From ore to upheaval: Alistair Stephens says critical mineral success in emerging nations hinges less on geology and more on geopolitics

When it comes to critical minerals in emerging nations, geology is often the easy part - what makes or breaks a project is navigating the politics, markets, and risks that sit behind the orebody.

Alistair Stephens, a mining and resources executive with over 35 years’ global experience, opened his keynote at the AusIMM Critical Minerals and Materials Conference in Perth with a simple admission: the title “assessing risk with reward” forced him to reflect carefully on what really shapes outcomes in frontier jurisdictions.

“I’ve worked extensively in Africa, I’ve lived and worked in Southeast Asia, and I’ve had some exposure to Latin America,” Alistair told delegates. “Most of my technical career was in Australia, but the lessons that stay with me come from the challenges of trying to develop resources in less stable jurisdictions.”

His message was clear: the world’s resource map might look promising on paper, but success depends on more than drilling results. “We tend to look technically and say, ‘gosh, there are wonderful resources out there.’ But the real test is whether you can actually develop them commercially and sustainably.”

What makes a mineral “critical”?

Alistair drew on the European Union’s definition: minerals are critical if they are economically vital, prone to supply disruption, and typically come from narrow or concentrated sources.

“Take niobium,” he explained. “Eighty percent of the global supply comes from Brazil. It’s reliable, but that concentration alone makes it a critical mineral. Or gallium - people are surprised when I tell them we actually used to produce gallium in Western Australia. These aren’t exotic curiosities; they’re the backbone of electronics and energy efficiency.”

He pointed out that criticality evolves over time. Copper, a metal used for millennia, is now as critical as rare earths or lithium. “It’s what connects the new technologies together,” he said. “Sometimes the oldest metals turn out to be the most indispensable.”

China versus the West

Perhaps the most provocative theme of Alistair’s talk was the stark contrast between China’s approach to resource development and that of Western nations.

“China has this ability to fast-track projects with capital and technology, and to bring opaque commodities into the market almost overnight,” he said. “The West, meanwhile, demands transparency, ESG compliance, and human rights safeguards. That difference defines the playing field.”

He warned against underestimating China’s focus on robotics and automation. “They’re not relying on labour to drive economic growth. They’re re-engineering their economy around AI and automation, and that is transforming the rare earth and critical mineral balance of supply.”

The implication for Western miners: while compliance-heavy models are important for reputation and sustainability, they also risk losing ground in speed and scale.

Safety and ESG fault lines

Alistair didn’t shy away from examples where poor standards have created tragedy. He singled out Indonesian nickel mining as a cautionary case.

“In the first four months of this year alone, there were multiple fatalities in those operations,” he said. “That’s the consequence of supply being driven to market without adequate focus on safety and environmental performance.”

He argued that disengaging from these regions doesn’t remove the risk - it shifts it elsewhere, often with worse outcomes. “The lesson is that if Western companies walk away, others step in, and we may not like the standards they bring with them.”

Mapping sovereign risk

One of the more compelling parts of Alistair’s presentation was a heat-map analysis he developed to assess risk across Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. He factored in sovereign stability, interest rates, education levels, mining laws, and human rights indices.

“It’s not just about where the ore is,” he explained. “It’s about whether the country’s legal framework, political institutions, and financial environment will allow you to build a mine and operate it over decades.”

Namibia emerged as his standout jurisdiction in Africa. “From a market perspective, Namibia is seen as stable and investable, which is reflected in the support companies there get from investors.”

In Latin America, Brazil stood out despite the lingering shadow of the Mariana and Brumadinho tailings disasters. “Brazil has enormous resource potential and is well supported in capital markets. But you can’t ignore the increased scrutiny around environmental performance.”

Southeast Asia was a region of contrasts. Vietnam and Myanmar, he noted, present “almost impossible” investment environments due to restrictive policies. Indonesia, by contrast, remains volatile but tested. “It has incentivised investment, it has downstream ambitions, and while it’s been through turbulence, it is improving.”

Static versus dynamic risk

Alistair stressed the importance of looking at risk not just as a snapshot, but over time. He compared sovereign risk trends in countries against Australia as a baseline.

“Indonesia has been all over the place,” he said, pointing to the impact of export bans and policy swings. “South Africa has deteriorated since the implementation of its mining charter. These changes matter because our industry deals in multi-billion-dollar investments over decades, not short cycles.”

In his view, the future trajectory of a jurisdiction can be more important than its present-day status. “A country may look attractive today, but if the trend line points down, you’ll pay for it later.”

Market opacity - the funding bottleneck

Perhaps the most challenging barrier Alistair identified was not geology or politics, but finance.

“Critical mineral markets are often opaque. Rare earths are the best example. Prices are set in command economies and don’t respond to supply-demand signals in a transparent way,” he said.

This lack of transparency makes it hard for banks to finance projects. “Lithium went through the same thing. Until we had established exchanges and price histories, banks struggled to underwrite projects. With rare earths, it’s still virtually impossible.”

His solution? Create trading exchanges for opaque commodities. “If you could establish transparent pricing mechanisms for critical minerals, it would transform funding. It would turn opaque, venture-capital-only projects into bankable ones.”

The role of governments and agreements

While free-carried interests and state participation are common in emerging nations, Alistair urged companies to work constructively with governments.

“These minerals belong to the nation, and governments manage them on behalf of their people,” he said. “You can’t contract out free-carried interests. But you can seek stability agreements - mine development agreements that lock in commercial terms and give certainty for both sides.”

He described such agreements as essential for securing investment. “Without them, the risk profile is simply too high.”

Social licence above all

Alistair closed by underscoring the importance of social licence. “If you don’t have community endorsement - whether from indigenous groups, local communities, or broader society - you will be under protest the whole time,” he said. “You might not like the commercial implications, but you have to build it into your model.”

Key takeaways for industry

Alistair’s keynote offered a grounded reminder: success in critical minerals is about more than exploration. It is about managing risk at every level - sovereign, financial, social, and technical.

His most thought-provoking call was for greater transparency in critical mineral markets, an initiative that could redefine project funding and reshape global supply chains.

“Critical minerals are shaping the architecture of the 21st century,” he said in closing. “Our responsibility is to build supply chains grounded in trust and fairness. If we get this right, future generations will thank us - if we get it wrong, they will not forgive us.”