Critical mineral shortages expected through 2035 may hinge less on the volume of ore extracted and more on whether mining companies can reliably process and deliver usable material to end customers, according to a new study by GEM Mining Consulting published on August 11, 2026. The consultancy analyzed six key minerals — copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, battery-grade graphite and magnet rare earths — using the International Energy Agency's 2035 outlook. The results reveal that expected supply covers only 68% of projected lithium requirements, 74% for cobalt and 75% for copper, pointing to significant volume deficits in those markets.
However, GEM's analysis introduces a second dimension of risk that challenges conventional supply forecasting. Battery-grade graphite and magnet rare earths are projected to achieve 96% and 107% supply coverage respectively, yet they carry the highest chain-fragility scores in GEM's proprietary model, registering 89 and 95 out of 100. This underscores a fundamental disconnect between aggregate production volumes and the structural reliability of supply chains.
Nickel presents a particularly telling case study. Supply is expected to meet approximately 92% of requirements by 2035, but its chain-fragility score reaches 66, driven by the concentration of processing capacity in Indonesia and China and the limited availability of diversified refining infrastructure elsewhere. The findings carry direct implications for industries reliant on battery-grade nickel, including the electric vehicle sector.
On the volume pressure front, lithium scores 80 on GEM's Volume Scarcity Index, while copper registers 62. Cobalt is identified as carrying a dual burden, combining a meaningful supply deficit with an elevated chain-fragility score of 78. GEM's research also challenges a common assumption in industry planning: that announced nameplate production capacity is a reliable proxy for actual future supply.
The consultancy argues that nameplate figures fail to account for commissioning delays, ramp-up periods, product quality challenges, customer qualification requirements and operational disruptions. In a worked example included in the study, these compounding factors reduced a hypothetical project's 100,000-tonne annual nameplate capacity to just 60,200 tonnes of reliable output. GEM was explicit that the assumptions are illustrative of its methodology rather than a market forecast.
The implication is significant for project valuation and strategic planning. A smaller mining operation with proven processing capabilities, qualified products and dependable logistics infrastructure could carry greater strategic value than a larger resource that lacks a viable and reliable pathway to market. GEM concludes that governments and industry players require differentiated policy and investment responses depending on the specific mineral in question.
For copper, lithium and cobalt, the priority is dependable project development and execution. For graphite and magnet rare earths, the emphasis must shift toward processing diversification, technological development and customer base expansion. The broader conclusion of the study is that reserves alone do not constitute supply.
For a critical mineral to fulfil its strategic function, it must be financed, permitted, mined, processed, quality-qualified and reliably delivered to end users — a chain of requirements that nameplate capacity figures alone cannot capture. Source: GEM Mining Consulting, Research Brief on Critical Mineral Scarcity, August 2026, based on IEA Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2026.
Source: mining.com