Search Results

By now it has been well established – and we have covered this fact on numerous occasions — that the global push towards net zero carbon will require massive amounts of metals and minerals underpinning renewable energy technology supporting the shift.

Here, the mainstream media largely focuses on covering material needs to achieve climate goals –which often means that the emphasis is on battery critical materials Lithium, Cobalt, Graphite and Manganese – and Nickel, as it ascends to the U.S. Government Critical Minerals List –  as well as on the Rare Earths.

Via a new infographic by Visual Capitalist comes a reminder that it’s not just these materials we need to focus on, and that, while it is of course a major factor, other drivers beyond the renewable energy transition are sending demand scenarios for metals and minerals to unprecedented heights.  As Visual Capitalist’s latest posits, “the expansion of megacities will boost metal markets.” 

Writes Nicholas LePan for Visual Capitalist:

“As developing economies grow, millions of people are moving to cities to pursue opportunities compounded by proximity and availability to resources. Many of these people see their economic circumstances improve, and consumption increases as a result.

Cars get more numerous, electricity and public transport networks expand, and consumers buy more electronic products for their homes. All of this means more steel, more copper, more aluminum, and more cement are needed.”

Using data from Swann Group’s Swann Index, Visual Capitalist shows Nickel demand estimated to rise from 2.4 million tonnes in 2019 to 5.2 million tonnes, in 2035, which would amount to an increase by 116%.

For Aluminum, Swann sees demand increased by 57%, from 66 million tonnes to 103.6 million tonnes in 2035.

Owing largely to the expansion of decarbonization technology, as well as the transition to electrification and automation, analysts see demand for Copper increasing by 26%, from 23.6 million tonnes in 2019 to 29.7 million tonnes by 2035.

As LePan writes, while for now Asian and primarily Chinese megacities are leading demand, projection of future population growth indicate a shift  towards the African continent, which according to some estimates, is home to 17 of the 20 fastest growing cities from 2020 to 2025.

All of which is to say that as stakeholders move to devise resource policy, it is more important than ever to keep an eye on the big picture.

We are facing a world with increasingly complex and daunting geopolitical tensions which in turn impact mineral resource supply scenarios (see our recent coverage on the geopolitics of resource supply here).

For the United States to remain competitive, U.S. critical mineral resource policy must be measured against two overarching imperatives:  It must be comprehensive, ensuring that all metals and minerals underpinning 21^st century technology are appropriately accounted for – and it needs to focus on the entire value chain, from mine to manufacturing.  We can, and should, harness partnerships with allies, expand recycling capabilities and work on “closed-loop solutions,”–  but we will not be able to meet vastly increasing mineral needs without leveraging and expanding domestic production and processing capabilities.

Earlier this month, during a meeting in Beijing hours before the kickoff of the Winter Olympics and against the backdrop of Russia amassing troops at its border with Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping issued a joint statement calling out what they see as “interference in the internal affairs” of other states by “some forces representing a minority on the world stage” which “continue to advocate unilateral approaches to resolving international problems and resort to military policy.”

Using this what Ken Moritsugu writing for Military.com called “thinly veiled reference to the U.S. and its allies,” both leaders declared that relations between China and Russia “are developing in a progressive way with a spirit of friendship and strategic partnership,”  and “have indeed become unprecedented,” setting “an example of dignified relations that support mutual development,” as Mr. Putin phrased it.

According to the official Chinese Xinhua News Agency, Mr. Xi was quoted as saying that China and Russia are committed to “deepening back-to-back strategic cooperation,” representing a “strategic decision that has far reaching influence on China, Russia and the world” as the two nations confronted what Mr. Xi called “regional security threats” and “international strategic stability.”

While ties between the two countries are not new and Russia has long been a key supplier of oil, gas and coal for China, this very public declaration of a strategic deepening of relations between Moscow and Beijing should give pause to U.S. stakeholders, particularly from a critical minerals perspective.

Only a few days ago, the USGS released its latest Mineral Commodity Summaries report, once more underscoring U.S. overreliance on foreign, and especially Chinese critical minerals.   As we pointed out,

“ (…) against all pledges in recent years for the United States to reduce import reliance on supplies from China, the 2022 Mineral Commodity Summaries lists China 25 times as one of the major import sources of metals and minerals for which our net import reliance is 50% or greater, which is up by one.

Of course, the sourcing of critical minerals is only one segment of the supply chain, and, as a recent look at the complete clean energy supply chain by Visual Capitalist has revealed, China has not only established itself as a global lead supplier of critical minerals. The country has also established dominance in the processing segment.” (Take a look at our latest post on the issue here.)

While Russia may not appear quite as often on USGS’s chart depicting U.S. net import reliance, it is an import source for some key materials underpinning 21^st century technology, including Scandium, for which the U.S. is 100% import dependent.

The declaration of the “no limits” partnership between China and Russia comes at a time when geopolitical pressures on mineral resource policy, are on the rise.

[See our latest on the rise of resource nationalism in Central and South America here.]

Against the backdrop of the accelerating global green energy transition, the urgency of securing critical mineral resource supply chains should take center stage for U.S. policy makers, and for some time it seemed like it would.

This summer’s 100 Day Supply Chain report and subsequent policy statements pointed towards the adoption of an “all of the above” approach to mineral resource policy on the part of the Biden Administration.   However, as we previously pointed out,

“since then, the overall approach to date has appeared more geared towards “rely[ing] on ally countries to supply the bulk of the metals needed to build electric vehicles and focus[ing] on processing them domestically into battery parts, [as] part of a strategy designed to placate environmentalists.”

The Administration’s recent cancellation of a promising mining project in Minnesota, seems to all but confirm fears by observers that the Biden-Harris White House would turn to embrace an “activist-driven U.S. anti-mining policy,” as Duggan Flanakin, director of policy research at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, phrased it in a recent piece that does not mince words for RealClearEnergy.

Efforts to “friend-shore” and deepen critical minerals cooperation with allies like Canada and Australia are welcome, but they are not sufficient to meet our massively increased (and ever-growing critical mineral needs).

The challenge only gets more pressing, as we previously outlined, “when we realize that “NIMBYism Is Global” – as was the headline for a recent piece by Forbes senior contributor David Blackmon zeroing in on what he called the ‘grand ironies in the whole energy transition narrative: The same class of left-leaning activists who promote wind and solar and electric vehicles (EVs) as the solution also oppose the mining of the lithium and other critical minerals necessary to make them work.’”

A look to our friends in Europe, where the Serbian government canceled Rio Tinto’s $2.4 billion lithium mining project in January over sustained NIMBY protests, suffices to confirm this.

The stakes are too high, and with geopolitical tensions rising, the time to embrace a comprehensive “all of the above” here in the U.S. – from “soup to nuts” or from mine to manufacturing is now.

Against the backdrop of the global push to net carbon zero, supply chains for the critical metals and minerals underpinning this shift are facing immense pressures. As followers of ARPN well know, China, which not only holds the pole position when it comes to sourcing critical minerals, but has also cornered the downstream supply chain, [...]

In early October, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars announced the release of a new report entitled “The Mosaic Approach: a Multidimensional Strategy for Strengthening America’s Critical Minerals Supply Chain.”  According to Duncan Wood, Vice President of Strategy and New Initiatives at the Wilson Center and one of the report’s co-authors, “[the] paper reflects the dialogue sustained [...]

As governments around the globe continue to push towards carbon neutrality, Alan Howard and Brenda Shaffer, faculty members at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, warn against the hidden dangers of the — rushed — electrification of the U.S. military in a new piece for Foreign Policy. Against the backdrop of the Pentagon having commissioned studies [...]

As we outlined in our last post, the Biden Administration’s strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains, as outlined in its just-released 100 Day Supply Chain Report, embraces an “all of the above approach.” While strengthening sustainable mining and processing domestically, the Administration will also rely on partnerships with our closest allies — and of [...]

The Biden Administration made clear early on that it is committed to pursuing a low-carbon energy future, and battery technology is a key driver underpinning the shift away from fossil fuels. Just a few weeks ago, when touting his infrastructure package at Ford’s electric vehicle plant in Dearborn, President Joe Biden declared: “The future of [...]

During a virtual congressional policy forum on critical minerals hosted by House Committee on Natural Resources Republicans earlier this week, experts agreed that the United States must adopt a holistic “all of the above” approach to critical mineral resource policy. Panelists at the event, which can be re-watched in its entirety here, included: Daniel McGroarty, [...]

The Biden Administration has shifted focus to its next major legislative priority in the context of the president’s “Build Back Better” agenda — a multi-trillion dollar jobs and infrastructure package. Billed as a plan to make the economy more productive through investments in infrastructure, education, work force development and fighting climate change, the package will [...]

With the “battery arms race” turbocharged by the coronavirus pandemic, observers are concerned that Lithium ion batteries could become “geopolitical hot potatoes.” In light of these developments, the latest statements from newly-confirmed Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, coupled with the recently-signed executive order on strengthening U.S. supply chains, are encouraging indications that the new Administration [...]