The Critical Minerals Challenge: A Look at the Elements Powering the Future

As the world transitions toward a more sustainable and technologically advanced future, critical minerals are emerging as the essential building blocks of modern economies. From electric vehicles and renewable energy technologies to advanced electronics, a range of elements—Copper, Lithium, Rare Earth Elements (REEs), and more—play pivotal roles. However, the geopolitical landscape of critical mineral production raises complex questions about supply security, global dependence, and the strategic challenges of maintaining growth in the Western world.

Alastair Neill, P.Eng MBA, a respected figure in the critical minerals sector and an Executive Director for the Critical Minerals Institute (CMI), has spearheaded the CMI Watchlist. Identifying the top 18 critical minerals of the 51 being monitored by the the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Europe and Japan. This list highlights the minerals that are fundamental to sustaining Western economic growth while also reflecting the concentration of their production in just a few countries. 

The Heavyweights: Lithium, Rare Earths, and Copper

Three of the most talked-about minerals today—Lithium, Rare Earth Elements (REEs), and Copper—form the backbone of the clean energy transition. Lithium, essential for battery storage in electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy systems, is dominated by Australia (48%) and Chile (24%). The race to secure lithium supplies has intensified as nations scramble to meet aggressive EV production targets. Yet, the concentration of lithium reserves in a few countries creates a significant risk of supply disruption.

Rare Earth Elements, vital for producing permanent magnets used in EV motors, wind turbines, and defense technologies, are overwhelmingly controlled by China, which supplies 69% of global demand. This dominance has triggered alarm bells in Western economies, driving efforts to diversify supply chains and reduce dependency on a single source.

Copper, long considered a reliable indicator of economic health, remains crucial for electric grids and the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. Chile is the world’s largest copper producer, accounting for 23% of global supply, but new projects in other parts of the world are still needed to meet growing demand.

China’s Stranglehold on Strategic Materials

A closer look at Neill’s CMI Watchlist reveals a staggering reality: China dominates the global supply of numerous critical minerals, posing a substantial risk to Western economic resilience. China produces 98% of the world’s gallium, 80% of bismuth, and 77% of graphite, all materials vital to modern technologies. Its monopoly extends to more than half of the world’s production of magnesium, tungsten, vanadium, and tantalum, among others.

While Western nations, particularly the U.S. and Europe, have recognized the need to develop domestic supply chains for critical minerals, they remain highly vulnerable to supply disruptions from China. The strategic challenge lies in balancing the need for rapid technological advancement with the geopolitical risks of mineral dependency.

The Rare Metals Game: PGMs, Cobalt, and Nickel

Platinum Group Metals (PGMs), which include platinum, palladium, and rhodium, are critical in catalytic converters and hydrogen fuel cell technologies. South Africa leads global PGM production, responsible for 49%, followed by Russia with 30%. In the case of cobalt, another crucial component in EV batteries, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) controls a staggering 74% of global supply, raising concerns about ethical mining practices and long-term availability.

Nickel, essential for high-performance batteries, is increasingly sourced from Indonesia, which now produces 50% of the world’s supply. With demand skyrocketing due to the EV revolution, securing diversified nickel sources will be vital for Western economies to maintain production targets without falling into a supply chokehold.

The Case for Diversification

As Neill points out, for a mineral to be included on the CMI Watchlist, it must be critical to Western economic growth, appear on at least eight of the eleven global priority lists he tracks, and have enough data available for governments and industries to prioritize action. While the world may be rapidly advancing toward a green and tech-driven future, the reality of supply constraints cannot be ignored.

Diversifying supply chains for critical minerals is essential for reducing dependence on a handful of countries, particularly China. Western nations have already begun exploring partnerships in Africa, Latin America, and even within their borders to tap into underdeveloped mineral reserves. Projects in places like Brazil, Namibia, and Mozambique are becoming increasingly critical as governments and companies seek to secure a sustainable supply of these resources.

A Strategic Opportunity

The path forward will require significant investment, political will, and global cooperation. Developing new mines, improving recycling technologies, and fostering international partnerships will be critical steps in securing a reliable supply of the minerals that power the modern world.

The CMI Watchlist serves as a reminder that, while technology may hold the key to the future, it is the rare and often overlooked elements beneath the Earth’s surface that will truly determine the fate of the global economy in the years to come. In a world where minerals like antimony, gallium, and niobium can dictate the trajectory of entire industries, securing the supply of these materials is not just an economic necessity, but a strategic imperative.

The question is: Will the West act in time to secure its future? Or will reliance on a few key players leave global growth vulnerable to geopolitical disruption? As the race for critical minerals intensifies, the stakes have never been higher.

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.

One response

  1. Jack Lifton Avatar
    Jack Lifton

    Well done, Alistair

    The key limitation, rarely mentioned, because it makes politicians and economists uncomfortable, is capital availability, as a whole. The endless waste of capital on dead-end-from-the-start “junior” mining ventures has destroyed the capital market’s appetite for the high risk of start-up mining.
    Governments “study” the situation and make pronouncements of purpose and, sometimes, announcements that taxpayer money has been allocated for projects chosen by subject matter illiterates, aka bureaucrats and their reliable academics.
    The SOLE involvement of government in the quest for critical mineral securiy is the (drum roll) GRANT. Once a recipient has been notified and is made aware of who (not what) has granted third favor, government loses interest. “Money allocated, problem solved” is the mantra of Washington, Ottawa, and Brussels.
    But, private capital funds a project in the same manner as an untreated cancer. As the need for capital metastasizes the private lender simply takes over the control and ownership and then appoints competent management to finish the job on budget and on time.
    Private capital frequently makes bad judgements and investment managers go from getting their cars washed to working in a car wash. That is the accepted risk in the private sector.
    The purveyors of public capital have no risk at all of losing their jobs due to mistaken judgement.
    They simply go.on to their next best f**kup.
    That’s why government should not choose who or what gets the investment.
    America’s attempt to address the issue of critical minerals security is a job for private industry and private capital. It cannot be solved by random grants, targeted subsidies, or ,destructive of markets, tariffs.

Leave a Reply

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