What are rare earth metals and why are they in demand?
"I'd like to buy minerals on Russian land too. If we can, the rare earth. They have very good rare earth also, they both do (Russia and Ukraine)," Trump said, adding the deal would be beneficial for Russia as well as for the US.
China's control of 95 per cent of global production and supplies of rare earth metals, crucial for industries such as defence and consumer electronics, has focused the rest of the world on trying to develop their own supplies.
According to the Natural Resources Ministry, Russia has reserves of 15 rare earth metals totalling 28.7 million tonnes as of January 1, 2023 and that 3.8 million tonnes is the amount of reserves under development or ready for development.
Russia aims to become one of the top five rare earth metals producers with up to 12 per cent of the global market share by 2030, according to its sector development strategy.
Tomtor, located in the northern Siberian region of Yakutia, along with Zashikhinskoye in the Irkutsk region of Siberia, are central projects to Russia's plans to boost metals output. The launch of both extraction sites has been delayed.
High technology enterprises, which are part of Rosatom or industrial and defence conglomerate Rostech, are likely to be the main domestic consumers of rare earth metals.
WHAT ARE THEY? Rare earths are a group of 17 elements including 15 silvery-white metals called lanthanides, or lanthanoids, plus scandium and yttrium.
WHAT ARE THEY USED FOR? They are used in a wide range of products including consumer electronics, electric vehicles (EVs), aircraft engines, medical equipment, oil refining and military applications such as missiles and radar systems.
WHAT COUNTRY IS THE BIGGEST PRODUCER? China accounts for about 60 per cent of global mine production and 90 per cent of processed and permanent magnet output. Beijing sets quotas on output, smelting and separation, which are closely monitored as a barometer of global supply.
WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES? In their periodic table order, they are: scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium and lutetium.
WHICH ONES ARE MOST COMMON? Lanthanum and cerium are among the most common rare earth metals. Lanthanum is used in camera lenses and lighting. Cerium is used in catalytic converters, which reduce combustion engine emissions.
Neodymium and praseodymium are in demand for permanent magnets used in EV motors and wind turbines.
ARE THEY RARE? They are not rare in the sense that they are uncommon; some are more common than lead, for example. But they tend to be spread thin around the Earth's crust in small quantities and mixed together or with other minerals, so larger deposits are difficult to find and costly to extract.
WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DO THEY HAVE? Processing rare earths often involves the use of solvents, which can produce toxic waste that pollutes the soil, water and atmosphere. More environmentally friendly technologies are being developed, but they are not yet widely used.
Certain types of rare earth ores also contain radioactive thorium or uranium, which is often removed using acid.
For this reason, development of the sector faces health and environmental regulatory hurdles. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
US halts missile shipments, sparking worry in Kyiv
KYIV: A decision by Washington to halt some shipments of critical weapons to Ukraine triggered warnings in Kyiv on Wednesday that the move would weaken its ability to defend against intensifying Russian air strikes and battlefield advances. Ukraine said it had called in the acting US envoy in Kyiv to stress the importance of continuing military aid from Washington, saying any cut-off would embolden Russia as diplomatic efforts to end the war falter. The Pentagon's pause due to concerns that US stockpiles are too low came in recent days and includes precision munitions and air defence interceptors that knock down Russian drones and missiles, two people familiar with the decision said on Tuesday. "The Ukrainian side emphasised that any delay or procrastination in supporting Ukraine's defense capabilities will only encourage the aggressor to continue the war and terror, rather than seek peace," Kyiv's foreign ministry said in a statement. Ukraine's defence ministry said it had not been officially notified of any halt in US shipments and was seeking clarity from its American counterparts. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte said he understood the US needs to take care of its stockpiles. "But when it comes to Ukraine, in the short term, Ukraine cannot do without all the support it can get when it gets to ammunition and to air defense systems," Rutte said. Dozens of people have been killed in recent weeks during air strikes on Ukrainian cities, including the capital Kyiv, that have involved hundreds of attack drones in addition to ballistic and cruise missiles. Russian forces, which control about a fifth of Ukraine, have also made gains in a grinding summer campaign in the east. Since US President Donald Trump took office in January, he has softened Washington's position toward Russia, seeking a diplomatic solution to the war and raising doubts about future US military support for Kyiv's war effort. Last week, Trump said he was considering selling more Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine following a meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky. Politico, which reported the pause on Tuesday, said it includes the critical Patriot air defence missiles which Ukraine has relied on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles. Fedir Venislavskyi, a member of the Ukrainian parliament's national security and defense committee, called the decision to halt the shipments "very unpleasant for us". "It's painful, and against the background of the terrorist attacks which Russia commits against Ukraine, it's a very unpleasant situation," he told reporters in Kyiv. In an email, the Pentagon said it was providing Trump with options to continue military aid to Ukraine in line with the goal of ending Russia's war there. "At the same time, the department is rigorously examining and adapting its approach to achieving this objective while also preserving US forces' readiness for administration defense priorities," said Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary for policy. All weapons aid was briefly paused in February with a second, longer pause in March. The Trump administration resumed sending the last of the aid approved under Biden but no new policy has been announced. The Kremlin on Wednesday welcomed the news of a halt, saying the conflict would end sooner if fewer arms flowed to Ukraine. Residents in the Ukrainian capital, where missile strikes on residential neighbourhoods over the past two weeks had killed more than two dozen people, expressed alarm at the Pentagon's decision. "If we end up in a situation where there's no air defence left, I will move (out of Kyiv), because my safety is my first concern," Oksana Kurochkina, a 35-year-old lawyer said in central Kyiv. "I am already having thoughts about moving out now." On the battlefield, a halt in precision munitions would limit the capacity of Ukrainian troops to strike Russian positions farther behind the front line, said Jack Watling, a military analyst at the Royal United Services Institute. "In short, this decision will cost Ukrainian lives and territory." — Reuters
Observer
3 days ago
- Observer
Defence hike: Europe is making a big mistake
Leaving Brussels by train, the Audi factory is one of the first things you see. Made up of gray, rectangular buildings, the site was long one of Belgium's biggest car producers. Slick and productive, it was a fitting symbol for the capital of Europe. Early this year, however, it succumbed to the industrial crisis overtaking the continent and was unceremoniously shut down. Spots of graffiti are already visible on its once pristine walls. In recent months, the story of the Audi factory has become the story of Europe. Both are down on their luck, in danger of being swept away by the century's new geoeconomic tide. In Brussels, the response to the predicament has been equally in tune with the times — as part of a wider military revamp, ministers claim, the former car factory should be turned into a weapons producer. Such a relaunch, proponents say, would aid Europe's strategic autonomy and create 3,000 new jobs. Across Europe, policymakers are converging on the same strategy, hoping to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, increased military spending would make Europe safe from Russia and independent from America, at last securing its superpower status. On the other hand, it would revive Europe's ailing industrial sector, under pressure from Chinese competitors and rising energy costs. Pumping money into the military, so the argument goes, is the way to fight the twin crises of geopolitical vulnerability and economic malaise. These hopes are likely to prove delusive. Europe's militarisation push, suffering problems of both scale and efficiency, is unlikely to work on its own terms. But it carries a bigger danger than failure. By focusing on defence at the expense of all else, it risks taking the European Union not forward but backward. Rather than a major advance, breakneck rearmament could well amount to a historic mistake. Europe's new approach is usually given an older name: military Keynesianism. Originally, the concept referred to the tendency of mid-century governments to counteract economic downturns through increases in military spending — a combination supposedly first pioneered by the Nazis in the 1930s, then globalised by the Americans in the 1940s. More recently, the term has been applied to President Vladimir Putin's war economy in Russia. Yet it is far from clear whether Europe's current efforts warrant such a description. For one, the continent is simply undergoing a return to military spending levels before 1989. At its peak in the 1960s, for instance, German military expenditure reached just under 5 per cent of gross domestic product; Chancellor Friedrich Merz's target, announced last week, is 3.5 per cent. Such a restoration hardly qualifies as a great leap forward — certainly not matching the concept of the 'Zeitenwende", or 'turning point", that has been used to describe the change in approach. The public benefits of the strategy — the Keynesianism part — remain equally unclear. Though Germany has slightly eased its debt rules, European policymakers remain reluctant to run up budget deficits. More money for the military will strain already tight budgets, taking away from social programmes, infrastructural development and public utilities. Instead of military Keynesianism, a better comparison for Europe's defence bonanza is the Reaganism of the 1980s, in which increased military spending and social retrenchment went hand in hand. There are more problems with the remilitarisation push. For one, many former industrial sectors will acquire a vested interest in war-making abroad — hardly as reliable a source of profit as consumers buying cars. And more money for the military doesn't necessarily mean better results, either. As the economist Adam Tooze notes, Europeans collectively lavish ample sums on their 'zombie armies' and receive strikingly little in return, both in terms of manpower and material. No European company, for example, ranks in the top 10 defence companies by turnover. Then there is the quintessentially European problem with coordination. With tanks and hardware already expensive, the costs of continental rearmament will be multiplied by the union's decentralised decision-making, in which nations separately vie for contracts. Glimpses of such inefficiency are visible in the stalling efforts at shell production for the war in Ukraine. On top of this muddle, the first payouts of Europe's splurge are likely to go to American producers while European factories get up and running. In a telling irony, the initial beneficiaries of the potlatch will be not European but American. These logistical constraints should be weighed alongside the cultural limits to remilitarisation in Europe. In response to calls for renewed mobilisation, for example, one German podcaster spoke for many: 'I'd rather be alive than dead.' Even so, European policymakers are determined to sell rearmament as a condition for the continent's entry into the 21st century. Last week's Nato summit, at which almost all members pledged to raise military spending in the next decade to 5 per cent of GDP produced a pageant of such views. The number of wars around the world, with a fresh one recently threatened in Iran, supposedly underlines the need for Europe to be a fighting continent once more. This strategy, officials claim, combines military independence with commercial revival. Neither of these outcomes is likely. On its current course, Europe is headed for neither military Keynesianism with a social dividend nor a defence strategy suitable for an aspiring superpower. Rather, it risks getting the worst of both worlds: a meager economic recovery without long-term prospects for growth, and sumptuous payouts to a defence sector that would not allow Europe to match its peers. A quick journey to Brussels, where the Audi factory still stands empty, should suffice to convince visitors of this truth.
Observer
4 days ago
- Observer
Zelensky calls US as pilot killed in Russian attack
KYIV: A Ukrainian F-16 fighter pilot died in a crash while repelling a Russian air attack that involved hundreds of drones, cruise and ballistic missiles, authorities said on Sunday, as Moscow intensifies night-time air barrages in the fourth year of war. President Volodymyr Zelensky called for more support from Washington and Western allies to bolster Ukraine's air defences after the attack, which damaged homes and infrastructure across the country and injured at least 12 people, according to local authorities. In Kyiv, families huddled in metro stations for shelter after air raid sirens rung out. Machine-gun fire and explosions were heard across the capital and in the western city of Lviv, where such attacks are less common. The governor of the Lviv region, bordering Poland, said the raid targeted critical infrastructure. Ukraine has now lost three F-16s since it began operating the U.S.-made jets last year. Kyiv has not revealed the size of its F-16 fleet, but they have become a central and heavily used part of Ukraine's defences. The pilot flew the damaged jet away from a settlement but did not have time to eject before it crashed, the Ukrainian Air Force said. "The pilot used all of his onboard weapons and shot down seven air targets. While shooting down the last one, his aircraft was damaged and began to lose altitude," the Air Force said on Telegram. The Ukrainian military said in total Russia launched 477 drones and 60 missiles of various types to Ukraine overnight. Ukrainian forces destroyed 211 of the drones and 38 missiles, it said, while 225 more drones were either lost due to electronic warfare or were decoys that carried no explosives. "Moscow will not stop as long as it has the capability to launch massive strikes," Zelensky said on X. He said Russia had launched around 114 missiles, 1,270 drones, and 1,100 glide bombs just in the past week. Russia's state-run RIA Novosti news agency said one person was killed by a Ukrainian drone in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region. Both Ukraine and Russia say they do not attack civilian targets. Ukraine says recent attacks highlight the need for further support from Washington, which under President Donald Trump has not committed to new military aid for Ukraine. Trump said he was considering a Ukrainian request for more Patriot missile batteries after he met Zelensky at a NATO summit last Wednesday. "This war must be brought to an end - pressure on the aggressor is needed, and so is protection," Zelensky said in his X post on Sunday after the attack. "Ukraine needs to strengthen its air defence — the thing that best protects lives." He said Ukraine was ready to buy the American air defence systems and it counts on "leadership, political will, and the support of the United States, Europe, and all our partners." Russia has launched large scale strikes on Ukrainian cities every few days in recent weeks, causing widespread damage, killing dozens of civilians and injuring hundreds more. During the latest barrage, explosions were heard in Kyiv, Lviv, Poltava, Mykolaiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Cherkasy and the Ivano-Frankivsk regions, witnesses and regional governors said. The Ukrainian military said air strikes were recorded in six locations. Eleven people, including two children, were injured in the central Cherkasy region, the governor Ihor Taburets said on Telegram. Three multi-storey buildings and a college were damaged in the attack, he said. One woman was injured in western Ivano-Frankivsk region. Rescuers evacuated residents from apartment blocks with charred walls and broken windows, images released by authorities in Cherkasy showed. Industrial facilities were hit in the southern Ukrainian Mykolaiv and central Dnipropetrovsk regions, officials said. Railway infrastructure was damaged in Poltava city in the centre of the country. — Reuters
