You have over 20 years of experience in the energy, natural resources, and sustainability sectors. Can you tell us a bit about your career journey?
I’ve spent my career at the intersection of the industrial, energy, and resources sectors, which are deeply interconnected and constantly evolving and expanding on multiple levels. My work has always been centred on helping companies identify pragmatic solutions that drive economic competitiveness, while at the same time addressing those immediate challenges that we’re facing. Ultimately, it must be sustainable – profit is essential to progress.
Resources Now was established to serve as a bridge that connects these critical industries. And as everyone would agree, energy transition is impossible without both transmission infrastructure and the critical minerals that enable it. These are undeniable truths and this mission excites me as it enables direct engagement with today’s most pressing challenges, particularly climate and energy security, while unlocking the opportunities they present.
I’ve always taken pride in my ability to see both the trees and the forests, balancing a granular understanding of individual technologies, minerals, and processes with a broader view of the energy ecosystem to ensure advancements lead to a more efficient and resilient energy future. Resources Now is focused on driving that meaningful change. And incidentally, in my work as vice chair for the Women’s Energy Network Alliance, I leverage the same perspective, balancing individual components with a broader vision, channeling this approach to building inclusion in the industry.
My vision for this role, beyond building inclusion and empowerment, is to help create an environment where individuals can naturally feel self-empowered to take control of their own growth and decisions in a way that aligns with their own values and perspectives.
How do you work on bridging that divide in sustainability, energy transition, critical minerals, cross-sector collaboration, etc.?
At the Resourcing Tomorrow London event in December, we discussed how we can secure critical minerals and promote that cross-sector collaboration which is essential for a sustainable energy transition. One of the biggest takeaways from that discussion was that energy, utilities, and the mining sectors must truly work closely together, and the end result must be to establish clear demand signals. When we establish those clear demand signals, we are in turn giving investors the confidence they need to fund all these critical minerals projects.
We can do this in multiple ways, but I’ll highlight three. One is collaboration across all these industries to drive new solutions. We must think about alternative materials. Circularity makes great sense, so we suddenly move away from being extractors to stewards of the industry, plus it makes great business sense to build up the circular economy, even as a mining company. We’re seeing that a lot of companies are doing that now, and that eases the reliance on newly mined minerals to an extent, while still creating that economic competitiveness across the market. It has to be financially viable, but at the same time it must address the challenges of today.
Number two is building enduring partnerships with resource-rich countries in manufacturing and other heavy industries, to mitigate geopolitical risks and reduce bottlenecks. And we have a whole host of these bottlenecks right now.
The final point is the importance of the role of governments as they play a very critical role in setting up transparent regulatory frameworks that attracts the investment and support for responsible mining and recycling. These are the few ways that we can really bridge that divide, but it’s important for us all to be on the same page.
Are there ways to help mitigate geopolitical risk within the industry or work together with governments to make sure that we’re getting the critical minerals that we need?
Absolutely yes, we can work well together when we focus on our shared challenges, our shared goals, and our shared interests. We need to identify the intersection of where our mutual interests are and then focus on those. And this is an environment where we have to pick our battles. We can’t win all, but it’s really important for anyone who thinks about geopolitical risk to understand the nuances around it as well.
For companies in particular, the key lies in discerning true news from mere noise, and knowing precisely when and where and what kind of action is warranted.
You’ve been focused lately on the nuclear renaissance and the reclassification of uranium as a critical mineral. How do you think that this reclassification for uranium could impact the industry? Is it bringing more focus into uranium? How is it helping with funding or permitting?
Reclassification will have significant impact, but the impact is not as straightforward as it might seem. Having a critical mineral status provides a certain benefit if it’s mixed with federal funding, whether it’s grants for research or expedited permitting, but they’re never guaranteed. Additionally, the uranium market in particular is driven by long-term contracts and existing production structures. Simply changing a classification won’t instantly alter market dynamics.
In January, we saw President Trump direct the US Secretary of Interior to ask the US Geological Survey (USGS) to reconsider uranium as a critical mineral. Back in 2023, due to a definition difference, it was excluded because uranium is classified as a mineral fuel, and so it didn’t make that list.
The approach is quite varied globally. Japan is reliant on nuclear energy but doesn’t have any domestic production, and they have classified this as a critical mineral. If you look at uranium rich countries like Australia, they don’t use much of it domestically, but they export it. Every country’s decision to classify or not classify this as a critical mineral is mainly down to factors like energy security, domestic production, and geopolitical risks. When you think about the global uranium supply, it’s concentrated in Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia, and Niger, though we’ve seen what’s happened now in Niger. Now the French company Orano is looking at Mongolia as an alternative source of supply due to this.
Geopolitical instability in these regions can disrupt the supply and that affects prices and prompts every nation to look inwardly and think about how to diversify their sources. How do we secure long-term access to uranium? The bottom line is while classifying or reclassifying uranium as a critical mineral can potentially attract investment, it’s not going to solve the issues like the permitting delays, environmental concerns, or market volatility. If uranium is to play a larger role, then we really need a coordinated approach. In addition to classifying or reclassifying uranium as a critical mineral, we need to focus on regulatory changes. We also need to think about supply chain security as well as long-term policy planning.
In December 2024, NATO published a list of 12 critical defense focused critical raw materials that are essential to the allied defense industry. How do you foresee this demand for critical minerals evolving in this sector over the next decade?
Let’s take aluminium, for example, which is absolutely essential for the aerospace sector. It’s used to build lightweight and durable military aircrafts and missile systems. As NATO continues to modernize its defense forces, particularly in Eastern Europe, the demand for aluminium is set to grow substantially. We all know that Russia is a major supplier of aluminium, and that dependency is a strategic vulnerability. Next, we can look at beryllium, which is perfect for advanced communication systems. The US produces 88% of the global beryllium currently. It provides some stability but also an equal amount of vulnerability.
The other issue is cobalt, which is very important because it helps create super alloys for jet engines, missiles, and submarines. When you look at next generation technologies like hypersonic systems, cobalt will be in very high demand. The Democratic Republic of Congo currently produces 70% of global cobalt. We’ve seen the news recently that we’ve got a bit of an export halt at least for the next three to four months. That creates a very dynamic supply chain environment. Additionally, when it comes to the DRC, there’s the issue of ethical sourcing, which is an issue the Cobalt Institute and a number of other organizations, like the ICMM, are doing a fantastic job in helping bridge this.
And then there’s graphite, the silent hero of naval technology. It’s used in submarines to reduce acoustic signatures, making them harder to detect. China controls 82% of global graphite supply. When you think about it, it’s rightly made the NATO critical mineral list because with that reliance on a single source of supply, which is concerning given the geopolitical tensions around the globe.
Then there’s titanium, which is a cornerstone of aerospace manufacturing. It’s used for lighter jets and hypersonic vehicles because of its strength and heat resistance. Nearly half of the world’s titanium comes from Russia and China, which creates that supply chain vulnerability. And the last bit is on rare earths, elements like neodymium and praseodymium, which are very important for missile guidance and radar systems. China dominates the processing of these materials, and they control about 85% of the market. As we think about the future of defense and defense technology, the dependence on China creates a significant vulnerability for NATO.
The geopolitical landscape presents a very interesting picture on some of these major challenges there. China and Russia have the upper hand in terms of controlling many of these minerals, and we’ve already seen how they can leverage their mineral dominance for political gain. We’ve seen China’s export bans on gallium and germanium, so we know what these players are likely to do.
I think when we look at the NATO defense minerals particularly, we’re expecting a huge surge in demand. There are emerging technologies on hypersonic weapons, directed energy weapons, and advanced stealth technologies. They will all require specialized materials and minerals. And as the defense industry moves towards a more advanced system, the demand for materials, especially nickel-based superalloys and rare earths will increase significantly. I see a great potential for these markets, and there’s a lot of attention currently being given to this list of 12.
We’re here at PDAC in Toronto. Do you want to talk about some of the key discussions that you’ve heard, or any general themes that you’ve taken away from the event this year?
Certainly. I had the opportunity to listen to some of the technical programming sessions. Former Anglo American CEO, Mark Cutifani, delivered a compelling discourse about leadership in current times, which is timely and relevant. He’s such a legend and spoke with great depth and detail about some of the decisions that he had to take during his time, those that he continues to take, and how he sees the world. That was very interesting to have that leadership context at PDAC because, at the end of the day, we know what we need to do, but making those tough decisions is a bit tricky lately.
At the debate on gold versus copper, before the start of the session, there was a poll and the audience were asked to vote for what would be most likely to lead in a race between gold versus copper and the answer was overwhelmingly copper, which is promising.
I also enjoyed the session on nuclear and the uranium reboot. We’re in a distinct uranium super cycle, so to speak. I think energy security is really at the heart of every discussion, wherever you go. That is not to say that climate adaptation has taken a backseat, but they are not mutually exclusive to each other.
I also had the profound joy and pleasure of listening to the indigenous programming. Especially here in Canada, it holds significance and extends globally, 50% of the critical mineral resources run through indigenous land globally. I think we truly have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to show that we’re stewards of the industry rather than simply extractors. It’s people like you and I who care about all of these issues, but also those who have that economic pragmatism and are trying to do the right thing on a daily basis that will enact change.
I want to remain optimistic about how we see the world. It’s not all doom and gloom. Naturally, we’re all sucked into this vortex, whether we like it or not. But day one has been superb at PDAC.
