From Minerals to Megawatts 2025

Short reserve-life combined with high production and refining concentration elevates risk exposure. Bulk system metals such as copper warrant special attention given their centrality across all three value chains. Additionally, for several specialty materials – graphite, REEs, germanium, lithium, magnesium, cobalt, nickel, manganese and tantalum – the top three mining and refining countries hold >75% of the market share. This heightens exposure to single-point disruptions such as operational outages or export controls, which can trigger global price or schedule shocks – even when aggregate supply appears adequate. Ownership patterns add another layer: cross- border corporate control can diversify financing and expertise, but it can also transmit policy risk across regions, thereby shifting strategic control of assets. For the minerals tracked in this report, a disruption at the largest producer creates a material risk of unmet global demand and lasting downstream impacts, making market concentration a key challenge to supply chain resilience. Upstream shocks, downstream consequences 3.2 Because processing is concentrated and qualification of new suppliers, materials or technologies takes time, local shocks upstream quickly become delivery risks downstream. Figure 12 maps the chain of disruption, outlining how issues in mining and refining can translate into component delays and end-product slippage. One example is GOES, essential for transformer cores, where limited global capacity – further squeezed by the Russia/Ukraine-related trade restrictions – has collided with strong demand and skilled-labour shortages. With GOES scarce, transformer prices have increased 50-80% over the last three years and lead times have stretched to about 18-36 months, forcing order reprioritization.40 Downstream, utilities and developers have delayed grid connections, pushing back EV-charger rollouts and data centre energization. Price dynamics matter. Spikes can unlock financing and accelerate projects; beyond a threshold, they trigger substitution and design pivots, increasing uncertainty for suppliers. In such periods, investors may pause or delay final investment decisions (FIDs) until technology choices and demand signals stabilize, prolonging the bottlenecks that higher prices were meant to relieve. Cascading risk impact from upstream production to downstream delivery FIGURE 12 Gallium and germanium export restrictions Grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES) bottleneck Copper production expansion delays– 90%+ gallium and germanium production concentrated in China – Export licence restrictions limited flows to the US, EU, others (2023); total ban to the US in 2024 Limited GOES production capacity, further strained by Russia/Ukraine war Permitting challenges, water constraints and community opposition in Peru/Chile; lack of committed projects to fulfil demandRefined copper output bottlenecks, exacerbated by smelter closures and poor refining marginsIncreasing costs and higher lead times disrupting sensor, chip, semiconductor and fibre optics supplySlower rollout of data centres, AI hardware and advanced EV electronics Lower availability and higher costs of GOES for transformer cores Higher lead times for transformers delaying grid build-out and maintenance, impacting EV and data centre growth Higher costs, longer lead times for cable and transformer producersDelays in new grid capacity impacting EV charging networks and data centre power supplyIron ore widely availablePotential cascading impact Mining and extraction Refining and processing Manufacturing End productsTrigger From Minerals to Megawatts: Building Resilience for EVs, Data Centres and Power Grids 24