U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science 

Strategy—A Resource Lifecycle Approach

Circular 1383–D

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Clockwise left to right: 

 Aircraft used to carry hyperspectral imaging equipment in geophysical surveys; (background) image of processed data 

 from a geophysical survey of Afghanistan. Images from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 

 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

 USGS scientist sampling natural acid spring, Redwell Basin, near Crested Butte, Colorado. Photograph by Philip Verplanck, 

 USGS. 

 Burning methane (natural gas), released from dissociation of gas hydrate (white solid). Photograph by John Pinkston and 

 Laura Stern, USGS. 

 Aerial view (2010) of a forested landscape in McKean County, Pennsylvania, showing the spatial effects of roads, well 

 pads, and pipelines related to natural gas development. Image from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National 

 Agricultural Imagery Program. 

 Wind turbines. Photograph by Don Becker, USGS. 

 The Blue Marble. Image by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

Background. Geologist on outcrop of Nanushuk Formation, Tuktu Bluff, Alaska. Photograph by Dave Houseknecht, USGS.
U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals 

Science Strategy—A Resource Lifecycle 

Approach

By Richard C. Ferrero, Jonathan J. Kolak, Donald J. Bills, Zachary H. Bowen,

Daniel J. Cordier, Tanya J. Gallegos, James R. Hein, Karen D. Kelley, 

Philip H. Nelson, Vito F. Nuccio, Jeanine M. Schmidt, and Robert R. Seal

Circular 1383–D

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Ferrero, R.C., Kolak, J.J., Bills, D.J., Bowen, Z.H., Cordier, D.J., Gallegos, T.J., Hein, J.R., Kelley, K.D., Nelson, P.H., 

Nuccio, V.F., Schmidt, J.M., and Seal, R.R., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy—

A resource lifecycle approach: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–D, 37 p.

ISBN 978-1-4113-3545-5
iii

Foreword

In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a Bureau Science Strategy Facing Tomorrow’s 

Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017. It provided a view of the future, 

establishing science goals that reflected the USGS’s fundamental mission in areas of societal impact such 

as energy and minerals, climate and land use change, ecosystems, natural hazards, environmental health, 

and water. Intended to inform long-term program planning, the strategy emphasizes how USGS science 

can make substantial contributions to the well-being of the Nation and the world. 

In 2010, I realigned the USGS management and budget structure, changing it from a structure associated 

with scientific disciplines—Geography, Geology, Biology and Hydrology—to an issue-based organization 

along the lines of the Science Strategy. My aim was to align our management structure with our mission, our science priorities, our metrics for success, and our budget. An added benefit was that the USGS 

immediately appeared relevant to more Americans, and it became easier for those outside the agency to 

navigate our organizational structure to find where within the USGS they would find the solution to their 

problem. External partners rarely approached us with a problem in “geology,” but they might need help 

with an issue in climate change or energy research. 

The new organization is focused on seven science mission areas:

• Climate and Land Use Change

• Core Science Systems

• Ecosystems

• Energy and Minerals

• Environmental Health

• Natural Hazards

• Water

The scope of each of these new mission areas is broader than the science directions outlined in the USGS 

Science Strategy and together cover the scope of USGS science activities. 

In 2010, I also commissioned seven Science Strategy Planning Teams (SSPTs) to draft science strategies 

for each USGS mission area. Although the existing Bureau Science Strategy could be a starting point for 

this exercise, the SSPTs had to go well beyond the scope of the existing document. What is of value and 

enduring from the work of the programs that existed under the former science disciplines needed to be 

reframed and reinterpreted under the new organization of the science mission areas. In addition, new 

opportunities for research directions have emerged in the five years since the Bureau Science Strategy 

was drafted, and exciting possibilities for cooperating and collaborating in new ways are enabled by the 

new mission focus of the organization.

Scientists from across the Bureau were selected for these SSPTs for their experience in strategic planning, broad range of experience and expertise, and knowledge of stakeholder needs and relationships. 

Each SSPT was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) science strategy that encompasses the 

portfolio of USGS science in the respective mission area. Each science strategy will reinforce others 

because scientific knowledge inherently has significance to multiple issues. Leadership of the USGS and 

the Department of the Interior will use the science vision and priorities developed in these strategies 

for program guidance, implementation planning, accountability reporting, and resource allocation. These 

strategies will guide science and technology investment and workforce and human capital strategies. 

They will inform our partners regarding opportunities for communication, collaboration, and coordination.

The USGS has taken a significant step toward demonstrating that we are ready to collaborate on the most 

pressing natural science issues of our day and the future. I believe a leadership aligned to support these 

issue-based science directions and equipped with the guidance provided in these new science strategies 

in the capable hands of our scientists will create a new era for USGS of which we can all be proud.

Marcia McNutt 

 Director
iv

Mission and Vision

The U.S. Geological Survey energy and minerals mission is to provide impartial science and 

information for understanding the occurrence and distribution of national and global energy 

and mineral resources that may contribute to supplies; the potential environmental and 

socioeconomic effects associated with resource occurrence and use; and the global supply 

and flow of nonfuel mineral commodities. 

Over the coming decade, science leading to a broader understanding of the resource lifecycle 

will be a cornerstone for decisions supporting our Nation’s economic vitality, protection of 

natural resources, security of resource supplies, and quality of life. 

Acknowledgments

We thank the USGS employees, Federal, State, and tribal partners, and members of the public 

who provided input throughout the strategic planning process. We are grateful to Maeve Boland 

for her assistance and candor during the development of this strategy. 

We also thank USGS employees Jim Coleman, Marty Goldhaber, Yousif Kharaka, Keith Long, 

Chris Schenk, and Mark Sogge for their thoughtful peer reviews that improved this science 

strategy. 
v

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................iii

Mission and Vision........................................................................................................................................iv

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Core Strengths................................................................................................................................................6

Mandates and Authorizations .....................................................................................................................6

Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science..................................................................................8

Goal 1: Understand Fundamental Earth Processes that Form Energy and 

Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................8

Introduction...................................................................................................................................8

1–1. Geologic and Tectonic Framework Studies ....................................................................8

Major Questions..................................................................................................................8

Strategic Actions ................................................................................................................8

1–2. Evolution of Energy and Mineral Systems.....................................................................10

Major Questions................................................................................................................10

Strategic Actions ..............................................................................................................10

1–3. Frontier Studies..................................................................................................................12

Major Questions................................................................................................................12

Strategic Actions ..............................................................................................................13

Goal 2: Understand the Environmental Behavior of Energy and Mineral Resources 

and Their Waste Products ...................................................................................................15

Introduction.................................................................................................................................15

Major Questions.........................................................................................................................15

Strategic Actions .......................................................................................................................16

2–1. Fundamental Studies ...............................................................................................16

2–2. Applied Investigations .............................................................................................17

2–3. Synthesis Activities..................................................................................................17

Goal 3: Provide Inventories and Assessments of Energy and Mineral Resources .................18

Introduction.................................................................................................................................18

Energy .........................................................................................................................................18

Major Questions.........................................................................................................................19

Strategic Actions .......................................................................................................................19

3–1. Undiscovered Geologically Based Energy Resources.......................................19

Minerals.......................................................................................................................................19

Major Questions.........................................................................................................................20

Strategic Actions .......................................................................................................................21

3–2. Discovered Nonfuel Mineral Resources ..............................................................21

3–3. Undiscovered Nonfuel Mineral Resources..........................................................21
vi

Goal 4: Understand the Effects of Energy and Mineral Development on Natural 

Resources and Society ........................................................................................................23

Introduction.................................................................................................................................23

Major Questions.........................................................................................................................24

Strategic Actions .......................................................................................................................24

4–1. Spatial Analysis of Energy and Mineral Resources Occurrence and 

Development ........................................................................................................24

4–2. Exploring Interdisciplinary Approaches for Assessing Effects of 

Energy and Mineral Development....................................................................24

Goal 5: Understand the Reliability and Availability of Energy and Mineral Supplies ..............27

Introduction.................................................................................................................................27

Major Questions.........................................................................................................................27

5–1. Sudden Disruptions Affect Supplies .....................................................................27

5–2. Evolving Issues Affect Long-Term Availability.....................................................27

Strategic Actions .......................................................................................................................28

5–1. Sudden Disruptions Affect Resource Supplies ...................................................28

5–2. Evolving Issues Affect Long-Term Resource Availability ..................................28

Energy and Minerals Linkages Within the U.S. Geological Survey.....................................................31

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................34

Figures

1. Diagram and map showing the magnitude and distribution of mineral resource

production activities across the Nation....................................................................................2

2. Map showing areas of historical oil and gas exploration and production in the

conterminous United States through 2006 ...............................................................................3

3. Conceptual diagram that depicts a resource lifecycle for energy and minerals ..............4

4. Geologic model output showing a south-to-north cross section at present day, 

and 300 million years ago, and a 3-D model of thermal maturation using

Woodford Shale transformation ratio .......................................................................................9

5. Isoresource map of Mahogany oil shale zone in Uinta and Piceance Basins

showing oil yield in gallons per ton .........................................................................................11

6. Map showing the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and photographs showing 

nodules.14

7. Photograph showing solar panels installed at the Denver Federal Center 

in Lakewood, Colorado ..............................................................................................................16

8. Matrix showing where the U.S. Geological Survey provides assessment and 

information for energy resources, and mineral resources by geographic 

region and resource category..................................................................................................19
vii

 9. Map showing the extent of the Marcellus assessment units within the 

Highlights

The Advantages of Three-Dimensional Models and Visualization....................................... 9

Oil Shale: Evaluating an Energy Resource and Its Extractive Effects ................................ 11

Minerals in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone ..................................................................... 14

Renewable Energy and Nonrenewable Mineral Resources ............................................... 16

Thorium: Why and Where?........................................................................................................ 22

Uranium in the Grand Canyon: A Case Study in Integrated Research and 

Assessment .................................................................................................................... 25

Integrated Assessment for Southwestern Wyoming ............................................................ 26

USGS Scientific Contributions to Disaster Response Following the 2011 Japan 

Earthquake and Tsunami .............................................................................................. 29

Materials Flow Analysis: Illustrating Global Commodity Supply Vulnerabilities .............. 30
viii

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

mile, nautical (nmi) 1.852 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

barrel (bbl), (petroleum, 1 barrel=42 gal) 0.1590 cubic meter (m3

) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3

) 

cubic foot (ft3

) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Mass

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) 

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 metric ton (t) 

ton, long (2,240 lb) 1.016 metric ton (t) 

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8
ix

Abbreviations

3D three-dimensional

4D four-dimensional

AU assessment unit

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

CO2 carbon dioxide

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

ECS extended continental shelf

EEZ exclusive economic zone

EIA Energy Information Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Ma millions of years ago

MOU memorandum of understanding

MRDS Mineral Resources Data System

Mt million metric tons

NMIC National Minerals Information Center

PGM platinum-group metal

PL Public Law

REE rare earth element

SI Système International d’Unités (International System of Units)

SSPT Science Strategy Planning Team

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

USC U.S. Code

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WLCI Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative

WTC World Trade Center
Red Cone mountain in the upper portion of Handcart Gulch, Colorado, site of a multidisciplinary 

study of a natural acid-rock-drainage system in an unmined setting. The red staining is from the 

oxidation of pyrite. Photograph by Jonathan Caine, USGS.
U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science 

Strategy—A Resource Lifecycle Approach

By Richard C. Ferrero, Jonathan J. Kolak, Donald J. Bills, Zachary H. Bowen, Daniel J. Cordier, 

Tanya J. Gallegos, James R. Hein, Karen D. Kelley, Philip H. Nelson, Vito F. Nuccio, Jeanine M. Schmidt, 

and Robert R. Seal 

Executive Summary

The economy, national security, and standard of living 

of the United States depend heavily on adequate and reliable 

supplies of energy and mineral resources. Based on population and consumption trends, the Nation’s use of energy and 

minerals can be expected to grow, driving the demand for ever 

broader scientific understanding of resource formation, location, and availability. In addition, the increasing importance 

of environmental stewardship, human health, and sustainable growth places further emphasis on energy and mineral 

resources research and understanding. Collectively, these 

trends in resource demand and the interconnectedness among 

resources will lead to new challenges and, in turn, require cutting-edge science for the next generation of societal decisions.

The long and continuing history of U.S. Geological 

Survey contributions to energy and mineral resources science provide a solid foundation of core capabilities upon 

which new research directions can grow. This science strategy 

provides a framework for the coming decade that capitalizes 

on the growth of core capabilities and leverages their application toward new or emerging challenges in energy and mineral 

resources research, as reflected in five interrelated goals. 

• Goal 1.—Understand fundamental Earth processes that 

form energy and mineral resources

• Goal 2.—Understand the environmental behavior of 

energy and mineral resources and their waste products

• Goal 3.—Provide inventories and assessments of 

energy and mineral resources

• Goal 4.—Understand the effects of energy and mineral 

development on natural resources and society

• Goal 5.—Understand the reliability and availability of 

energy and mineral supplies

Within each goal, multiple actions are identified. The 

level of specificity and complexity of these actions varies, 

consistent with the reality that even a modest refocus can yield 

large payoffs in the near term whereas more ambitious plans 

may take years to reach fruition. As such, implementation of 

these actions is largely dependent on available resources and 

the sequencing of prerequisite steps. This science strategy 

places an emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration and 

leveraging of expertise across the U.S. Geological Survey and 

with external partners.

Twin Groves wind farm in McLean County, Illinois. 

Photograph by Guenter Conzelmann, Argonne 

National Laboratories.
2 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Introduction

Energy and mineral resources are essential to society. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as the Nation’s principal 

natural science bureau, advances the science of energy and 

mineral resources and provides statistical information and 

analysis on the global flow of minerals and mineral materials. 

The Organic Act of 1879 defines the role of the USGS as 

“... the classification of the public lands and examination of 

the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of the 

national domain.” Understanding the science, quality, quantity, and spatial distribution of energy and mineral resources 

has been a core function of the USGS since its inception. The 

USGS is recognized by industry, nongovernmental organizations, and international, Federal, State, tribal, and local 

governments for its reliable, high-quality energy and minerals 

science, information, fundamental research, and expertise. 

This science strategy, intended to reach multiple audiences, describes the USGS role and suggests actions that 

can be taken in the next 10 years to provide the Nation with 

high-impact energy and minerals science and information on 

recognized and emerging issues. The goals represent broad 

directions; the actions represent specific research thrusts to 

advance these goals. Collectively, the understanding gained 

from these actions provides information for decisionmaking 

with respect to such issues as economic vitality, environmental 

health, national security, and responsible resource management and protection on U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

and other lands.

The United States uses substantial amounts of energy and 

mineral resources each year. In 2011, industries that consumed 

processed mineral materials added about $2,230 billion, or 

approximately 15 percent, to the U.S. gross domestic product 

(fig. 1A), and the Nation’s mines and quarries produced raw 

materials with a total estimated value of $74 billion, with production varying by state (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, p. 5; 

fig. 1B). Domestic energy resource production activities also 

take place throughout the Nation (such as oil and gas production, fig. 2; from Biewick, 2008). In 2011, the United States 

consumed approximately 7 billion barrels of oil, 24 trillion 

cubic feet of natural gas, and 1 billion short tons of coal 

(U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012). To meet 

Figure 1. Diagram and map showing the magnitude and distribution of mineral resource production activities across the Nation. A, Pie 

chart depicting the estimated value added to the U.S. gross domestic product by major industries that consume processed mineral

materials; major consuming industries of processed mineral materials are construction, durable goods manufacturers, and some 

nondurable goods manufacturers. B, Map showing the [preliminary] value of nonfuel mineral production (raw materials from mining) in 

the United States in 2011.

A. Total gross domestic product in the 

United States in 2011, $15,100 billion

B. Value of nonfuel mineral production in the United States in 2011 (preliminary)

15%

Mineral production value, 

in billion dollars

>5.0

2.5–5.0 

1.0–2.4

0.5–0.9 

<0.5

Approximate value added by 

major industries that consume 

processed mineral materials

EXPLANATION
Introduction 3

these needs, energy and mineral production (extraction) occurs 

in every State, with substantial amounts also imported from 

other countries.

The United States faces challenges in meeting its current 

(2013) and future energy and minerals needs. These challenges 

range in scale from global competition for resources to local 

decisionmaking about the appropriate use of individual land 

parcels. Decisions on every scale may affect the availability of 

energy and minerals and have far-reaching economic, geopolitical, and social consequences. For example, the increasing 

demand for both traditional and emerging energy and mineral 

resources is driving exploration and production into geological 

settings for which there may be little data available, such as 

in the Arctic, deeper in the Earth’s crust, and beneath deeper 

regions of the oceans. Activities in these locations may pose 

considerable technical and engineering challenges or be colocated with sensitive environments or other natural resources 

of importance. 

At the same time, consideration of alternative sources of 

energy and minerals is increasing, which may involve mining of deposits of lower concentration, recovering resources 

from waste and recycling streams, and sourcing from countries 

with different political systems or environmental stewardship 

practices. The USGS serves the national interest by providing 

impartial information across this range of scales and about 

alternatives, thereby enabling decisionmakers and society at 

large to make informed decisions and better understand the 

potential outcomes of those decisions.

An additional challenge facing the Nation is the need to 

balance the reliability and availability of energy and mineral 

supplies with other considerations including the availability 

of other natural resources; the viability of energy and mineral 

development amidst changes in climate, natural hazards, and 

demand; and the need to prevent or mitigate environmental 

degradation (Gundersen and others, 2011). This challenge is 

especially noteworthy given the long-term nature of resource 

development and associated infrastructure and the comparable 

or longer recovery times stemming from any adverse effects. 

The concept of sustainability, defined as “development that 

meets the needs of the present without compromising the 

ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United 

Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 54), underpins many land use and environmental policies that address this challenge. From the perspective 

of nonrenewable energy and mineral resources, sustainability 

focuses on stewardship of lands, protection of the environment, and identification of alternative sources.

To provide society with the knowledge needed to address 

these challenges, there is growing recognition that it is incumbent on “earth scientists to redirect their scientific research, to 

assemble data that are usable in policy analysis and decisionmaking, and ultimately transmit their findings more clearly 

to policymakers and the public” (National Research Council, 

1996, p. 5). The USGS leads research and monitoring studies 

to address these challenges and provide a scientific foundation for decisionmaking with respect to sustainable resource 

Figure 2. Areas of historical oil and gas exploration and production in the conterminous United States through 2006.

EXPLANATION

Oil

Gas

Oil and gas

Dry or unknown
4 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

use, protection, and adaptive management. In this strategy, we 

identified a set of overarching questions that drive the science 

needed to address energy and mineral resources use issues 

during the coming decade. All parts of this science strategy are 

designed to reflect one or more of these challenges:

• How or where might energy and mineral commodities 

be obtained to meet present and future needs?

• What economic, environmental, geopolitical, and 

health consequences must also be considered in both 

the short term and the long term?

• How can decisions more effectively incorporate scientific complexity and uncertainty?

• What science is needed to anticipate and respond to 

future events?

Using these questions as a guide, five interdependent 

goals were constructed that collectively provide the needed 

scientific research, information, and analysis:

• Goal 1.—Understand fundamental Earth processes that 

form energy and mineral resources

• Goal 2.—Understand the environmental behavior of 

energy and mineral resources and their waste products

• Goal 3.—Provide inventories and assessments of 

energy and mineral resources

• Goal 4.—Understand the effects of energy and mineral 

development on natural resources and society

• Goal 5.—Understand the reliability and availability of 

energy and mineral supplies

The overarching concept for these goals is a resource 

lifecycle for energy and minerals (fig. 3), which traces the flow 

of these resources from generation and occurrence through 

interaction with society and the environment to ultimate disposition and disposal.

Each goal addresses one or more stages of the resource 

lifecycle. Through targeted research, the first two goals expand 

basic knowledge of the formation of energy and mineral 

deposits and their interaction with the atmosphere, biosphere, 

and hydrosphere. The next two goals build on this research 

foundation and develop additional science and information 

products. The final goal extends beyond identified concerns 

to focus and deliver science on emerging issues and unanticipated events affecting energy and mineral supplies.

Together, these goals form a dynamic science strategy for 

advancing USGS science to a new level of understanding and 

effectiveness in the next 10 years (table 1). Each goal presents 

several specific “actions,” intended to fill the highest priority 

needs and address key gaps in data and understanding. Actions 

range from those that incrementally build on existing USGS 

capabilities and core strengths to new, ambitious efforts. In 

most cases, successful achievement of these actions cannot be 

accomplished solely within the energy and minerals mission 

area but rather depends on collaboration and leveraging of 

expertise and capabilities across the USGS and among stakeholders and partners.

Figure 3. A resource lifecycle for energy and 

minerals. Society faces key decisions within 

each stage of the resource lifecycle. Scientific 

understanding is an essential input to these 

decisions.

Geologic setting

and source

Exploration

Use

Processing

Extraction

Reclamation,

recycling

and disposal
Introduction 5

Table 1. Summary of goals and actions for the U.S. Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy.

Focus area Actions

Goal 1: Understand fundamental Earth processes that form energy and mineral resources

1–1 Geologic and tectonic framework studies 1–1a; 1–1b; 1–1c

1–2 Evolution of energy and mineral systems 1–2a; 1–2b; 1–2c; 1–2d

1–3 Frontier studies 1–3a; 1–3b; 1–3c

Goal 2: Understand the environmental behavior of energy and mineral resources and their waste products

2–1 Fundamental studies 2–1a; 2–1b; 2–1c

2–2 Applied investigations 2–2a; 2–2b; 2–2c; 2–2d

2–3 Synthesis activities 2–3a; 2–3b

Goal 3: Provide inventories and assessments of energy and mineral resources

3–1 Undiscovered geologically based energy resources 3-1a; 3-1b; 3-1c; 3-1d

3–2 Discovered nonfuel mineral resources 3–2a; 3–2b; 3-2c; 3-2d; 3-2e

3–3 Undiscovered nonfuel mineral resources 3–3a; 3–3b

Goal 4: Understand the effects of energy and mineral development on natural resources and society

4–1 Spatial analysis of energy and mineral resources occurrence and development 4–1a; 4-1b; 4-1c

4–2 Exploration of interdisciplinary approaches 4–2a; 4–2b; 4-2c; 4-2d; 4-2e

Goal 5: Understand the reliability and availability of energy and mineral supplies

5–1 Sudden disruptions affect supplies 5–1a; 5–1b

5–2 Evolving issues affect long-term availability 5–2a; 5–2b; 5-2c; 5-2d

USGS scientist takes an oriented sample of folded, crenulated, and metamorphosed banded siltite, exposed 

in the Blacktail pit of the Blackbird cobalt-copper mine, in the Salmon River Mountains of east-central Idaho. 

Photograph by Art Bookstrom, USGS.
6 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Core Strengths

The USGS is able to provide essential science products 

that complement the missions of other Federal and State agencies and others. The USGS performs research ranging from 

microscopic to global scales and collects and maintains longterm monitoring data that enable study of how systems change 

through time as well as facilitate construction of predictive 

models. Having an impartial, global perspective, the USGS 

can work across agency and jurisdictional boundaries to collect and interpret disparate information.

USGS scientists working on energy and minerals, collectively, have broad experience in energy and minerals research, 

resource assessment, environmental characterization, data collection, and analysis. A wide variety of customers and stakeholders, each with unique demands for information—from the 

Secretary of the Interior requesting scientific evaluation for 

decision support on uranium mining issues to resource evaluations for Congress, Federal agencies, and others—all rely on 

the vast breadth and quality of information USGS scientists 

provide, underscoring the importance of maintaining a robust 

foundation of scientific expertise.

Geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, physical scientists, and economists at science centers are leading energy and 

minerals research and analysis throughout the energy and minerals resource lifecycle, in areas such as the following: igneous 

and metamorphic petrology, isotopic and organic geochemistry, marine and economic geology, mineralogy, mineral commodity analysis and materials flow studies, sedimentology, 

sequence stratigraphy, and tectonics and structural geology. 

Collectively, this research is applied to the understanding and 

assessment of fossil fuels and selected nonhydrocarbon energy 

sources and mineral deposits. Specific examples of energy 

and minerals research include development of new assessment methodologies; laboratory capabilities for geochemical 

and mineralogical analyses; geophysical data acquisition and 

interpretation; minerals information collection, synthesis, and 

delivery, including development and maintenance of online 

databases; and dissemination, education, and outreach. In 

addition, working across the USGS, scientists lead research 

on the potential environmental and human health effects of 

energy and mineral use. With this solid foundation in basic 

research and a recognized flexibility to apply scientific understanding to contemporary issues, the USGS is well positioned 

to continue providing cutting-edge science on current (2013) 

and future energy and mineral resources issues.

Mandates and Authorizations

The USGS was established on March 3, 1879, under 

the Organic Act of March 3, 1879 (43 U.S.C. §31), for 

“classification of the public lands, and examination of the 

geological structure, mineral resources, and products of the 

national domain.” This legislation stemmed from a report of 

the National Academy of Sciences, which had been tasked 

by Congress in June 1878 to provide a plan to secure the 

most cost-efficient surveying of the territories of the United 

States. The USGS component stemmed from the need to 

survey the mineral and water resources of the United States 

(National Academy of Sciences, 1913). The USGS responsibility and core capabilities for energy and minerals research 

and information have evolved considerably since the original 

legislation as the Nation’s information and resource needs 

have increased. Further, with globalization and international 

demand for energy and minerals, the USGS also works outside 

the borders of the United States to enhance the understanding 

of energy and mineral resources relative to global and domestic supplies and thus contribute to national security and economic growth (National Research Council, 2012).

The USGS is responsive to numerous congressional mandates and authorizations and presidential actions pertaining to 

energy and mineral resources (table 2). Many of these mandates and authorizations recognize, support, and encourage 

research and assessments developed by the USGS and around 

which the USGS workforce is formed. For example, the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L.110-140) 

authorized the USGS to lead storage capacity assessments of 

carbon dioxide (CO2

) for the purposes of evaluating geologic 

sequestration potential. This authorization is a recognition of 

USGS experience in conducting oil and gas resource assessments and established expertise in Earth sciences, methodologies, and unbiased assessments.
Mandates and Authorizations 7

Table 2. Principal mandates and authorizations related to U.S. Geological Survey energy and minerals activities and their 

intersection with each of the five goals in the energy and minerals science strategy.

[U.S.C., U.S. Code; P.L., Public Law] 

Legislation or presidential action providing authority Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5

Organic Act of 1879 (43 U.S.C. §31) * * * * *

Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. §98) † † †

Transfer of functions from Secretary of Interior to Secretary of Agriculture, 1960 

(7 U.S.C. §2201; P.L.86-509)

† †

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 23; P.L.88-577) * *

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (43 U.S.C. 55; P.L.91-190) **   ** 

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. §21a; P.L.91-631) † † †

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 36; 

P.L.93-378)

** **

Geothermal Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1974 

(30 U.S.C. 24; P.L.93-410)

* *

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (P.L.94-377) * *

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 35; P.L.94-579) * *

National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980 

(30 U.S.C. 28; P.L.96-479)

* * * * *

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 51; P.L.96-487) * *

Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act of 1980 (30 U.S.C. 26; P.L.96-283) ** **

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L.97-425) ‡ ‡

Geothermal Steam Act Amendments of 1988 (P.L.100-443) * *

Executive Order 12656—Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities †

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L.102-486) *

The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, I - 1996 (P.L.104-99 §123)

[Transfer of functions from U.S. Bureau of Mines] 

* * *

Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 2000 (P.L.106-469 §104) * *

Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 (P.L.106-193) *

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L.109-58) * * *

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L.110-140) * *

Executive Order 13603—National Defense Resources Preparedness †

Executive Order 13605—Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of 

Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources

† † †

*Specifically mentions the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) or the U.S. Bureau of Mines, whose functions were partially transferred to the USGS in 

1996.

**Does not specifically mention the USGS; responsibility for tasks is derived from the Organic Act of March 3, 1879.

†Authority is to Secretary of the Interior, not specifically to the USGS.

‡The USGS is to be consulted by the U.S. Department of Energy.
8 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science

Goal 1: Understand Fundamental Earth 

Processes that Form Energy and Mineral 

Resources

Introduction

From the Earth’s crust, energy and mineral resources are 

extracted for use in our daily lives and to support our economy 

and national security. Comprehensive studies of the Earth’s 

fundamental processes are necessary to understand the formation and distribution of energy and mineral resources from the 

surface of the Earth to depths of many kilometers. To achieve 

this understanding, future research efforts under goal 1 are 

grouped into three areas:

• geologic and tectonic framework studies

• the evolution of energy and mineral systems

• new research in frontier areas

The following sections present key scientific questions 

for each of these three areas and strategic actions to address 

these questions. These targeted research actions, which 

illuminate the conditions under which reservoirs and deposits 

form and where they occur, also lead to clearer identification of those aspects of formation and accumulation that may 

cause problems when exposed at the surface of the Earth or 

extracted from the Earth (goal 2) and allow clearer delineation 

of the amount, location, and character of resources potentially 

available (goal 3).

1–1. Geologic and Tectonic Framework Studies

Regional-scale geologic studies integrate tectonic and 

thermal evolution of basement and basin terranes, occurrence 

and flow of subsurface fluids, and fluid-rock interactions. 

Regional-scale geologic studies provide the geologic framework that will improve understanding of the formation of oil 

and gas accumulations and mineral deposits at smaller spatial 

scales. Outcomes from these studies provide the scientific 

basis and guidelines for energy and mineral resources mapping 

and assessments (goal 3). The research activities on geologic 

processes expressed here and the assessment research activities considered in goal 3 are strongly interrelated because the 

outcomes of geologic research may alter assessment methodology, and questions uncovered during assessment work may 

spawn new geologic research activities.

Regional-scale geologic framework studies at the USGS 

have been limited by incomplete spatial coverage of seismic 

reflection, gravity, and magnetic data, which provide images of 

the subsurface and are a prerequisite to conducting structural 

analyses at the regional scale. With a few important exceptions, the seismic reflection data that the USGS has acquired 

are sparse and outdated and do not reflect the technological 

improvements of the past 30 years. Existing national gravity 

and magnetic datasets are composites of surveys acquired over 

many years at different scales of spatial coverage with consequent gaps in coverage. 

Typically, new data are acquired by topical studies without a plan of systematic acquisition. Although the main barrier 

to acquisition is cost (seismic data are usually purchased from 

vendors; augmentation of magnetic and gravity data requires 

new surveys), other avenues could be pursued to acquire data. 

Having access to a suite of deep-penetrating, crustal-scale 

geophysical data would improve views of the subsurface, 

and research based on these data will better reflect the “stateof-the-art” technologies. Merging this new information with 

stratigraphic, structural, and other geophysical studies would 

support more accurate basin histories and provide better 

understanding of the formation of energy and mineral deposits.

The high data densities produced by studies on selected 

areas require new means of integrating multidisciplinary 

datasets. Interpretations of different datasets from separate 

analyses can produce incompatible results when viewed 

together. Thus, the attainment of consistent geological results 

benefits from mutual usage of a shared interpretive platform. 

Collaborative work is done more easily when viewed on 

interactive three-dimensional (3D) systems that provide the 

ability to slice and section 3D models at varying elevations 

and azimuths, complementing and gradually superseding the 

traditional presentations of selected map and cross sections 

(see Highlight, p. 9). Incorporating a wide range of subsurface 

information, 3D models facilitate improved understanding of 

geologic processes. Such software systems will continue to 

evolve and provide improved capability for multidisciplinary 

collaboration.

Major Questions

• How does the thermal, magmatic, tectonic, and fluidflow history of the Earth lead to the formation and later 

modification of energy and mineral deposits?

• What enhancements to geophysical and geochemical 

data are required to support crustal- and deposit-scale 

geological interpretations?

• How can multidisciplinary studies of a region or terrane consistently be interpreted and presented to users?

Strategic Actions

• Action 1–1a.—Map regional-scale geologic features 

that control the timing and location of energy and 

mineral resources. Identify key areas for regional-scale 

structural and geologic mapping and use geophysical, 

geochemical, and isotopic studies to determine areas 

with resource potential. This action will result in 
Highlight

Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 9

The Advantages of Three-Dimensional Models and Visualization

Traditional USGS geoscience products have been generated and distributed primarily through the medium of twodimensional reports, maps, and cross-sections, limiting the ability to characterize and understand three-dimensional 

(3D) systems and how they change through time (4D). And yet, the intrinsic 3D and 4D nature of the interpreted results 

increases the need for the USGS to generate and distribute scientific information using 3D and 4D visualization frameworks. In addition, Web-based delivery in 3D and 4D frameworks could open a new era in USGS publications.

Today, USGS scientists use 3D and 4D tools to visualize and interpret geologic information and to check the data, interpretations, and models (Jacobsen and others, 2011). The use of 3D and 4D visualization can be a powerful quality control tool 

in the analysis of large, multidimensional datasets. Examples of geologic mapping in 3D include aquifer characterization, 

the interpretation of geophysical data with geological constraints, subsurface characterization of mineral systems, and oil 

and gas investigations. For example, a 3D geologic model served as input to a 4D computation of heating and oil generation 

during subsidence of the Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma (fig. 4; Higley, 2008). The Woodford Shale in the Anadarko Basin in 

Oklahoma is the source of much of the oil and gas in the basin. The transformation of kerogen, a fossilized form of organic 

matter, to oil was computed as a function of geologic time and displayed on cross sections [at 300 million years ago (Ma) 

and 0 Ma]. Other useful displays (not depicted in figure 4) reveal the migration of oil and gas at different geologic times 

from the deep basin to reservoirs on the flanks of the basin.

2,000

0

0

0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

-2,000

-4,000

-6,000

-8,000

-10,000

-12,000

-14,000

-10,000

S Distance, in kilometers N

Present

300 million years ago

Elevation, in meters

OK KS

OK KS

OKTX CO

A’

A’

A

A

A A’

KS

A

B

C

EXPLANATION

Transformation ratio, in percent

0.1–0.9

1–9

10–24

25–49

50–74

95–98

75–94

99–100

Figure 4. Geologic model output showing a south-to-north cross section (A–A′) at A, present day, and B, inset, 300 million years ago, 

and C, inset, a 3-D model of thermal maturation using Woodford Shale transformation ratio. Yellow and pink dots are approximate 

locations of the Woodford Shale and Thirteen Finger limestone. Elevation is relative to sea level, and vertical and lateral scales 

are equivalent for the cross sections. The black line in the 3D model shows the location of the cross-section A–A′. Map image is 

transformation ratio on the Woodford Shale layer at present day and at 10 times vertical exaggeration. 
10 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

improved geologic models, maps, and cross sections, revealing those areas where energy and mineral 

resources are most likely to be found in the United 

States.

• Action 1–1b.—Acquire geophysical datasets at the 

regional scale. Such an effort would require a systematic, multiyear program to facilitate the acquisition of 

seismic data in sedimentary basins and upgrade the 

existing national magnetic and gravity datasets. 

• Action 1–1c.—Apply 3D models to areas of high 

potential for energy and mineral resources, incorporating geologic mapping, thermotectonic, fluid-flow, and 

geophysical interpretations. Such models will ensure 

compatibility of data and interpretations from multiple 

disciplines and broaden the user base because geological and geophysical interpretations may become more 

readily available in a user-friendly format.

1–2. Evolution of Energy and Mineral Systems

An exploitable petroleum (oil, natural gas, and natural 

gas liquids) system encompasses the source rock, the rocks 

adjacent to source rocks, migration pathways, and reservoirs. 

Source rocks that are the locus of petroleum generation may 

also contain developable resources, such as shale gas and shale 

oil. Rocks adjacent to source rocks (such as those in tight gas 

systems), formerly not developed, are now routinely exploited 

in the conterminous United States. Thus, source rocks and 

tight rocks are two types of continuous petroleum systems 

supplying a rapidly expanding fraction of hydrocarbons, 

especially gas. Fluid migration pathways and charge mechanisms in these geologic settings continue to be elusive, poorly 

understood, and minimally studied. Despite advancements 

in seismic and well-logging technologies, the productivity of 

continuous petroleum systems is not readily predictable and 

often must be determined empirically. 

Energy resources contributing to the U.S. energy mix in 

2013 (for example, oil, gas, coal, coalbed methane) are fairly 

well understood in terms of their geologic formation and 

occurrence. For these resources, we identify research priorities 

pertaining to environmental effects (goal 2) and assessments 

(goal 3). Other resources, such as oil shale, gas hydrates (also 

referred to as methane hydrates), and geothermal energy, 

which contribute little (or not at all) to the U.S. energy mix, 

are not as well understood. Because these resources have the 

potential to make significant contributions to the energy mix in 

the future, we identify research activities to address the many 

geologic and extractive questions pertaining to these emerging 

resources.

The concept of a mineral system is analogous to that of a 

petroleum system, in that formation of an ore deposit requires 

a source of metals, a mode of transport (often a hydrothermal fluid but also magmatic, weathering, petroleum generation, or sedimentary processes), and a site of deposition or 

accumulation where metals are concentrated to an extent that 

allows economically viable extraction. However, mineral 

systems are found in a wider range of rock types and structural 

settings than petroleum systems. Mineral systems must be 

understood in their broadest possible context to support accurate resource assessments on regional, national, and global 

scales. For example, understanding the role of magmatic arcs 

in the geologic evolution of North America is critical for 

understanding the genesis and localization of hydrothermal 

and epithermal mineral deposits. Such focus on the evolution 

of geologic entities and mineral systems on a geologic-system-scale will lead to more effective ore deposit models and 

resource assessments. 

The state of knowledge varies considerably among 

deposit types; some deposit types that are becoming important 

owing to emerging national demand, such as platinum group 

metals (PGMs), rare earth elements (REEs), and lithium, are 

not well understood, and focused research would benefit from 

deposit-scale studies. Other mineral systems, such as porphyry copper deposits, are well understood in terms of their 

origin and evolution. Future research on these systems would 

benefit from a broader approach, such as understanding the 

distribution and geologic evolution of magmatic arcs in which 

porphyry deposits form.

Major Questions

• What are the most important factors affecting the 

development of self-sourced and low-permeability 

(tight) petroleum systems, and how can this knowledge 

be applied to ongoing energy assessment needs?

• What areas of research will advance our understanding of emerging and high-priority mineral and energy 

sources?

• What are the primary controls on the timing and location of ore deposits, and in particular what are the 

factors that lead to formation of deposits of scarce 

commodities?

Strategic Actions

• Action 1–2a.—Investigate the geologic and geochemical factors that are responsible for the genesis, evolution, and productivity of source rocks and low-permeability reservoirs, that is, shale gas, shale oil, and tight 

gas. The improved understanding of the systematics of 

self-sourced and low-permeability systems can be used 

to improve resource assessments.

• Action 1–2b.—Conduct research on emerging energy 

resources to address geologic and extractive questions. 

In particular, studies on the chemistry of oil shale (see 

Highlight, p. 11) and the conditions from which gas 

hydrates accumulate would be useful.
Highlight

Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 11

Oil Shale: Evaluating an Energy Resource and Its Extractive Effects

Oil shale potentially can constitute a very large untapped oil resource if the solid kerogen, a fossilized form of organic matter 

in the rock, can be converted into liquid oil. Decades of field work by U.S. Geological Survey geologists determined that the 

Green River Formation, which hosts kerogen-rich rocks such as the Mahogany oil shale zone (fig. 5; Mercier and Johnson, 

2012), was deposited in a single large lake that covered the Piceance and Uinta Basins and the intervening Douglas Creek 

arch and that many rich and lean oil shale zones could be traced between the two basins. Combined with assay data, the 

correlation work was vital in establishing estimates of the total in-place oil shale resources, recently assessed by the USGS 

to be 1.5 trillion barrels of oil in the Piceance Basin and 1.3 trillion barrels in the Uinta Basin (U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale 

Assessment Team, 2010a,b). 

To convert kerogen into liquid oil, the rock must be heated to between 350 degrees Celsius (°C) and 500°C. To achieve a high 

enough temperature, the rock must either be mined and retorted or else heated electrically in the subsurface with the oil 

recovered from wells. Environmental issues include significant amounts of water for mining and retorting, surface disturbance (either for mining or for wells required for in situ conversion), greenhouse gas emissions generated during retorting, 

the disposal and reclamation of spent solids if mining and retorting is employed, and the migration of groundwater contaminated with organic and metallic compounds if in situ conversion is used. Laboratory research is underway at the USGS to 

document the chemistry of waste products. A major concern is the presence of metals, such as arsenic and mercury, and 

volatile and dissolved organic compounds.

Figure 5. Isoresource map of Mahogany oil shale zone in Uinta and Piceance Basins showing oil yield in gallons per ton. Oil 

yield is calculated from Fischer assay, formation thickness, and areal extent. 

RIO BLANCO

GARFIELD

MOFFAT

SUMMIT

UINTAH

UTAH

CARBON

WASATCH

DUCHESNE

MESA

DELTA

MONTROSE

EMERY

GRAND

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦70

¤£191

¤£325 ¤£6

¤£40

¤£50

¤£191

¤£40 ¤£87

¤£13

¤£6

¤£64

¤£191

MAP LOCATION

UTAH COLORADO

UTAH COLORADO

0 10 20 MILES 5

0 10 20 KILOMETERS 5

Battlement Mesa attlement Mesa

Price

111° 110° 109° 108°

40°

39°

Grand Junction

Fruita

Delta

Vernal

Roosevelt

Rifle

Moab

Grand Junction

Fruita

Delta

Vernal

Roosevelt

Rifle

Moab

15

15

EXPLANATION

Mahogany ledge outcrop

Base of Parachute Creek 

Member

Mahogany zone—Average oil yield 

 in gallons per ton

≤3

3.1 to 6

6.1 to 9

9.1 to 12

12.1 to 15

15.1 to 18

18.1 to 21

21.1 to 24

24.1 to 27

27.1 to 30

30.1 to 33

33.1 to 36
12 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

• Action 1–2c.—Conduct deposit-scale studies of 

selected types of high-priority commodities, such as 

lithium, REEs and PGMs. The genetic models that 

are generated by such studies will characterize the 

geologic setting and abundance of important materials 

on land and on the sea floor and aid in assessments of 

such resources (goal 3).

• Action 1–2d.—Determine broad-scale controls on the 

formation and preservation of mineral systems. These 

studies could target systems that are well understood 

in terms of how they form, such as porphyry copper 

deposits.

1–3. Frontier Studies

Many of the mineral resources in the United States, at 

least those exposed at the surface, have been identified, and 

many are being exploited. However, frontier geographic areas, 

such as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, see Highlight, 

p. 14) and Alaska, are largely unexplored, and many areas 

of the United States may contain resources that are not 

exposed at the surface. Such areas require novel or “frontier” 

approaches or methods for exploring and assessing the potential of undiscovered resources.

Exclusive Economic Zone.—The mineral potential of the 

vast area of the EEZ is little known. Research in the underexplored EEZ is needed because the marine deposits of the 

area host a wide variety of rare metals and REEs, which are 

essential to emerging, green, and high-technology applications 

(Hein and others, 2005). Fundamental research on processes 

instrumental in concentrating metals into ore deposits in the 

deep ocean can be carried out while the type and distribution 

of the deposits are being surveyed. These research results 

could provide a framework to support future assessments of 

deep-ocean mineral potential. Collaborative work with USGS 

coastal and marine scientists, other Federal agencies, university scientists, and oceanographic institutions will improve the 

quality and utility of these studies.

Beyond the EEZ is the Extended Continental Shelf 

(ECS), as defined by the United Nations Convention on the 

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (United Nations, 1982). The 

ECS can be established by coastal nations based on specific 

geologic and geomorphologic criteria. The potential ECS 

of the United States could significantly increase the size of 

the already expansive EEZ, especially north of Alaska in the 

Arctic Ocean. The ECS of arctic Alaska is a poorly understood tectonic region for which fundamental crustal geological 

questions must be resolved for both territorial resolution and 

resource delineation. International collaborative studies can 

potentially optimize research on the geologic framework and 

the endowment of energy and mineral resources, which are 

currently (2013) unknown but likely to include oil and gas, gas 

hydrate, and rare and critical metals.

Alaska.—Similar to the ECS of arctic Alaska, some landward portions of Alaska are still unexplored, with world-class 

mineral deposits still being discovered at the surface. Alaska 

contains vast resources of coal and other fossil fuels, significant potential for geothermal energy, some of the world’s 

largest zinc, copper, and gold deposits, as well as deposits of 

high-demand mineral commodities, such as REEs, indium, 

and tin. However, baseline geoscience data for Alaska are 

incomplete and of lower resolution, are available in smaller 

quantities, and are not as recent as corresponding data for the 

conterminous United States. The upgrading, updating, and 

maintaining of geoscience base data for Alaska are important 

for supporting USGS efforts to conduct energy and mineral 

resources assessments. 

Concealed resources.—Most of the conterminous United 

States has been effectively explored on the surface for the 

presence of mineral resources. Undiscovered resources lie 

beneath cover (rocks, colluvium and alluvium, and water) 

that conceals a resource from recognition. One of the key 

challenges and opportunities the USGS faces in the future is 

assessing resources under cover and in deep settings [more 

than 1 kilometer (km) below land surface]. Recent efforts 

by the USGS, industry, and academia have been initiated to 

develop methods for exploring beneath cover and to develop 

geologic frameworks (goal 1–1) that incorporate source, 

transport, and trap mechanisms to predict where deposits 

formed and where they should be today. In addition, there 

is work underway to develop better and more powerful 

deep-penetrating geochemical and geophysical methods and 

technology to help visualize those targets, but there is no 

coherent protocol for estimating the possibility or probability 

of undiscovered resources beneath cover. Application of new 

methods and protocols for covered regions will give the USGS 

the ability to make more objective, repeatable, and reliable 

assessments of undiscovered resources. The identification of 

covered mineral resources, particularly in the western United 

States, also can yield important information for environmental 

and hydrologic studies.

Major Questions

• What are the dominant processes that result in a concentration of metals in the deep ocean, and what are 

the geological, geochemical, and geophysical characteristics that distinguish these deposits?

• What are the geologic data needs in Alaska and the 

Arctic?

• What are the processes that enhance the surface 

expression of subsurface resources, and what are the 

geological, geochemical, biological, and geophysical 

characteristics that can be used to assess concealed 

resources?
Helicopter drop off for USGS scientist to collect a granodiorite rock sample on a ridge top in the 

Western Alaska Range. Photograph by John Jackson, USGS.

Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 13

Strategic Actions

• Action 1–3a.—Promote the collection of the geological, geophysical, and geochemical data within the 

U.S. EEZ. This effort will require collaborations with 

coastal and marine programs, oceanographic institutions, and other government agencies, such as the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), on 

relevant oceanographic, geological, and geochemical 

process research.

• Action 1–3b.—Expand collection and evaluation of 

geological, geophysical, and geochemical field data 

for energy and mineral resources in Alaska and the 

Arctic offshore. Prioritize regions in Alaska in which 

significant upgrades in base data, satellite imagery, 

and geophysical, geochemical, and geologic maps are 

required. This activity would benefit from coordination 

with the State of Alaska and other government agencies, the academic community, and industry.

• Action 1–3c.—Construct geologic frameworks for 

concealed deposits. These frameworks would be based 

on source, transport, and trap mechanisms to predict 

where deposits are formed, where they occur, and what 

features can be detected at the surface. 
Highlight

14 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Minerals in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) comprises all marine areas within 200 nautical miles of the nearest U.S. land, 

including Pacific islands of U.S. affiliation (Hein and others, 2005), a total area approximately 20 percent greater than the 

entire U.S. land area (fig. 6A; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). The United States has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources in the EEZ. These resources include deep-ocean 

strategic and critical minerals essential for national security and economic growth, especially in high-technology and 

green applications.

Deposit types that have promising resource potential are sea 

floor massive sulfides, ferromanganese crusts, manganese 

nodules, and phosphorite. 

Significantly, some of these 

deep-ocean mineral deposits 

have high concentrations of rare 

earth elements, precious metals, 

base metals, and many other 

resources, but the resource 

potential of these deposits is yet 

to be determined. In fact, reconnaissance minerals data do not 

exist for substantial parts of the 

EEZ. The knowledge base of the 

USGS combined with published 

and unpublished databases and 

collections of new data can be 

used for resource and environmental evaluation and development of deposit models. USGS 

resource assessment techniques developed for land-based 

deposits may have applications 

for offshore deposits once sufficient relevant data for the EEZ 

have been collected on research 

cruises specifically designed to 

study mineral deposits. 

Hawaiian

Islands

Puerto Rico and the

U.S. Virgin Islands

Navassa Island Johnston Atoll

Midway

Islands

Howland Island

Baker Island

American

Samoa

Wake

Island

Guam

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Jarvis Island

Palmyra Atoll

Kingman Reef

Alaska

United States

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

Great Lakes

EXPLANATION

A

B

Figure 6. A, Map showing the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ; blue shaded areas). B, Clockwise from upper left: 

13.6-centimeter (cm) diameter nodule from Marshall Island 

in the EEZ; three abyssal nodules, each 3 cm in diameter, 

from the Clarion-Clipperton prime nodule zone (international 

waters); cross-section of nodule from the Blake Plateau off the 

coast of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina; 

diagenetic nodules in a box core from the Peru Basin; and 

dense concentration of nodules rich in nickel, copper, lithium, 

and molybdenum located in an area about 4 meters (m) by 3 m 

of the Johnston Atoll EEZ.
Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 15

Goal 2: Understand the Environmental Behavior 

of Energy and Mineral Resources and Their 

Waste Products

Introduction

The research challenges associated with sustainability 

of energy and mineral resources and the environment are 

woven together in a complex tapestry that spans the entire 

lifecycle of resource development from the geologic setting 

of formation and occurrence through exploration, extraction, 

processing, and use to reclamation, recycling, or disposal and 

beyond. A more comprehensive understanding of the interactions among energy and mineral resources and environmental 

and biological receptors can help the following: resource 

industries to identify efficient and cost-effective means of 

mitigating adverse environmental effects, land use managers 

and regulators to ensure proper stewardship and protection 

of the environment, and citizens to be informed about risks 

and benefits associated with resource extraction (National 

Research Council, 2007). Furthermore, research characterizing 

these interactions will provide a basic scientific foundation 

needed to analyze these risks and benefits, sometimes referred 

to as a “full cost accounting,” with the aim of facilitating scientifically informed decisionmaking regarding the sustainable 

development of energy and mineral resources. 

Global economic growth likely will maintain the demand 

for those energy and mineral commodities that have traditionally formed the staples of society, including aluminum, 

coal, copper, gas, gold, iron, lead, oil, silver, uranium, and 

zinc. This demand likely will drive resource exploration in 

less accessible geologic environments, such as deeper in the 

Earth’s crust and offshore, production of larger deposits of 

lower grade, and technological advances that enable new 

resource recovery methods. For example, the production of 

natural gas from shale formations using hydraulic fracturing, 

also referred to as “fracking,” is increasing, but the potential 

effects of this technology on water quality and surface-water 

hydrology are not well understood. 

Increased demand for emerging commodities (such 

as REEs used in permanent magnets for wind turbines and 

hybrid-car batteries; lithium used in batteries for hybrid cars 

and other uses; and potash and phosphate in mineral fertilizers 

needed for biofuel production) will present additional unique 

environmental challenges and opportunities. These commodities fall into two main categories: those that are the primary 

target of mineral production, such as most REEs, lithium, 

PGMs, potash, and phosphate, and those that are produced as 

byproducts of other commodities, such as gallium, indium, 

cadmium, tellurium, and some REEs (see Highlight, p. 16). 

In many cases, these commodities are derived from geologically and mineralogically unique deposit types that require 

specialized ore-processing techniques to extract the metals, 

which result in unconventional wastes. Collectively, these 

future trends in resource production will lead to a host of new 

environmental challenges requiring cutting edge scientific 

insights to solve, in addition to addressing existing, unsolved 

environmental challenges associated with traditional resource 

recovery and use. 

As the United States plans its energy and minerals future, 

it must be cognizant that some previous extraction and development activities have had adverse environmental effects. 

Research at legacy resource extraction sites can provide 

insights into potential alternative sources of resources through 

reprocessing of waste streams or beneficial reuse. Furthermore, studies at legacy sites can provide understanding of 

long-term biogeochemical processes influencing environmental signatures; insight into complex natural exposure routes to 

surrounding ecosystems and humans; and information needed 

for mitigation and remediation as well as to inform responsible 

resource development in the future. 

The strategic research actions presented in this section 

outline opportunities for the USGS that can be tailored to 

advance the state of knowledge of environmental research for 

a number of different commodities throughout the resource 

lifecycle. These strategic actions present numerous opportunities for partnering with other Federal agencies, including (but not limited to) resource stewardship and regulatory 

agencies such as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; 

the Bureau of Land Management; the National Institutes of 

Health; the National Park Service; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement; the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Forest Service. Likewise, partnership opportunities also exist at local, 

regional, and State levels, such as State geological surveys, as 

well as private industry for advancing our understanding of 

the relation between energy and mineral development and the 

environment.

Major Questions

• What processes enhance or limit fate and transport, 

including toxicological effects, of contaminants associated with energy and mineral resources in natural 

settings ?

• Can we distinguish between natural backgrounds and 

concentrations of elements enhanced by human activities?

• How can we best transfer insights gained from laboratory studies to large-scale field settings and improve 

the transfer of scientific insights from basic research to 

field applications?

• Are there chemical and physical characteristics of 

emerging energy and mineral resources that determine 

beneficial reusability, byproduct recovery, environmental effects, or appropriate disposal options?
Highlight

16 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

• How will climate change affect the environmental 

characteristics of energy and mineral waste associated 

with past, present, and future production?

• How significant are greenhouse gas emissions or 

removals associated with energy and mineral production relative to global greenhouse gas budgets?

Strategic Actions

2–1. Fundamental Studies

• Action 2–1a.—Investigate carbon sources and potential 

sinks associated with energy and mineral resources 

and renewable energy production to improve understanding of carbon cycling. Carbon dioxide release 

from limestone during cement manufacturing, CO2

 in 

geothermal waters and methane leakage from shale-gas 

production represent examples of sources of carbon. 

Likewise, magnesium and calcium-silicate minerals in 

mine waste represent sinks for atmospheric CO2

. 

• Action 2–1b.—Investigate perturbations to the natural 

landscape during the resource lifecycle. Multidisciplinary research studies at both legacy and active 

energy and mineral production sites will assist in 

discerning the differences between natural background 

and anthropogenic effects of energy and mineral development.

• Action 2–1c.—Develop studies to understand the role 

of climate in altering natural background environmental signatures of energy and minerals systems and the 

behavior of waste products from energy and mineral 

development. This understanding is essential for 

Renewable Energy and Nonrenewable Mineral Resources

Significant amounts of nonrenewable mineral resources will be needed to support the growing demand for domestic 

renewable energy, requiring knowledge about both the sources and the environmental effects of using these minerals, also 

referred to as energy-critical elements (American Physical Society and Materials Research Society, 2011). For example, 

many of these mineral commodities come from foreign sources; rare earth elements (REEs), which are used to manufacture 

magnets for wind turbines and hybrid car batteries, currently (2013) are mined almost exclusively in China. Diversifying REE 

supplies may prove challenging, as the mineral deposits that yield REEs are atypical with respect to environmental challenges associated with mining and are poorly understood. Similarly, the manufacture of new, higher efficiency or lower 

cost photovoltaic cells (fig. 7) relies on mineral commodities such as cadmium, gallium, germanium, indium, selenium, and 

tellurium, which typically are produced as byproducts of the mining of metals such as copper and zinc. Significant amounts 

of these technologically important commodities may occur in waste piles from historical mines where ore beneficiation 

techniques were not designed to recover these elements. In addition, transferring electricity generated by solar “farms” to 

market would require an expanded electrical grid, spurring demand for copper wire. Environmental protection and stewardship of lands associated with future mining for all these mineral commodities will rely on a sound scientific understanding of the source, transport, and fate of all potential contaminants associated with the deposit types that will yield these 

commodities.

Figure 7. Solar panels installed at the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, Colorado. Renewable energy sources such as solar 

energy from photovoltaic cells are reliant on a number of nonrenewable mineral commodities, such as arsenic, cadmium, gallium, 

selenium, and tellurium.
Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 17

devising effective mitigation or remediation strategies for proposed, ongoing, or legacy mining activities 

or for predicting behavior of wastes under variable 

climate regimes.

2–2. Applied Investigations

• Action 2–2a.—Characterize waste streams associated 

with energy and mineral production and processing. 

These studies will improve the understanding of the 

linkages between the energy and mineral resources 

characteristics and waste products, of opportunities 

for recycling and byproduct resource recovery, and of 

mitigation, management, or remediation of contaminant releases to the environment from these wastes.

• Action 2–2b.—Conduct research on deep geologic 

reservoirs for disposal of wastes from energy and 

mineral development, extraction, and use. Candidates 

for disposal in deep geologic reservoirs could include: 

uranium-contaminated groundwater produced during 

in situ recovery, high-salinity water coproduced with 

oil and gas; CO2

 generated from fossil fuels (geologic 

carbon sequestration); and spent nuclear fuel and highlevel nuclear waste.

• Action 2–2c.—Investigate the environmental geochemistry of emerging production technologies. Such 

insights will be invaluable in designing methods to 

perform resource assessments and integrated assessments of future resource development (goals 3 and 4). 

These technologies could include a number of in situ 

or leaching techniques such as in situ conversion of oil 

shale (see Highlight, p. 11), in situ leach mining for 

copper and uranium recovery, hydraulic fracturing for 

shale gas production, and gas hydrate recovery using 

hot water, steam injection, and depressurization. 

• Action 2–2d.—Expand USGS capabilities for research 

on the minerals commodities and geologically based 

environmental effects associated with the growing use 

of renewable energy resources (biomass, geothermal, 

hydropower, solar, and wind) to provide information 

for assessment activities. 

2–3. Synthesis Activities

• Action 2–3a.—Create geologically based environmental models. These models, known as geoenvironmental 

models (duBray, 1995), can include priority, conventional energy resources (such as coal and uranium) and 

emerging critical mineral and energy commodities, 

such as shale gas and REEs. This extension of geoenvironmental models will assist in understanding the 

geological and geochemical controls on contaminant 

transport and fate, identifying potential environmental 

risks, identifying data gaps, and improving energy and 

mineral resources assessments.

• Action 2–3b.—Enhance the ability to transfer insights 

between simple process-oriented, short term, and 

small-scale laboratory experiments and complex, 

longer term, and large-scale natural energy and mineral 

systems. Well-designed field studies in key settings 

can span gaps in both temporal and spatial scales and 

improve predictive capacity for processes operating 

within Earth systems.

A geothermal power plant at The Geysers near Santa Rosa, 

California.Photograph by Julie Donnelly-Nolan, USGS.
18 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Goal 3: Provide Inventories and Assessments of 

Energy and Mineral Resources

Introduction

Where will the United States obtain the energy and mineral commodities necessary to support its future infrastructure 

and technology? Policymakers, the global financial sector, 

industry, and others rely on the USGS to provide information 

needed for understanding the national and global distribution, 

supply, and demand for energy and mineral resources.

The USGS founding directive to examine the “... mineral resources, and products of national domain” (43 U.S.C. 

§31) includes fuel (coal, oil, uranium) and nonfuel mineral 

materials, as well as studies outside the national domain when 

such studies are in the national interest. The USGS is one of 

the principal Federal agencies that develop global information and comprehensive science for nonfuel minerals (fig. 8). 

The USGS provides energy resource assessments and shares 

responsibility for many aspects of global energy data and 

science with other Federal agencies, such as the Department of 

Energy (DOE), the Energy Information Administration (EIA), 

and the BOEM. Responsibility for managing fuel and nonfuel 

resources and the lands on which they occur belongs to other 

agencies. The USGS also plays a key role in assessing the 

energy and mineral resources endowment in other countries, as 

part of the larger U.S. effort to understand the global resources 

endowment, foster science diplomacy, and support investment, 

capacity building, development, and political stability in these 

countries while potentially increasing supply to the world 

market (National Research Council, 2012). 

In the next decade, the need for resource estimates in an 

economic context will increase as stakeholders and decisionmakers seek information for considering multiple options at 

decision points along the resource lifecycle (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2007). Analyses that model the interaction between 

geologic characteristics of the resource and engineering/economic cost variables provide an added dimension in terms of 

the amount of resource that potentially can be recovered and 

sold at a price covering the costs of discovery, development, 

production, and transportation to the market. Examples could 

include building on completed coal assessments to evaluate 

the effects of coal composition on its extraction and use and 

developing a full-cycle model to evaluate economic and other 

factors that affect the amount of undiscovered Arctic oil and 

gas resources that could be added to global supply. Extending 

the economic information in inventories and resource assessments provides additional data that may be useful to Federal, 

State, and other decisionmakers for understanding the potential benefits as well as environmental and other costs (goal 4). 

Depending on the scale and scope of innovation, iterative 

evaluations, new assessments (for newly significant elements 

or geographic regions, for example), or significant changes to 

assessment methodology may be required to adequately evaluate projected supply fluctuations (goal 5) and their effect.

Energy

The role of the USGS in evaluation of energy resources 

is focused on geologically based, undiscovered resources, 

exclusive of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Periodic USGS 

assessments of technically recoverable, undiscovered oil, gas, 

and natural gas liquids in the United States and the world 

(Ahlbrandt and others, 2005) based on a systematic, vetted, 

probabilistic methodology are used by a wide variety of institutions around the world. The geologic reports (for example, 

U.S. Geological Survey Bighorn Basin Province Assessment 

Team, 2010) that accompany most domestic petroleum assessments are highly valued by customers and serve as long-lasting geoscience compilations for sedimentary basins across the 

United States.

As geologic understanding and extraction technologies advance, assessments must be updated, and assessment 

methodologies must evolve. The rapidly expanding production 

of oil and gas from low-porosity and permeability reservoirs 

(tight gas, shale gas, and shale oil) requires innovation in 

assessment methods as well as improved understanding of the 

geologic and geochemical nature of the reservoirs (goal 1). For 

example, a recent assessment (Coleman and others, 2011) of 

the undiscovered oil and gas potential of the Marcellus Shale 

(fig. 9) used production data from shale gas accumulations 

in this and other U.S. sedimentary basins to more effectively 

visualize and understand the long-term production profiles that 

characterize shale gas production through time. The geological 

and other information needed for underpinning these efforts 

can provide opportunities, such as Milici and others (2012), 

for leveraging and enhancing relationships with key USGS 

partners, including the State geological surveys. 

The USGS also assesses domestic undiscovered resources 

of several nonpetroleum sources of energy. Undiscovered coal 

resources in the United States have been assessed, and reserve 

estimates are underway (for example, Scott and others, 2011). 

Uranium, currently (2013) the subject of an ongoing, joint 

USGS-EIA study of undiscovered resources, is hosted in a 

variety of geologic settings, which complicates the assessment 

process. An effort to develop a uranium environmental assessment methodology would complement the ongoing resource 

assessment effort and provide the scientific understanding of 

the influences of uranium resources and their potential effects 

on the environment. Likewise, renewed interest in thorium 

may necessitate additional study of the domestic potential 

for this resource (see Highlight, p. 22). Effective assessment 

methodologies for the commodity under consideration would 

benefit from an improved geologic understanding of occurrence (goal 1) and the evolution of extraction techniques and 

must portray the range of uncertainty of data and results at all 

stages of the assessment. 
Resource category

Produced Discovered Undiscovered

World, 

excluding 

United States

U.S. onshore and 

State-owned 

waters

Federal 

offshore

Inventories Assessments

A. Energy B. Minerals

Resource category

Produced Discovered Undiscovered

Inventories Assessments

Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 19

Major Questions

• What are the undiscovered resources of technically 

recoverable oil, gas, coal, uranium, and geothermal 

energy in the United States and in the world?

• What is the range of economic and environmental consequences of extraction and delivery of these energy 

resources?

Strategic Actions

3–1. Undiscovered Geologically Based Energy Resources

• Action 3–1a.—Conduct periodic assessments of undiscovered, technically recoverable gas and oil resources 

of the United States (exclusive of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf) and the world with increasing emphasis 

on reserve growth and unconventional resources, such 

as tight gas reservoirs.

• Action 3–1b.—Complete an updated national assessment of undiscovered uranium resources.

• Action 3–1c.—Conduct targeted assessments of 

emerging energy resources (for example, gas hydrates, 

geothermal energy, oil shale) as warranted by research 

findings (goal 1) and by advances in extraction technology.

• Action 3–1d.—Extend components of economic and 

environmental analyses, where possible in cooperation with other bureaus, to broaden the assessment of 

technically recoverable resources. The linking of these 

economic and environmental analyses with future 

integrated assessments, as described in goal 4, will 

enhance the utility and relevance of these analyses to 

resource stewardship agencies. 

Minerals

The responsibility of the USGS for mineral materials includes evaluating the complete range of production 

data, reserves, resources, and undiscovered deposits (fig. 8) 

throughout the world and across the full spectrum of globally 

traded commodities. This responsibility requires a broad scope 

of USGS activities related to minerals, ranging from collection 

and compilation of geologic, production, and economic data 

to inventories of domestic and global reserves and resources, 

analyses of spatial and temporal patterns and materials flow, 

and assessments of undiscovered resources.

The USGS National Minerals Information Center 

(NMIC) collects, analyzes, and publishes data on domestic 

and global reserves. Domestic data collection activities are 

facilitated by cooperative agreements with State government agencies, whereas international minerals information 

is obtained annually by questionnaires and exchanges with 

organizations in approximately 100 countries. The USGS also 

tracks active mines, mineral operations, and facilities globally, 

and the Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) provides 

limited geologic data for some domestic and global deposits, 

Figure 8. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides assessment and information (green areas) for A, energy resources, and B, 

mineral resources by geographic region and resource category. Discovered resources are those accumulations known to exist. 

Undiscovered resources are those theorized to exist, based on local geology being permissive for a specific type of energy or mineral 

deposit. For energy, the USGS conducts assessments of undiscovered resources. For nonfuel minerals, the USGS provides scientific 

data and inventories of produced and discovered resources as well as conducts assessments of undiscovered resources. The 

regulatory and resource stewardship responsibilities for these resources reside with other agencies.
ATLANTIC

OCEAN

LAKE

MICHIGAN

LAKE

HURON

LAKE ERIE

LAKE ONTARIO

Area map

GA

SC

NC

VA

PA

IL IN OH

MI WI

WV

MD

DE

NJ

NY

MA

VT

NH

ME

CT RI

AL

MS

TN

KY

EXPLANATION

Appalachian Basin Province 

Western Margin Marcellus AU

Foldbelt Marcellus AU

Interior Marcellus AU

0 100 200 MILES

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

45° N

43° N

41° N

39° N

37° N

35° N

33° N

89° W 87° W 85° W 83° W 81° W 79° W 77° W 75° W 73° W 71° W

20 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Figure 9. Extent of the Marcellus assessment units (AUs) within the Appalachian Basin geologic province. The Marcellus Shale is 

now exploited as a combination reservoir and source rock for natural gas and natural gas liquids. A probabilistic resource assessment 

completed by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2011 estimated a range of 43 trillion to 144 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically 

recoverable gas (not counted as reserves), with a mean estimate of 84 trillion cubic feet. Most of the undiscovered gas is within the 

Interior Marcellus AU. 

prospects, and mineral occurrences, but comprehensive and 

systematically updated coverage of discovered deposits worldwide is not currently (2013) available through the MRDS. 

Public and private sectors rely on USGS minerals information to improve the understanding of how mineral materials are used within the economy and to forecast future supply 

and demand for these materials. This domestic and global 

information is subsequently used in the analysis of national 

and international policies, in formulating plans to deal with 

potential shortages and interruptions in mineral supplies, and 

in fostering the development of strategies for maintaining a 

competitive position within the global economy.

Assessments of domestic undiscovered mineral resources 

are amenable to probabilistic methodologies similar to those 

used for energy resources, but mineral resources occur in 

a broader range of geologic settings and require an understanding of a much wider array of geologic frameworks. 

With this additional knowledge and more expansive study of 

the geochemistry of Earth systems (goal 1), more accurate 

geologic models of mineral resources can be built and used 

to constrain estimates of the location, quality, and quantity of 

undiscovered resources.

Major Questions

• What are the global reserves and annual production of 

nonfuel mineral materials, and what potential supply 

restrictions do these indicate?

• What are the discovered and potential undiscovered 

resources of nonfuel minerals in the United States that 

could bolster future supplies?

• What types of information are needed to provide unbiased assessments of undiscovered mineral resources 

and effectively portray their uncertainty, and at what 

scales?
Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 21

Supporting infrastructure (foreground) and mining operations at the Red Dog ore deposit (background), the world’s largest producer 

of zinc, located in the western Brooks Range in Alaska. In addition to discovered resources at Red Dog, there may be undiscovered 

resource potential in the region as we learn more about the complex structural and fluid-flow history in this geologic setting. Mineral 

resource assessments that incorporate geologic framework studies are used to estimate the probability of undiscovered deposits in 

Alaska and elsewhere that may contribute to future mineral supplies. Photograph by Tom Moore, USGS.

Strategic Actions

3–2. Discovered Nonfuel Mineral Resources

• Action 3–2a.—Expand partnerships with governments, 

industry, and the Nation’s research and development 

sectors to ensure that the USGS has timely, accurate, 

long-term, and comprehensive global commodity data 

for all nonfuel mineral commodities.

• Action 3–2b.—Establish a periodic review, in consultation with government and industry partners, of the 

range of commodities covered, process and scope of 

data collection, and the format, range, and availability 

of data products.

• Action 3–2c.—Expand due-diligence field studies to 

confirm the geologic characteristics and the resource 

and grade data for high-priority commodities. Work 

could include the tracking of reserve-growth characteristics of individual mineral deposit types.

• Action 3–2d.—Enhance the scope and functionality of 

the domestic discovered resources database. This spatially oriented, continuously updated national reference 

system ideally would contain geologic, production, 

reserve, and resource data for all mines, prospects, and 

mineral occurrences within the United States. 

• Action 3–2e.—Strengthen and expand the analytical 

functions of the NMIC to provide more comprehensive 

overviews of changes to global nonfuel mineral supply 

and demand. In particular, expand spatially oriented 

analyses of global production, trade, manufacturing, 

and materials end-use.

3–3. Undiscovered Nonfuel Mineral Resources

• Action 3–3a.—Reevaluate the methodology, scale, 

scope, coverage, and output of undiscovered mineral 

resource assessments. Include consideration of base 

data, engineering (technology, processing), environmental, and mineral economics expertise in assessments and evaluate the uncertainty and effectiveness of 

qualitative and quantitative (probabilistic) methodologies.

• Action 3–3b.—Develop methodologies for assessment 

of undiscovered nonfuel mineral resources in frontier regions: in Alaska, the EEZ, and the ECS and for 

resources deeper than 1 km below the Earth’s surface. 

This activity would benefit from appropriate strong 

partners, including the BOEM, in the offshore realm. 
Highlight

B

22 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Thorium: Why and Where?

Globally, thorium is experiencing much renewed interest and research investment as a potential fuel source because it 

provides a source of nuclear power that does not proliferate weapons-caliber plutonium, has the potential to generate 

electrical power with a low carbon footprint, and may have operational advantages compared with uranium-fueled reactors in terms of power density, cost, scale, and waste disposal. Major research and development efforts on thorium-based 

reactors are underway in China and India. U.S. research on thorium and molten-salt nuclear reactors was discontinued 

in 1969, but recent national energy policy discussions have renewed calls for research and development of thorium as an 

energy resource.

Geochemically, thorium and rare earth elements (REEs) coexist. The radioactivity of REE deposits is principally owing to 

thorium, which presents an environmental issue in the waste streams of REE mining and processing. Within the United 

States, thorium could be produced as a byproduct from the production of REEs, thereby converting a once undesirable 

waste into a valuable commodity.

The United States has some of the largest thorium resources in the world. The USGS led a considerable amount of 

research on thorium geology (fig. 10; Van Gosen and others, 2009) from the late 1950s to the late 1980s. Many thoriumbearing districts in the United States were studied, described, mapped, and sampled (Van Gosen and others, 2009). More 

than 200 thorium-rich veins in the Beaverhead Mountains form the Lemhi Pass district, which is thought to contain the 

largest concentration of thorium resources in the United States and is the site of renewed thorium exploration activity. 

Given the growing interest in thorium, an improved understanding of the geology, mineralogy, geochemistry, and resource 

potential of thorium-bearing systems could provide information needed for the development of comprehensive energy 

policies and consideration of alternatives during the next decade.

A

Figure 10. Photographs of the Lemhi Pass thorium 

district in Idaho and Montana. A, View to the north of 

the Lucky Horseshoe prospect (middle of photograph), 

which is one group of numerous exploration trenches, 

cuts, and short adits that explored thorium-rich vein 

systems of the Lemhi Pass thorium district in the 1950s 

through the 1980s. B, Outcrop of the Wonder vein 

(between red lines) in the Lemhi Pass thorium district 

exposed in a mined bench. The vein is heavily oxidized 

and consists mainly of silica, likely some carbonate, and 

iron oxide minerals with thorite and altered thorite. 
Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 23

Goal 4: Understand the Effects of Energy and 

Mineral Development on Natural Resources and 

Society

Introduction

Policymakers and resource stewards will face challenges 

through the next decade in terms of making decisions amidst 

uncertainty, particularly in emerging areas where information is lacking or the state of science is equivocal (National 

Research Council, 2005). Increasing domestic energy and 

mineral production, emerging use of new technologies and 

renewable energy development, and mandates to consider the 

costs, benefits, and cumulative effects of development present 

complex challenges for agencies responsible for managing 

natural resources in the United States. Refinements in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing to produce unconventional hydrocarbon resources have increased accessibility of 

these resources, but these techniques have potential subsurface 

and above-ground effects on water and other resources that are 

only partially understood. Similarly, the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions has contributed to the growth in 

the use of renewable energy sources (Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change, 2011), such as wind and solar, but the 

linkages of renewable energy infrastructure to mineral development and the environmental effects of using these energy 

resources merit further study. Information about these benefits 

and trade-offs can lead to better decisions culminating in 

responsible development of resources, ecosystem protection, 

and overall benefits to society (National Research Council, 

2005). 

The overarching approach of this goal is to develop the 

energy and mineral data, frameworks, analytical methods, and 

products to support the information needs of decisionmakers 

who must “accommodate ecosystem-based management practices as they face competing demands for recreation, transport, 

leasing, conservation, and economic growth” (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2007, p. 26). The need for more holistic approaches 

to characterize societal value in the context of decisions gives 

rise to the concept of ecosystem services. The understanding 

of ecosystem services, which are broadly considered to consist 

of the results of ecosystem processes that confer benefits on 

human society (President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology, 2011), requires integrated applications of 

economics and ecology (National Research Council, 2005).

 Such applications could be used to support information 

needs for decisions faced at various stages during the energy 

and mineral resources lifecycle. One effort might consist of 

an evaluation of ecosystem services of the landscape before 

development. Policy and resource management decisions 

frequently imply changes relative to some baseline, and most 

changes imply trade-offs, that is, more of one good or service 

but less of another (National Research Council, 2005); hence 

there is an inherent value in understanding baseline conditions 

in a predevelopment setting. Key first steps in this approach 

are designating liaisons to work with land and resource 

managers to better understand their needs and developing 

new targeted spatial products based on existing data and 

knowledge.

Recognizing the need for more comprehensive information for decisions, State, Federal, and nongovernmental 

organizations are increasingly interested in broader assessment, inventory, and research activities, especially for sizeable 

geographic areas. Large landscape initiatives—for example, 

DOI landscape conservation cooperatives, Bureau of Land 

Magement (BLM) rapid ecoregional assessments, National 

Park Service vulnerability assessments, and the Western Governors Association wildlife corridors initiative—are providing 

information at requisite spatial scales suitable for regional or 

cumulative effects analyses. These initiatives will benefit from 

additional research and technical assistance, but meeting these 

needs requires application of the research and foundational 

understanding developed through goals 1 and 2, the reliable 

inventory products discussed in goal 3, and strong integration of research capabilities within USGS and with external 

partners. Achieving this goal will require scientific collaboration and the dedication of resources to support the evolving 

adaptive management strategies developed by the DOI (Williams and others, 2009) and other users of USGS assessment 

products.

An integrated assessment (see Highlight, p. 25) brings 

together disparate datasets in a common format so they can 

be examined and used to support broader policy and decisionmaking processes. Integrated assessment also provides an 

organizing framework for analysis and communication that is 

adaptable to the scope and complexity of the question or issue 

and can comply with parallel legal requirements for Federal 

land management and planning (for example, environmental 

impact statements). 

The common characteristics of integrated assessment 

include collaboration between policymakers or managers 

and scientists, consideration of multiple resource values and 

societal needs, and development of relevant products based 

on the best available information and analytical methods. 

Integrated assessments that include information on energy and 

mineral resources, other natural resources, and socioeconomic 

considerations represent interdisciplinary endeavors that leverage expertise across the USGS and elsewhere (see Highlight, 

p. 26). USGS research on fundamental Earth processes, interactions between energy and mineral resources and the environment, and quantitative assessments of the distribution and 

abundance of resources (goals 1–3) form an essential scientific 

and technical foundation for integrated assessments. Improved 

scientific understanding and information on ecosystems, water 

resources, land use, and climate change could be developed 

through focused work across the USGS. Using multidisciplinary teams, the USGS can provide information (goal 2) 

on different classes or specific types of energy and mineral 

resources, such as uranium, wind energy, or coal, to inform 

decisions and national energy policy questions that arise at 

multiple scales to meet the needs of decisionmakers. 
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.’s 

Safford Mine (copper) in the foothills of the Gila 

Mountains (snow capped in the background) 

north of Safford, Arizona, 2012. For scale, note the 

haul truck. Photograph by Bruce Gungle, USGS.

24 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Major Questions

• What science can the USGS provide to help assess the 

range of effects of energy and mineral development 

relative to other natural resources and socioeconomic 

considerations to facilitate responsible development?

• How can USGS science help stakeholders and decisionmakers characterize and evaluate tradeoffs among 

renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy resources, taking 

into account the full lifecycle of resource development, 

use, and disposal?

• What data and information are needed by other Federal 

and State agencies and public resource decisionmakers 

to implement best practices throughout the lifecycle of 

energy or mineral resource development?

Strategic Actions

4–1. Spatial Analysis of Energy and Mineral Resources 

Occurrence and Development

• Action 4–1a.—Designate liaisons and a network of 

energy and mineral resources experts within the USGS 

who work with land and resource managers, including 

those from DOI bureaus and State agencies, to identify 

important information needs.

• Action 4–1b.—Provide information on energy and mineral development potential to large landscape conservation initiatives that are evaluating such development 

with respect to other natural resources and socioeconomic considerations.

• Action 4–1c.—Develop new nationwide spatial data 

products for energy and mineral resources. This 

activity could be coordinated with other agencies, as 

appropriate, to leverage use of existing datasets. These 

products could include existing areas of development for these resources and associated infrastructure, 

such as roads, pads, pipelines, ponds, 

compressor stations, and other facilities 

associated with resource development. 

4–2. Exploring Interdisciplinary Approaches for Assessing 

Effects of Energy and Mineral Development

• Action 4–2a.—Identify metrics or indicators that reflect 

the economic and environmental effects and uncertainty of energy and mineral development on other 

natural resources. For example, a method for evaluating water use and production associated with unconventional oil and gas resource development could 

improve the understanding of the potential effects of 

development on the availability and quality of water 

resources.

• Action 4–2b.—Develop and refine methods for incorporating social, cultural, economic, and ecosystem 

service metrics into integrated assessment approaches 

through collaboration with partners and stakeholders.

• Action 4–2c.—Develop methods to estimate potential 

land surface and seabed disturbance associated with 

potential development. These methods could draw on 

knowledge of the resource, including expanded use of 

USGS estimated ultimate recovery information for oil 

and gas resources, as well as requirements for development.

• Action 4–2d.—Assess the effects of renewable energy 

development on other natural resources and society, in 

coordination with resource stewardship agencies. This 

activity could include evaluations of the following: 

physical and biological components of ecosystems, 

models and assumptions about development effects at 

different resource lifecycle stages, and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

• Action 4–2e.—Develop decision analysis and support 

tools to address stewardship needs. Examples of such 

recognized needs include BLM work processes, such 

as inventory and assessment, planning, permitting and 

managing uses, evaluating best management practices 

for mitigation and reclamation, and monitoring.
Highlight

Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 25

Uranium in the Grand Canyon: A Case Study in Integrated Research and Assessment

Issues involving legacy environmental effects, such as those caused by historical mining activities, could challenge the 

availability of uranium for energy production by resulting in increased environmental costs, societal resistance to uranium 

mining, or restrictions on accessibility. For example, about one million acres of Federal land in the Grand Canyon region of 

Arizona (fig. 11) was temporarily withdrawn from new mining claims in July 2009 by the Secretary of the Interior because of 

concerns that uranium mining could have negative effects on the land, water, people, and wildlife.

As directed by the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management engaged the USGS to assist in evaluating the 

effects of withdrawing these lands from new mining claims. The USGS led multidisciplinary studies that provided estimates 

of uranium resources, examined the effects of previous breccia-pipe 

mining, summarized water-chemistry data for streams and springs, 

and investigated potential biological pathways of exposure to uranium 

and associated contaminants (Alpine, 2010). An integrated approach 

(fig. 12) and careful planning were needed to integrate data from 

various components of uranium lifecycle research across mission 

areas and to package data so that they could be used in an integrated 

assessment by social scientists and economists to assess alternative scenarios and thereby help decisionmakers weigh the tradeoffs 

of uranium mining in the Grand Canyon area. Working together, these 

USGS groups led a study that could become a model for integrated 

USGS studies in the future.

Figure 11. Kanab North Mine, 

one of several breccia-pipe 

uranium mines in northern 

Arizona.

Figure 12. Conceptual diagram 

for an integrated assessment. 

The diagram shows a framework 

for integrating lifecycle research 

and science across multiple 

disciplines within the USGS 

(points designated with “1”) 

and integrating assessments 

with additional socioeconomic 

considerations (point designated 

with “2”). Data generated during 

lifecycle research ultimately 

can be used to make decisions 

regarding land management 

or establish designs or design 

standards for resource 

development and protection 

(point designated with “3”). The 

data and information must be 

communicated so that they can be 

effectively used, exchanged, and 

combined at points 1, 2, and 3.

Resources present?

Accessibility

assessments

Resource lifecycle

research and assessments

Accessible? Resources not

accessible

Maybe

Yes

Availability

assessments

Resources not 

available

Indicators Metrics

and data

Resources 

available

Mineral deposit

models

Geoenvironmental

models

Biological

models

Functions

and patterns Processes

Probabilities, quantities, derived variables, risk factors

Socioeconomic

model

Prohibitions?

Data

Minerals

Air

Land

Water

Ecosystems

Human health

Adaptive management and design standards

Data, spatial overlays

Weighting factors

No

Yes No

1 1

2

3
Highlight

26 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Integrated Assessment for Southwestern Wyoming

Driven by local and regional leaders, the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI) was officially launched in 

2007 with support from the U.S. Department of the Interior. The WLCI mission is to implement a long-term, science-based 

program for assessing, conserving, and enhancing fish and wildlife habitats while facilitating responsible energy and other 

development through local collaboration and partnerships. Partners in the WLCI include the Bureau of Land Management, the USGS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, the Wyoming Department of 

Agriculture, the U.S. Forest Service, six Wyoming county commissions, nine of Wyoming’s conservation districts, and the 

Pinedale Anticline Project Office.

The role of the USGS is to provide multidisciplinary scientific and technical assistance support to WLCI partners and to 

advance the overall scientific understanding of ecosystems in the southwestern Wyoming landscape. Working with WLCI 

partners, the USGS has developed an integrated assessment for southwestern Wyoming (fig. 13; Wyoming Landscape 

Conservation Initiative, undated). The integrated assessment is an analysis of WLCI resources based on best available data 

and information and includes roads, energy development, mines, and urban areas along with aquatic and terrestrial natural 

resources and priority management areas designated by partners. Information is summarized by watershed using a transparent and hierarchical approach that facilitates understanding of multiple resources and their contribution to summary 

index scores. The integrated assessment provides a support tool for landscape-scale conservation planning and evaluation 

and a data and analysis resource for addressing specific agency management questions.

Figure 13. The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative integrated assessment Web interface. Information on key resources 

is summarized by watershed, and data used in the development of the assessment are available for download and further 

analysis.
Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 27

Goal 5: Understand the Reliability and 

Availability of Energy and Mineral Supplies

Introduction

Challenges to national security, economic vitality, quality 

of life, and environmental well-being can arise suddenly and 

catastrophically or as a result of long-term trends. Therefore, 

our scientific enterprise must remain responsive and adaptable to meet new and evolving challenges. The human drivers 

of change are complex and diverse, including advances in 

technology, competition for natural resources, evolution of 

national and international policies and conflicts, land-use 

change, effects on ecosystems, and shifting social mores 

and attitudes. Climate change and natural and anthropogenic 

disasters and emergencies also can affect energy and minerals 

resource supplies. Some of these events may trigger perturbations in the immediate reliability of energy and mineral 

supplies as well as create environmental stewardship consequences. Conversely, other events might affect the availability 

of resource supplies, that is, our Nation’s ability to obtain 

resources over the longer term (years to decades) (National 

Research Council, 2008). 

The USGS provides information that is essential underpinning for policy, management, and stewardship decisions on 

resource extraction, use, regulation, and waste management, 

but the magnitude and speed of world events and societal 

changes are placing a premium on flexibility and foresightedness. We emphasize in this section the application and adaptation of existing USGS expertise to address the future of energy 

and mineral supplies for the Nation.

Major Questions

• How might the emergence of new technologies or 

patterns of resource use affect the mineral and energy 

requirements of the Nation, and what science and 

information are needed to meet these national requirements?

• What approaches can be used to identify vulnerabilities 

within the supply chain of mineral materials?

• How can the USGS better prioritize and align energy 

and minerals research activities to address the most 

critical future issues?

5–1. Sudden Disruptions Affect Supplies

Some future events will arrive suddenly with little warning and will require immediate responses that make the best 

use of existing information and capabilities. Disaster response 

precipitated by natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis 

(see Highlight, p. 29), and floods, by terrorist acts, or by catastrophic human error requires the ability to provide relevant 

information almost instantaneously.

The ability of the USGS to respond rapidly and effectively to unforeseen disasters with energy and mineral 

resources expertise is dependent on leveraging a suite of 

existing geological, geochemical, geophysical, and mineral 

economics expertise and analytical capabilities. Within the 

past decade, the USGS has responded to manmade disasters 

by providing remote sensing to environmentally map the 

World Trade Center (WTC) area with imaging spectroscopy 

(Clark and others, 2006) and chemical characterization of 

dusts generated by the WTC collapse (Plumlee and Ziegler, 

2003); chemical measurements before and after wildfires to 

assess changes to soils and waters (Eppinger, 2002; Eppinger 

and others, 2003; Wolf and others, 2010); inorganic, organic, 

and microbial characterization of flood sediments immediately 

following Hurricane Katrina (Plumlee and others, 2006); and 

volume and flow rate measurements of oil from the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill (Labson and others, 2010). Efforts such as 

these are important to characterizing the initial effects from 

catastrophic events and providing the foundational knowledge 

for informing damage assessment and recovery efforts.

In terms of anticipating and preparing for future events, 

USGS expertise and information can be used to underpin the 

development of scenarios and help inform response planning 

and recovery efforts. As one example, the southern California 

ShakeOut scenario (Jones and others, 2008) was the basis 

for a cooperative project to evaluate the physical, social, 

and economic consequences of a modeled large earthquake. 

A magnitude 7.8 earthquake as described in the ShakeOut 

Scenario would cause significant damage to buildings and 

infrastructure. Langer (2011) estimated that more than six million metric tons of newly mined aggregate would be needed 

for emergency repairs and for reconstruction within the study 

area in the five years following the event. This information is 

important for understanding both the potential magnitude and 

the duration of this perturbation on regional aggregate supplies. Greater emphasis on this type of study exemplifies the 

kind of research directions anticipated by this goal. To support 

these endeavors, additional investments would be needed to 

establish mechanisms for timely sample and data analysis, 

interpretation, and delivery to the responders, decisionmakers, 

and the general public in understandable formats.

5–2. Evolving Issues Affect Long-Term Availability

Two factors that will continue to significantly affect 

global demand for energy resources and mineral materials 

in the next decade are the rapid economic development that 

several countries are experiencing and the proliferation of new 

or emerging technologies. The expected increase in global 

demand, especially in countries undergoing rapid economic 

development, is, in part, a reflection of the need to build a 

modern infrastructure. For example, China has accounted for 

most of the global increase in mineral consumption from 2000 

to 2010. Global mineral consumption is expected to increase 

in response to further development in China and economic 
28 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

development in countries with large populations, such as 

India. 

The use of new technologies represents another factor that changes mineral consumption rates and patterns. 

The influence of these technologies on engineering design is 

steering a significant shift in consumption of high-technology 

materials (for example, aluminum alloys, doped crystals 

and films, carbon-composite fibers) and associated fuels (for 

example, high-octane fuels), all produced with different forms 

of metals and mineral materials. This rapid evolution in consumption patterns highlights the limits of our knowledge about 

the distribution and concentration of some of the raw materials 

that these industries use.

To respond to issues of energy and mineral supplies, the 

USGS must understand the availability of energy and mineral 

materials at both national and global scales. For instance, 

constraining imports of these resources have the potential to 

affect U.S. economic development and national security, thus 

information on global and domestic resource distribution and 

availability can inform decisions about risks associated with 

import dependence and possible actions to mitigate supply risk 

(National Research Council, 2012). 

As the Nation’s energy mix changes, the USGS will 

likely expand its research and assessment portfolio to include 

a more comprehensive suite of energy resources, including 

hydrocarbon- and nonhydrocarbon-based sources (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, p. 25), and expand studies that provide a 

geological basis for energy mix analyses, such as the age and 

decline rates of giant domestic fields from which a large proportion of oil supply is produced. Another topic could be the 

geological understanding of resource volume and distribution, 

such as analysis of stranded gas (Attanasi and Freeman, 2011), 

particularly in areas likely to emerge as the focus of significant future development. In aggregate, these activities could 

be used to provide a foundation for developing energy mix 

scenarios, for identifying new avenues of geologic processes 

research, and for refining approaches to resource assessments.

Many mineral commodities are increasingly important for 

clean-energy industries, defense applications, and consumer 

electronics. A geographic concentration in global supply for 

some of these energy-critical elements (American Physical 

Society and Materials Research Society, 2011) introduces 

issues of supply risk. The minerals necessary for these emerging technologies need to be a key component of the USGS 

portfolio of minerals research and information collection 

activities. Further development of materials flow and supply chain analyses (see Highlight, p. 30) are needed to better 

understand the movement of materials and their derivatives 

through the global economy and facilitate analyses of supply 

risk.

The methodologies for analyzing the materials flow 

of energy and mineral materials are just evolving, yet their 

development is fundamental to understanding how natural 

and human systems interact with and influence global economies. The depth and consistency of USGS databases on 

mineral statistics and mineral resources are vital components 

in building viable models for minerals and mineral materials. 

USGS data on materials flows, in combination with energyflow information from partners such as the EIA, can be used 

to model the energy and minerals requirements for new or 

emerging materials technologies, as well as monitor supply 

fluctuations, assess energy and material demands for different 

industry sectors, provide warnings of potential supply risks, 

and illuminate vulnerabilities in global production and manufacturing supply chains. 

The output of these models could provide a platform 

for comprehensive planning and management of national 

resources and for identifying short- and long-term vulnerabilities in the supply chain of minerals critical to the national 

economy and defense. Supply chains and end uses of mineral 

materials are dynamic; hence, the suite of materials identified as strategic or critical are also dynamic and will require 

periodic reevaluation. Materials flow analyses and network 

models may also provide an active, quantifiable mechanism 

to help inform decisions on future USGS energy and minerals 

research activities.

Strategic Actions

5–1. Sudden Disruptions Affect Supplies

• Action 5–1a.—Enhance capabilities for rapidly 

responding to events, such as natural disasters or 

manmade disruptions, that result in significant perturbations to resource supplies or the release of energy 

resources or mineral materials to the environment. 

Enhancing these capabilities would require strengthening of coordination mechanisms to facilitate deployment of rapid-response science teams and equipment to 

collect time-sensitive data from the field and to extract 

scale-appropriate data or other information from existing databases (see Highlight, p. 29). 

• Action 5–1b.—Conduct research on how technological and economic systems interact to affect energy and 

minerals availability, and develop scenarios to describe 

how perturbations influence that dynamic. Such analysis and reporting could specifically focus on nodes and 

links in supply chains that are particularly vulnerable 

to sudden disruption.

5–2. Evolving Issues Affect Long-Term Availability

• Action 5–2a.—Develop approaches for identifying 

mineral materials that are strategic and critical to 

the U.S. economy, energy supply, infrastructure, and 

national security. This activity would benefit from consultation with partners, such as the U.S. Department 

of Defense, industrial manufacturers, the National 
Highlight

Goals for Energy and Mineral Resources Science 29

USGS Scientific Contributions to Disaster Response Following the 2011 Japan Earthquake 

and Tsunami

The devastating, magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck the eastern coast of Japan near Tohoku on 

March 11, 2011, required coordinated disaster response efforts, including significant science contributions. With at least 

15,000 people killed and hundreds of thousands displaced from their homes, the humanitarian efforts were paramount, 

but determining the full effect of the disaster also involved assessing the local and global physical and economic effects. 

In addition to the damage to the nuclear reactors at Fukushima, there was widespread damage to the area’s industry and 

infrastructure. The USGS analyzed the effect of the earthquake and tsunami on mineral facilities in the region to assess 

potential disruptions to Japanese and global mineral and material supply chains (fig. 14; Menzie and others, 2011). Nine 

cement plants in the 

affected area produced 

30 percent of Japan’s 

cement; eight iodine 

plants in the same region 

accounted for 25 percent 

of the world’s iodine 

supply. The earthquakeaffected zone also 

included nine metal refineries, four iron and steel 

plants, four limestone 

mines, and two titanium 

facilities.

The USGS briefed 

policymakers soon after 

the quake and published 

a report on the findings 

within eight business days 

of the event (Menzie and 

others, 2011). This type 

of rapid data analysis 

immediately following 

a disaster is of major 

importance for response 

planning by governments 

and industry. As a result 

of the Tohoku effort, 

USGS minerals information and analyses are 

now being incorporated 

into disaster-planning 

scenarios, such as the 

U.S. regional ShakeOut 

earthquake exercises.

Figure 14. Locations of 

mines and mineral facilities 

in Japan.
Highlight

30 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Materials Flow Analysis: Illustrating Global Commodity Supply Vulnerabilities

Materials flow analysis (fig.15A; modified from Kostick, 1996) is the systematic accounting of a material or commodity from 

extraction through processing, manufacturing, reuse, and ultimate disposal (Brown and others, 2000; National Research 

Council, 2004). The USGS National Minerals Information Center provides information on the demand for minerals and mineral materials across industry sectors and develops materials flow analyses for selected commodities (fig.15B; data from 

Lori Apodaca, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., April 4, 2012). This example (fig. 15B) highlights a derivative application of materials flow analysis: the ability to evaluate human influences on global biogeochemical cycling of elements, 

such as sulfur; data are reported in million metric tons (Mt).

Supply-chain analysis, a more comprehensive form of materials flow analysis, illustrates each step in the chain of use 

from source to disposal. Supply-chain analysis accounts for all steps of production and processing (mines, mills, smelters, refineries, fabricators, and the manufacture of final goods), inventories and stockpiles, costs (fixed, variable, and new 

capacity startup), and necessary transportation facilities. Fully developed models require extensive data on the economics 

of production and trade, values of processed materials, demand variations through time, knowledge of materials properties 

specific to individual sectors of the economy, information on the capacity and manufacturing capabilities, and location for 

all downstream infrastructure (processing and production facilities). An analysis of supply chains for materials critical to 

the United States is required to identify economic vulnerabilities that could be precipitated by global trends and circumstances. The USGS is uniquely positioned to develop these tools.

RecyclingRecycling

RecyclingRecycling

From stocks, 0.65 

Petroleum

refining, 

7.12 

Natural gas, 1.17 

Byproduct sulfuric 

acid, 0.79 

Imported sulfur, 

2.95 

Imported sulfuric 

acid, 0.69 

Exports, 1.52 

Total agricultural uses

Ore leaching, 0.46 

Nitrogen fertilizers,

0.02 

Other uses, 2.30 

Petroleum

refining, 2.41 

Sources Processing Consumption (use) Post-consumption

Sources, in Mt Consumption (use), in Mt

Post-consumption, 

in Mt

Total 

U.S. 

supply,

13.4

Deposited to landfill, 10.9

Exports, 1.52

Dispersive losses, 1.01

Other agricultural

chemicals, 0.98

Phosphate

fertilizers,

5.70

A

B

Supply

• Mines

• Imports

• Recycled

 materials

Examples

• Fabrication

• Scrap recycling

• Ore concentrates

Examples

• Disposal

• Recycling

• Losses to 

environment

Examples

• Imports

• Products

• Exports

Examples

Figure 15. Diagrams 

showing materials flow 

models. A, Conceptual 

framework for a 

material supply model. 

B, Example flow model 

for sulfur in the United 

States.
Energy and Minerals Linkages Within the U.S. Geological Survey 31

Institute of Standards and Technology, the DOE, and 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

• Action 5–2b.—Conduct targeted studies on the global 

flow of a select number of critical mineral materials 

as identified in action 5–2a. Global materials flow 

analyses can be used to identify vulnerabilities in supply chain nodes caused by human and natural events 

and knowledge gaps in our understanding of supply 

chain complexities. Supply disruption can be defined 

in terms of facility capacities along all segments of the 

chain. 

• Action 5–2c.—Synthesize energy resource commodity 

assessments (for example, coal, geothermal, natural 

gas, and oil) in support of domestic and global evaluations of the energy mix. Although the thrust of this 

effort could be forward looking, it could also establish 

an historical basis (“lessons-learned”) for analysis, 

such as the age and decline rates of giant domestic 

fields from which a large proportion of oil is produced. 

The results from such a synthesis might also identify 

new fundamental research directions, and could be 

used to refine approaches to resource assessments.

• Action 5–2d.—Enhance mechanisms for prioritizing 

USGS energy and minerals research, assessments, 

and other science and information products to address 

identified data gaps and emerging needs. For example, 

a new genetic model may be needed for a previously 

unrecognized deposit type (goal 1) or geochemical 

research may be required to trace the cycling of an element with emerging uses (goal 2).

Energy and Minerals Linkages Within the U.S. Geological Survey

The USGS science strategy (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2007) established a plan that recognized synergies among 

scientific expertise and capabilities within USGS and through 

partnerships, and the need for multidisciplinary approaches to 

address complex, multifaceted issues facing society. Coordination within USGS and with partners is important to fully 

understand the breadth and magnitude of interactions among 

energy and mineral lifecycles and air, land, soil, water, ecosystems services or functions, and human health from local, 

regional, national, and global perspectives. 

The USGS energy and minerals science strategy mirrors the reality that complex societal issues demand diverse 

capabilities from every corner of the USGS and its partners. 

The science actions developed here represent key components 

of integrated studies at multiple scales. An evaluation of the 

energy and minerals mission area goals and actions (table 3) 

provides an initial identification of linkages within the USGS 

that could serve as opportunities for leveraging expertise and 

capabilities. For example, most of the actions under goals 1, 

2, and 4 reflect the need for enlisting expertise across mission 

areas. The converse is also true: efforts precipitated by the 

energy and minerals science strategy will contribute to other 

goals across the USGS. These linkages with USGS mission 

areas are dynamic and responsive to the particular blend of 

science a given issue demands, as noted in recent National 

Research Council studies (2009; 2012).

The actions in this science strategy also reflect the 

importance of early planning across USGS mission areas so 

that successful, timely integration of research activities can be 

established where appropriate. As one example, many aspects 

of USGS science are intrinsically global, and new opportunities for USGS international activities likely will arise in the 

next decade, underscoring the importance of foresight and 

planning so that the priorities of USGS, DOI, and the Nation 

are met (National Research Council, 2012). 

Although not shown in this initial identification of common ground, an even broader range of linkages that include 

many partners, such as other DOI bureaus, Federal agencies, 

and State geological surveys, is acknowledged and anticipated. 

As one approach to leverage capabilities and expertise across 

agencies, the USGS operates under a number of memoranda of 

understanding (MOU) and interagency agreements. For example, the DOE, DOI (USGS), and EPA signed a memorandum 

of agreement in 2012 to enhance cooperation and facilitate the 

development of a focused, collaborative effort to address the 

highest priority research and development challenges associated with safely and prudently developing unconventional 

shale gas and tight oil resources to inform sound management 

and policy decisions by Federal, State, tribal, and local entities responsible for ensuring prudent development of energy 

resources and protecting human health and the environment 

(Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). When leveraged with 

expertise from other partners, the actions in this USGS Energy 

and Minerals Science Strategy can yield results providing a 

more comprehensive and integrated understanding of natural 

resources and facilitate the dissemination of science, information, and tools to a range of audiences, including scientists, 

cooperators, resource managers, policymakers, and the public. 
32 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Table 3. U.S. Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy actions and intersections with other mission areas.

[Gray-shaded rows denote actions for which the outcomes can be achieved largely through energy and minerals core expertise, capabilities, and network of 

partners. Red dots denote actions for which significant leveraging of expertise and capabilities from other mission areas and respective partners will be needed to 

fully achieve desired outcomes. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 3D, three-dimensional; DOI, U.S. Department of the Interior; EEZ, Exclusive Economic Zone; 

NMIC, National Minerals Information Center]

Focus area and action

Climate and 

land use 

change

Core 

science 

systems

Ecosystems

Environmental 

health

Natural 

hazards Water

Goal 1. Understand fundamental earth processes that form energy and mineral resources

1–1. Geologic and tectonic framework studies:

1–1a. Map regional-scale geologic features ●

1–1b. Acquire regional-scale geophysical data ●

1–1c. Apply 3D models to areas of high resource potential ● ● ●

1–2. Evolution of energy and mineral systems:

1–2a. Investigate geologic and geochemical factors

1–2b. Conduct research on emerging energy resources ● ●

1–2c. Conduct deposit-scale studies

1–2d. Determine broad-scale controls on mineral systems ● ● ●

1–3. Frontier studies:

1–3a. Promote collection of U.S. EEZ data ● ● ●

1–3b. Expand data collection and evaluation of Alaska and 

Arctic offshore

● ● ● ● ●

1–3c. Construct geologic frameworks for concealed deposits

Goal 2. Understand the environmental behavior of energy and mineral resources and their waste products

2–1. Fundamental studies:

2–1a. Investigate carbon sources and sinks ● ●

2–1b. Investigate perturbations to natural landscape during 

resource lifecycle

● ● ● ●

2–1c. Understand climatic alteration of energy and minerals 

systems

● ● ●

2–2. Applied investigations:

2–2a. Characterize waste streams ● ● ●

2–2b. Conduct research on deep geologic reservoirs for waste 

disposal

● ● ●

2–2c. Investigate environmental geochemistry of resource 

production technologies

●

2–2d. Expand capabilities to research renewable energy 

development effects

● ● ● ● ● ●

2–3. Synthesis activities:

2–3a. Create geologically based environmental models ● ● ● ● ● ●

2–3b. Enhance transfer of insights between experiments and 

system-wide studies

● ● ●

Goal 3. Provide inventories and assessments of energy and mineral resources

3–1. Undiscovered geologically based energy resources:

3–1a. Conduct periodic assessments

3–1b. Complete uranium assessment

3–1c. Assess emerging resources

3–1d. Extend components of economic and environmental analyses ● ● ●
Energy and Minerals Linkages Within the U.S. Geological Survey 33

Focus area and action

Climate and 

land use 

change

Core 

science 

systems

Ecosystems

Environmental 

health

Natural 

hazards Water

3–2. Discovered nonfuel mineral resources:

3–2a. Expand partnerships

3–2b. Establish a periodic review

3–2c. Expand due-diligence field studies

3–2d. Enhance scope and functionality of domestic discovered 

resources database

3–2e. Strengthen and expand NMIC analytical capabilities

3–3. Undiscovered nonfuel mineral resources:

3–3a. Reevaluate methodologies for undiscovered mineral 

resources assessments

3–3b. Develop methodologies for use in frontier regions ●

Goal 4. Understand the effects of energy and mineral development on natural resources and society

4–1. Spatial analysis of energy and mineral resources occurrence and development:

4–1a. Designate liaisons and energy and minerals resource experts 

in USGS

● ● ● ● ● ●

4–1b. Provide information to large landscape conservation 

initiatives

4–1c. Develop new nationwide spatial data products ●

4–2. Explore interdisciplinary approaches for assessing effects of energy and mineral resources development:

4–2a. Identify metrics or indicators ● ● ● ● ● ●

4–2b. Develop and refine methods for incorporating metrics ● ● ● ● ● ●

4–2c. Develop methods to estimate potential land surface and 

seabed disturbance

● ● ● ● ●

4–2d. Assess effects of renewable energy development ● ● ● ● ● ●

4–2e. Develop decision analysis and support tools ● ● ●

Goal 5. Understand the reliability and availability of energy and mineral resource supplies

5–1. Sudden disruptions affect supplies:

5–1a. Enhance capabilities for rapidly responding to events ● ● ● ● ● ●

5–1b. Conduct research on reliability of energy and mineral 

supplies 

●

5–2. Evolving issues affect long-term availability:

5–2a. Develop approaches for identifying strategic and critical 

mineral materials

5–2b. Conduct targeted studies on global flow of critical mineral 

materials

5–2c. Synthesize energy resource commodity assessments

5–2d. Enhance mechanisms for prioritizing USGS energy and 

minerals research

Table 3. U.S. Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy actions and intersections with other mission areas.—Continued

[Gray-shaded rows denote actions for which the outcomes can be achieved largely through energy and minerals core expertise, capabilities, and network of 

partners. Red dots denote actions for which significant leveraging of expertise and capabilities from other mission areas and respective partners will be needed to 

fully achieve desired outcomes. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 3D, three-dimensional; DOI, U.S. Department of the Interior; EEZ, Exclusive Economic Zone; 

NMIC, National Minerals Information Center]
34 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

References Cited

Ahlbrandt, T.S., Charpentier, R.R., Klett, T.R., Schmoker, 

J.W., Schenk, C.J., and Ulmishek, G.F., 2005, Global 

resource estimates from total petroleum systems: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 86, 324 p.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 

accessed November 2, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/USCODE-2011-title16/pdf/USCODE-2011-title16-

chap51.pdf.

Alpine, A.E., ed., 2010, Hydrological, geological, and biological site characterization of breccia pipe uranium deposits in 

northern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025, 353 p., 1 pl., scale 1:375,000. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5025/.)

American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs and 

the Materials Research Society, 2011, Energy critical 

elements: Securing materials for emerging technologies: 28 p. (Also available at: http://www.aps.org/policy/

reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/

getfile&PageID=236337.)

Attanasi, E.D., and Freeman, P.A., 2011, Survey of stranded 

gas and delivered costs to Europe of selected gas resources: 

SPE Economics and Management, v. 3, no. 3, p.149–162.

Biewick, L.R.H., 2008, Areas of historical oil and gas exploration and production in the United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Digital Data Series 69–Q. (Also available at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-q/.)

Brown, W.M., III, Matos, G.R., and Sullivan, D.E., (comps.), 

2000, Materials and energy flows in the Earth science 

century—A summary of a workshop held by the USGS in 

November 1998: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1194, 

76 p. (Also available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2000/

c1194/.)

Clark, R.N., Swayze, G.A., Hoefen, T.M., Green, R.O., Livo, 

K.E., Meeker, G.P., Sutley, S.J., Plumlee, G.S., Pavri, B., 

Sarture, C., Boardman, J., Brownfield, I.K., and Morath, 

L.C., 2006, Environmental mapping of the World Trade 

Center area with imaging spectroscopy after the September 11, 2001 attack, chap. 4 of Gaffney, J.S., and Marley, 

N.A., eds., Urban aerosols and their impacts—Lessons 

learned from the World Trade Center tragedy: American 

Chemical Society Symposium Series, v. 919, p. 66–83.

Coleman, J.L., Milici, R.C., Cook, T.A., Charpentier, R.R., 

Kirschbaum, M., Klett, T.R., Pollastro, R.M., and Schenk, 

C.J., 2011, Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas 

resources of the Devonian Marcellus Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 2011–3092, 2 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/fs/2011/3092/.)

Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., accessed 

November 2, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

USCODE-2011-title30/pdf/USCODE-2011-title30-chap26.

pdf.

Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, Multi-agency collaboration on unconventional oil and gas research: Memorandum of Agreement, 7 p., accessed November 2, 2012, 

at http://www.unconventional.energy.gov/pdf/oil_and_gas_

research_mou.pdf. 

duBray, E.A., (ed.), 1995, Preliminary compilation of descriptive geoenvironmental mineral deposit models: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–831, 272 p. (Also 

available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1995/ofr-95-0831/.)

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 311 p., accessed 

November 2, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf.

Energy Policy Act of 1992: The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 2012, at http://thomas.

loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:H.R.776:.

Energy Policy Act of 2005: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C., 551 p., accessed November 2, 2012, at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW109publ58.pdf.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 2000: 

in Energy Act of 2000, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C., 26 p., accessed November 2, 2012, 

at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ469/pdf/

PLAW-106publ469.pdf.

Eppinger, R.G., 2002, Pre-fire baseline stream-sediment and 

stream-water geochemical data from a recently burned 

area in central Idaho, and suggestions for application of 

geochemical data to wildfire science, in Coffelt, J.L., and 

Livingston, R.K., 2002, Second U.S. Geological Survey 

Wildland Fire Workshop; Los Alamos, New Mexico; October 31–November 3, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2002–11, p. 51. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2002/0011/report.pdf.)

Eppinger, R.G., Briggs, P.H., Rieffenberger, B., Van Dorn, 

C., Brown, Z.A., Crock, J.G., Hageman, P.H., Meier, A., 

Sutley, S.J., Theodorakos, P.M., and Wilson, S.A., 2003, 

Geochemical data for stream sediment and surface water 

samples from Panther Creek, the middle fork of the Salmon 

River, and the main Salmon River, collected before and 

after the Clear Creek, Little Pistol, and Shellrock wildfires 

of 2000 in central Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2003–152, 32 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2003/152/.)
References Cited 35

Executive Order 12656, 1988, Assignment of emergency 

preparedness responsibilities: Federal Register, v. 53, 

p. 47,491, accessed November 1, 2012, at http://www.

archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executiveorder/12656.html.

Executive Order 13603, 2012, National defense resources preparedness: Federal Register, v. 77, no. 56, p. 16651–16660, 

accessed November 1, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/FR-2012-03-22/pdf/2012-7019.pdf.

Executive Order 13605, 2012, Supporting safe and responsible development of unconventional domestic natural gas 

resources: Federal Register, v. 77, no. 74, p. 23107–23108, 

accessed November 1, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/FR-2012-04-17/pdf/2012-9473.pdf.

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act, 1976: The Library 

of Congress, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 2012, at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/

z?d094:SN00391:@@@L&summ2=m&|TOM:/bss/

d094query.html|.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., accessed 

November 2, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

USCODE-2011-title43/pdf/USCODE-2011-title43-chap35.

pdf.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 

accessed November 2, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/USCODE-2011-title16/pdf/USCODE-2011-title16-

chap36.pdf.

Geothermal Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, 1974: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 2012, at http://www.gpo.

gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title30/pdf/USCODE-2011-

title30-chap24.pdf.

Geothermal Steam Act Amendments of 1988: The Library 

of Congress, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 2012, at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/

z?d100:SN01889:@@@D&summ2=0&.

Gundersen, L.C.S., Belnap, J., Goldhaber, M., Goldstein, A., 

Haeussler, P.J., Ingebritsen, S.E., Jones, J.W., Plumlee, G.S., 

Thieler, E.R., Thompson, R.S., and Back, J.M., 2011, Geology for a changing world 2010–2020—Implementing the 

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1369, 68 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/circ/circ1369/.)

Hein, J.R., McIntyre, B.R., and Piper, D.Z., 2005, Marine mineral resources of Pacific Islands—A review of the Exclusive 

Economic Zones of islands of U.S. affiliation, excluding 

the State of Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1286, 

69 p. (Also available at: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

cir1286.)

Higley, D.K., 2011, Undiscovered petroleum resources for 

the Woodford Shale and Thirteen Finger Limestone-Atoka 

Shale assessment units, Anadarko Basin: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2011–1242, 3 sheets. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1242/.)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2011, Special 

Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change 

Mitigation: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., 

Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlömer, S., and von Stechow, C., 

eds., Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1,075 p. 

Jacobsen, L.J., Glynn, P.D., Phelps, G.A., Orndorff, R.C., 

Bawden, G.W., and Grauch, V.J.S., 2011, U.S. Geological Survey—A synopsis of three-dimensional modeling, 

chap. 13 of Berg, R.C., Mathers, S.J., Kessler, Holger, and 

Keefer, D.A., eds., Synopsis of current three-dimensional 

mapping and modeling in geological survey organizations: 

Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 578, p. 69–79. 

(Also available at http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/proj.bib/

Publications/2011/jacobsen_glynn_etal_2011.pdf.)

Jones, L.M., Bernknopf, R., Cox, D., Goltz, J., Hudnut, K., 

Mileti, D., Perry, S., Ponti, D., Porter, K., Reichle, M., 

Seligson, H., Shoaf, K., Treiman, J., and Wein, A., 2008, 

The ShakeOut scenario: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2008–1150 and California Geological Survey 

Preliminary Report 25, 312 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/.)

Kostick, D.S., 1996, The material flow concept for materials: 

Nonrenewable Resources, v. 5, no. 4, p. 211–233.

Labson, V.F., Clark, R.N., Swayze, G.A., Hoefen, T.M., 

Kokaly, R., Livo, K.E., Powers, M.H., Plumlee, G.S., and 

Meeker, G.P., 2010, Estimated minimum discharge rates of 

the Deepwater Horizon spill—Interim report to the Flow 

Rate Technical Group from the Mass Balance Team: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1132, 4 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1132/.)

Langer, W.H., 2011, The ShakeOut scenario—Meeting the 

needs for construction aggregates, asphalt, and concrete: 

Earthquake Spectra, v. 27, p. 505–520.
36 U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy

Menzie, W.D., Baker, M.S., Bleiwas, D.I., and Kuo, C., 2011, 

Mines and mineral processing facilities in the vicinity of 

the March 11, 2011, earthquake in northern Honshu, Japan: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1069, 7 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1069/.)

Mercier, T.J., and Johnson, R.C., 2012, Isopach and isoresource maps for oil shale deposits in the Eocene Green 

River Formation for the combined Uinta and Piceance 

Basins, Utah and Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5076, 85 p., 1 pl. (Also 

available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5076/.)

Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 6 p., 

accessed November 2, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-106publ193/pdf/PLAW-106publ193.pdf.

Milici, R.C., Coleman, J.L., Rowan, E.L., Cook, T.A., Charpentier, R.R., Kirschbaum, M.A., Klett, T.R., Pollastro, 

R.M., and Schenk, C.J., 2012, Assessment of undiscovered 

oil and gas resources of the East Coast Mesozoic basins 

of the Piedmont, Blue Ridge Thrust Belt, Atlantic Coastal 

Plain, and New England Provinces, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2012–3075, 2 p. (Also available at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3075/.)

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 

2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-

title30/pdf/USCODE-2011-title30-chap2-sec21a.pdf.

National Academy of Sciences, 1913, A history of the 

first half-century of the National Academy of Sciences, 

1863–1913: Washington, D.C., The Lord Baltimore Press, 

427 p.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 

2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-

title42/pdf/USCODE-2011-title42-chap55.pdf.

National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research, and 

Development Act of 1980: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 2012, at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title30/pdf/

USCODE-2011-title30-chap28.pdf.

National Research Council, 1996, Mineral resources and 

sustainability—Challenges for earth scientists: Washington, 

D.C., The National Academies Press, 26 p.

National Research Council, 2004, Materials count—The case 

for materials flow analysis: Washington, D.C., The National 

Academies Press, 144 p.

National Research Council, 2005, Valuing ecosystem services: 

toward better environmental decision making: Washington, 

D.C., The National Academies Press, 290 p.

National Research Council, 2007, Earth materials and health: 

Research priorities for Earth science and public health: 

Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press, 188 p.

National Research Council, 2008, Minerals, critical minerals, 

and the U.S. economy: Washington, D.C., The National 

Academies Press, 264 p.

National Research Council, 2009, Toward a sustainable and 

secure water future: A leadership role for the U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, D.C., The National Academies 

Press, 128 p.

National Research Council, 2012, International science in the 

national interest at the U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, 

D.C., The National Academies Press, 112 p.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, accessed November 2, 

2012, at http://epw.senate.gov/nwpa82.pdf.

Organic Act of 1879: U.S Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 2012, at http://www.

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title43/pdf/USCODE2011-title43-chap2.pdf. 

Plumlee, G.S., and Ziegler, T.L., 2003, The medical geochemistry of dusts, soils, and other earth materials, in

Lollar, B.S., ed., Environmental geochemistry: Treatise on 

Geochemistry, v. 9, p. 1–61. (Also available at http://www.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080437516090502.)

Plumlee, G.S., Meeker, G.P., Lovelace, J.K., Rosenbauer, 

R.J., Lamonthe, P.J., Furlong, E.T., and Demas, C.R., 2006, 

USGS environmental characterization of flood sediments 

left in the New Orleans area after Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, 2005—Progress report: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2006–1023, 74 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2006/1023/.)

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 

2011, Sustaining environmental capital: protecting society 

and the economy: Report to the President, Washington, 

D.C., 145 p. 

Scott, D.C., Haacke, J.E., Osmonson, L.M., Luppens, J.A., 

Pierce, P.E., and Rohrbacher, T.J., 2011, Assessment of coal 

geology, resources, and reserves in the northern Wyoming 

Powder River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2010–1294, 136 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2010/1294/ .
References Cited 37

Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1946: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., accessed 

November 5, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

USCODE-2011-title50/pdf/USCODE-2011-title50-chap5-

subchapIII.pdf.

The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, I, 1996: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 23 p., accessed 

November 2, 2012, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW104publ99/pdf/PLAW-104publ99.pdf.

Transfer of functions from Secretary of Interior to Secretary of 

Agriculture, 1960: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., accessed on November 2, 2012, at http://www.

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title7/pdf/USCODE2011-title7-chap55-sec2201.pdf.

United Nations, 1982, United Nations convention on the law 

of the sea: Montego Bay, Jamaica, United Nations, 202 p., 

accessed April 12, 2012, at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/

convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.

htm.

United Nations World Commission on Environment and 

Development, 1987, Our common future: United Nations, 

374 p. (Also available at http://worldinbalance.net/

intagreements/1987-brundtland.php.)

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004, An ocean blueprint 

for the 21st century—Final report: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy, 438 p. plus appendixes. (Also 

available at http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/

full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report.pdf.)

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012, Annual energy 

review 2011: U.S. Energy Information Administration DOE/

EIA–0384(2011), 390 p. (Also available at http://www.eia.

gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf.)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Facing tomorrow’s challenges—U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 

2007–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309, 67 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1309/.)

U.S. Geological Survey Bighorn Basin Assessment Team, 

2010, Petroleum systems and geologic assessment of oil and 

gas in the Bighorn Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana: 

U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 69–V. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-v/.)

U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale Assessment Team, 2010a, 

Oil shale and nahcolite resources of the Piceance Basin, 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 69–Y. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds069-y/.)

U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale Assessment Team, 2010b, 

Oil shale resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado: 

U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 69–BB. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-bb/.)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, Mineral commodity summaries 

2012: U.S. Geological Survey, 201 p. (Also available at 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2012/mcs2012.

pdf.) 

Van Gosen, B.S., Gillerman, V.S., and Armbrustmacher, T.J., 

2009, Thorium deposits of the United States—Energy 

resources for the future?: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1336, 21 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

circ/1336/.)

Wilderness Act of 1964: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C., accessed November 2, 2012, at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title16/pdf/

USCODE-2011-title16-chap23.pdf.

Williams, B.K., Szaro, R.C., and Shapiro, C.D., 2009, 

Adaptive management—The U.S. Department of the 

Interior technical guide: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

72 p. (Also available at http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/

AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf.)

Wolf, R.E., Hoefen, T.M., Hageman, P.L., Morman, S.A., and 

Plumlee, G.S., 2010, Speciation of arsenic, selenium, and 

chromium in wildfire impacted soils and ashes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1242, 29 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1242/.)

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative, [undated], 

Integrated assessment: Wyoming Landscape Conservation 

Initiative, accessed April 6, 2012, at http://www.wlci.gov/.
Publishing support provided by the Rolla Publishing Service Center.

Ferrero and others—U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals Science Strategy—A Resource Lifecycle Approach—Circular 1383–D