EDITOR: | July 16th, 2021 | 2 Comments

How the Chinese dominance in the rare earths space creates a barrier for non-Chinese companies to enter the supply chain

| July 16, 2021 | 2 Comments
image_pdfimage_print

In this episode of the Critical Materials Corner with Jack Lifton, Jack interviews Ed Richardson, President of American’s oldest magnet maker, Thomas and Skinner Inc., and a longtime veteran himself of the permanent magnet manufacturing industry, about the possibility of the revival of an American rare earth permanent magnet industry capable of supplying the needs of the North American market.

In this InvestorIntel interview, which may also be viewed on YouTube (click here to subscribe to the InvestorIntel Channel), Ed went on to explain how the Chinese companies are competitive in the rare earths space and how the Chinese dominance in the rare earths space creates a barrier for non-Chinese companies to enter the supply chain. Jack and Ed also discussed how China is using rare earths raw materials from other countries to expand its magnet-making capacity to satisfy its own local demand.

To watch the full video, click here

About Thomas and Skinner Inc.

Thomas & Skinner is the world’s leading manufacturer of cast and sintered alnico magnets, magnetic assemblies, and transformer laminations. Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Ceramic Magnetics, Inc., Thomas & Skinner is also a leading manufacturer of soft ferrite magnets. They are committed to providing our customers with the highest-quality, highest-performing magnetic materials available.

To learn more about Thomas and Skinner Inc., click here

Disclaimer: This interview, which was produced by InvestorIntel Corp. (IIC) does not contain, nor does it purport to contain, a summary of all the material information concerning the Company” being interviewed. IIC offers no representations or warranties that any of the information contained in this interview is accurate or complete. 

This presentation may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation.  Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and assumptions of management of the Company as of the date made. They are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and other factors that could cause actual events/results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and uncertainties, including those that the Company does not know about now or that it currently deems immaterial, may also adversely affect the Company’s business or any investment therein.

Any projections given are principally intended for use as objectives and are not intended, and should not be taken,  as assurances that the projected results will be obtained by the Company. The assumptions used may not prove to be accurate and a potential decline in the Company’s financial condition or results of operations may negatively impact the value of its securities. Prospective investors are urged to review the Company’s profile on Sedar.com and to carry out independent investigations in order to determine their interest in investing in the Company.

If you have any questions surrounding the content of this interview, please email info@investorintel.com.


Editor:

Jack Lifton is the CEO of Jack Lifton, LLC and is a consultant, author, and lecturer on the market fundamentals of technology metals. “Technology metals” ... <Read more about Jack Lifton>


Copyright © 2021 InvestorIntel Corp. All rights reserved. More & Disclaimer »

Comments

  • 38BWD22

    Tracy and/or Jack,

    Please find a way to make transcripts of these interviews. The rare earth space is of great interest to me, but listening to audios works poorly for me.

    It is nice to see various N. American companies making their moves into this space, I am following this as closely as I can. About time they’re doing so, and I hope one or more of them can pull this off.

    July 16, 2021 - 8:20 PM

  • Rare Earths Investor

    Thank you for focusing on another of the choke points for any potential RE value chain. I think we (particularly investors) get lost at times in the idea that it’s the RE mining that is the focus for any new strategic chain. In N. America alone there are at least a dozen or so mining exploration projects so the feedstock is not the problem, rather the processing and component making; the more valuable stages of the RE chain.

    One point that the interview did not mention is the looming ESG question which is now often front and center for many RE company releases and for regional macro RE news articles. What if the EU (and US) really do focus on mid and end line manufacturer ESG compliance, both in terms of self and supply chain usage? Specifically, this means company and supply chains meeting environmental, worker and social requirements (issues that some RE/related Chinese companies and potentially China as a nation could have a serious problem in confronting and meeting)?

    Failure to meet coming ESG standards as recent EU releases have suggested may mean restriction even denial of access to the huge EU market (and maybe N. American). I know this sounds impossible, but could we see two huge markets eventually supplied predominantly by their own ESG compliant companies/chains with barriers to any non-compliant manufacturers? In other words, two markets decoupled in several certain sectors while inter trading in many others?

    But then as the interview raised, how would such a proposed chain overcome e.g., the magnet patent question? However, would the US military/defense complex let this issue actually stimy its meeting self-strategic needs? Or, might we see a more centralized control approach to ‘finding’ a ROW answer to this specific component question? In other words, are the gloves coming off for the US in terms of achieving self-reliance (and potentially engaging in new energy economic competition; have written on this issue extensively elsewhere)?

    Two years ago, I would have said all this can’t be done due to last the decade’s oft highlighted RE limitiations), but I think investors should now consider ‘left field’ in their DD. Afterall, for the US left field was COVID, 600,000 dead, entire nation wearing masks, no in school education, trillions $$ thrown at supporting a nation, a vaccine in 10 months and now even a possible mandated vaccination policy, etc. Therefore, is traditional thinking alone now enough to answer these critical metals US/ROW questions?

    Again, thanks for the challenging interview. Maybe others will join this discussion.

    GLTA.

    July 17, 2021 - 9:40 AM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.