Highlights

• Hallgarten's analysis argues that geopolitical conflict primarily benefits military metals like tungsten, tin, and antimony used in weapons systems, rather than the broader commodity complex or energy-transition metals.
• The report omits the Great Powers Era 2.0 thesis that China is weaponizing its control over critical mineral processing—especially heavy rare earth separation and tungsten refining—as geopolitical leverage ahead of the November 2026 US-China trade deadline.
• For investors, distinguishing genuine supply constraints from narrative-driven speculation is crucial, as China controls 80-83% of tungsten supply and dominates rare earth midstream processing bottlenecks that define strategic leverage.

---

Christopher Ecclestone of Hallgarten + Company, writing in the firm’s Monthly Resources Review: Metals in a Time of War, examines how geopolitical tensions, defense production cycles, and investor sentiment are reshaping global metals markets. The report combines commodity price analysis, geopolitical commentary, and portfolio strategy to evaluate which minerals may benefit from a wartime environment and which may not. Ecclestone argues that while conflict narratives often spark broad commodity speculation, the real beneficiaries are typically narrower “military metals”—including tungsten, tin, and antimony—used directly in weapons systems.

In parallel, the author warns that some segments of the critical-minerals and energy-transition narrative—including parts of the rare earth value chain—may be entering a phase of investor over-enthusiasm or potential oversupply. The report ultimately blends macroeconomic interpretation with specific positioning within Hallgarten’s model resources portfolio.  A key omission in the Hallgarten analysis is the Rare Earth Exchanges “Great Powers Era 2.0” thesis, which argues that major powers are increasingly weaponizing critical mineral supply chains—especially processing and refining chokepoints—for geopolitical leverage.

With China dominating heavy rare earth separation and magnet production, and the November 10, 2026 U.S.–China trade reprieve deadline approaching, Beijing could use its midstream control to pressure Western defense and energy systems. Could the U.S. use as a leveraged cornered Iranian oil production control?

Analytical Framework and Method

The Hallgarten report functions primarily as an investment strategy review rather than a formal academic study. This catches the interest of Rare Earth Exchanges™, given the substantial investor community.  Its methodology combines commodity price tracking, geopolitical interpretation, and portfolio performance analysis.

The analyst evaluates several macro factors shaping metals markets, including:

• geopolitical conflict and military production demand
• supply disruptions affecting strategic minerals
• investor sentiment toward energy-transition metals
• valuation levels across mining equities

These macro signals are then translated into portfolio positioning decisions, including long and short recommendations across a wide range of mining companies and commodity-linked assets. The report includes extensive portfolio tables showing share price performance over the previous 12 months alongside analyst target prices and position ratings for dozens of resource equities.

Key Insight: Not All Metals Benefit from War

A central argument of the report is that geopolitical conflict does not boost all commodity markets equally.

Instead, metals directly tied to weapons production may see the most immediate demand pressure. Tungsten provides a clear example. According to estimates cited in the report, the M30A1 cluster munition used by the United States contains roughly 180,000 tungsten pellets—about 50 kilograms of tungsten per warhead. With approximately 16,000 units produced annually, tungsten demand from that single weapons system alone could reach around 800 tonnes per year, with potential for significantly higher demand if production scales up.

Tin and antimony markets are also described as “strained,” reflecting supply disruptions combined with military and industrial demand. In contrast, metals primarily linked to consumer demand or energy-transition manufacturing—such as lithium, copper, and parts of the rare earth sector—may experience weaker short-term momentum if geopolitical instability slows industrial investment or consumer demand.

Portfolio Positioning and Market Signals

Reflecting theseviews, Hallgarten adjusted its model resources portfolio duringFebruary.

The firm exited positions in the Aberdeen Physical Palladium ETF (PALL (opens in a new tab)) and Neo Performance Materials (opens in a new tab), citing strong price gains and concerns that parts of the rare earth midstream sector may have become overheated.

At the same time, the report highlights new exposure to Queens Road Capital (opens in a new tab), a mining-focused financing firm that provides convertible debt financing to resource companies. The company’s strategy emphasizes long-term exposure to development-stage projects in politically stable jurisdictions. The portfolio tables also reveal striking performance across many mining equities, with several uranium, gold, and tungsten-related companies posting triple-digit gains over the past year.

Industry Critique and Controversial Observations

Beyond market analysis, Ecclestone also offers pointed criticism of promotional practices within the mining sector. The report suggests that some exploration companies inflate drilling metrics or exploit geopolitical narratives to attract investor capital. This would not be unheard of behavior.

The analyst also questions whether Western government efforts to accelerate domestic critical-minerals supply chains will translate into meaningful production growth in the near term. Again, Rare Earth Exchanges' analyses raise serious questions about Western narratives in the short run, at least.

Limitations of the Analysis

As an investment commentary rather than a peer-reviewed economic study, the report relies heavily on analyst judgment and market interpretation. Forecasts regarding geopolitical conflict, commodity demand, and investor behavior are inherently uncertain. Additionally, many mining equities remain highly speculative, meaning that portfolio performance can diverge significantly from macro commodity trends.

Notable Omissions

Multiple notable omissions in the Hallgarten analysis caught us by surprise. Such as the strategic dimension highlighted in the Rare Earth Exchanges' “Great Powers Era 2.0” thesis: the accelerating competition among major powers, especially the USA and China, but also Europe, Japan, Russia, etc., to race for rare earth and critical minerals, and the subsequent weaponization of supply chains for geopolitical leverage.

As the global order shifts from post-World War 2 U.S.-centered globalization toward strategic blocs, critical mineral chokepoints—particularly in processing and refining—are becoming instruments of statecraft. Rare earth elements represent one of the clearest examples. China still dominates separation and magnet production and maintains disproportionate control over heavy rare earth elements (HREEs) such as dysprosium, terbium, and yttrium—materials essential for high-performance defense magnets, jet engines, and precision-guided systems. Clearly, the stuff of wartime.  

And Western supply chains remain structurally thin in these elements, with only a handful of credible non-Chinese projects moving slowly toward production. At the same time, a key geopolitical clock is ticking: the November 10, 2026, expiration of the temporary reprieve in U.S.–China trade and export control tensions, which could mark the end of a fragile détente in critical minerals trade.

So if restrictions tighten, Beijing could leverage its dominant midstream position in rare earth separation and magnet manufacturing to exert pressure on Western defense and energy systems. In fact, in our Great Powers Era 2.0 thesis, at least in part, the Iran war led by Israel and the USA is in part to corner substantial oil reserves for imminent negotiations with China.  Sound outlandish? We are not so sure. 

And then there is the key metal tungsten mentioned. China maintains overwhelming dominance in the global tungsten market, controlling roughly 80–83% of global supply across both mining and processing as of early 2026. This control extends beyond raw ore production to the refining and downstream processing stages, giving Beijing powerful leverage over the entire tungsten supply chain. In February 2025, China tightened export controls by requiring permits for tungsten shipments, reducing export volumes and contributing to rising global prices.  Why was this not mentioned?

Because tungsten is a critical material for defense systems, electronics, and industrial tooling, this concentration has raised national security concerns in the United States and other Western countries. Efforts to diversify supply are emerging, including the restart of South Korea’s Sangdong tungsten mine and new projects in Australia and elsewhere, but meaningful alternatives to Chinese supply remain limited in the near term.

For investors and policymakers alike, the implication is clear: the emerging era of resource geopolitics will not be defined solely by commodity prices or exploration success, but by who controls the processing bottlenecks where strategic leverage truly resides.

Implications for Investors and the Critical Minerals Supply Chain

The report underscores a broader lesson for investors and policymakers alike: geopolitical shocks tend to benefit specific materials tied to defense manufacturing, not the entire commodity complex. Strategic metals such as tungsten, antimony, and tin may experience tighter supply conditions during periods of military escalation, while other critical minerals could face cycles of hype, capital inflows, and eventual oversupply.   The insertion of the Rare Earth Exchanges Great Powers Era 2.0 thesis offers an additional perspective to the monthly report authored by Christopher Ecclestone.

For investors navigating the volatile critical-minerals landscape, the key challenge remains distinguishing genuine structural supply constraints from narrative-driven market speculation. The REEx Insights rankings offer a supply chain point of view, updated quarterly.

Citation: Ecclestone, Christopher. Monthly Resources Review: Metals in a Time of War – Performance Review February 2026 (opens in a new tab). Hallgarten + Company, March 9, 2026.