Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
03/26/2025 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2025
3:30 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Matt Claman
Senator Forrest Dunbar (via teleconference)
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Ky Holland
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA CRITICAL MINERALS COLLABORATIVE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LEE ANN MUNK, Director
Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative.
LANCE MILLER, Advisory Chair
Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative.
STEVE MASTERMAN, Deputy Director
Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:45 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Myers, Kawasaki, Claman, Hughes, Wielechowski Dunbar
(via teleconference) and Chair Giessel.
^PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA CRITICAL MINERALS COLLABORATIVE
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA CRITICAL MINERALS COLLABORATIVE
3:31:21 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the presentation: Alaska Critical
Minerals Collaborative.
3:32,28 PM
LEE ANN MUNK, Director, Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative,
Fairbanks, Alaska, moved to slide 1 and introduced the
presentation and her fellow presenters:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative
LEE ANN MUNK, DIRECTOR
STEVE MASTERMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
LANCE MILLER, ADVISORY CHAIR
MS. MUNK said she had been a geologist in the University of
Alaska system since 2001, conducting research on critical
minerals in Alaska, the Lower 48, and internationally. She
expressed enthusiasm about presenting new university
initiatives, sharing high-level updates on successes, and
outlining the vision and mission for the growing partnership
among industry, academia, and government.
3:33:47 PM
3:34:02 PM
MS. MUNK moved to and narrated slide 2:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Agenda
• Objective
• UAF Alaska Critical Mineral Collaborative
• Critical Minerals in Alaska
• Industry-Academia-Gov't Coalition
• Timeline of Legislative Actions
• CM Opportunities in Alaska
• Future Support for ACMC
• Summary
3:36:02 PM
LANCE MILLER, Advisory Chair, Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative, Anchorage, Alaska, said he was the Vice President
of Natural Resources for NANA and the Chair of the Alaska
Critical Minerals Collaborative (ACMC) Advisory Board. He
briefly described his background and involvement in advancing
Alaska's mineral initiatives. He opined that "critical and
strategic minerals" were better understood as "societal
minerals".
3:37:30 PM
MR. MILLER referred to slide 3:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Outside Controls We Must Work Within
• Geopolitics and technology changes drive demand
• Metal markets are cyclic (6-10 yrs)
• Capital follows markets
[Slide 3 includes a graph titled: Real commodity price
index, metals, 1850 to 2020. Zinc and Copper prices
are highlighted on the graph.]
Mr. Miller explained that mineral markets were driven by
technology, geopolitics, industrialization, and conflict, with
investment typically following price spikes after a lag. He
noted that as technology advanced, mineral demand rose sharply,
and offered cell phones as an example. He said they contained
about 30 elements 20 years ago compared with about 76 today.
3:40:08 PM
MR. MILLER observed that exploration timelines in Alaska were
long, even when capital was more available. He said capital
became scarce as major companies reduced long-term research and
development (R&D) and shifted exploration to junior firms that
competed for investment with other high-growth sectors, such as
Bitcoin, tech, biotech, renewables and even marijuana. Combined
with changing public perceptions of mining, this created delayed
investment, contributing to current shortages in mineral
deposits and processing capacity.
3:41:31 PM
MR. MILLER moved to and narrated slide 4:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Ernst & Young Top 10 Risks to Mining
Slide 4 includes a graphic illustration of the Top 10
Risks, comparing them for 2024 and 2025:
1. Capital Up from 2024
2. Environmental Stewardship Down from 2024
3. Geopolitics Up from 2024
4. Resource/reserve depletion New for 2025
5. License to operate Down from 2024
6. Rising costs and productivity Same as 2024
7. Climate change Down from 2024
8. New projects New for 2025
9. Changing business models Down from 2024
10. Innovation Down from 2024
• Capital is a challenge
• Alaska embraces ESG
• AK has geologic potential
• Stable jurisdiction is desired
• New projects
• Long-term plan required
• Industry-Academia-Government coalition will have
strength
3:42:57 PM
MR. MILLER explained that the Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative (ACMC) intended to address many of the challenges
facing the mineral industry. Citing the Ernst & Young study, he
noted that future investment depended on increased innovation
and collaboration to make the sector more agile and responsive
to changing conditions and to enhance social acceptance of
mining. He said ACMC would strengthen Alaska's mineral industry
by bringing academia, government, and industry into a
coordinated and aligned partnership.
3:44:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that the Ernst and Young study suggested
that environmental stewardship and climate change pressures had
decreased between 2024 and 2025. He asked whether that was due
to increased pressure to talk about green energy and energy
transitions.
3:44:48 PM
MR. MILLER suggested that the leading industry risks were
closely intertwined and difficult to rank definitively. He said
the focus on critical minerals and renewables may have increased
social acceptance [of mining], but he emphasized that
environmental stewardship and maintaining a social license to
operate remained essential and closely linked. He noted that
environmental stewardship ranked as a top risk [according to the
Ernst & Young study.
3:45:42 PM
MS. MUNK moved to slide 5. She expressed appreciation for the
State of Alaska's strong support for the University of Alaska
and said recent economic development funding was distributed
among UAF, UAA, and UAS, supporting a range of initiatives and
research and development activities. She highlighted advances in
the use of remote sensing, isotope geochemistry, and new mineral
characterization techniques and mentioned that UAF's Institute
of Northern Engineering had acquired new instrumentation to
enhance research capabilities. She emphasized the importance of
improving mineral recovery and extraction, pointing out that
federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy, were heavily
focused on this part of the supply chain. She explained that
research was exploring ways to extract critical minerals from
existing ore deposits, including recovering valuable byproduct
materials such as bismuth from mines that primarily produce
other commodities like gold:
[Original punctuation provided.]
State of Alaska Funding to UA ($7.5M):
High-Level Outcomes Update
Science and Engineering
• Advancing Mineral Exploration and Discovery
• New Methods of Mineral Characterization
• Enhancing Recovery and Extraction
Workforce Development
• New Technologies in Underground Mine Training
• High School Mine Training, Safety, Operations
Programs
3:48:26 PM
MS. MUNK continued with slide 5. She explained that the
Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of
Alaska Anchorage was conducting studies on permitting processes
both in the United States and internationally to evaluate how
Alaska and the U.S. compared with other jurisdictions. The
studies examined permitting timelines and regulatory frameworks,
as well as variations in environmental compliance standards. She
said the Institute was helping analyze critical mineral markets
which are strategically important but often smaller in scale and
more volatile:
Social and Economic
• Permitting Process and Timelines
• Environmental Compliance
• CM Metal Markets
3:49:40 PM
MS. MUNK emphasized the importance of sustainability and
supporting the university's broader critical minerals
initiatives. She explained that these combined efforts helped
inspire the formation of the Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative (ACMC). She also highlighted additional funding
successes, Department of Energy (DOE) funding for two phases of
core critical minerals research and a DOE Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) funded project investigating the
potential for biomining rare earth elements at Bokan Mountain in
Southeast Alaska.
Sustainability
• Formation of ACMC
• Other State and Federal funding
• DOE CORE-CM (funded)
• DOE ARPAe (funded)
• NSF Engine (pending)
3:50:50 PM
SENATOR HUGHES expressed support for the ACMC model,
highlighting the importance of collaboration among government,
academia, and industry to strengthen domestic critical mineral
development and reduce U.S. dependence on China. She emphasized
the potential economic benefits for Alaska alongside responsible
stewardship and asked whether other states used similar
partnership models.
SENATOR HUGHES sought insight into federal efforts to streamline
mine permitting, noting that project timelines can span decades.
She referenced comments from U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and
recent federal signals aimed at expediting permitting processes,
and requested clarification on what changes may be forthcoming.
3:52:40 PM
MS. MUNK said strong examples of industryacademiagovernment
collaboration existed within the United States and
internationally. She pointed to institutions such as the
Colorado School of Mines, as well as efforts in Montana and
South Dakota, where mining, geological sciences, metallurgy, and
engineering programs were closely integrated with industry and
government partners. She explained that the University of Alaska
Fairbanks, through its College of Engineering and Mines and the
Geophysical Institute, had many of the same foundational
components, though Alaska was earlier in developing a fully
integrated model. She said Alaska was collaborating with peer
institutions and learning from their frameworks rather than
starting from scratch. She emphasized that even stronger models
existed in Canada and Australia, which were widely regarded in
the minerals industry as effective examples of coordinated
problem-solving.
MS. MUNK noted that Alaska was uniquely positioned with 49 of
the 50 critical minerals and an active mining community,
creating significant potential if collaboration could be further
formalized. She highlighted the importance of potential National
Science Foundation funding, up to $160 million over 10 years, as
a critical resource to help realize this vision.
3:55:38 PM
MS. MUNK referenced ongoing research by the Institute of Social
and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska
Anchorage, examining permitting timelines and regulatory
processes. She noted that permitting reform was a prominent
topic at the federal level and confirmed that U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski was aware of the lengthy timelines from exploration to
production. While the university did not directly participate in
permitting decisions, she explained that research efforts aimed
to improve public understanding of mineral development and
highlighted the essential role of critical minerals, with the
broader goal of shaping public perception of mining and
supporting informed policy discussions.
3:57:43 PM
MS. MUNK moved to and narrated slide 6:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What is the ACMC?
The Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative (ACMC) is a
University of Alaska initiative that facilitates
research and collaboration across the UA system
between industry, government, and other academic
partners. SOA funding inspired its formation.
3:58:35 PM
MS. MUNK moved to and narrated slide 7:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Vision and Mission
Vision
Be a globally recognized research and educational
organization that positions Alaska as a domestic and
international leader in the critical minerals space.
Mission
Advance interdisciplinary critical minerals and
materials research, education, technology and
partnerships to discover and produce critical mineral
resources.
[Slide 7 includes a three-part Venn diagram,
illustrating the intended overlap between Industry,
Academia and Government, with Critical Mineral (CM)
Production placed at the center.]
3:59:41 PM
STEVE MASTERMAN, Deputy Director, Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative, Fairbanks, Alaska, introduced himself and noted
that he had retired from the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) as State Geologist several years earlier and had
joined the University of Alaska about a year prior to help form
the ACMC. He expressed strong enthusiasm for the initiative.
4:00:42 PM
MR. MASTERMAN moved to slide 8. He emphasized that Alaska was
particularly well endowed in zinc, noting that the Red Dog Mine
was the nation's largest zinc mine and largest critical mineral
mine. He also highlighted significant resources such as the
Graphite One deposit on the Seward Peninsula, and noted Alaska's
substantial endowment in copper, nickel, tin, antimony, platinum
group metals, chrome, and vanadium:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Critical Minerals in Alaska
• Most producing mines have an end of life in the next
4 -10 years.
• Alaska depends on minerals for economic prosperity
and opportunity.
• 49 of the 50 CMs are in Alaska
• Opportunity for enhanced extraction from existing
mines and increased production.
• Source of jobs in rural Alaska.
• Support for local and regional governments.
[Slide 8 includes a map of Alaska illustrating the
locations of mines and the minerals they produce: REE +
Yttrium, Platinum-Group Elements, Chromium, Cobalt,
Tantalum, Niobium, Graphite, Tungsten, Antimony.]
4:01:50 PM
MR. MASTERMAN identified mine longevity as a looming challenge.
He stated that the Fort Knox Mine was scheduled to cease mining
in 2027, with milling to continue temporarily through the Mahn
Choh operation. The Red Dog Mine was projected to close around
2031, and the Kensington Mine had approximately five years of
reserves remaining. He indicated that the Greens Creek Mine and
Pogo Mine were in relatively stronger positions, with longer
projected mine lives and potential to extend operations through
additional resource development. Nonetheless, he stressed that
mines are inherently finite.
4:02:54 PM
MR. MASTERMAN stated that one of ACMC's priorities was to
maximize mineral recovery from existing deposits, beginning with
currently operating mines. He noted opportunities to improve
extraction efficiency, increase profitability, enhance domestic
critical mineral production, and potentially produce additional
minerals from existing operations that were not currently being
recovered.
4:04:16 PM
MR. MASTERMAN underscored the economic importance of mining in
rural Alaska. He cited the role of Red Dog in Northwest Alaska;
Pogo and Fort Knox in the Fairbanks region; and Greens Creek and
Kensington in Southeast Alaska. He emphasized that mining
revenues provide critical financial support to local and
regional governments, including the Northwest Arctic Borough,
Juneau, Fairbanks, and Delta. He warned that closures,
particularly of Red Dog, would significantly impact regional
finances. He concluded that mineral development was a key aspect
of economic prosperity in rural Alaska and noted that expanding
these opportunities was central to the National Science
Foundation (NSF) engine proposal the ACMC was developing.
4:05:16 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the Kensington mine was expected to
shut down in five years.
4:05:29 PM
MR. MASTERMAN explained that the question highlighted the
inherent uncertainty in projecting mine life. He cited the
Greens Creek Mine as an example, noting that when it began
operations in 1989 it had an 11-million-ton reserve. By 2025,
its reserve had increased to 14 million tons, and it had secured
a tailings expansion and operating permit extension through
2043. He observed that based solely on its original reserve, one
might have expected the mine to close around 2003. Instead, the
operation continually added new reserves, replacing depleted
material and maintaining a mine life comparable to when it first
opened. He said the Kensington Mine was in a similar position.
Although it currently reported roughly a five-year reserve base,
ongoing drilling in its vein systems would likely continue to
add reserves, provided exploration could stay ahead of active
mining. He characterized this as a challenge but indicated that
the geological style of the deposit suggested additional tonnage
was likely present.
4:07:19 PM
MR MASTERMAN said the Fort Knox Mine near Fairbanks was a more
finite deposit. He explained that it was essentially a single,
defined ore body that was unlikely to extend significantly at
depth or laterally; once mined out, it would be depleted.
MR. MASTERMAN said the Pogo Mine was likely to remain in
operation for decades, like Greens Creek. The Red Dog Mine, he
noted, had identified additional resources near its current
site, but whether those could be sufficiently drilled,
engineered, and permitted before existing reserves were
exhausted remained uncertain. He emphasized that reserve figures
alone could be misleading. While current estimates might suggest
that a mine such as Kensington could close within five years,
the geological characteristics of the deposit indicated that it
was likely to extend deeper and farther than presently defined,
making closure within that timeframe doubtful.
4:08:36 PM
MR. MASTERMAN moved to slide 9. He said a central principle of
ACMC was building a coalition among industry, academia, and
government, describing it as a coalition of the willing, the
able, and the necessary. He emphasized that each sector
contributed essential components: industry identified
operational needs and technical challenges; academia developed
research-based solutions; and government provided regulatory,
financial, and social frameworks. He argued that without the
coordinated involvement of all three, the country would be
unable to meaningfully address deficiencies in domestic mineral
production within a reasonable timeframe.:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Industry-Academia-Gov't Coalition
Federal and State legislatures have momentum around CM
and domestic mineral production (e.g. EOs)
Improved and Cutting-Edge Use-Inspired R&D can be a
reality for Alaska
Attract additional investment
• Industry-Academia-Gov't coalitions are central to
advancing:
• Exploration and Discovery
• Extraction
• Production
• ACMC will serve as the hub and will help propel
Alaska into the mining future
MR. MASTERMAN explained that by establishing a centralized point
of contact, the ACMC had already created a venue for industry to
seek assistance and pose technical questions, and he noted that
companies were actively engaging with the organization. He
described this early engagement as encouraging and aligned with
the coalition's intended purpose.
4:11:04 PM
MR. MASTERMAN moved to slide 10. He reviewed the policy and
institutional developments that shaped Alaska's current critical
minerals strategy:
[Original punctuation provided.]
State and Federal Timeline [Critical Mineral] CM Progress
2011/2012
• CM Summit at UAF
MR. MASTERMAN noted that the UAF summits were held under the
direction of then DNR Commissioner, now U.S. Senator, Dan
Sullivan. He said those meetings initiated a sequence of state
and federal actions.
2017/2018
• [Executive Order] EO 13187 Fed Strategy CM Supply
Chain
• USGS publishes 1st CM list
• $10M added to USGS for Earth [Mapping Resources
Initiative] MRI
MR. MASTERMAN said Alaska significantly benefited from the
Earth MRI through expanded geophysical, geochemical, and
geological surveys. He added that under President Joe
Biden, further executive actions focused on strengthening
domestic supply chains and infrastructure.
2020-2022
• EO 13953 Threat to Domestic Supply
• EO 14017 America's Supply
• Infrastructure, Innovation and Jobs Act
MR. MASTERMAN said the 2022 strategic summit at the University
of Alaska reframed critical minerals as a national imperative
and from that discussion emerged the concept that ultimately
became the Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative (ACMC).
2022-2023
• Alaska Critical Minerals A Strategic National
Imperative
• $7.5M to UA for CM R&D from SOA
• DOE publishes list of CM
• DOE funds CORECM Phase 1 at UAF
2024
• SB118 Strategic Plan for Critical and Essential
Minerals
• [Department of Energy] DOE [Advanced Research
projects agency-Energy] ARPAe funded at UAF
• UAF launches the Alaska Critical Minerals
Collaborative
MR. MASTERMAN observed that during President Trump's second
term, additional executive orders focused specifically on Alaska
resource development and critical minerals, reinforcing national
attention on the issue. He characterized the current moment as a
convergence of need, political attention, institutional
capacity, and opportunity.
2025
• EO 14156 National Energy Emergency
• EO 14154 Unleashing U.S. Energy
• EO 14153 Unleashing AK Resources
• Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral
Production
• DOE funds CORECM Phase 2 at UAF
April 2025
• UAF submits invited proposal for $160M to NSF
Alaska Critical Mineral Accelerator with support
from Gov Dunleavy Office
MR. MASTERMAN emphasized that the NSF Engine proposal was
structured as an economic development initiative rather than
purely academic research. Its objective was use-inspired
research leading to commercialization, new industries, job
creation, and increased mineral production in Alaska. He stated
that the focus was on tangible economic outcomes: business
development, employment, and domestic mineral supply rather than
research for its own sake.
4:16:08 PM
MR. MASTERMAN moved to slide 11. He said short term
opportunities were at existing mines, where material was already
being extracted and processed. He explained that process
modifications or mill improvements could enhance recovery rates
or enable production of additional minerals. He said University
faculty had engaged directly with the companies involved. He
noted that potential tellurium output from Pogo could supply
roughly one-quarter of current U.S. imports, representing a
significant national contribution, even if its direct economic
impact on the mine were modest:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Opportunities
1. SHORT TERM
Red Dog Mine (Zn-Ge)
Pogo Mine (Bi-Te)
Greens Creek Mine (Zn)
MR. MASTERMAN said the mid-term opportunities were advancing
toward potential production.
2. MID TERM
Graphite 1 (C)
Ambler (Cu-Zn)
Johnson (Cu-Zn)
3. LONG TERM
Lost River (Sn-F-Li-Ta)
Bornite (Cu-Co)
Nikolai (Ni-PGE)
Palmer (Zn-Ba)
MR. MASTERMAN advocated for support to move forward with all of
the opportunities, shortening the timeline to production.
4:18:45 PM
MS. MUNK moved to slide 12. She explained that the Alaska team
was one of 71 selected from 256 preliminary proposals to advance
in the National Science Foundation (NSF) "Engines" competition.
The Alaska proposal was scheduled for submission within weeks,
and she expressed optimism that it would receive up to $160
million over ten years, structured in phased increments. She
emphasized the importance of a strong coalition of partners to
serve as the operational network behind the initiative. She said
industry partners had collectively committed more than $300
million in support, largely in-kind contributions such as access
to mine sites, personnel, and operational collaboration,
initially focused on the first two years with expectations for
continued investment over the life of the program. She
emphasized the need to attract additional investment, noting
that the Dunleavy administration provided a letter of support
and that ACMC would be pursuing financial participation by the
state, approximately $3 million annually over ten years,
totaling $30 million.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Future Support for ACMC
1. National Science Foundation Engine Opportunity =
$160M over 10 years from NSF
2. Engine Partner in kind Contributions = $300M in
first 2 years followed by additional $
3. Alaska State Legislature Sustaining Support =
$3M/year ($30M) planned request beginning FY27
Leveraging State funding by 15x
4:22:18 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether $7.5 million mentioned on a
previous slide had already been received. She asked for
clarification about the $160 million NSF funding; whether ACMC
was competing for that and whether state matching funds were
required.
4:22:48 PM
MS. MUNK clarified that the previously referenced $7.5 million
was economic development funding appropriated by the State of
Alaska and had supported ACMCs work over the past several years.
MS. MUNK explained that funding through the NSF Engines program
was highly competitive. Their team had advanced from the
preliminary proposal phase, and if successful in the current
phase, the process would include two additional phases,
including a site visit to Alaska by NSF representatives to
evaluate the strength of the statewide system and its
development potential. She said there was no formal state
funding match requirement but noted that all ten previously
funded Engines projects had received significant state-level
support. She acknowledged the realities of legislative processes
and funding cycles and said demonstrating that the State of
Alaska was supportive and willing to consider financial
participation was critically important to the competitiveness of
their proposal.
4:24:44 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether there would be one $160 million
winning entry for the NSF Engine funding or if there would be
multiple awards, noting that there were ten previously awarded.
4:25:11 PM
MS. MUNK explained that solicitations from the NSF typically
identified an approximate number of awards but ultimately
depended on available funding and the strength of submitted
proposals. She said that NSF intended to support multiple
projects rather than just one and that NSF was cognizant of
entities that had not received funding. She noted that NSF was
intentionally focused on investing in regions that had not
traditionally benefited from major technology-driven economic
growth. She said she believed Alaska was well positioned, given
both its geographic status and the national importance of
critical minerals. She emphasized that the Alaska critical
minerals topic aligned not only with state economic interests
but also with broader national priorities, including supply
chain resilience and national security.
4:26:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked about how the legislature could support
ACMC in the application process.
4:26:45 PM
MS. MUNK said the legislature could provide support by providing
a letter and she also hoped for sustaining funding moving
forward.
4:27:58 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked when the application deadline was.
4:28:05 PM
MS. MUNK said the application would be uploaded April 11, 2025,
so a letter by that date would work.
4:28:26 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the state had a $500 million
structural deficit and growing. He said it was unlikely ACMC or
anyone would be receiving $3 million per year.
4:28:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL expressed regret but concurred.
4:28:59 PM
MS. MUNK acknowledged the state's fiscal constraints and said
the goal was to initiate a collaborative discussion about
potential next steps. She emphasized that ACMC was pursuing
significant external funding and she said the NSF Engines
program was an extraordinary opportunity for Alaska.
4:29:34 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL affirmed ACMCs efforts and said the committee
could provide a letter of support.
4:29:48 PM
MS. MUNK moved to slide 13 and explained that the accelerator
proposal followed the structural framework established by the
NSF for its Engines program. She emphasized that the program was
distinct from a traditional research grant because it required
moving discoveries, inventions, and methodologies into real-
world industrial application to improve efficiency and
accelerate mineral production:
[Original punctuation provided.]
NSF Engine: Alaska Critical Mineral Accelerator
Pillars
1) Use-Inspired R&D
2) Talent/Workforce Development
3) Translation of Innovation to Practice
Activities
1) Technology Development
2) Economic Engagement
3) Entrepreneurial Engagement
[slide 13 includes a Venn diagram illustrating the
ACMA Engine components and outcomes.]
4:31:51 PM
MS. MUNK moved to slide 14, an illustration of ACMCs intent to
bring together solutions and assets. She said the engine was the
ingenuity of the coalition which would produce outcomes that
benefit all Alaskans:
[Original punctuation provided.]
NSF Engine: Alaska Critical Mineral Accelerator
Solutions
• Use-inspired R&D
• Workforce/talent development
• Commercialization/entrepreneurship
• Governance
• Industry engagement
• Partnerships with established experts
Assets
• $300M partner investment
• $30M State of Alaska investment
• Abundant mineral resources
• Entrepreneurial minerals industry
• Broad regional participation
Barriers
• Operational remoteness
• Immature R&D capacity
• Lack of capital investment
• Economic hurdles
[Slide 14 graphically illustrates the solutions,
assets and barriers as inputs for the Alaska Critical
Mineral Accelerator "Engine" to produce the desired
outcomes.]
Outcomes
• Unleashing of Alaska's extraordinary mineral
resources
• Establishing leadership in domestic critical
mineral mining innovation
• Increasing national security
• Broadening economic prosperity for Alaskans
• Creating a vibrant regional ecosystem
• Enhancing Arctic leadership
• Boosting mineral production
4:33:09 PM
MS. MUNK moved to slide 15, displaying the names and logos of
multiple entities (businesses, government agencies, venture
capitalists, start-ups, etc.) partnering with ACMC.
4:34:32 PM
MS. MUNK moved to slide 16, emphasizing key takeaways. She said
ACMC was positioning itself to serve as a long-term hub for
critical minerals collaboration. She observed that mining
markets operate in cycles and the university provides a stable
and continuous institution where stakeholders can consistently
engage. She said a coalition among industry, academia, and
government was already forming and that strengthening it would
require not only financial contributions but also sustained
commitment and active participation from all partners. She
underscored the importance of shared willingness to collaborate
and solve problems collectively.:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Take Aways
• UA/ACMC is positioned to be the hub for critical
minerals innovation in Alaska/U.S./Arctic
• Work together to form a strong industry -academia -
government coalition
• Capitalize on the AK and U.S. momentum around
critical minerals to increase production in AK
• Ultimately to benefit future generations!
MS. MUNK expressed optimism about leveraging current state and
national momentum around critical minerals. She characterized
the effort as forward-looking, driven by the goal of creating
lasting economic and strategic benefits for future generations.
4:35:59 PM
MS. MUNK concluded the presentation.
4:36:14 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL observed that the presentation highlighted the
pursuit of NSF Engine funding and ACMC's partnerships, it did
not address mineral refining. She noted that germanium produced
at the Red Dog Mine was currently refined in Canada and asked
what efforts were underway to develop in state refining capacity
rather than sending minerals elsewhere for processing.
4:36:49 PM
MS. MUNK suggested that the proposed NSF Engine could serve as a
springboard for developing in-state mineral processing
capabilities. She proposed establishing a field pilot initiative
in Alaska to test refining or processing methods, such as
piloting germanium recovery at an operating mine, rather than
sending materials elsewhere for processing. She pointed out that
multiple factors would need to align for Alaska to produce and
refine its own minerals, emphasizing that industry and
government would ultimately make many of the key decisions.
4:38:09 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL concurred that mineral processing in the state
would require social acceptance.
4:38:17 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether it was accurate to say many critical
minerals typically occurred as byproducts of mining operations
primarily focused on more commercially valuable commodities such
as gold or silver.
4:38:45 PM
MS. MUNK confirmed that many critical minerals occur as
byproducts of mining for other primary commodities and described
this as the low-hanging fruit for Alaska. She explained that
existing operations such as the Red Dog Mine, the Greens Creek
Mine, and the Pogo Mine, already contain critical minerals
within their ore bodies. She stated that focusing on these
existing mines made the most sense because the infrastructure
and access were already in place. She suggested that any
proposed pilot field study would likely occur at one of these
operating mines and could potentially include a small pilot
smelter.
4:40:12 PM
MR. MILLER added that mineral processing and refining were
included conceptually in the ACMC NSF Engine proposal but said
specific plans for a refinery or smelter were still being
discussed. He confirmed that many critical minerals are produced
as byproducts, using germanium at the Red Dog Mine as an
example, noting that it would not be mined independently because
the economics depend on the primary zinc operation. He stated
that NANA had been approached by the U.S. Department of Defense
about increasing germanium recovery and explained that
specialized recovery facilities, such as the germanium-indium
plant at the smelter in Trail, British Columbia, demonstrate how
byproduct extraction can occur within the smelting process.
However, he noted that most smelters worldwide do not recover
germanium from zinc ores. He emphasized that mineral processing
represents a broader challenge for the United States, which he
described as lagging behind China due to China's long-term
strategic investments in refining capacity. At the same time, he
explained that the global market currently has excess smelting
capacity, which drives down treatment charges and reduces
incentives to build new facilities. Because of these market
conditions, he suggested that constructing a new smelter in
Alaska would likely require significant government subsidies, as
industry alone would not find it economically viable. He
concluded that these economic realities are part of the broader
issues the Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative (ACMA) was
examining.
4:44:20 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI reflected on Alaska's role as a resource state
that often exports raw materials to be processed elsewhere. He
noted that the state once had four refineries and previously
converted refined fuel in Kenai into fertilizer used locally but
explained that various factors had made such in-state processing
difficult. He asked whether exporting minerals for refining,
such as gold from the Kensington Mine being processed in Canada
and partially sent to China, had led to any negative
consequences related to tariffs or international relations. He
mentioned that zinc from a mine near Kotzebue is partly owned by
a Chinese corporation and questioned whether similar issues had
arisen in that context.
4:45:59 PM
MR. MILLER clarified that there was no Chinese ownership of the
Red Dog Mine, though some of its zinc concentrate was exported
to China. He explained that the impact of tariffs on zinc
markets remained uncertain. He noted speculation that
arrangements might be made with trading partners, particularly
involving the smelter in Trail, B.C., to ensure the United
States received the zinc it needed. He added that the situation
had created significant concern within the industry and that
some longer-term market projections suggested zinc prices could
trend downward until meaningful resource depletion occurs, which
might be about five years away.
4:47:31 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said she was informed a few years ago that China
was banning the export of germanium and gallium, both things the
U.S. needs.
4:47:43 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN noted the conclusion that there was no interest
in the industry to build a smelter. He asked whether there might
be interest in the future and what the timeframe for that might
be.
4:48:04 PM
MR. MILLER opined that it would be ten or twenty years at least.
He clarified that when he spoke of government support for
mineral processing he did not mean to suggest support from the
state of Alaska, but from the federal government, such as during
the cold war and other times when the U.S. subsidized projects
in Alaska for national security.
4:48:35 PM
SENATOR HUGHES wished Alaska Critical Minerals Collaborative
(ACMC) success with its funding application and thanked the
committee chair for supporting a letter of endorsement. She
reflected on Alaska's historical gold rush and expressed hope
for a new surge in mineral development driven by emerging
opportunities. She said securing the funding could open
significant doors for Alaska, creating strong jobs while
allowing the state to responsibly contribute critical resources
to the nation and the world.
4:49:23 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL concurred.
4:50:12 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 3.26.25 UAF Alaska Critical Minerals Collabrative Presentation.pdf |
SRES 3/26/2025 3:30:00 PM |