Highlights

• A 2025 review reveals that rare earth supply chain vulnerability stems from concentrated processing capacity (70% in China), not mineral scarcity, making separation technology the critical geopolitical bottleneck.
• The study synthesizes four technology pathways: bioleaching, green solvents, membrane separation, and recycling, but warns that most remain difficult to scale commercially despite environmental promise.
• For Western nations, building new mines without midstream processing infrastructure, cleaner separation plants, and recycling systems will not solve rare earth dependence or national security risks.

---

Yoan Hristov, corresponding author, with Vessela Petrova and Yuli Radev of the University of Mining and Geology “St. Ivan Rilski” (opens in a new tab) (Sofia), has published a 2025 review that reads like a reality check for governments betting on “new mines” as the solution to rare earth vulnerability.

In Technologies for Mining and Processing of Rare Earth Elements, the team surveys modern extraction, processing, recycling, and substitution pathways—and arrives at a central conclusion lay readers should understand: rare earths are abundant in the ground, but the ability to turn ore into usable materials is technologically complex, capital intensive, and geopolitically concentrated—especially in China’s processing ecosystem.

Why This Matters Now

Rare earth elements (REEs) sit inside the engines of the energy transition and modern defense—EV motors, wind turbines, electronics, optics, communications equipment, and advanced weapons platforms. The authors stress that supply chain continuity depends less on discovery headlines and more on industrial-scale processing and separation, where cost, environmental constraints, and technical maturity separate “possible” from “bankable.”

Study Methods: What This Paper Actually Did

This is a systematic literature analysis (a structured review), not a new field experiment or a new deposit discovery. The authors:

• searched authoritative databases using keywords such as mining, rare earth elements, processing, bioleaching, and sustainability
• reviewed scientific papers, technical reports, industry publications, and official/regulatory documents
• compared technologies on viability, efficiency, and technological maturity
• synthesized trends and recommendations across mining, processing, recycling, and substitution

For investors and policymakers, that’s important: the paper’s value is in synthesis and framing, not in producing new production statistics or proprietary pilot results.

Key Findings: The “China Problem” Is Mostly a Processing Problem

The paper explicitly links geopolitical fragility to concentrated production and processing capacity, highlighting that China accounted for roughly ~70% of global REE production in 2024 (with the U.S. and Myanmar trailing) based on compiled secondary data. The underlying message is broader than a single chart:

1. Mining is the first link—processing is the gate.

REEs are chemically similar and rarely occur in clean, easy-to-separate forms. That means extraction and separation are labor-, reagent-, and energy-intensive—and regulated heavily due to waste streams that can include radioactive components (depending on deposit mineralogy).

2. Innovation is not optional; it is the only path to cost and footprint reduction.

The authors emphasize that traditional methods carry heavy environmental burdens, including soil and water impacts and challenging waste management. The paper argues that modern technologies are essential to optimize cost, efficiency, and sustainability—especially where permitting and social license are strict.

3. The future toolkit is hybrid: greener extraction + recycling + partial substitution.

The review highlights four major technology lanes:

• Bioleaching (microorganisms extracting REEs from ores or wastes): promising but often slower kinetics and scale-up challenges
• Green solvents (ionic liquids; deep eutectic solvents): potentially higher selectivity and lower volatility, but toxicity/stability and life-cycle questions remain.
• Membrane separation (supported liquid membranes, nanofiltration): emerging modular approaches are still maturing
• Urban mining/recycling (e-waste, magnet scrap): already viable in select industrial systems, but constrained by collection, sorting, and economics. Note that this source represents a small percentage of the total worldwide output thus far.

Implications: A Mine Without Midstream Is a National Security Mirage

The most actionable implication—especially for a lay reader—is this: rare earth risk is less about whether the world has REEs, and more about who can refine them to specification at scale. The review reinforces what supply chain practitioners already know: permitting new mines will not fix the choke point if separation plants, metallization, alloying capacity, and qualified downstream buyers remain missing or underbuilt.

For the West, that means industrial policy must focus on:

• processing and separation capacity (the “hard middle”)
• cleaner flowsheets and waste-handling capability
• recycling infrastructure (collection → sorting → recovery)
• standards and qualification pathways so buyers can adopt non-China products

Limitations and Controversies to Watch

• Not new primary data: This is a literature synthesis; real-world economics vary sharply by deposit, chemistry, scale, energy costs, and regulation.
• Secondary-source figures: Production shares and reserve figures are compiled from external sources; readers should treat them as indicative, not definitive.
• Tech optimism vs. scale reality: Several technologies highlighted (bioleaching, membranes, some solvent systems) remain difficult to deploy at commercial scale, and some “green” solvents still face toxicity or life-cycle concerns.
• Substitution is partial, not magic: The paper acknowledges substitution progress, but high-performance use cases often still require REEs.

Conclusion

Hristov, Petrova, and Radev deliver a practical message: the next decade’s winners won’t be those who merely “have” rare earth resources—they’ll be those who can process them cleanly, consistently, and competitively. If China’s advantage is concentrated anywhere, it is in the industrial mastery of separation and downstream integration. The West’s response, the authors suggest, must be technological, regulatory, and strategic—not rhetorical.

Citation: Hristov, Y., Petrova, V., & Radev, Y. (2025). Technologies for Mining and Processing of Rare Earth Elements. Annual of the University of Mining and Geology (opens in a new tab) “St. Ivan Rilski”, Vol. 68/2025, pp. 330–335

©!-- /wp:paragraph -->