Governments around the world are racing to secure critical minerals supply, but according to GEM Mining Consulting, ownership alone will not determine who wins the next phase of the energy transition.
While lithium, copper, cobalt, rare earths, and graphite have become central to industrial policy, defence, and energy security, GEM Mining believes that resilience will increasingly define supply security.
“A stronger state role may help in some cases, but it does not automatically create investment, infrastructure, processing capacity, technical skills, community trust, or reliable supply,” GEM Mining says.
“Access to a deposit is not the same as supply security.”
Without processing capacity, infrastructure, financing, and stable policy, geological potential cannot be converted into secure supply.
The same logic applies to critical minerals. Resource control matters, but resilience depends on the full chain. If one of the links is weak, the whole system may remain exposed.
GEM Mining says criticality is often explained through two ideas: economic importance and supply risk. However, supply risk does not come only from a lack of resources in the ground; it can also appear at many points in the value chain.
A mine can be delayed by permitting, while a refinery can depend on imported feed and a port can become a bottleneck. A transport route can also be interrupted, a project can fail due to financing being unavailable, and a government can increase uncertainty by changing rules.
“This means that mineral security is not only a geological issue — it is also a question of whether material can move from the ground to the final user in a reliable and predictable way,” GEM Mining adds.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), critical mineral supply chains remain highly concentrated, specifically during refinement and processing.
In the IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025, the agency notes that the geographic concentration of refining increased across nearly all key energy minerals, particularly nickel and cobalt.
The report also highlights that the average market share of the top three refining countries increased from 82% in 2020 to 86% in 2024.
For many commodities, the strategic bottleneck is no longer extraction but processing.
Why resilience matters
GEM Mining Consulting believes governments should focus less on securing ownership of mineral deposits and more on understanding where supply chains are most vulnerable.
Rather than asking who controls the resource, policymakers should ask how long industries can continue operating if a mine, refinery, shipping route, or supplier is disrupted.
The consulting firm describes this as measuring ‘days of resilience’ — a practical way of assessing how long supply chains can withstand unexpected shocks.
The concept shifts the discussion from production volumes and market share toward real-world preparedness.
GEM Mining says that strategic stockpiles have returned to the policy agenda as governments seek to strengthen supply security. However, the consulting firm also argues that inventories should be viewed as one component of a broader resilience strategy rather than a standalone solution.
While stockpiles can provide temporary protection during supply disruptions, they cannot replace investment in mining, refining, recycling, logistics, or workforce development.
Likewise, local processing policies must be backed by competitive infrastructure, reliable energy, skilled labour, and stable regulation if they are to succeed.
No universal blueprint
GEM Mining’s report also warns countries attempting to replicate each other’s critical mineral strategies.
Resource-rich producers, processing hubs, and manufacturing economies each face different risks and require different policy responses.
Instead of replicating successful models abroad, GEM Mining suggests that governments should first uncover the weakest link in their own supply chains before deciding where investment is needed most.
Recycling and material substitution will also play a key role in improving resilience, although neither can eliminate supply risk entirely.
As demand for battery materials continues growing, new mining projects will remain essential. However, alternative battery chemistries, recycling technologies, and diversified supply chains will become equally important in reducing exposure to future disruptions.
The next phase of the critical minerals race will not be won by the countries with the largest mineral resources but by those capable of building the most resilient supply chains — from mine development and processing through to logistics, recycling, and manufacturing.
Write to Aaliyah Rogan at Mining.com.au
Images: Unsplash
