Trump's metal price floors, mine loans key to expanding US supply – Titan CEO

➤ Long-term government debt is vital for surviving volatile commodity price swings.

➤ Defense sector demand for graphite is an opportunity for domestic producers.

➤ China maintains a "proprietary nexus" for some metals by controlling more than raw materials.

Rita Adiani, president and CEO of Titan Mining. Source: Titan Mining Corp.

US industrial policies aimed at boosting domestic mining and refining are crucial to getting new projects online, as the country looks to counter China's sway in some metal supply chains, says Rita Adiani, president and CEO of Titan Mining Corp.

For a Canada-based mining company with US assets, access to long-term debt will be key to developing its Kilbourne graphite project in the US. Titan Mining is targeting 40,000 metric tons of graphite production per year and aims to supply the defense and industrial sectors.

Other policies, such as manufacturing and mining tax credits, along with government investment in mining companies and metal price guarantees, are key to expanding US supply chains.

Platts, part of S&P Global Energy, spoke with Adiani about her views on US industrial policies and the US graphite market. The following interview has been edited and condensed.

Platts: How different from past administrations are President Donald Trump's policies that target the mining sector in terms of project development?

Rita Adiani: So overall, I think the big difference with this administration really has been the focus on making sure that the government is a participant across the value chain.

With the Biden administration, they understood the importance of various critical minerals, no doubt. I mean, a lot of the [Department of Energy] framework was written during the Biden administration. But I think that was very much focused on the processing and the manufacturing side of things. So what has been very encouraging for us, really, has been to see the focus across the value chain.

I'll give you a very broad example: 45X tax credits. [Section] 45X tax credits act as a big, big incentive for companies like us. We do have a big mining and processing facility, but we do have a certain manufacturing component. And being able to get a tax credit back for that hugely improves the economics with our manufacturing facility.

To boost production of some metals such as rare earths, the US government has invested in mining companies and set floors on prices for some metal products. Do you think these policies are effective in terms of bolstering US domestic production?

The words industrial policy haven't really been used in the US. We don't really use those two words very often. But if we look at who we're really competing with, we are competing vis-a-vis China, which controls a lot of [production for critical minerals such as graphite and rare earths]. And it's not only that they control the raw materials. They control the processing for rare earths. Obviously they control the intellectual property as well. So there is ... a sort of proprietary nexus on all things to do with rare earths and it's very difficult to try and get that out of that framework.

I think my view certainly has been that, when it comes down to items such as national security and anything which drives national security, you do need to have your own independent source, whether it's domestic or whether it's with allies. Having an independent source is critical, effectively. And if we're trying to solve for those things which really affect our national security, then taking the stance that the Trump administration has taken — putting in place protectionist measures, which is price floors; putting in place incentivizing investments to get things up and running — is the correct way. I think it is the only way to combat, effectively, [China's] control and the choke points.

But if we take a look at the copper policy — the investigation which they had into copper [that avoided tariffs on raw materials, targeting processed copper products instead] — I think what they came out with is a transition period. And that is a very, very honest recognition that, yes, we have to focus on our national security. We have to domestically source things. We have to grow our own industries, which lead into manufacturing. But there has to be a transition period, because at the end of the day, everything comes down to the bottom line to the consumer, right?

As far as Titan's plans are concerned for graphite, does the Kilbourne project have to make sense without US government support, or a low cost of capital from government loans, or similar? Or is federal involvement crucial to making a project like that work?

For us the focus has been: "Does the project work on its own merits?" So, does it work technically? How do the economics work? Now for graphite, a significant part of the economics is affected by the current geopolitical climate. I can tell you this, 10 years ago, for people trying to develop a graphite project in the United States of America, it just wouldn't make sense because you didn't have this geopolitical climate.

So one of the main reasons why we're doing this, and we're doing this at the pace that we're doing it — and we're getting so much interest in the story — is because it is domestic and being able to do that quickly makes a big difference.

Does the project stand up on its own two feet? It does. But what I think — and this has been a very open discussion we've had with the US government — is it's very, very helpful for projects like ours is to have long-term capital. So the tenor, not the cost so much, has been a fundamental sticking point in the mining sector.

In the mining sector, you will get loans for five years. I mean, for projects, the commodity cycle just doesn't work that way. If you get lucky, that's great. If it doesn't, then you're stuck [with low metal prices and trying to pay back loans]. So I think that has been the key, and that's why I say it's an incentivizing tool, because the government is still getting interest on it. It's still going to get its money back, but it has a very long time horizon. And that is what helps companies like ours.

Thinking of other potential big graphite mines, such as Nouveau Monde Graphite Inc.'s plans in Quebec, do you think two big graphite mines can work in North America? Is there enough demand?

Yes. I think that's a very, very relevant point, because our business strategy has really been focused on the United States. And the key focus is industrials and second is defense, because I think both with Canada and the United States, you're going to want to source graphite domestically. And that's where we've had the most amount of interest for our material. The defense requirements, which usually go from 12,000 [metric tons] to 20,000 [metric tons] annually will need to be supplied domestically.

Second are industrial payers. I think tariffs have played a big role this year in the supply chain uncertainty. So being able to solve for our production profile of 40,000 [metric tons], I don't expect is going to be very difficult.

We have very much designed the project around, "Hey, we've got to deliver to the defense sector and we've got to effectively deliver to the industrial sector." I think there is — in the longer term — room for more than two, more than three mines. Let's put it that way. But that will all come down to how quickly the battery sector is going to scale. We thought that the rate at which this was going to accelerate was pretty significant given EVs, but that hasn't happened.