material risk: access to technology minerals (september 2010)

Material riskAccess to technology mineralsSeptember 2010

Material risk Access to technology minerals

In June 2010, the European Commission (EC) published a report1 which identified 14 raw mineral materials as critical to European industry. In this paper we explore the supply risks facing producers and consumers of these technology minerals, and assess the European mining and metals sector’s ability to respond to the supply chain challenge.

1 Critical raw materials for the EU: report of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials, European Commission, June 2010.

Michel NestourDirector Mining & Metals

LondonT: +44 (0)20 7951 4936E: [email protected]

Aluminium

Antimony

Barytes

Bauxite

Bentonite

Beryllium

Borates

Chromium

Clays

Cobalt

Copper

Diatomite

Feldspar

Fluorspar

Gallium

Germanium

Graphite

Gypsum

Indium

Iron

LimestoneLithium Magnesite

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Nickel

Niobium

Perlite

PGM

Rare Earths

Rhenium

SilicaSilver

Talc

Tantalum

Tellurium

Titanium

Tungsten

VanadiumZinc

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Supp

ly ri

sk

Economic importanceSource: Critical raw materials for the EU: report of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials, European Commission, June 2010.

1Material risk Access to technology minerals

Material riskAccess to technology minerals

Critical raw materials for the European Union (EU)

The response from the rest of the world

The world’s population growth and rapid industrialization have led to a swift increase in demand for metal intensive technology such as LCD screens, hybrid cars and wind turbine magnets. The emergence of China as a metal superpower and its insatiable thirst for minerals to support its economic development, coupled with worldwide increased dependence on these technologies, prompted the EC to design an integrated strategy for raw materials in November 2008. The goal is to ensure that future EU technology industries can adequately prepare themselves to face increasing global competition for key mineral inputs.

EC experts have identified a selection of 14 raw materials as critical, out of 41 minerals and metals analyzed. These materials are referred to in this paper as “technology minerals”.

The EC study, Critical raw materials for the EU, used a methodology based on criticality, designed to account for the supply risk and the economic importance of each mineral and metal considered.

The minerals considered as critical are circled in yellow in the diagram opposite.

Globally, other law makers, federal agencies and companies are beginning to see increasing supply risks dependence and are now looking at what needs to be done to secure resources. In the case of rare earths, Korean companies aim to obtain rare-earth resources from China by equity participation in Chinese companies, while Japan has begun an unprecedented number of exploration projects and acquisitions outside China in an effort to secure supply. Japan’s search for rare earth investments,

heavily backed by the government, has taken it to Vietnam and Kazakhstan. US policy makers are pursuing a rare earths plan with the Rare Earths Supply Technology and Resources Transformation (RESTART) Act, which aims to establish a working group to assess and monitor strategic need for rare earths, create a national stockpile, facilitate financing for domestic production and support innovation and workforce development to support the industry.

2 Material risk Access to technology minerals

The availability of technological minerals appears to be increasingly under pressure.

This is due to:

New demand from emerging markets ►The impact of the recent economic crisis on the ►availability of funding, and, in turn, on exploration and production spend

Continued advances in technology application ►Investors’ limited knowledge and understanding of the ►technology minerals

However, the main perceived threat is a change in geopolitical-economic frameworks, which could disrupt supply and demand patterns and ultimately lead to protectionism.

We believe that, assuming demand continues to rise, this scenario is unlikely to occur over the long term as market solutions will prevail — for example, price increases will lead to new exploration, long term supply agreements and joint ventures.

Nevertheless, if the EU mining and metals industry is to remain competitive in the future supply of these critical technological minerals, and if customers are to limit their supply chain risks, now is the time to take notice. A strategy needs to be developed for technology minerals supply, potentially with the support of a broader incentivized investment framework.

Why worry now about technology minerals?

1 Rare earth elements include: yttrium, scandium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium and lutetium.

Exploitation of the identified technology minerals is dependent on the sector’s ability to: identify and commercially extract the minerals from either an accessible and large enough mineral deposit, or from smaller mineral deposits of high grade minerals; or to commercially recycle the mineral harvested from existing metal fabrication. In the case of rare earths, an additional complexity arises from the fact that the mineral composition of rare earths deposits usually includes all of the 17 rare earth elements1 in varying proportions. The demand pattern is different for each of the 17 elements according to their various applications.

A number of challenges arise for EU (listed or headquartered) companies in making the decision to explore or extract such technology minerals. These include:

The availability of an accessible mineral deposit capable of ►economic extraction

Legislative regimes, mining regulations, political systems and ►social and environmental risks

Availability of funding to develop the mines ►

Level of customer demand for the ores ►

In the following pages we address the above mentioned challenges in the context of technology minerals by looking specifically at:

How many EU companies are involved in the exploration/ ►extraction of technology minerals?

How geographically concentrated are the global reserves of ►technology minerals?

Where these technology minerals are located ►

The stability of the mining environment in which these ►technology mineral reserves are located

The sources of funding available to develop ►technology minerals

The potential market size and demand for these technology ►minerals and the influence of mineral substitutions or price


Exploration or extraction of technology minerals by EU companies

We have identified 36 companies listed or headquartered in the EU involved in the exploration or extraction of technology minerals, based on information in the public domain. The primary focus of these companies is on platinum group metals (PGMs), magnesium, fluorspar and tungsten. Often the same company will have several projects covering several technology minerals. Conversely, there are currently no EU listed or headquartered companies which are involved in extraction or exploration of beryllium.

About half of those identified EU companies are UK listed or headquartered. However, the majority of their ore deposits are located outside the EU. Certain companies are in fact subsidiaries of larger groups such as CAMEC (now part of ENRC) or Glebe Mining Limited (part of Ineos Group).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Fluorspar Magnesium compounds

Graphite Antimony Rare Earths Cobalt Niobium Tungsten Tantalum Indium1 PGMs Beryllium Germanium1 Gallium1

Num

ber o

f Eur

opea

n co

mpa

nies

10

2

Source: Global OneSource, London Stock Exchange, Raw Materials Group and EY research. It excludes diversified miners such as BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Anglo American and Xstrata.1 Includes refiners as by-product.2 Based on magnesite.


Our findings suggest that, for the majority of the technology minerals, the three largest reserves account for over 60% of total global reserves1, by volume. This means that, with the exception of gallium, indium and fluorspar, over 60% of each mineral’s total reserves are concentrated in three or fewer geographic regions. This concentration level is higher than we see for bauxite and iron ore, indicated in the chart for comparative purposes. In our

view, a high level of geographical reserve concentration poses an additional risk to the supply chain for such technology minerals. It increases the economic influence of a sector in a local economy. It also increases the risk that such economies may decide to process the minerals locally to create higher value-add products instead of simply exporting the minerals overseas for further processing.

How geographically concentrated are the global reserves of technology minerals?

Iron ore FluorsparMagnesium compounds

Graphite Antimony Rare Earths

CobaltNiobium TungstenTantalum IndiumPGMs BerylliumGermanium GalliumBauxite

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Con

cent

rati

on %

Mineral global reserve concentration %

Source: Mineral commodity summaries, USGS, January 2010; Mikolajczak, Clair , “Availability of indium and gallium”, September 2009, via www.indium.com.

1 The level of global reserve concentration ratio is estimated as the proportion of the top three largest identified estimated mineral reserves by volume divided by total estimated reserves (as compiled by the US Geological Survey (USGS) as at 2009 from a variety of sources such as mineral commodity national reserves information, and in their absence, other sources such as academic articles, company reports, trade journals and articles), except for niobium, germanium, tantalum and indium, where only the top one or two countries publicly report data. For beryllium, we have used the world resources approximation from the USGS as reserves are not sufficiently well delineated to report consistent figures by geography. For gallium, we have used as a concentration proxy, the bauxite concentration, as gallium is primarily a by-product of bauxite and there is no gallium reserve publicly disclosed.


Sixty percent of the technology mineral reserves are concentrated in three geographic areas: Russia, North Korea (predominantly magnesium) and China. Discounting magnesium and fluorspar,

the two largest reserves in volume, the concentration percentage increases to 68% and China accounts for more than 50% of the global reserves.

Where are these concentrated mineral reserves located?

Source: Mineral commodity summaries, USGS, January 2010; Mikolajczak, Clair, “Availability of indium and gallium”, September 2009, via www.indium.com.

Geographic concentration of14 critical global resources

Russia24%

China19%

North Korea17%

Others40%

Geographic concentration of 12 critical global resources (excluding magnesium and fluorspar)

CIS10%

China51%

Others32%

US7%


How stable is the mining environment in which these technology mineral reserves are located?

We have cross-referenced the top three technology mineral reserves’ geographic location (where available) with widely available qualitative studies. The map opposite shows in visual form our analysis of these countries in terms of perceived risks. Our observations suggest that a significant proportion of these minerals are located in countries considered by these studies to represent a higher risk of instability.

Source: 2010 Ranking of countries for mining investment, Behre Dolbear Group inc., via http://www.dolbear.com; IHS Global Insight Country Risk Ratings Analysis (as at 22/9/2010) via http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com and Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2009, via http://www.transparency.org; Reserves location sourced from Mineral commodity survey, USGS, January 2010; Mikolajczak, Clair (Director of Metals and Chemicals) “Availability of Indium and Gallium”, September 2009 via www.indium.com.1 Gallium reserve location was not available publicly so bauxite location was used

as a proxy.

USARare earths

TungstenPGMs

BerylliumGermanium

MexicoFluorsparGraphite

South AfricaFluorspar

PGMs

BrazilNiobiumTantalum

CubaCobalt

DRCCobalt

GuineaGallium1

ChinaFluorspar

MagnesiumGraphiteAntimony

Rare earthsTungsten

IndiumIndiaGraphite

North KoreaMagnesium

RussiaMagnesiumAntimonyTungsten

IndiumPGMs

Rare earths (CIS)

ThailandAntimony

VietnamGallium1

Australia Cobalt

TantalumGallium1

Key:

Negligible risk

Low risk

Medium risk

High risk

Very high risk


USARare earths

TungstenPGMs

BerylliumGermanium

MexicoFluorsparGraphite

South AfricaFluorspar

PGMs

BrazilNiobiumTantalum

CubaCobalt

DRCCobalt

GuineaGallium1

ChinaFluorspar

MagnesiumGraphiteAntimony

Rare earthsTungsten

IndiumIndiaGraphite

North KoreaMagnesium

RussiaMagnesiumAntimonyTungsten

IndiumPGMs

Rare earths (CIS)

ThailandAntimony

VietnamGallium1

Australia Cobalt

TantalumGallium1


What sources of funding are available to develop technology minerals?

Our research on our universe of EU listed or headquartered companies suggests that, since 2005, they have raised US$2.2b through the stock market. In 2009 and 2010 YTD, more than 50% of the capital raised was by a single company, Lonmin plc. The companies that have raised these funds are primarily focused on the PGMs and cobalt.

The majority of our sample has limited access to the debt market due to the early stage or perceived high risk profile of technology mineral operations. This is compounded by the fact that the demand for such minerals is a relatively new phenomenon, arising from increasing technology applications and the desire to bring these to global mass markets. A case in point is the ubiquitous iPhone, which did not exist until June 2007.

Other alternative sources of funding may include joint ventures. The rationale for entering a joint venture varies from transaction to transaction and may include:

Spreading the risk ►

Matching of capital to assets ►

Securing supply in the face of a possible minerals ►supply-demand imbalance

Securing price in exchange for off-take agreement and ►provision of funding from customers

Recently announced joint ventures in technology minerals include:

Graphit Kropfmuhl ► , a subsidiary of Dutch group AMG Advanced Metallurgical Group N.V., entered into a joint venture with Extrativa Grafite do Brasil and REP Minerals to secure graphite (announced in February 2010).

Planet Resource Recovery Inc ► ., a developer, manufacturer and marketer of “green” technologies for the remediation and recovery of the planet’s resources, entered a joint venture with Franklin Mining inc., to develop and operate the San Antonia de Turiri Antimony mine in Bolivia (announced in April 2010).

Toshiba Corp ► has signed a definitive agreement with Kazakhstan’s state-operated nuclear firm Kazatomprom to form a joint venture in September 2010 to focus on the global distribution of niobium-based products to the superconductor industry, tantalum and rare earths such as dysprosium.

State-backed ► Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp (JOGMEC) has agreed to explore and develop mineral resources, with a particular focus on rare earths and rare metals, in Namibia (July 2010). JOGMEC’s role will be to provide advanced technology for the analysis of geological data and to help Japanese companies join exploration projects. JOGMEC aims to stockpile two months’ worth of the special metals required in electronics, steel, and car manufacturing to guard against price and supply volatility.

In August 2010 ► JOGMEC also announced a partnership with Midland Exploration Inc., (a Canadian exploration company) on the Ytterby rare earths project.

Advanced Metallurgical Group ► (AMG) signed an agreement to buy antimony mining rights in Turkey to secure future raw material supply in September 2010.

Outside of the technology minerals, Bolloré, a developer of lithium-metal-polymer batteries, and Eramet, a mining group, signed an exploration contract in February 2010 with a call option for lithium deposits with Argentinean company Minera Santa Rita. Similarly, in June 2010, JOGMEC agreed to invest US$4m in the Borate Hills Project to be a joint venture partner with American Lithium Minerals, Inc. (a US based mineral exploration company).

Most of these examples represent early indications of mining companies and industrial groups jointly collaborating to find solutions to the supply chain challenge.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Num

ber

Pro

ceed

s U

S$

m

Equity issues by EU technology minerals companies

Proceeds Number of issuers

900

1100

1000

800

299223

367

1,038

274

Source: Thomson Reuters, Ernst & Young research


What is the potential market size and demand for technology minerals and are these influenced by mineral substitutions or price?

With the exception of fluorspar, magnesium compounds and graphite, the global production of technology minerals is well below a million tons each per annum, and significantly below the production levels of iron ore (2.3b tons) and bauxite (201m tons), illustrated for comparative purposes in Appendix 1. This highlights both the limited availability and rate of production or recycling of these minerals.

One reason for such limited production rates to date is that these minerals currently represent relatively small markets (with the exception of magnesium compounds, PGMs, cobalt and niobium which have an indicative annual global market size of over US$2b). This has historically reduced the incentive of the mining sector to invest in these markets.

In its report, the EC presented an analysis of future demand based on technology change. From this analysis, it identified gallium, indium and germanium as the three minerals that should experience the largest demand growth. The table in Appendix 2, as presented in the EC report, shows that demand for these products will more than double by 2030.

The supply and demand for gallium, indium and germanium minerals, which are by-products of bauxite, zinc, lead and copper production, is not only dependent on emerging technology demand, but also (and more significantly) on the supply and demand for bauxite, zinc, lead and copper. Each of these in turn responds to its own supply and demand cycle in line with expected future economic growth and future metal price trends.

In addition, one of the factors driving the potential demand for technology minerals will be the degree of possible substitution and future technology applications. Possible substitutions concerning technology minerals can be summarized into three broad categories (see table below).

The degrees of substitution appear to be limited. However, this is a dynamic process which is subject to constant change due to evolving technology research and development, discovery and application.

Should there not be an appropriate substitute for a particular technology mineral, or where production of technology minerals could not be increased, then the price of that mineral will increase accordingly, assuming demand increases. This could impact the end consumer by contributing to either the scarcity of the product itself or increasing its overall price. However, technology minerals comprise only a small proportion of the end product and contribute only a modest amount to the total price paid by the consumer (e.g., it is estimated that the cost of indium in a 42” TV is less than 1% of the TV price). It is important therefore that the industry producing the end product ensures that it maintains a fluid supply-chain through involvement in upstream mineral procurement (i.e., exploration or extraction) through joint venture or long term supply agreements.

Technology minerals Main industrial use Substitution

Antimony Flame retardant No effective substitute for its major application

Beryllium, germanium, niobium, rare earths, tantalum and tungsten

Electronic, steel, construction, automotive, IT, telecommunication and mining

Difficult to substitute or where there are possibilities there may be a loss of performance or higher costs

Cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, graphite, indium, magnesium and PGMs

Alloys, battery, chemicals, construction, steel, semi-conductors, telecommunication, renewable technology, electronic and automotive

Limited substitute or only for certain application

Source: Ernst & Young research


Is the EU mining and metals sector ready to answer the technology minerals supply chain issue highlighted by the EC?

The number of EU companies involved in technology minerals exploration or extraction is small and in our view currently insufficient to respond to the technology minerals supply chain issue. The main reasons for this timid response are:

The mineral ore deposits tend to be small when compared ►with iron ore or bauxite. The minerals are themselves often extracted as by-products of other more plentiful minerals, which affects their extraction rate. For example, the primary extraction of gallium does not depend solely on the demand for, and price of, gallium. The additional revenues from gallium’s production are small compared with the overall income generated by bauxite extraction and this can adversely affect a miner’s readiness to expand its gallium extraction. In addition, it often takes between seven to ten years before a new discovery can start to produce minerals.

The mineral deposits tend to be located in regions where ►mining laws and political regimes are complex or challenging.

The availability of debt to finance mine development was ►significantly impacted by the global financial crisis and risk aversion, and economic uncertainty will continue to impact investors’ appetite for investment in exploration1. However, mineral technology companies have been able to raise funding through the equity market since 2005 with a particular focus on cobalt and PGMs. Alternative sources of funding are still available and many early stage projects in other mineral groups have successfully attracted investment from strategic partners acquiring minority equity stakes.

Investors have limited experience and knowledge of the ►technology minerals fundamentals to date as this is a complex new area.

The demand for technology minerals is increasing but these ►markets still remain small in comparison to those of other minerals such as bauxite or iron ore. As a result, they are yet to attract the full attention of the mining community.

Failure to address the above challenges promptly could cause the EU technology industry to dwindle over time. We are already experiencing a marked decrease in the amount of these minerals exported from emerging economies, as a result of increasing internal demand from their technology industry, with the announced decreasing export quota from China rare earths industry on 7 July 20102.

Other regions of the world are beginning to take both public and private sector action to address this risk – Europe cannot afford to be left behind.

1 See previous Ernst & Young papers, The wall of debt (October 2009) and Life after debt (May 2009). www.ey.com/miningandmetals

2 “China reduces rare earths export quota by 72%” from China Daily via www.english.mofcom.gov.cn


Successfully fulfilling the demand for technology minerals must be dependent on whether the EU consumers of these technology minerals have the requisite appetite for active participation in the technology mineral supply-chain. In the current environment, it is doubtful that the response could solely come from the EU exploration/extraction sector.

Early indications concerning other minerals (e.g., lithium) suggest that joint responses between mining companies and industry consumers to find creative and individualized solutions are possible, such as the proposed lithium joint venture between Eramet, Bolloré and Minera Santa Rita. This will take industrial companies into the unfamiliar territory of M&A or joint venture with junior miners. Unfamiliarity should not prevent the necessary actions.

Interestingly, opportunities are emerging with one of the major technology mineral rich countries, China, which has allowed foreign companies to enter processing joint ventures with Chinese rare earths businesses for example. China has also recently stepped up its efforts on research and development of high-end technology for the rare earths downstream industry by setting up a special research fund of between 300m Yuan and 450m Yuan (US$44.1m and US$66.1m). Such cross-border joint ventures can be complex but strategically rewarding.

The EC needs to decide what the next steps will be to ensure that the EU mining and metals industry takes a greater interest in technology minerals and remains competitive in this area. This could take various forms including:

Tax policy changes including tax breaks (such as flow-through ►financing) for EU based exploration and extraction activities in the specified metals.

Setting up a state-owned enterprise, to take responsibility for ►exploration or provide centralized funding support for private exploration or extraction companies.

State-owned geological surveys for early exploration. ►

Creation of national stockpiles. ►

Promotion of technology minerials recycling in the EU. ►

Creating more innovative supply chains for key metals that ►incentivise the secure supply of key scarce materials. Such supply chain features will often attach suitable premiums on the necessary materials that will enable the creation of capital or the acceptance of greater sourcing and production risk. Such premiums may provide incentives for arbitrage opportunities from otherwise apparently closed markets.

Ernst & Young’s experience with mining and metals companies around the world suggests that EU companies that wish to develop in this sector will require support and innovative thinking, given the challenges highlighted.

There are steps that can be taken to address these challenges:

Development of growth strategies (e.g., greenfield projects or ►company acquisitions) to compete with foreign state owned enterprises in geographies where local knowledge is key.

Lobbying of government and tax authorities to ensure that the ►authorities understand the risks associated with inaction in the technology minerals sector.

Development of new relationships and cultural understanding ►between miners and technology companies to facilitate future joint supply strategies.

For further information on how Ernst & Young can help with your material risk, please contact Michel Nestour on +44 (0)20 7951 4936, [email protected] or your local Ernst & Young contact.

How can the EU mining and metals sector better position itself to fulfil the demand for technology minerals?


Appendix 1: Illustrative technology minerals market size, use, production and reserves

Minerals Source Industrial useMine Prod. 08 (metric ton)

Mine Prod. 09E (metric ton)

Leader share of 09E production

Reserves estimates (metric ton)

Indicative price ($/kg)

Indicative annual market size ($m)c

Iron ore Mined Steel 2,220,000,000 2,300,000,000 39% China 77 billion tons 0.15 345,000

Bauxite Mined Aluminium 205,000,000 201,000,000 31% Australia 27 billion tons 0.028 (d) 5,628

Magnesium compounds

Mined Casting alloys, packaging

5,430,000 (excludes US)

4,990,000 (excludes US)

56% China 2.3 billion tons 2.85 14,221

PGMsa Mined Automotive and electronics

393 373 58% South Africa

71,000 Pt – 48,900

Pd -15,600

11,746

Cobalt Nickel or copper by-product or mined

Alloys and rechargeable batteries

75,900 62,000 40% DRC 6,600,000 41.9 2,597

Niobium Mined Steel or construction

62,900 62,000 91% Brazil 2,946,000 41d 2,542

Antimony Mined Flame retardant 197,000 187,000 90% China 2,100,000 9.6 1,795

Tungsten Mined Mining and construction

55,900 58,000 81% China 2,800,000 30 1,740

Graphite Mined Steel 1,120,000 1,130,000 70% China 71,000,000 1.2d 1,400

Rare earths Mined Automotive, renewables technology

124,000 124,000 96% China 99,000,000 5.7b 710

Fluorspar Mined Chemical and steel 6,040,000 5,100,000 58% China 230 million tons

0.11c 561

Indium Zinc, lead, copper and tin by-product

Electronic 570 600 50% China 49,000 575 345

Tantalum Mined IT and telecommunication

1,170 1,160 48% USA 110,000 87.1 101

Germanium Copper, lead or zinc by-product

Telecommunication and solar

140 140 71% China 450f 638 89

Gallium Bauxite and zinc by-product

Semi-conductor and renewables technology

111 78 Not available Not available 600 47

Beryllium Mined Electronic 200 140 85% USA Not available 264d 37

Source: Mineral commodity summaries, USGS, January 2010; MetalBulletin (23 August 2010); www.mineralprices.com (27 August 2010); and Mikolajczak, Clair (Director of Metals and Chemicals) - “Availability of indium and gallium”, September 2009, via www.indium.com. a Based on platinum and palladium only, production in kilograms. b Based on rare earths oxides year end 2009. c Based on year end 2009 price for metallurgical grade. d Based on 2009 year end price. e estimated. f USA only; other countries not available.


Appendix 2: Global demand for technology minerals

Minerals SourceProduction in 2006 (ton)

Demand in 2006 from emerging technology (ton)

Estimated demand in 2030 from emerging technology (ton) Indicator 20061 Indicator 20301

Gallium Bauxite and zinc by-product

152 28 603 0.18 3.97

Indium Zinc, lead, copper and tin by–product

581 234 1,911 0.4 3.29

Germanium Copper, lead or zinc by-product

100 28 220 0.28 2.20

Neodynium (rare earth)

Mined 16,800 4,000 27,900 0.23 1.66

PGM (Platinum)

PGM (Palladium)

Mined

Mined

255

267

Very small

23

345

77

0

0.09

1.35

0.29

Tantalum Mined 1,384 551 1,410 0.4 1.02

Cobalt Nickel or copper by-product or mined

62,279 12,820 26,860 0.21 0.43

Ruthenium Mined 29 0 1 0 0.03

Niobium Mined 44,531 288 1,410 0.01 0.03

Antimony Mined 172,223 28 71 <0.01 <0.01

Source: Critical raw materials for the EU: report of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials”, European Commission, June 2010, and Annexe V to the Report; Ernst & Young research1 The indicator measures the share of the demand resulting from driving emerging technologies in total today’s demand of each raw material in 2006 and 2030

Ernst & Young’s Global Mining & Metals CenterErnst & Young’s Global Mining & Metals Center brings together a worldwide team of professionals to help you achieve your potential — a team with deep technical experience in providing assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The Center works to anticipate market trends, identify the implications and develop points of view on relevant industry issues. Ultimately, it enables us to help you meet your goals and compete more effectively. It’s how Ernst & Young makes a difference.

Global Mining & Metals Leader, and OceaniaMike Elliott+61 29 248 4588

[email protected]

Europe, Middle East, India and AfricaMichael Lynch-Bell

+44 (0)20 7951 3064

[email protected]

Austria, Germany, SwitzerlandReto Hofer+41 58 286 7503

[email protected]

South AmericaCarlos Assis+55 21 2109 1606

[email protected]

United KingdomLee Downham+44 (0)20 7951 2178

[email protected]

Belgium and the NetherlandsJeff Sluijter+31 10 406 8331

[email protected]

ChinaPeter Markey+86 21 2228 2616

[email protected]

AfricaAdrian Macartney+27 11 772 3052

[email protected]

CES*Jacek Hryniuk+48 22 5577514

[email protected]

CanadaTom Whelan+1 604 891 8381

[email protected]

France and LuxembourgChristian Mion+22 430 41 21 82

[email protected]

Italy, Spain, PortugalBasilio Gomez Salinas+34 915 727285

[email protected]

United StatesAndy Miller+1 314 290 1205

[email protected]

Commonwealth of Independent StatesEvgeni Khrustalev+7 495 648 9624

[email protected]

Alexei Ivanov+7 495 228 3661

[email protected]

IndiaAnjani Agrawal+91 22 4035 6380

[email protected]

* Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey.

For further information on our global capabilities, visit www.ey.com/miningandmetals

Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

Ernst & Young

Our views and opinionsWe regularly produce papers that address some of the relevant and timely issues facing the sector.

Our most recent publications include:

Fraud and corruption in mining and metals ► . To meet rising demand, mining and metals companies are operating in territories that provide increased exposure to corruption. Today’s slimmed down control environments by virtue of cost reductions from the financial crisis only puts companies at greater risk. See which indicators will help you detect and prevent fraudulent and corrupt practices

2010 business risks facing the mining and metals sector. ► The 2010 Ernst & Young business risk report identifies the top 10 global strategic risks in the mining and metals sector. We also identify specific measures we believe company leadership should adopt to manage these risks in today’s more challenging economic climate.

Publications can be viewed and downloaded at www.ey.com/miningandmetals

About Ernst & YoungErnst & Young is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Worldwide, our 144,000 people are united by our shared values and an unwavering commitment to quality. We make a difference by helping our people, our clients and our wider communities achieve their potential.

Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit www.ey.com

© 2010 EYGM Limited. All Rights Reserved.

EYG no. ER0019

In line with Ernst & Young’s commitment to minimize its impact on the environment, this document has been printed on paper with a high recycled content.

This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither EYGM Limited nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.

1017424.indd (UK) 09/10. Creative Services Group.

material risk: access to technology minerals (september 2010)

Investor Relations