From the Geological Society of America: Critical Minerals Ignite Geopolitical Storm
For Immediate Release 10 October 2011 GSA Release No. 11-66
The clean energy economy of the future hinges on a lot of things, chief among them the availability of the scores of rare earth minerals and other elements used to make everything from photovoltaic panels and cellphone displays to the permanent magnets in cutting edge new wind generators. And right out of the gate trouble is brewing over projected growth in demand for these minerals and the security of their supplies.
Last year, for instance, China restricted the export of neodymium, which is used in wind generators. The move was ostensibly to direct the supplies to toward a massive wind generation project within China. The effect, however, is to create a two-tiered price for neodymium: one inside China and another, higher price, for the rest of the world, explained economics professor Roderick Eggert of the Colorado School of Mines. The result could be that China not only will control the neodymium supply, but the manufacture of neodymium technology as well.
The geopolitical implications of critical minerals have started bringing together scientists, economists and policy makers who are trying to cut a path through the growing thicket of challenges. In that spirit, on Monday, October 10, 2011, Eggert and other professors will be presenting their research alongside high-level representatives from the U.S. Congress and Senate, the Office of the President of the U.S., the U.S. Geological Survey, in a session at the meeting of the Geological Society of America in Minneapolis.
Among the basics that need to be grasped to understand the current state of affairs is how rare these minerals and elements really are. Some are plentiful, but only found in rare places or are difficult to extract. Indium, for instance, is a byproduct of zinc mining and extraction. It is not economically viable to extract unless zinc is being sought in the same ore, Eggert explained, Others are just plain scarce, like rhenium and tellurium, which only exist in very small amounts in the Earth’s crust.
There are basically two responses to this sort of situation: use less of these minerals or improve the extraction of them from other ores in other parts of the world. The latter would seem to be where most people are heading.
“China’s efforts to restrict exports of mineral commodities garnered the attention of Congress and highlighted the need for the United States to assess the state of the Nation’s mineral policies and examine opportunities to produce rare earths and other strategic and critical minerals domestically,” reads the session abstract of Kathleen Benedetto of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives. “Nine bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to address supply disruptions of rare earths and other important mineral commodities.”
Benedetto will be explaining the meaning and status of those bills, and what it will take to get them signed into law.
“Deposits of rare earth elements and other critical minerals occur throughout the Nation,” reads the abstract for another prominent session presenter: Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey. She will be putting the current events in the larger historical perspective of mineral resource management, which has been the USGS’s job for more than 130 years. “The definition of ‘a critical mineral or material’ is extremely time dependent, as advances in materials science yield new products and the adoption of new technologies result in shifts in both supply and demand.”
The President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy has answered the call as well. Cyrus Wadia will be presenting a five-point strategy to begin addressing the matter. The first point is to mitigating long term risks associated with the use of critical materials. The second, diversify supplies of raw materials. Third, to promote a domestic supply chain for areas of strategic importance like clean energy. Fourth, inform decision makers; and fifth, prepare the workforce of the next generation.
This was a very interesting run here but I enjoyed TomG’s post and his website the most. Thanks for all of it.
Bernie
So does this mean we are approaching Peak Tellurium?
Yup, because the EPA has shut them all down. An operation in the California desert is set to restart operations after having been closed over 10 years in order to comply with “environmental” regulations that kept changing. If I were China, I would be pouring huge amounts of money into US “environmental” activist groups (they probably ARE) to keep that lawfare going and prevent competition from US domestic sources. Then if I were China, I would begin to buy up the land on which these deposits are found.
TomG, your points are well taken I have no doubt about your experiences. But I think is a little unfair to other readers to leave out the full range of reasons why there is a generation gap in mining and exploration geology. It is an obscure field and profession to most people after all. One reason it is obscure and the generation gap exists is that it is an extremely cyclical sector that makes construction workers and home builders look mainstream and stable. And this cyclical swing goes beyond environmental regulations in CA and the EPA. Also, the Mtn Pass REE mine in CA is back up and running at least in pre-production stage and with all permits renewed for full production.
Rob Petrie says:
October 10, 2011 at 6:55 am
Don’t worry about it. Within 5 years most coal, oil, wind, solar – you name it – energy plants will be replaced by Rossi’s Ecat.
and again at 8:09 am: there is a repeat
Find a pencil. Find a napkin or envelope. Do some calculations. For example: What is going to be built? Materials? Land? Whose backyard will these be in? Funds will come from where? Many other considerations.
For context, I still have and drive a 1980 Chevy pickup. The reasons are: 1. it still works; 2. it does the jobs I need a pickup for; 3. “saddlebag” gas tank litigation crashed the resale value; 4. a new replacement would cost more than our first house.
“Most” and “replaced” in your comment have meanings you should consider in your calculations. I, and others, will watch for your response. Thanks.
Pacific Ocean Seabed Rich in Rare Earth Minerals
MORE — http://oilprice.com/Metals/Commodities/Pacific-Ocean-Seabed-Rich-in-Rare-Earth-Minerals.html
Dave Springer says:
October 10, 2011 at 8:04 am
Gail Combs says:
October 10, 2011 at 4:55 am
“The problem is the USA turned control of whether or not the USA can mine minerals over to the United Nations. ”
No it did not….
This is from the website for the treaty.
What are the legal implications of the Convention?
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention is a treaty that has become, over the past 30 years, the foremost international legal tool in support of the conservation of the world’s cultural and natural heritage…
Of course nothing is ever said to the public about turning control over to an international body but it is DONE.
From a law that was just passed:
SEC. 404. <> COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
“Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization…” http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247548.htm
This puts the World Trade Organization in charge of US food safety. The FDA has been very blunt about changing regulations to “Harmonize” (Their word) with the WTO’s wishes.
“Strengthening the role the United Nations can play…
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” – Maurice Strong essay Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation
This is in the category of if it quacks like a duck….
“The President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy has answered the call as well. Cyrus Wadia will be presenting a five-point strategy to begin addressing the matter. The first point is to mitigating long term risks associated with the use of critical materials. The second, diversify supplies of raw materials. Third, to promote a domestic supply chain for areas of strategic importance like clean energy. Fourth, inform decision makers; and fifth, prepare the workforce of the next generation.”
IOW, our government overseers will make damn sure that the USA will not be a part of the solution. Step one, alone, will make sure that billions of $ will be devoted to years of studies, which will show that no mining can be tolerated, for one reason or another, including but not limited to the following reasons: risk to endangered species/loss of critical habitat, health effects caused by exposures to one or more chemicals, global warming, or fear of “unknown risks.”
Sorry to be so cynical, but it’s true. If the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy was at all serious, Step ONE should be to cut EPA’s budget in half!
Although I would like, as a sceptic, to join in the levity of the tight spot this appears to put the green industry in – the good doctors at the Colorado School of Mines and other experts at the USGS are plainly wrong about motivation of the Chinese. A part of the resources of rare earths in China were being pillaged by illegal miners that were destroying resources and the metals were being sold at cut rate prices for years – this put other world operations out of business. Now they want to conserve resources – not just of rare earths; they have already put in quotas for a number of metals (antimony, bismuth, etc) and the flow of cheap resources is being stemmed. Prices will rise again (as they did for antimony a few years ago that will allow former producers – like the US to return to production). As a consultant in the rare metals fields I am very busy these days consulting on old and new rare metals resources in Canada, US and Africa. There will be no sustained shortage of these metals. The prices are higher now but once the alternate sources are back in production along with new operations there will be adequate supplies. Can we not be spared the big knee-jerk scares from at least some walks of life.
To heck with science, go become a lobbyist with connections to the White House and the DOE. There is you get rich plan and quick retirement.
Bloke down the pub says (October 10, 2011 at 2:21 am): “Easy solution. Western governments stop subsidising the installation of solar panels and wind turbines, demand for these minerals falls through the floor and the Chinese are left holding a load of worthless rock.”
Heh. Great minds think alike. That was the first thing I thought of after reading the article.
Of course it’s more likely that this “problem”, created by government regulation, will be addressed by more government regulation, which will only create more probems.
Neodymium is actually more common in Earth’s crust than lead or tin and orders of magnitude more abundant than gold or silver. The problem is just that ‘rare earth’ elements are usually found together, in low concentrations and are difficult to separate from each other due to their similar physical/chemical properties.
But they rarely marry/create families with them. Orientals, in general, are extremely ethnocentric (== racist) in their immigration/citizenship/marriage customs and regulations. And the cultural roots for this are deep and powerful.
I am not sure why the fixation with rare earths. They are relatively plentiful (though some of the individual elements in the group are not). Markets have acted effecticively in the past to send price signals to entrepeneurs, Why should this not be the case today?
Lynas is processing rare earths ore through it’s Mount Weld plant in Western Australia as we speak (started in May this year), and will have the refinery in Malaysia completed in coming months (to extract the various elements as oxides). Greenland Minerals and Energy is another example. Around the world several other rare earths hopefuls are pushing their new projects.
Prices of rare earths products are already slipping from their mid-year highs … I would say the bubble has already burst (I have been tracking the prices for several months now). Add to that the economic slowdown of the next few years, and most of the wannabe rare earths producers will not get close to producing.
This market actually has the ability to transform Afghanistan; rare earths instead of heroin.
http://www.livescience.com/16315-rare-earth-elements-afghanistan.html
Of course conspiracy theorists would say this is the reason we got involved, not the Taliban LOL
Roy Weiler
Rare Earths may have the ability to transform Afghanistan society from heroin to rare earths!
http://www.livescience.com/16315-rare-earth-elements-afghanistan.html
Of course conspiracy theorists will think this is the reason we got involved in the first place.
Roy Weiler
Opps, posted twice, sorry about that!
Roy Weiler
Friends:
I write to thank everybody who provided answers to my question.
I especially thank TomG(ologist) for his informative post at October 10, 2011 at 8:32 am. I would like to think his points are specific to the US but sadly I know they also apply to the UK.
However, a direct answer to my question was supplied by Gary Pearse at October 10, 2011 at 12:45 pm and – according to his analysis – I was right in thinking the ”problem” is probably a temporary transition.
Richard
Dave Springer says:
October 10, 2011 at 8:13 am
@Dave Brittania
“Well it might be a Chinese mans world but it doesn’t mean nothing without a woman or a girl.
100,000,000 single men in China with no prospect of a relationship with a woman.”
They import females as necessary from other parts of the world. When I was in Taiwan 12 years ago I saw barracks filled with female laborers (laptop computer assembly workers in this case) imported from poverty stricken Pacific islands.
Taiwan isn’t China.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1932/bare_branches.html
John F. Hultquist says:
What is going to be built? Materials? Land? Whose backyard will these be in? Funds will come from where? Many other considerations.
It is just a simple boiler – tabletop at the smallest – with a cylinder of nickel powder in the middle of it and a bit of hydrogen under moderate pressure. You heat the powder and the hydrogen, and the stuff starts putting out 5 or 10 times more heat than you put in to start it going. You pump water past it and the water heats up and turns to steam. The steam does whatever you can make steam do.
Oil and gas burner replacements within 5 years; Stanley Steamers make a comeback; Space heaters in Walmart; Power plants using arrays of the gizmos instead of coal; Locomotives, trucks; Oil tankers converted into ocean liners powered by the gizmos. What more do you need to know?
jae says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:27 pm
….Sorry to be so cynical, but it’s true. If the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy was at all serious, Step ONE should be to cut EPA’s budget in half!
______________________________
How about getting rid of the EPA completely and going back to criminal trespass and property rights.
The polluting was done because the big companies convinced the US government that pollution was “The price of progress” so criminal trespass cases were not successful during that time period.
Dave Springer;
They import females as necessary from other parts of the world. When I was in Taiwan 12 years ago I saw barracks filled with female laborers (laptop computer assembly workers in this case) imported from poverty stricken Pacific islands.>>>
What does something you saw 12 years ago in Taiwan have to do with the population imbalance in China?
Build a decent-sized lunar mining/processing facility. No EPA, no snail darters, etc., and plenty of rare-earth elements!
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1971LPSC….2.1217C/0001218.000.html
Doug – you are correct – this is a VERY cyclic industry which does not go through boom and busts so much as it goes into hibernation periodically. I had to work in site remediation for many years between cycles – now I am being recruited regularly. Go figure.