Critical-mineral supply for the energy transition could fall well short of demand by 2035, but the main risk will differ by material. GEM Mining Consulting estimates expected supply would cover 68% of lithium requirements, 74% of cobalt requirements and 75% of copper requirements. Graphite and magnet rare earths appear closer to balance, with projected coverage of 96% and 107%, respectively, yet their processing chains are substantially more vulnerable.
On the fragility measure, magnet rare earths score 95 and battery-grade graphite 89, followed by cobalt at 78 and nickel at 66. Copper’s fragility score is 36, showing that the material with the clearest projected mine deficit is not necessarily the one most exposed to processing concentration or geographic disruption.
The distinction reflects how much announced capacity fails to become dependable, saleable output. GEM’s worked example starts with a project designed to produce 100,000 tonnes a year but reduces that figure to about 60,200 tonnes after accounting for financing and permitting delays, commissioning, ramp-up periods, metallurgical recovery and customer qualification. The calculation is an illustration of the methodology, not a market forecast.
The supply picture also depends heavily on where refining and conversion take place.
Lithium, cobalt and copper require reliable new mine projects to reach production, while graphite and rare earths require more processing capacity, technology and qualified customers outside dominant hubs. GEM’s analysis treats a mineral resource as strategically useful only when it can be financed, permitted, extracted, processed, qualified and delivered through a resilient chain.