Energy, Minerals, Geopolitics and the Sea Problem: Part 2

S. A. Shelley: In the last blog we considered the global benefits of a North American Energy Alliance (NAEA). (See Energy, Minerals, Geopolitics and the Sea Problem: Part 1, as well as other OWOE blogs advocating for the NAEA). In this blog, we examine critical minerals that are essential to electric vehicle batteries (lithium, nickel, cobalt), renewable energy tech (rare earths, graphite), and defense and aerospace (platinum metals). Looking at mineral reserves (wealth), the whole of North American holds a significant share of the world’s critical mineral reserves. According to the International Energy Agency (Regional snapshots – Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025) North America’s share of global reserves for key critical minerals is shown in the following charts.

Fig. 1 – Total Known Reserves (as proportion of Global reserves)

Fig. 2 – Total Known Reserves for North America

In Fig. 1, Russia is not included as current, objective data for Russia is difficult to find. Reserves for Antarctica, Greenland, the rest of Asia and other peripheral areas are also not included.

Fig. 2 indicates North America only, and while it doesn’t look good, one needs to remember that the total population of North America is around 10% of global population, so in terms or population proportions, there are enough critical minerals in North America to keep industry supplied and the economies running well. Also, I’m not sure if the data for Fig. 2 includes the Arctic regions, which are hypothesized to have a huge abundance of mineral wealth of all kinds (Cold Rush: Resource Competition and Environmental Challenges in the Arctic). Even so, North America is already working to reduce reliance on imports from China by:

Investing in domestic mining and processing
Strengthening Canada – U.S. mineral supply chains
Exploring joint ventures under the USMCA framework

There is a nucleus for a North American Minerals Alliance.

Another supposition. Suppose that we add Europe and Australia to North America (Fig. 3). The supply looks much better now, and it becomes apparent that Australia is a mineral powerhouse. Hence the Chinese interest in Australia’s affairs. Nevertheless, if we include all three regions into a minerals alliance then, again, there should be enough minerals to keep industry supplied across all three regions. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan would also benefit from this stable supply of minerals.

Fig. 3 – Total Known Reserves for North America, Europe and Australia

Again, other analysts, including government ministers in Canada have taken note of this potential. Tim Hodgson said, “Canada is standing at a unique moment in its history that is defined by ‘instability’ and that supply chains are ‘being ripped apart.'” (Tim Hodgson says world wants Canada’s critical minerals) But then again, Canadians have become inured to Federal Liberal pronouncements. Kristen Tange commented on that article:

That’s the liberal government sleeping through another opportunity to get in on what the world needs. I predict nothing but a bunch of taxpayer money will be wasted on some gov’t sponsored boondoggle project that goes nowhere. Sorry for being cynical but the Libs have earned it.

A North American Minerals Alliance (NAMA) would greatly benefit North America and the rest of the free world. North America would get money for fuels that would otherwise go to malevolent regimes, and trade amongst the free world alliance would keep high technology, green technology and their economies supplied with those critical minerals, free of any malevolent state whims.

Still waiting for someone to Shut Down Line 5!