Compare Critical Minerals Lists
A comprehensive side-by-side comparison of the critical minerals designated by the United States, European Union, Australia, and Canada. Understand which minerals appear on every list, which are unique to specific jurisdictions, and what the differences reveal about each nation's strategic priorities.
Why Comparison Matters
Comparing critical minerals lists across major economies is essential for mining companies, investors, policymakers, and supply chain strategists. A mineral that appears on multiple national lists benefits from reinforcing policy support across jurisdictions: it may qualify for U.S. tax incentives, EU strategic project designation, Australian concessional financing, and Canadian federal grants simultaneously. Conversely, a mineral listed by only one jurisdiction may face uneven policy support and more limited investment interest.
The comparison also reveals how different nations define and assess criticality. The United States prioritizes supply vulnerability and defense applications. The European Union emphasizes economic importance to EU manufacturing and supply chain concentration risk. Australia focuses on its geological potential to serve as a diversified supplier to allied nations. Canada balances domestic economic development with its role as a reliable partner in allied supply chains. These differing perspectives produce lists that overlap significantly but diverge in revealing ways.
Cross-Jurisdictional Comparison Table
The following table compares mineral designations across the four jurisdictions. A checkmark indicates the mineral is on that country's critical minerals list. An "S" indicates the mineral also carries a strategic or priority designation within that jurisdiction's framework.
| Mineral | United States | European Union | Australia | Canada |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aluminum/Bauxite | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Antimony | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Arsenic | Yes | Yes | -- | -- |
| Barite | Yes | Yes | -- | -- |
| Beryllium | Yes | Yes | Yes | -- |
| Bismuth | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes |
| Boron/Borate | -- | Yes (S) | -- | -- |
| Cesium | Yes | -- | -- | Yes |
| Chromium | Yes | -- | Yes | Yes |
| Cobalt | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes (S) | Yes (P) |
| Coking coal | -- | Yes | -- | -- |
| Copper | -- | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes (P) |
| Feldspar | -- | Yes | -- | -- |
| Fluorspar | Yes | Yes | -- | Yes |
| Gallium | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes |
| Germanium | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes |
| Graphite | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes (S) | Yes (P) |
| Hafnium | Yes | Yes | Yes | -- |
| Helium | -- | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Indium | Yes | -- | Yes | Yes |
| Lithium | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes (S) | Yes (P) |
| Magnesium | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes |
| Manganese | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes (S) | Yes |
| Molybdenum | -- | -- | -- | Yes |
| Nickel | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes (S) | Yes (P) |
| Niobium | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PGMs | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes |
| Phosphate rock | -- | Yes | -- | -- |
| Potash | -- | -- | -- | Yes |
| Rare earth elements | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes (S) | Yes (P) |
| Rhenium | -- | -- | Yes | -- |
| Rubidium | Yes | -- | -- | -- |
| Scandium | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Selenium | -- | -- | Yes | Yes |
| Silicon | -- | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes |
| Strontium | -- | Yes | -- | -- |
| Tantalum | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tellurium | Yes | -- | Yes | Yes |
| Tin | Yes | -- | -- | Yes |
| Titanium | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes |
| Tungsten | Yes | Yes (S) | Yes | Yes |
| Uranium | -- | -- | -- | Yes |
| Vanadium | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Zinc | Yes | -- | Yes | Yes |
| Zirconium | Yes | -- | Yes | -- |
(S) = EU Strategic Raw Material designation. (P) = Canada Priority Mineral designation. Dashes indicate the mineral is not on that jurisdiction's list.
Universal Critical Minerals: On All Four Lists
A core group of minerals appears on the critical lists of all four jurisdictions, representing the clearest global consensus on which materials are genuinely critical. These universal critical minerals include: cobalt, lithium, rare earth elements, graphite, nickel, manganese, gallium, germanium, tantalum, tungsten, titanium, niobium, magnesium, antimony, scandium, vanadium, bismuth, aluminum/bauxite, and platinum group metals. The presence of these materials on every list reflects their indispensable roles in battery manufacturing, permanent magnets, semiconductors, defense applications, and advanced manufacturing, combined with supply chains that are concentrated in a small number of producing nations.
For mining companies and investors, minerals in this universal category represent the safest bet from a policy perspective. Projects targeting these materials can access government support programs in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, benefit from coordinated bilateral partnerships, and market their output to the widest possible range of policy-supported buyers. The convergence of four independent national assessments on these materials provides strong validation of their long-term strategic importance.
Notable Divergences
Copper: The Most Debated Mineral
Copper's presence on the EU, Australian, and Canadian lists but absence from the U.S. list is one of the most debated divergences in the global critical minerals landscape. The USGS assessment determined that copper's diverse global production base and relatively high recycling rates keep it below the supply risk threshold, despite its essential role in electrification. The EU, Australia, and Canada took a different view, considering projected demand growth and the long lead times required to develop new copper mines as factors that warrant critical designation.
This divergence has practical consequences. Copper projects in the United States do not benefit from critical mineral permitting expediting or Defense Production Act support, while copper projects in Canada, Australia, and the EU can access critical minerals policy instruments. Industry groups in the United States have lobbied for copper's inclusion in the next USGS review, arguing that demand growth from EVs, grid infrastructure, and data centers will strain supply within the decade.
Uranium and Potash: Canada's Unique Inclusions
Canada is the only jurisdiction among the four to designate uranium and potash as critical minerals. Both reflect Canada's specific national interests: it is the world's largest potash producer and second-largest uranium producer. The United States excludes uranium as a fuel mineral under the Energy Act's statutory definition, and the EU does not include it in its raw materials framework. Potash, while essential to global food security, does not feature on other nations' lists because it is not an industrial input in the same sense as metals and metalloids.
Boron, Coking Coal, and Phosphate: EU-Specific Entries
The EU list includes several materials not found on the other three lists, reflecting Europe's distinct industrial base and import dependencies. Boron/borate, coking coal, feldspar, phosphate rock, and strontium appear only on the EU list. Coking coal's inclusion is particularly notable: it reflects the EU's dependence on imported metallurgical coal for its steel industry, a vulnerability that other jurisdictions with larger domestic coal production do not share. Phosphate rock and phosphorus are included because the EU relies heavily on imports from Morocco and Russia for fertilizer production, a dependency that became acutely visible during the food price crisis triggered by the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Cesium and Rubidium: Niche U.S. and Canadian Entries
Cesium appears on both the U.S. and Canadian lists but not on the EU or Australian lists. Canada is the world's dominant cesium producer through the Tanco mine, giving it particular reason to designate this niche material. The U.S. includes cesium because of its supply vulnerability and its applications in precision timing devices and oil well drilling. Rubidium appears only on the U.S. list, reflecting its use in research, medical imaging, and atomic timing devices, though the market is small compared to other critical minerals.
Strategic and Priority Tiers Compared
The EU, Australia, and Canada all operate two-tier systems that distinguish between a broader critical list and a narrower strategic or priority tier. The United States does not currently use a formal two-tier system, though the Department of Defense maintains separate assessments of strategic material needs that function as an informal priority tier.
Comparing the elevated tiers reveals strong convergence. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and rare earth elements all hold strategic or priority status in the EU, Australia, and Canada. These five material groups are the foundation of the energy transition and face the most acute supply chain concentration risks. Their consistent elevation across jurisdictions sends a powerful signal to the mining and investment community about where policy support will be most robust and sustained.
Copper holds strategic or priority status in the EU and Canada but not in Australia's strategic tier, despite appearing on Australia's broader critical list. The EU's strategic tier additionally includes gallium, germanium, silicon metal, titanium, tungsten, platinum group metals, magnesium, manganese, boron, and bismuth, making it the broadest elevated tier among the three jurisdictions. Canada's priority tier is the narrowest at six minerals, reflecting a deliberate decision to concentrate maximum financial support on the areas of greatest Canadian geological advantage.
Implications for Global Supply Chain Strategy
The convergence and divergence across these four lists carry significant implications for global supply chain strategy. For companies and investors, the highest-confidence opportunities lie in minerals that appear on all four lists and carry strategic or priority designations in multiple jurisdictions. Projects targeting lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and rare earth elements in allied nations benefit from layered policy support that includes concessional financing, tax incentives, expedited permitting, and preferential trade terms.
For policymakers, the comparison highlights the need for greater international coordination on criticality assessments. While each nation's list appropriately reflects its unique circumstances, inconsistencies can create confusion and inefficiency. The Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), which includes the United States, EU, Australia, Canada, and other allied nations, provides a forum for harmonizing approaches and coordinating investment to avoid duplication and ensure that the most critical supply chain gaps are addressed. As critical minerals policy matures, greater alignment across jurisdictions will strengthen the collective resilience of allied-nation supply chains.
The comparison also underscores the dynamic nature of critical minerals lists. Each jurisdiction reviews and updates its list on a regular cycle, and the trend over the past decade has been toward expansion rather than contraction. Materials such as copper, helium, and silicon that appeared on only one or two lists a few years ago are now being considered for inclusion by additional jurisdictions. This trend suggests that future list updates will bring greater convergence, with the global consensus on critical minerals broadening to encompass more of the periodic table as the energy transition accelerates and supply chain vulnerabilities become more apparent.