Followers of ARPN have long known that the path to net zero leads through the critical minerals sector, and U.S. stakeholders have begun to realize that there is no greening our energy future without vast amounts of rare earths, the “battery criticals” lithium, cobalt, graphite, nickel, and manganese (as well as scores of other metals and minerals once considered mainstay or niche).   These “super-criticals” – the five battery materials, plus a sub-set of five rare earths required for permanent magnets (neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, terbium and samarium) – comprise a group of 10 Criticals within the 50 Critical Minerals on the official U.S. Government list.

In an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment, critical mineral security is more than just a gateway to the green energy transition, it is also a national security imperative.  While the United States is fortunate to have vast mineral riches beneath our own soil, we have fallen behind in the global race to secure supply chains and have yielded much ground to adversary nations like China who have cornered many segments of the value chain.

First steps to decouple supply chains from China have been taken, but more must be done.

Tying into this context, the White House has explicitly acknowledged the importance of developing critical minerals and cutting greenhouse gas emissions while promoting Indigenous rights, national security and the environment in its recently-released National Strategy for the Arctic Region — a region rich in metals and minerals to which the United States stakes its claim via Alaska, which in turn is home to many of the materials deemed “critical” by the U.S. Government.

According to the National Strategy, U.S. Government agencies “will seek to strengthen the resilience of U.S. supply chains by exploring the potential for sustainable and responsible critical mineral production in Alaska while adhering to the highest environmental, labor, community engagement, and sustainability standards.” In the broader Arctic region, agencies “will work with our allies and partners—including through the potential use of relevant U.S. Government mechanisms and development programs, such as the Export-Import Bank, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, and U.S. Trade and Development Agency—to expand private sector-led investment and pursue sustainable economic development in the Arctic, including in critical minerals.” 

While both U.S. Senators from Alaska lament that the National Strategy falls short (both point to the fact that recent Administration decisions regarding specific Alaska resource projects run counter to the expressed strategic goals), the fact that critical mineral security is considered a formal strategic objective, is a positive development on which stakeholders can build.

With geopolitical tensions rising and climate pressures mounting, the focus on the Arctic — a region in which Russia accounts for half of the landmass — is both unavoidable and highly warranted.  The United States Government would be well advised to follow through on the strategic objectives outlined in the strategy, and harness the vast mineral potential it can unleash in Alaska.

A case in point, as we recently outlined:

“Right now, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. is 100% import-dependent for graphite.  But that’s not for lack of known graphite resources.  As USGS noted in February 2022 in its updated U.S. Mineral Deposit Database, Graphite One’s Graphite Creek deposit near Nome, Alaska is America’s largest graphite deposit.  If U.S. Government efforts to develop an American-based EV and lithium-ion battery supply chain have any hope of succeeding, looking for ways to help projects like Graphite Creek down the path to production will be, in a word…. Critical.”

***To keep up with Alaska critical mineral developments, be sure to follow North of 60 Mining News’s Shane Lasley, whose work ARPN has featured frequently.***

The post Critical Minerals and the National Strategy for the Arctic Region appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

With coronavirus having exposed the West’s dependence on China for critical medical supplies and drugs, as well as critical mineral resources, it becomes all the more important that we keep an eye on Beijing, which has been flexing its“tentacles” across the globe even as the country was shut down.  

Observers believe that China will look to exploit the phase of coming out of the gate first and effectively being the sole big player in town to solidify its geopolitical position. 

One possible theater for Chinese advances  is the South China Sea, where, according to retired US Navy captain and former director of operations at the US Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Center Carl Schuster “China is exploiting the US Navy’s coronavirus challenges to improve its position in the South China Sea by giving the appearance it can and will operate there at will while the US is hamstrung.”

Another theater is one ARPN has frequently discussed because of its implications for resource policy: The Arctic. 

Chinese engagement in the resource-rich Arctic has increased considerably during the past decade, prompting U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to speak of a “new age of strategic engagement in the Arctic, complete with new threats” urging vigilance on the part of the Arctic Council, where China has obtained observer status because of its self-proclaimed “near-Arctic state” status. Pompeo rebuked said status in May of 2019, stating that “the shortest distance between China and the Arctic is 900 miles. (…)There are only Arctic and non-Arctic states. No third category exists, and claiming otherwise entitles China to exactly nothing.” 

The United States’ claim to the Arctic, meanwhile, comes via Alaska, which – across a range of metals and minerals — can play a key role in resource supply in the 21st Century, particularly as U.S. stakeholders increasingly realize the importance of alleviating our supply chain vulnerabilities and reducing our over-reliance on Chinese metals and minerals.  

Almost eight years ago, ARPN’s Daniel McGroarty argued: 

“Alaska is America’s foothold in the Arctic. (…) This will prove incredibly important. We don’t see it now, but the strategic resource value of this single state could drive U.S. growth and competitiveness in the decades ahead.”

In the coming weeks and months, the United States must continue its vigorous efforts to contain and reduce the spread of COVID-19, but while we do that, we cannot let our geopolitical guard down, as the resource wars are set to continue. 

The post As China Looks to Move Past Coronavirus Pandemic, Resource War Theaters Come into Focus appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

But while the U.S. gears into action, the global scramble for resources is in full swing.  Case in point:  reports that Russia may be taking advantage of the United States’ shifted focus away from foreign entanglements and may be “following China’s lead and making a splashy bid for influence in Africa.”

For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed dozens of African national leaders for a summit in Sochi earlier this month in what was supposed to “underline the reversal of Russia’s retreat from the continent and demonstrate the country is no longer a defunct World power,” according to Voice of America (VOA). 

Speaking to reporters, a Putin spokesman said: 

“This is a very important continent. (…) Russia has things to offer in terms of mutually beneficial cooperation to African countries.”

According to the Associated Press, Russia “is taking advantage of the Trump administration’s seemingly waning interest in the continent of 1.2 billion people that includes some of the world’s fasted growing economies and a strategic perch on the Red Sea.”

Followers of ARPN are no stranger to recent Russian forays into mineral-rich areas of the world. One need to look no further than the Arctic, where, against the backdrop of the region’s increasing strategic relevance and China’s ever-growing influence, Russia has increased its military commitment and upgraded its old Soviet Arctic military bases. 

In Africa, the Kremlin is looking to revive its relationships from the Soviet era, which were extensive at the time, but cut off abruptly with the collapse of the Soviet Union.   As VOA reports, while trade with African countries has already increased by 350 percent in the past decade, according to Russia’s foreign ministry, the country hopes that the conference will lead to more oil, and mineral resource deals with African states going forward.

To be sure, Russia’s engagement on the African continent pales in comparison to China’s, which has been aggressively tapping the continent’s vast mineral potential by investing hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure projects as part of its One Belt One Road Strategy.

Against this background, analysts argue that Russia’s role in Africa should not be overestimated, as its “involvement in Africa is limited and guided by a combination of unrealistic ambitions and opportunism,” and “U.S. efforts should continue to prioritize addressing those long-standing challenges rather than being reoriented around the far narrower issue of countering Russian actions.”

Neither, however — with the tech wars over which country will dominate the 21 Century Tech Age in full swing — should Russia’s African resource outreach be neglected or ignored. 

The post Against Backdrop of Tech Wars, Russia Seeks to Boost Footprint in Africa appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Unbeknownst to many because outside the media limelight, the Arctic has been one of the sites of looming battles and territorial disputes in the resource war theater, with both China and Russia having stepped up their activities in (and relating to) the Arctic circle region in recent years.  The U.S. is beginning to realize the significance of the region and the need for more active engagement. 

As Mark Rosen writes for the National Interest, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s open Challenge of Chinese and Russian Arctic intentions at the May 2019 Arctic Council Meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland “marked a dramatic rhetorical shift in the usual diplomatic line that the United States regarded the Arctic as a venue for cooperation and research and that climate change is the clear and present danger to Arctic security. Climate change unquestionably is altering the Arctic landscape and will have long term effects. However, Pompeo’s statement was a significant expansion of the warning by former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that the United States is ‘late to the game’ in the Arctic and needs to start making policy, security, and economic investments in the Arctic or be left on the sidelines.”

China, with no territorial presence in the Arctic, obtained observer status to the Arctic Council in 2013, and has since included the Arctic into its “new Silk Road Strategy,”with increased diplomacy and investment in the region. China has also participated in various governance and rule-making processes for ship operation and fishing in the region outside the umbrella of the Arctic Council.  And while China’s launch of its first domestically built polar ice breaker — Snow Dragon 2 was delivered earlier last month — was framed as enabling “scientific research into polar ice coverage, environmental conditions and biological resources,” observers have pointed out that the icebreakers are also “useful in testing the feasibility of moving cargo across the Arctic,” as “China’s plans for a Polar Silk Road, as part of its ambitious multi-billion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, include developing Arctic shipping routes.”

And then there’s Russia.  As David Carlin observes for Forbes, “[m]any nations have recognized the potential of the Arctic, but few have proceeded as boldly as Russia. The Russian economy derives nearly 20% of its GDP from activities in the Arctic. Russia has defended this investment by increasing its military commitments. Old Soviet Arctic bases are being upgraded and reequipped by Russian forces.” 

Against the backdrop of increasing tension between Russia and the West, and the United States and China, the Arctic’s strategic relevance is increasing, and Greenland — where vast veins of ores and minerals ranging from Rare Earths, Niobium, Tungsten and Antimony to Chromium, Platinum Group Metals, Graphite and Cobalt have been found (in other words, roughly one-quarter of the U.S. Critical Minerals List) — factors big into countries’ decisions to engage in the Arctic.  

The resource race in the Arctic is a manifestation of the tech war over who will dominate the 21st Century Technology Age.   Regardless of whether or not a Greenland deal is a realistic scenario, what is important here is that U.S. stakeholders are beginning to realize the need to assertively stake the United States’ claim in the Arctic and near-Arctic environs.  The other players — those with Arctic territory, and others, like China, with Arctic interests — have made it clear that they will not wait for us.

The post Greenland at the Heart of Resource Race in 21st Century Tech War appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The recently-released 130-page long declassified version of the Defense Industrial Base Report mention the words “China” or “Chinese”  a “whopping 229 times” – for good reason.  As the Department of Defense argues in the report, “China’s domination of the rare earth element market illustrates the potentially dangerous interaction between Chinese economic aggression, guided by its strategic industrial policies and vulnerabilities and gaps in America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base.”

From a materials point of view, the Rare Earths segment may still stand as the best illustration of Chinese hegemonic ambitions in the resource realm, though a look at Chinese attempts to jockey for pole position in the battery space is equally telling. (In both cases, however, friends of ARPN will appreciate that it’s easier to achieve hegemony when your competitor, as in the U.S.’s case, doesn’t prioritize resource production.)

From a geographic perspective, the Arctic region has increasingly emerged as a central theater for Chinese resource war games. Having obtained observer status to the Arctic Council in 2013, China has stepped up its activity in (and relating to) the Arctic circle region in recent years. In 2017, a document released by the Chinese regime outlined the incorporation of the Arctic into its “new Silk Road Strategy,” with increased diplomacy and investment in the region, while a white paper released this January further emphasized the “importance of economic and scientific development in the Arctic strategy.” China has also participated in various governance and rule-making processes for ship operation and fishing in the region outside the umbrella of the Arctic Council.

Most recently, the Chinese government announced the launch of a new polar icebreaker, Snow Dragon 2.  While framed as “scientific research into polar ice coverage, environmental conditions and biological resources,” Harriet Moynihan, writing for Chatham House, says that “[i]t has not gone unnoticed, though, that China’s new icebreakers are also useful in testing the feasibility of moving cargo across the Arctic. China’s plans for a Polar Silk Road, as part of its ambitious multi-billion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, include developing Arctic shipping routes.”

Meanwhile, observers worry that recent U.S. disagreements with Greenland over Thule Air Base, located in the northwestern part of Greenland and home to the 821st Air Base Group, “could open the door for Beijing to swoop in and further realize its Arctic ambitions, according to Greenland media.” Against this backdrop, the growing realization on the part of U.S. stakeholders that the global race for the metals and minerals fueling 21st Century technology and our everyday lives is heating up – as evidenced by DoD’s Defense Industrial Base Report is not only welcome, it is necessary.

As retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. John Adams wrote for The Hill last week, the “threat of China’s strategy isn’t new, but the results of China’s now decades-long planning and execution is,” and “shocking import dependence on minerals and metals [from China] is merely a microcosm of the problem.”The obvious answer to this growing challenge is a “comprehensive approach to U.S.competitiveness” and resource policy as a whole.  Here’s hoping that once we leave the dust settles after this week’s midterm Congressional elections, policy makers are able to focus on the necessary reforms.  As we’ve argued before — China will not wait for us to get our resource house in order.

The post Chinese Strategy and the Global Resource Wars – A Look at the Arctic  appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

As Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin recently wrote:

“The next battle for supremacy between the U.S. and Russia is shaping up to be a lot chillier than the last Cold War with the Soviet superpower.”

Griffin’s temperature reference invokes the geographic location of the site of contention rather than the intensity of the looming “battle” – the Arctic.  And while said “battle” will likely not escalate into actual warfare, stakeholders would be well advised to pay closer attention to what is happening to our North, as it is currently the site of “the focus of a resource grab by Russia and China.”

Just last month, the Russian defense ministry invited visitors to its website to take a “visual tour” of its new military base in Franz Josef Land, a huge remote archipelago in the Arctic which President Vladimir Putin visited in March of this year.  The base is the second Arctic one built in the Putin era, with the Russian military planning the installation of four additional military bases in region in the coming years.

While Russia has been flexing its military muscle in the resource-rich Arctic, which it sees as a key strategic location - all while touting peaceful cooperation on the diplomacy front – China, notwithstanding its cartographical lack of an Arctic footprint, has also made a foray into the region over the past few years.

According to the country’s State Oceanic Administration, China, which considers itself a “near-Arctic state,” views the region as holding “the inherited wealth of all humankind.”  Consequently, China has not only sought, and in 2013 secured, permanent observer status on the Arctic Council, but has also stepped up investment and diplomacy in the region, with Chinese President Xi Jinping incorporating two Arctic stopovers – one in Finland and one in Alaska – into his trip to the United States to meet with President Trump this spring.

These moves, coupled with the normalization of previously icy relations between China and Norway, and a free trade agreement between Iceland and China, have led professors at Tsinghua University to conclude that “Bejing’s [new Silk Road] strategy does not stop at belt and road”, and rather includes “One belt, one road, and one circle,” with the circle referring to the Arctic circle.

Meanwhile, the United States is “woefully behind” in the Arctic race, as former Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp, who served as the State Department’s special representative to the Arctic, recently told Fox News, adding that:

“We’ve got our minds on a lot of other things around the world, and we’re not focused on the Arctic. (…) Russia, on the other hand, is very connected. It’s part of their culture. They appreciate the riches, the oil and gas reserves that they have along that very long coastline, and they are looking to exploit it for their own prosperity.”

China is obviously looking to do the same.

As ARPN’s Dan McGroarty previously pointed out, the United States’ claim to the Arctic comes via Alaska, and what he said a few years ago, is perhaps even more pertinent today:

“For the U.S., our Arctic claims come via Alaska – a.k.a. Seward’s Folly, and perhaps the best $7.2 million ever spent by the U.S. Government. Across a range of metals and minerals, expect Alaska – and by extension, our Arctic claims – to play a key role in resource supply in the 21st century. Forget the folly: let’s make that William Seward, futurist.”

In this context, one can only hope that the recent settlement between the EPA and the Pebble Partnership over the Pebble Deposit in Alaska – albeit years overdue – will be part of a growing realization that it is time to assertively stake the United States’ claim in the Arctic and near-Arctic environs.  The other players have made it clear that they will not wait for us.

The post The Arctic – A Looming Battlefield for Resource Supremacy? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

A separate decision to award London Mining PLC a thirty-year license to build and run a giant ore mine ties into the same overall context of attempting to “wean Greenland from Danish economic support,” and turning to new partners, including China – as evidenced by the fact that London Mining PLC is a British company that has worked with Chinese industry in the past.

Not surprisingly, Investor Intel’s Robin Bromby has taken a closer look at China’s involvement in Greenland, which as we have argued, seems to see the territory as its key point of access to the Arctic’s vast mineral riches. Retracing a series of events that all but confirm China’s serious interest in opening that door to the Arctic (including its recent ascension to observer status on the Arctic council), Bromby says:

“So this week we see a news report that says ‘China agreed with the Arctic Council that development in the Arctic region should abide by local regulations and environmental requirements, according to a senior official. China pledged to make a greater contribution through its new official observer role in the council, Jia Guide, deputy director-general with the Department of Treaty and Law under China’s Foreign Ministry, said Tuesday.’

The Xinhua news agency quoted Jia saying “resource development in the Arctic was a possibility, but not a priority for China,”

Oh really?

It was diplomatic of Jia, speaking in Whitehorse, and then his stressing how important environmental protection was to his country.

So we have [to] wait and see.”

Indeed we will. The lifting of the mining ban is only a first step, and other laws may still have to be changed before any REE development can occur. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that the above-referenced decisions will add some spark to the race for Arctic riches.

As ARPN’s Dan McGroarty has argued, the United States’ claim to the Arctic comes via Alaska. His call to action from a few years back becomes all the more relevant as more and more players show up at the Arctic circle:

“For the U.S., our Arctic claims come via Alaska – a.k.a. Seward’s Folly, and perhaps the best $7.2 million ever spent by the U.S. Government. Across a range of metals and minerals, expect Alaska – and by extension, our Arctic claims – to play a key role in resource supply in the 21st century. Forget the folly: let’s make that William Seward, futurist.”

As indicated in a recent outline of the state of mining operations in Alaska by ARPN expert Curt Freeman, there is plenty of potential in The Last Frontier. Now more than ever would be a good time to unleash it.

The post Greenland’s mining decisions likely to refuel race for Arctic riches appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The global race for resources has countries look for new ways to meet their mineral resource needs. We’re now used to seeing headlines about mineral riches in the Arctic, beneath the ocean seabed, and even asteroid mining. The latest region in the cross-hairs is Antarctica, with – you guessed it – China aggressively pursuing its interests in the region.

Though the area is technically off-limits for mining under the Antarctic Treaty, experts say there is increasing pressure to change the policy and the ban may be overturned within decades.

A familiar occurrence around the globe, China is enlarging its footprint in the region, and has stepped up investment in Antarctica from $20 million in 2003 to $55 million in 2012. There is also speculation whether the country is looking to “expand its presence from three to four permanent bases on the ice.”

Expect the debate over the Antarctic riches – which are said to comprise copper, coal, chromium and natural gas, as well as iron ore – to heat up, and other nations stake their claims should the mining ban get close to being overturned.

While Antarctic mining is not a near-term scenario, the United States should use these developments in the Southern hemisphere as impetus to step up and formulate a coherent and comprehensive critical mineral strategy, as the rest of the world won’t wait for us to get off the starting block in the global race for resources.

A first important step in that direction may have been made with the launch of DoE’s new critical minerals research hub, but a broad inter-departmental approach is needed for the sake of our strategic and economic future.

The post Antarctic mineral riches in the cross-hairs of resource wars appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

E&E reporter Manuel Quinones explores U.S. mining interests in the Arctic and related geopolitical and legal issues in a piece for GreenWire. Portraying the region as a hotbed of territorial disputes precisely because of its mineral potential, Quinones quotes American Resources principal Daniel McGroarty, who points to the pivotal role Alaska can and must play in the United States’ efforts to stake its claim in the Arctic as other nations try to leverage the Law of the Sea treaty to advance their positions:

“Alaska is America’s foothold in the Arctic. …This will prove incredibly important. We don’t see it now, but the strategic resource value of this single state could drive U.S. growth and competitiveness in the decades ahead.”

Unfortunately, this realization has yet to sink in in the United States, at a time when even non-Arctic countries like China have their eye on the Arctic’s natural resource treasures and are making their presence felt. The bottom line according to McGroarty:

“We need to be more serious. The resource wars of the mid-21st century are already under way in the Arctic.”

Click here for the full piece (subscription required), and here for more background on the race for the Arctic’s resources.

The post The Arctic: a region in the crosshairs of mining interests appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The race for Arctic riches is getting more crowded, with another player throwing its hat into the ring via Greenland as point of entry. According to a Reuters news story, a Korean state-owned company has inked an agreement with a Greenland mining firm “to seek opportunities for joint minerals projects, exploiting deposits of rare earths and other strategic metals” – a deal that “reflects growing Asian interest in the minerals of the North Atlantic island.”

Greenland has seen interest in its vast mineral resources perk up with recent visits from European Union officials and Chinese officials seeking cooperative agreements with the self-governing province of Denmark.

As American Resources principal Daniel McGroarty has pointed out:

For the U.S., our Arctic claims come via Alaska – a.k.a. Seward’s Folly, and perhaps the best $7.2 million ever spent by the U.S. Government. Across a range of metals and minerals, expect Alaska – and by extension, our Arctic claims – to play a key role in resource supply in the 21st century. Forget the folly: let’s make that William Seward, futurist.

With more and more potential stakeholders showing up in the Arctic, for the U.S. – and particularly when taking into account the benefits mineral exploration is already providing for the State of Alaska – fortifying its position on the Arctic stage and truly harnessing Alaska’s resource potential makes all the more sense.

The post The race for Arctic riches – Enter Korea appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.