Report confirms Medallion’s proposed large-scale monazite-processing strategy

Read full News Release

“The SENES report provides the positive radiological safety and environmental support that we need to confidently advance our plans for a monazite processing facility, which could achieve near-term rare-earth production,” said Dr Bill Bird, Chairman & CEO of Medallion. “For some time, it has been our view that monazite, with a rare-earth content of approximately 60 percent, could again fulfill its dominant role as a source for rare-earth production outside of China.”

A concern with all rare-earth processing is the safe handling and disposal of the various wastes, including the radioactive elements that are naturally present in all rare-earth mineral occurrences. The SENES report supports the Company’s objective that, with the proper operational controls and the use of modern handling and waste disposal systems, the Company can proceed with its strategy to source and procure the substantial amount of available monazite for a near-term large-scale planned production facility designed to extract rare earths. The report was not mandated to examine the capital and operating costs, or other economic variables that would form the basis of a feasibility study.

In order to provide feed material for the proposed facility, the Company is actively sourcing rare-earth-bearing monazite from present producers of heavy-mineral sands, both through purchase agreements and monazite-processing joint ventures. Final plant size will depend on the committed amount of feed monazite, rare-earth concentrate demand, market pricing, and other variables.

Monazite, the original commercial rare-earth source, is a rare-earth phosphate mineral that historically has been mined from beach-sand deposits.  It has been processed for its rare-earth content for over 100 years and smaller-scale monazite rare-earth extraction plants are in operation today in China, India and Brazil. In addition to being a readily available rare-earth resource, and having a well-understood and commercially proven metallurgical process, monazite is valued for containing more of the lucrative heavy rare-earths than does bastnaesite, which has been the other industry-standard rare-earth ore mineral for the last 50 years.

About Heavy-Mineral Sands

Heavy-mineral sands are beach placer deposits formed by wave-action gravity concentration of the heavy-mineral grains.  There are significant heavy-mineral-sands mining operations in Australia, South Asia, Africa and the Americas, where these beach deposits are mined principally for the titanium and zirconium.

About Medallion Resources

Medallion is rethinking rare earths. Headed by Dr Bill Bird and supported by a first-class technical team, the Company is well positioned to identify and acquire the world’s most promising rare-earth opportunities. Medallion’s strategy targets large deposits amenable to straightforward low-cost mining and metallurgical processes that lead to near-term, rare-earth production and long-term supply. Rare earths are used in critical components for virtually all computing and mobile electronic products, as well as wind turbines, electric and hybrid vehicles and strategic defense systems. More about Medallion (TSXV: MDL; OTCQX: MLLOF; Frankfurt: MRD) can be found at medallionresources.com.

Donald Lay, President at +1.604.681.9558 or info@medallionresources.com

Kam Thindal, Hamza Thindal Capital Corp. at +1.888.371.9098

Medallion management takes full responsibility for content and has prepared this news release. The TSX Venture Exchange has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Some of the statements contained in this release are forward-looking statements, such as estimates and statements that describe Medallion’s future exploration and financing plans, objectives or goals, including words to the effect that Medallion or management expects a stated condition or result to occur. Since forward-looking statements address future events and conditions, by their very nature, they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results in each case could differ materially from those currently anticipated in these statements. Such risks include expectations that may be raised by discussing potential acquisitions or exploration plans. Also, in order to proceed with Medallion’s exploration plans, additional funding is necessary and, depending on market conditions, this funding may not be forthcoming on a schedule or on terms that facilitate Medallion’s plans.

Matt Ridley has a nice column about why intuition, gut feelings if you like, can work so well in decision making. I have to admit though, I don’t think it goes quite far enough.

Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, thinks that instead they should boast about using heuristics. In articles and books over the past five years, Dr. Gigerenzer has developed the startling claim that intuition makes our decisions not just quicker but better. He rejects the notion that hunches are second best, trading off accuracy for effort to achieve decisions that are “good enough” but not perfect.

As Dr. Gigerenzer sees it, complex problems do not necessarily need complex solutions, and more detailed analysis does not necessarily improve a decision, but often makes it worse. He believes, in effect, that less is more: Extra information distracts you from focusing on the few simple aspects of a problem that matter most.

While I’ve no problem with this at all I think we can take it further as to why rules of thumb often work very well in decision making.

First I’d call into evidence Hayek’s insistence that information (perhaps not all of it but certainly a huge amount of the relevant such) is local. It resides in the specific and exact knowledge of those people who actually do whatever it is. One example might be a baker kneading dough. He’s been doing this 20 years and doesn’t time or even measure anything. He can tell just from the look and the feel whether more or less of an ingredient, or more manipulation, is necessary. Something neither you nor I would be able to do and something that we would have to follow a very detailed recipe to do ourselves.

Then I’d point out that much of this local knowledge actually becomes formalised in rules of thumb, we can call it intuition, gut feelings or even heuristics of we like. It isn’t that we, as beings of God-like genius, simply know how to do something and can thus just guess at the answer. Rather, it’s that we’ve been doing whatever it is long enough that we have reservoirs of possibly unarticulated knowledge that lead our intuition to what is the correct answer.

A little example from my day job dealing with one of the rare earth metals. There’s a couple of companies out there looking to open new mines to extract this metal. They might be successful (certainly, there’s no technological reason why they shouldn’t be able to extract it from the ore they’ll be digging up) and they might not be. But I’ve simply rejected their approach as being near ridiculous. Entirely the wrong path to take in pursuit of this metal. This is, further, without even examining the details of their plans and methods.

I’ve just looked at the concentration they’ve got of the target metal in the ore they want to process. At that point, I’ve simply rejected it as a viable source.

That’s very much a gut feeling, intuition, but it’s backed up by all that local knowledge I’ve got from having spent 15 years dealing with this one rare earth metal.

The most important part of which is that the concentration they’re talking about, there are tens (certainly) and possibly hundreds of places around the world that you can get the same concentration of the same metal. And not in ores that you have to dig up either. But in the wastes of other mining processes. Which brings us back again to local knowledge and gut feelings.

If you analysed their plans properly, you wouldn’t see anything wrong with them. The metal is in the ores they’re after, it is possible to extract it from those ores, there are people who will buy it once extracted. So if you did the normal analysis you’d assume that they were just fine.

But that wider industry knowledge, that Hayek bit, leads to the rule of thumb that if you’re going to extract from an ore with that (low) concentration of the metal you wouldn’t go and dig a hole in the ground to get that ore. That’s waaay too expensive. You would go to one of the places where the ore has already been dug up, been processed for its other contents, then ask politely if you can have the wastes left over, then process them.

Which is, I would submit, why gut feelings and rules of thumb from experts in their field are so useful as a method of business decision making. Because, consciously or not, such experts are processing the available information, information simply not available to those not expert but approaching the same decision in a more structured and formal manner.

There is a flip side to this of course: experts, when off their own turf, when outside their knowledge base, are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else. Perhaps more so in fact, as being often right in one area leads to the over-confidence that you’re right in all (I have been known to suffer from this one myself). All of which leads the outside observer to something of a quandary. Real experts, in their area of expertise, can use rules of thumb and intuition and their doing so will probably lead to better decisions than any other method. But how do you know when someone is limiting themselves to their area (s) of expertise?

That’s a tricky problem.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/26/why-rules-of-thumb-intuition-gut-feelings-work-in-business-decisions/

Gradually, people are starting to put the two sides of the equation together – thorium and rare earths; two seemingly disparate sectors, the former an apparent salve for the maligned nuclear space, the latter a nascent sector in the west looking to challenge China’s dominance by creating a functioning rare earths supply chain for end-users.

Rare earth expert Anthony Mariano – one of the high-profile go-to consultants in the rare earth space – spoke at length this week about going back to the future, if you will, by revisiting the beach and river placer sands that contain monazite, which is where rare earth mining really began.

As he describes it in a recent interview with the The Gold Report, “beach sand and river placer monazite occurs in plentiful supply in many countries outside of China. The rare earth oxide (REO) content of monazite is approximately 70 weight percent (wt%) and the distribution has a better intermediate REE content than bastnasite.”

Bastnasite is the world’s source at this time, and has been historically, for the light rare earth elements. (Read: China’s Bayan Obo mine, Molycorp’s Mountain Pass mine).

A few decades ago, when Molycorp and Solvay’s Rhodia (then known as Rhone-Poulenc) were providing the bulk of the REEs to the marketplace, Rhône-Poulenc received all of its REEs from beach sands in Australia and South Africa.

“It transported the monazite sands to France and eventually compiled an unusual quantity of thorium. The French government forbade the company from continuing this, so it switched over to bastnasite and left the monazite. The physical and chemical processing of monazite is well-known and can be handled, but the problem is what to do with the thorium after it is extracted,” he told the Gold Report.

(Thorium, by the way, is a natural radioactive chemical element, one discovered in 1828 and named after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. It’s estimated to be about three times more abundant than uranium and is, in fact, a by-product when rare earths are extracted from monazite sands. It was formerly used as a light source in gas mantles and as an alloying material, but these applications declined as concerns over its radioactivity increased.)

“The current perceived challenge to mining monazite is the presence of thorium in the structure. If the thorium disposal problem can be solved economically, monazite mining can provide all of the necessary light and medium atomic number REEs to the marketplace without dependence on China,” Mariano said.

He pointed to companies such as Medallion Resources and privately held Mining Ventures Brasil Ltda. – two companies that see a lot of positives in mining monazite, in large part because a lot of the processing has already occurred from natural crushing.

He said crushing represents 61% of the cost when talking about mining hard rock. Conversely, virtually no crushing is involved in mining beach sands. And there are large monazite tailings from existing beach sand mining operations, which are available for exploitation.

That’s what Medallion Resources is focusing on at the moment.

Mariano said thorium can be controlled, but if the public doesn’t understand this, it’s going to be very difficult to start any mining operation in which the mineral has a substantial amount of thorium in its structure.

Some kind of education program would be the obvious next step and there are a number of upstart thorium-minded nuclear companies out there that could push the nuclear sector toward thorium- and away from uranium-based reactors in the future.

It won’t happen anytime soon, even though some believe thorium use in reactors should have happened decades ago.

NOTE: Raremetalblog will be interviewing one or two of the strongest thorium advocates out there today, in large part to get some perspective on how the two sectors can possibly be aligned in order to resolve the thorium issue for players in both sectors.

Source: http://www.raremetalblog.com/2011/12/thorium-rare-earths-two-sectors-that-should-befriend-each-other.html

Rare Earth Mining Innovations: Anthony Mariano

The worldwide hunt for new sources of critical metals has some miners hitting the beach, tapping sand and river placer deposits in search of naturally processed minerals. In this exclusive interview with The Critical Metals Report, internationally renowned scientist and rare earth expert Anthony Mariano discusses several innovative projects that could shift the direction of the rare earth industry.

The Critical Metals Report: Dr. Mariano, let’s discuss some potential for rare earth elements (REEs) from a geological perspective. What is catching your attention outside of China?

Anthony Mariano: Beach sand and river placer monazite occurs in plentiful supply in many countries outside of China. The rare earth oxide (REO) content of monazite is approximately 70 weight percent (wt%) and the distribution has a better intermediate REE content than bastnasite. Bastnasite is the world’s source at this time, and has been historically, for the light rare earth elements (LREEs).

TCMR: If this type of sand deposit is available, why aren’t companies considering it?

AM: The current perceived challenge to mining monazite is the presence of thorium in the structure. If the thorium disposal problem can be solved economically, monazite mining can provide all of the necessary light and medium atomic number REEs to the marketplace without dependence on China.

Thorium can be controlled, but if the public doesn’t understand this, it’s going to be very difficult to start any mining operation in which the mineral has a substantial amount of thorium in its structure. When Molycorp Inc. (MCP:NYSE) and Rhône-Poulenc, which is now Rhodia RGPT (RHA.PA), were providing the bulk of the REEs to the marketplace, Rhône-Poulenc received all of its REEs from beach sands in Australia and South Africa. It transported the monazite sands to France and eventually compiled an unusual quantity of thorium. The French government forbade the company from continuing this, so it switched over to bastnasite and left the monazite. The physical and chemical processing of monazite is well-known and can be handled, but the problem is what to do with the thorium after it is extracted.

TCMR: Are scientists and companies considering launching these types of projects, which will exploit the REE potential of monazite, while economically handling the thorium?

AM: Yes, Medallion Resources Ltd. (MDL:TSX.V; MLLOF:OTCQX) is one of them. Mining Ventures Brasil Ltda., a private company, is another one.

TCMR: Is the case for mining monazite sands strengthened by the fact that a lot of the processing has already occurred from natural crushing, assuming the thorium can be handled?

AM: Yes. In mining hard rock, crushing represents 61% of the cost. Virtually no crushing is involved in mining beach sands. And there are large monazite tailings from existing beach sand mining operations, which are available for exploitation.

TCMR: So most of these deposits are near large bodies of water, which has a potential for shipping and infrastructure advantage. Where are some of these large monazite sand deposits located?

AM: All over the world. They occur extensively in Africa, South America, Australia and in various parts of North America. Beach sands have been mined in North and South Carolina over the years, but a lot of these areas are now residential, which presents problems.

TCMR: So the monazite sands that now look like opportunities for REE extraction would have to be in relatively remote places. Would you like to discuss eudialyte now?

AM: Eudialyte is an attractive, potential source of heavy rare earth elements (HREEs). The name eudialyte is taken from the Greek and means “easily dissolved.” In composition, it is a complex sodium calcium zirconosilicate that can include substantial HREEs. Active exploration for acceptable grade and tonnage is happening in Kipawa, Quebec and at Nora Kärr, in Sweden.

TCMR: Kipawa is the project by Matamec Explorations Inc. (MAT:TSX.V; MRHEF:OTCQX), correct?

AM: Yes, and Norra Kärr is Tasman Metals Ltd.’s (TSM:TSX.V; TAS:NYSE.A; TASXF:OTCPK; T61:FSE) project. In these two areas, the HREE in eudialyte ranges approximately 4–7wt%. Despite the high solubility of eudialyte in weak acids, the isolation of zirconium silicate, yttrium oxide and the REOs from the resultant solutions have resisted the separation of intimately associated silica gels. That’s been the problem. Matamec and Tasman are experimenting in the economic chemical processing of eudialyte and making innovative progress.

TCMR: Are these deposits very large?

AM: Some of them are quite substantial, in excess of 10 million tons (Mt) of >0.1 wt% REO. Eudialyte in these deposits would be 4–7wt% REE substituting in the eudialyte structure.

TCMR: Do you see monazite sands and eudialyte as potential game changers in REEs?

AM: Yes, I see that in both monazite beach sands and eudialyte. Another related type of deposit occurs in Brazil in river and streambeds.

Mining Ventures Brasil is in full swing with an exploration program in central Goiás, Brazil, for REE-bearing heavy minerals in colluvium, which is loose mineral and rock debris derived from weathered rocks.

It occurs along streams, not beach sands, and it’s not eudialyte, but it can be monazite. The heavy minerals include xenotime—a heavy lanthanide-enriched mineral—and monazite as liberated grains that are readily amenable to physical processing. Both xenotime and monazite are enriched in HREEs, and the technology for the chemical processing of these two minerals is well established.

TCMR: Is this an inland deposit in Brazil?

AM: Yes, the REE-bearing colluvium covers 25 x 50 kilometers (km), and the REE grade runs at approximately 0.6wt%. This type of mineralization can be mined by dredging operations similar to beach sands and river placer mining.

TCMR: Have you visited this?

AM: I’ve made three missions there. One of them was when it was initially starting, and I’ll be going back in January.

TCMR: Are these deposits along the Amazon?

AM: No, they are located in central Brazil, brush country.

TCMR: In terms of development, what stage is Mining Ventures Brasil in?

AM: It’s heavily involved in establishing the grade and tonnage on a large scale. It will soon be doing pilot-plant testing in Brazil.

TCMR: Very interesting. Most REE explorers today are seeking rare earths in carbonatite host structures, correct?

AM: Yes. A carbonatite is an igneous rock of mantle origin that comes from deep below the crust, a depth of about 50km in the upper mantle. When the magmas in that area come up, they may be more than 50% carbonate or dolomite, which makes them carbonatite.

Coming from the mantle, they can also carry an exotic quantity of high field strength elements, or other valuable elements. All carbonatites are anomalous in rare earth elements, but in most cases they are not amenable to recovery.

TCMR: Because of the depth?

AM: No, because of the nature of the mineralization. In carbonatites, calcite and dolomite can be totally broken down, and the minerals that resist solution become concentrated. When this happens, both calcite and dolomite, and even the mineral apatite, which contains small quantities of REEs in their structure, are broken down. The rare earths are then liberated, and supergene rare earth minerals can evolve due to lateritic weathering of carbonatite on an impressive scale.

This is the origin of Lynas Corp.’s (LYC:ASX) Mount Weld rare earth mineralization. It also occurs in a few other parts of the world where the logistics may be very promising and where the grade and tonnage are excellent. However, processing will require an innovation. The secondary supergene rare earth minerals are submicron in size, so they resist physical concentration.

TCMR: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Mariano.

Anthony N. (Tony) Mariano, Ph.D., is a geological consultant on rare earths and other rare metals. For decades, he has been the “go-to” expert on the geology and mineralogy on rare earths, niobium-tantalum and other rare metals. Companies around the world depend on his professional opinions on the potential economic viability of deposits based on mineralogical examination, lab work and field visits.

Want to read more exclusive Critical Metals Report articles like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators and learn more about critical metals companies, visit our Critical Metals Report page.

DISCLOSURE:
1) Sally Lowder of The Critical Metals Report conducted this interview. She personally and/or her family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of The Critical Metals Report: Matamec Explorations Inc., Medallion Resources Ltd. and Tasman Metals Ltd. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for services.
3) Anthony Mariano: I personally and/or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I personally and/or my family am paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. Dr. Anthony Mariano was not paid by Streetwise for participating in this story.
Dr. Anthony Mariano has an “at request” consulting relationship with several of the listed companies.

Source: Sally Lowder of The Critical Metals Report  (12/13/11)

http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/11972

Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The Administration is currently reviewing H.R. 2090 and has no specific comments on it at this time, but I would like to take this opportunity to speak about the critical minerals that underpin the transition to a clean energy economy and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) ongoing work on this topic.

Earlier this year I visited the Mountain Pass Mine in southern California. I was impressed by the facility and its potential to provide a domestic source of rare earth metals. According to the owners, the mine will have a production capacity of about 19,000 tons of rare earths by end of 2012 and 40,000 tons by early 2014, using modern technologies at a globally competitive cost. That’s an important step in the right direction.

The issue of critical minerals is important and needs priority attention in the months and years ahead. The Department shares the goal of establishing a stable, sustainable and domestic supply of critical minerals, and we look forward to discussions with the Congress on ways to address this issue as we move forward.

GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY

The world is on the cusp of a clean energy revolution. Here in the United States, we are making historic investments in clean energy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the largest one-time investment in clean energy in our nation’s history – more than $90 billion. At DOE, we’re investing $35 billion in Recovery funds in electric vehicles; batteries and advanced energy storage; a smarter and more reliable electric grid; and wind and solar technologies, among many other areas.

We are aiming to double our renewable energy generation and manufacturing capacities from 2008 to 2012. We are working to deploy hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure to power them, weatherize a million homes, and help modernize our grid.

Other countries are also seizing this opportunity, and the market for clean energy technologies is growing rapidly all over the world. For example, over $50 billion was invested in China in clean energy last year. They are launching programs to deploy electric cars in over 25 major cities; connecting urban centers with high-speed rail; and building huge wind farms, ultrasupercritical advanced coal plants and ultra-high-voltage long-distance transmission lines. India has launched an ambitious National Solar Mission, with the goal of reaching 20 gigawatts of installed solar capacity by 2020. And Japan is introducing feed- in tariffs to support the scale-up of electricity from renewable sources.

In Europe, strong public policies are driving sustained investments in clean energy. Denmark earns more than $10 billion each year in the wind energy sector. Germany and Italy are the world’s top installers of solar photovoltaic panels, accounting for nearly three-quarters of a global market worth $82 billion in 2010. Around the world, investments in clean energy technologies are growing, helping create jobs, promote economic growth and fight climate change. These technologies will be a key part of the transition to a clean energy future and a pillar of global economic growth.

DOE STRATEGY

Last year, DOE released its first Critical Materials Strategy. The report found that four clean energy technologies wind turbines, electric vehicles, photovoltaic cells and fluorescent lighting use materials at risk of supply disruptions in the next five years. In the report, five rare earth elements (dysprosium, neodymium, terbium, europium and yttrium), as well as indium, were assessed as most critical in the short term. For this purpose, “criticality” was a measure that combined importance to the clean energy economy and the risk of supply disruption.

The 2010 Critical Materials Strategy highlighted three pillars to address the challenges associated with critical materials in the clean energy economy. First, substitutes must be developed. Research and entrepreneurial activity leading to material and technology substitutes improves flexibility to meet the material demands of the clean energy economy. Second, recycling, reuse and more efficient use can significantly lower global demand for newly extracted materials. Research into recycling processes coupled with well-designed policies will help make recycling economically viable over time. Finally, diversified global supply chains are essential.

To manage supply risk, multiple sources of material are required. This means encouraging other nations to expedite alternative supplies and exploring other potential sources of material in addition to facilitating environmentally sound extraction and processing here in the United States. With all three of these approaches, we must consider all stages of the supply chain: from environmentally-sound material extraction to purification and processing, the manufacture of chemicals and components, and ultimately end uses.

DOE’s research and development (R&D) with respect to critical materials is aligned to the three pillars of the DOE strategy: diversifying supply, developing substitutes and improving recycling. R&D is not the primary mechanism to encourage supply diversification. However, environmentally sound separation and processing innovations will require research and development. R&D plays a more central role in developing substitutes, which represents a large share of the current critical materials R&D portfolio. R&D challenges can also help to improve recycling and reuse. Across the three pillars, there is also the need for fundamental research – developing the modeling, measurement and characterization capability that is the basis for future innovations.

Systems level engineering approaches – which would help inform R&D priorities apply throughout the supply chain. As DOE is ramping up its work in this area, critical materials R&D is integrated with other research objectives that are focused on clean-energy technologies or fundamentals. DOE’s R&D plan is informing an interagency R&D roadmapping effort led by OSTP.

In the past year, the Department has increased its R&D investment in magnet, motor and generator substitutes, focused on reducing the rare earth usage in these applications. In September of this year, the Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) announced funding in a 36-month program for 14 early- stage technology alternatives that reduce or eliminate the dependence on rare earth materials by developing substitutes in two key areas: electric vehicle motors and wind generators.

DOE’s Vehicle Technologies and Wind Energy Programs have also issued relevant Funding Opportunity Announcements this year. In batteries and photovoltaic materials, DOE has historically supported broad technology portfolios including those that incorporate abundant materials. Investments in these core competency areas have continued. This diversity of materials makes over-reliance on particular materials less likely.

Moving forward, additional R&D opportunities are present in: separations and processing; substitution for critical materials in phosphors for lighting; and recycling. DOE is already taking the first steps in this direction. The FY 2012 DOE Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) solicitation has several topics relevant to Rare Earth Elements (REE) – specifically improving separation and processing. Anticipated R&D could support the first steps toward improving separation and processing technologies.

These activities build on DOE’s longstanding expertise on these topics. For example, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) has funded research at Ames Laboratory on the production of high quality rare earth magnets, magnetic technologies, synthesis technologies and superconductors for a number of years. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has funded several projects at Ames Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory addressing alternate magnet and motor designs.

R&D is also an excellent route toward developing the next generation of human capital and technical knowledge required for a sustainable rare earth supply chain. Developing expertise in these areas depends, in part, on private- and public-sector research support. The research programs supported by DOE and other organizations provide valuable opportunities for postdoctoral researchers and graduate students. They can also incentivize mid-career scientists in related disciplines to develop research programs which are relevant to critical materials. R&D funding not only supports innovation in clean energy technology, it also enables the development of the next generation of scientists and engineers.

DOE will issue its 2011 Critical Materials Strategy this month. In that report, DOE will update its analysis in light of rapidly- changing market conditions. DOE will also report on the results of our analysis on rare earth elements in petroleum refineries and other applications not addressed in last year’s report. The 2011 Critical Materials Strategy will include updated criticality assessments and market analyses to assist in addressing critical materials challenges. It will also include the R&D plan described above.

In support of this year’s analysis, DOE issued a Request for Information that focused on critical material content of certain technologies, supply chains, research, education and workforce training, emerging technologies, recycling opportunities, and mine permitting. We received nearly 500 pages of responses from 30 organizations, including manufacturers, miners, universities, and national laboratories. Many organizations shared proprietary data on material usage that will help us develop a clearer picture of current and future market conditions.

Managing supply chain risks is by no means simple. At DOE, we focus on the research and development angle. From our perspective, we must think broadly about addressing the supply chain in our R&D investments, from extraction of materials through product manufacture and eventual recycling. It is also important to think about multiple technology options, rather than picking winners and losers. We work with other Federal agencies to address other issues, such as trade, labor and workforce, and environmental impacts. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has been convening an interagency effort on critical materials and their supply chains.

The Administration is currently reviewing H.R. 2090, and the DOE has no comments on the specific content of this bill at this time. We share the goal of improving assessments and supporting a research agenda for materials critical to our future energy economy. We look forward to discussions with the Congress on ways to address any issues as we move forward.

CONCLUSION

One lesson we have learned through experience is that supply constraints aren’t static. As a society, we have dealt with these types of issues before, mainly through smart policy and R&D investments that reinforced efficient market mechanisms. We can and will do so again.

Strategies for addressing shortages of strategic resources are available, if we act wisely. Not every one of these strategies will work every time. But taken together, they offer a set of approaches we should consider, as appropriate, whenever potential shortages of natural resources loom on the horizon.

So in conclusion, there’s no reason to panic but every reason to be smart and serious as we plan for growing global demand for products that contain critical minerals. The United States intends to be a world leader in clean energy technologies. Toward that end, we are shaping the policies and approaches to help prevent disruptions in supply of the materials needed for those technologies. This will involve careful and collaborative policy development. We will rely on the creative genius and entrepreneurial ingenuity of the business community to meet an emerging market demand in a competitive fashion. With focused attention, working together we can meet these challenges.

Source: Copyright 2011
Congressional Quarterly, Inc. http://www.power-eng.com/news/2011/12/1557446953/research-and-strategic-priorties-for-energy-critical-elements-committee-house-science-space-and-t.html
All Rights Reserved.

November 16, 2011 – China and South Korea’s planned investment in offshore wind farms, amounting close to $25 billion in the near future, could also affect on rare earths production.

It was proposed that the organisation, along the lines of the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation, be set up within the next two years with a corpus of $100-million.

The Commission’s working group on mining has suggested, in a paper laying out policy contours for 2012/17, setting up an interministerial group with industry representation to identify countries for bilateral agreements for supply of strategic minerals.

The Indian government was also considering creating a ‘national stockpile of strategically critical input metals’, including cobalt, lithium, germanium, gallium, indium, niobium, tungsten, bismuth, selenium and beryllium, with an initial investment of around $200-million.

The Nonferrous Materials Technology Development Centre would be the nodal agency for creating and managing this stockpile.

Prompted by China’s complete global domination of the production and marketing of rare earths, the working group has for the first time clubbed strategic minerals and rare earths separately from other minerals and metals in order to evolve special policy thrusts for this segment.

The measures suggested by the group include instruction to the Geological Survey of India to undertake a national geochemical mapping, specifically to locate rare-earth resources within the country and incentivise private sector companies for by-product recoveries, since several strategic metals and rare earths were generated in the process of base metal mining and smelting.

India’s Department of Atomic Energy’s (DAE’s) exploration policy would also likely be modified for more efficient exploitation of beach-sand minerals. The DAE has a monopoly over beach-sand exploration because of its thorium content but this resulted in the exclusion of the exploration for potential other rare earths. India controlled 17% of global beach-sand mineral resources but production accounted for a mere 6% of global production.

The Planning Commission has favored setting up joint venture companies with local governments of coastal states like Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala to accelerate production of monazite.

The proposal for a nodal agency for rare earths exploration has been further bolstered by the fifth round of Indo-Japan strategic dialogue concluded last month, where both countries agreed for joint development of rare-earth resources. As a precursor to the cooperation, Japan has removed seven Indian companies from its Foreign End Users’ List which included Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL).

IREL operates four units, including the largest Orissa Sands Complex, in the eastern Indian province of Orissa and produces minerals like ilmenite, rutile, zircon, monazite, sillimanite and garnet. The Indo-Japan agreement would facilitate IREL’s sourcing of higher technology refining processes from Japan, officials said.

The induction of updated Japanese technology would enable IREL to increase production of rare earths with its existing reserves. This in turn would benefit Japan, the world’s largest importer, in increasing sourcing of rare earths from India, after a severe clampdown of rare earths exports by China.

Source: KOLKATA (miningweekly.com) – http://www.miningweekly.com/print-version/india-plans-nodal-agency-for-rare-earths-exploration-and-stockpile-2011-11-11
By: Ajoy K Das
November 11, 2011