Highlights
- Processing critical minerals, not mining, may define 21st-century economic wealth, similar to oil refining’s historical impact.
- Geopolitical complexities, including China’s dominance and Western challenges, significantly complicate mineral processing strategies.
- Technological disruptions and environmental regulations could dramatically reshape the future of critical minerals infrastructure.
Venkat Pacha’s (opens in a new tab) article in Fortune (opens in a new tab) argues that critical minerals processing—not mining—will be the defining wealth generator of the 21st century, comparable to how oil refining and infrastructure fueled John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil empire. While this perspective is broadly accurate in highlighting the importance of refining, supply chain control, and infrastructure in mineral processing, the argument contains speculative claims and lacks scrutiny of key industry challenges that investors should carefully consider.
Where the Author Makes Sense
One of the strongest points in the article according to the principal in the critical mineral investment firm, is its identification of processing as the true bottleneck in the supply chain. While raw material availability is often emphasized in discussions on critical minerals, refining, and processing are the real constraints. China’s dominance in rare earths refining, despite holding only 36% of global reserves, exemplifies this imbalance.
The analogy to Rockefeller’s control over oil pipelines and refining is also valid. Companies that establish the logistical and processing backbone for critical minerals—such as refining hubs, recycling networks, and strategic transport—will hold pricing power and market leverage.
The article correctly points out that the U.S. and its allies lag significantly behind China in refining capabilities. While lithium, nickel, and rare earths are available in Western deposits, most are still shipped to China for processing due to a lack of domestic refining capacity, creating a major supply chain vulnerability. Furthermore, the claim that the industry will consolidate similarly to oil in the late 19th century is reasonable. Large industrial players with control over minerals logistics and refining could acquire smaller competitors, creating a market structure resembling that of oil, steel, and railroads in the past.
An Oversimplification
However, the article oversimplifies the path to a new “Rockefeller moment” by assuming that processing dominance will naturally lead to market consolidation. Unlike oil, which had relatively predictable refining economics, mineral processing is highly dependent on commodity cycles, technological advancements, and government policies. The assumption that a few companies will suddenly take control of the industry ignores the role of government interventions, national security policies, and emerging technologies such as direct lithium extraction and alternative battery chemistries. The U.S. and its allies are actively preventing monopolization by creating subsidies, strategic partnerships, and localized refining projects under government-backed initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act. Unlike Rockefeller’s era, where private monopolies could form without significant interference, modern governments are actively shaping these markets.
Don’t Underestimate China
Another issue with the article is its underestimation of China’s influence. While it acknowledges China’s refining dominance, it glosses over the complexity of breaking that grip. Unlike the largely free-market dynamics of the 1800s oil industry, China’s state-backed entities subsidize critical mineral processing, making it extremely difficult for private companies in the West to compete purely on market terms. The assumption that Western players will seamlessly take over processing infrastructure ignores the likelihood of aggressive countermeasures from China, including export restrictions, price undercutting, or strategic partnerships with emerging markets to retain dominance. Any attempt at supply chain independence will face significant geopolitical headwinds.
Environmental Crises Are Real
The article also fails to address environmental constraints, which are a major barrier to setting up refining operations in the U.S. and Europe. Unlike China, where processing occurs with looser environmental restrictions, permitting a new refining plant in Western nations can take years due to stringent regulations on waste management and emissions. The notion that a “waste-to-wealth” model—such as extracting rare earths from tailings or scaling battery recycling—will drive the next industrial empire is forward-looking but remains largely unproven at scale. These technologies require high capital investment and have uncertain economics, making their feasibility for mass adoption questionable in the near term.
Linear Curve for Demand?
Another critical flaw in the article is its assumption that demand for lithium, nickel, and rare earths will continue in a straight-line trajectory. This perspective ignores potential breakthroughs in alternative technologies that could reduce reliance on these minerals. Sodium-ion batteries are emerging as a lower-cost alternative to lithium for certain applications, while solid-state batteries and new chemistries could reduce the need for rare earths and nickel in the long term. Additionally, the electric vehicle sector—the primary driver of demand for critical minerals—faces market saturation risks, policy shifts, and advancements in battery recycling that could diminish the need for virgin materials.
From an investment standpoint, the article presents an incomplete picture by not identifying which companies are actually positioned to control mineral processing infrastructure. While it makes a strong case for the importance of refining, it fails to highlight key players leading the charge. Investors should look at firms like MP Materials (MP), Energy Fuels (UUUU), and Lynas Rare Earths (LYC) in rare earth processing, or Albemarle (ALB) and SQM (SQM) in lithium refining. It is also unclear whether national policies will allow private-sector monopolies to form or if government-backed partnerships will dominate. If public-private partnerships take precedence, the analogy to Standard Oil’s consolidation may not hold.
Don’t Forget—It’s An Economic War
A major unanswered question is how China will react to Western efforts to bypass its refining dominance. The article does not consider potential Chinese countermeasures such as export restrictions, aggressive pricing strategies, or strategic deals with developing nations to maintain control over supply chains. Additionally, the potential for technological disruptions in mineral processing remains largely unexplored. If alternative battery chemistries significantly reduce reliance on lithium or rare earths, investments in processing infrastructure could lose value before they ever reach dominance.
Final Thoughts
While Pacha’s article correctly identifies the economic potential in controlling critical minerals refining and supply chains, it oversimplifies historical comparisons and underestimates geopolitical and technological complexities. Unlike Rockefeller’s time, mineral processing today is deeply intertwined with government intervention, environmental regulations, and rapidly evolving technological alternatives. While there is certainly an opportunity for companies that build mineral processing infrastructure, investors should be cautious in assuming that a single dominant player will emerge. Instead, the future of mineral processing will likely be shaped by a mix of private industry, government policies, and international rivalries, making it a highly complex but lucrative sector to watch.
Leave a Reply