Image by Konektus Photo at Shuttlestock
We call them Minor Metals, but they are not minor.
From 1972 into 1991 there was a publication titled The Journal Of Less Common Metals. That was a more accurate name for these metals, albeit a bit wordy for some people. (The Journal of Less Common Metals ended its run in 1991, replaced by the Journal of Alloys and Compounds, still being published today.)
These are critical, strategic, important and, in some applications, indispensable metals, raw materials that make the world a better, more efficient, healthier place.
The working title for this piece was: The Accelerating Deterioration Of International Relations’ Effects On Critical, Strategic, and Minor Metals Supply, Demand, Markets, and Price. That was more than a mouthful compared to Less Common Metals, but it is the subject of this piece.
The theme is that every aspect of the markets for these metals is being and will continue to be significantly negatively affected by the rise of nationalism and decline of international cooperation in many if not most nations around the world.
These are metals that are critical to the functioning of modern society, used in a vast array of products from aircraft and other transportation equipment to electronic products and the electrical controllers of everyday household and industrial goods and equipment. They often are alloyed with metals that have larger markets.
Regardless, modern living requires these metals. In some applications they make processes more efficient and reliable. Some of these products could operate, albeit less efficiently, without these alloys and metals productions. This is true for household white goods and personal electronics as well as the full range of industrial and transportation equipment. In other applications the metals are simply irreplaceable: The products would not exist without these metals.
These also are strategic metals that are required for modern military ̶ defensive as well as offensive ̶ equipment.
The Situation
Overall, these metals are important to modern life. Many of them are of limited supply, with mine production, often as by-product metals, coming from a handful of nations. Other nations are heavily dependent on imports for supplies necessary to operate their industries cost-effectively.
This situation has been widely acknowledged for at least a century. The awareness of the need for rare metals and other supplies was a factor behind the creation of the war preparedness boards and committees in the approach to World War One. It led to numerous countries starting national defence strategic stockpiles both before and after World War Two and maintaining these throughout the Cold War.
Beginning in the 1970s with Détente between the Soviet Union and the United States, and rapprochement between the People’s Republic of China and the United States, an era of reduced international tensions and increased cooperation among governments began. Globalization of economies and societies followed. Nations opened up to increased foreign trade, foreign direct investments, and domestic entrepreneurship. These trends, along with deregulation and increased mechanization and computerization ushered in a period of stronger global economic growth.
These developments came hand in glove with increased trade among nations of natural resources, including most minor metals.
All was not rosy, of course. China and other countries relied on more lax labour, environmental, safety, and other regulations to allow for their metals mining and beneficiating industries to operate with lower costs and more competitive pricing.
Other countries, including the United States, South Africa, Australia, a host of European nations, and other countries responded by closing down mines and processing facilities, unable to compete at the consequently lower prices or unwilling to sell their output at low prices. In this way, they were preserving reserves and resources for such later times when prices were sufficiently high. As a result of this, there are mines and factories, as well as undeveloped deposits, around the world that can be developed or reopened to meet future demand.
This analysis, it must be noted, is necessarily summarized and thus leaves out many important nuances and details for constraints of space.
The Consequences
By the 1990s attitudes toward other countries were shifting toward more wary and competitive opinions. Some countries sought to preserve their global economic and competitive standings. Others were growing increasingly concerned about their dependence on overseas resources, manufacturing capacity, and expertise. Political competition increasingly has replaced the tendency toward global cooperation and interdependency. Many governments grew more hostile toward other countries, became more protectionist, and sought to decrease their dependence on foreign supplies.
I am not here to apportion blame for the deterioration of international cooperation and trade. There is plenty of blame for everyone. Having worked with most major and many smaller governments over the past half century, I have seen firsthand the long deterioration of faith and trust in other governments and the slow rise of nationalism and nativism.
As a result, today we have governments around the world spending enormous amounts of energy and billions of dollars of scarce financial resources subsidizing mines and processing plants that should not be built. They are doing this because major governments have chosen to end the era of international cooperation and development, of globalization.
It is not clear whether they have done this out of suspicion or out of greed. Some governments appear to have done it for greed, others out of suspicion and fear, and others seemingly for both reasons. Others have done it because they need to protect their countries from the consequences of nationalism, resource nationalism, greed, and suspicion of larger, more economically and politically powerful governments,
For our industries and our markets, this breakdown in international cooperation and increased animosity among governments mean less efficient markets and businesses. Higher costs, lower profits, uncompetitive and opaque markets. Mines and factories that do not make economic or environmental sense being built and operated, and unnecessary environmental degradation. Less efficient factories. Less efficacious products. Longer development time. Higher prices for metals and for the products bearing them. Even more opaque pricing than currently exists, with greater price disparities by country and region. Increased surreptitious supply chains. And more bureaucracy overseeing the entire market.
It would be economically, environmentally, and socially sensible to renew efforts at international co-operation and global cooperation. It would cost a fraction of what subsidizing sub-economic mines and factories will cost.
Unfortunately, as Elvis Presley sang, “We’re caught in a trap…. We can’t go on together with suspicious minds.”
While sensible souls may realize the wisdom of seeking to reverse the global hostilities and seek to restart the tendencies toward interdependence, global trade, and economic growth, government leaders in many countries appear to be tone deaf to such reasoning.
By Jeffrey Christian
About the author
Jeffrey M. Christian is the founder and Managing Partner of CPM Group. He has been analyzing precious metals and commodities markets since the 1970s, and wrote a newsletter and book on electric vehicles in the 1970s. He published the first market review on platinum group metals in 1981.
CPM Group is an independent commodities research, consulting, and investment banking advisory company headquartered in New York. The company is considered the foremost authority on markets for precious metals, along with manganese and molybdenum. Its entry into research on tantalum and niobium, and more recently hafnium, came through collaboration with Andrew Matheson and Patrick Stratton, both recognised experts in the field.
Andrew Matheson, the founder and principal of OnG Commodities LLC, has 25 years of experience in the tantalum industry, leading Cabot Corporation’s tantalum ore procurement and mineral development activities, as general manager of Cabot’s sputtering target business and serving as director of R&D. His experience includes a range of other specialty materials including niobium, scandium and rare earth metals. Andrew Matheson will present on hafnium at the MMTA International Minor Metals Conference 2025.
Visit www.cpmgroup.com to learn more about CPM Group’s research and consulting services.
