Which silver mines are currently on care-and-maintenance and fastest to restart?
Executive summary
A small but visible cohort of silver projects that were mothballed during the pandemic or earlier are now the likeliest short-term supply responders, with Relief Canyon in Nevada and Broken Hill Mines’ Pinnacles among the names most frequently cited as care‑and‑maintenance assets targeted for near‑term restarts; Crescent and several formerly mothballed projects (Minto, Bunker Hill) sit in various stages of redevelopment or delay and will determine how quickly incremental silver supply can return [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Relief Canyon — the simplest case on care‑and‑maintenance but timing still conditional
Relief Canyon is explicitly described in multiple U.S. mining summaries as being “currently on care and maintenance,” making it a clear candidate for a quick restart if owners commit capital and permitting hurdles are unchanged, but public reports do not provide a firm restart date and caution that operational updates and financing will determine timing [1] [6].
2. Pinnacles (Broken Hill Mines) — long history, ongoing drilling and an early‑2026 target
Broken Hill Mines’ Pinnacles was placed on care and maintenance in 2020 during the COVID‑19 disruption, yet the company has continued exploration and publicly targeted an open‑pit commencement in the first half of 2026 pending assay results, an updated mineral resource estimate and progress on related tailings infrastructure — meaning Pinnacles is positioned to be among the faster restarts provided those milestones and financing unfold as announced [2] [3].
3. Crescent — past producer with an explicit mid‑2026 restart ambition
The Crescent silver mine, a past‑producing asset near Galena, Idaho, has been acquired and is described by company updates as “progressing rapidly” with an aim for a mid‑2026 restart, which places Crescent among the most clearly dated candidates to move from care‑and‑maintenance back into production, though these statements are operational targets rather than guaranteed outcomes [1] [6].
4. Minto — a community‑led turnaround shifting out of care‑and‑maintenance into technical restart work
Yukon’s Minto mine, after an abrupt 2023 shutdown, was held in care‑and‑maintenance while ownership and legal issues were resolved; under Selkirk Copper (backed by the Selkirk First Nation) the site has moved into active redevelopment with a large drilling program and is being taken “out of care‑and‑maintenance” as technical studies resume, which signals a medium‑term restart pathway but not an immediate production date [4].
5. Bunker Hill and other deferred restarts — capable but capital‑ and permitting‑constrained
Bunker Hill’s planned restart has been explicitly delayed after cost increases and engineering choices (notably tailings filter press sequencing) were re‑evaluated; the company continues to seek financing, illustrating a common caveat for many care‑and‑maintenance assets — intact infrastructure speeds restart potential, but financing, permitting and engineering choices can push timelines out materially [5].
6. Why “fastest to restart” depends on three practical variables
Across the reporting, projects with intact processing facilities, underground access and utilities — i.e., preserved infrastructure — are repeatedly identified as having materially shorter restart timelines, but modern regulatory and environmental compliance, financing availability, and the need for drilling to refresh resource estimates are the gating factors that convert a theoretical quick restart into reality [7] [2].
7. Balanced view and what the reporting omits
Public sources present a mix of company timelines and industry analysis that highlights likely near‑term restarts (Crescent, Pinnacles, Relief Canyon) and projects moving into technical phases (Minto), but they largely reflect operator aspirations and financing assumptions; independent verification of permitting status, detailed financing commitments, and on‑the‑ground readiness is not provided in these summaries, so the listed restart targets should be read as conditional rather than guaranteed [1] [3] [4] [5] [7].