Tag: US

  • Unclear Whether Ukraine-US Rare Earth Saga is a Masterstroke or Colonial Appropriation

    Unclear Whether Ukraine-US Rare Earth Saga is a Masterstroke or Colonial Appropriation

    The ongoing saga between Ukraine and the United States over rare earth elements and critical minerals has sparked debate over whether this is a strategic masterstroke by Ukraine or a case of colonial-style resource appropriation by the US. Deep beneath eastern Ukraine lies a treasure trove of mineral wealth, including coal, iron ore, manganese, and other exotic minerals. These resources have long been coveted by global powers, from Tsar Alexander II in the 19th century to Adolf Hitler during World War II.

    Recently, former US President Donald Trump has turned his attention to Ukraine’s mineral riches, proposing a deal that would grant the US 50% of future revenues from these resources. This proposal, championed by Senator Lindsey Graham, emerged following a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last September. Zelenskyy reportedly offered the US a direct stake in Ukraine’s rare earth elements in exchange for continued military support.

    However, critics argue that the deal could be economically devastating for Ukraine, with some comparing it to the harsh reparations imposed on Germany after World War I. The feasibility of the proposal is also under scrutiny, as the geological and industrial realities of mining in Ukraine raise questions about its profitability. Additionally, the deal appears contradictory to Trump’s broader economic policies, which have focused on reducing reliance on foreign resources.

  • EU, US to align global minerals push against China’s supply grip

    EU, US to align global minerals push against China’s supply grip

    The US and the European Union are in talks to merge a core area of their efforts to engage suppliers of critical minerals in resource-rich nations, seeking to streamline their push against China’s dominance in materials key for future technologies.

    The aim is to combine the EU’s high-level policy approach with the US focus on specific projects, according to people familiar with the discussions.

    Specifically, the move would merge the EU’s critical raw materials club concept with the Biden administration’s flagship Minerals Security Partnership. It comes after the EU delayed plans to launch its own program in Dubai last year at the COP 28 climate summit, said the people, who asked not to be identified describing internal policy discussions.

    The new initiative, known broadly as a “minerals security partnership forum,” would align outreach efforts to buyers in developed countries and resource-rich nations to cooperate on projects and policies, said the people.

    As part of their broader economic security strategies, Washington and Brussels are seeking to counter China’s domination of the supply chain for so-called critical minerals, a broad term that includes inputs for electrical vehicles and other green energy technologies.

    Key to their combined efforts is working with resource-rich nations to develop standards on investment, trade, research and environmental issues that the US and EU see as an alternative to working with China.

    The allies, who’ve identified more than a dozen potential projects, have taken on a daunting challenge. The lengthy and expensive process of developing mining or refining projects means Beijing’s dominance will likely continue for decades. And US officials have conceded it’s impossible to fully replace China.

    US and EU officials aim to reach an agreement later this month and officially launch the project in March, according to one of the people. They will discuss the plan at the Munich Security Conference in Germany next week, said a separate person.

    The EU and the US are discussing how to optimize their efforts in fostering international cooperation on critical raw materials, Olof Gill, a spokesperson for the European Commission, said in a response to questions, adding that an important aspect of these talks is to find “the best synergies” between the EU’s critical raw materials club and other international activities.

    A US State Department official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters, said the two sides believe separate outreach plans to resource-rich nations duplicated efforts and risked creating confusion. They also want to ensure alignment on the broader goal of reducing the West’s dependence on China for the production and processing of many critical minerals like lithium, manganese and cobalt, and properly coordinate mobilizing state finances and private companies, the official said.

    The EU was already a part of the US-led minerals security partnership alongside Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the UK and others, which aims to funnel foreign investment into the green energy sector.

    The EU has also signed its own minerals pacts with several countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, which supplies about 70% of the world’s supply of cobalt, and Zambia.

    As well, Central Asian members of the C5+1 group — which includes Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan — have also expressed interest in the minerals security partnership, the US State Department official said.

    Separate EU-US talks on a bilateral critical minerals agreement remain stalled over labor rights and concerns over the feasibility of adopting a trade pact in an election year.

    US officials, who have already struck a bilateral deal with Japan, have wanted to kick-start new mining and processing projects by acting as a bridge between private companies seeking raw materials and developing nations that have relied in recent years mainly on China for resource investments.

  • US House approves Russian uranium import ban

    US House approves Russian uranium import ban

    The US House voted Monday to approve legislation that would ban the importation of enriched Russian uranium, sending the measure to the Senate where it has support but limited time for passage this year.

    The Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, which was approved by voice vote, would bar Russian uranium imports 90 days after enactment while allowing a temporary waiver until January 2028.

    Russia provided almost a quarter of the enriched uranium used to fuel America’s fleet of more than 90 commercial reactors, making it the No. 1 foreign supplier to the US last year, according to Energy Department data. Russia is also the only commercially available source of special highly enriched reactor fuel known as Haleu that is needed for a new breed of advanced nuclear reactors that are under development, according to Chris Gadomski, head nuclear analyst for BloombergNEF.

    Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and John Barrasso of Wyoming, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have both said they believe the measure will clear the Senate.

    “We need to ban Russia from exporting uranium to the United States,” Barrasso, the author of the Senate’s version of the measure, said in an interview last week. “There is no reason for us to have any of it.”

    Still, the bill faces a tight deadline for passage as Congress completes remaining business for the year, including assistance for Ukraine as it continues to combat the Russian invasion, before leaving for winter recess.

    BETTER PROSPECTS NEXT YEAR

    One option, according to a Senate aide, is attempting to move the House-passed measure by unanimous consent this month — a procedure that would require no objection from any of the Senate’s 100 members. That might prove difficult, however, and an alternative is moving the bill by traditional means next year, said the aide, who wasn’t authorized to speak about the legislation.

    “We think there is sufficient support for the bill in the Senate, but the hurdles have to do more with timing and process,” Timothy Fox, a vice president at research firm ClearView Energy Partners, said in an interview. “We think prospects for passage increase next year.”

    The House legislation, which expires at the end of 2040, does allow the Department of Energy to issue waivers authorizing the entire volume of Russian uranium imports allowed under export limits set in an anti-dumping agreement between the Department of Commerce and Russia through 2027. The Energy Department can issue the waivers if no alternative source of reactor fuel is found or if allowing enriched uranium imports from Russia is determined to be in the national interest, according to text of the bill.

    RECORD-HIGH COSTS POSSIBLE

    “I think they could make the determination there is no alternative,” said Jonathan Hinze, president of nuclear fuel market research firm UxC. “I’m not aware of much enriched uranium conversion to cover these significant quantities.”

    In addition, Hinze said there is a “real threat” that Russia retaliates with a unilateral export ban if the US bars imports, which could end deliveries of enriched uranium from the country immediately and render the waiver allowances moot.

    While the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated a ban on Russian uranium imports could increase nuclear-fuel costs in the US by 13%, Hinze said without waivers prices would likely be much higher, adding that a 20% jump from the current enrichment spot price of $152 per separative work unit to a record high $180 per SWU was “not out of the question.”

    Enriched uranium is measured in separative work units, or SWU, which account for the volume and enrichment density of the radioactive metal.

    “It could be a much more significant price impact at least in the near term,” Hinze said. “Markets tend to react violently to supply disruptions.”