ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL MINERALS:

UPDATED APPLICATION OF SCREENING 

METHODOLOGY

A Report by the

Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chains

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability 

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

February 2018
Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology ii

About the National Science and Technology Council

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means by which the 

Executive Branch coordinates science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make 

up the Federal research and development enterprise. A primary objective of the NSTC is to ensure 

science and technology policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President's stated 

goals. The NSTC prepares research and development strategies that are coordinated across 

Federal agencies aimed at accomplishing multiple national goals. The work of the NSTC is 

organized under committees that oversee subcommittees and working groups focused on 

different aspects of science and technology. More information is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc.

About the Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and 

Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 to provide the President and others 

within the Executive Office of the President with advice on the scientific, engineering, and 

technological aspects of the economy, national security, homeland security, health, foreign 

relations, the environment, and the technological recovery and use of resources, among other 

topics. OSTP leads interagency science and technology policy coordination efforts, assists the 

Office of Management and Budget with an annual review and analysis of Federal research and 

development in budgets, and serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and 

judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal 

Government. More information is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp.

About the Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chains

The purpose of the NSTC Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability 

(CENRS), Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chains is to advise and assist the 

CENRS and the NSTC on policies, procedures, and plans relating to identification and forecasting 

of mineral criticality, and risk mitigation in the procurement and downstream processing of 

minerals identified as or forecasted to become critical. Maintaining access to and availability of 

essential resources also fall within the scope of the Subcommittee, both as raw commodities and 

as a part of downstream supply chains that may be sensitive to disruptions in global supply.

About this Document 

This document provides an update to the 2016 report, Assessment of Critical Minerals: Screening 

Methodology and Initial Application, describing enhancements to the screening tool, the latest 

application of the screening tool using recent data published by the United States Geological 

Survey, and the next steps for the NSTC Subcommittee. This report also discusses the interagency 

collaborative efforts being used to respond to Executive Order 13817, A Federal Strategy to Ensure 

Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals.

Copyright Information

This document is a work of the United States Government and is in the public domain (see 17 

U.S.C. §105). Subject to the stipulations below, it may be distributed and copied with 

acknowledgment to OSTP. Copyrights to graphics included in this document are reserved by the 

original copyright holders or their assignees and are used here under the government’s license 

and by permission. Requests to use any images must be made to the provider identified in the 

image credits or to OSTP if no provider is identified. Printed in the United States of America, 2018.
Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology iii

NATIONAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Chair 

Ted Wackler, Deputy Chief of Staff and 

Assistant Director, OSTP

Staff

Chloe Kontos, Executive Director, NSTC

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND 

SUSTAINABILITY

Co-Chairs

Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Science 

Advisor, EPA

RADM Timothy Gallaudet, Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, NOAA

Deerin Babb-Brott, Acting Lead, Energy and 

Environment Division, OSTP 

Staff

Lisa Matthews

Executive Secretary, EPA

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

Co-Chairs

Diana Bauer, DOE

Michael Dunlevy, OSTP

Lawrence Meinert, DOI

Executive Secretary

Fletcher Fields, DOE 

Members

Tristan Abbey, NSC Andrew Gulley, DOI Greg O'Brien, DOS

Kathleen Benedetto, DOI David Hardy, DOE Tony Padilla, DOT

David Bergendorf, USDA Rob Ivester, DOE David Pineault, DOD

Salim Bhabhrawala, DOC Paul Johnson, USDA Dianne Poster, DOC

Jamie Brainard, DOI Nick Karvonides, DOD Tom Rasmussen, DOD

Greg Carnevale, DHS Angelos Kokkinos, DOE Timothy Reinhardt, DOE

Julie Christodoulou, DOD Amishi Kumar, DOE Greg Sayles, EPA

Zach Clement, DOE Mitchell Leverette, DOI Gary Stanley, DOC

Regis Conrad, DOE Kenny Lipkowitz, DOD Steven Ross, DOE

Mike Cosca, DOI Eric Mata, DOD Robert Shull, DOC

Tom Crafford, DOI Erin McCullough, DOI David Solan, DOE

Nicholas Douglas, USDA Mike McKittrick, DOE Susan Stevens, DHS 

Rick Deery, DOI Katherine McMahon, DOE Holly Thomas, DOE

David Diamond, DOI Peter McVeigh, DOJ Karl Tsuji, USITC

Sonia Esperanca, NSF John Meakem, DOC Kim Tuminaro, DOS

Estelle Faulkner, DHS Adam Merrill, DOI John Vickers, NASA

Steven Fortier, DOI Jean Morrow, ED Angel Ventling, DOS

Bill Francart, DOL Cheryl Nabahe, USDA

Joseph Glaser, DOE Nedal Nassar, DOI
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology 1

List of Acronyms

CENRS Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

DOL Department of Labor

DOS Department of State

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EU European Union

GAO Government Accountability Office

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NSF National Science Foundation

NSC National Security Council

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USGS United States Geological Survey

USITC United States International Trade Commission 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology 2 

Introduction

The modern global economy has increasingly come to depend on access to non-fuel mineral 

resources. Advanced technologies from satellites to cell phones require a variety of specific 

minerals with unique chemical and physical properties—minerals that were not widely used or 

considered essential to manufacturing just a few decades ago. To meet rapidly rising demand, 

production for most non-fuel mineral resources has significantly increased over the past few 

decades. However, production of many high-demand minerals is concentrated in just a few 

foreign countries,

1 creating increased risk of price spikes and supply disruptions. If mineral 

supplies from these countries were suddenly interrupted, the Nation’s economy and national 

security could be threatened. 

The risk of price spikes and supply disruptions occurring can change over time as a result of 

geopolitical shifts, rapid increases in demand, or a suite of other supply chain factors. 

Understanding a mineral’s potential for such disruption and the impact should its supply be 

disrupted, its “criticality”, enables the United States to establish proactive risk management 

strategies, including diversifying mineral supplies, developing substitutes for materials and 

technologies that use specific minerals, increasing recycling, and ensuring critical minerals are 

efficiently used. For the purposes of this discussion, a mineral is critical if the supply chain is 

vulnerable to disruption, and it serves an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, 

the absence of which would cause significant economic or security consequences. 

In 2010, the U.S. National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) chartered the Subcommittee on 

Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chains (hereafter referred to as the Subcommittee) to 

facilitate a Federal interagency effort to identify and address current and emerging risks to critical 

and strategic mineral supply chains. In 2016, the Subcommittee published a report to Congress2

describing a two-stage methodology for assessing critical minerals, as illustrated in Figure 1. The 

first stage (Stage I) is an early warning screening tool that identifies potentially critical minerals 

1 https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/

2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/CSMSC%20Assessment%20of%20Critical%20

Minerals%20Report%202016-03-16%20FINAL.pdf

Figure 1. Overview of the interagency methodology for assessing critical minerals.

New data, updated annually

Stage 1: Early Warning Screening Stage II: In-Depth Analysis

Additional data, as needed

Feedback from various stakeholders 

and findings of special projects

Criticality

report

Material

flow

analyses

Special

projects

All other 

minerals

Critical

minerals

Watch list

Non-fuel

minerals

Potentially

critical

minerals

All other 

minerals
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

3 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-federal-strategy-ensuresecure-reliable-supplies-critical-minerals/

Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology 3 

using regularly-reported and publicly-available data. The screening tool was designed so that 

potential mineral criticality could be evaluated in a repeatable and transparent manner on an 

ongoing basis. The second stage (Stage II) of the methodology consists of in-depth supply chain 

analyses of selected minerals identified by the screening tool. This tool is updated annually by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on behalf of the Subcommittee when the USGS releases a new year 

of mineral production and price data. 

This report discusses the status of the interagency methodology for assessing critical minerals, 

including the updated application of the screening tool, data enhancements, in-depth supply chain 

analyses, ongoing productive collaborations, and next steps for the Subcommittee.

Supporting a Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical 

Minerals

On December 20, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13817, A Federal Strategy to 

Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals3 that directs Federal agencies to develop a 

list of critical minerals, strategies to reduce reliance on critical minerals, and actions to support 

increased domestic supplies of critical minerals. The Executive Order establishes as Federal policy 

the need to identify new sources of critical minerals; increase activity at all levels of the supply 

chain, including exploration, mining, concentration, separation, alloying, recycling, and 

reprocessing critical minerals; ensure that our miners and producers have electronic access to the 

most advanced topographic, geologic, and geophysical data within U.S. territory; and streamline

leasing and permitting processes to expedite exploration, production, processing, reprocessing, 

recycling, and domestic refining of critical minerals. The Subcommittee is assisting with the 

interagency coordination required to effectively respond to this Executive Order.

In response to the Executive Order, the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the 

Secretary of Defense and in consultation with the heads of other relevant executive departments 

and federal agencies, will publish a list of critical minerals in the Federal Registry in February 

2018. The Subcommittee’s early warning screening tool has been used as a starting point to

develop this interagency critical minerals list. Additional input used for the development of this 

forthcoming list included information on U.S. mineral import reliance statistics, supply chain 

studies, and expert opinion from the Federal agencies representing the Subcommittee. 

Updated Application of the Early Warning Screening Tool (Stage I)

The early warning screening tool assesses a mineral’s potential criticality using three 

fundamental indicators: Supply Risk, Production Growth, and Market Dynamics. The indicators 

use data published annually by USGS, as well as other sources. The formulas for each indicator 

are discussed in the 2016 Subcommittee Report to Congress.

2

In this update, the early warning screening tool has been applied to 77 mineral resources to 

generate a new list of potentially critical minerals by incorporating statistics available through 

USGS. The screening tool identified the following minerals in descending potential criticality: 

yttrium, the rare earth elements (lanthanum through lutetium on the Periodic Table), gallium, 

ferromolybdenum, mercury, tungsten, ruthenium, antimony, silicomanganese, graphite, 

germanium, ferronickel, monazite, strontium, iridium, tantalum, rhodium, bismuth (refinery), 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology 4 

niobium, and phosphate. Overall, potential criticality has decreased since the last report, but a 

number of minerals saw an increase in potential criticality. Minerals identified as potentially 

critical using the two most recent years of complete data from the USGS are shown in Figure 2. A 

hierarchical cluster analysis was utilized to help determine which subset of minerals should be 

identified as potentially critical. The results indicated a criticality potential cut-off value of 0.30.4

The aim of this tool is to identify and assess emerging trends in mineral commodities and is not 

designed to produce a static list.

Figure 2. Results from the updated application of the early warning screening tool (Stage I). Only 

minerals with criticality potential values greater than 0.30 in either year are displayed.

4 For more information on trends, in-depth analysis, and data enhancements for the screening tool, see 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70191019

0.33

0.36

0.33

0.30

0.34

0.30

0.35

0.28

0.34

0.35

0.48

0.26

0.36

0.28

0.34

0.36

0.31

0.32

0.39

0.35

0.46

0.40

0.44

0.54

0.35

0.48

0.41

0.21

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.23

0.25

0.28

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.31

0.31

0.31

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.33

0.34

0.34

0.35

0.36

0.39

0.40

0.41

0.46

0.49

0.60

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Ferrovanadium

Vanadium

Ferromanganese

Cobalt (refinery)

Cobalt (mine)

Magnesium

Bismuth (mine)

Phosphate

Niobium

Bismuth (refinery)

Rhodium

Tantalum

Iridium

Strontium

Monazite

Ferronickel

Germanium

Graphite

Silicomanganese

Antimony

Ruthenium

Tungsten

Mercury

Ferromolybdenum

Gallium

Rare earths

Yttrium

Criticality Potential 

2014

2013
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology 5

Data Updates and Enhancements

In addition to identifying and stratifying minerals that are potentially critical, the interagency 

mineral criticality assessment effort also helps to address data needs. The initial application of 

the early warning screening tool helped identify areas ripe for data improvement in terms of 

consistency, granularity, and uniformity across data sets. In response, updates to historical 

information were made and incorporated into the updated application of the screening tool as 

used to produce the results in Figure 2. In a few cases, such as beryllium, prices were changed to 

reflect a consistent valuation of a mineral commodity throughout the time series. For instance, in 

the initial application of the screening tool, the time-series price data utilized differing forms of 

the same commodity that were not comparable in value. This affected the corresponding Market 

Dynamics indicator value, which is a component in the overall criticality potential of the mineral. 

The data were updated to reflect a uniform and more accurate measure of price across years. 

Another enhancement of price data was the differentiation of prices across multiple processing 

stages. For example, in the initial application of the screening tool, the same price was used for 

copper mining, smelting, and refining. This update employs separate prices for the three different 

forms. Similar efforts to include price data for the intermediate products of other applicable 

minerals were made.

In a few instances, production data were also modified to assure consistency and accuracy. For 

example, in the initial application of the screening tool, boron production was based on gross 

weight. In this updated application, the element content of boron production was utilized to 

more accurately reflect each country’s production. For other minerals, production data were 

modified based on new, additional, or revised information.

The Subcommittee continues to enhance the performance of the early warning screening tool. By 

using historical events, such as the “Rare Earth Crisis” in 2010 when China temporarily restricted 

the export of rare earth elements, the Subcommittee is able to probe the ability of the tool to 

provide advanced warning of mineral criticality. Such retrospective analysis sheds light on and 

clarifies uncertainties that might be associated with the output from the tool. It also highlights 

opportunities to improve and refine the tool’s indicators. In addition, to better understand what 

may be driving the results, the Subcommittee has been investigating the screening tool’s 

sensitivity to variations in all three indicators: Supply Risk, Production Growth, and Market 

Dynamics.

In-Depth Supply Chain Analyses (Stage II) and Productive Interagency 

Collaboration

The second stage of the methodology involves detailed analysis of the underlying factors that 

result in the subset of minerals identified as potentially critical by Stage I of the screening tool. 

Several in-depth supply chain studies for a subset of minerals identified as potentially critical by 

the previous application of the screening tool have been recently completed or are ongoing, 

including studies for yttrium, the rare earth elements, germanium, bismuth, and cobalt.5,6,7,8,9

Moving forward, the Subcommittee intends to expand its coverage of Stage II studies. The 

 5 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70176895 (titanium, zirconium, rare earths) 6 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1257654 (global markets) 7 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165152 (major metals) 8 https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cobalt/cobalt-supply-security.pdf 9 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70178701 (tellurium, dysprosium, rare earths)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology 6

Subcommittee is developing a collaborative process by which appropriate Stage II studies can be 

prioritized and conducted by member agencies to further illuminate underlying market forces, 

trends, and risks for minerals identified as potentially critical by the early warning screening tool.

In addition to these in-depth supply chain analyses, numerous Subcommittee member agencies 

have incorporated the screening tool into their practices to further the objective of their 

individual missions. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

used the outcome of the first application of the screening tool to inform its programs’ approaches 

to risk assessment and mitigation. The Department of Energy (DOE) is examining energy-relevant 

materials flagged by the screening tool in its upcoming update to the 2011 Critical Materials 

Strategy. The Department of Defense is also utilizing the screening tool to support various 

internal assessment efforts.

Stimulating Broader Collaboration 

In September 2016, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report10

examining U.S. efforts to address critical mineral supply issues. In the report, GAO recommended 

that the Subcommittee strengthen the Federal approach to addressing critical material supply 

issues through enhanced interagency collaboration; to develop a strategy to address data 

limitations that are preventing additional materials from being included in the early warning 

screening tool; and to examine approaches used by other countries to see if there are any lessons 

learned that can be applied to the United States.

Since GAO issued their report, several agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, 

NASA, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency, have become more 

active in the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee has also helped facilitate the interagency 

collaboration necessary to effectively respond to Executive Order 13817.

The Subcommittee and its member agencies see the value in analyzing more minerals and nonminerals in the early warning screening tool to help inform policy decisions. In addition, 

extending coverage further down the supply chain would add significant value. Data for key 

mineral-derived materials such as specific forms or compounds that are common feedstocks for 

manufacturing components are often not available because there is no Government agency 

tasked with the collection of such information. Fulfilling this need will require additional 

dedicated personnel and financial resources for data collection, analysis, and distribution. 

For the past seven years, Subcommittee member agencies have participated in an annual 

trilateral critical materials conference co-hosted by the United States, the European Union (EU), 

and Japan. Participation in this conference has enabled the United States to share 

methodological approaches for mineral criticality assessment, as well as research and 

development insights on reprocessing, recycling, and technological alternatives. Experts from 

USGS and DOE are also serving on advisory boards of EU-sponsored projects on mineral 

information, material flows, and materials criticality. The EU sponsored Mineral Intelligence 

Capabilities Assessment addresses mineral information and the MinFutures project addresses 

material flow methodologies. The Department of Defense also includes critical materials in a 

number of its collaborative efforts with partner countries.

 10 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-699
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS

Assessment of Critical Minerals: Updated Application of Screening Methodology 7

The Subcommittee intends to further facilitate coordination among agencies to identify, 

prioritize, and address data gaps; to share learning and insight from in-depth analyses; to 

prioritize supply chains for further analysis; and to continue to share lessons with international 

counterparts.

Future Work

The Subcommittee has already begun work on the next application of the early warning 

screening tool, drawing on recent data from the USGS Mineral Yearbook series. It is evaluating the 

utility of including additional indicators or making other enhancements to the tool. Decisions to 

make such changes to the early warning screening tool will be weighed against any impacts they 

have on the transparency and repeatability of the tool. Continuing to employ regularly-reported 

and publicly-available data in the screening tool is a high priority for the Subcommittee. 

Furthermore, member agencies are working with USGS to augment the early warning screening 

tool to address agency-specific needs. For example, the tool currently presents results from a 

non-country specific perspective; however, based on user feedback, a U.S.-centric version is 

under development. Both perspectives will be functional options for users. The Subcommittee 

intends to report on this work and provide an update on how the tool is being used across the 

various member agencies later this year.

The Subcommittee’s member agencies plan to pursue in-depth supply chain analyses to better 

understand the risks and vulnerabilities associated with the subset of minerals identified as 

potentially critical by the early warning screening tool. Special attention will be paid to minerals 

that are newly identified as potentially critical by each year’s updated application of the 

screening tool, and minerals whose potential criticality has increased significantly since the 

previous update. 

To date, the Subcommittee’s collaborative interagency efforts have yielded significant crossorganizational learning, which has led to both direct and indirect benefits, and have provided a 

richer understanding of mineral vulnerabilities and opportunities for policy interventions. In 

addition, the Subcommittee’s efforts have introduced agencies to new perspectives and 

approaches, strengthening individual agency projects and laying the foundation for future 

collaborative efforts. Such benefits enhance the ability of member agencies to meet national 

needs. Understanding which minerals are vulnerable to emerging supply chain risks is important 

to ensuring that the United States has an adequate and affordable supply of critical minerals that 

are vital to our Nation’s security and economy.