The global demand for critical minerals like lithium and copper is surging, but how we attempt to quickly extract them, argues Katherine Teh, Executive Chairman of Spektrum Development, presents a fundamental choice: embrace authoritarian tactics that disregard communities or pursue transparent, consent-based development. In this pivotal moment, the stakes are high-ranging, from environmental destruction to lost economic potential. Which path should be chosen?
 |
| Katherine Teh of Spektrum Development addressing the 2024 ACFID Conference |
WE ARE AT a crossroads in the energy transition. The gap between what the mining industry promises and what it delivers has been widening, creating not only delays but the potential for significant socio-economic and environmental risks. As the demand for critical minerals like copper, graphite, and lithium increases, we’re facing mounting challenges in securing these resources quickly enough to support the transition to renewable energy.
The Problem
Critical minerals are essential for the energy transition, yet many of these resources remain untapped.
Currently, about 70% of these minerals lie dormant due to the significant risks and extended timelines associated with approvals. It can take up to 15 years to move from exploration to production—an unacceptable delay given the urgent need for these materials.
Australia, as one of the most mineral-rich countries in the world, is at the center of this challenge. We are seeing strategic alliances being formed with nations like the USA to attract capital and expedite extraction.
There’s a louder and louder cry represented by former US President Donald Trump and Australian Hancock Mining magnate Gina Reinhart. Trump, who has said “Drill Drill Drill!”, has accepted a future where civil disruption may be the response and has flagged defence forces may need to be called to shield the miners from the protesters.
In this future, the regulatory barriers will be lowered. The rights of First Nations people trampled. Polarisation accelerated. Conflict enflamed. Not only could this future increase impacts, it’s possible it won’t actually work to fast-track development or enable a secure supply chain.
And there is another solution possible to genuinely solve the problem, but it takes a fundamental change to the development model, culture and capability of the mining proponent.
The Solution: Development by Consent
Rather than treat First Nations and environmentalists as objectors, we can use their insights to create engineering solutions to enable consensus. The approach is: development by consent. This means involving Indigenous communities, environmental experts, and other stakeholders from the very start. It’s a model built on radical transparency, co-design, and mutual benefit, aiming to enhance socio-economic outcomes and address environmental concerns in parallel with financial goals, ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) outcomes and sustainable supply chains.
Our hypothesis is that integrating Indigenous communities into the planning process not only improves outcomes but can also significantly shorten approval times. By halving the typical timeframe, we can potentially triple the net present value of projects which enables us to increase the flow of money to Indigenous, First Nations and Traditional Owners. We think there will be a direct positive relationship proved of the application of FPIC (Free, prior and informed consent) to the better results for wellbeing too.
An Example in Action
Take our work with the Mayi people in northwest Queensland, Australia. The Queensland state government aims to develop this area as a critical minerals hub. But for this to succeed, it must be done in partnership with the Maai, ensuring they have a stake in the project’s success and that their cultural and environmental concerns are addressed from day one.
Our approach starts with securing an invitation to the land—a necessary first step in establishing trust and cooperation. By integrating net-zero goals and equitable profit models, we can create a development plan that aligns with both financial and community interests. This is not just a theoretical model; it’s happening now.
As a letter from a Traditional Owner, Sharn Fogarty, confirms: “Spektrum’s approach enables a path for responsible development and has the potential to set a new standard for how development should be carried out in partnership with Traditional Owners, First Nations Peoples and communities.”
Barriers and Overcoming Them
However, several barriers remain:
First, access to capital is challenging, as traditional investors are often wary of the perceived risks associated with Indigenous engagement and regulatory complexities. We have an impact investor and an Indigenous entrepreneur who are our first shareholders who share our vision for co-development, and we are building a list of possible investors in a private equity fund we will set up.
Second, the regulatory landscape is often resistant to change. It favors conventional, linear development models that fail to account for cumulative impacts on communities and the environment. In Queensland, for instance, we’ve found some forward-thinking officials willing to explore precinct-level planning and co-development. But this level of openness is not yet the norm.
Lastly, building trust with Indigenous communities takes time and consistency. Many are understandably skeptical of mining companies’ promises, given past experiences. We address this by committing to transparency, shared governance, and equitable profit distribution. This isn’t just about sharing information; it’s about shared decision-making from the ground up.
Global Implications
The implications of this model are global: there are many “stranded” mineral assets—resources that could significantly support the energy transition if developed responsibly. For example, there are massive copper deposits in places like Bougainville, Panama, and Peru that could be unlocked through similar approaches. If developed by consent, these projects could meet global demand while minimizing biodiversity impacts.
The larger the stranded assets that can be accessed by consent, the less mining projects we will need. Four stranded copper projects alone would enable 100% of the global demand for copper for 50 years.
Right now, the assumption is we will need 380+ new mines, which could have significant biodiversity impact. If we can access the mega projects with consent, we can reduce those environmental consequences of mining globally.
Conclusion
We are at a critical moment in the energy transition. The stakes are high, but the opportunity is even greater. By reimagining mining as a process of co-development rather than extraction, we can create better outcomes for the environment, communities, and investors alike.
It’s time for a new kind of capitalism—one that serves the public interest and delivers sustainable results.
+++
Katherine Teh is Executive Chairman of Spektrum Development, a new type of miner that embeds social licence into the organisational design, strategy and development model. She has over 25 years of experience in major projects, risk management, sustainable systems development, social entrepreneurship, and participative processes, working with diverse stakeholders across sectors and regions. This article is based on her speech to the ACFID Conference on 23 October 2024.