Late last year Australia joined an international group called the Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance, committing us to the highest standards in the mining and processing of critical minerals.
Critical Minerals are defined pretty much globally as metals or minerals “essential for modern technologies, economies or national security, and has a supply chain at risk of disruption”.
Copper didn’t make the list. Like me you might be slightly confused. Last time I looked copper was at the heart of nearly every process in the modern world, from electrification to de-carbonisation, digital transformation, infrastructure and clean energy—the list goes on.
Copper is also facing a supply crisis according to most industry experts. Soaring demand faces a supply shortfall due to falling output at established mines combined with a lack of new deposits and particularly projects that are geographically accessible, mineralogically feasible and in countries politically stable enough to guarantee mines can operate for the long term.
Naturally enough some people and groups are now asking for copper to be included as a critical metal. One of the most vocal is the campaign by the American Copper Development Association (CDA) that has built a network of politicians and industry organisations who agree. They’ve even produced a booklet on it.
The American Government has so far resisted. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) published their list of 50 critical minerals last year—the next list is now 3 years off—but declined to include copper due to what the USGS said was insufficient risk to copper supply in the near future.
Australia hasn’t included copper on its 26 strong list either, but the Europeans call copper a “strategic raw material” rather than a critical one.
Does it make any difference? The CDA says making copper a critical metal “allows for streamlined regulations and faster development of new supply sources to meet future demand”. That all sounds worthwhile, and certainly it seems giving copper ‘critical status’ provides it with added policy and investment priorities.
But I think its time we had that debate here too and would be interested in hearing from anyone with an opinion.
Cheers, John Fennell