{"id":97759,"date":"2026-11-11T08:29:58","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T05:29:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/news\/commodity-price-volatility-is-holding-back-energy-storage-and-mining-projects\/"},"modified":"2026-11-11T08:34:12","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T05:34:12","slug":"commodity-price-volatility-is-holding-back-energy-storage-and-mining-projects","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/news\/commodity-price-volatility-is-holding-back-energy-storage-and-mining-projects\/","title":{"rendered":"Commodity Price Volatility Is Holding Back Energy Storage and Mining Projects"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

At least a quarter of energy storage developers, investors, and mining companies believe that sharp swings in critical mineral prices are getting in the way of launching projects. This is stated in a new DLA Piper report based on a survey of 550 market participants. 23% of respondents said viable projects<\/a> had to be postponed or canceled because of unpredictable prices amid tariffs, wars, and geopolitical tension.<\/p>\n\n

Another 12% named price volatility as a factor that kills a project\u2019s development outright. Alex Jones, DLA Piper\u2019s natural resources partner, described the situation as a chain reaction: unpredictable prices reduce investor confidence, restrict financing and deal structuring, and ultimately lead to delays, repricing, and project abandonment.<\/p>\n\n

The main obstacle to investment is reluctance to commit capital when future commodity prices are too uncertain. More than half of respondents call volatility a serious constraint on mining or processing. Among them, 28% were unable to secure bankable long-term offtake contracts, 27% postponed investment decisions, and 26% faced a higher cost of capital.<\/p>\n\n

The impact depends on the region. In the UK and the US, participants feel it most strongly: 16% and 18% respectively named volatility as a factor stopping a project. Germany presents a different picture: it is the only market where no one considers price swings a critical barrier, and only 8% see them as a serious problem. In Australia, volatility is seen as one of many significant factors rather than the main obstacle.<\/p>\n\n

Developers are increasingly choosing vertical integration to reduce dependence on unstable markets and on price benchmarks influenced by China. At least 37% of developers and 32% of raw material producers apply this strategy. It allows them to control more stages, from mining and processing to production and recycling.<\/p>\n\n

Companies are also rethinking pricing principles. 37% of participants believe that pricing tied to components works better than pricing tied to spot commodity quotes. Among producers, 48% lean toward long-term fixed prices with periodic reviews.<\/p>\n\n

The report shows that the critical minerals market is moving from playing spot prices to contracts that reflect the strategic value of supply. For investors<\/a>, this is a signal: a project\u2019s resilience now matters more than the current quote, and regions with clear rules and proximity to supply chains will have an advantage in attracting capital.<\/p>\n\n

Source: DLA Piper<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At least a quarter of energy storage developers, investors, and mining companies believe that sharp swings in critical mineral prices are getting in the way of launching projects. This is stated in a new DLA Piper report based on a survey of 550 market participants. 23% of respondents said viable projects had to be postponed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":97760,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[549],"tags":[578,575],"class_list":["post-97759","news","type-news","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","category-mining","tag-investments-in-exploration-and-production","tag-mineral-markets"],"acf":[],"pbg_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok.webp",1672,941,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-150x84.webp",150,84,true],"medium":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-300x169.webp",300,169,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-768x432.webp",768,432,true],"large":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-1024x576.webp",1024,576,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-1536x864.webp",1536,864,true],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok.webp",1672,941,false],"bricks_large_16x9":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-1200x675.webp",1200,675,true],"bricks_large":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-1200x675.webp",1200,675,true],"bricks_large_square":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-1200x941.webp",1200,941,true],"bricks_medium":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-600x338.webp",600,338,true],"bricks_medium_square":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/volatilnost-cen-syrevojy-rynok-600x600.webp",600,600,true]},"pbg_author_info":{"display_name":"Yulia Frolova","author_link":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/author\/giulia-nikolaevna\/","author_img":false},"pbg_comment_info":" No Comments","pbg_excerpt":"At least a quarter of energy storage developers, investors, and mining companies believe that sharp swings in critical mineral prices are getting in the way of launching projects. This is stated in a new DLA Piper report based on a survey of 550 market participants. 23% of respondents said viable projects had to be postponed…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/97759","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97759"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/97759\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":97761,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/97759\/revisions\/97761"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/97760"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}