Navigating technical and regulatory complexities in global mining

For over 60 years, our company has been deeply involved in the mining industry, spanning operations across the globe. At a roundtable discussion on energy, minerals and materials, during CERAWeek 2025, several key insights emerged from the group of key industry stakeholders, highlighting both challenges and opportunities within the mining sector. The event served as a good reminder that we do not often spend enough time explaining the challenges and opportunities associated with mineral extraction and processing that impact our supply chains.

One of the primary takeaways was the widespread lack of understanding about minerals and metals (M&M) projects. Many individuals with backgrounds in oil and gas or energy are interested in M&M butoften underestimate the complexity involved. Each mineral has a unique extraction and production process, influenced by factors such as geology, processing complexity, desired end-product, and regulatory requirements:

• The timeline from discovery to production for lithium is about four to seven years. Lithium extraction can vary significantly between hard rock mining and brine-based extraction, each requiring different refining and processing techniques, as well as whether the desired end-product is lithium carbonate or lithium hydroxide.

• The average lead time from discovery to production for nickel takes between about 12 and 20 years, depending on if you are considering nickel sulfide or laterite, respectively.

• Development of a copper mine often takes around 15 to 16 years, due to the extensive exploration, permitting, infrastructure development, and refining needed for large-scale production. Copper deposits often require deep underground or open-pit mining, followed by smelting and electro-refining, which add to the timeline.

• Rare earth elements (REEs) are difficult to extract and separate due to their geochemical properties.  The refinement process involves complex chemical separation techniques that add years to production timelines.

This diversity means that a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective, and strategies for securing critical minerals must be tailored to each resource. Policies, investments, and supply chain planning need to account for project-specific challenges, including resource availability, geopolitical risks, environmental and community considerations, and technological advancements.

Another significant topic was the challenge of community engagement and permitting. This issue is not unique to mining but is also prevalent in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and oil and gas projects.  Successful strategies prioritize early outreach, transparency, and active listening to build trust with local communities. However, engagement efforts must be flexible, as each community has unique concerns, priorities, and communication preferences. What works in one region may not be effective elsewhere, making it essential to tailor outreach approaches accordingly.

One approach that has proven successful in the past is engaging with communities through their religious institutions, which often serve as trusted gathering places where people discuss local issues, making them an effective channel for outreach, dialogue, and building relationships. While this approach has worked in some cases, the most effective engagement strategies depend on the specific needs and dynamics of each community, requiring adaptability.

Although mining provides significant societal benefits relative to its small terrestrial footprint, the industry has long struggled with effective communication. A turning point came in 2015 when Pope Francis issued a statement criticizing mining practices, prompting industry leaders to meet with Vatican representatives in a discussion led by Cardinal Peter Turkson. This “day of reflection” led to broader efforts to engage with faith-based organizations and foster mutual understanding. One key outcome was the industry’s decision to move away from the term “stakeholder” in recognition of Indigenous groups as landowners, allowing for more meaningful engagement.

One point of discussion was how government communication about minerals often uses broad, generalized language, creating the false impression that all minerals can be approached in the same way. In reality, different minerals have distinct supply chains, geopolitical risks, and industrial applications, requiring tailored policies rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

There is a lack of awareness about which minerals are critical and the role they play in the energy transition. Different regions supply different key minerals, each essential to both everyday consumer products and commercial applications. For example, lithium, primarily sourced from Australia, Chile, and Argentina, is a cornerstone of rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles (EVs) and consumer electronics. Cobalt, largely mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, enhances battery performance and stability, making it vital for energy storage solutions. Rare earth elements, predominantly supplied by China, are critical for wind turbines, electric motors, and the miniaturization of electronic devices. Rare earth elements first brought color to TV screens and now help our phones vibrate. Nickel, extracted in large quantities from Indonesia, Russia, and Canada, strengthens battery cathodes, improving their energy density and lifespan. Copper, abundant in Chile and Peru, is indispensable for electrical wiring, renewable energy infrastructure, and power grids, while silicon, essential for semiconductors and solar panels, is sourced from countries such as China, Russia, and the U.S.

Policy confusion also arises from inconsistent definitions of “critical minerals” and varying regulations across countries. Governments frequently update their lists of critical minerals based on shifting economic, geopolitical, and technological priorities, adding to uncertainty for industry stakeholders. One example is potash, often used as fertilizer, which was removed from the U.S. critical minerals list in 2022, but it remains on Canada’s list. The U.S. prioritizes lithium, nickel, and cobalt for battery production, while the European Union places a stronger emphasis on rare earth elements for wind energy technologies. These differing classifications lead to inconsistencies in trade policies, investment incentives, and supply chain strategies which challenge global companies as they plan long-term investments in mineral extraction, refining, and processing.

As demand for minerals grows, shortages are beginning to have noticeable impacts at the consumer level. Delays in car deliveries, driven by semiconductor shortages, and supply chain disruptions affecting personal electronics are making the importance of secure mineral supplies increasingly evident. These challenges highlight the critical need for resilient supply chains and clearer policies to ensure the availability of the minerals that underpin decarbonization, digitalization, and modern technology.