Tuesday 25th April 2017

Resource Clips


Posts tagged ‘china’

Converging on batteries

April 23rd, 2017

Benchmark sees big investors wakening as three huge sectors chase three vital minerals

by Greg Klein

It’s “a sign of the times that big investors with big money are starting to look at this space in a serious way,” Simon Moores declared. “We’re seeing it with lithium, that’s just starting. And I think we’re going to see it with the other raw materials as well.” To that he attributes the automotive, high-tech and energy sectors for their “convergence of three multi-trillion-dollar industries on batteries.”

Addressing a Vancouver audience on the April 21st inaugural stop of the third annual Benchmark Mineral Intelligence World Tour, he pointed out that cobalt and graphite have yet to match lithium for investors’ attention. But not even lithium has drawn the financing needed to maintain supply over the long term.

Benchmark sees investment lagging as three huge sectors chase three vital minerals

While EVs still lead the battery-powered revolution, energy storage
will become more prominent after 2020, according to Simon Moores.

Back in 2006, batteries accounted for 22% of lithium demand. Ten years later the amount came to 42%. “We believe in 2020, 67% of lithium will be used for batteries.”

What’s now driving the battery market, almost literally, is electric vehicles. Energy storage will play a more prominent role from about 2020 onwards, he maintained.

He sees three cars in particular that should lead the trend: Tesla Model 3, Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf. As consumers turn to pure electric vehicles with battery packs increasing capacity to the 60 to 70 kWh range and beyond, the industry will sell “hundreds of thousands of cars rather than tens of thousands… the era of the semi-mass market for EVs is beginning and it’s beginning now, this year.”

Last year’s lithium-ion market reached 70 GWh, Moores said. Forecasts for 2025 range from Bloomberg’s low of about 300 GWh to Goldman Sachs’ 440 GWh and a “pretty bullish” 530 GWh from Cairn Energy Research Advisors. As for Benchmark, “we’re at the lower end” with a base case of about 407 GWh.

“What does that mean for lithium demand? A lot of raw materials will be needed and the investment in that space is just starting.”

Lithium’s 2016 market came to about 80,000 tonnes. By 2020, demand will call for something like 180,000 to 190,000 tonnes. While battery-grade graphite demand amounted to about 100,000 tonnes last year, “by 2020, that will be just over 200,000 tonnes.” As for battery-grade cobalt, last year’s market came to just under 50,000 tonnes. “By 2020 it’s going to need to get to about 80,000 to 85,000.”

Benchmark sees investment lagging as three huge sectors chase three vital minerals

Moores: The industry needs both
spodumene- and brine-sourced lithium.

Investment so far favours lithium but for each of the three commodities, it’s “not enough, not for the long term,” he stressed.

Three years ago only two battery megafactories had been envisioned. Now in operation, under construction or being planned are 15, with the number expected to grow. “That’s going to be needed if we’re ever going to get anywhere near the forecast that everyone’s saying. Not just us, not just Bernstein or Goldman Sachs, everyone is saying significant growth is here but investment is needed.”

But although Tesla gets most of the headlines, “the new lithium-ion industry is a China-centric story.” The vast majority of megafactories are Chinese plants or joint ventures with Chinese entities operating in South Korea or Japan. “The majority of their product goes to China.”

At the end of last month lithium carbonate averaged $12,313 a tonne while lithium hydroxide averaged about $17,000. Spot deals in China, meanwhile, have surpassed $20,000.

That compares with prices between 2005 and 2008 of around $4,000 for lithium carbonate and $4,500 for lithium hydroxide. Only slightly higher were averages for 2010 to 2014. But prices spiked in 2015 and 2016. “Between now and 2020 we believe lithium carbonate will be in and around an average of $13,000 a tonne and lithium hydroxide will be closer to $18,000 a tonne.”

Those long-term averages “are important for people building mines and investing in this space.”

No other mineral out there has this kind of price profile.

Except for 2010, lithium prices have shown 11 years of increases, corresponding with battery demand. “No other mineral out there has this kind of price profile.”

Moores sees no oversupply or price crash for lithium in the next five years. Spodumene-sourced lithium “will fill the short-term supply deficit and brines will help fill the longer-term supply deficit post-2019 and 2020,” he said. “Both are needed to have a strong, balanced industry in the future.”

Turning to graphite, he noted that batteries had zero effect on the market in 2006. By 2016 they accounted for 16% of demand. By 2020, that number should jump to 35%.

While flake graphite comprises the feedstock for most anode material, “really, the price you should look at is spherical graphite.” That’s fallen lately to about $2,800 a tonne.

Moores foresees better margins for companies producing uncoated spherical graphite. “The people who make the coated will also make good margins, but not as good as in the past. For this reason, and because battery buyers are becoming more powerful and there’s more competition in the space, we believe the coated spherical graphite price will actually fall in the long term average, but will still be between $8,000 and $12,000 a tonne. So there’s very high value and significant demand for this material.”

He also sees natural graphite increasing its anode market share over synthetic graphite. “That’s a cost issue primarily, but there are green issues too.”

Silicon, he added, “will play a part in anodes but it will be an additive, not a replacement.”

Speaking with ResourceClips.com after the event, Moores said Benchmark World Tour attendees differ by city. The Vancouver audience reflected the resource sector, as well as fund managers attracted by BMO Capital Markets’ sponsorship. Tokyo and Seoul events draw battery industry reps. Silicon Valley pulls in high-tech boffins.

This year’s tour currently has 15 cities scheduled with two more under consideration, he noted. That compares with eight locations on the first tour in 2015. Moores attributed the success to Benchmark’s access to pricing and other sensitive info, as well as Benchmark’s site visits. “We go to China and other countries and visit the mines,” he said. “Our travel budget is through the roof. We’re not desktop analysts.”

More critical than ever

April 13th, 2017

The USGS promotes awareness about essential resources and their supply chains

by Greg Klein

Let’s call it Critical Minerals Awareness Month. The U.S. Geological Survey hasn’t actually labelled April that way, but the agency does have a “big push” underway to inform American decision-makers and the general public about the country’s often tenuous hold on commodities vital to the economy and security of that country. Of course those concerns apply to its allies as well.

The USGS promotes public awareness about essential resources and their supply chains

“We decided to do a big push on critical minerals in April largely because we’ve got several big publications coming out on the subject,” USGS public affairs specialist Alex Demas tells ResourceClips.com.

“One of the things we’ve been focusing on is supply chain security, so with the sheer number of mineral commodities that are used in the United States, and the number of them deemed critical, we felt it was important to emphasize where a lot of those mineral resources are coming from and if there are any potential issues in the supply chain, getting them from the source to the United States.”

Computers provide an obvious example, increasing their use from “just 12 elements in the 1980s to as many as 60 by 2006,” points out one recent USGS news release. Smartphones offer another example. Looking back 30 years ago, “‘portable’ phones were the size of a shoebox and consisted of 25 to 30 elements,” states another USGS release. “Today they fit in your pocket or on your wrist and are made from about 75 different elements, almost three-quarters of the periodic table.”

Larry Meinert, USGS deputy associate director for energy and minerals, pointed out some of the sources. “For instance, the industrial sand used to make the quartz in smartphone screens may come from the United States or China, but the potassium added to enhance screen strength could come from Canada, Russia or Belarus. Australia, Chile and Argentina often produce the lithium used in battery cathodes, while the hard-to-come-by tantalum—used in smartphone circuitry—mostly comes from Congo, Rwanda and Brazil.”

That brings an ominous warning. “With minerals being sourced from all over the world, the possibility of supply disruption is more critical than ever.”

The campaign also reveals the agency’s methods for tracking this essential stuff. A USGS-designed early warning system described as “mathematically rigorous and elegant” helps the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency monitor a watch list of about 160 minerals. Not all have been labelled critical, but those so defined can change due to technological development and geopolitical conflict.

The USGS itself tracks something like 90 minerals important to the American economy or security but sourced from about 180 countries. For last year the agency identified 20 minerals on which the U.S. relied entirely on imports and 47 on which the country imported more than half its supply.

Not all the source countries are always best buddies with the West. China supplies most of America’s mined commodities, including 24 of the 47 minerals supplied 51% or more by imports. Among the critical items are rare earth elements, 100% imported, over 90% directly from China and much of the rest through supply chains originating there.

As a supplier, Canada came a distant second, the chief provider of 16 minerals, not all of them critical. Runners-up Mexico, Russia and South Africa were each chief suppliers for eight American mineral imports.

Among the research reports coming soon will be “a compendium of everything the USGS knows about 23 minerals critical to the United States,” Demas says. “It’s going to cover the industry side of things, the reserves, production, shipment, etc. It’s going to cover geology and sustainability. Each chapter on each mineral will have a section on how this can be mined sustainably so we can meet our needs not only today, but also in the future.”

In part the publications target “decision-makers in Congress, as well as the Defense Department and others who use mineral resources,” Demas adds. But he emphasizes the campaign wasn’t motivated by the proposed METALS Act (Materials Essential to American Leadership and Security). Currently before U.S. Congress, the bill calls on government to support domestic resources and supply chains of critical and strategic minerals. On introducing the bill, Rep. Duncan Hunter argued the risk of foreign dependence to national security “is too great and it urgently demands that we re-establish our depleted domestic industrial base.”

As Demas notes, “Since we are a non-regulatory, non-policy agency, we don’t directly influence policy. But we do want policy-makers to have our tools available so they can make the best science-informed decisions.”

And while this month will see special attention to critical minerals, Demas says the subject’s an ongoing concern for the USGS. Some of the reports coming out now will be updates of annual publications.

“We’re really trying to promote the idea that USGS has a lot of really useful information that we put out all the time,” he adds. “This information will hopefully be useful to people when they’re considering where their resources are coming from.”

Follow USGS news here.

Read about the West’s dependence on non-allied countries for critical minerals here and here.

Elements of Power author David S. Abraham contrasts China’s critical commodities strategy with the West’s dependency

April 7th, 2017

…Read more

USGS: Possibility of supply disruption more critical than ever

April 5th, 2017

by Greg Klein | April 5, 2017

USGS: Possibility of supply disruption more critical than ever

Many and various are the sources of smartphone minerals.
(Map: U.S. Geological Survey)

 

In another article warning of foreign dependency, the U.S. Geological Survey uses smartphones as a cautionary example. Looking back 30 years ago, “‘portable’ phones were the size of a shoebox and consisted of 25 to 30 elements,” pointed out Larry Meinert of the USGS. “Today they fit in your pocket or on your wrist and are made from about 75 different elements, almost three-quarters of the periodic table.”

USGS: Possibility of supply disruption more critical than ever

Smartphones now require nearly 75% of the periodic
table of the elements. (Graphic: Jason Burton, USGS)

The increasing sophistication of portable communications results from a “symphony of electronics and chemistry” that includes, for example, “household names like silicon, which is used for circuit boards, or graphite used in batteries. Then there are lesser known substances like bastnasite, monazite and xenotime. These brownish minerals contain neodymium, one of the rare earth elements used in the magnets that allow smartphone speakers to play music and the vibration motor that notifies you of new, funny cat videos on social media,” the USGS stated.

Almost as varied are the sources. “For instance, the industrial sand used to make the quartz in smartphone screens may come from the United States or China, but the potassium added to enhance screen strength could come from Canada, Russia or Belarus. Australia, Chile and Argentina often produce the lithium used in battery cathodes, while the hard-to-come-by tantalum—used in smartphone circuitry—mostly comes from Congo, Rwanda and Brazil.”

Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo are also sources of conflict minerals.

“With minerals being sourced from all over the world, the possibility of supply disruption is more critical than ever,” Meinert emphasized.

The April 4 article follows a previous USGS report on an early warning system used by the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency to monitor supply threats. In January the USGS released a list of 20 minerals for which the country relies entirely on imports. Whether or not by design, the recent awareness campaign coincides with a bill before U.S. Congress calling on government to support the development of domestic deposits and supply chains for critical minerals.

See an illustrated USGS report: A World of Minerals in Your Mobile Device.

Read about the West’s dependence on non-allied countries for critical minerals here and here.

Washington defence lobbyist Jeff Green watches rival Chinese and American assertion in the South China Sea with a sense of déjà vu

March 23rd, 2017

…Read more

U.S. Congress to vote on support for domestic critical materials supply lines

March 9th, 2017

by Greg Klein | March 9, 2017

With an eye to national defence, American lawmakers will decide whether their government should help develop domestic supplies of rare minerals. A Congressional bill introduced March 7, Rep. Duncan Hunter’s proposed METALS Act (Materials Essential to American Leadership and Security) would offer a number of inducements to create supply lines for strategic and critical commodities.

U.S. Congress to vote on support for domestic critical materials supply lines

A “dangerous lapse in the supply chain for strategic and
critical materials” will be examined by the U.S. Congress.

“The U.S. must no longer be wholly dependent on foreign sources of strategic and critical materials,” said Hunter, a veteran of two combat tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. “The risk of this dependence on national security is too great and it urgently demands that we re-establish our depleted domestic industrial base.”

Pointing to China’s lockhold on over 90% of global rare earths supply, Hunter argued the U.S. has “ceded” its ability to produce REEs. Following the bankruptcy of the last U.S. rare earths miner, Molycorp “sold a portion of its assets to the Chinese,” said a statement from Hunter’s office. “The mine is now being considered for purchase by a firm with ties to a Russian billionaire.”

As reported by the Wall Street Journal last month, a group including Vladimir Iorich’s Pala Investments has offered US$40 million for Molycorp’s former Mountain Pass mine in California. The METALS Act would prohibit foreign acquisition of American rare earths deposits.

It would also provide five-year interest-free loans for new production or manufacturing techniques involving strategic or critical minerals. Additionally, Washington would reimburse defence programs for higher costs of domestic products. Funding would divert 1% of Department of Defense administration spending, Hunter said.

The act would also bar foreign interests from sourcing American supplies of ammonium perchlorate, a propellant for rockets and missiles. The bill further calls for a study on the viability of using thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors in naval vessels.

Besides encouraging supply chains essential to national security, the bill “supports the U.S. domestic industrial base by aiding domestic investment opportunities,” according to Hunter’s office.

Speaking with ResourceClips.com last month, David S. Abraham expressed skepticism about Hunter’s proposal. “Most bills on critical materials have not passed and his bills usually have the least chance of passing…” said the author of The Elements of Power: Gadgets, Guns, and the Struggle for a Sustainable Future in the Rare Metal Age. “That’s not to say the U.S. hasn’t given money to metallurgy and mining before, but with the exception of some dabbling in beryllium in the ’90s, I can’t recall a time where the U.S. was really investing in mines from a defence perspective.”

But Washington defence lobbyist Jeff Green told ResourceClips.com of “a totally different dynamic” in circles of power that would be willing to “invest in America to protect our national security and grow our manufacturing base.”

A January report from the U.S. Geological Survey stated the country was wholly dependent on foreign sources for 20 minerals last year, some of them considered critical or strategic “because they are essential to the economy and their supply may be disrupted.”

As of press time Hunter’s office hadn’t responded to an interview request.

Not ready for another shock

March 1st, 2017

Unlike China, the West lacks a rare minerals strategy, warns David S. Abraham

by Greg Klein

Something of an epiphany came to him in 2010 as he watched the aftermath of a minor incident in internationally disputed waters. China’s shock-and-awe response turned its near-monopoly on rare earths into a mighty geopolitical weapon, exposing the perilous nature of our dependence on seemingly obscure commodities. That inspired David S. Abraham’s 2015 book The Elements of Power: Gadgets, Guns, and the Struggle for a Sustainable Future in the Rare Metal Age. Now, as a similar confrontation threatens to flare up again, he sees the West still unprepared for further attacks on vital supply lines.

Asked whether people in power have at least gained greater awareness, his response is a firm No.

Unlike China, the West lacks a rare minerals strategy, says David S. Abraham

Speaking on the phone from Indonesia, Abraham took time to discuss the issue with ResourceClips.com. The 2010 event, of course, began with the China-Japan territorial dispute in the East China Sea. Late last year American warships entered the South China Sea, in another challenge to China’s claim to sovereignty. Yet compared with previous years, “I think we’re even more vulnerable to shock in our supply lines,” he says.

“If you look at rare earths, in 2010 there were opportunities for new supplies to come onstream quite quickly, and they’ve since failed. People look at that failure and say these places couldn’t compete, they couldn’t produce economically, so they failed.”

China, having pushed up prices exponentially by withholding rare earths, swung to the other extreme and flooded the market. That dashed the hopes of many potential non-Chinese producers yet encouraged complacency among end-users. “But the supply lines themselves really look no different than they did back then,” Abraham cautions.

Of course the problem’s hardly limited to rare earths. Just one example Abraham points to is cobalt and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Estimates of DRC supply range from 51% of the world total (2015 figures from the U.S. Geological Survey), to nearly 60% (Benchmark Mineral Intelligence), to 65% (Disruptive Discoveries Journal). That gives a disproportionate amount of supply not only to a single country, but one plagued with political instability and conflict mining.

Troubling too is the ownership.

Already a major player in the country, China stands to increase its DRC position should China Molybdenum and a Chinese private equity firm succeed in their $3.8-billion purchase of a majority interest in Tenke Fungurume, one of the world’s biggest copper-cobalt mines. With a 20% stake, the DRC state-owned company Gécamines has tried to block the sale but reportedly accepted a $100-million settlement.

What you see China doing is really consolidating up the supply line…. What they’re trying to do is build up their material capacity so other people producing batteries have to use material coming through China.—David S. Abraham

“What you see China doing is really consolidating up the supply line…. What they’re trying to do is build up their material capacity so other people producing batteries have to use material coming through China.”

The country fosters economic growth by “adding to the value chain that they can produce in their own country. It’s a strong economic argument. It’s not dissimilar to what Trump says, but he hasn’t really gone into the deep thinking that’s happening in China.”

Certainly, China’s strategic approach contrasts with the West. That’s suggested by the example of Tenke Fungurume’s would-be vendors, the American/Canadian team of Freeport-McMoRan NYSE:FCX and Lundin Mining TSX:LUN.

“For those companies, it’s about profits,” Abraham acknowledges. “The question is, what are the technology companies thinking about? Companies like Apple are trying to do a better job of understanding where their materials come from, but some of the others are less concerned.”

With the U.S. military in mind, Rep. Duncan Hunter is anticipated to propose a congressional bill that would help develop domestic supplies of rare minerals.

Abraham’s skeptical. “Most bills on critical materials have not passed and his bills usually have the least chance of passing…. That’s not to say the U.S. hasn’t given money to metallurgy and mining before, but with the exception of some dabbling in beryllium in the ’90s, I can’t recall a time where the U.S. was really investing in mines from a defence perspective.”

If decision-makers lack awareness, they’re not alone, he believes. Abraham sees little evidence that consumers understand the issues. “People talk about being concerned about where these materials come from but they really have to understand the challenging supply lines, and that’s what the book was trying to introduce people to,” he says. “It’s still a little too complex to fathom and I don’t think people think beyond ‘my phone causes conflict in Congo’ and get to the point that ‘my phone leads to geopolitical war.’”

If so, that makes The Elements of Power as timely now as it was in 2015. A paperback edition comes out in April.

In concluding the phone call, Abraham offers a maxim: “Nothing changes very fast. Then everything changes all of a sudden.”

Visual Capitalist: China leading the charge for lithium-ion megafactories

February 17th, 2017

by Jeff Desjardins | posted with permission of Visual Capitalist | February 17, 2017

China leading the charge for lithium-ion megafactories

The Chart of the Week is a Friday feature from Visual Capitalist.

 

Tesla’s Gigafactory 1 has been a centre of attention for people interested in the growing momentum behind green energy, electric cars and battery production. Therefore, it is no surprise that this facility was in the news again last month, with Tesla starting to mass-produce batteries as it ramps up to its goal of 35 GWh of capacity and beyond.

However, as exciting as this project is, it’s actually just one of multiple large-scale “megafactories” being built—with many of them being in China.

China leading the charge

We talked to Simon Moores, managing director at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, who explained that Tesla isn’t alone or unique in its ambitions to build lithium-ion batteries at scale:

While the Tesla Gigafactory is vitally important from an EV vertical integration perspective, the majority of new lithium-ion battery capacity is being built in China. Some of these plants are expected to be huge, such as the CATL facility at 50 GWh—there is little doubt that China’s lithium-ion industry has come of age.

Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd (CATL) has plans to build the largest lithium-ion megafactory of all—but the company is little known in North America. It’s already worth $11.5 billion and could be a dominant force globally in the battery sector if it successfully increases its lithium-ion production capacity six-fold to 50 GWh by the year 2020.

Other Chinese manufacturers are on a similar trajectory. Panasonic, LG Chem and Boston Power are building new megafactory plants in China, while companies such as Samsung and BYD are expanding existing ones. Lithium-ion plants in China currently have a total capacity of 16.4 GWh—but by 2020, they will combine for a total of 107.5 GWh.

Capacity by country

This ramp-up in China means that the country will have 62% of the world’s lithium-ion battery production capacity by 2020.

There are only three other players in the megafactory game: United States, South Korea and Poland.

  2016 capacity (GWh) 2020 capacity (GWh) % of global total (2020)
Total 27.9 173.5 100%
United States 1.0 38.0 22%
China 16.4 107.5 62%
Korea 10.5 23.0 13%
Poland 0.0 5.0 3%

Above estimates on battery capacity courtesy of Benchmark Mineral Intelligence.

Posted with permission of Visual Capitalist.

The NASA model

February 14th, 2017

How the U.S. government might help build a rare earths supply chain

by Greg Klein

The timing seems ominous. As rival American and Chinese warships assert themselves in the disputed South China Sea, the United States Geological Survey reported 20 minerals on which the U.S. imports all of its supply. Included are rare earths—coming almost entirely from China, of course. It was a 2010 conflict in the same troubled waters between Japan and China that caused the latter country to cut off rare earths exports to its adversary. As other supply chains broke apart, REE prices went on an exponential tear. Might China do that again and, this time, are American decision-makers sufficiently concerned?

They should be, say some observers. Additionally, there also looms the possibility of a trade war sparked by U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Yet some REEs are necessary not only for consumer electronics and clean energy, but also for military defence.

How the U.S. government might help build a rare earths supply chain

The U.S. government shows increasing concern
about relying on China for defence needs.
(F/A-18 Super Hornet jet fighter photo: Boeing)

The 20 entirely foreign-dependent minerals reported by the USGS represent an increase from 19 the previous year and 11 in 1984. The list includes rare earths, scandium and yttrium as three separate categories. In February 2016 Industrial Minerals reported that the U.S. Department of Defense “identified 15 of the 17 rare earths as critical over the last five years.”

Having foreseen as far back as 2009 the possibility of China using REEs as a geopolitical strategy, Jeff Green watches the topic from a defence perspective. “I think about the tools China has to retaliate and rare earths come right to the top of the list,” he says.

Green has recently served on the U.S. House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. He’s a lawyer, a member of the U.S. Magnetic Materials Association and the REE World Advisory Board, a U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel and a former USAF missile combat crew commander. He describes his Washington firm J.A. Green & Company as “primarily a defence lobbying company that’s really interested in the nexus between national resource security and national security.”

He finds the U.S. government’s concern stronger and better informed than previously. That contrasts with events leading to what he calls the “Molycorp fiasco,” a supposed market solution to the 2010 shock and a strategy that he warned against. It went on to “burn the market to the tune of one and a half billion dollars.”

The result? “Today we’re probably in a more dire China-dependent situation than ever before.”

But Green sees hope in a Congressional bill that he anticipates being introduced within a week or so. Rep. Duncan Hunter’s proposal would help American companies develop domestic supplies of REEs and other minerals critical to defence. Assistance could come in the form of no-interest loans, Green says. Additionally the Department of Defense might pay more for American products made from American commodities, with the government reimbursing the difference between domestic and Chinese costs until American companies can compete.

It’s not a pure free market economic philosophy but one that will say: ‘If we’ve got a critical supply risk and we’ve got domestic companies that can fill that gap, then let’s invest in America to protect our national security and grow our manufacturing base.’—Jeff Green

As for the bill’s chances of success, Green’s optimistic. “You’ve got an administration that is very pro Buy American, Hire American. You’ve got a Congress that very much supports manufacturing. It will be much more pro-mining, pro-industry than we’ve seen. It’s not a pure free market economic philosophy but one that will say: ‘If we’ve got a critical supply risk and we’ve got domestic companies that can fill that gap, then let’s invest in America to protect our national security and grow our manufacturing base.’

“It’s a totally different dynamic than Washington’s seen in 40 years.”

Chris Berry agrees about the need for subsidies, among other assistance. In a research report last year the president of House Mountain Partners and editor of the Disruptive Discoveries Journal warned of the cost of not creating a supply chain outside China. In an e-mail to ResourceClips.com he notes that the “mine permitting, exploration and building process would all need to be expedited through legislation and through subsidies. This is the only way I see non-Chinese deposits being able to compete with China’s RE production costs. The good news is that as various technologies grow in importance (such as EVs) and existing processes grow as well (fluid cracking catalysts), this implies steady demand for REEs.”

While Berry considers the establishment of new supply chains “a multi-year endeavour,” he adds, “a focus on recycling or funding of materials science to minimize foreign dependence of these materials is a reasonable near-term solution to encourage supply chain development.”

As for the raw materials, Green maintains the U.S. has REE resources sufficient for defence needs, which he says are relatively small. “We’re not trying to compete globally in the automotive, magnet or catalyst markets,” he emphasizes. “We’re trying to protect our national security needs.”

Yet the Congressional bill calls for assistance to all aspects of the supply chain, he says, “whether that’s processing, refinement, separation, beneficiation, metal production, alloy production, magnet production.”

Support for supply chains would benefit other sectors, he points out. “This is the old NASA model. The government for years invested in new technologies and we’ve reaped the benefits in consumer advancements. Just look at the refining industry for petroleum products, at catalysts, phosphors in electronics, magnets for vehicles, battery materials. I think the commercial applications are terrific.

“I believe the president will kind of cheerlead this effort along,” he adds. “That’s really a game-changer. He’s going to take the traditional free trade model and turn it on its head. He’ll say the rest of the world doesn’t play by these rules so we’re going to play smarter—we’re going to treat our industries like the rest of the world treats theirs.”

U.S. increases its dependence on critical mineral imports

January 31st, 2017

by Greg Klein | January 31, 2017

U.S. increases its dependence on critical mineral imports

China stands out in a map showing major sources of non-fuel mineral
commodities of which the U.S. imported more than 50% of its supply in 2016.
(Graphic: U.S. Geological Survey)

 

Lacking any domestic sources at all, the United States imported 100% of its supply of 20 minerals last year, the USGS reports. That number increased from 19 the previous year and 11 in 1984. Included in the 2016 list were rare earths, manganese and niobium, “which are among a suite of materials often designated as ‘critical’ or ‘strategic’ because they are essential to the economy and their supply may be disrupted.”

U.S. increases its dependence on critical mineral imports

Imports of rare earth compounds and metals increased 6% over 2015, although the value dropped from $160 million to $120 million. China supplied 72% directly, with other imports coming from Estonia (7%), France (5%), Japan (5%) and other countries (11%).

But the Estonian, French and Japanese material was derived from concentrates produced in China and elsewhere, the USGS added.

American imports of tantalum increased about 40% over 2015. The USGS attributed about 37% of 2016 global production to the Democratic Republic of Congo and 32% to Rwanda. Estimates reverse those numbers for the previous year.

An alphabetical list of the 20 minerals follows, with rare earths, scandium and yttrium each comprising a separate category:

  • arsenic
  • asbestos
  • cesium
  • fluorspar
  • gallium
  • graphite
  • indium
  • manganese
  • mica
  • niobium
  • quartz crystal
  • rare earths
  • rubidium
  • scandium
  • strontium
  • tantalum
  • thallium
  • thorium
  • vanadium
  • yttrium

The report listed 50 minerals for which the U.S. imported over half of its supply. Overall China was the largest exporter, with Canada running second.