Search Results

As demand for critical minerals continues to surge against the backdrop of the accelerating push towards net zero carbon emissions and supply chain challenges in the face of growing geopolitical volatility, the United States has taken several important steps to strengthen U.S. domestic critical mineral supply chains.

Sometimes the obvious can be overlooked:  As a case in point, consider the human resources required to unlock the natural resources needed to power 21^st Century technologies.  Is the U.S. doing what it must to excite, encourage and educate the next generation of geologists, metallurgists, engineers, materials scientists and the many other disciplines involved in extracting and processing critical minerals?

While much of the Congressional effort has focused on the exploration, development and recycling of critical minerals, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-167) (CHIPS Law) contains a provision making funding available to bolster the mining workforce.

Late last month, U.S. Senators Jacky Rosen (D-Nev) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo) sent a letter to U.S. National Science Foundation Director Sethuraman Panchanathan requesting an update on what steps the National Science Foundation (NSF) has taken to implement Section 10359 of the CHIPS Act, the inclusion of which the senators had secured at the time of the law’s passage.

The senators lament that estimated enrollment at the 14 mining schools currently accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. has rapidly declined from almost 1,500 in 2015 to just under 600 students today, with only roughly 200 students anticipated to graduate with Bachelor of Science degrees in mining engineering from U.S. schools this year.

Section 10359 of the CHIPS Act directed NSF to offer funding to universities and nonprofit organizations to “grow the next generation of mining engineers and support research and innovations that will improve mining technologies, reducing our reliance on China and other adversaries for critical minerals and materials.” 

Write the senators:

“To ensure the United States is able to innovate and compete on a global scale, we must recruit, educate, train, and develop tomorrow’s workforce today, providing them the tools they need to meet the challenge of developing a secure domestic resource supply chain that will strengthen our nation’s future economic and national security. (…)

It is critical that the NSF swiftly implement Sec. 10359, so that the U.S. remains competitive with a strong, skilled, and adaptive workforce to meet the needs of the modern mining industry.”

The senators are “are eager to learn what steps the National Science Foundation (NSF) has taken to implement this provision and engage with communities across the country on available opportunities,” and request an update by Director Panchanathan by January 12, 2024.  ARPN will be sure to keep tabs on NSF’s response, and on the broader effort to encourage the cultivation of the human resources needed to develop the Nation’s natural resources for decades to come.

 With hot wars raging in Central Europe and the Middle East, do we have bandwidth to focus on a war that’s metaphorical – for now, at least:  The Tech War pitting China versus the U.S.?

Against the backdrop of China’s recently announced restrictions on graphite exports (see ARPN’s coverage here) set to take effect on Friday, the Washington Post zeroes in on China having opened a “next front in the Tech War” that is unfolding between Washington, D.C. and Beijing – Graphite (and clean energy).  Beginning this Friday, exporters of high-grade graphite will have to seek government approval and disclose details of their buyers, allowing Chinese authorities to pick and choose which applications to approve or deny based on national security grounds.

As Lily Kuo writes for the Post, Beijing has made clear that its latest salvo of critical mineral export restrictions is to be considered “payback for Washington’s efforts to curtail Chinese access to advanced American semiconductors,” and is merely “just the beginning.”   Thus were the words of China’s former commerce minister Wei Jianguo who warned earlier this summer, when Beijing announced the curtailment of gallium and germanium exports, that “China has many means and types of sanctions it can use,” adding that “if restrictions on our high-tech industry continue to escalate, China’s countermeasures will also escalate.”

Pointing to the fact that the U.S. Government has deemed all three minerals currently targeted by Beijing – graphite, gallium and germanium – critical minerals and the U.S. is import reliant for all three, with China accounting for the largest share of imports to date, Kuo says China’s tightening of the export control ratchet may be Beijing’s “most potent weapon to wield in its competition with Washington, one that could strike at the heart of American efforts to create green jobs while weaning the country off fossil fuels.”

As ARPN previously outlined, diversifying away from China represents a massive challenge. In the EV battery segment, China “is on track to retain over 85% of the global anode market share by the end of the decade,”according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence data.

The U.S. has taken several important steps to decouple critical mineral supply chains from China, especially those for battery materials and chip manufacturing in the last few years, ranging from DPA Title III designations and subsequent Department of Defense funding of projects to federal legislation providing funding for projects from the U.S. Department of Energy.

In the case of graphite, projects currently underway are expected to qualify for the IRA credits, and ultimately help “domesticate” the graphite supply chain, including Graphex’s pitch coating facility coming online in Michigan, and Graphite One Inc.’s effort to establish an all-American mine-to-manufacturing supply chain. Graphite One’s Graphite Creek deposit near Nome, Alaska was recently recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey as the largest U.S. graphite deposit and among the largest in the world, and, since July, the company has been selected for two Department of Defense grants, under the Defense Production Act’s Title III authorities and by the Defense Logistics Agency.

As tensions mount, rumblings over China blocking American access to rare earths are getting louder, with China’s Commerce Ministry issuing new rules requiring exporters to report details of their overseas shipments, and the People’s Daily running a piece stating, according to Kuo, “there was ‘no mystery’ about whether China would use its rare earths as a ‘counter weapon.’”

While Kuo says China’s exports controls could kill two birds with one stone by not only punishing the U.S., but also encouraging domestic companies to export finished products rather than raw materials, she argues that the strategy “is not without risks,” and has garnered criticism even within China, as it could – in the case of rare earths -  “weaken the international influence” of China’s REE industry as manufacturers could not only turn to other sources of supply, but move away from using rare earths entirely.

Tesla made headlines earlier this year saying it would cut REEs from its next-gen EVs, but Tesla is not the only automaker developing low- to zero rare earth content engines. Nissan is reported to pursue a dual strategy to develop both newer EESM (externally excited synchronous machine) motors, but also develop permanent magnet motors that will ultimately eliminate REE content.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration has just announced a series of new actions to strengthen U.S. supply chains across the board.  One highly anticipated component is the Department of Defense’s release of a first ever National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS), which, according to the White House, “will guide engagement, policy development, and investment in the defense industrial base over the next three to five years.”

Whether or not China overplays its hand in the long run is almost beside the point, as, in the short- to medium term its chokehold in the sector is strong, and we know that the country does not shy away from confrontation.   To not fall behind in the Tech War, decoupling our critical mineral supply chains from China must be the name of the game.

As ARPN previously outlined,

“In the process, we will have to carefully balance domestic and global policy approaches — as well as public and private sector roles with economic and security concerns to reflect the geopolitical realities of our times.

And, as followers of ARPN well know, this can be best achieved within the context of a comprehensive all-of-the-above approach that focuses on domestic resource development where possible and leverages partnerships where needed.”

It’s visualization time. And while your Thanksgiving-focused brain may trick you into believing the infographic you see here represents the proportions of turkey to sides, Visual Capitalist has put together an important reminder for those working in the realm of mineral resource policy, and quite frankly, everyone else. Using USGS data, the infographic (click here for a full-size look [...]

The long-planned and carefully crafted meeting between U.S. President Joe Biden Chinese President Xi Jinping near San Francisco may have gone off without a hitch, and defense dialogues between Beijing and Washington may have been restored, but analysts are not entirely optimistic that re-opened lines of communications will ultimately resolve deeply-rooted disagreements between the two countries on a [...]

Copper may be one of the earliest identified metals – there is evidence of Stone Age societies between 9000 BC to 2000 BC using it (without smelting) and it had its own archaeological period a long time ago — but its versatile properties make it one of the most sought-after materials even today, and perhaps [...]

Only weeks before a planned November summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterpart, U.S. President Joe Biden, China’s commerce department has announced a new set of critical mineral export restrictions against what Nikkei Asia refers to as “a backdrop of domestic calls for a response to stricter limits on U.S. semiconductor exports to China.” According [...]

Trade policy in an integrated global economy can take some unexpected twists and turns.  Today’s post highlights returns to one development under discussion that could lead to a result diametrically opposed to the original intent, in this case, of the U.S. Congress and Biden Administration. Earlier this month, in a letter to Biden Administration officials, U.S. [...]

As geopolitical and trade tensions continue to flare across the globe, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators is sounding the alarm on supply chain challenges for nickel, one of the key battery criticals. In a letter to Biden administration officials, the senators, led by U.S. Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Tina Smith (D-MN), express their concerns [...]

As geopolitical tensions surge across the globe, the Pentagon is kicking its efforts to shore up the defense industrial base into high gear.  Speaking at the 2023 Defense Conference, Laura Taylor-Kale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for industrial Base Policy, said the U.S. Department of Defense hopes to release its first-ever National Defense Industrial Strategy and subsequent DoD implementation [...]

In keeping with its known penchant for weaponizing trade, Beijing is tightening its export control ratchet again this week. Now in the Tech War crosshairs:  Graphite. According to Reuters, China announced today that to protect national security, it will require export permits for certain graphite products – a move analysts see as a play “to control supplies of critical [...]