Updating Australia’s Critical Minerals List: issues paper

Rio Tinto Limited
Level 43, 120 Collins Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000
Australia
Tel: + +61 3 9283 3333

Australian Government Department of
Industry, Science and Resources

Submission via the Department’s Consultation Hub

17 August 2023

Re: Critical Minerals List issues paper

Rio Tinto welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Department of Industry, Science and
Resources on the update to Australia’s Critical Minerals List. This submission builds on our February
2023 submission to the Government’s Critical Minerals Strategy.

As the world’s second largest global diversified mining company and a very significant producer of minerals and metals in Australia and across the globe, Rio Tinto is uniquely positioned to continue producing materials essential for the clean energy transition.

We are experienced in producing numerous minerals and metals that are listed in Australia’s current
Critical Minerals List, including cobalt, lithium, platinum-group elements, rare-earth elements, rhenium and scandium, as well as various other minerals and metals on other country critical minerals and materials lists, including aluminium, copper and titanium and key materials for semiconductors such as gallium, indium and tellurium.

Rio Tinto supports an update to Australia’s list. Given Australia’s broad resource endowment and partner country interests in a wide variety of critical minerals, Rio Tinto recommends a widening of the definition of critical minerals – for example, to include aluminium (including alumina and bauxite) and copper, which are on critical minerals/materials lists of various partner countries – especially given the critical role they will play in the energy transition and the likelihood of their increasing criticality based on projected global demand. This would better capture the strategic and economic opportunities for Australia in light of the broader objectives of Australia becoming a clean energy superpower and contributing to a strong future for the resources sector.

Our responses to the Paper’s questions are set out below. Rio Tinto looks forward to engaging further with the Department on the content of the Paper and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this submission with you further. In the interim, please direct any queries to Jaeson Wells
(jaeson.wells@riotinto.com).

Yours sincerely

Kellie Parker Sinead Kaufman

Chief Executive Australia Chief Executive, Minerals
Responses to Issues Paper Questions

1. Is the current set of criteria still fit for purpose? The Critical Minerals List currently includes minerals:
• essential to modern technologies, economies and national security
• whose supply chains are vulnerable to disruption
• that our strategic partners need; and
• for which Australia has potential economic geological resources.

Rio Tinto believes the current set of criteria is fit for purpose. The criteria should be interpreted broadly to provide flexibility and anticipate technological and geopolitical changes, especially as the world moves to a low-carbon economy.

2. For minerals that are currently on the list, or minerals that should be considered for addition to or removal from the list: a. Which technologies does the mineral feed?
b. What evidence is there of supply chain disruption relating to those minerals?
c. What market, financing, technical or other barriers affect these supply chains?
d. Are the barriers or supply chain disruption risks more acute in certain applications or levels of mineral grade or purity than others?
Rio Tinto recommends that the Government further investigate different clean energy minerals and metals, as well as the position on the value chain, that could provide the most value to Australia, including economic, social, and strategic partnership value. The clean energy sector is likely to only become more competitive, and demand will increase for stewardship, certification and green premiums around the sourcing and production of materials. Early movers with strong ESG credentials will be best placed to succeed in developing their critical mineral resources but this will equally apply to existing resources, minerals and metals needed for the energy transition.

In particular, we recommend adding minerals and metals such as aluminium (including bauxite and alumina) to Australia’s list, noting Australia is one of the very few places that is home to a fully integrated bauxite to aluminium value chain in one jurisdiction – Queensland. a. Aluminium is lightweight and infinitely recyclable. It is found in everything from jet engines to electric vehicles to mobile phones. Along with copper, aluminium will be one of the most necessary materials for the global transition to a low-carbon economy. b. While demand for aluminium has been growing steadily, we are seeing a growing concentration of production, which could eventually lead to supply chain disruptions. Any strategy should be positioned to anticipate such disruptions rather than simply react once they occur. c. The situation of production growth in one part of the world as decline is seen in other parts suggests a need to look at issues surrounding competitiveness, rather than simply at barriers. At the same time, major economies and customers are seeking diversified, high-quality and low-carbon footprint products. This is reflected in the MOUs that Rio Tinto has struck with companies such as
Apple, Volvo and Ford for responsible and low-carbon aluminium.
d. High-purity alumina, which is on Australia’s list, is also concentrated in one part of the world while manufacturing has curtailed elsewhere. This has led to renewed interest in sourcing supply from our immediate region.

3. Should Australia differentiate between criticality or importance of minerals, and the capability to process them, through categories within the list or a separate category that sits alongside the list? This differentiation could reflect the size and maturity of markets and the different challenges or barriers faced.
Any differentiation should be driven by the rationale for any corresponding treatment and align with the Government’s overarching strategy, ie. processing capability can become a strategic asset and differentiator. Categories can demonstrate to industry and strategic partners what type or level of
Government support or focus will be allocated to which group of minerals/materials. This also allows any list(s) to be updated within an existing system of differentiation/category as sectors mature and markets or external factors evolve.

Differentiation also enables the ability to meet specific research or policy needs. In the case of scandium, which is on the list, there is an intersection of supply chain uncertainty (difficult to find/access), size of market (due to supply chain), and the need for IP to process. While there are economic demonstrated resources in Australia of scandium, the sector is only on the verge of emerging. This could provide a case study of how Government support could best be targeted at nascent industries, whether through research, grants, or other means.

4. What lessons could be learned from other countries’ approaches or the ways in which they consider their criteria for listing critical minerals?
A key aspect of any list should be clarity around what inclusion on the list entails. Some countries have multiple or tiered lists or classifications with corresponding treatment, which gives important signals to industry, investors and trading partners. Care should be taken to ensure such approaches provide more certainty (eg. around specific policy or research needs) rather than leading to confusion around treatment.

Importantly, some countries have extended their lists beyond the strict definition of mineral to capture critical raw materials and metals.

5. What should trigger an update to the list? For example, global strategic, technological, economic or policy changes.
In addition to periodic reviews of the list, significant events that result in disruption to production or supply should qualify as automatic triggers to update the list. This could include pandemics, trade wars or natural disasters. Other changes, whether global strategic, technological, economic or policy, should enable a process at a minimum for industry to request consideration of updates to the list.