In a recent report, the organization found that “[f]rom the analysis, at a global level there is no reason to suggest that remaining tin deposits will be unable to sustain a long term, gradual upward trend in primary tin demand well into the future.” However, “far more efficient exploration and mining technologies” would be required. 

Factor in our supplier nations – not necessarily the best trading partners – and a current WTO case against the world’s largest Tin producer, China, that may or may not affect global supply – and you have all the makings of a geopolitical resource supply challenge. 

Against this background, a recent announcement that a Tin mining operation in Cornwall in the UK is being brought back to life after a two-decade-long closure comes as no surprise. Cornwall was once home to roughly 2,000 tin mines, but as prices fell in light of increased global competition and supply, these mines began shutting down, and have not been reopened until now. 

In the U.S., the picture is similar – domestic Tin mining or smelting was abandoned in 1993 and 1989, respectively, and, when accounting for Tin recycling as a source, we are 75 percent import dependent for the metal.

While the United States’ identified Tin resources may be insignificant when compared with the rest of the world, the bottom line is that we must change the way we approach metals and minerals.  With advances in technology and materials sciences, old paradigms are out the window. 

Copper is no longer just a mainstay metal and conductor of electricity.  Aluminum is more than a building material. And Tin is more than just a food container.  All of these metals have found new important and versatile applications. But beyond that, they are Gateway Metals yielding access to some of the so-called “minor” metals (in Tin’s case Indium and Scandium) that are quickly becoming the quintessential building blocks of our 21^st Century high-tech and sustainable energy future and manufacturing renaissance.

It’s time for a new approach to mineral resource policy – an approach that breaks with old patterns and paradigms and unleashes our nation’s vast mineral potential. 

The post Through the Gateway: Tin, Co-Products and Shifting Paradigms appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Bloomberg reports:

“China may stockpile more medium-to-heavy rare earths this year such as terbium, lutetium and yttrium, which are used in applications ranging from lasers to nuclear reactors, said China Merchants’ Peng [Bo].

“China’s own industrial sector, in its rudimentary form, isn’t yet able to make full use of the country’s output, Peng said. The government is likely to hoard these elements for future use, she said.

“‘The mining and refining industry, hampered by a drastic slump in prices, sees the purchase as a life-saver,’ said Chen Huan, an analyst at Beijing Antaike Information Development Co. ‘Prices the government agreed to pay are much higher than the prevailing market price.’”

In March, the World Trade Organization ruled in favor of the U.S., Japan and EU’s contention that China’s Rare Earths export quotas were not justified. As a source within one of China’s state-owned enterprises told Bloomberg:

“‘China is facing imminent pressure to abolish the export quota, so stockpiling is part of the policy reaction to help prop up prices and keep more of the resources at home for future use.’”

As a follow-on, ARPN will share any U.S. Government reaction to this move – if in fact there is a reaction.

The post The Geo-Politics of Rare Earths: China Reported to Add to Stockpile appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

A REE World Report titled ‘Political Squeeze Play and the Rare Earth Revolution’ on Rare Metal Blog highlights the implications of U.S. dependency on foreign supplies of Rare Earths for our military. Here are some of the report’s key points:

• The current WTO case brought on against China by the U.S., European Union and Japan over its restrictive Rare Earths policies is not because China has a geological monopoly, but rather, because other countries possessing REEs, including the U.S., have allowed China to develop a near-total production monopoly.

• It’s up- and downstream REE market dominance has prompted industries relying on Rare Earths to relocate production sites to China, and leaves the other parties to the WTO case, and the U.S. in particular, vulnerable to REE supply risk.

• To underscore the economic imbalance, the author of the report prompts readers to imagine the consequences for “Western economies if Saudi Arabia had been a technological and manufacturing giant at the time of the 1973 oil embargo” – which would have been control over energy supply and the world’s technological development. Even more troubling, while Saudi Arabia has been reliant on the projection of U.S. military power in the Gulf region, China has no such constraints and its foreign policy often clashes with Western interests.

• The importance of REEs cannot be underestimated, and China’s near total monopoly affects not only the green technology sector, but the defense and security sectors.

The author’s conclusion:

“A new approach is needed. Short of devolving tax dollars to developing alternative materials to REE, diversifying supplies while easing the mining regulatory framework to facilitate more domestic REE production is essential.”

The implications of mineral supply issues for our national security is an issue to which American Resources recently devoted a study.

In Reviewing Risk – Critical Metals and National Security, we cross-referenced 46 key minerals with U.S. Geological Survey reports on mineral reserves, supply risk and import exposure, and built a national security “risk pyramid” that helps visualize our over-reliance on foreign critical minerals.

The study is part of a series of reports and policy papers, the next one of which will take a closer look at one of the less-known properties of some traditional “mainstay metals” – their function as a “gateway metal” to critical technology metals.

Stay tuned for the announcement on the report’s release in the coming weeks.

The post REEs, National Security and Gateway Metals appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

In his latest column for Real Clear World, American Resources principal Daniel McGroarty zeroes in on the newly-released Chinese government white paper entitled ‘Situation and Policies of China’s Rare Earths Industry’ and notes the insight it provides into China’s broader mineral strategy.

McGroarty’s key points are as follows:

· The white paper essentially sets the stage for a “pre-emptive defense of Chinese Rare Earths policy.”

· China’s claimed correction of the amount of its Rare Earths reserve – a reduction from 36 percent (as per USGS estimates) to 23 percent of total global reserves will allow Beijing to “argue in the WTO that its sovereign right to manage its own non-renewable resources blunts any demand by other nations that China serve as the world’s Rare Earths super-store.”

· A less-noticed report that China is placing a bounty on those involved in the country’s burgeoning Rare Earths black market indicates that “as the world races to bring more Rare Earths to the market, China is working to ratchet back supply – and ensure the remainder is tightly under Politburo control.”

· Possibly providing a glimpse into the grand scheme of things, the Hong Kong Exchange’s (HKEx) offer of $2 billion for the London Metals Exchange (LME), which has been called the “most expensive bid ever” for LME begs the question of whether it might “involve the chance, unavailable until now, to locate physical metals warehouses on Chinese soil.”

· Meanwhile, the West’s mineral policies seem to hinge to a large extent on the word “maybe” – as in maybe China will comply with WTO rules, and maybe researchers will develop Rare Earths alternatives, for example.

McGroarty’s bottom line:

“[W]hile the ‘West’ has hopes, China has a plan. And whatever it is, it’s not the one translated into English and published last week on the front page of the People’s Daily.”

The post Recent developments provide glimpse into China’s resource strategy appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

ARPN’s Tungsten Month is over, but we will make an exception in the case for investment legend Warren Buffett. It seems one of his investment arms is taking a position in the re-commissioned tungsten mine in the United Kingdom, last operated as part of the industrial war effort during World War II. As American Resource followers know, China is the leading supplier of imported tungsten to the U.S., a dependency eased only by our recycling of tungsten scrap.

As the U.S. Geological Survey notes:

“World tungsten supply is dominated by Chinese production and exports. China’s government regulates its tungsten industry by limiting the number of exploration, mining, and export licenses; limiting or forbidding foreign investment; imposing constraints on mining and processing; establishing quotas on production and exports; adjusting export quotas to favor value-added downstream materials and products; and imposing export taxes on tungsten materials.”

Tungsten is one of the targets in the new WTO action brought by the U.S., European Union and Japan against China’s resource export policies. If the WTO rules against China, the country may be compelled to export more product to a tungsten-hungry world. But in the meanwhile, Warren Buffett seems to think it makes sense to develop new sources of supply — even if in this instance the source is an old mine, brought back into production. Maybe U.S. policy-makers should employ the strategy that works for so many investors, and ask: What Would Warren Do?

The post Is Warren Buffett an American Resource reader? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Discussing the U.S. policy landscape against the backdrop of the latest WTO case against China put forth by the U.S., the EU and Japan, and lamenting that Washington doesn’t even have a coherent definition of strategic and critical minerals, Green argues that policy makers are missing the point about rare earth element supply. Green calls for the development of a coherent domestic supply chain for the United States to remain competitive. Here are some of the interview’s key points:

· As the U.S. mostly imports components and end products containing REEs (rather than the metals themselves), U.S. demand appears fairly low, creating the misleading perception that we can meet our own demand, which we can for the direct sale of some REEs, but not for phosphors, metals and other magnets.

· Consumers continue to turn to China for access to raw material supplies.

· U.S. policy on the issue remains piecemeal, with agencies working from different angles, and policy makers in Congress unable to set a coherent framework largely due to partisan politics.

· In light of China’s near total monopoly, free market forces alone are insufficient to sort out REE supply chain issues, as even with new sources of supply coming online, “significant portions of that supply chain will still be relying on China for key processing technologies and intellectual property.”

· The WTO case is unlikely to increase REE supply.

· The current trend of metal processors moving to China is a big concern, as assembly makers, and ultimately end-product users will likely follow. The lighting industry, in which the majority of production already takes place in China, is a case in point. If the REE field goes down this trajectory, U.S. stands to lose economically, and runs the risk of intellectual property leakages.

Green shares a lot more insight, so read the rest of the interview here.

The post American Resources expert Jeffery Green: “Washington needs to realize that all roads lead to China” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

While many have talked about the case, few are actually familiar with the WTO’s mechanics. In his “initial analysis,” Hatch gives a detailed overview over the organization’s dispute process and how it would be applied in this case. Hatch further takes a look at various criticisms levied against the complainants, as well as China’s possible reactions, and outlines his view on possible outcomes of the dispute.

Read his full article “The WTO Rare Earths Trade Dispute: An Initial Analysis,” on the Technology Metals Research website. And, in case you’ve missed it, click here for American Resources principal Daniel McGroarty’s take.

The post American Resources Expert Commentary: Technology Metal Research’s Gareth Hatch on the WTO rare earths case appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Having previously expressed skepticism over the WTO being the appropriate forum to address the issue at RareMetalBlog, McGroarty outlines three possible outcomes of a WTO case, none of which are overly appealing. His conclusion:

Instead of suing China to force it to continue to sell us what we need – and at prices it dictates – we should focus on developing the significant domestic supply of rare earths here in America.

That would bolster the global market for these precious commodities, reducing costs from raw materials all the way across the manufacturing supply chain, and ultimately to consumers. And it would do so without embroiling us in a bitter tit-for-tat trade war with China.

To read the full piece, click here. And, for more background information, here are a few additional video resources:

Dan McGroarty discussing rare earths on the Business News Network.

McGroarty discussing rare earths on CNBC:

McGroarty discussing copper on CNBC:

The post American Resources Principal for Forbes Magazine: “Forget the WTO” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The case – brought about by the U.S., European Union, and Mexico in 2009 – upheld an the initial WTO ruling, and constitutes the supra-national body’s final holding on China’s policies.

Implications for rare earths?

Rare earth elements (REEs) – the group of 17 elements without which we would not have our smartphones, tablets, and flat screen TVs – were not at issue in the WTO’s decision. While the WTO does not treat prior rulings as precedent, some in the international trade community were quick to claim a linkage in the WTO’s logic to China’s export controls on rare earths.  European Union Trade Commissioner, Karl De Gucht, had this to say in a press statement:

China now must comply by removing these export restrictions swiftly and furthermore, I expect China to bring its overall export regime – including for rare earths – in line with WTO rules.

Supra-Nationalism versus Sovereignty

In a recent post for RareMetalBlog, American Resources principal, Daniel McGroarty, expressed skepticism that China would accept this linkage, citing what he called the “limits of law in cases of sovereignty,” pointing out that China’s REE stranglehold is neither a “force of nature” nor a “fact of geology.”

China may have a rare earth production monopoly, McGroarty explained, but it only possesses 36 percent of the world’s known reserves. He noted that compelling a sovereign nation to export what other nations could arguably explore and develop themselves would be a “tough case to make in the court of public opinion.”

Chinese officials have said they will adhere to the WTO ruling, but exactly how far they would go remains in question. Already, Reuters has pointed to a loophole in the ruling that allows for leaving export quotas in place for environmental reasons — a rationale frequently mentioned by Chinese authorities as they consolidate their rare earths mining sector.

The post WTO mineral exports decision against China: What will it mean for rare earths? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.