
Rare earths: Australia bid to take on China dominance
Why rare earths matter
The phrase "rare earths" - referring to 17 elements on the periodic table which are lightweight, super strong and resistant to heat, making them useful in small electric motors - is something of a misnomer."Rare earths are not rare or scarce. Gold is scarce, but it's not a critical material," Professor Eksteen explains.Rare earths are critical, however. Take the average electric vehicle – there might be rare earths-based motors in dozens of components from side mirrors and speakers to windshield wipers and breaking sensors.The problem is therefore not amount, but the fact "somewhere in the supply chain you've got one or maybe a few countries controlling that bottleneck", Professor Eksteen adds.In the 90s, Europe and France in particular had a prominent rare earths industry. Today, almost all these minerals come from China, which has spent decades mining and refining at scale.China now accounts for more than half of global rare earth mining, and almost 90% of processing. The US sources 80% of its rare earth imports from China, while the European Union relies on China for about 98% of its supply."China has since very deliberately and overtly sought to control the market for the purposes of supporting their downstream manufacturing and defence industries," says Dan McGrath, head of rare earths for Iluka Resources, in between driving us around the company's vast Eneabba site. But Mr McGrath, and Iluka, are hoping to make a dent in that control - even if it wasn't necessarily in the company's original plan.
For decades, Iluka has been mining zircon in Australia - a key ingredient in ceramics, and titanium dioxide used in the pigmentation of paint, plastics and paper.It just so happens the byproducts of these mineral sands include dysprosium and terbium - some of the most sought-after rare earths.Over the years, Iluka has built up the stockpile, and is now worth more than $650m (£440m).This was the easy part, however. The processing or refining is another matter altogether."They're chemically very similar so to try and separate them requires a huge number of stages," Professor Eksteen explained."Also, you've got residues and wastes that you have to deal with out of this industry, and that's problematic. They often produce radioactive materials. It comes at a cost."And that is one of the reasons why the Australian government is loaning Iluka A$1.65bn ($1bn; £798m) to build a refinery to meet demand for rare earths which Iluka sees growing by 50-170% by the end of the decade."We expect to be able to supply a significant proportion of Western demand for rare earths by 2030. Our customers recognise that having an independent, secure and sustainable supply chain outside of China is fundamental for the continuity of their business," says Mr McGrath."This refinery and Iluka's commitment to the rare earth business is an alternative to China."
But the refinery will take another two years to build and come online."Without the strategic partnership we have with the Australian government, a rare earths project would not be economically viable," Mr McGrath says.
A strategic necessity
China's recent willingness to turn supply of rare earths on and off has spurred trading partners to diversify their suppliers. Iluka says because automakers for example plan their production years in advance, it is already fielding requests for when its refinery does come online.Rare earths are critical to the green transition, electric vehicles, and defence technologies – making their control a pressing national priority."The open international market in critical minerals and rare earths is a mirage. It doesn't exist. And the reason it doesn't exist is because there is one supplier of these materials and they have the wherewithal to change where the market goes, whether that be in pricing or supply," Australia's resources minister Madeleine King says.Canberra sees government intervention as necessary to provide an alternative supply, and help the world rely less on China."We can either sit back and do nothing about that... or we can step up to take on the responsibility to develop a rare earths industry here that competes with that market," Ms King adds.But there is something that Australia will have to contend with as it invests and works to expand a rare earths industry – pollution.
In China, environmental damage from years of processing rare earths has led to chemicals and radioactive waste seeping into waterways - cities and people bearing the scars of decades of poor regulation.With rare earths, it's not so much about the mining footprint, rather the processing that is a dirty business – because it involves extraction, leaching, thermal cracking and refining which produce radioactive components."I think there is no metal industry that is completely clean... unfortunately, it's a matter of picking your poison sometimes," Professor Eksteen says."In Australia, we've got mechanisms to handle that. We've got a legal environment and a framework to work with that to at least deal with it responsibly."The EU has in the past accused China of using a "quasi monopoly" on rare earths as a bargaining chip, weaponising it to undermine competitors in key industries. The bloc - which is home to hundreds of auto manufacturers that so desperately need rare earths - said even if China has loosened restrictions on supplies, the threat of supply chain shocks remains.Even if building a brand new industry will take time, Australia seems to have a lot going for it in the rare earths race, as it tries to be a more reliable and cleaner source.And one that - crucially - is independent of China.Additional reporting by Jaltson Akkanath Chummar
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Pro-trans activists clash with police at explosive women's rights protest
A 'sex-based women's rights ' protest has erupted as counter-protesters supporting transgender rights faced off with police. Protesters associated with Women's Voices Australia had gathered on the steps of Victorian Parliament House in Melbourne on Saturday. The group, which frequently uses the slogan 'biology isn't bigotry', prompted a demonstration from pro-trans activists who marched through the CBD to the building. The almost 100-strong counter-protest reached parliament at 11am before being pushed away by police officers who sparked an altercation. In footage from the scene, people dressed in black with their faces covered could be heard yelling slogans, including 'all cops are Nazis' as they faced off with authorities. Individuals were seen jostling with officers, throwing various items including an umbrella and flares at police. At least four people have been arrested so far. It is understood pepper spray was also deployed to bring demonstrators under control. Protesters could be seen holding signs opposing 'TERFascists' – TERF is an acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist Victoria Police were on high alert for the protest since yesterday after neo-Nazis threatened to hijack the action. Pro-trans protesters had also encouraged demonstrators to interfere with journalists. On Saturday, some members of the group could be seen using umbrellas to block TV news cameras and allegedly launched one at a journalist. 'Victoria Police has a completely impartial role when policing protests, prioritising public safety for all, keeping the peace, and preventing clashes,' a police spokesman said. 'As always, police respect the right for people to protest peacefully, however we have zero tolerance for those who threaten community or police safety.' Women's Voices Australia previously protested in April following the passage of anti-vilification laws in Victoria. During the earlier protest, four officers were injured after protesters threw various objects and missiles at police Protesters also attempted to block intersections while carrying wooden pallets. Women's Voices Australia organiser Jasmine Sussex affirmed on Friday the protest would go ahead. 'Women have had enough of angry men claiming special gender identity hijacking women's sex based rights. We won't be silenced!' she said. 'Threatening middle-aged women who refuse to be dehumanised as cervix havers is dumb politics.'


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Ex-Today sports presenter Alex Cullen's desperate bid to find a tenant for the home he has a huge mortgage on - after he was sacked by Nine and forced to move to Melbourne
Alex Cullen desperately slashed the price for his $1.9 million Summer Hill rental property from $1,800 to $1,500-a-week recently, after struggling to find a tenant. The ex-Today star, 44, was dumped by Nine earlier this year after he accepted a $50,000 payment from Adrian Portelli for calling him 'McLaren Man' live on air. Following his subsequent move to Melbourne, Alex struggled to find a tenant for his million-dollar Sydney investment property, finally securing one after five weeks of searching, reported The Daily Telegraph on Thursday. Alex was forced to progressively slash the price over several weeks before a tenant was willing to move into the house he has an eye-watering mortgage on. The media personality and his Nine Entertainment journalist wife Bonnie purchased the four-bedroom, two-bathroom property in 2020 for $1.9 million. Alex first listed the home for rent in early July after moving to Victoria when he landed a new gig on The Christian O'Connell Show for Melbourne's Gold 104.3. Built in 1912, the Queen Anne Federation dwelling has been carefully maintained and boasts classic features including stained glass windows, patterned ceiling finishes and archways. Highlights include timber flooring, original archways, decorative fireplaces and a wraparound verandah. There's also a well-appointed modern kitchen and a large backyard with a paved patio for alfresco dining. It comes after Alex revealed to Stellar magazine he was offered a gig on 7News after he was sacked by Nine. 'After everything went down, Seven were one of the first on the phone to say, "You have our support, and if you want to come back, we're a phone call away,"' he said. 'I can't tell you how much that meant to me and my family.' He went on to say he was excited to see some of his old colleagues at the network after previously working at Seven on shows including Sunrise and Sunday Night. 'It's not very nice being the story,' he said, adding: 'It's better telling the story.' Alex was dismissed from the Today show for accepting the $50,000 gift from controversial Block billionaire bidder Adrian. In January, the presenter was given the sizeable sum after he was the first media personality to use Adrian's self-proclaimed nickname 'McLaren Man' live on air, which resulted in him leaving Channel Nine. Alex's exit from Nine was announced by Today host Karl Stefanovic live on air. The scandal kicked off when Adrian had grown tired of his long-used nickname 'Mr Lambo' and offered the cash reward to the first person to use his new moniker on air, with Alex obliging on the Today show. Accepting cash, gifts or benefits to undermine journalistic independence, and improperly using a journalistic position for personal gain, are both breaches of the journalism code of ethics as defined by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance union. The ill-advised stunt led to Alex being suspended by Nine, and he did not appear on the show while the network investigated the payment. Nine's parting of ways with Alex went ahead despite Adrian's claim that the journalist intended for the money to be paid to charity all along. Network insiders also told Daily Mail Australia that the stunt could have been beneficial for the network and Adrian, if Alex had advised the promoter that, as a journalist, he was unable to accept any payment for making the comment on air. Adrian first received the unwanted nickname 'Mr Lambo' after turning up to a 2022 auction of popular house makeover show The Block in a yellow Lamborghini.


The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
US judge denies request to halt Oak Flat land transfer to copper mining company
A U.S. district judge on Friday denied the latest request by a Native American tribe, environmentalists and other plaintiffs to stop the federal government from transferring land in Arizona for a massive copper mining project. The ruling by Judge Dominic Lanza triggered an immediate appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as a deadline fast approaches for the federal government to move ahead with the transfer next week. Lanza outlined the 'stark trade-offs' at the heart of the fight over Oak Flat, an area considered sacred. He pointed to the economic and national security benefits that would come from the land transfer and the indescribable hardships that would result from the permanent destruction of the Apaches' historical place of worship. Lanza wrote that the nation's political branches are responsible for weighing competing objectives and determining how to balance them. 'Here, Congress chose to pursue the land exchange despite the existence of many significant trade-offs and the president chose to ratify Congress's choice by signing the law into effect,' he wrote. "As a result, the Court must accept that this choice advances the public interest and operate from that premise.' Conservation groups that are appealing the decision acknowledged that the clock was ticking but said they were not giving up. The San Carlos Apache Tribe, the group Apache Stronghold and other plaintiffs having been fighting in court for years to save what tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. The plaintiffs have taken aim at a required environmental review that was released by the U.S. Forest Service earlier this summer. They contend the federal government did not consider the potential for a dam breach, pipeline failure or if there was an emergency plan for a tailings storage area. Before the land exchange can happen, they argued that the federal government must prepare a comprehensive review that considers 'every aspect of the planned mine and all related infrastructure.' The plaintiffs also raised concerns that an appraisal failed to account for the value of the copper deposits underlying one of the federal parcels to be exchanged The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land exchange was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014. The project has support in nearby Superior and other mining towns in the area. Resolution Copper — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs. The tribe and the advocacy group Apache Stronghold sued the U.S. government in 2021 to protect Oak Flat. The U.S. Supreme Court in May rejected an appeal by the Apache group, letting lower court rulings stand.