ResourceGeopolitics

Covering natural resources, energy markets, geopolitics & crypto.
Not financial advice.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

Scandium just leveled up the game.
@SunriseMetals invests in @agnisemi to develop AlScN ferroelectric diode memory chips that stay stable and non-volatile up to 600°C (vs ~200°C for conventional chips). Ultra low power, perfect for AI compute-in-memory, geothermal, hypersonics, satellites and more.
@robert_ivanhoe connects the dots straight to his G-Pulse deep geothermal drilling tech — deeper access to abundant clean baseload power.
This is the real flywheel: critical minerals → extreme semiconductors → efficient AI → more clean energy.
The materials revolution is quietly rewriting what’s possible.
What other hidden synergies do you see in the critical minerals stack?

[Robert Friedland @robert_ivanhoe]

We are excited and privileged to have invested in Agni Semiconductors LLC.

@agnisemi is a US­-based, private company developing the next-generation of non-volatile memory chips using ferro-diodes manufactured with aluminium scandium nitride (AlScN).

Normal memory chips disintegrate at 200°C. Agni are developing chips that operate at up to 600°C, making them ideal for heavy duty, high temperature applications, such as geothermal drilling, hypersonics, ballistics and satellites.  As a form on non-volatile memory, these chips are extremely energy-efficient, addressing one of the key physical constraints to AI, which is energy consumption.

The investment by @SunriseMetals will increase its exposure to emerging scandium-enabled semiconductor technologies and advances our strategy of participating in the downstream value chain for scandium produced from our 100% owned Syerston Scandium Project in Australia.

The successful development of Agni’s technology will also have significant benefits in developing our G-Pulse geothermal drilling technology, which we are advancing at @IPulseGroup. This technology will enable us to drill deeper into our earths crust, unlocking significant, abundant geothermal electrical power in places where we currently can’t reach.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

While everyone on X is either screaming “China is killing us with rare earths!” or “Crypto/RWA will save us and tokenize everything,” the 2025-2026 reality is both more boring and more interesting.
China does control roughly 70% of rare earth mining and 80-90% of processing (Belfer Center / USGS data). But “rare earths” are not actually rare in the Earth’s crust — the real problem is low concentrations and extremely expensive separation. The same applies to many other critical minerals.
Facts that rarely get posted: • Prices of lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite dropped sharply in 2024-2025 → battery packs hit record lows (IEA Global Critical Minerals Outlook). Cheaper EVs, faster transition — the exact opposite of an “unstoppable crisis.” • Diversification is not a myth: MP Materials (USA) is ramping up, Lynas (Australia/Malaysia) is growing, new projects are advancing in Canada, Brazil, Africa, and even Greenland (Tanbreez heavy REEs). The Minerals Security Partnership and similar alliances are delivering results. • Crypto does not dig mines or refine magnets. Tokenization/RWA can improve liquidity and traceability, but physical mining remains capital-intensive, slow (10+ years for a new mine), and heavily regulated. It does not solve the processing bottleneck.
The illusion everyone is selling is that this is a static geopolitical war with a clear winner. Reality: markets send price signals → capital flows → technology and substitution advance (thinner magnets, new battery chemistries, recycling). History with oil and cartels shows that monopolies rarely last forever when prices are high.
Those who understand this stop chasing apocalypse or hype and instead watch where new supply chains are actually emerging and where innovation is reducing mineral intensity. Everything else is just noise on X.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

This is one of the biggest energy/geopolitical shifts of 2026 so far.
What do you think — will the deal hold and fully reopen Hormuz by end of week? Or are we heading into a fragile ceasefire?
Drop your takes below 👇
Follow for more on natural resources, energy markets, geopolitics & crypto.
Not financial advice.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

🚨 Major Breaking: US & Iran reach framework deal to end hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump: “The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete.”
MOU to be signed Friday in Switzerland.
After months of disruption, one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints is coming back online.
Thread:

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

Investment angle (not advice):
• Short-term: Relief rally in energy-sensitive assets, pressure on oil prices.
• Medium-term: Who benefits most from normalized Gulf shipping? Tankers, certain producers, and Asian importers.
• Crypto: Lower geo-risk premium supports risk-on flows.
Natural resources & geopolitics remain intertwined.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

Resource nationalism is the biggest shift in mining in 50 years.

Here’s my honest take — with both sides.

Vietnam banned raw mineral exports. Indonesia’s nickel export ban attracted billions in downstream investment. Chile favors state-led lithium development. Congo is renegotiating every major mining contract. 

Producing countries are saying: we have the minerals. You need them. The old deal is over.

The case FOR resource nationalism:

For decades, mineral-rich countries watched foreign companies extract billions in value while local communities received almost nothing. Communities in Balochistan sit on top of trillions in mineral wealth while surviving without reliable electricity, roads, or hospitals. 

Resource nationalism corrects a genuine historical injustice. Countries deserve value from their own ground.

The case AGAINST:

The shift is turning critical minerals from a traditional mining business into a geopolitical contest.  When every producer country adds export controls and processing mandates simultaneously — global supply tightens. Prices spike. The energy transition slows. Everyone loses.

My honest opinion:

Resource nationalism is legitimate in principle. But 15 countries doing it simultaneously in 2026 — during a supply crisis, during a war — is the wrong moment and will cause real damage to supply chains the world urgently needs.

The producing countries are right about the injustice.
The timing couldn’t be worse.

Both things are true.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

The race for critical minerals has shifted.

It’s no longer about who owns the ground.

It’s about who controls what happens after extraction.

UNCTAD published its June 2026 global trade update this week. The data is clear:

Lithium demand will rise 353% between 2024 and 2040. Graphite 131%. Cobalt 74%.

But here’s what the headline numbers hide:

The real value in critical minerals is not in mining. It’s in processing, refining, and manufacturing. And that value is overwhelmingly captured by one country.

In 2025, China processed 74% of global cobalt. Dominates rare earth refining at 85%. Controls graphite processing at near 100%.

Countries dig the ground.
China adds the value.
The West buys the product.

That’s the supply chain in three sentences.

The US signed 11 new mineral agreements last week. The EU has its Critical Raw Materials Act. Australia is building processing capacity.

All legitimate steps.

But UNCTAD’s honest assessment is this: supply is concentrated not just in mining — but especially in the higher-value processing and refining stages where it is hardest and most expensive to compete.

Building a mine takes 16 years.
Building a processing ecosystem takes a generation.

China started that generation in 1985.

Source: UNCTAD Global Trade Update, June 2026.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

So what’s the realistic way forward?
The West cannot “out-mine” China. But we can still win the next decade if we stop pretending and start acting with urgency.
• Friend-shoring at speed: Fast-track processing projects with Australia, Canada, US, Norway, Greenland and select African partners. Cut permitting from 16 years to under 5.
• Massive capital + policy muscle: Hundreds of billions in targeted subsidies, tax credits and offtake guarantees (like the US IRA, but focused on midstream, not just mining).
• Technology leap: Invest heavily in recycling, alternative battery chemistries (sodium-ion, LFP without China graphite) and new refining methods that are cleaner and cheaper.
• Political honesty: Accept that some environmental trade-offs are inevitable if we want real energy security. NIMBY politics must take a back seat.
China started in 1985.
We don’t have another 40 years.
The good news? We have the capital, the allies, the technology edge and — for the first time — the political will.
The mineral race will not be won by who digs fastest.
It will be won by who builds the smartest, most resilient value chains.
The clock is ticking.
2040 demand is not coming — it’s already here.
#CriticalMinerals

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

The race for critical minerals has shifted.

It’s no longer about who owns the ground.

It’s about who controls what happens after extraction.

UNCTAD published its June 2026 global trade update this week. The data is clear:

Lithium demand will rise 353% between 2024 and 2040. Graphite 131%. Cobalt 74%.

But here’s what the headline numbers hide:

The real value in critical minerals is not in mining. It’s in processing, refining, and manufacturing. And that value is overwhelmingly captured by one country.

In 2025, China processed 74% of global cobalt. Dominates rare earth refining at 85%. Controls graphite processing at near 100%.

Countries dig the ground.
China adds the value.
The West buys the product.

That’s the supply chain in three sentences.

The US signed 11 new mineral agreements last week. The EU has its Critical Raw Materials Act. Australia is building processing capacity.

All legitimate steps.

But UNCTAD’s honest assessment is this: supply is concentrated not just in mining — but especially in the higher-value processing and refining stages where it is hardest and most expensive to compete.

Building a mine takes 16 years.
Building a processing ecosystem takes a generation.

China started that generation in 1985.

Source: UNCTAD Global Trade Update, June 2026.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

The implications are sobering.
Europe and the US are racing to electrify everything — EVs, wind, solar, batteries, defense tech.
Yet we remain dangerously dependent on a single authoritarian player for the refined materials that make it all possible.
•A China supply shock (export curbs, Taiwan crisis, trade war) could spike battery prices 50-100% overnight and derail net-zero targets by a decade.
•Europe’s own Critical Raw Materials Act aims for 40% domestic processing by 2030. Realistic? Barely 10-15% today.
•The US is better positioned with allies (Australia, Canada), but still imports 80%+ of its refined lithium, graphite and rare earths from Asia.
We spent 15 years talking about “decarbonization”.
We forgot that without secure processing capacity, it’s just expensive virtue signaling.
Building mines is hard.
Building refining ecosystems is 10x harder — capital-intensive, dirty, and politically toxic in the West.
China didn’t just win the mining game.
They won the value-added game decades ago.
The West now faces a choice:
Pay whatever China demands, or invest hundreds of billions and accept the environmental & political cost of doing it ourselves.
Time is not on our side.
The mineral demand explosion is already baked in.
#CriticalMinerals

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

No better moment is coming. But leverage without a deal on the table is just noise.

Here’s the honest analysis:

Why “now” seems like peak leverage:

Demand is urgent. Alternatives take 10-15 years to develop. Western governments are openly desperate. On paper - maximum negotiating power.

Why that logic has limits:

Leverage only converts into lasting gain if you use it to build something - not just to extract a better price.

Indonesia understood this. They didn’t just ban nickel exports and wait. They simultaneously offered processing partnerships. The result: $15 billion in downstream investment. Jobs. Technology transfer. Lasting industrial capacity.

That’s leverage converted into structural advantage.

What the wrong version looks like:

Blocking exports during a crisis, demanding higher royalties, renegotiating contracts retroactively - without offering a clear partnership framework. This extracts short-term gains but accelerates Western investment in alternatives. In 10 years the leverage disappears.

My honest take:

The window is real. But it closes faster than most producing countries realize.

The West is already funding the Lobito Corridor, Australian rare earths, Canadian lithium. Every year of aggressive nationalism accelerates those alternatives.

The producing countries that will win long-term are not the ones that squeeze hardest now.

They are the ones that convert this moment of leverage into permanent industrial capacity.

Leverage is the opening. It was never the destination.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

Resource nationalism is the biggest shift in mining in 50 years.

Here’s my honest take — with both sides.

Vietnam banned raw mineral exports. Indonesia’s nickel export ban attracted billions in downstream investment. Chile favors state-led lithium development. Congo is renegotiating every major mining contract. 

Producing countries are saying: we have the minerals. You need them. The old deal is over.

The case FOR resource nationalism:

For decades, mineral-rich countries watched foreign companies extract billions in value while local communities received almost nothing. Communities in Balochistan sit on top of trillions in mineral wealth while surviving without reliable electricity, roads, or hospitals. 

Resource nationalism corrects a genuine historical injustice. Countries deserve value from their own ground.

The case AGAINST:

The shift is turning critical minerals from a traditional mining business into a geopolitical contest.  When every producer country adds export controls and processing mandates simultaneously — global supply tightens. Prices spike. The energy transition slows. Everyone loses.

My honest opinion:

Resource nationalism is legitimate in principle. But 15 countries doing it simultaneously in 2026 — during a supply crisis, during a war — is the wrong moment and will cause real damage to supply chains the world urgently needs.

The producing countries are right about the injustice.
The timing couldn’t be worse.

Both things are true.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

Pakistan brokered the US-Iran ceasefire.

Not because of diplomacy.

Because of minerals.

Here’s the documented story most analysts missed:

Pakistan sits on an estimated $1 trillion in untapped mineral reserves — copper, lithium, gold in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

In early 2026, Pakistan signed critical mineral agreements with Washington, giving the US preferential access to those reserves.

Then the Iran conflict escalated and Washington needed a trusted back-channel intermediary.

Pakistan — freshly aligned with US mineral interests — was perfectly positioned. It hosted the ceasefire negotiations that no other country could.

Minerals bought diplomatic relevance.
Diplomatic relevance stopped a war.

But here’s what the analysts aren’t saying:

The communities of Balochistan sitting on top of that trillion-dollar mineral wealth still have no reliable electricity, no roads, no hospitals.

Their government traded their resources for geopolitical access.

They received nothing in return.

This is how the mineral economy actually works in 2026.

Not in boardrooms. Not in Washington.
In villages that will never see the wealth beneath their feet.

Source: Modern Diplomacy, June 12, 2026.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

@sirachV2 Dwight D. Eisenhower

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

Nobody is saying the quiet part out loud.

So I will.

June 2026. Here’s what’s actually happening:

The US is at war with Iran.
The Strait of Hormuz is closed.
The World Cup is being played in America.
SpaceX just did the largest IPO in history.
Congress went home on vacation.
Russia is losing in Ukraine but winning in Africa.
China controls the minerals that make every weapon, every phone, and every EV on Earth.
And a pipeline through a Russian-aligned military junta just became Europe’s new energy lifeline.

This is not a news cycle.
This is a civilizational pivot.

Every empire that ever fell thought it was in a news cycle too.

Here’s what the historians will write about 2026:

This was the year the world ran out of easy options.

Not oil. Not gas. Not rare earths.
Easy options.

Every solution now creates a new dependency.
Every ceasefire creates a new power vacuum.
Every pipeline creates a new chokepoint.
Every chip factory creates a new target.

The old world ran on one rule:
Whoever controls the energy controls the world.

The new world runs on a different rule:
Whoever controls the chokepoints controls everything.

The Strait of Hormuz. The Taiwan Strait. The South China Sea. The Arctic shipping lanes. The Saharan pipeline corridor. The rare earth refineries in Jiangxi province.

These are the new capitals of power.
Not Washington. Not Beijing. Not Brussels.
Chokepoints.

And here is the thing that should keep every leader awake at night:

There are more chokepoints than ever before.
They are more fragile than ever before.
And they are more connected than ever before.

One closure doesn’t disrupt a region anymore.
One closure cascades through everything simultaneously.

Hormuz closes.
Helium disappears.
MRI machines go dark.
Chip factories slow down.
EV production halts.
Food prices spike.
Governments panic.
Markets crash.
And somewhere in that chaos —
someone makes a move nobody predicted.

That’s not analysis.
That’s what happened in the last 15 weeks.

We didn’t enter a new world order.
We entered a world without order.

And the only people who will navigate it successfully are the ones who understand one thing:

In a world of chokepoints — knowledge of where they are is the most valuable resource of all.

That’s why you’re here.
That’s why this account exists.
That’s why this matters.

Stay informed.
The maps are being redrawn.
Right now.
While you read this.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

bitcoin:native
Bitcoin is $64,000 today.

It was $126,000 eight months ago.

Down 50%. In one of the most bullish macro environments crypto has ever seen.

Here’s what’s actually happening — and what comes next.

Why is it down 50% when everything should be bullish?

Three simultaneous shocks hit at once:

First — Strategy Inc. sold $2.5 million worth of Bitcoin. Their first sale since 2022. The company that became the symbol of corporate Bitcoin accumulation became a seller. Psychologically devastating for the market.

Second — SpaceX IPO drained $75 billion of global liquidity. Institutional capital chose rockets over Bitcoin. Money doesn’t multiply — it moves.

Third — Iran war triggered 12 consecutive sessions of ETF outflows. Nearly $4 billion left Bitcoin ETFs in a record streak. Institutions de-risked everything simultaneously.

Fear & Greed Index: 12. Extreme Fear.
RSI: 35. Technically oversold.
30-day price change: -26%.

This is not a bear market. This is a shakeout.

Here’s what the data says about what comes next:

The halving happened. In every single cycle in Bitcoin’s history — 2012, 2016, 2020 — the 12-18 months after the halving produced the largest price increases.

We are now in month 14 post-halving.
The supply shock is mathematically inevitable.

The institutional picture:

76% of global institutional investors plan to expand crypto exposure in 2026.
172 publicly traded companies hold Bitcoin on balance sheets.
Standard Chartered: $100,000 by December.
JPMorgan: $170,000 if institutions mirror gold allocation.
Arthur Hayes: $125,000.
Polymarket: 45% chance of $120,000.

The three scenarios for December 2026:

Scenario 1 — Hormuz ceasefire holds, institutions return:
$110,000-$150,000
Probability: 50%

Scenario 2 — War drags through summer, slow recovery:
$75,000-$95,000
Probability: 35%

Scenario 3 — Full regional escalation, risk-off panic:
$45,000-$55,000
Probability: 15%

The uncomfortable truth:

Bitcoin’s price in December 2026 will not be decided by Satoshi’s code.
It will not be decided by institutional adoption.
It will not be decided by the halving.

It will be decided by a 33-mile waterway in the Persian Gulf.

The most sophisticated financial asset ever created is being held hostage by ancient geopolitics.

That is either the greatest buying opportunity of the decade.

Or a warning that no asset — not even a decentralized one — escapes the physical world.

Not financial advice. DYOR.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

Nobody is saying the quiet part out loud.

So I will.

June 2026. Here’s what’s actually happening:

The US is at war with Iran.
The Strait of Hormuz is closed.
The World Cup is being played in America.
SpaceX just did the largest IPO in history.
Congress went home on vacation.
Russia is losing in Ukraine but winning in Africa.
China controls the minerals that make every weapon, every phone, and every EV on Earth.
And a pipeline through a Russian-aligned military junta just became Europe’s new energy lifeline.

This is not a news cycle.
This is a civilizational pivot.

Every empire that ever fell thought it was in a news cycle too.

Here’s what the historians will write about 2026:

This was the year the world ran out of easy options.

Not oil. Not gas. Not rare earths.
Easy options.

Every solution now creates a new dependency.
Every ceasefire creates a new power vacuum.
Every pipeline creates a new chokepoint.
Every chip factory creates a new target.

The old world ran on one rule:
Whoever controls the energy controls the world.

The new world runs on a different rule:
Whoever controls the chokepoints controls everything.

The Strait of Hormuz. The Taiwan Strait. The South China Sea. The Arctic shipping lanes. The Saharan pipeline corridor. The rare earth refineries in Jiangxi province.

These are the new capitals of power.
Not Washington. Not Beijing. Not Brussels.
Chokepoints.

And here is the thing that should keep every leader awake at night:

There are more chokepoints than ever before.
They are more fragile than ever before.
And they are more connected than ever before.

One closure doesn’t disrupt a region anymore.
One closure cascades through everything simultaneously.

Hormuz closes.
Helium disappears.
MRI machines go dark.
Chip factories slow down.
EV production halts.
Food prices spike.
Governments panic.
Markets crash.
And somewhere in that chaos —
someone makes a move nobody predicted.

That’s not analysis.
That’s what happened in the last 15 weeks.

We didn’t enter a new world order.
We entered a world without order.

And the only people who will navigate it successfully are the ones who understand one thing:

In a world of chokepoints — knowledge of where they are is the most valuable resource of all.

That’s why you’re here.
That’s why this account exists.
That’s why this matters.

Stay informed.
The maps are being redrawn.
Right now.
While you read this.

[ResourceGeopolitics @ResGeoPol]

The universe is 13.8 billion years old.

It contains 2 trillion galaxies.

Each galaxy contains 100 billion stars.

And we have heard from nobody.

Not a signal. Not a whisper. Not a single word.

There is a name for this silence.

Scientists call it the Great Filter.

The theory is simple and terrifying:

Somewhere between the birth of a planet and the rise of a galaxy-spanning civilization — there is a wall. A barrier so difficult to cross that almost every intelligent species in the universe fails to cross it.

Either that wall is behind us.
Or it is ahead of us.

If it’s behind us — we are the miracle. The one civilization that made it through. The universe’s rarest accident.

If it’s ahead of us — the silence of the cosmos is not emptiness.

It is a graveyard.

Every civilization that ever reached our level of technology eventually hit the wall. And never made it past.

Here is what keeps the world’s greatest physicists awake at night:

We don’t know which side of the Filter we’re on.

But we can look for clues.

And the clues are everywhere.

In 2026, humanity is simultaneously:

— Depleting the phosphorus that feeds 8 billion people with no replacement
— Watching sperm counts fall 50% in one generation with no explanation
— Losing 76% of flying insects since 1989 with no intervention
— Stripping topsoil that took 1,000 years to form in decades
— Building AI that consumes the water of 1.3 billion people
— Programming money that can be switched off for anyone, anytime
— Fighting over the minerals that make every technology possible
— Closing the straits that feed and power civilization

Every single one of these is not a crisis.

Every single one of these is a Filter candidate.

A new peer-reviewed paper published in January 2026 in https://t.co/UEdtsiONci concluded:

“No single future filter exists with sufficient destructive capability to account for the silence of the universe. Instead — multiple simultaneous filters operating together may be the answer.”

Multiple. Simultaneous. Filters.

Read that again.

Not one catastrophe.
Not one war.
Not one resource running out.

All of them. At once.

That is exactly what 2026 looks like from the outside.

The universe has been running this experiment for 13.8 billion years.

Civilizations rise. They reach exactly our level of technology. They face exactly our set of problems. And then —

Silence.

We are not special.
We are not exempt.
We are not the exception.

We are the next civilization to stand at the wall.

And the most dangerous thing about the Great Filter is not that it exists.

It’s that every civilization that hits it believes it won’t.

Share this. Not for the algorithm. Because 100 years from now — someone will either read this as a warning that was ignored. Or as the moment people finally started paying attention.