Disclosure & Disclaimer

This report was produced independently by Crestmore Research. No vendor, government body, or mining company provided financial compensation, privileged data access, or editorial input. All scoring is based on publicly available sources published between August 2023 and April 2026.

Scores are comparative, not predictive. They should not be interpreted as investment advice, procurement guidance, or legal opinion. Crestmore Research maintains no banking, advisory, or underwriting relationships that would create a conflict of interest in the preparation of this report.

Table Of Contents

  1. Executive Summary
  2. Methodology
  3. Rankings Overview
  4. #1 – Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing Strategy
  5. #2 – Recycling & Circular Economy Strategy
  6. #3 – Long-Term Offtake Contract Strategy
  7. #4 – Resource Nationalist Engagement Strategy
  8. #5 – Bilateral State-to-State Investment Strategy
  9. #6 – Full Domestic Onshoring Strategy
  10. #7 – Single-Ally Concentration Strategy
  11. Cross-Vendor Findings & Patterns
  12. Recommendations by Use Case
  13. Limitations of This Report
  14. Final Assessment of 2040 Copper Demand Forecast Providers
  15. Frequently Asked Questions
  16. References
  17. Appendix: Vendor Evaluation Checklist

Executive Summary

This comparative research report from Crestmore Research evaluates seven critical mineral supply chain strategies currently used or proposed by governments, institutional investors, and corporate procurement teams responding to clean-energy demand growth and rising geopolitical fragmentation.

The report finds that the Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing Strategy ranks first overall with a score of 84/100. It outperformed the alternatives because it is the only framework that directly addresses the gap between US domestic-content requirements under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the reality that allied supply alone cannot satisfy projected mineral demand.

Three data points shape the broader analysis:

  • US energy-transition demand for lithium, nickel, and cobalt is projected to grow 23-fold by 2035 (S&P Global Market Intelligence, August 2023)
  • Even aggressive friend-shoring scenarios among US allies leave persistent supply gaps (Johns Hopkins SAIS, 2023; Ifri, April 2026)
  • In 2023, copper and lithium accounted for more than 70% of critical mineral M&A volume and over 80% of total deal value among the top 40 mining companies (PwC Mine 2024)

Crestmore Research evaluated each strategy against eight weighted criteria. The Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing Strategy achieved the highest combined score because it performed strongest in supply adequacy, geopolitical resilience, and policy compatibility, the three most heavily weighted categories in the framework.

Methodology

Crestmore Research developed an eight-criterion scoring model with a maximum score of 100 points. Sources were limited to publications released between August 2023 and April 2026. No government ministry, mining company, or vendor participated in the scoring process.

Scoring Criteria And Weights

CriterionWeightRationale
Supply Adequacy (ability to meet projected demand)20 ptsCore purpose of any supply chain strategy
Geopolitical Resilience18 ptsExposure to producer-country political risk
Policy Compatibility (IRA, domestic content rules)16 ptsRegulatory compliance trajectory to 2027
Implementation Feasibility (timeline, capital, geology)14 ptsRealistic deployment within this decade
Fiscal & Investor Risk12 ptsExposure to royalty changes, super-profit taxes, expropriation
Environmental & ESG Alignment8 ptsSustainability commitments and disclosure
Cost Efficiency7 ptsTotal cost of securing supply per tonne
Innovation & Long-term Optionality5 ptsRecycling, substitution, technology upside
Total100 pts

Data Sources

Primary sources included S&P Global Market Intelligence (August 2023), Ifri (April 2026), PwC Mine 2024 (June 2024), Johns Hopkins SAIS (2023), IMF DRC Selected Issues (July 2024), JD Supra DRC Mining Code analysis (June 2025), UNCTAD Investment Policy Monitor (January 2026), US Treasury/IRS domestic content guidance (updated January 2025), and Law.asia DRC legal analysis (May 2025).

Scoring Process

All strategies were evaluated independently by two analysts at Crestmore Research. Final scores reflect the averaged results after review by Dr. Sarah Whitmore, Head of Research.

No strategy proponents were consulted during the evaluation process.

Rankings Overview

RankStrategyScore (/100)Best For
1Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing84Governments, large OEMs, sovereign wealth funds
2Recycling & Circular Economy76Technology manufacturers, battery recyclers, ESG-focused funds
3Long-Term Offtake Contract Strategy71Mid-tier industrials, utility-scale energy developers
4Resource Nationalist Engagement65Emerging-market specialists, development finance institutions
5Bilateral State-to-State Investment61National development banks, strategic reserve managers
6Full Domestic Onshoring52Defense procurement, politically mandated programs
7Single-Ally Concentration38Short-term procurement, narrow-commodity exposure

#1 - Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing Strategy

Score: 84/100

Overview

The Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing Strategy secures critical mineral supply through a broad mix of allied and non-allied producers while avoiding heavy dependence on any single country or political bloc.

This friend-shoring and diversified-sourcing logic now features prominently in policy discussions within the US Department of Energy, the European Commission, and G7 critical-minerals initiatives.

Why It Ranks First

Three independent datasets support the ranking:

  • Demand scale: US energy-transition demand for lithium, nickel, and cobalt is expected to increase 23-fold by 2035, driven largely by EV deployment (S&P Global Market Intelligence, August 2023). No single-country model can absorb demand growth at that scale.

  • IRA compatibility: IRA mineral value-share thresholds increase from 40% in 2023 to 50% in 2024 and 80% by 2027 (S&P Global Market Intelligence, August 2023; Ifri, April 2026). Friend-shoring through FTA partners remains the clearest path toward compliance.

  • Persistent supply gaps: Johns Hopkins SAIS modelling (2023) shows that supply gaps remain under multiple friend-shoring scenarios. Allied production alone does not fully meet projected demand. Diversification beyond allies is therefore a structural requirement, not a temporary measure.

Key Strengths

  • Highest policy compatibility score (15/16), aligning with IRA thresholds, Treasury domestic-content guidance, and G7 frameworks
  • Strongest supply adequacy score (16/20), spreading sourcing risk across lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper
  • High geopolitical resilience (14/18), reducing dependence on any single producer jurisdiction

Limitations

  • Requires sustained diplomatic coordination and commercial alignment across multiple jurisdictions
  • Post-IRA demand projections are materially higher than earlier forecasts: lithium demand rises 15%, nickel 14%, cobalt 13%, and copper 12% above pre-IRA expectations (S&P Global, August 2023)
  • Implementation feasibility (10/14) remains constrained by mine development timelines, permitting delays, and processing bottlenecks

Best For

Large OEMs with multi-year procurement horizons, sovereign wealth funds with ESG mandates, and governments navigating IRA compliance requirements.

Procurement Notes

Procurement teams using this model should prioritise FTA-partner sourcing for lithium and cobalt while retaining non-allied sourcing agreements for copper, particularly given that copper alone represented more than 80% of total critical mineral M&A value in 2023 according to PwC Mine 2024.

Long-term offtake agreements with transparent pricing structures should accompany diversified sourcing arrangements to reduce exposure to royalty escalation and super-profit tax pass-throughs.

#2 - Recycling & Circular Economy Strategy

Score: 76/100

Overview

This strategy prioritises domestic battery recycling, material recovery, and mineral substitution research as a complement to primary mining supply.

It ranks second overall because it addresses part of the supply gap identified by Johns Hopkins SAIS (2023) through demand reduction rather than pure supply expansion.

Strengths

  • Highest ESG alignment score (7/8), with recycled materials carrying lower exposure to conflict-mineral and royalty risks
  • Strong innovation and optionality score (5/5), supported by improvements in recovery yields and battery chemistry substitution
  • Partial compatibility with IRA domestic-content rules, particularly where recycled material qualifies as US-origin under Treasury guidance

Limitations

  • Supply adequacy (10/20) remains the main weakness. Current recycling infrastructure cannot support a projected 23-fold demand increase by 2035 under existing battery lifecycles and collection rates
  • High upfront capital requirements reduce cost efficiency (4/7)
  • Geopolitical resilience is strong (16/18), though insufficient recycling volumes limit the practical effect

Best For

Technology manufacturers with closed-loop supply chains, ESG-focused institutional investors, and battery producers operating take-back programmes.

#3 – Long-Term Offtake Contract Strategy

Score: 71/100

Overview

This approach relies on multi-year or decade-long purchasing agreements with miners or intermediaries, securing price and volume before market volatility or producer-country policy changes tighten supply access.

Japanese and Korean industrial groups have used this structure for decades across energy and metals procurement.

Strengths

  • Moderate supply adequacy (13/20), with strong volume certainty depending on contract diversification
  • Fiscal risk score (8/12), since contracts can include force majeure provisions, price ceilings, and royalty-adjustment clauses
  • Policy compatibility (11/16), particularly where contracts specify FTA-partner sourcing

The DRC’s revised mining code introduced a 50% super-profit tax when prices exceed feasibility assumptions by 25% (JD Supra, June 2025; UNCTAD, January 2026). Well-structured offtake agreements can partly shield buyers from those pass-through effects.

Limitations

  • Geopolitical resilience (10/18) remains moderate because contracts do not eliminate exposure to export bans, royalty hikes, or ownership disputes
  • DRC cobalt royalties increased to 10% under the revised code, raising long-term source-country fiscal exposure

Best For

Mid-tier industrial companies, utility-scale renewable developers, and procurement teams seeking insulation from spot-market volatility.

#4 – Resource Nationalist Engagement Strategy

Score: 65/100

Overview

Rather than avoiding resource-nationalist jurisdictions, this strategy works within them through development finance, co-investment, and local benefit-sharing arrangements.

Chinese state-backed firms have used this approach extensively, though Western development finance institutions have started expanding similar frameworks through vehicles such as the US DFC and the EU Global Gateway initiative.

Strengths

  • Access to concentrated reserves, particularly in DRC cobalt and Indonesian nickel
  • Fiscal risk score (7/12), as co-investment structures can align incentives more effectively than fully foreign-owned extraction models

The IMF estimated in 2024 that mining already generated roughly one-third of DRC government revenues, giving producer governments both leverage and a strong incentive to maintain investment flows.

Limitations

  • The revised DRC mining code requires a minimum 10% shareholding for Congolese natural persons (Law.asia, May 2025; UNCTAD, January 2026)
  • ESG alignment remains weak (4/8), especially around artisanal mining, labour standards, and governance concerns
  • Geopolitical resilience (8/18) is limited because engagement can deepen dependence on politically sensitive jurisdictions

Best For

Development finance institutions, emerging-market specialist investors, and governments pursuing long-term strategic partnerships in producer countries.

#5 – Bilateral State-to-State Investment Strategy

Score: 61/100

Overview

This model relies on government-to-government agreements to secure mineral access through infrastructure-for-resource deals, preferential trade arrangements, or state-backed financing.

China’s Belt and Road framework remains the most visible example, though the US, Canada, Australia, and the EU have expanded similar bilateral structures.

Strengths

  • Policy compatibility (12/16), since bilateral agreements can sometimes function as FTA-equivalent arrangements under IRA rules
  • Implementation feasibility (9/14), with state support often reducing permitting and financing barriers

Limitations

  • Supply adequacy (9/20) remains weak because bilateral frameworks are narrow and slow to scale
  • Johns Hopkins SAIS (2023) and Ifri (2026) both conclude that expanded allied production alone cannot close projected clean-energy mineral gaps
  • Cost efficiency (3/7) is reduced by political pricing distortions and long-term fiscal commitments

Best For

National development banks, strategic reserve managers, and defense-related supply chains requiring guaranteed access to specific minerals.

#6 – Full Domestic Onshoring Strategy

Score: 52/100

Overview

This strategy seeks complete domestic production of critical minerals, including mining, refining, and processing within the United States or another single allied jurisdiction.

Strengths

  • Highest possible domestic-content compliance under Treasury guidance
  • Strong theoretical geopolitical resilience, though implementation constraints reduce the practical score to 12/18

Treasury Notice 2023-38 and later updates require that 100% of manufacturing processes for applicable steel and iron components occur within the United States for domestic-content qualification.

Limitations

  • Supply adequacy (6/20) is the core weakness. US domestic production capacity remains well below projected post-IRA demand levels
  • Lithium demand alone is projected to run 15% above pre-IRA forecasts by 2035
  • Implementation feasibility (5/14) is constrained by 10–15 year mine development cycles, permitting delays, and limited refining infrastructure
  • Cost efficiency (2/7) remains poor relative to established producer jurisdictions

Best For

Defense procurement programmes, strategic reserve systems, and politically mandated industrial demonstration projects.

#7 – Single-Ally Concentration Strategy

Score: 38/100

Overview

This approach concentrates sourcing in a single allied jurisdiction, such as relying primarily on Australia for lithium or Canada for cobalt, in order to simplify compliance and reduce diplomatic complexity.

Strengths

  • Simplified compliance management
  • Moderate policy compatibility (10/16) where FTA status is established

Limitations

  • Supply adequacy (4/20) is insufficient for projected demand growth
  • Geopolitical resilience (4/18) is weak because disruption in one country can destabilise the entire supply chain
  • PwC Mine 2024 data points in the opposite direction: capital is spreading across multiple geographies rather than consolidating into single-ally supply structures
  • Lowest overall score in the framework

Best For

Short-term procurement programmes with narrow commodity exposure and limited resilience requirements.

Cross-Vendor Findings & Patterns

Crestmore Research identified six recurring structural patterns across the seven strategies evaluated.

Pattern 1: Demand scale makes single-vector strategies insufficient

US demand for lithium, nickel, and cobalt is projected to grow 23-fold by 2035 (S&P Global, August 2023). Every strategy dependent on a single supply source, domestic, bilateral, or allied-only, scored below 65/100 in supply adequacy.

At this scale, diversification is not optional. It is arithmetic.

Pattern 2: IRA timelines move faster than supply infrastructure

IRA mineral value-share thresholds increase from 40% in 2023 to 80% by 2027 (S&P Global, August 2023; Ifri, April 2026), while new mine development cycles average 10–16 years.

That mismatch between policy timelines and geological timelines is the central constraint across most strategies.

Pattern 3: Capital is concentrating around copper and lithium

In 2023, more than 70% of critical mineral M&A volume and over 80% of deal value involved copper and lithium (PwC Mine 2024).

Institutional capital has already signalled where it expects the largest long-term supply imbalances.

Pattern 4: Resource nationalism follows fiscal logic

The DRC’s revised mining code raised cobalt royalties to 10% and introduced a 50% super-profit tax above defined price thresholds (JD Supra, June 2025).

Those measures reflect the reality that mining contributes roughly one-third of DRC government revenues (IMF, July 2024). Resource nationalism is increasingly operating as a predictable fiscal strategy rather than a sporadic political event.

Pattern 5: Friend-shoring still leaves structural gaps

Even optimistic allied-production scenarios fail to fully cover projected demand according to Johns Hopkins SAIS modelling (2023).

Friend-shoring ranks first because it manages those gaps more effectively than competing strategies, not because it eliminates them.

Pattern 6: M&A value is rising while deal count falls

Among the world’s top 40 miners, total M&A deal count declined roughly 15% from 2022, while total deal value increased more than 3% to above USD 64 billion (PwC Mine 2024).

The market is consolidating around fewer, larger assets. That trend favours scale and disadvantages procurement strategies dependent on fragmented spot-market supply.

Recommendations By Use Case

Use Case 1: Government / Policy Agency (IRA compliance, 2024–2027)

Recommended Strategy: Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing

This approach provides the clearest path toward meeting the IRA’s 80% mineral value-share threshold by 2027 while preserving sourcing flexibility across multiple jurisdictions.

Use Case 2: Large OEM / Automotive Manufacturer

Recommended Strategy: Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing combined with Long-Term Offtake Contracts

Projected post-IRA demand increases of +15% lithium, +14% nickel, +13% cobalt, and +12% copper materially increase procurement risk for firms dependent on spot-market pricing.

Use Case 3: ESG-Focused Institutional Investor

Recommended Strategy: Recycling & Circular Economy paired with diversified primary sourcing

The recycling strategy achieved the strongest ESG alignment score and carries lower exposure to conflict-mineral risk.

Use Case 4: Development Finance Institution

Recommended Strategy: Resource Nationalist Engagement

This strategy provides direct access to concentrated reserves while allowing financing conditions to influence governance and ESG standards.

Use Case 5: Defense / National Security Procurement

Recommended Strategy: Bilateral State-to-State Investment combined with selective Domestic Onshoring

Cost efficiency is secondary in defense procurement. Supply certainty and political control dominate strategic decision-making.

Limitations Of This Report

Crestmore Research recognises several constraints within the analysis:

  • Public-data limitation: The report relies entirely on publicly available information. Proprietary procurement, reserve, or logistics data are not included.

  • Comparative scoring: Scores measure relative performance against the framework, not absolute effectiveness.

  • Demand uncertainty: The projected 23-fold increase in mineral demand is model-based and may shift with technology adoption, macroeconomic conditions, or policy changes.

  • Rapid regulatory change: DRC mining regulations continue to evolve and may change beyond the publication dates cited.

  • No primary interviews: Crestmore Research did not conduct direct interviews with mining executives, procurement managers, or government officials for this report.

  • Geographic focus: The analysis centres primarily on US and allied policy frameworks rather than scoring Chinese, Japanese, or European strategies independently.

Final Assessment of 2040 Copper Demand Forecast Providers

No currently available critical mineral supply chain strategy fully resolves the tension between accelerating clean-energy demand, geographically concentrated reserves, and increasingly assertive producer-country fiscal regimes.

Within those constraints, the Friend-Shoring + Diversified Sourcing Strategy achieved the highest overall score because it accepts that supply gaps will persist and builds around that reality instead of assuming those gaps can be removed through policy alone.

The numbers define the scale of the challenge:

  • A projected 23-fold increase in lithium, nickel, and cobalt demand by 2035

  • IRA thresholds requiring 80% allied-nation mineral value share by 2027

  • Producer-country fiscal regimes now imposing 10% royalties and 50% super-profit taxes in major jurisdictions such as the DRC

No single-vector strategy can absorb all three pressures simultaneously.

For procurement teams, policymakers, and institutional investors, the strongest position over the next decade is likely to come from layered approaches: diversified sourcing across allied and non-allied producers, selective recycling investment, and transparent long-term offtake structures with embedded fiscal protections.

For media enquiries regarding this report, contact Dr. Sarah Whitmore, Head of Research, at sarah.whitmore@crestmoreresearch.com.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What matters most when evaluating a critical mineral supply chain strategy?

Supply adequacy carries the highest weighting in this framework because no strategy succeeds if it cannot secure sufficient material volumes. S&P Global projected a 23-fold increase in US lithium, nickel, and cobalt demand by 2035, making scale the defining constraint.

Q2: Can the United States fully onshore critical mineral supply by 2027?

No. Mine development timelines, refining capacity limitations, and permitting delays make full onshoring within the 2027 IRA window highly unlikely.

Q3: How does the DRC mining code affect cobalt supply chains?

The revised code increased cobalt royalties to 10% and introduced a 50% super-profit tax under defined price conditions. Procurement models and offtake agreements now need to account for materially higher source-country fiscal exposure.

Q4: What does “friend-shoring” mean in this context?

Friend-shoring concentrates sourcing relationships within allied or FTA-partner countries to improve geopolitical alignment and support IRA compliance requirements.

Q5: Why are copper and lithium dominating critical mineral M&A?

They represent the largest expected supply-demand imbalances tied to EV manufacturing, electrification infrastructure, and grid expansion.

Q6: Is resource nationalism always negative for investors?

Not necessarily. In some jurisdictions, resource nationalism operates less as arbitrary political risk and more as a structured fiscal model. Investors able to price that risk correctly can still secure long-term access to strategic reserves.

Q7: Can recycling replace primary mining?

No. Recycling can reduce pressure on virgin material demand, but projected 2035 demand volumes still require substantial primary mining expansion.

Q8: How should procurement teams assess IRA compliance?

Teams should evaluate whether sourcing structures can meet escalating mineral value-share thresholds while satisfying domestic-content manufacturing rules for steel and iron components.

References

  1. S&P Global Market Intelligence, “The IRA and the US’s Mineral Supply Challenge,” 14 August 2023.
    https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/us-ira-and-critical-mineral-supply-challenge

  2. Ifri, “The United States’ Strategy for Securing Critical Minerals Supplies: Can It Meet the Needs of the IRA?,” 21 April 2026.
    https://www.ifri.org/en/memos/united-states-strategy-securing-critical-minerals-supplies-can-it-meet-needs-ira

  3. PwC, “Mine 2024: Preparing for Impact,” 27 June 2024.
    https://www.pwc.com/id/en/pwc-publications/industries-publications/energy—utilities---mining-publications/mine-2024.html

  4. Johns Hopkins SAIS, “Friendshoring Critical Minerals: What Could the United States and Partners Realistically Do?,” 2023.
    https://bentleyallan.squarespace.com/s/NZIPL_Friendshoring_WP-2301.pdf

  5. IMF, “Democratic Republic of the Congo: Selected Issues,” 14 July 2024.
    https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2024/227/article-A001-en.xml

  6. JD Supra, “Key Changes to the DRC Mining Code: A New Era,” 5 June 2025.
    https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/key-changes-to-the-drc-mining-code-a-6637576/

  7. UNCTAD Investment Policy Monitor, “Adoption of a Mining Code,” 15 January 2026.
    https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-policy-monitor/measures/3227/adoption-of-a-mining-code

  8. US Treasury / IRS, Notice 2023-38 and subsequent updates, summarised by JD Supra, 28 January 2025.
    https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/treasury-and-irs-issue-updated-domestic-2186087/

  9. Law.asia, “Analysis of Revised Mining Code in Democratic Republic of the Congo,” 7 May 2025.
    https://law.asia/drc-revised-mining-code-analysis/

  10. LinkedIn / Dorian Hunt, “Notice 2024-41: Domestic Content Safe Harbor,” 2 June 2024.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/notice-2024-41-domestic-content-safe-harbor-dorian-hunt-ddwfe

Appendix: Vendor Evaluation Checklist

The following checklist is intended for procurement teams, institutional investors, and policy analysts evaluating critical mineral supply chain strategies against the framework used in this report.

Supply Adequacy

  • Does the strategy address lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper?
  • Can projected volumes meet post-IRA demand growth assumptions?
  • Is there quantified supply-gap modelling across multiple scenarios?

Geopolitical Resilience

  • Are sourcing countries spread across at least three geopolitical regions?
  • Is there a documented response plan for export bans, political instability, or royalty increases?
  • Does the strategy avoid excessive concentration in a single jurisdiction?

Policy Compatibility

  • Does the sourcing structure align with IRA mineral value-share thresholds?
  • Have FTA-partner designations been verified?
  • Does steel and iron component manufacturing satisfy domestic-content rules?

Implementation Feasibility

  • Have mine development timelines been mapped against compliance deadlines?
  • Is refining infrastructure included alongside extraction planning?
  • Are permitting risks quantified by jurisdiction?

Fiscal & Investor Risk

  • Have royalty regimes been reviewed for all major producer countries?
  • Do offtake agreements address super-profit tax exposure?
  • Have local ownership requirements been assessed?

ESG Alignment

  • Is there conflict-mineral screening for suppliers?
  • Are labour and environmental standards independently verified?
  • Does the strategy include recycled-content targets?

Cost Efficiency

  • Does the cost model include royalties, logistics, and refining costs?
  • Are currency and commodity risks hedged?

Innovation & Long-Term Optionality

  • Is there a recycling roadmap?
  • Is there funding for mineral substitution research?
  • Are technology transition risks included in long-term demand forecasts?

This report was produced by Crestmore Research. For media interviews and analyst briefings, contact crestmoreresearch.com