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?

[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]

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?

[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.

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

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.

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.