FST JOURNAL

Summary:

• The British Geological Survey assists the UK Government in achieving its goals regarding critical minerals
• Our technology and reliance on it are evolving rapidly. With this comes a need for more diverse range of metals, minerals, and materials
• We are primarily concerned about risk management—specifically, the risks of not having essential materials due to supply chain issues, conflict and other impacting factors
• While not all elements are labelled as critical, such as molybdenum and cadmium, they remain essential in various contexts and are monitored as part of forecast studies with regards to decarbonisation efforts
• The dominance of China in supply chains, particularly concerning EV batteries and electrolysers illustrates a significant geopolitical challenge that needs careful addressing.

One of the first questions I often get is, "Why is Australia a mining powerhouse, and why would you come to the UK?" Well, I think the answer is clear: the opportunities here and the chance to contribute to the changes happening in the world are significant. As an import-dominant country, the UK needs to tackle problems like a more circular economy, planning for technological evolution and other issues. So, for me, this presents a great opportunity, and I am very happy to have the chance to join the British Geological Survey.

I want to discuss The UK 2024 Criticality Assessment, some of the issues we face, as well as share about the foresight work being led by my colleagues, Dr. Evi Petavratzi and Dr. Pierre Josso, among others. First, why do we exist? Our primary purpose is to assist the UK Government in achieving its goals regarding critical minerals. There is a recognition that critical minerals are not just important for clean energy; they affect every sector of the UK. I want to highlight that the last criticality assessment in 2021 only assessed 26 elements, mainly those related to decarbonisation and digital technologies. We have broadened our focus since then; our job is to look at everything associated with critical minerals, including understanding changes over time.

Risk management

We are primarily concerned about risk management—specifically, the risks of not having essential materials like niobium or lithium. Even helium falls into this category. We often grapple with the language we use, but we are fundamentally discussing risk management to ensure we understand the risks and can make informed decisions. Not only do we need a more diverse range of metals, minerals, and materials, but we also need more of them. Our technology is evolving rapidly. Often, the first thing we reach for today is a phone or perhaps a tablet, which shapes how we engage with the world. One interesting fact about mobile phones is that approximately 70% of the value within a smartphone stems from gold. This is what funds recycling efforts.

When considering circular economies and supply sources, there are many examples to examine. For instance, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, civil unrest in the Congo severely disrupted cobalt supply. As a result, the aerospace industry had to substitute cobalt with other alloys due to high costs. Once stability returned to the Congo, cobalt supply was restored over the years. More recently, the 2012 Marikana riots in South Africa raised concerns about the availability of platinum group elements. Without these, vehicles that rely on them for catalytic converters and exhaust systems – no catalytic converters would lead to dramatic worsening of our air quality. Interestingly, despite the Marikana riots, the price of platinum remained stable, which highlights a common misconception: we often overestimate the impact of such events on prices. On the other hand, the rare earth crisis involving China and Japan in 2010 did lead to a significant spike in rare earth prices. We aim to integrate various examples like these to assess supply risk.

The specific methodologies we use are outlined in detail in our reports. As we worked through the criticality assessment, we have made some adjustments to our methodologies. First and foremost, we consider production: identifying the source countries of essential raw materials needed for the UK. We also analyse global trade and the largest net importers, as part of our comprehensive risk assessment.

We do not differentiate between the individual sectors unless we specifically state that we are analysing their uses and examining the gross value added. This is where we utilise economic data to assess, for example, how much steel is consumed in construction versus how much is used in the automotive industry. This helps us begin to understand and calculate various impacts.

The traditional approach involves assigning a minimum value for economic vulnerability and a minimum value for supply risk. For instance, in the 2021 assessment, tantalum and tin were deemed critical, whereas germanium and nickel were not. If we adopt a risk management approach, we find that a high consequence-low probability event is a medium risk, which is equivalent to a low consequence-high probability event (also a medium risk). In risk management, these should be treated the same. We have adjusted our methodology to determine what is critical more effectively by using this risk-based approach. Our analysis indicates that the overall risk associated with nickel is comparable to that of tantalum and germanium, suggesting a more nuanced approach is necessary.

What is critical and what is not?

We expanded our scope from 26 elements in 2021 to 82 elements and minerals, including various industrial minerals like kaolin, which have low associated risk because the UK is a significant exporter. This positions these materials as non-critical for us. When comparing various elements, we can analyse their standing, including iron, nickel, and copper. A common concern arises about copper, as it is used extensively in infrastructure, homes, phones, and increasingly in electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy technologies. Currently, copper is well supplied globally, which places it lower on the supply risk scale, despite its significant value. However, there are future concerns about copper's ability to meet the growing demands for net zero targets, which we consider a longer-term issue.

Our data crunching focuses on the period from 2018 to 2022. Interestingly, the EU's positioning for elements like iron, nickel, and copper is similar to the UK's. From a risk management perspective, even though iron is well supplied, it is still considered critical for the UK, indicating a notable difference from the EU's perspective. We also have a criticality plot illustrating the relationship between different technologies and the materials they rely on.

While not all elements are labelled as critical, such as molybdenum and cadmium, they remain essential in various contexts. In our ongoing efforts, we have initiated foresight studies that anticipate the next 25 years of decarbonisation technologies. The studies assess a range of renewable energy sources and electric vehicles. The accompanying graphic represents different elements needed by 2050, with larger bubbles indicating a greater total requirement and, consequently, more supply expansion needed. Conversely, smaller bubbles suggest lower risk. Our team at BGS, led by Dr. Petavratzi and others, has examined scenarios from the National Grid regarding energy and the tracking of various elements over time in relation to technological evolution. When we analyse these results, we can see the dominance of China in supply chains, particularly concerning EV batteries and electrolysers. This illustrates one of the significant geopolitical challenges we are currently facing—how to effectively address these dynamics.