Q: Gareth, we have both been in rare earths for a long time and our paths have overlapped on occasions. Could you give us a bit of background on your career and what led you to focus on critical raw materials (CRMs)?
A: Yes indeed. After graduating from the University of Birmingham (UoB) with a degree in materials science & technology, I completed a PhD within the UoB’s Applied Alloy Chemistry Group led by the late Prof. Rex Harris, which is of course where we first met. My research focused on various aspects of producing rare-earth alloys for permanent magnets, my first proper encounter with CRMs.
In 1997, I joined Dexter Magnetic Technologies in Illinois, USA as a magnetic applications engineer, and eventually went on to lead the technology function for the company. Along the way I became pretty interested in the supply chain for the rare earths to be found in permanent magnets, and after a few chance encounters and discussions along the way, in early 2010 I decided to take a chance and became a consultant, partnering with the critical-materials expert Jack Lifton to co-found Technology Metals Research (TMR), with a focus on rare earths.
Little did we know that the subsequent 15 months would see rare-earth prices peak at astronomical levels, before falling back down again, and the ripple effects that that had on the future trajectory of the permanent-magnet industry. Back then I viewed the midstream of the supply chain as a key bottleneck for future production of rare earths outside of China, and not much has changed on that front. In the face of the new scrutiny on rare earths, I co-founded Innovation Metals Corp. (IMC), a Canadian-based start-up, focused on solutions for rare-earth separation and purification; eventually we discovered and developed a faster, more-efficient way of doing those processes.
After moving back to the UK in 2015, I set up Strategic Materials Advisory, through which I continued my consulting and advisory work – though Jack and I continue to collaborate on initiatives and ideas that interest us both.
I moved on from IMC after we sold that company, and since then, in addition to advisory work for clients, I have been actively involved with the Rare Earth Industry Association (REIA). I have also been doing some teaching back at the UoB on CRMs and the whole concept of materials criticality, as well as providing some insights into the (sometimes harsh!) reality of developing new mining and processing projects.
Q: Having worked in the US and Europe, what do you see as the main differences in our attitudes to research and development, particularly as it relates to CRMs?
The most obvious difference is that R&D funding in Europe is routinely run through consortia consisting of numerous partners from numerous countries, with snazzy acronyms for project names. In the USA such funding is more typically assigned to individual organizations, with the most notable exception being the Critical Minerals Innovation Hub, funded through the US Department of Energy.
Initiatives and “big picture” ideas tend to come down from on high in the USA vs. the European Union, where they originate more from the technocrats running the show.
I think the other obvious difference is that most CRM-related R&D in the EU centres around criticality with respect to the energy transition and has been for years. In the USA this is a relatively recent phenomenon – criticality and criticality assessments there have tended to be tied to national and energy security.
I will note that a lot of the R&D funding in the USA and the EU on CRMs seems to go on projects that “re-invent the wheel” – similar project ideas that get re-hashed and re-packaged in order to win new funding. Examples include the extraction of rare earths from coal waste products in the USA, and the recycling of rare-earth permanent magnets in the EU.
Q: After leaving Dexter, and setting yourself up as a consultant in CRMs, what challenges did you face, and what if anything surprised you?
A: I definitely had a massive dose of imposter syndrome to start. Just because I was interested in the topic, what on Earth made me think that I had the right to call myself a consultant, and to offer my services? That took a while to get over, but eventually I realized that I did actually have something to offer.
I always made a point from the earliest days to be as collaborative as possible with others in the space – pointing potential clients in the direction of other consultants if I genuinely thought that they would either do a better job, or if they had more bandwidth than me. That approach has paid me back many-fold.
Q: Now that rare earths are top of the news agenda, and with the US keen to strike a deal with Ukraine for its reserves, do you expect that people in general will become more aware of the importance of these metals?
A: I think awareness has been building for some time, although we are still at the point where journalists and others frequently mistake the rare earths for the wider group of rare metals, which is disappointing. No, cobalt is not a rare earth, Mr. Reporter… we in the sector have to do a much better job of creating accurate awareness, and explaining what CRMs are, why they are critical, and to properly convey the challenges of bringing related projects to fruition. People like KU Leuven’s Dr. Peter Tom Jones with his documentaries are doing a sterling job in this area, attempting to encapsulate the issues, challenges and opportunities in this field, in forms that are readily accessible.
Q: And what do you think about the prospects for large quantities of rare earths being mined in Ukraine? Do they have appropriate ores? Are there any heavy rare earths in the Donbas region in the east of the country?
A: The prospects are remote. There is no credible evidence of any rare-earth deposits of significance in Ukraine. Geological samples and “occurrences” are not the same as properly defined mineral resources and reserves. Even in countries like Canada and Australia, it takes years, often decades, for initial discoveries to become real mining operations. It takes a lot of capital and time and risk and effort – and that’s without the pressure of a foreign adversary militarily breathing down your neck.
There are some mineral-sands operations in Ukraine from which titanium-bearing minerals are concentrated and produced; it is possible that there are rare-earth-bearing minerals such as monazite and xenotime in the associated resources, but I have not seen much reported in that regard.
Q: Overall, how do you see the situation for Europe and its need for a secure supply of rare earths and other critical materials? There is often a strong NIMBY factor, and many people are passionately anti-mining? Could we achieve any sort of self-sufficiency?
A: Let’s face it: the mining industry has historically done a lousy job in winning hearts and minds when it comes to its activities. It’s completely understandable for people to be concerned about the impact that mining and other operations might have on them and their locality. The only way to effectively persuade people of the value and the need to execute such projects, is through putting together truly responsible project plans, with high-quality information, plenty of independent scrutiny, and an effective means of educating all stakeholders on the facts at hand. Far easier said than done; but it starts with education, building on the initial premise that if you don’t grow it, you have to extract it from the ground. We have to show people the connection between technology solutions for the energy transition, and the mining, extraction and processing of minerals required, to produce the materials for the components and platforms required.
Q: There is a lot of concern about the need to secure supplies of lithium for EV-vehicle batteries. But shouldn’t we be looking more to the future, with solid-state batteries and sodium-ion batteries, which are not so dependent on critical materials?
A: Perhaps, but if (as we do in the West) we largely rely on “the market to provide”, you are going to have all sort of people trying to do all sorts of things, all at the same time. And while that’s not a bad thing, I do agree that when it comes to incentivizing and funding initiatives, let’s look at novel ideas, and let’s look at assistance with scaling up and truly commercializing ideas, instead of churning out the same old project concepts…
Q: Recycling of rare earths is often cited as a solution to supply concerns. How viable is large-scale rare-earth recycling in the near future, and where are the biggest bottlenecks?
A: Recycling of components and products that contain CRMs such as rare earths is and certainly should be part of the solution, but until we reach steady state in terms of demand, that demand will never be satisfied without primary production. Increased primary production, and thrifting (reducing the amount of CRMs per unit mass of component / device / assembly / platform) will be needed to get there.
The biggest bottleneck for rare-earth recycling, most notably contained within permanent magnets, is the reverse logistics required to get the end-of-life and production scrap materials to the current and future processors. The actual technical processes for magnet recycling, be they short loop (turning old magnets into powders that can used to produce new magnets) or long loop (chemically extracting the rare earths from the scrap materials via hydrometallurgy to produce separated rare-earth compounds), are largely out there and in place. It’s doing those processes at sufficient scale to reduce production costs that will be the secret to making these initiatives a success.
Q: Politicians frequently mention rare earths and critical materials, but do they truly understand the complexities of the supply chain, refining challenges, and geopolitical risks? Have you seen any improvement in their grasp of these issues over time?
A: On your first point, unfortunately not. This is why it is vital that senior politicians are advised by folks who know what they are talking about (which is of course a universal truth…). To be fair there has been SOME improvement in the grasp of the issues, but it’s not enough.
Q: Now that you’re back in the UK after a long stint in the USA, how do you see the post-Brexit landscape for high-tech manufacturing that depends on critical materials? Are there specific sectors where the UK could take a leadership role?
A: It is clear that the UK government has taken an active interest in supporting the CRM sector in the UK, most notably with respect to battery materials. Initiatives like the Faraday Institution are good examples of well-funded, big-picture thinking on this front. However, notable commercial failures such as the collapse of Britishvolt don’t help the public’s perception. The UK has some world-class talent when it comes to manufacturing and materials, but at the end of the day, companies have to be competitive, be they in the UK or elsewhere, if they are to survive and to thrive.
