Although the terms 'strategic' and 'critical' are becoming increasingly prevalent in the conversations of miners, geologists and politicians, these terms are still loosely defined. There is no commonly accepted list of minerals that are considered strategic, no list of those considered critical, and no clear answer as to whether these two terms even refer to different lists. With no definition supplied by science or classifications on the London Metal Exchange, inclusion in this exclusive and often elusive list is determined by two factors: the importance of the mineral for particular industries and the susceptibility of supplies of these minerals to disruptions. The list of 'critical raw materials for the European Union', released in July last year by the European Commission for Enterprise and Industry, included 14 minerals or mineral groups: antimony, beryllium, cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite, indium, magnesium, niobium, platinum group metals, rare earth elements, tantalum and tungsten. The parliamentary enquiry into 'strategically important metals' in the UK assumes that the British list corresponds closely to the metals in the European Union's list. The United States list, put together amid calls for a federal stockpile of said metals and minerals, includes molybdenum, vanadium, manganese, lithium, niobium, cobalt, tantalum, tungsten and indium.
展开▼
