Op-Ed: Mining alone won’t lead to critical minerals independence — processing will pave the way

There is a growing chorus of voices championing increased exploration and resource discovery in the global scramble to secure critical minerals. From copper to rare earth elements (REEs), policymakers often fixate on the belief that establishing new ore sources will lead to self-sufficiency.

At first glance, this is a logical approach—after all, production starts with the extraction of raw minerals. However, this approach is misguided if our true goal is to achieve long-term critical mineral self-sufficiency and independence.

Instead, the primary focus of our public policies should be on building and expanding domestic smelting and processing capacity.

Why prioritize processing over exploration?

First, constructing smelting and refining facilities involves greater capital investment, more extensive permitting processes, and longer development timelines than constructing a mine. A processing plant can take years—if not a decades—to get up and running. By contrast, there is already a bounty of known domestic deposits of critical minerals waiting to be developed.

Granted, some are remote or of varying grades, and others may pose environmental or logistical challenges. Yet in most cases, the fundamental knowledge of their existence is not the limiting factor.

What the United States, and many other nations, truly lack is the modern infrastructure to transform these raw materials into finished products.

Without robust domestic processing capacity, the US—even if it discovers the richest orebodies in the world—would still have to rely on its rivals to convert these ores into usable materials. For example, China, while already a world-leading producer of REEs, also controls approximately 85% of the REE processing capacity worldwide. This means that, even if it makes a significant rare earth discovery, America will find it difficult to turn that into the finished products needed to build electric vehicles or wind turbines without outside help.

This level of dependency places the US in a precarious position when it comes to geopolitical stability and supply chain resilience. If another country holds the lion’s share of processing capabilities, it would still find itself at the mercy of foreign policies, tariffs, or even embargoes.

For those concerned about national security, the idea of shipping ore overseas—with the hope of eventually importing back a refined product—should be a sobering reminder of how vulnerable the US is without control over the entire supply chain.

Economic, geopolitical boosts

The economic argument for focusing and prioritizing the building of smelting and refining facilities is similarly compelling. Though it often requires massive upfront investment, advanced processing capabilities can pay long-term dividends. By encouraging the development of these facilities within its borders, the US can create skilled jobs in engineering, construction and operations—positions that cannot be easily outsourced as the jobs are inextricably tied to the physical location of the facility.

Moreover, once these plants are established, they offer increased strategic flexibility. The US can source ore from domestic or international suppliers, having the capacity to process materials locally. If global politics or market conditions shift, it retains greater control over its strategic mineral needs.

There is a well-known saying that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” In the realm of critical minerals, that adage resonates strongly. Simply having ore concentrates in hand does not confer the same advantages as possessing processed materials; they still require additional refining before they can be used the way they’re intended.

Therefore, the nation that hosts the advanced processing facilities holds a crucial advantage over those that merely provide source of the ore. Possession of the refined product, and its production capacity, is what truly matters.

Exploration still matters

Of course, this is not suggesting that we abandon exploration altogether. Discovering new ore bodies is still crucial, and we should support efforts to map and evaluate the resources within our borders. However, as policymakers consider where to direct funding, tax incentives and regulatory reforms, the focus should shift to ensuring that we can process whatever we extract.

Permitting for smelters and processing plants must be prioritized, streamlined and well-managed, while still maintaining rigorous environmental and public health standards. Public-private partnerships could accelerate advancements in more advanced and cleaner smelting technologies than are found in the developing world, making the process more efficient and reducing overall ecological impacts.

By aligning our public policy with the goal of modernizing and expanding domestic smelting and processing capacity, we stand a better chance of achieving our desired end goal: genuine critical mineral independence.

(Erik Groves is Corporate Strategy and In-House Counsel at Morgan Companies)