok. I think most lay people consider anything extracted from the ground to be a mineral. We do still call them mineral rights so “critical minerals” makes sense in that regard. I would be ok calling them something different though

lottesenkelin.bsky.social•14 days ago

I feel like we need to make sure legislators don't ignore the environmental consequences of wooing industry. We must protect our water and environment. PBB, lead, and PFAS have created disasters Michigan. It seems like we'd have learned the lessons.

https://resist.bot/petitions/PMPHFJ

matttg.bsky.social•17 days ago

U. S. DOE, congress, etc. defines those terms so even though they are geologically incorrect, they are lawfully correct :). Once I learned that I was like eh, ok. 🤷‍♂️

matttg.bsky.social•17 days ago

It still annoys the crap out of me though, lol

matttg.bsky.social•17 days ago

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47982

adrianaguatame.bsky.social•17 days ago

"... the Energy Act of 2020 defined critical mineral as any mineral, element, substance, or material designated as critical by the Secretary of the Interior..."
Basically, anything can be a "mineral"

volcannick.bsky.social•17 days ago

This is a good point but tbh not sure what we could say that would fix it.

No one in the general public understands what a mineral is.

Calling them critical metals would just reinforce the (mistaken) idea that they are just sitting there ready to be harvested. It’s a sticky problem for scicomm!

adrianaguatame.bsky.social•17 days ago

That's precisely what I'm struggling with! The topic is on the news every day, and I wish I could communicate accurately with a broad audience.

But the term is so ingrained now - and I think for SciCom works better than "raw materials" or other synonyms

volcannick.bsky.social•17 days ago

I agree! I think the problems with the current term need to be matched with a more concerted effort by geologists to explain this complicating factor. A good graphic (like the iPhone minerals graphic)?

Whenever I talk to non-geo folks I find they are surprised and interested in the complexities.

adrianaguatame.bsky.social•17 days ago

I wonder if any geologists were even asked before govs officialized the definition of critical minerals

volcannick.bsky.social•17 days ago

That’s a good question…was the USGS report during Trump 1 the first time it was formally used? If so that would be a US congress term. But I recall reading a book published circa 2013 that used similar language…something like “strategic minerals?” I’ll try to find it!

ltrytten.bsky.social•17 days ago

I’m not hung up on the term but minerals are just the starting point. Minerals without processing are useless. Some like critical materials, but I think many would go to the head space of alloy steels, plastics, etc. But including hydrogen is a little weird…

adrianaguatame.bsky.social•17 days ago

I meant helium, not hydrogen (brain not working great today!).

It's just weird to see elements listed as minerals - and I wonder if that has any implications when we communicate science with the rest of the value chain, stakeholders, etc

ltrytten.bsky.social•17 days ago

It certainly makes communication of the actual challenges more difficult. People - including governments see this as a mining issue, but it is way more complicated than that. Mining and shipping overseas provides some economic development but not the material needed for decarb etc.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply