Mining Geology ? Developments of New Ore Impressive; Entirely New Techniques Unnecessary

ARE we a "have" or a "have-not" nation in our domestic supply of metals and minerals? Impinging on the ears of a people weary of war and faced with the problems of reconversion to peace, the import of this question has built up with the momentum of an avalanche. Stemming from statistics cited by Pehrson and accelerated by the pessimistic and possibly biased statements of Ickes, hardly an issue of any technical periodical dealing with mining has appeared during the past year but within whose pages was to be found some comment, some discussion of the question: Are we a "have" or a "have-not" nation? We have proved commercial reserves of high-grade iron ore in the Lake Superior region sufficient for 22 years, based upon the prewar rate of consumption; commercial copper reserves to last only 34 years, one fourth being inferred ore; zinc sufficient for nineteen years, over half being inferred; lead for twelve years, two thirds of which is inferred; mercury for only three years. So read the figures. Although admitting that these figures may be extended by new discoveries, by the use of marginal and submarginal ore, and by further technological advances, are we nevertheless to assume complete pessimism in the acceptance of the meaning of these statistics; are we to expect a rapidly increasing dependence upon foreign sources of mineral supply; are we to believe that we are at or near the peak of the "metal age" as has been held by Theodore J. Hoover? Or is some more optimistic viewpoint possible?