We're sunsetting PodQuest on 2025-07-28. Thank you for your support!
Export Podcast Subscriptions
cover of episode The fight for rare earths is defining the world

The fight for rare earths is defining the world

2025/3/27
logo of podcast World in 10

World in 10

AI Chapters Transcript

Shownotes Transcript

Support for this podcast and the following message is brought to you by E-Trade from Morgan Stanley. With E-Trade, you can dive into the market with easy-to-use tools, zero-dollar commissions, and a wide range of investments. And now there's even more to love. Get access to industry-leading research and insights from Morgan Stanley to help guide your decisions. Open an account and get up to $1,000 or more with a qualifying deposit. Get started today at E-Trade.com. Terms and other fees apply. Investing involves risks. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC member SIPC.

E-Trade is a business of Morgan Stanley. BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30-second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out.

Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self-care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com slash random podcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

Welcome to the World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Stuart Willey and Alex Dibble. A US government visit to Greenland on Friday has been scaled down, which Denmark's foreign minister described as very positive. And you can understand why, given the escalatory rhetoric around Greenland from Donald Trump over the last couple of months.

But J.D. Vance's trip is being seen as further, slow pressure on the territory, which, much like Ukraine, has vast reserves of rare earth elements and other minerals that are being viewed by the Trump administration as a potential solution to an impending challenge, the global race for natural resources. Today we're digging into why critical raw materials are set to define geopolitics in the years ahead.

With us is Rohitesh Dahwan, the CEO of the International Council on Mining and Metals. Ro, we hear so much about rare earth minerals now. What's driving the scramble for mineral rights?

It's an increasing recognition, Stuart, that everything our life depends on, from defence technology to renewable energy to the homes that we live in, are all dependent on rare earth minerals and other critical minerals that come from the ground. And there's an increased concern that these could be weaponised in the current geopolitically tense times we live in.

A reason for that is that the production of these is highly concentrated, often in the hands of a single country, and often that country is China. Rare earths, for instance, more than 95% of the supply of these critical materials is either mined by or processed by China or Chinese-linked entities.

And so the concern is that as geopolitical tensions increase, that these could be restricted in being able to be accessed by Western countries, which could undermine our ability to develop defence technologies, renewable energy, or even electric vehicles. For Greenland, they seem to be ending up in the centre of these geopolitical tensions. How much is the US desire not to be reliant on China driving the Trump administration's interest here?

Look, critical minerals are definitely part of the calculation of the Trump administration's interest in Greenland. It is a largely unexplored country, but one which is known to have significant reserves of these minerals. And so the Trump administration has

would be thinking that by getting access to those minerals, it improves the resilience of the US economy and its independence from China. That being said, it's not the only factor when it comes to Greenland, because Greenland is strategically very important as a

a base in the region. And so I think we shouldn't overplay the importance of minerals to that conversation, but it is absolutely a core part of it. It's also, of course, a core part of the deal that the US administration is seeking to do in Ukraine, which would give the US access to Ukraine's reserves of critical minerals. It must be noted, however, that

The known deposits in Ukraine are still subject to a lot of uncertainty because we have to rely on 1980s era Soviet maps of what is or isn't under the ground. And it would take at least a couple of years for any company to get high confidence in what is actually under the ground.

And the other country, Stuart, where there is significant interest in minerals from the United States is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where in the eastern part of the country there is an ongoing conflict with M23 rebels. And here, too, there have been discussions between the U.S. administration and the DRC government that have been reported that have to do with some form of a security for mineral swap that the United States may be seeking to do with the government of the DRC.

Ro, if we think about the mineral rights deal Donald Trump is talking up with Kiev, is he right to suggest that having American mining contractors there might offer Ukraine some security protection? The US administration believes that by having American companies on the ground operating in Ukraine would bring with it

a set of security and broader infrastructure that could improve the security of Ukraine overall. It could also be the case that by having American companies that tend to follow high standards of mining, that the benefit of that mining to Ukraine could be more broadly shared as well as more sustainable than if that mining activity was to be done by

And finally, the press release of the new book, The Press Release, which is a book that was published in the United States in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s, which is a book that was published in the early 2000s,

presence of American or other Western companies could bring with it the development of broader infrastructure, which could have second order benefits for Ukraine's stability, like the development of power infrastructure, roads, the rebuilding of bridges, etc.

These have been traditionally parts of the kinds of investment that American companies have made in the countries in which they mine. So in addition to the direct presence of companies on the ground, the second order and ancillary benefits could indeed improve the stability of Ukraine. And what are the timescales like to get the infrastructure you mentioned built and to get those minerals out of the ground?

We're looking at at least two years for the necessary initial planning and scoping studies before you have shovels in the ground. And then once your first shovel goes in the ground, it could take anywhere between two and a further five years to create a large scale mining operation. Globally, in fact, it takes about six,

15 years from initial discovery to first production of large mining projects, a lot of that time is taken in granting mining permits. Now, if there's a special deal between the US and Ukraine, that timescale is likely to be shortened. And therefore, in an optimistic scenario, you could see minerals being produced and exported from Ukraine in five years.

Two of the countries you've mentioned, DRC and Ukraine, they're wracked by massive conflict just now. Hypothetically, what would a mining company do if the area they were working in was suddenly embroiled in war?

You know, in high conflict situations, a mining company may choose to either not engage at all or if they are already present, then to withdraw because it could put the safety of the site and its people in jeopardy if that conflict can't be well controlled and managed. In other cases, mining companies can be part of the solution to conflict-related initiatives, either by providing a space to convene different parties or

or by helping support peacemaking processes. And let's also be honest, Stuart, that in some cases, mining can be a driver or a multiplier of conflict if that's not well managed. In the wrong hands, these minerals can be used to finance war and illegal trade.

And they can also be a source of tension in the local community. So it really does vary all the way from not being able to operate at all to being a constructive partner and in some cases also being a multiplier of conflict. And therefore, a company needs to think very carefully about the situations in which it goes into a country. And if there is conflict in that country, the conditions under which it's prepared to stay.

The DRC and Ukraine have, by some measures, poor records on battling corruption, especially in extractive industries.

Another move that Trump has made is to rip up some of the rules that until now have restricted U.S. companies from bribing officials and governments in other countries. How much of a retrograde step is that, do you think? It's an unfortunate step because it removes a very powerful expected signal of good practice from companies.

That being said, responsible companies will not change their practices as a result of that step. Those that have already committed to the highest standards of transparency and anti-corruption will stay the course and should stay the course because not only is that the right way to do business, but it is actually completely in their best interest to do so because corruption of any form weakens the governance in the places in which you operate, which ultimately is bad for your business.

We began talking about geopolitical tensions driven by the fact that so many of these rare earth minerals are in the hands of China. How concerned, Ro, are the big mining and metals firms about the prospect of a sustained US-China conflict?

It's always on any sensible company's risk register to watch for potential disruptions to maritime supply chains. Because although these commodities are not perishable, we only do hold certain quantities of their stocks. And so if there was a short-term disruption to shipping lanes...

While there wouldn't be an immediate crunch because there are stocks of copper and lithium and other produced metals in warehouses around the world, if it was sustained for a long period of time, that would certainly harm companies who need these metals to produce products like car companies or defense firms or medical equipment manufacturers. And it would harm those that produce them because there would be limited space to stockpile them where they are produced.

And while you could theoretically shut a mine down if you didn't need to produce all the commodity, it's much harder, for instance, to shut down a smelter that produces aluminium because it can't just be turned on and off given its needs to function on a constant basis, the need to control temperatures very carefully, and the fact that metals don't react very well to rapid changes in temperature. So it certainly would be very disruptive, even though the likelihood of it happening is low.

Ro, thank you. Rohitesh Dhawan is president and CEO of the International Council on Mining and Metals. For more on how Russia sees America's quest for natural resources, listen back to analysis from Mark Gagliotti on the earlier World in 10 episode named Trump and Zelensky's Mineral Deal, Why Russia Doesn't Care. That was on February the 28th.

That's it from us today, though. Thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. See you tomorrow.

Open an account and get up to $1,000 or more with a qualifying deposit. Get started today at E-Trade.com. Terms and other fees apply. Investing involves risks. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC. Member SIPC. E-Trade is a business of Morgan Stanley. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.