Data Sources & Methodology

Primary Data Sources

The Critical and Strategic Metals Hub draws on a wide range of authoritative sources to ensure the accuracy and reliability of our content. We prioritize official government publications, peer-reviewed research, and data from recognized international bodies. The following are our principal data sources, organized by category.

Government Geological Surveys

National geological surveys are the foundation of our production, reserve, and resource data. These agencies conduct primary research, maintain national mineral inventories, and publish annual and periodic assessments of mineral commodity supply and demand.

International Organizations

International bodies provide cross-country comparative data, standardized frameworks, and global overviews that complement the national-level data from geological surveys.

• European Commission: The EC publishes the European Critical Raw Materials list, updated every three years, along with supporting studies on criticality assessment methodology, supply risk analysis, and economic importance evaluation. We reference these extensively in our coverage of European policy and the EU's critical minerals strategy.
• International Energy Agency (IEA): The IEA's reports on critical minerals for energy transitions provide demand projections, supply gap analyses, and policy recommendations that are central to our coverage of how the energy transition is reshaping mineral markets. Their annual Critical Minerals Market Review is a key source for forward-looking demand scenarios.
• World Bank: The World Bank's Climate-Smart Mining initiative and associated reports provide data on the projected mineral requirements of a low-carbon future, along with analysis of the development implications for mineral-rich countries. We draw on this for our coverage of the intersection between mineral development and economic development.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): The OECD's work on responsible mineral supply chains, due diligence guidance, and trade policy analysis informs our coverage of governance, transparency, and responsible sourcing practices in the critical minerals sector.
• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): UNEP's International Resource Panel produces reports on mineral resource governance, recycling rates, and environmental impacts of mineral extraction that we reference in our coverage of sustainability, circularity, and environmental considerations.

Industry Data Providers

For pricing data, company-level production figures, and detailed market analysis, we reference a number of recognized industry data providers and market intelligence services.

• S&P Global Market Intelligence: Provides comprehensive mine-level production data, project development tracking, and corporate financial information for the global mining sector. We reference their data for company profiles and project-level information.
• Fastmarkets: A price reporting agency (PRA) that publishes benchmark prices for battery raw materials, minor metals, and rare earths. We reference their pricing methodology in our coverage of how critical minerals are priced.
• London Metal Exchange (LME): The LME provides reference prices for major base metals including copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. We cite LME pricing data in our market analysis and mineral profiles where applicable.
• Shanghai Metals Market (SMM): SMM publishes pricing and market data for Chinese metals markets, which are particularly relevant given China's dominant role in critical mineral processing and consumption.

Academic and Research Sources

Peer-reviewed research provides the scientific foundation for our technical content. We regularly reference publications in journals including Resources Policy, the Journal of Cleaner Production, Minerals Engineering, Nature Geoscience, and various publications of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME). For emerging topics where peer-reviewed literature may be limited, we also draw on working papers from recognized research institutions and think tanks.

Methodology for Criticality Assessments

When we discuss the criticality of individual minerals, we draw on established national and institutional assessment frameworks rather than developing our own proprietary methodology. This approach ensures our assessments are grounded in the same frameworks used by governments and international bodies to inform policy decisions.

The principal criticality frameworks we reference include:

• United States: The USGS criticality screening methodology, which evaluates supply risk based on production concentration, import reliance, and substitutability, combined with the Department of Energy's assessments of minerals critical to energy technologies.
• European Union: The EC's criticality assessment methodology, which evaluates minerals along two dimensions: supply risk (measured by country concentration, governance metrics, import reliance, substitutability, and recycling rates) and economic importance (measured by end-use applications weighted by sector value added).
• Australia: Geoscience Australia's critical minerals assessment, which evaluates minerals based on their importance to Australian industry and the global supply position, with particular attention to minerals where Australia has significant production potential.
• Canada: Natural Resources Canada's critical minerals framework, which assesses both the strategic importance of minerals to the Canadian economy and the potential for Canadian supply to contribute to allied supply chains.
• Japan: The Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC) assessment, which evaluates mineral criticality with particular emphasis on Japan's import dependency and the security of supply from producing nations.

Where different frameworks arrive at different conclusions about a given mineral's criticality, we present these differences explicitly and explain the methodological reasons for the divergence. We do not present any single list as the definitive determination of criticality, as this assessment is inherently context-dependent.

Information Compilation and Verification

Our editorial process is designed to ensure that published content meets high standards of accuracy and reliability. The following describes our approach to compiling, verifying, and maintaining information.

Research and Drafting

Content development begins with a thorough review of available literature and data on the topic. We prioritize primary sources, particularly official government data and peer-reviewed research, over secondary reporting. When secondary sources are used, we trace claims back to their original sources for verification. All quantitative claims are checked against the most recent available data from authoritative sources.

Cross-Referencing

Key facts and figures are cross-referenced against multiple independent sources where possible. When sources disagree on specific data points, we either present the range of reported values with attribution or identify the most authoritative source and explain why it was preferred. We note the publication date and reporting period of all quantitative data so readers can assess its currency.

Review and Update Cycle

Published content is subject to periodic review to ensure it remains current and accurate. Major data sources such as the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries are published annually, and we update our content to reflect new data as it becomes available. Articles on rapidly evolving topics such as trade policy and market dynamics are reviewed more frequently. When we update an article, we note the date of the most recent revision.

Error Correction

We maintain a prompt correction process for factual errors identified by readers or through our own review. When a correction is made to a published article, the nature of the correction is documented. Readers are encouraged to report potential errors through our contact page, and all reports are investigated.

Disclaimers and Limitations

We are committed to continuous improvement of our data quality and research methodology. If you have questions about our sources, methodology, or the data presented in any article, please do not hesitate to reach out through our contact page. Constructive feedback helps us maintain the high standards our readers expect.