Common Nonsense about Rare Earth Permanent Magnets

, ,

The common wisdom among the elites in Western capitols and among the “captains” of the Western industry is that the critical minerals supply issue is one that can be always solved by an increased allocation of capital, better known as “raising the offering price to increase the supply.” This is nonsense, for critical technology minerals, but a person can realize this only if he has studied and gained a basic, general, understanding of geology, mining, and economics and has the ability to reach logical conclusions based on reproducible, independently verified data. The absolute quantity of natural resources available to humanity is limited, first and foremost, by geology and then by technology and, finally, economics. It’s not how much money it would cost, but rather how much of our productive economy we are willing to give over for the extraction, refining, processing, and fabrication of products based on lithium, or cobalt, or the rare earths, or all three and even more of these uncommon technology metals.

Recently, it has come to light, that one nation, China, beginning decades ago, recognized the need to locate, obtain control over, marshal, and develop the chemical and metallurgical infrastructure to support the domestic production and/or refining of secure, sufficient, sources both of critical technology metals’ minerals and of structural metals’ minerals. The success of China’s “industrial policy” has now been made apparent and is manifested by the impact of this policy’s success on geopolitics and global industrial supply chains.

The natural resources of non-fuel minerals accessible by known technology are limited to “deposits” defined as being those that are above a certain concentration (called the “grade,” which differs for each mineral from which chemical elements are extracted), and are at an economically significant extent. Deposits must also be in a location where they are accessible by road, sea, or rail, have sufficient fresh water available, and have the necessary supply of electricity. Junior mining ventures almost always tout “discoveries” of potential “deposits, “but purposely confuse the two to entice investors.

The choices of which ones of the chemical elements are critical for a particular nation differ according to a nation’s needs and its (that nation’s) importance to other nations’ security and trade.

The United States’ concession of the title, The World’s leading manufacturing nation, to China has radically changed the need for and the dimensions of its critical minerals needs. Many of my colleagues and the journalists who are covering this story always note the growing list of America’s total reliance on imports of critical minerals published annually by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), but they never mention the adjective that comes to the mind of any of us with a legal education when they hear the word, reliance. It is a detrimental reliance!

To emphasize where China is now, July 2023, with regard to self sufficiency in the rare earth metals needed to manufacture the rare earth permanent magnets needed by the global battery electric vehicle industry, and where China is going from here, I note that I received, earlier this week, a copy of a report entitled, “China Rare Earth Information,” published by the Chinese Society of Rare Earths. This report was described as a review of China’s rare earth industry for the 2nd quarter of 2023. It is an eye-opening account of the size of the Chinese rare earth permanent magnet industry, which acts as a giant vertically integrated whole in many regards.

In the United States, in sharp contrast, industrial subsidies take the place of industrial policy as the politically correct choice. Washington’s bureaucrats only caucus with each other, or with academic grantees, and in this way obtain almost no practical knowledge of the supply chains for manufacturing industries. Grants are handed out almost solely on financial, not sector competency, considerations and thus fail to go far enough upstream to where innovation resides.

Just one project jumped out at me from the report. A Chinese company is building a 15,000 year (!) rare earth permanent magnet factory to serve the OEM automotive industry. This new plant will begin operation this coming December. In its history, the North American rare earth permanent magnet industry has not produced anywhere near the volume output in all the years of its existence as this one new Chinese plant will produce. And note that China’s current installed capacity to manufacture rare earth permanent magnets is now over 200,000 t/year.

As of this writing (July 18, 2023) North American companies produce only a few hundred tons per year of rare earth permanent magnets, and that is based on imported Chinese magnet alloy.

Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) and General Motors Company (NYSE: GM) have both stated that they plan to produce 2,000,000 battery powered electric vehicles annually by 2026. If just these 4,000,000 vehicles each had one rare earth permanent magnet motor this would require 10,000 tons of rare earth permanent magnets.

To the best of my knowledge no where near any such amount, 10,000 t/year is planned to be produced domestically by 2026, and no significant part of the necessary supply chain for such an amount is under construction or even planned at that level of output for 2026.

To qualify for the tax credit under the IRA, the value of the raw materials and finished goods in a car must have been majority added in the United States or a country with which the United States has a free trade agreement. Under no circumstance can that country be China.

Subsidies are a tax, and even in War, they are at best a short term solution.

The United States needs to develop a secure domestic rare earth permanent magnet vertically integrated manufacturing industry.

So far, all we’ve heard about this is nonsense. It’s time for common sense to prevail.

Disclaimer: The author of this Investor.News post, which is published by InvestorNews Inc., may or may not be a shareholder of any of the companies mentioned in this column. No company mentioned has sponsored or paid for this content on Investor.News, and InvestorNews Inc. does not accept opt-in payments from advertisers. While InvestorNews Inc. provides digital media services like video interviews and podcasts to advertisers, not all are paid promotions. Any sponsored video interview will be clearly marked in the summary. The author of this piece is not a licensed investment advisor and makes no recommendations to buy, sell, or hold any securities. If the author holds an investment advisor license, this will be stated in their biography. Conduct your own due diligence by reviewing public documents of any company. For our full legal notices and disclaimers, click here click here.

12 responses

  1. Jack Lifton Avatar
    Jack Lifton

    Mea culpa

    John Ormerod has just reminded me that I should have done a better editing job. Towards the end I mis-typed 10,000 kt (10,000,000 tonnes) where I meant to say 10,000 tonnes. But, 10,000 tonnes or 10,000,000 tonnes, both are unattainable in any near term. In the case of 10,000,000 tonnes that term is neither near nor far. It is never.

    Thank you, John

    Jack

  2. David R. Hammond, PhD Avatar
    David R. Hammond, PhD

    Good one, Jack! Great perspective on our industrial and governmental “leadership!”

  3. maplelegion Avatar
    maplelegion

    Hi Jack Great Article …in view of your post script on US production numbers , is this note regarding the One Chinese Company …also correct ”
    Just one project jumped out at me from the report. A Chinese company is building a 15,000 kt/year (!) rare earth permanent magnet factory to serve the OEM automotive industry. “….
    or should this be also 15.000 tons …
    seems more probably , but its China !!!!????

  4. Jack Lifton Avatar
    Jack Lifton

    Maplelegion

    It should be ONLY 15,000 tpa! Mea culpa, again

    Thanks

    Jack

  5. Jack Lifton Avatar
    Jack Lifton

    All

    I have found and corrected one more magnitude error. The article now reads as I intended it to be read. Thanks for your sharp eyes, everyone.

    Jack

  6. Walter Caers Avatar
    Walter Caers

    so I would think Niocorp is well positioned with his planned rare earth production and its recent termsheet with Stellantis?

  7. Rare Earths Investor Avatar
    Rare Earths Investor

    “Grants are handed out almost solely on financial, not sector competency, considerations and thus fail to go far enough upstream to where innovation resides”.

    Or, they stay purposefully away from politically incorrect value stages. MP, REEMF, Lynas and Ucore were not US DoD strategically supported for developing their RE feedstock resources, while the DoE directly supports alt’ extraction, etc.

    GLTA – REI

  8. Tommy Avatar
    Tommy

    Dems strategy Is relative to it former, throw everything to the wall some bound to stick. But they aren’t relative. We can’t live w/ out Petroleum by product, a ev car has up to 800 lb of plastic. Road tar or even tires, synthetic material,Fiberglass, epoxy, glue, stripper for our navy re-painting or and marine vessels or our bridges need stripper for maintenance. Floor cleaner, grease for any production food machinery even ev. Jet fuel, kerosene, construction equipment, the list is endless. Without alternative ready your only creating inflation.

  9. Marc LeVier Avatar
    Marc LeVier

    Great article Jack! Pretty simple and most people are not capable of understanding the need for a strategic plan based on facts, data and science. Look forward to your next piece as well.

  10. Hugh Sharman Avatar
    Hugh Sharman

    Sorry Jack! I just downloaded the pdf of this article which still reads, “A Chinese company is building a 15,000 year (!) rare earth permanent magnet factory to serve the OEM automotive industry.”

    Just to be absolutely sure, does that mean “15,000 tonnes/year”? If so, may I recommend your editor alters the on-line article ASAP and the pdf download?

    I’d like to send it onto our mutual friends in Denmark and elsewhere in Europe.

    Of course, what you write about the USA, should terrify voters and investors. However, the recent, completely idiotic pronouncements of the EU Commission and the UK Government are many times worse.

    Our societies (ie our children and grandchildren) risk being impoverished by the electorally popular “net zero” laws which have been passed these days but which can never be delivered and which in any case are causing many €billions of misallocated public expenditures!

  11. Jack Lifton Avatar
    Jack Lifton

    Hugh

    It is 15,000 tonnes/year

    The editing error is mine.

    Thank you.

    I note that energy poverty, long a staple of the “third world” is now returning to the so-called “developed” world, but only to the proles. John Kerry will still fly in his private air-conditioned jet, deplane to an air conditioned chauffeured car, be dropped off at an air conditioned luxury hotel or villa, where servants cater to his every need, and then after meeting with Chinese officials to discuss which lies they will agree to tell, in an air conditioned room, he will return to one of his palatial homes or his untaxed yacht to rest after such a busy few hours, so he can address the rest of us on our profligate waste of resources that would be much better used to air condition his yacht.
    Ignorant and moronic very expensive (to society) elites, like Kerry, are the real problem.

    Jack

    1. Hugh Sharman Avatar
      Hugh Sharman

      Thanks Jack!

      Yes, we are living during a time when the most monstrous lies about the feasibility of “net zero” energy policies, are being accepted and even welcomed by the media that I have known and trusted all my life. Furthermore, these media address fact-based scepticism as morally unfit to print.

      In my case those are (were) the Financial Times, The Economist. The NYT and the BBC.

      Tracy, do please edit the on-line article and pdf. They remain uncorrected as of this morning.

      Thanks in advance and best wishes,

      Hugh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *