Arkansas Leaders Urge Pentagon to Immediately Purchase Vanadium for the National Defense Stockpile
Arkansas' two U.S. Senators and two Arkansas Congressmen are urging Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth to support expansion of vanadium production in the U.S.
HOT SPRINGS, AR, UNITED STATES, May 21, 2025 / EINPresswire.com / -- Arkansas' two U.S. Senators and two Arkansas Congressmen are urging Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth to support expansion of vanadium production in the U.S. in order to counter the current effective control of vanadium supply chains by Russia and China.
In two separate letters to Secretary Hegseth, Arkansas Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and John Boozman (R-AR) and Arkansas Representatives Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and French Hill (R-AR) urged Secretary Hegseth to direct the National Defense Stockpile to purchase and store at least 1 year's supply of vanadium in order to better insulate the U.S. military and commercial manufacturers from potential supply chain disruptions because of Russia's and China's control of 75% of global vanadium supply chains. U.S. Reps. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rich McCormick (R-GA), Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Randy Weber (R-TX) also joined in urging action by Secretary Hegseth.
Arkansas-based U.S. Vanadium is the leading producer of high-purity vanadium oxide in the U.S. and praised the Senators and Congressman for their leadership in raising this issue and promoting more domestic production of vanadium, which is a U.S. Government-designated critical mineral.
'We applaud the strong leadership of Senators Cotton and Boozman and Congressmen Westerman and Hill for alerting the Pentagon and the Trump Administration to the strategic vanadium vulnerability facing the U.S., and to take action to mitigate this threat by stockpiling vanadium and encouraging greater domestic production of this strategic material,' said US Vanadium Executive Chairman Mark Smith. 'We also greatly appreciate the continuing strong support provided to our company by the entire Arkansas congressional delegation and for their ongoing efforts to support economic growth and job creation in Arkansas.'
'US Vanadium's high-purity vanadium processing facilities in Arkansas are quite unique in the extremely high quality of product we are able to produce and the fact that our feedstock comes from post-industrial waste streams. This business model provides very attractive circular economics while also bolstering America's domestic production of this defense-critical mineral,' added US Vanadium CEO Darryll Castle. 'There is very strong industrial and national security logic behind having the U.S. National Defense Stockpile begin purchasing and storing significant amounts of US-produced vanadium products to better insulate the country from the risks associated with current global vanadium supply chains that are dominated by nations that don't necessarily have US interests at heart.'
Arkansas' representatives in Washington are very influential on national security and critical minerals supply chain issues. Senator Cotton is Chairman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee and also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee; Senator Boozman serves on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and is Chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. Congressman Westerman chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, and Congressman Hill chairs the House Financial Services Committee and serves on the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence.
The Senators wrote: 'Vanadium is an official USGS Critical Mineral required for ballistic missiles, jet engines and airframes, night vision, armor steel, body armor, combat vehicles, and other weapons systems critical to national defense. China and Russia control 75% of the global vanadium supply, leaving the Department of Defense open to significant disruption in its weapons supply chain.
'Vanadium compounds such as high purity vanadium pentoxide and ferrovanadium are critical to applications where steel and titanium are used, meaning they are a key element of US defense and essential civilian technologies. The United States consumed 14,000 metric tons of vanadium in 2024, with domestic production only accounting for 3,800 metric tons. The United States imports high purity vanadium pentoxide from Brazil and South Africa, but market conditions threaten those supply chains. Ferrovanadium supply chains rely on material converted in-part from Russian and Chinese material. Currently, no substitute materials exist.
'The United States risks being left without viable resources of this critical mineral if the Department and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) do not take decisive action. We request DLA immediately begin to stockpile at least one year of military and essential civilian uses of both ferrovanadium and aerospace grade vanadium pentoxide in the National Defense Stockpile (NDS). We also request the Department work with the rest of the United States government to prioritize domestic production of vanadium compounds, to include reviewing environmental and other regulations that stifle domestic production.'
The Congressmen reiterated the need for action on vanadium: 'When President Trump addressed the joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025, the President reiterated his support of dramatically expanding production of critical minerals and rare earth elements in America. Therefore, we ask your office to direct the DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) to stockpile at least one year of military and essential civilian uses of ferrovanadium and aerospace grade vanadium pentoxide. As our country reviews critical supply chains that are central to our competitiveness in the face of rising global threats, we urge you to consider the importance of vanadium and the concerning global supply chain of the industry.'
More information on U.S. Vanadium, and vanadium technologies in general, can be seen on U.S. Vanadium's website: https://www.usvanadium.com.
Contact:
Jim Sims, [email protected], +1 (303) 503-6203
About U.S. Vanadium LLC
U.S. Vanadium produces and sells a range of specialty vanadium chemicals, including the highest-purity vanadium pentoxide ('V2O5') and vanadium trioxide ('V2O3') in the world and ultra-high-purity electrolyte for vanadium flow batteries from its flagship facility in Hot Springs, Arkansas USA. The company is comprised of global leaders and investors in specialty chemicals and strategic materials, including in the mining, processing, purification, and sales and distribution of vanadium specialty chemicals. For more information, please go
Jim Sims
US Vanadium LLC
+1 303-503-6203
[email protected]
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why We're Dodging These 3 Gold CEFs (Even With Gold Soaring)
A lump of gold on a stone floor getty Here's a surprise from a die-hard closed-end fund (CEF) fan like me: Sometimes CEFs aren't your best bet. I'll admit, that's tough for me to say—especially when the average CEF yields a historically high 9.1%. (CEF yields are usually around 8.5%). That high yield partly reflects the fact that many CEFs are trading at steep discounts to their net asset value (NAV). Translation: The fund is trading for less than what its underlying portfolio is worth. That, in turn, has resulted in lower prices among some CEFs, along with higher yields (as yields and prices move in opposite directions). All of this simply means that CEFs are generally out of favor right now, which is an opportunity for us. But not every CEF is ripe for buying. We especially want to avoid the three top performers among CEFs with market caps over $200 million: ASA Gold and Precious Metals (ASA), the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS) and the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF). The fact that these funds have booked strong runs this year shouldn't come as a surprise: They're all gold funds, and gold has taken off due to rising economic uncertainty (the usual fuel for the yellow metal). Even so, as you can see, there are some clear differences in performance here, and those are worth unpacking. Gold Funds Ycharts Above we see that the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust—with the somewhat confusing 'CEF' ticker, not to be confused with CEFs in general (in purple)—and PHYS (in blue) have similar returns to the benchmark SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) ETF (in green), at around 25%. Then there's ASA (in orange), which has more than doubled even the best of these three other funds. There is some logic at work here. For starters, PHYS and GLD really should track each other, since they both devote almost 100% of their portfolios to physical gold (both own gold bars that are locked up in vaults), and both have similar expense ratios (0.4% for GLD, 0.41% for PHYS). The lower performance of 'CEF' is also not surprising, given that the fund also holds silver, and the 'poor man's gold' hasn't done as well as its yellow counterpart this year. ASA, however, is the clear outperformer. That's thanks in part to its ownership of several gold-mining stocks. Its largest position, G Mining Ventures Inc., a Canadian firm that explores for precious metals, has nearly doubled year to date. ASA's fast short-term gain is, of course, great, but it's unlikely to last. Here's why. Note that, if we go back to 2010, the year the last of these funds, PHYS, launched, we see that GLD (again in green) outran all three of the CEFs. This shows that CEFs were poor options in the case of gold. Moreover, ASA (again in orange) was actually the worst performer, returning just 53% over 15 years, and being in the red for most of that time. ASA Underperforms Ycharts In terms of key takeaways, there are a few here. First, if you want to hold gold, this is a rare case where an ETF, not a CEF, is the better choice. Second, gold is not a great play for income, given that the highest yielder among these funds is ASA, with a puny 0.2%. Third, gold itself is a poor play for the long term, no matter how you invest in it. To see why, all we need to do is splice the S&P 500's performance (in pink below) into that last chart. Gold Underperforms Ycharts It doesn't get much clearer than that! This, however, is where the good news ends for ETF investors. Because when it comes to investing in stocks (or pretty well any other asset class, for that matter), you're far better off with CEFs. Let's take a look at the Adams Diversified Equity Fund (ADX), a CEF we've held in my CEF Insider service since its earliest days: We bought ADX in July 2017, just a few months after CEF Insider's launch. Here's how the fund—current yield: 9% (and in orange below)—has done since, as compared to the S&P 500 index fund SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), in purple, with dividends reinvested: ADX Outperforms Ycharts This chart says it all: CEFs like ADX can crush the S&P 500 and pay us generously while doing so. Plus they give us access to top-notch management and upside-generating discounts to NAV, too. Those are strengths no index fund can match. Michael Foster is the Lead Research Analyst for Contrarian Outlook. For more great income ideas, click here for our latest report 'Indestructible Income: 5 Bargain Funds with Steady 10% Dividends.' Disclosure: none
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge approves NCAA House settlement, changing the landscape of collegiate athletics
Very late on Friday afternoon, we got a massive end-of-the week news dump when a judge officially approved a settlement in the NCAA v. House case. With the ruling, the landscape of college athletics will soon look very different than it has prior. The goal of the settlement is to provide structure to the NIL landscape in college football, which is currently effectively a free-for-all. Following the ruling, On3 discussed some of the ramifications of the ruling. 'Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, institutions have never directly paid athletes, On3's Pete Nakos wrote. 'That will now change with the settlement ushering in the revenue-sharing era of college sports. Beginning July 1, schools will be able to share $20.5 million with athletes, with football expected to receive 75%, followed by men's basketball (15%), women's basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%). The amount shared in revenue will increase annually. Advertisement 'Power Four football programs will have roughly $13 to $16 million to spend on rosters for the 2025 season. Many schools have front-loaded contracts ahead of the settlement's approval, taking advantage of contracts not being vetted by the newly formed NIL clearinghouse . . . ' . . . The settlement also imposes new restrictions on college sports. An NIL clearinghouse will be established, titled 'NIL Go' and run through Deloitte. All third-party NIL deals of $600 or more must be approved by the clearinghouse. If not approved, the settlement says a new third-party arbiter could deem athletes ineligible or result in a school being fined. In a gathering at the ACC spring meetings last week, Deloitte officials reportedly shared that 70% of past deals from NIL collectives would have been denied, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved.' It remains to be seen exactly how the new rules will affect USC specifically. Given the Trojans' recent hire of Chad Bowden and the subsequent revamping of their recruiting operation, USC seemingly has the right people in place to bring the program into college football's new era. This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: NCAA House settlement approved, as college sports braces for impact
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOLDSTEIN: Carney can't fix Canada's underperforming economy on his own
Prime Minister Mark Carney's pledge to make the Canadian economy the strongest in the G7 is the equivalent of attempting to turn around the Titanic before it hits the iceberg. An indication of the enormity of this task is to look at the performance of the G7 countries in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, which measures economic output per person, adjusted for inflation, and is a widely accepted metric of a nation's prosperity and standard of living. Low economic growth as measured by real GDP per capita has been a longstanding problem in Canada. Under Carney's predecessor, Justin Trudeau (who appointed Carney to chair his economic growth task force in September 2024), Canada recorded the worst record of economic growth since the government of R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression. According to Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies for the Fraser Institute writing in The Hub last year, Canada's real GDP per capita grew by 1.9% in the Trudeau years. That was lowest in the G7, which includes the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Japan and, most alarmingly, the U.S., our largest trading partner, where real GDP per capita grew by 14.7% during the same period. University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, also writing in The Hub last year, noted real GDP per capita in the U.S. is now almost 50% higher than in Canada – unprecedented in modern history. LILLEY: Mark Carney offers words – Pierre Poilievre's words – but we need action EDITORIAL: Carney defies calls for a spring budget GOLDSTEIN: Carney's hocus-pocus plan to increase debt and balance the budget In the Liberals' 2022 budget, then-finance minister Chrystia Freehand warned that unless this trend is reversed, 'the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development projects that Canada will have the lowest per-capita GDP growth rate among its (38) member countries' from 2020 to 2060. Carney's announcement of proposed legislation on Friday – which he wants passed before Parliament adjourns from the summer – to reduce federal barriers to interprovincial trade, increase labour mobility and streamline government approvals for nation building infrastructure projects, are all aimed at increasing economic growth. But they all depend on co-operation by and among the provinces. And the reality is that decades of inaction on these issues has cost the Canadian economy an estimated $200 billion annually, increased the cost of goods and services to Canadians by up to 14.5% and reduced GDP growth by up to 8% annually. At the meeting between Carney and Canada's premiers and territorial leaders last week in Saskatoon to address these issues in the face of the threat posed to the Canadian economy by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, all the participants paid lip service to working together on these issues. But the one premier not present – B.C.'s David Eby, who was on a trade mission to Asia – promptly rejected any new pipeline crossing his province's territory, as did many Quebec politicians when it comes to their province. Any new pipelines will also be opposed by environmental organizations and some (although not all) Indigenous groups who, while they do not have veto power over such projects, must be meaningfully consulted under Canadian law. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has cited the enormous economic damage caused by Canada's failure to build pipelines. Had the Northern Gateway, Energy East and Keystone pipelines been built (Keystone was killed by then-U.S. president Barack Obama), she said, Canada would be producing 2.5 million more barrels of oil per day. 'That's $55 billion a year worth of GDP value, which is worth $17 billion to my government alone and about an equal amount to the federal government.' The Carney government does have more direct control of some issues it can move on to boost Canada's economic growth. For example, it can introduce taxation policies that encourage businesses to invest in new technologies that boost productivity, as well as increase competition. It can lower Canada's immigration levels so that increases in population do not exceed the rate of economic growth, which reduces GDP per capita. It can reduce government spending. On that issue, Carney says he intends to reduce the growth rate in the operational costs of the federal government under Trudeau from 9% annually to less than 2%. But Carney's election campaign platform also outlined $130 billion in new spending over four years with total deficits of $224.8 billion. While Carney says most of that will be spent on infrastructure, it's 71% higher than the $131.4 billion in deficit spending the Trudeau government predicted during the same period in its fall economic statement in December 2024. Finally, of course, Carney needs to negotiate a deal on tariffs with Trump. lgoldstein@
