Yep!  Look at it this way.

Resolution Copper could provide at least 25 percent of US copper needs for decades and is associated with other metals as well.

Rosemont (by Hudbay) could provide 25 percent of US copper needs for decades, plus other copper porphyry-related metals.

Nearby to Rosemont, Hudbay is onto a new prospect larger, richer, and cheaper to mine than Rosemont.  It is also likely to face permitting challenges by the antimining folks in the same area.  For this purpose, let's say that that is another 25 percent of US copper needs - at least 75 percent in Arizona alone.

Then, in and around the Arizona Strip, there may be enough rich and cheap-to-mine uranium in brecciated pipes to last the US for a hundred years, leaving some for export (based on theoretical extrapolations from known to possible total pipes in that area).  In abundance here as well is high-grade vanadium, gold, silver, copper, etc.,

To conclude a short list of examples, let's look at the Pebble Project and/or the wider Big Chunk caldera in Alaska.  That area alone could support all of this country's mineral needs for several decades. 

What do all of these massive US-based projects have in common, besides the potential for bettering the economy?  The Left does not want them?

Here's another question related to the proposed new royalties and fees on mining.  Has it been done before?

Yes, and by this congress to help shut down the coal mining industry here years after making a national monument out of one of the largest cleanest coal resources in the world, thanks to Bill Clinton. 

///

As the old Phelps Dodge mining company used to say, "Mining is elemental".  Unless you understand that doing away with it also does away with the US as we know it.