US, UK, EU, Australia and more to meet to discuss critical minerals alliance

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/01/us-uk-eu-australia-critical-minerals-rare-earths-g7-minimum-price

by andsoitis • 6 months ago

24 17 6 months ago

theguardian.com

throwawayqqq11• 6 months ago

One area of discussion will be calls for the US to guarantee a minimum price for critical minerals and rare earths

Why is a minimum price more important that a maximum one with guaranteed supply quotas?

And who trusts the US for that?

“This is about trust. You sign a deal and you trust it will apply,” said an EU source. “This constant threat of more tariffs, whether 10% because of Greenland or 200% on champagne because they don’t sign up to the ‘board of peace’ has to stop.”

Yea. I guess its just theater to calm trump and to guarantee profit margins.

SpicyLemonZest2• 6 months ago

Why is a minimum price more important that a maximum one with guaranteed supply quotas?

Previous attempts to set up a supply chain for these minerals in the West have repeatedly failed because the economics didn't work out. If China can sell a batch of samarium at a lower cost than what a Western firm would spend to extract it, you simply can't run the business without a minimum price or equivalent ongoing subsidy.

And who trusts the US for that?

The US is the largest consumer and could be a major supplier of these minerals. Their position on this issue is relevant regardless of trust.

bigbadfeline3• 6 months ago

you simply can't run the business without a minimum price or equivalent ongoing subsidy.

This is the question - what form of subsidy to use? You seem to imply they're all the same but that isn't true. For example, farming is subsidized in the US without mandating minimum prices - there seem to be good reasons for that but why are minerals so much different as to warrant a different approach which is significantly more disruptive to competition and thus to market forces?

The US is the largest consumer and could be a major supplier of these minerals. Their position on this issue is relevant regardless of trust.

That statement is irrelevant to the quote it replied to. The issue was trust regarding agreement-breaking tariff and other trade policies which turn any agreement into a one-sided tool for achieving market domination - that is, when one side conforms to agreements and the other doesn't, that other side is effectively dictating its conditions to the rest. This should be quite obvious but what do I know.

AreShoesFeet000• 6 months ago

Let’s carve out the world once again. It will totally work out this time. Trust me.

alephnerd7• 6 months ago

Maybe China should not have blocked rare earth exports to the EU [0], Japan [1], India [2], and other countries in addition to the US in 2025.

This is why ExChina is the name-of-the-game in the REE space, becuase this risk has been something most of us in the space recognized would occur since 2011 during the Senkaku-Diaoyu standoff, and finally got backing during the Biden admin.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...

[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-rare-earth-campaign-aga...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-taking-steps-mitig...

bigbadfeline3• 6 months ago

Maybe China should not have blocked rare earth exports

They didn't block exports, they required government permission for export. [1]

And that happened after 150% tariffs on China and the ban of exporting EUV semiconductor equipment to them. China's response was a quite normal negotiation tactic given the chapter of "The Art of the Deal" which was being used against them.

"On 4 April 2025, as one of the responses to US President Donald Trump’s administration’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, China introduced export controls on seven heavy REEs (with licensing requirements), as well as on all related compounds, metals and magnets. Exporters are required to obtain a licence, and need to provide information on the end users of REEs" [1]

Then the tariffs normalized somewhat but the EUV ban remains, nevertheless China repealed the licensing on rare-earths as a sign of good will - only to be blamed for... the policies of others which have shown to bring only suffering, poverty and wars.

This is why ExChina is the name-of-the-game in the REE space, because this risk has been something most of us in the space recognized would occur since 2011

Subsidies are normal in the West, it's not China's fault that the West didn't subsidize rare-earths for many years. The issue here is excusing other risky policies (erratic tariffs, hostile trade restrictions, etc) with a country that simply provided what they were asked to provide.

[1] https://epthinktank.eu/2025/11/24/chinas-rare-earth-export-r...

rapjr9• 6 months ago

So what is happening right now with rare earths used for military purposes? My reading says it will take 5-10 years to build processing facilities without which the raw ore is useless. Has the US stopped building missiles and fighter jets? They seem to still be selling them to other countries, but it is unclear if they can actually deliver anything until many years from now, or even restock their own supplies. Maybe the military has a small stockpile of some of the REE's? It's also not clear how the UK, EU, and Australia are going to stockpile REE's if they don't have the capability to process the ore. Is the West's supply of weapons going to run out soon as they use up what they have and can't build more? This seems pertinent both to attacking Iran and the war in Ukraine.

alephnerd7• 6 months ago

Stockpiles have existed for years, and Japan+SK began building an ExChina REE supply chain in the 2011-17 era that most other countries are piggybacking on.

UK, EU, and Australia are going to stockpile REE's if they don't have the capability to process the ore

They do. The issue has been price. They only began working on building an ExChina supply chain 2019 onwards, and this current G7+ announcement is part of that larger strategy that officially began under Biden but has been cooking for years.

Havoc2• 6 months ago

Think this would have a better chance minus the US. They're way to busy with imploding national politics

alephnerd7• 6 months ago

This was a Biden era project that has had continued support from Trump aligned NatSec personnel. Most people associated with this remain in the DoD/DoW and/or are American nationals.

For those of us in the NatSec space, our interests are largely aligned. This is why you see people like Doshi, Mastro, Colby, and others pushing for similar policies despite working under different admins.

The Chinese government has been running an ongoing disinfo campaign against Western attempts at building an ExChina REE supply chain for years [0].

Finally, China de facto blocked REE exports to all Western and Western aligned nations in 2025 - not just the US - with the EU [1], Japan [2], and India [3] facing severe export controls as a result.

[0] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/dra...

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...

[2] https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2026/art_8990fedae8f...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-taking-steps-mitig...

Havoc2• 6 months ago

It’s not the people involved that I’m worried about, or even the various players pushing agendas as they’re bound to but rather that the US is too erratic from up to. Regardless of what’s agreed there is a tangible chance trump changes his mind 24hrs later because of a brain fart or someone whispered something in his ear and promised to make him personally rich.

It’s pointless engaging with that regardless of technical merits if you don’t have some confidence it’ll stick at least medium termish

US, UK, EU, Australia and more to meet to discuss critical minerals alliance

Related Stories