Preface
In recent years, China has proposed a strategy to become a manufacturing powerhouse, aiming to transform China from a large manufacturing country into a strong manufacturing nation. Relevant research findings have already been published on the development of an evaluation indicator system for manufacturing powerhouses and on the assessment of such systems.
However, to become a manufacturing powerhouse, we must have a stable, economical, secure, and clean supply of mineral resources as a solid foundation—and we must also be a global leader in the exploration and utilization of these resources. China is the world’s largest consumer and producer of solid mineral resources. Yet, a host of pressing issues—including overexploitation and excessive consumption of domestic resources, insecurity in overseas supplies, a low level of “going global” in mineral resource development, declining overall industry profitability, severe damage to the ecological environment, and insufficient influence and pricing power in the international mineral resource market—clearly highlight the key characteristic of China’s mineral resources: “large in scale but not strong in capability.” This situation is inconsistent with China’s status as a major global producer and consumer of mineral resources. Therefore, conducting systematic research on strategies and evaluation methods for building a powerful mineral-resource nation, and analyzing China’s current position and existing gaps, will provide crucial guidance for formulating China’s mineral-resource strategy over the next decade.
Currently, there is considerable research and analysis on the mineral resource strategies of globally significant mineral-resource countries such as the United States and Japan, and several studies have also been conducted on the international competitiveness of the mining industry. However, systematic research on the definition and comprehensive evaluation of “mineral-resource powerhouses” remains relatively scarce. Based on this observation, this paper first defines what constitutes a “mineral-resource powerhouse,” then scientifically constructs an indicator system for evaluating such powers, and finally conducts a systematic assessment of 10 countries—including China. Finally, the paper puts forward recommendations for China’s efforts to become a true mineral-resource powerhouse.

I. Selection of Study Subjects and Data Sources
1.1 Selection of Study Subjects
The subjects of the assessment for mineral resource powerhouses should be those countries globally that are major suppliers or consumers of mineral resources and wield considerable influence over the global mineral resource market. Based on this criterion, this paper has selected China, the United States, Canada, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, and India. Among these countries, China, the United States, and Japan are currently among the world’s largest consumers of mineral resources; the United Kingdom was once the world’s most powerful nation in terms of mineral resources; and Canada, Russia, Australia, South Africa, and Brazil are all currently important global suppliers of mineral resources and also major economic powers. Moreover, among the aforementioned countries are both globally recognized mineral resource powerhouses—such as the United States—and countries at a relatively lower level, such as India. The comparison between countries at different levels is of great significance for determining China’s position and identifying the gap between China and other leading mineral resource powers worldwide.
1.2 Data Sources
This study on countries strong in mineral resources covers data related to the world (calculated as percentages) as well as 10 specific research subjects, including mineral reserves, production, consumption, prices (calculated as values), mining output value, and the operations of mining companies. Specifically, data on mineral reserves are primarily sourced from the United States Geological Survey (USGS); data on mineral production, consumption, and prices are mainly drawn from the World Steel Association (Worldsteel), the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS), and the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA); and data on mining output value and mining company operations are largely obtained from SNL, a leading global provider of information on large-scale mining activities and assets.
II. Definition of a Country Strong in Mineral Resources and a Transnational Mining Superpower
2.1 Definition of a Country Strong in Mineral Resources
Based on the definition of a manufacturing powerhouse and the inherent characteristics of mineral resources, this paper defines a “mineral-resource powerhouse” as a country whose mineral resources are securely and stably supplied, which possesses strong international economic influence, demonstrates robust capacity for sustainable development, and ranks high internationally in terms of mineral resource endowment. This definition encompasses three key dimensions: the country’s domestic mineral-resource supply capacity, its international economic influence, and its capacity for sustainable development (Figure 1). First, a mineral-resource powerhouse must be able to ensure a stable supply of its own mineral resources—this is an essential prerequisite. Second, such a powerhouse should have strong international economic influence and the ability to shape the global mineral-resource landscape; only by achieving this goal can it truly be considered “powerful.” Third, a mineral-resource powerhouse must demonstrate a high level of sustainable development capability, ensuring intergenerational equity and environmental friendliness. Only when all three dimensions achieve high scores can a country be rightfully labeled a “mineral-resource powerhouse.”
For example, both the United States and Australia are powerful nations in terms of mineral resources. The U.S. has the capability to ensure a stable supply of its own mineral resources and the ability to influence global price trends for minerals such as oil, natural gas, and gold. Moreover, its domestic mineral resources have achieved intergenerational equity and sustainable environmental development. Similarly, Australia is fully capable of securing its own mineral resource supply and boasts some of the world’s leading multinational mining giants, which directly monopolize markets for minerals like iron ore, bauxite, coking coal, and uranium. As a result, Australia’s domestic mineral resources have also achieved intergenerational equity and sustainable environmental development. In contrast, India is not a powerhouse in mineral resources. First, India lacks the capacity to ensure a stable supply of its own mineral resources; second, India completely lacks any ability to influence the global landscape of mineral resources.
2.2 Definition of a Transnational Mining Aircraft Carrier
When studying countries that are strong in mineral resources, one concept frequently mentioned within the industry is that of a “transnational mining aircraft carrier.” Although this term is often discussed among industry insiders, no one has yet provided a specific definition of what it actually entails. A transnational mining aircraft carrier must first possess the capability to operate across national borders—not just within its home country. Second, to qualify as an “aircraft carrier,” it must be large-scale, have a substantial number of such carriers, and be equipped with long-range strike capabilities. Consequently, a transnational mining aircraft carrier must generate sufficiently high annual output value, operate a sufficient number of mines overseas, and cover a wide variety of mineral commodities. By analyzing over a thousand mining companies worldwide and drawing on industry experts’ understanding of transnational mining aircraft carriers, we can define such a carrier as a mining company whose annual output value ranks among the top 30 globally, which operates no fewer than five mines under construction or in production overseas, and whose portfolio includes at least five different types of minerals.
Following this logic, among the 10 major mineral-resource countries selected by this research institute, 15 mining companies have joined the ranks of multinational mining giants (Table 1). Among them, the United States, Australia, and Canada each have 3 companies; Japan has 2; the United Kingdom, China, South Africa, and Brazil each have 1; while Russia and India have no mining companies that have crossed the threshold to become multinational giants.
 

III. Construction of an Evaluation Indicator System for Countries Strong in Mineral Resources
3.1 Principles for Constructing the Indicator System
In the process of designing an evaluation indicator system for a country’s strength in mineral resources, we strive to adhere to the following five principles: ① comprehensively reflect the essence of a strong mineral-resource nation; ② possess high representativeness and exclusivity; ③ feature highly reliable data; ④ ensure easy accessibility of data; ⑤ maintain simplicity of the indicator system.
3.2 Construction of the Indicator System and Evaluation of Individual Indicators
Based on the definition of a “mineral resource powerhouse” presented above, and drawing upon the three dimensions that characterize such a powerhouse, we propose seven indicators for evaluating a country’s status as a mineral resource powerhouse: mineral resource endowment, comprehensive self-sufficiency capacity, comprehensive static reserve lifespan, number of transnational mining giants, level of operational diversification, number of overseas mines, and capability to exert control over international markets. Among these, the two indicators—comprehensive self-sufficiency capacity and comprehensive static reserve lifespan—both reflect the ability to ensure a stable supply of mineral resources. The four indicators—number of transnational mining giants, level of operational diversification, number of overseas mines, and capability to exert control over international markets—represent the country’s capacity for international strategic engagement. Finally, mineral resource endowment and comprehensive static reserve lifespan together reflect the country’s capacity for sustainable development.
3.2.1 Mineral Resource Endowment (Bc)
Mineral resource endowment is one of the key indicators for assessing a country's capacity to ensure a stable supply of mineral resources. In this paper, the mineral resource endowment is represented by the total value of reserves for the 18 mineral resources mentioned earlier. The total reserve value of country C (Bc) is the sum of the reserve values for all 18 mineral types in country C, as shown in Equation (1).
(1)
In the formula: Ri represents the reserves of mineral resource type i, and pi represents the price of mineral resource type i. The results show that, from highest to lowest in terms of global mineral resource reserve value, the countries are the United States, Russia, China, Australia, India, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom. As can be seen, the United States, Russia, China, and Australia are among the countries with the richest mineral resources in the world (Figure 2).
 

It should be noted that although Japan is relatively poor in domestic mineral resources, it holds a vast amount of overseas mineral rights. In this article, we calculate the total reserve value of Japan by taking into account the value of its overseas mineral rights reserves.
3.2.2 Comprehensive Self-Sufficiency Capacity (Zc)
The comprehensive self-sufficiency capacity of mineral resources is expressed as the ratio of the total value of the country’s mineral resource production (including the value of overseas equity mineral production) to the total value of its consumption, as shown in Equation (2).
(2)
The higher this ratio, the stronger the country's ability to secure its mineral resources.
1) The total value of a country’s output is shown in Equation (3).
(3)
In the formula: P′i represents the output of mineral type i in a given year (including output from overseas equity mines); pi represents the price of mineral type i. This indicator can characterize a country’s ability to ensure its mineral resource production meets its consumption needs in a particular year.
2) The total value of consumption in a given country is shown in Equation (4).
(4)
In the formula: Ci represents the consumption volume of mineral resource i in a given year for that country; pi represents the price of mineral resource i. This indicator can characterize the overall consumption of mineral resources in a particular country in a given year.
The results show that Australia, Canada, South Africa, and Russia can fully meet their own mineral resource needs and also export substantial quantities abroad. The United States has a self-sufficiency rate of 85%, Brazil’s rate is 80%, China’s is 70%, India’s is 61%, Japan’s is 60%, and the United Kingdom’s is 18% (Figure 3).
  3.2.3 Comprehensive Static Guarantee Period (Jc)
This indicator is expressed as the ratio of the total value of the country’s mineral resource reserves to the total value of its production, as shown in Equation (5).
(5)
The higher this ratio, the greater the sustainability of the country's mineral resources.
The total value of production in a certain country is Tp, as shown in Equation (6).
(6)
In the formula: Pi represents the annual production of mineral type i in that country (excluding overseas equity mines), and pi represents the price of mineral type i. This indicator can characterize a country’s overall mineral resource production capacity for a given year (Figure 4).
 

The results show that Russia, the United States, and South Africa have relatively high ratios, all exceeding 100. India, Australia, Canada, and other countries follow closely behind. China ranks last. It is evident that due to the excessively high intensity of mineral resource exploitation in China—exceeding sustainable levels—China’s capacity for the sustainable development of its mineral resources is relatively weak, and this has also led to a certain degree of environmental pollution, thereby making China’s mineral resource sustainability poor.
3.2.4 Number of transnational mining carriers (Hc)
The greater the number of transnational mining conglomerates, the stronger the nation. This study argues that the number of transnational mining conglomerates is an important indicator for measuring a country’s capability as a major player in mineral resources. The concept of “transnational mining conglomerate” has been clearly defined earlier in this paper, and the number of such conglomerates owned by each of the 10 mineral-resource-rich countries has been evaluated (Tables 1 and 2; Figure 5).

3.2.5 Level of Business Diversification (Dc)
This indicator reflects the degree of diversification in a country’s mineral resource exploitation. The greater the number of mineral types being exploited, the higher the level of diversification, indicating stronger mineral resource capabilities for that country. This indicator is represented by the average number of mineral types operated by the top 10 mining companies in terms of output value for a given country, as shown in Equation (7).
(7)
In the formula: Cj represents the number of mineral types operated by company j in that country.
The calculation results show that the top 10 mining companies by output value in Japan, South Africa, and Canada each operate an average of 6 different types of minerals; the top 10 mining companies by output value in Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom each operate an average of 5 different types of minerals; the top 10 mining companies by output value in China and Russia each operate an average of 3 different types of minerals; and the top 10 mining companies by output value in Brazil and India each operate an average of 2 different types of minerals (Figure 6). These results indicate that mining enterprises in Japan, South Africa, and Canada have the broadest range of mineral types they operate and exhibit the highest degree of comprehensive operations, whereas mining companies in China, Russia, Brazil, and India demonstrate weaker comprehensive capabilities.
 

3.2.6 Number of Overseas Mines (Kc)
If a country secures numerous mineral rights overseas and all of these rights have reached the development stage, with successful mining operations, it indicates that the country boasts a high level of expertise in various aspects—including overseas mineral investment policies, financing, human resources, technology, management, market operations, and international cooperation. To directly reflect a country’s capability in managing overseas mineral resources, we use the number of ongoing and operating mine projects overseas owned by the top 10 mining companies in terms of output value in a given country as an indicator. The calculation results show that Japan has the largest number of mines overseas among the top 10 mining companies, reaching as many as 148—averaging 15 mines per company. Next are the United Kingdom and Canada, followed by the United States and Australia; at the bottom are China, India, Russia, and Brazil (Figure 7). It is evident that Japan possesses exceptionally strong capabilities in overseas resource management and holds substantial overseas mineral reserves, making it the country with the greatest global capacity for managing mineral resources. By contrast, the top 10 Chinese mining companies average only 3 overseas mines per company.
Figure 7: Number of Overseas Mines Owned by the Top 10 Companies in Each Country (2015)
3.2.7 Capability to Control International Markets (Sc)
The ability to control the international mineral market refers to a country's capacity—through various means—to influence international mineral prices. The greater the market value of minerals that a country can affect, the stronger its control over the global mineral market. The calculation method for this indicator is given in Equation (8).
(8)
Zc represents the total global market size of all mineral products over which a given country has the ability to influence prices; n denotes the number of mineral products over which a country can exert price influence; Cn stands for the global total consumption of the nth mineral product; and pn is the price of the nth mineral product. The results show that the United States is the world’s dominant power in mineral resources. Leveraging its robust financial control, control over commodity exchanges, resource dominance, control over key transportation routes, and military-diplomatic leverage—both soft and hard power—it possesses the strongest capacity to manipulate the global mineral markets (Table 3, Figure 8). Australia, benefiting from its abundant mineral resources and powerful mining corporations, has achieved monopolies over resources such as coking coal, uranium, and iron ore, while also wielding significant influence over global markets for copper, aluminum, lead, and zinc. South Africa, with its rich mineral endowments and highly concentrated mining industry, has secured monopolies in platinum group metals, diamonds, chromite, and manganese ore. China, relying on its resource endowments and exceptionally strong government management capabilities, has gained control over the supply of global coal, rare earth elements, tungsten, indium, antimony, and other minerals, thereby exerting considerable influence on price fluctuations of these mineral products.

3.3 Evaluation Results of Countries Strong in Mineral Resources
3.3.1 Calculate the total sum of indicators
Calculate the total sum of the raw data for each of the seven indicators; that is, the sum of resource endowment indicators across countries, as shown in Equation (9).
(9)
The aggregate self-sufficiency index for all countries is shown in Equation (10).
(10)
The sum of the comprehensive static reserve life spans of mineral resources across countries is shown in Equation (11).
(11)
The combined total of mining aircraft carriers from various countries is shown in Equation (12).
(12)
The aggregate of diversification levels across countries is shown in Equation (13).
(13)
The total number of overseas mines across all countries is given by Equation (14).
(14)
The sum of market control indicators across countries is shown in Equation (15).
(15)
3.3.2 Data Standardization
Multiply the raw data for each indicator in each country by 100, then divide by the sum of all indicators to obtain the standardized data for each indicator in each country. For example, the formula for standardizing the mining carrier indicator for Country C is shown in Equation (16).
(16) Hcb = (c = 1, 2, 3, … 10)
For example, the United Kingdom has one multinational mining carrier (Table 2). If the sum of the mining carrier indicators, H, is 15 (Table 2), then the standardized value of the UK’s mining carrier indicator can be found in Equation (17).
(17) H1b ≈ 7
For example, the United States has three multinational mining carriers (Table 2). The sum of the mining carrier indicators, H, is 15 (Table 2). Therefore, the standardized values of the U.S. mining carrier indicators are shown in Equation (18).
(18) H2b ≈ 20
The standardization methods for other countries and other indicators can be applied in a similar way to obtain all standardized results for all countries (Table 4).
Table 4: Standardized Results and Evaluation Results of the Assessment Indicators for Countries Strong in Mineral Resources
 
3.3.3 Strength-Based Assessment
The evaluation and calculation of mineral resource strength for various countries are shown in Equation (19).
(19) Qc = (Bcb + Zcb + Jcb + Hcb + Dcb + Kcb + Scb) × 100 / 124 (c = 1, 2, 3, … 10)
In this formula, Qc represents the evaluation score for each country, and the denominator, 124, is the sum of the standardized values of the seven indicators for the country with the highest score—namely, the United States.
For example, the UK’s power rating score:
Q1 = (1 + 2 + 5 + 7 + 12 + 17 + 6) × 100 / 124 = 40

For example, the total score for the U.S. power assessment:
Q2 = (25 + 11 + 19 + 20 + 12 + 9 + 29) × 100 / 124 = 100

 

And so on...

IV. Discussion

The evaluation results show that, ranked from highest to lowest score, the countries are: the United States, Australia, Japan, Canada, China, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and India (Figures 9 and 10). However, simply by looking at the scores, we cannot draw conclusions about which countries are truly powerful and which are not. Based on the experience of most people, it is safe to say that the United States, Australia, and Canada are mining powerhouses, while India and Brazil can only be considered countries with weak mineral resources. As for the remaining five countries—Japan, China, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Russia—we will now conduct a more detailed analysis to determine whether they qualify as resource powers.
 

4.1 Japan is a true powerhouse in mineral resources.
Japan’s score is higher than Canada’s. Canada is a powerhouse in mineral resources, so according to the scoring, Japan should also be considered a mineral-resource powerhouse. Yet, many people believe that Japan is resource-poor and therefore not a true mineral-resource powerhouse. If Japan is indeed resource-poor, how can it have such a high score? Let’s take a closer look at Japan’s performance across various indicators: Among all countries, Japan has the largest number of overseas mines—148—in the top 10 Japanese mining companies, ranking first. The average number of different types of minerals operated by each of Japan’s 10 major mining companies overseas is six, making Japan one of the countries with the highest number of such operations worldwide—and again, it ranks first. Japan boasts two multinational mining giants, placing it fourth globally, behind only the United States, Australia, and Canada. Japan holds stakes in most of Australia’s and Brazil’s major iron-ore giants, and its annual share of equity-produced iron ore exceeds 120 million tons. Moreover, Japanese steel mills wield considerable influence in global iron-ore price negotiations, giving Japan a significant say in the direction of iron-ore prices. Similarly, Japan has stakes in many large copper mines in Australia and Chile, with its annual equity-produced copper output approaching 1 million tons—roughly two-thirds of China’s total output—thus exerting substantial influence on global copper prices. Additionally, Japan is a major recycler of gallium and indium; its recycling volume accounts for about 30% of the world’s supply of these two metals, enabling it to play a decisive role in their pricing. As a result, Japan ranks fourth in terms of its control over the mineral-products market. Of the seven indicators examined, Japan ranks first in two and fourth in two, which fully explains why Japan’s final score surpasses Canada’s. In other words, although Japan is relatively poor in mineral resources, it possesses large multinational mining conglomerates, operates numerous mines overseas, and wields considerable influence over global mineral-pricing dynamics. These strengths alone are sufficient to ensure that Japan ranks highly in any assessment of global power. Therefore, whether judged by scores or by objective facts, Japan truly deserves to be recognized as a global mineral-resource powerhouse.
4.2 The United Kingdom is a once-powerful nation whose mineral resources have now declined.
In the 19th century, two-thirds of the world’s mineral resources were controlled by Britain alone, making it a global powerhouse in mineral resources at the time. As Britain’s position in the global economy continued to decline, so too did its status as a leading mineral-resource power. According to the results of this assessment, Britain scored higher than Brazil and India but lower than China, Russia, and South Africa. Clearly, Britain can only be regarded as a historical powerhouse in mineral resources.
4.3 Russia is a major country rich in mineral resources, yet it is not a powerful nation.
Russia is one of the world’s richest countries in terms of mineral resources—but why does it score lower than the United Kingdom? The reason lies in Russia’s lack of transnational mining giants. Among Russia’s top 10 mining companies, only 12 operate mines overseas, placing them second from the bottom in this regard. Moreover, the average number of mineral types operated by these top 10 companies is just three—also ranking second from the bottom. Due to its weak capacity for overseas operations, Russia has very limited control over the global non-oil and gas mineral resource market, landing it in second-to-last place overall. Taken together, although Russia boasts vast total mineral reserves, it lacks transnational mining conglomerates, has a low level of development in non-oil and gas minerals, and exhibits poor control over the global mineral product market. As a result, its overall score is relatively low. Despite being a major mineral-resource country, Russia cannot yet be considered a true mineral-resource powerhouse.
4.4 China is a major country rich in mineral resources, but not a strong country.
Is China a major power in mineral resources? In most people’s view, China is not yet a true powerhouse in this regard. While China has made progress in ensuring its mineral resource supply, its overseas operational capabilities still need to be enhanced. Thus, it can only be described as a “junior-level mining aircraft carrier.” Among China’s top 10 mining companies, there are only 29 mines located overseas, placing them seventh in the global ranking. Moreover, most of these overseas mines were acquired within the past five years, and many have just begun operations, resulting in relatively low output from their equity interests. On average, the top 10 Chinese mining companies manage only three different types of minerals—a ranking that puts them second from the bottom. This clearly underscores the weak overall strength of China’s mining enterprises. Although China is the world’s largest importer of mineral resources, it wields very little influence on the international market and has suffered numerous setbacks in global mineral commodity trading. Considering all these factors, China is by no means a true “mineral resource powerhouse”; it can only be classified as a “major mineral resource country.”
4.5 South Africa is a major country rich in mineral resources, but not a powerful nation.
South Africa’s score in the ranking of powerful nations is lower than China’s. The main reason is that South Africa ranks sixth among the 10 countries in terms of mineral resource endowment. It has only one multinational mining giant, a small number of overseas mines, weak overseas operational capabilities, and limited control over the global mineral markets. Therefore, while South Africa can be considered a major mineral resource country, it cannot be classified as a mineral resource powerhouse.

V. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusion
1) Define the concepts of “mineral resource powerhouse” and “transnational mining giant.” A mineral resource powerhouse is a country whose mineral resources enjoy a stable supply, which possesses strong international economic influence, demonstrates robust capacity for sustainable development, and ranks high internationally in terms of mineral resource endowment. A transnational mining giant is characterized by an annual output value that places it among the top 30 global mining companies, having no fewer than five mines under construction or in operation overseas, and operating in at least five different mineral commodities.
2) Develop a three-dimensional evaluation index system for building a powerful mineral resource nation, covering the capacity for stable supply of mineral resources, international economic influence, and sustainable development capability. Seven indicators are proposed for evaluating a powerful mineral resource nation: mineral resource endowment, overall self-sufficiency capacity, comprehensive static reserve life expectancy, number of transnational mining conglomerates, level of operational diversification, number of overseas mines, and ability to control international markets.
3) Among the 10 mineral-resource-rich countries, the United States, Japan, Australia, and Canada are powerful mineral-resource nations; China, South Africa, and Russia are major mineral-resource powers; Brazil and India are weak mineral-resource nations; and the United Kingdom is a declining mineral-resource power.

4) Analysis of Common Characteristics of Countries Strong in Mineral Resources. Summarizing the experiences of four resource-power countries—the United States, Japan, Australia, and Canada—we find that these countries share the following characteristics: First, they possess resource endowments of a certain scale; second, they have stable domestic and international supply capabilities for mineral resources; third, they demonstrate strong capacity for sustainable development of mineral resources; fourth, each of them has more than two multinational mining giants; fifth, they exhibit a high degree of operational diversification, with the top 10 mining companies averaging at least five different types of minerals they operate; sixth, they hold a significant number of overseas equity mines, with the top 10 mining companies operating no fewer than 45 overseas mines; seventh, all of them wield considerable control over the global mineral markets.
5.2 Recommendations
Based on the seven characteristics of a mineral-resource powerhouse, China’s future mineral-resource strategy should primarily focus on seven key areas: government governance, resource security, sustainable development, flagship mining enterprises, selected mineral commodities, overseas mines, and market control. First, we must vigorously build a centralized yet flexible mineral-resource management system to enhance domestic resource security and capacity for sustainable development. Second, we should prioritize the development of multinational mining conglomerates, using them as the core to comprehensively increase our overseas reserves and production, thereby elevating the diversification of China’s mining operations and our share of overseas mines. Third, through a variety of economic and financial tools, we should actively participate in the governance of the national mining market, enhancing China’s influence and voice in the global international mining market.