The global race for industrial metals and new energy minerals

28.03.2026

Global markets are witnessing a powerful resurgence in the prices of minerals and industrial metals, with several key materials recording triple-digit annual gains and others entering the early stages of a sustained upward trajectory. Prices for lithium, cobalt and rhodium have surged by over 100 percent, 60 percent and 97 percent, respectively, over the past year, while indium, aluminum and tin have risen by more than 63 percent, 25 percent and 23 percent in the same time period. Bitumen, palladium and other industrial metals are also experiencing intensifying price momentum and are widely expected to reach new highs over the coming year.

This surge is not the product of a single factor, but rather the convergence of multiple structural forces: accelerating worldwide electrification, energy transition policies, constrained mining supply, geopolitical risk, capital underinvestment and a renewed wave of infrastructure spending – particularly in China. Together, these developments are reinforcing one another, creating a powerful, bullish environment across the minerals sector.

Intensifying state competition for global resources

Recent rapid increases in critical mineral and base metal prices are driven by geopolitical strategy and resource security concerns rather than by market fundamentals alone. With minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earth elements and platinum-group metals becoming indispensable to electrification and defense technologies, governments − no matter whether east, west, north or Global South − are reassessing how territorial control and geopolitical influence factor into long-term supply security.

Markets are no longer pricing minerals solely on production costs and demand forecasts, but also on jurisdictional risk and strategic alignment. A notable reference point in this evolving landscape has been United States President Donald Trump’s proposal to acquire Greenland from Denmark.

While unprecedented in modern diplomatic practice, the idea is rooted in clear strategic logic: Greenland is rich in undeveloped critical minerals, including rare earths, graphite, nickel, cobalt and uranium, and occupies a commanding geostrategic position in the Arctic. It is a strategy that foreshadows a more explicit linkage between expanding territorial largesse and mineral security. The significance lies less in its immediate feasibility and more in what it signals about shifting norms.

Resource scarcity and strategic competition have begun to erode the sanctity of long-standing principles surrounding sovereignty and territorial integrity. President Trump’s Greenland proposal can therefore be seen not as an anomaly, but as an early signal of a new geopolitical reality.

As decarbonization accelerates and demand for minerals grows, control over resource-rich territories will increasingly shape both international relations and commodity markets. This strategic competition is likely to remain a powerful force supporting elevated mineral prices for years to come.

The controversies surrounding Greenland are only one part of the intensifying competition among the U.S., China and Russia in the northern polar regions. Climate change is reducing Arctic ice coverage, improving access to mineral deposits and opening new shipping routes across the entirety of the North Pole.

Rhetorical escalation – even if politically performative – feeds market perceptions that control over sparsely populated, resource-rich territories is becoming a legitimate strategic objective.

This perception has broader consequences. It reinforces the idea that regions with small populations or limited defensive capabilities may face increasing external pressure, including through economic leverage or security arrangements.

For mineral markets, the implication is clear: Geopolitics is now a structural component of pricing. Strategic rivalry and contested access to resource-rich territories introduce long-term uncertainty and embed a persistent risk premium into critical minerals supply chains. References – whether rhetorical or real – to Greenland and similar territories serve as powerful symbols of a new era, one in which mineral security and geopolitical power are increasingly inseparable, supporting elevated prices well into the future.

Electrification, energy storage and industrial expansion

The global transition away from fossil fuels toward electrification and renewable energy is reshaping mineral demand. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese and graphite – core components of lithium-ion batteries – are now strategic commodities rather than niche inputs.

Electric vehicles (EVs), grid-scale energy storage systems and consumer electronics are all driving exponential growth in battery demand. EV penetration alone is expanding rapidly as governments impose stricter emissions standards and provide subsidies for clean transport. Each EV requires significantly more mineral content than an internal combustion engine vehicle, particularly lithium and nickel.

Lithium’s price surge of over 100 percent reflects this structural shift. Due to the increasing need for batteries, demand for additional resources is growing far faster than historical mining expansion rates.

The electrification of everything – from transportation to manufacturing – means that demand for industrial metals is now correlated with digital growth and energy infrastructure expansion.

Beyond EVs, the rapid expansion of power infrastructure and data centers is exerting additional pressure on industrial metals markets. Data centers, especially those supporting artificial intelligence, cloud computing and digital services, are extremely energy-intensive. They require substantial quantities of copper, aluminum, nickel, tin and zinc for wiring, cooling systems, power management and backup storage.

The electrification of everything, from transportation to manufacturing, means that demand for industrial metals now depends on digital growth and energy infrastructure expansion.

However, volatility should still be expected. Policy shifts, technological substitution and economic slowdowns could trigger periodic corrections in short-term demand and prices for critical minerals and industrial metals. Nonetheless, the structural drivers supporting long-term higher prices appear firmly in place.

China’s central role in surging prices

China has already demonstrated the effectiveness of such approaches through its global resource strategy, securing access to lithium, cobalt and nickel via infrastructure development and state-backed corporate investment.

Western governments, increasingly concerned about dependency on China-dominated supply chains, are now responding with industrial policy, export controls and strategic stockpiling. This response, however, is occurring in a fragmented and politically charged environment.

In the face of this splintering, China remains the single most important actor in global minerals markets, accounting for a dominant share of consumption across lithium, nickel, zinc, tin, cobalt and rare metals such as indium and rhodium. The recent spike in prices has been supported by renewed Chinese demand, following periods of subdued industrial activity.

Ambitious government-led investment programs in power grids, renewable energy, EV infrastructure and data centers have significantly boosted demand for battery and industrial metals in China. These investments are not cyclical stimulus measures but part of a long-term strategic plan to dominate clean energy supply chains and digital infrastructure.

A critical catalyst for lithium and battery metals has been Beijing’s announcement of increased spending on power storage and its commitment to doubling EV charging capacity to 180 gigawatts by 2027. This expansion supports not only EV adoption but also lithium-rich energy storage systems that stabilize power grids increasingly reliant on intermittent renewable sources such as solar and wind.

Alongside EVs, grid-scale battery storage is emerging as a second major pillar of lithium demand. Unlike passenger vehicles, these systems are often deployed at a massive scale, further amplifying raw material requirements.

Structural supply tightness across markets

While demand for minerals has accelerated sharply, supply has struggled to keep pace. Mining is capital-intensive and subject to long development timelines. New mines often take seven to 15 years from discovery to production, making rapid supply responses virtually impossible.

Years of underinvestment – particularly during periods of low commodity prices – have left the industry ill-prepared for the current surge. This is especially true for lithium, cobalt and nickel, where many projects were delayed or cancelled during earlier downturns.

Recent actions by Chinese authorities have significantly tightened lithium availability. The cancellation of 27 mining permits in the lithium hub of Jiangxi, combined with the earlier suspension of activity at CATL’s Jianxiawo lithium mine, has reduced domestic supply at a critical moment.

These regulatory measures aimed at environmental compliance and resource consolidation have had immediate global repercussions. China is not only a major lithium consumer but also a key processor and exporter, meaning domestic supply disruptions quickly lead to international price spikes. The resulting supply restrictions contributed directly to the recent sharp rise in global lithium prices, further tightening market conditions.

In this environment, critical minerals and industrial metals are no longer merely inputs to industrial production; they are strategic resources at the heart of the global energy and digital transition. Their price dynamics are likely to remain a defining feature of global markets in the years ahead.

Scenarios

Most likely: Strategic competition remains strong but managed

Strategic diversification rather than outright confrontation is likely to persist. Major economies such as the U.S., China, the European Union and key Asian industrial states will continue to recognize the vulnerability of concentrated supply chains, particularly for lithium, cobalt, graphite and rare platinum-group metals like rhodium.

They will invest heavily in domestic mining where feasible, recycling capacity and substitution technologies. This will proceed with bilateral or mini-lateral agreements with resource-rich countries in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia.

China will retain a dominant role in processing and refining for lithium, cobalt, graphite and indium, but its leverage is gradually diluted as alternative processing hubs emerge in Australia, Canada, the EU and parts of Southeast Asia.

Industrial metals such as zinc, tin and nickel will see similar patterns, with Indonesia’s nickel policies continuing to shape global markets, while producer countries increasingly seek downstream value capture. Market volatility will remain elevated, but outright supply disruptions are episodic rather than systemic, and multilateral institutions will play a modest stabilizing role.

Less likely: Geopolitical and mineral competition deepens

As geopolitical fragmentation deepens, mineral competition becomes more explicitly weaponized. State-backed resource nationalism increases, as do export controls and investment screening, particularly for minerals tightly linked to industries such as batteries, semiconductors and defense systems.

Lithium and graphite markets break into competing blocs, while cobalt supply becomes more politically sensitive due to its concentration in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is subject to external influence. Rhodium and indium, already thinly traded and geographically concentrated, will experience sharp price spikes as access becomes more politicized.

Industrial metals such as nickel and tin are drawn more directly into geopolitical disputes, with producer alliances and coordinated supply restrictions emerging. This fuels higher costs, reduced efficiencies and slower energy transition progress, especially in import-dependent economies, while producer states gain short-term leverage but face longer-term demand uncertainty.

Least likely: Cooperation significantly outweighs competition

Driven by the recognition that unchecked rivalry threatens global economic stability and climate objectives, governments and major firms will prioritize shared standards and joint investment frameworks. These will include international stockpiling arrangements and coordinated recycling systems.

Technology breakthroughs will reduce the demand for cobalt, rhodium and indium, easing pressure on supply, while substitution and efficiency gains will moderate demand growth for zinc, tin and nickel.

Resource-rich countries will benefit from stable investment and technology transfer rather than zero-sum competition, while global markets will become more resilient to shocks.

Although geopolitical tensions will not disappear, critical minerals will be largely treated as shared strategic challenges rather than tools of coercion, making this scenario attractive but difficult to sustain in a fragmented international system.

This report was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/global-race-metals-minerals/