US Sits On Supply of Rare, Tech-Crucial Minerals

We've recently discussed China's position as the linchpin of the world's supply of rare earths, and their rumblings about restricting exports of of these materials crucial to the manufacture of everything from batteries to wind turbines. Now an anonymous reader sends this MSNBC piece on the status of the US's supply of rare earths. "China supplies most of the rare earth minerals found in technologies such as hybrid cars, wind turbines, computer hard drives, and cell phones, but the US has its own largely untapped reserves that could safeguard future tech innovation. Those reserves include deposits of both 'light' and 'heavy' rare earths... 'There is already a shortage, because there are companies that already can't get enough material,' said Jim Hedrick, a former USGS rare earth specialist who recently retired. 'No one [in the US] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant,' Hedrick explained. ... [S]uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths. The upfront costs seem daunting. Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years. [But the CEO of a rare earth supply company said] 'From what I see, security of supply is going to be more important than the prices.'"

Comments

Supply and demand?

[spun]

If these rare earths are so rare and valuable, and only going to become more so, why should the upfront cost matter? The plant should still make a huge profit, unless I am misunderstanding basic economics.

Seems people in America only want to invest in fraudulent get rich quick gambling schemes these days. Actual resource extraction and manufacturing is for the peons.

Re:Supply and demand?

[Spy Handler]

Most likely the high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA, OSHA and various state agency regulations (not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies) make it more economical to just import the stuff from China rather than try to mine it and build a processing plant here.

Re:Supply and demand?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

From TFA: "But Cowle, the CEO of U.S. Rare Earths, seems hopeful that momentum has already begun building for the U.S. government to encourage development of its own rare earth deposits."

Translation: "Dear Congress, give my company lots and lots of taxpayer money for free, or the yellow peril will eat your children, and you wouldn't want that, would you?"

It sounds like he has every intention of making a huge profit, he'd just prefer to have taxpayers build his plant, offer him some nice tax "incentives", maybe waive an inconvenient environmental protection rule or two first...

Re:Supply and demand?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is already a shortage, because there are companies that already can't get enough material, " ... at the price they want. The cost of extraction in the US is likely to be significantly higher than in China, due to environmental rules/lawsuits if nothing else. In all likelihood, the first such operation will be buried in lawsuits and bare the cost of setting case law. There is also the early adopter penalty - if we are only beginning to mine these elements, then it is likely that we have not developed the best practices for such mining and later opening mines that use more refined methods may be at a competitive advantage. Another thing to keep in mind is that if demand is growing, then the value of the reserves also grows by leaving it in the ground. Just as the Saudis have an interest in not extracting oil as fast as possible, so the landowners/ mining right owners have an interest in not overdeveloping mines until demand at a suitable price is there.

Re:Supply and demand?

[spun]

Not likely, given the supply and the current and projected demand. But we should seriously start suing countries like China for unfair trade practices like destroying the environment. It's the same thing as subsidizing an industry. I like our environmental laws, people should not be allowed to dump the costs of their actions onto others, they should take personal responsibility.

Re:Supply and demand?

[eln]

What a ridiculously short-sighted point of view. THEIR resources will run out eventually, and then we'll start using OUR resources, which will run out as well. Then what? Mad Max time?

The only way to solve energy problems in the long term without eventually running out of resources is to use resources that are (for all practical purposes) infinite or infinitely renewable, like solar power or wind. With anything else, you're just kicking the can down the road.

With things like minerals it's harder of course, because the reason we use these rare earth minerals is they have certain properties that make them desirable for the purpose we use them for. However, we can still put effort into developing renewable (or at least more abundant) alternatives where possible, and aggressively recycling materials whenever we can.

Re:Supply and demand?

[Talderas]

People really underestimate the greens when it comes to obstructing progress.

I mean come on, how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert.

Re:Supply and demand?

[Walter White]

The minerals will sit there waiting until we are ready. In the mean time, separation technology will improve and (unless other sources are discovered) proce/value will increase. Once shortages occur, prices will skyrocket and producers will argue that we need to fast-track and sidestep environmental concerns in the name of security.

- Profit!

Re:Supply and demand?

[KermodeBear]

Yes, because we can sue, and win, and force payment from, the country of China in our own courts.

That's about as effective as getting a Very Very Sternly Worded Letter from the UN warning you that you should stop murdering lots of people, otherwise you might get a Very Very VERY Sternly Worded Letter in the near future.

Onoes, please, anything but that.

Re:Supply and demand?

[mcgrew]

Most likely the high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA, OSHA and various state agency regulations (not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies) make it more economical to just import the stuff from China rather than try to mine it and build a processing plant here.

If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you wouldn't be so anti-environment. When I grew up in Cahokia, you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down, even in hundred degree heat. It didn't just stink, it burned your lungs. Nowdays it's rare that you even smell anything.

I think my right to breathe should trump Monsanto's privilege of making billions of dollars of profits more than they already do. THIS is why Free Trade is a BAD idea -- how can someone who likes to breathe compete with a country who doesn't give a damn how filthy and poisoned their country is?

As to OSHA, that protects YOU. Did you know that more people die in Chinese mines than all the other mines in the world? Protecting workers from sociopaths who don't value human life in the least is a GOOD thing, unless you're one of the sociopaths who don't care about human life and don't work in a dangerous industry.

EPA regs are a GOOD thing, and only the woefully ignorant think otherwise. It would do you good to read a little history.

Now get off my lawn, yuppie!

Re:Supply and demand?

[spun]

Citations or STFU.

Tell you what, I'll stay here where the clean air and water is, you can go live in China and breath filth all day long. Sound good?

I'm sick and tired of the wealthy telling us we should clean up their mess for them, that they won't play ball unless we subsidize them by paying the costs of pollution.

Re:Supply and demand?

[spun]

We have international courts and trade agreements. If they don't play fair, they can get slapped with tariffs or outright bans. And if they won't play ball at all, well, by our own rules we should not be trading with them.

Re:Supply and demand?

[eh2o]

Its not the cost of regulation that is high, its the cost of doing things right and safely. China effectively uses human life and environmental destruction to offset production costs. So far there is no developed nation that is able to match the prices that the chinese are giving us, so it would seem that we are not willing to give up the protections that we now take for granted in a civilized society.

Its economical to keep buying from them, but its not morally correct because we are simply enabling the the ruling class of chinese society to continue to exploit the land and people in ways that would be considered gross negligence if we saw it first hand.

Re:Supply and demand?

[Red Flayer]

Those are good acts but still unconstitutional (per Bill of Rights 9 and 10). The U.S. Constitution should be amended to specifically grant Congress said power to regulate the air and water's clarity. I believe in following the Supreme Law as written, and amending it as needed to assign new powers to the U.S. government as time advance

Horsepoop. Really, just plain horsepoop.

Although lots of clauses in the Constitution have been abused, establishing clean air and water are textbook examples of measures taken "to promote the general welfare". There is no amendment needed.

What is needed is for knee-jerk strict constitutionalism to be laid to rest. The world is much different than it was 220 years ago. Deal with it.

Re:Supply and demand?

[Red Flayer]

I mean come on, how can you trust a group that bitches about how unclean coal is and then holds up the building of Solar power with litigation waiting for environmental impact studies of plopping solar arrays in the middle of a desert.

Oh yes. Let's admit we have a problem, and then go ahead and implement a solution without bothering to evaluate that solution.

I hope to God you don't have any sort of responsibility for any systems I use.

And, for what it's worth, do you really think that "greens" are part of a single organized group with a single platform of goals and ideals? Have you ever bothered to consider that "greens" constitute a large number of people with diverse concerns? It's quite possible for some people who are "greens" to think it's OK to damage wild deserts in the name of reducing carbon output -- and there are some "greens" who are more concerned with maintaining a natural environment.

But whatever dude... your tired complaint of a large group of people having members with sometimes conflicting interests is useless for any kind of rational discussion.

Re:Supply and demand?

[rickb928]

"The world is much different than it was 220 years ago. Deal with it."The world is much different than it was 220 years ago. Deal with it."

Maybe so, but people are the same. And our Constitution is actually intended to restrain people from behaving badly, more or less.

So which right(s) do you think is(are) now outmoded in our 'different' world? It's not the knee-jerk strict constitutionalists I fear, it's those who would pick and choose which parts to keep and which to use, and do so without the approval process that includes people like me. At least give us a choice we can vote on, instead of picking away at our rights behind closed doors and deceitful legislation.

Re:Supply and demand?

[Red Flayer]

So to avoid impacting the "wild desert" we end up sticking with the status quo - destroying the entire planet. Well played, Mr Green!

Far better to consider the impact of action than to act rashly without understanding the consequences.

For that matter, beyond the consequences, are we a rational society or not? If we aim to be a rational society, why would we not want discourse on a divisive course of action?

There is a reason that the phrase "look before you leap" is used so often. I'll let you try to figure out the reason.

Keep in mind that deciding on the fate of this one plant will set a precedent for many more.

Granted, I believe a lot of it is NIMBYism, and I also believe that petrodollars fund some of the solar obstructionists. But as people, we need potential courses of action to be studied, discussed, and debated. You dismiss their objections to the solar plant... fine. Good thing you're not the Decider here. Those with specialized knowledge can do the specialized assessment needed. I know I'm not competent to do so... but I'm glad someone is.

Re:Supply and demand?

[ak3ldama]

What we should do is fine importers who damage the environment, in order to cover the costs. That will help out local industries that do the right thing and do not try to externalize their costs.

But, but... free trade bro! No one believes in tariffs anymore. It is ridiculous. Hopefully the price of fuel goes way up, so "free" trade will come to grips with reality. Our leaders have led us astray.

It is my personal belief that low fuel prices fuel the misguided free trade of the last half century or so. I am not even your typical hippy that hates pollution and cries when watching Al Gore. I just think that free trade is a failed experiment that makes the rich richer at an alarming rate. I might be wrong - of course - but that's what it seems like to me. Taxes via tariffs seems like the appropriate place, and protectionism is a good idea until you ask a multinational corporation. (Or the bought and paid for "libertarian" think takes that pander on and on about market choice and efficiency... blah blah blah.)

Re:Supply and demand?

[Shotgun]

The Constitution is a dead document. Realistically it can't be touched... so instead we use it as a guide for governance.

Horsepoop. Really, just plain horsepoop.
The Constitution is a living document. It was devised to be amended. There is a well defined process for amending it that has been used dozens of times before.

Of course, you qualified your statement with "realistically", which basically means either "not fast enough to suit my tastes" or "not in a manner which will allow power to accrue to the federal government without a proper vetting period so that normal people realize that all their rights are vanishing into thin air."

What Problem?

[Sponge Bath]

Buy cheap stuff from abroad while available and cheap. Mine locally if overseas supplies are restricted or prices get too high.

Re:What Problem?

[spun]

Only it isn't cheap, these are some of the most expensive minerals on the planet. Given that demand outstrips supply right now, local owners could be making money off of this. And given that it takes eight years to get a plant going, wouldn't it be prudent to start now, rather than waiting for the Chinese to take all their balls and go home? Oh, but I guess I am asking the Free Market to actually think ahead instead of focusing on next quarter's immediate profits, silly me.

Re:What Problem?

[Tablizer]

Didn't the article say a new plant has about a 10 year ramp-up time?

Re:What Problem?

[j. andrew rogers]

You are misunderstanding the problem. The mining companies would *love* to develop the rich mineral deposits in the western US -- all mining is a long-term investment -- but it is politically impractical. Not only are there many years of regulatory overhead before you can even get permission to start (archaeological clearances, environmental impact studies, etc), you also find yourself plagued by routine lawsuits by environmental activist organizations. In short, you can waste decades trying to develop a new mineral deposit with nothing to show for it but a lot of well-paid lawyers. There are difficult regulatory problems even exploiting existing rare earth mines.

It is cheaper to explore and develop countries like Australia and Chile, both of which have mineral deposits similar to the western US, than it is to develop existing US resources that we already know exist. This is not the fault of the mining companies. Indeed, the free market is working precisely as it should when one supply is priced far beyond what is reasonable due to political intervention.

shortage??

[stephanruby]

'There is already a shortage, because there are companies that already can't get enough material,' said Jim Hedrick

May be, it's not just a shortage, but a cost of doing business. The real question is: if those companies were willing to pay ten times the amount for those rare earth minerals, would they be able to get them? Probably, I think. Personally, I think this is just another industry that's trying to get the government to subsidize 90% of its infrastructure costs.

easy as pie...

[ak_hepcat]

See, first we eat all of their pie, cheaply.

Then, when they're all out of ingredients to make cheap pie, we open up our fridge and start making
our own pies.

Then we can eat our pies, and if they want pies then they'll have to pay a lot more for it. Because we've got the only pie in town.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sam Walton believed in buying locally

[perpenso]

Thanks for the advice, Sam Walton

IIRC Sam Walton believed in buying locally, or at least domestically. Corporations do not always continue with the policies and practices preferred by their founders.

Re:Let's channel Frank Spedding

[DerekLyons]

Do you have a cite that actually supports your claim? The link you provide describes him a developing a process to refine uranium compounds into purified uranium, not processes to obtain rare earths.
 
When I follow the links from your linked article it does indeed describe the laboratory he founded as developing processes to process rare earths, but again your claim of using "a lot fewer resources than being discussed here" is not supported.

Not safe?

[bkaul01]

We have all sorts of off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita came through back-to-back, none of 'em leaked a drop. There were some minor spills from beached tankers, but none from the drilling platforms and piping. It can most certainly be done safely. We're already doing it wherever NIMBY political obstructions don't prevent it.

we also have an abundance of...

[night_flyer]

oil, oil shale, and natural gas that we cant touch thanks to environmentalists and their willing accomplices in the Gov't... what make you think we will be allowed to tap these resources?

Re:US mining is politically uneconomical

[ukemike]

That sounds like a round about way of saying that it would be profitable to mine if you were allowed to leave your tailings, and the waste from the refining processes in big piles on the ground.

Re:Except of course...

[Culture20]

Petroleum is used for a lot more than energy (I hear it makes a great jelly). That said, once electric cars become the norm, people might still use petroleum for energy in niche (expensive) markets like jet fuel.

Re:US mining is politically uneconomical

[CorporateSuit]

That sounds like a round about way of saying that it would be profitable to mine if you were allowed to leave your tailings, and the waste from the refining processes in big piles on the ground.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. The government has to chase people off with shotguns to keep them away from beryllium mines' tailings. The fact that GP brings up that all this stuff is classified as "Toxic waste" means that it is unprofitable to use the entire buffalo on a corporate level. If you want to mine rare earth metals, there WILL be companies who will purchase your tailings from you for what cheaper metals they can tear out of them, but then what do they do with it? They can't sell it back to the mine they purchased it from. They can't store it anywhere, because it's "toxic waste" when it could just be chalk matrix that could safely be dumped next to the nearest mountain -- except it might squish a scorpion or two. So this secondary market becomes unprofitable/overregulated and therefore nonexistent.

But we won't use them.

[TaleSpinner]

> the US has its own largely untapped reserves that could safeguard future tech innovation

Oh, sure, that'll help. With the lunatic left running things we will never manage to open another mine - no matter how crucial the material might be to "future tech". In fact, it's usefulness in future tech is probably proportional to the amount of protest it will create at proposals to mine it.

Re:US mining is politically uneconomical

[inthealpine]

Well, only if it was opposite day and you were a leprechaun.

Since you are going to pretend not to understand, let me simplify.

A rock on the ground is nature, a rock in you hand is a 20 million dollar hazmat cleanup.
Don't act like your green, ghoulish, commie, contribute nothing, luddite, hypocritical brain doesn't understand what the man said. Little fucks like you are what causes the chasm with rational people who want to protect the environment. Do I think we should dump heavy metals into water supplies? No you douche bag conceived fuck hole.
If I were to ask you if you wanted to help me start a not-for-profit to keep legitimate mining in court and from ever breaking ground, what would you say? You would be giving me a reach around in the next Denny's parking lot. I know what you're saying, a reach around in a parking lot that doesn't seem ergonomic, well fucker that just proves my point, if your first thought is about the logistics of a Denny's parking lot reach around instead of the weight on society that frivolous lawsuits cost everyone you've reached your anti-epiphany. You don't matter so you get in other peoples way. While people try to make something worthwhile you (and people like you) bite at their ankles like my 8 mo. old puppy, except my puppy now has funding and a lawyer.