Digging Out of Dependence: The EU's Raw Materials Reckoning
Written by Kfir Kedem
Following last week’s article about “Made in Europe,” it is crucial to include the Critical Raw Materials Act in the discussion. This act was passed in 2024 and has set clear European extraction targets for 2030. They are as follows:
· 10%+ of EU demand to be extracted in Europe
· 40% of processing to be done in Europe
· 25% of recycling
· Capped dependence of 65% on any single country
Europe is not competing with the entire world, it is mainly competing with China who currently refines 40% of the world's copper, 60% of its lithium, 70% of its cobalt, and nearly 100% of its graphite. To support its member states in reaching the targets, the EU introduced strict permitting timelines which aim to have extraction projects approved in a matter of 27 months and processing projects in a matter of 15 months.
The incentives are further supported by the European Commission’s Critical Raw materials Act (CRMA) which is funding such these exact type of projects. One key example is the €1.8 billion Battery Booster which is aimed at funding projects related to the very materials that China is competing with.
There are two main angles to look from here. The first is where is there money to be made? With the support of Claude, a list of public European companies is presented below along with the materials they are working on and which European project they’re tied to:
Company | Listed? | Ticker | European Project(s) | Materials in EU Projects | Country | Status |
Boliden | Yes | BOL (Nasdaq Stockholm) | Aitik (Cu), Garpenberg (Zn), Kevitsa (Ni/Cu), Tara (Zn), Somincor (Cu/Zn), Zinkgruvan (Zn), Boliden Area | Copper, Zinc, Nickel, Cobalt, Lead, Gold, Silver, PGMs | Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Portugal | Active production across all sites |
Aurubis | Yes | AURUBIS (XETRA) | Hamburg smelter, Beerse (Belgium), Stolberg (Germany), Olen (Belgium) | Copper (primary + recycled), Gold, Silver, Selenium, Tellurium | Germany, Belgium | Active |
Eramet | Yes | ERA (Euronext Paris) | Sandouville refinery (France); AGeLi geothermal lithium (R&D stage) | Nickel, Cobalt (Sandouville); Lithium (AGeLi, Upper Rhine Valley) | France, Germany | Sandouville active; AGeLi pre-commercial |
Imerys | Yes | NK (Euronext Paris) | Emili project, Beauvoir (Allier, France) | Lithium (spodumene hard-rock) | France | Permitted; targeting 2027 production |
Vulcan Energy Resources | Yes | VUL (ASX / Frankfurt) | Zero Carbon Lithium, Upper Rhine Valley | Lithium (geothermal brine) | Germany | Construction phase; 24,000 t/yr target |
Savannah Resources | Yes | SAV (LSE) | Barroso project, northern Portugal | Lithium (spodumene hard-rock) | Portugal | Permitting; CRMA strategic project |
European Metals | Yes | EMH (ASX / AIM) | Cinovec, Czech Republic | Lithium, Tin | Czech Republic | Advanced exploration; CRMA strategic project |
Keliber (Sibanye sub.) | Parent listed | SSW (JSE) / SBSW (NYSE) | Kaustinen lithium project, western Finland | Lithium (spodumene), refining to battery-grade LiOH | Finland | Construction; first production targeted 2025/26 |
Mkango Resources | Yes | MKA (TSX-V / AIM) | Pulawy rare earth separation plant | Rare Earths (NdPr, heavy REEs) | Poland | Development; CRMA strategic project |
Greenland Resources | Yes | MOLY (Nasdaq) | Malmbjerg project | Molybdenum | Greenland | Feasibility stage; production targeted 2028 |
KGHM Polska Miedz | Yes | KGH (Warsaw) | Lubin, Rudna, Polkowice-Sieroszowice mines | Copper, Silver, Gold, Lead, Rhenium | Poland | Active; one of Europe's largest Cu producers |
FLSmidth / Metso | Yes | FLS (Copenhagen) / METSO (Helsinki) | Processing equipment across EU projects | N/A (equipment suppliers) | Denmark / Finland | Active supply chain roles |
These companies are operating across various stages of the value chain, from active extraction to construction and permitting. The pipeline is real, but timelines vary significantly. Most pure-play projects in lithium and rare earths are pre-production, meaning material cash flows for those names are a 2026-2030 story at the earliest, contingent on permitting milestones and financing conditions. The more immediate investment case rests with established producers like Boliden and KGHM, which are already generating revenue from European assets and stand to benefit directly from any regulatory pressure on sourcing.
Now, because European manufacturers will likely be increasingly pressured to source European mined and processed materials, this should also be looked at from the supply angle. Here we see some potential issues that must be addressed.
The first is the topic of quality. European ore grades for base metals like copper are generally lower than global benchmarks. Boliden's Aitik mine, for instance, operates at 0.2 to 0.4% copper grade, compared to 0.8 to 2%+ at top Chilean and African mines. Processing lower-grade ore to the same output quality requires more energy and more processing steps, which structurally increases unit costs. On the topic of costs, raw material costs would also increase due to the more expensive wages and energy associated with European mining. It must also be mentioned that the EU will create pressure on corporations to walk a very fine (and almost impossible line) between getting the required materials at affordable prices vs doing so in a sustainable, environmentally-friendly way.
Lithium is a more nuanced picture. European hard-rock lithium projects are at grades broadly comparable to mid-tier producers in Australia and Chile, rather than to China, which is primarily a processor rather than a miner of lithium. This is an important distinction: Europe's lithium quality challenge is metallurgical complexity, not simply grade. That said, commercially viable lithium is present in Europe in meaningful volumes, and this is a genuine upside for EV manufacturing, given that all current EV battery technology relies on lithium as its main active compound.
Comparing to China again, one added benefit will be closing the supply chain distance of material to end product. This would result in huge savings on shipping and reduction of lead times as carriers would not need to be sent across the world. Of course, it would also further guarantee supply security.
Given the benefits, this would likely result in a similar tension as of “Made in Europe” in which the local mining and processing will cause pain at first due to increased material costs but if the entire continent's trade is forced to adhere to such regulation, eventually the overall economy will strengthen, salaries will increase to match, and European industry will regain its power in global trade.
The bigger picture is this: Europe is not trying to out-mine the world. It is trying to reduce the fragility of a supply chain that two years of geopolitical disruption have exposed as a structural liability. The CRMA, the Battery Booster, and the 60 designated strategic projects are not a guarantee of success, but they represent the most serious industrial policy commitment the EU has made to raw material sovereignty in a generation. For procurement professionals and manufacturers across the continent, the question is no longer whether European-sourced material will become a compliance and commercial reality. It is how quickly, and at what cost premium, that transition arrives.
Comments