The critical mineral supply chain: Five actions to protect the route to revenue

Why new mines alone may not secure supply

Investment in critical minerals is accelerating, but extraction alone may not be sufficient to solve the supply challenge. Critical mineral projects can fail or underperform because vulnerabilities often exist beyond the mine gate. A project may own the orebody yet remain dependent on a single processor, a constrained transport corridor, one chemical supplier or a limited pool of buyers.

Whether raw materials can be processed, transported and sold in a commercially viable value chain are concerns that are making the route to revenue harder to navigate.

The result is a growing disconnect between critical mineral availability and usable supply: IMF modelling found a 42% refined supply shortfall despite increased mined material.

New extraction capacity does not guarantee revenue.

Why supply diversification can increase concentration risk

Supply chain resilience strategies have typically focused on diversifying sources of extraction, but diversification at the mining stage does not reduce concentration risk elsewhere across the supply chain.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) refining concentration reached record levels in 2025. The largest refined supplier accounted for an average of 70% of supply, while Indonesia and China contributed to over three-quarters of refined supply growth between 2023 and 2025. These concentrations create major dependencies, which can rapidly become bottlenecks when impacted by disruption.

Adding new mines could compound this issue. Adding mining capacity does not automatically create additional processing capacity, transport infrastructure or market access. Making more raw materials available to a highly concentrated supply chain creates commercial models that are vulnerable to disruption.

For investors, lenders and operators, more material in the ground does not necessarily translate into greater resilience. 

Dependencies in action

Risk to production can come from a completely different industry entirely, and sulfur is a compelling example.

Sulfur is essential to the production of sulfuric acid, a key component in uranium extraction and the processing of copper, cobalt, nickel, and other rare earths. Disruption to the sulfur market in 2026 highlighted how vulnerabilities can emerge from peripheral parts of the industrial network, but connected dependencies all felt the impacts acutely.

Uncertainty attached the sulfuric acid availability contributed to planned uranium output reductions in Kazakhstan, and Indonesia’s nickel sector – which produces over half of the global nickel supply – was disrupted by the sulfur shortage thousands of kilometers away. Dependencies outside the immediate value chain can quickly impact market delivery, contractual performance and revenue economics.

The lesson: resilience is increasingly determined by control of critical processes rather than ownership of additional resources.

Go beyond traditional physical damage exposures

Risk management for supply chain disruption has typically focused on physical damage such as floods, fires, equipment failures and geotechnical incidents. These exposures remain critical to a robust risk management strategy, but damage isn’t always the trigger that pushes the first domino across the value chain.

• Export restrictions have altered global mineral flows and pricing dynamics
• Policy intervention has interrupted the movement of strategic resources
• Climate-related events have affected both mine sites and supporting infrastructure simultaneously
• Trade fragmentation has increased the importance of logistics and processing bottlenecks

A mine may continue operating while revenue is disrupted by external issues or bottlenecks. The mined material exists. Demand exists. But the flow of production to revenue breaks down.

The focus for risk leaders is extending beyond traditional risk exposures, to identify possible scenarios where operational disruption becomes financial loss.

Resilience relies on the route-to-revenue

Project economics, supply-chain dependencies and risk strategies need to be considered as a collective.

Assessing risk through a route-to-revenue framework can be a valuable lens to eradicate silos and bring interdependencies to the fore. The framework examines five connected questions:

1. Bankability

Do project economics remain viable across different market and policy scenarios? 

2. Dependency

Where do critical concentrations actually sit? 

3. Access

Can material physically reach processors and customers? 

4. Monetization

Can value still be realized if conditions change? 

5. Insurability

Does risk transfer align with how losses would actually occur?

Focusing on the commercial pathway rather than individual assets or insurance silos is the foundation of understanding where vulnerabilities are most acute, and where the risk strategy needs to reflect these exposures.

The strategic checklist: Five actions to protect the route to revenue

Critical mineral supply chains are becoming increasingly complex and risks are becoming increasingly interconnected, intensifying at points of dependency. There are five key priorities that can help to protect the route to revenue:

1. Identify where the dependency exists

Map processing, transportation, storage and market access alongside extraction to understand where diverse risks converge on the same infrastructure, technology, supplier or jurisdiction.

2. Stress-test access and monetization

Model scenarios with the help of sophisticated risk engineering capabilities to understand what would happen if key processors, transport routes or markets become unavailable.

3. Challenge recovery assumptions

Assess whether alternative suppliers, processors or logistics networks can be activated within realistic timeframes and within cost parameters.

4. Align contracts, operations and risk financing

Contractual agreements across the supply chain and risk strategies should all reflect the same recovery pathways and financial objectives.

5. Validate insurance responses before a loss occurs

Understanding how a disruption would translate into financial consequences helps identify coverage gaps before they become critical.

Turn resources into long-term reliable revenue

Bottom line: Preparedness is demanding more of risk leaders. A sophisticated approach looks not solely whether or not a mine can operate, but whether material can be processed, moved and sold through the mineral value chain, and ultimately, whether the insurance program is aligned with that same route to revenue. 

Download the full article to find out how to ensure that investment in new extraction capacity translates into reliable mineral supply and revenue.