58
The risks are as follows: major unexpected rise in demand for fully exploited
minerals; small markets making it difficult to rapidly increase production to meet
demand; production concentrated on a small number of mines, companies or producing countries; minerals extracted as by-products and whose availability is largely determined by the availability of the main product (e.g. gallium as a by-product
of bauxite extraction); markets for which there is no significant recycling.
Critical Metals in the United States
The National Academies report on Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy published in 2007 applies a criticality matrix to eleven metals: copper, gallium, indium, lithium, manganese, niobium, tantalum, titanium, vanadium, platinum
group metals and rare earths. This list is of course liable to evolve over time. Of
these eleven minerals, platinum group metals, rare earths, indium, manganese and
niobium were considered to be the most critical due to their applications, the difficulty in finding substitutes and the risk for their supply. Although important applications exist for the other minerals (copper, gallium, lithium, tantalum, titanium and
vanadium), they were identified as less critical, either because they had ready substitutes, or because the reserves were not potentially subject to restrictions at the time.
In order to identify and increase critical metal resources, the committee recommends improving information and analysis relating to minerals (in particular those
that are or may become critical), collecting, disseminating and analysing data, funding activities, including basic sciences and research on essential minerals, in order
to improve understanding of global availability and use of minerals.
More recently (December 2010), a specific criticality study on metals related to
energy was conducted by the US Department of Energy (Fig. 3.2). It highlights the
criticality of metals in the short term (0–5 years) and medium term (5–15 years) for
energy needs and in particular renewable energies.
Critical Metals in Europe
The European Commission’s Raw Materials Initiative (COM 2008, p. 699) highlights the risks for Europe’s supply and competitiveness related to critical metals,
while emphasising that these metals cannot be considered independently of the
base metals with which they are generally associated in deposits. The EC document
recommends an improvement in basic knowledge on geological potential, metal
deposits and their exploration in Europe, as well as the development of more efficient extraction technologies, compatible with the maintenance of a sustainable
environment and better use of mineral resources. A group is currently working to
support the Commission on the possibility of a large-scale European exploration
programme. In 2010, the Report of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Defining Critical
Y. Fouquet and B. Martel-Jantin
The risks are as follows: major unexpected rise in demand for fully exploited
minerals; small markets making it difficult to rapidly increase production to meet
demand; production concentrated on a small number of mines, companies or producing countries; minerals extracted as by-products and whose availability is largely determined by the availability of the main product (e.g. gallium as a by-product
of bauxite extraction); markets for which there is no significant recycling.
Critical Metals in the United States
The National Academies report on Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy published in 2007 applies a criticality matrix to eleven metals: copper, gallium, indium, lithium, manganese, niobium, tantalum, titanium, vanadium, platinum
group metals and rare earths. This list is of course liable to evolve over time. Of
these eleven minerals, platinum group metals, rare earths, indium, manganese and
niobium were considered to be the most critical due to their applications, the difficulty in finding substitutes and the risk for their supply. Although important applications exist for the other minerals (copper, gallium, lithium, tantalum, titanium and
vanadium), they were identified as less critical, either because they had ready substitutes, or because the reserves were not potentially subject to restrictions at the time.
In order to identify and increase critical metal resources, the committee recommends improving information and analysis relating to minerals (in particular those
that are or may become critical), collecting, disseminating and analysing data, funding activities, including basic sciences and research on essential minerals, in order
to improve understanding of global availability and use of minerals.
More recently (December 2010), a specific criticality study on metals related to
energy was conducted by the US Department of Energy (Fig. 3.2). It highlights the
criticality of metals in the short term (0–5 years) and medium term (5–15 years) for
energy needs and in particular renewable energies.
Critical Metals in Europe
The European Commission’s Raw Materials Initiative (COM 2008, p. 699) highlights the risks for Europe’s supply and competitiveness related to critical metals,
while emphasising that these metals cannot be considered independently of the
base metals with which they are generally associated in deposits. The EC document
recommends an improvement in basic knowledge on geological potential, metal
deposits and their exploration in Europe, as well as the development of more efficient extraction technologies, compatible with the maintenance of a sustainable
environment and better use of mineral resources. A group is currently working to
support the Commission on the possibility of a large-scale European exploration
programme. In 2010, the Report of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Defining Critical
Y. Fouquet and B. Martel-Jantin