USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70191019

Assessment of critical minerals: Updated application of an early-warning screening methodology

Also available from

Abstract

Increasing reliance on non-renewable mineral resources reinforces the need for identifying potential supply constraints before they occur. The US National Science and Technology Council recently released a report that outlines a methodology for screening potentially critical minerals based on three indicators: supply risk ( R ), production growth ( G ), and market dynamics ( M ). This early-warning screening was initially applied to 78 minerals across the years 1996 to 2013 and identified a subset of minerals as “potentially critical” based on the geometric average of these indicators—designated as criticality potential ( C ). In this study, the screening methodology has been updated to include data for 2014, as well as to incorporate revisions and modifications to the data, where applicable. Overall, C declined in 2014 for the majority of minerals examined largely due to decreases in production concentration and price volatility. However, the results vary considerably across minerals, with some minerals, such as gallium, recording increases for all three indicators. In addition to assessing magnitudinal changes, this analysis also examines the significance of the change relative to historical variation for each mineral. For example, although mined nickel’s R declined modestly in 2014 in comparison to that of other minerals, it was by far the largest annual change recorded for mined nickel across all years examined and is attributable to Indonesia’s ban on the export of unprocessed minerals. Based on the 2014 results, 20 minerals with the highest C values have been identified for further study including the rare earths, gallium, germanium, rhodium, tantalum, and tungsten.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Erin A. McCullough, Nedal Nassar. 2017-09-19. Assessment of critical minerals: Updated application of an early-warning screening methodology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-017-0119-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Indirect mineral import reliance and provenance

Mineral commodity supply chain analyses rely on international trade data reported by individual countries as quantities of a mineral commodity form imported from (or exported to) a partner. However, export quantities frequently exceed a country’s domestic production, or occur when no production data are reported, suggesting that the trade partner is merely an intermediary in a transshipment. These discrepancies can result in misleading conclusions regarding supply chain vulnerabilities and dependencies. We present a two-stage methodology to reconcile gaps between reported material sources and actual producers. First, we construct trade networks for specific mineral forms, treating production as a type of import to distinguish producing nations from entrepôts. By tracing flows through these networks, we attribute a target country’s imports to original producers via both direct (in a single trade link) and indirect (transferring through intermediaries) pathways. Second, these production-attributed flows are incorporated into multi-stage supply chains to determine the upstream provenance of feedstock for domestic refining and processing. This approach provides a more representative picture of trade reliance. For example, while the United States (U.S.) Geological Survey reports no imports of unwrought antimony metal from Russia in 2022 (U.S. Geological Survey (2025). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025. 10.3133/mcs2025), our analysis reveals that over 16% of U.S. imports can be traced back to Russian mining through intermediate processing in countries such as China, India, and Vietnam. Additionally, our analysis of the aluminum supply chain shows that while the U.S. is reported as 52% net import reliant on aluminum materials in 2022, it is 100% reliant on foreign bauxite, 7% of which arrived indirectly. This unreported reliance, which is predominantly tied to bauxite mined in Brazil (43%) and Jamaica (28%), highlights our methods ability to capture the supply chain’s dependence on foreign feedstock that may be missing in single-stage trade data.

Mineral Economics

Understanding market sensitivity: Estimation of supply and demand elasticities for non-fuel minerals

In today’s rapidly changing economic landscape, understanding market responsiveness to price changes and the factors influencing commodity prices has become increasingly relevant. Price elasticities serve as indicators of how variations in market conditions affect supply and demand, providing insights into the sensitivity of commodity markets to price fluctuations. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of price elasticities of supply and demand for 74 non-fuel mineral commodities including precious metals, base metals, minor metals, and industrial minerals that are utilized across various industries. We employ various econometric techniques, including fixed effects models for panel data and two-stage dynamic ordinary least squares (2S-DOLS) alongside autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) models for time series analysis, to derive robust estimates of price elasticities. Our findings reveal variability in elasticities among different commodities and indicate that all studied mineral commodities exhibit price inelastic supply and demand in the short run, which we define as one year for the purposes of our analysis, given that the data is all annual. This research provides original estimates of price responsiveness for a wide range of commodities that have not been previously addressed in the literature, thereby enhancing the understanding of market dynamics in the mineral sector. Given that price elasticities can be influenced by factors such as market structure, technological advancements, mining costs, and industry-specific demand drivers, we use variables that serve as proxies for these factors.

Mineral Economics

The development of China’s monopoly over cobalt battery materials

While previous resource conflicts have often been linked to fuel minerals such as oil, future resource conflict may revolve around nonfuel minerals that enable strategic emerging technologies. During a 2010 diplomatic dispute, China reportedly blocked exports of rare earth elements to Japan, thereby leveraging China’s near-monopoly to threaten Japanese manufacturers of advanced technologies including batteries and permanent magnets. Although this caused significant concern for manufacturers outside China, China’s control over other critical minerals has yet to be studied comprehensively. Besides rare earth elements, perhaps no mineral has received more attention for its supply risks than cobalt. Here Chinese control is estimated for each cobalt material at each stage of the cobalt supply chain from 2000 through 2022. The results show that from mining, to refining, consumption, recycling, stocks, and trade, China dominates the cobalt materials that feed lithium-ion battery cathode production. Specifically, the results show that in 2022 Chinese firms had control over 62% of cobalt mine materials primarily used for cobalt chemical refining, 95% control of refined commercial-grade cobalt chemicals, 92% control of battery-grade tricobalt tetroxide, 85% control of battery-grade cobalt sulfate, and 91% control of nickel–cobalt-manganese cathode precursor materials. China’s monopoly over cobalt battery materials may imply a serious supply risk to non-Chinese battery producing and consuming industries—especially given rising geopolitical tensions and the reemergence of critical mineral export restrictions including gallium for semiconductors, germanium for solar panels, graphite for lithium-ion batteries, and (again) rare earth elements.

Mineral Economics