Highlights

• America's mining waste streams contain recoverable rare earths, with the Department of Energy investing over $100 million in pilot projects.
• The current output is strategically modest at 4-40 tons annually, while U.S. demand is measured in hundreds of thousands of tons.
• Waste reprocessing offers environmental benefits and easier permitting than greenfield mining.
• Disturbing legacy tailings carries real risks, including oxidation, dam failure, and pollution release without rigorous oversight.
• Re-mining should be viewed as a complementary niche supply source for diversification, not a substitute for primary mining, separation capacity, or strategic mineral independence from China.

---

A recent feature by Yale Environment 360 (opens in a new tab) makes a compelling case that America’s mining waste—coal tailings, acid mine drainage, fly ash—could become a meaningful domestic source of rare earth elements (REEs) and other critical minerals. The reporting highlights pilot projects in West Virginia extracting REEs from acidic runoff, and a proposed operation at Montana’s Berkeley Pit targeting toxic mine water.

So what’s accurate?

These waste streams do contain recoverable rare earths, and recovery can simultaneously reduce pollution. The basic chemistry is sound, the pilot outputs are real (measured in tons, not marketing hype), and the Department of Energy has indeed committed over $100 million to advance these technologies. Compared with greenfield mining, re-mining often benefits from pre-ground material, lower energy intensity, and an easier social license—on paper.

The Numbers That Matter—and the Ones That Don’t

Here’s where investor clarity is essential. Producing four to five tons of rare earth oxides per year at pilot sites is technologically impressive, but strategically modest. Even the much-touted 40-ton target at Berkeley Pit would barely register against U.S. demand, let alone displace Chinese supply chains measured in hundreds of thousands of tons annually. Claims that waste recovery could “obviate the need for new mines” lean heavily into optimism rather than arithmetic.

The Colorado School of Mines study cited—suggesting that byproduct recovery could meet most U.S. critical mineral needs—deserves careful reading. It models theoretical recovery under ideal policy and technology conditions. That’s useful for roadmap thinking, not near-term supply assurance.

Environmental Virtue, With Real Caveats

Yale E360 rightly notes that re-mining is still mining. Disturbing long-submerged tailings can trigger oxidation, dam instability, or catastrophic release—Baia Mare (Romania, 2000 (opens in a new tab)) remains a cautionary tale. Environmental NGOs quoted in the piece warn that accelerated permitting under recent U.S. executive orders risks repeating old mistakes under a “clean energy” banner. That concern is legitimate, especially where public comment, tribal consultation, and wildlife review are compressed or bypassed.

Still, the article’s tone subtly favors remediation narratives while underplaying operational risk. Re-mining can reduce legacy harm—but only with rigorous oversight, conservative engineering, and transparent disclosure.

Why This Matters for the Rare Earth Supply Chain

Waste reprocessing will be part of the future rare earth mix, not the backbone. Its real value lies in niche supply, cleaner permitting pathways, and incremental diversification—not strategic independence. Investors should view these projects as complementary assets, not substitutes for primary mining, separation capacity, or magnet manufacturing.

Bottom line: reclaiming value from waste is smart. Believing it alone solves the rare earth problem is not.

Source: Yale Environment 360, Jim Robbins, Jan. 21, 2026