4D CO₂ Plume Monitoring: Hyper-Specialization of Interactive Deep Learning Networks using Transfer Learning. AAPG Academy Webinar: Summary & Review

     This webinar was mainly about the applications of deep learning networks trained on seismic attribute data in order to model CO2 plumes in and beyond the reservoir formation. Monitoring data is used to train and update the model. In this case, the model was trained in the seismic response to gas, or the gas signature on seismic. A key goal of CO2 monitoring is the identification of a breached top seal, and the identification of gas signatures can be very helpful in this regard.

     I was hoping that a recording of the webinar would be available so I could add some slides to this post, but that does not seem to be the case. If it does become available, I will update this post in the future.

  

Equinor’s Sleipner Field is the Example for the Study 

     Equinor’s Sleipner Field in the North Sea was used for the study. It is a long-running CO2 sequestration project that injects CO2 into a deep Jurassic sandstone, above and laterally farther away from the zone where the natural gas and formation CO2 are produced. Every two years, a new seismic survey is shot with the same parameters as before. Top seal integrity is of utmost importance.

 

Data, Training, and Learning

     The data consists of three seismic attributes: amplitude, iso-frequency, and relative acoustic impedance. The amplitude data sets are from pre-injection to current. These attributes are used to train the model. There are three ways in which the model “learns.”

Supervised learning – Audio-Visual model using tuning labels

Reinforced learning – this happens while the network trains. It works on feedback and rewards. It allows the network to abandon false positives.

Transfer learning – this refers to reusing knowledge from a previous network in new data sets

     Networks are tuned when new data comes in. The process is very repeatable.

     First, an In-Situ Baseline Model was created from Pre-Injection data (1994). The network learns from the tuning labels that are placed on it. In this case, it is tuned to seismic response to gas, which refers both to injected CO2 and pre-existing natural gas in the rocks. The pre-injection model is then tuned with each arrival of new data, and the model is transferred to the new model. Tuning label placement is predicted by the model. It is important not to “overtrain” the model, which will introduce too much statistical bias. Thus, they utilized the three-epoch method to keep the statistical parameters unbiased. The goal is to get just the right amount of training and bias. The deep learning network can capture hidden structures and relationships. After training and tuning, a geometrical representation of the CO2 plume is generated. This is done every two years when a new seismic survey is conducted. The model can differentiate between the two dry gas types after it learns. In this case, the plume extends through time to the south and then to the north. In this case, some possible top seal breaching occurred, according to the model. The model was trained to distinguish CO2 from existing methane in the shallower reservoir through a technique called latent space drift. Some layering was observed in the plume, which is consistent with geology since sandstones are more porous to gas than the shaley layers in between.

Sequential domain adaptation (SDA) – the most effective training occurs when a network is exposed to information for the first time. Overfitting to a dataset introduces bias. SDA allows a network to continually learn, to evolve. Here, what the network is observing is physical, not statistical. Networks with high levels of user interaction and input can be used and transferred to new models with different data.

 

Q&A

Seismic data must be in a specific format. It was run on data sets up to 1.7 TB.

Importance of a pre-injection seismic study: A study should be started before injection to identify in-place reservoir fluids.

Statistical forcing or bias can affect modeling and should be addressed. He uses the three-epoch method to reduce bias. Bias can also be good in that it creates a geologic context = geologic bias according to geologists. Thus, you want some bias in certain directions, but not statistical bias.

Interactive deep learning – if it is there and can be labeled, it can be trained. Gas signatures are an example.

The plume signature is derived by letting the network show the plume.

Can one train all 1994-2008 to be used for 2010? Better to be trained one at a time. If trained together, the results would be messed up – conflicting and incomplete labels would confuse the network. One can do multiple data training selectively – takes out the tuning labels.

    

References:

 

4D CO₂ Plume Monitoring: Hyper-Specialization of Interactive Deep Learning Networks using Transfer Learning. AAPG Academy Webinar. November 19, 2025.

 

 

Hybrid Cooling Technology for Thermal Power Being Explored for Fermi America’s 11GW Data Center Hub

     Billed as the world’s largest private energy grid, the Fermi America data center campus complex and energy hub, in the Texas panhandle, plans for 6 GW of combined-cycle natural gas power and four AP1000 nuclear units. That is quite a lot of thermal power. Thermal power requires significant amounts of cooling water.

     Fermi America recently signed a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Hungarian power-cooling specialist MVM EGI Zrt. The collaboration will first involve engineering and feasibility studies for a set of indirect hybrid cooling towers. According to Interesting Engineering:

“The cooling design primarily uses air and closed-loop water circulation to reduce evaporative loss. The companies also plan to explore recycled water, underground reservoirs, and solar-covered retention ponds to further conserve resources.”

“MVM EGI has been on the cutting-edge of power cooling for more than half a century, maintaining the heritage of our founders, Professor László Heller and Professor László Forgó whom the high-capacity water-saving dry cooling systems are named after worldwide,” stated MVM EGI P.L.C. CEO Péter Kárpáti.

     According to the press release:

“The collaboration reflects both companies' commitment to transparent, community-oriented development. With billions of dollars in investment and a 99-year lease with the Texas Tech University System, Fermi America's business model is directly tied to the health of the Panhandle and the long-term sustainability of the Ogallala Aquifer. The MOU reinforces that alignment by putting water conservation at the core of the project's cooling strategy from day one.”

     For a project of this scope and size, an integrated water management and recycling system that limits evaporation will be a very important feature. I would guess that cooling water for the data centers could also be a part of the water management system.

     This is a very ambitious project that could become the largest data center campus in the world. However, with very high costs, initially in the billions, and the slow timeline of nuclear deployment, there is still some uncertainty as to how fast the project will proceed. Fermi notes that they expect to begin construction of the first cooling tower in January 2026, so very soon.

  

 

References

 

US: World’s largest 11 GW private energy grid opts for water-saving hybrid cooling. Sujita Sinha. Interesting Engineering. December 2, 2025. US: World’s largest 11 GW private energy grid opts for water-saving hybrid cooling

Fermi America and MVM EGI Announce Water-Saving Hybrid Cooling Agreement for World's Largest Private Energy Grid, Delivering on Promises Made to Protect West Texas Water Resources. PR Newswire. December 1, 2025. Fermi America and MVM EGI Announce Water-Saving Hybrid Cooling Agreement for World's Largest Private Energy Grid, Delivering on Promises Made to Protect West Texas Water Resources

Fermi signs MoU with MVM EGI to develop cooling systems for planned up to 11GW Texas data center campus: Will comprise a series of indirect cooling towers. Zachary Skidmore. Data Center Dynamics. December 1, 2025. Fermi signs MoU with MVM EGI to develop cooling systems for planned up to 11GW Texas data center campus - DCD

Extensive Brazilian Potash Imports are Twice as Carbon-Intense as Previously Thought, According to New Study

     It has often been noted, by me as well, that carbon accounting has many uncertainties. Unless all aspects of a product, from production to consumption, are accounted for, there can be misconceptions. Life cycle analysis is done to track the full carbon intensity. It was once thought that the subtropical soils in places like Brazil would not be able to support expanded agriculture, but with modern methods of supplying nutrients, it can and does. One major component is imported potassium in the form of potash.

     The new research was led by Newcastle University. The main conclusion was that previous estimates did not fully account for previously overlooked Scope 3 emissions from transport and distribution. 

     The analysis utilized a cradle-to-hub approach. According to Phys.org, the bottom line is that:

“…researchers calculate a weighted average carbon footprint of 530.5 kg CO₂‑eq per ton of KCl delivered to 5,563 agricultural distribution hubs across Brazil—almost double the 273.13 kg CO₂‑eq per ton value widely used today in Brazilian agricultural and biofuel carbon‑accounting tools.”

"As a country that imports almost all of its potash, Brazil is a perfect case study to show how much 'hidden' carbon is embedded in fertilizer supply chains," said Professor Oliver Heidrich, corresponding author of the study and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Newcastle University. "We've shown that fertilizer producers located close to farming regions tend to have a smaller overall carbon emission impact compared to those located in remote regions. Our hope is that this work will drive more rigorous Scope 3 accounting and accelerate the shift toward lower‑carbon potassium sources for Brazilian agriculture."

     The paper’s authors called for stronger Scope 3 disclosure requirements to update carbon accounting for the potash and for other situations where Scope 3 emissions may have been omitted or ignored.

     It is well-known that tropical soils can generally be depleted faster than temperate soils. It was once thought that the soils in places like Brazil would never be able to support long-term intensive agriculture, but the availability of synthetic fertilizers and mined fertilizers like potash has proved that idea wrong. Brazil imports over 20% of global potassium production and relies on imports for about 97% of its KCl demand. The report also notes that some potential domestic sources of potassium have been identified, which would have much lower carbon footprints.

"Brazilian agriculture feeds close to 10% of the world's population, and KCl is one of the agricultural ecosystem's largest embedded sources of emissions," said Cristiano Veloso, Founder and CEO of Verde. "Studies like this help quantify the challenge and show where innovation and investment should focus. Verde intends to be part of the solution by advancing Brazilian‑made potassium specialty fertilizers which, according to our assessments, can cut carbon footprints by up to 89% compared with conventional fertilizer producers operating from remote, carbon‑intensive locations."

     Data tables and figures from the report, published in the journal ‘Resources, Conservation and Recycling’, are shown below.

  

 

 

References

 

Exposing the hidden carbon cost of potash imports into Brazil. Science X staff. Phys.org. December 1, 2025. Exposing the hidden carbon cost of potash imports into Brazil

The true carbon costs of supplying potassium fertilizer to Brazilian agriculture. David A C Manning, Thiago Ribeiro Siqueira, Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar, and Oliver Heidrich. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Volume 226, February 2026, 108694. The true carbon costs of supplying potassium fertilizer to Brazilian agriculture - ScienceDirect

 

The Progressive Policy Institute Strongly Criticizes New York’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Act

     New York’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which the New York Post has described as disastrous, is being reconsidered, or rather considered for changes, due to the strong unlikelihood of being able to meet emissions reduction targets. Now, apparently, some Dems in the state are calling for rollbacks. Some want to stop any bans on gas stoves and new natural gas service. Others are complaining about large increases in electricity costs for consumers and residents. Governor Kathy Hochul noted:

“We plan to review all our options, including working with the Legislature to modify the CLCPA,” in order “to protect New Yorkers from higher costs.”

The so-called “no-gas mandate” is scheduled to go into effect at the beginning of 2026 and has already increased costs.

     The New York Post says the rule was always unrealistic and writes:

“The idea that New York can even build enough solar- and wind-power generation in time to meet those mandates was always fantasy, a charade to please climate activists — yet it’s what the law says the state must do.”

“As the legal deadlines get closer (or pass without the state doing what the law says it should), the truth grows ever more obvious: It’s not just unrealistic to make “net-zero carbon emissions” a top priority, it’s also expensive, risky and wrongheaded.”

A new analysis by the Democratic-leaning think tank the Progressive Policy Institute found a “clear and undeniable pattern of failure” to achieve the mandates of the act. They conclude that the goals are impractical and unachievable.

“New York set bold climate targets, but ignored the economic and technical realities required to achieve them,” said PPI’s report author Neel Brown.

“The result is an energy system that is less reliable, more expensive, and now politically unsustainable. Unless policymakers course correct, the state risks turning a climate leadership story into a cautionary tale,” he added.

     The Hochul administration revealed recently that it will delay implementation of the All-Electric Buildings Act, which includes a ban on installing gas stoves in newly built homes.

     The PPI report also concluded that the state’s energy supply is constrained, demand continues to rise due to electrification and AI data centers, and power prices continue to rise. Below is some information about the shortfalls in meeting the goals of the act.

     Below are some data from the report. The first graph shows that the state has lower per capita emissions than the U.S. average. This is due partly to the density of New York City and the city’s reliance on mass transit, which reduces fuel emissions from cars. The second graph shows the higher electricity costs New Yorkers pay compared to the national average. The final figure is a summary of some proposed solutions, which include focusing less on mandates and more on outcomes, shifting away from abolishing and towards more building and modernizing, and prioritizing affordability. 

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Dem-leaning group roasts NY’s green energy law as an ‘undeniable’ failure as customers zapped by soaring costs. Carl Campanile. New York Post. December 1, 2025. Dem-leaning group roasts NY’s green energy law as an ‘undeniable’ failure as customers zapped by soaring costs

Can New York Democrats even DELAY the energy crisis their laws are creating? Post Editorial Board. New York Post. November 1, 2025. Albany may move to delay its insane climate laws — but far better to scrap it altogether | New York Post

NEW YORK'S CLIMATE CROSSROADS: ASSURING AFFORDABLE ENERGY. Neel Brown and John Kemp. Progressive Policy Institute. November 2025. PPI_New-Yorks-Climate-Crossroads.pdf

It Looks Like Europe is Pivoting to Drill for More Oil & Gas, Especially in Offshore Plays

    Faced with the loss of pipelined Russian gas supplies and the high cost of LNG, including U.S. LNG, and the high cost of gas for consumers, Europe seems to be pivoting toward drilling more wells, according to articles in Oil Price US and by Reuters BOE Report. Most of the drilling is likely to be in offshore plays.

     The EU is under a rather self-imposed drilling “ban,” or at least strong discouragement, by energy transition ambitions that many are now realizing are unrealistic in the near term. That, coupled with the loss of Russian gas and the high costs of LNG, is driving new projects. However, these projects won’t be available for consumption quickly, especially as offshore projects are notoriously slow to come online. The EU now imports 85% of its natural gas, up from about 50% in the 1990s. LNG imported from the U.S. now makes up 16.5% of the EU’s gas supply.

     The reports note that three countries in particular are now pondering new offshore exploration projects: Greece in the Ionian Sea, offshore Italy, and the UK in the North Sea. I might add that other EU offshore areas to consider include offshore Romania in the Black Sea, offshore Poland in the Baltic Sea, and near Cyprus in the Mediterranean. 

     In November, Greece issued its first offshore oil and gas exploration license, the Block 2 license, in over four decades to a consortium of Exxon Mobil, Energean, and Helleniq Energy. Greece also awarded Chevron and Helleniq exploration rights in blocks south of the Peloponnese peninsula. In the first block, as much as 200 billion cubic meters (7 TCF) of gas could be accessible. Drilling is expected to begin in late 2026 or in 2027. The country hopes to develop the offshore gas and export it to other EU countries to enhance their energy security.

“U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who attended the Block 2 award signing ceremony in Athens along with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, said the development of the field would help Europe displace Russian energy.”

     In that context, it now appears even more unrealistic that the EU will buy $750 billion in U.S. fuel purchases over the next three years, as indicated in previous negotiations with the Trump administration.

     Italy is also considering reviving offshore oil and gas exploration, which was suspended in 2019, with Shell, the top producer in the country, saying it is ready to invest.

     In Britain, the government recently loosened its strict ban on new exploration activity in the North Sea to allow companies to expand production in existing fields, and is also expected to approve two major new fields in the coming months.

     Norway’s state oil company, Equinor, expects to drill 250 North Sea exploratory wells by 2050 to sustain production. Denmark still maintains restrictions on offshore exploratory drilling, and the Netherlands restricts all onshore exploration, likely due to induced seismicity issues.

     Poland had an exploration success earlier this year in the Baltic Sea, which I wrote about. It may be the biggest European success in the past decade.

     Reuters notes that realistically, the EU won’t reduce or delay its climate commitments too much overall, and they also won’t be able to boost domestic production that much. With depletion in some fields, it takes significant drilling just to maintain domestic production.  

     Oil Price US points to a Reuters article in October that referred to the renewables advocate IEEFA, noting that the U.S. would need to:

“…supply around 70% of Europe's LNG in 2026-2029, up from 58% so far this year, as the EU plans to ban Russian LNG from 2027 and Russian gas from 2028, Energy Aspects analysts said.”

     That article also notes that despite the increase in LNG imports, the continent still imports both pipelined gas and LNG from Russia, though that is expected to be discontinued. Pipeline imports from Algeria have also dropped, as well as from Russia. Some projections from S&P Global and IEEFA for EU gas supply are shown below.

     LNG exports are starting to increase from the U.S. as more liquefaction trains come online and more supporting infrastructure is built. Thus, there will be more cargoes available to the EU as well as to Asia.

 

  

 

References:

 

'Drill, baby, drill': Europe aims to reduce reliance on US LNG. Andrew Topf. Oil Price US. December 3, 2025. 'Drill, baby, drill': Europe aims to reduce reliance on US LNG

Europe’s drilling comeback challenges US energy pledges: Bousso. Reuters. BOE Report. December 1, 2025. Europe’s drilling comeback challenges US energy pledges: Bousso | BOE Report

European Union's US gas use set to soar, increasing price volatility. Nora Buli and Alban Kacher. Reuters. October 6, 2025. European Union's US gas use set to soar, increasing price volatility | Reuters

Can AI Properly Interpret a Seismic Line? Not Yet, but Close, Says a Seismic-Interpreting Geologist: Better as a Digital Partner than as a Replacement

 

     The geophysicist, Max Leonardo Duerto Segali, who runs the Geoscientist Blog, recently posted about asking Chat GPT to interpret a seismic line. He is skilled in seismic interpretation. As for me, while I have looked at many seismic lines and used them in my work, I prefer to have them interpreted by geophysicists skilled in interpretation, which I am not. Knowing the structural style or having sufficient subsurface data in the area of interest really helps.

     The seismic line submitted to Chat GPT for interpretation was a salt dome structure, where the other beds pinch out against it as it intrudes. Below, he shows how ChatGPT was prompted to interpret the line.

     Version 1, shown below, he calls the Junior Interpreter – that would be me. He calls it a conservative attempt that got the drapes right but underestimated the number of depositional sequences.

     Version 2, shown below, he calls the Confident Geoscientist. This one is better and more detailed. He says it shows a more realistic salt structure shape and onlapping of beds against it, “demonstrating a more nuanced understanding of stratigraphic relationships.”

     Version 3, shown below, is the fullest interpretation. He calls this one the Workshop Lead and the most ambitious interpretation.

     Below, he describes how the AI interpretation works – by mimicry.

     He goes on to distinguish the AI interpretation from human interpretation, noting that true interpretation is hypothesis testing, not simply drawing.

“A horizon is not a line you draw because it “looks nice”. It is a geometric proposition about the Earth that must be able to produce the wavefield we observe. If it cannot, the interpretation is false; no matter how senior or confident the interpreter.”

     As noted below, he thinks that by giving AI “physics-based forward models,” the interpretations can be improved to match the waveform data.

     Finally, he reveals that AI would make a great digital assistant for seismic interpretation.

     This was a fascinating experiment and shows that AI will likely become an important part of seismic interpretation in the future.

 

 

 

References:

 

And then I asked GPT to interpret a seismic line! guess what it did! The Geoscientist Blog. November 27 2025. And then I asked GPT to intepret a seismic line! guess what it did!

Synthetic Natural Gas: From CO2 Captured from Bioethanol Plants Plus Green Hydrogen: Live Oak e-NG project in Nebraska Expects FID in 2027 and Commercial Ops in 2030

    TotalEnergies, TES, and three Japanese gas companies, Osaka Gas, Toho Gas, and ITOCHU, have initiated and signed an agreement for the Live Oak e-NG project in Nebraska, targeting commercial production by 2030. The project is expected to be one of the most advanced synthetic natural gas projects in the U.S. According to Oil Price US:

“The partners will now begin Front-End Engineering Design for a facility designed to run 250 MW of electrolysis capacity and produce around 75,000 tonnes per year of synthetic methane. A final investment decision is planned for 2027, with start-up targeted for 2030. Osaka Gas and Toho Gas are expected to be the main offtakers, aligning the project directly with Japan’s target of blending at least 1% carbon-neutral gas into the national grid by the end of the decade.”

     Ethanol, or more properly, bioethanol, produced from corn, offers one of the most concentrated forms of CO2 to be captured, and will be used as a feedstock in the e-NG production process. Another feedstock will be green hydrogen produced from electrolysis powered by renewable energy, which is abundant in the region.

     Synthetic natural gas is considered to be a very decarbonized source since it is created from CO2 and H2. Japan is heavily dependent on LNG and wishes to further decarbonize its supply, and e-NG offers that ability. TotalEnergies and TES are collaborating on several e-NG projects globally.  

 

References:

 

TotalEnergies and Partners Advance Nebraska e-NG Project. Charles Kennedy. Oil Price US. December 2, 2025. TotalEnergies and Partners Advance Nebraska e-NG Project

DOE Critical Materials Collaborative, Innovation Hub, and the USGS 2025 List of Critical Minerals and Critical Minerals Atlas

     The U.S. Department of Energy continues to fund, collaborate, and innovate on domestic critical minerals development. Both the Biden and Trump administration DOEs have led this focus. One major goal of the program is to counter China’s dominance in critical minerals and REE mining and processing.  

 

The Critical Materials Collaborative

     The Critical Materials Collaborative was launched in the summer of 2023 by the Biden DOE in order “to improve and increase communication and coordination among DOE, government agencies, and stakeholders working on critical materials projects.” The goal is to accelerate “commercialization, deployment, and the development of secure domestic critical material supply chains.”

 

​​​​​​The Critical Materials Innovation Hub

     ​​​​​​The Critical Materials Innovation Hub (CMI Hub), formerly the Critical Materials Institute, was established in 2013 and is led by Ames National Laboratory. It is a multidisciplinary effort to improve critical materials innovation to the benefit of the country. 

     The CMI Hub addresses challenges in “mineral processing, manufacture, substitution, and efficient use; integrating scientific research, engineering innovation, manufacturing and process improvements.” Nine national laboratories, more than a dozen universities, and 30 industry partners are members of the CMI Hub. CMI Hub also funds research patents.

DOE Critical Materials Funding Announcements

     On November 14, 2025, the DOE announced $355 million in funding “to expand domestic production of critical materials essential for advancing U.S. energy production, manufacturing, transportation and national defense.”

“The first funding opportunity provides up to $275 million for American industrial facilities capable of producing valuable minerals from existing industrial and coal byproducts. The second provides up to $80 million to establish Mine of the Future proving grounds for real-world testing of next-generation mining technologies.”

In August, the DOE announced its “intent to invest $1 billion to advance and scale mining, processing, and manufacturing technologies.” As noted, with the November announcement, they also emphasized producing critical materials as byproducts from existing feedstocks, including coal waste and industrial waste.

• Coal-based feedstocks – advancing and accelerating demonstration of critical material production using coal-based resources as feedstocks.
• Industrial byproducts and wastes – open to all U.S. industry sectors that produce market-ready materials where industrial byproducts and/or wastes can be a source of crucially needed critical materials.

     These pilots will be well-funded and provide opportunities to recover significant value from waste streams. The agency also hopes to develop and strengthen a critical materials workforce.

     On December 1, 2025, the DOE announced $134 million in funding to strengthen Rare Earth Element supply chains. It will fund pilot demonstrations for recovering and refining/processing REEs from “unconventional feedstocks including mine tailings, e-waste, and other waste materials.”

“REEs, such as Praseodymium, Neodymium, Terbium and Dysprosium, are vital components in advanced manufacturing, defense systems, and high-performance magnets used in power generation and electric motors. By investing in domestic REE recovery and processing, DOE is working to secure America’s energy independence, strengthen economic competitiveness, and ensure long-term resilience in the nation’s supply chains.”

 

USGS 2025 List of Critical Minerals

     The Energy Act of 2020 requires the USGS to use an updated methodology to quantify the risks associated with potential supply chain disruptions. The methodology for determining minerals to be on the list is an economic model that utilizes current markets, pricing, and potential for supply disruptions.

“The updated methodology uses an economic model that the USGS developed to estimate the potential effects of foreign trade disruptions of mineral commodities on the U.S. economy. The analysis also provides a prioritization based on the results. The economic model has several advantages over previous assessments, including the ability to directly compare the results against other economic risks and the costs of initiatives aimed at reducing the risks.”

     There are 10 new minerals on the 2025 list, which is updated from the 2022 list, including metallurgical coal. Arsenic and tellurium were determined to be no longer critical but will remain on the list until the next assessment, pending further data.

 

USGS Critical Minerals Atlas

     The USGS also has a dashboard where critical minerals production and processing can be evaluated for different countries. The first figure below shows the top five critical minerals produced and processed in the U.S., and the second figure below shows the top five produced and processed in China. In the U.S., the missing names are rare earth elements, after beryllium, and zinc, after zirconium. In China, the two missing names are magnesium, after gallium, and cobalt (refined), after tungsten.

U.S. Top 5 Critical Minerals: #2 is rare earth elements, and #4 is zinc

 China Top 5 Critical Minerals: #2 is magnesium, and #4 is cobalt (refined)

    

References:

 

About the 2025 List of Critical Minerals. US Geological Survey. Mineral Resources Program. November 6, 2025. About the 2025 List of Critical Minerals | U.S. Geological Survey

Critical Materials Collaborative. U.S. Department of Energy. Critical Materials Collaborative | Department of Energy

Critical Materials Innovation Hub (CMI). U.S. Department of Energy. Critical Materials Innovation Hub (CMI) | Department of Energy

Energy Department Announces $355 Million to Expand Domestic Production of Critical Minerals and Materials. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Department Announces $355 Million to Expand Domestic Production of Critical Minerals and Materials | Department of Energy

Energy Department Announces $134 Million in Funding to Strengthen Rare Earth Element Supply Chains, Advancing American Energy Independence. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Department Announces $134 Million in Funding to Strengthen Rare Earth Element Supply Chains, Advancing American Energy Independence | Department of Energy

Critical Materials Innovation Hub: 10 Years of Innovation, Influence, & Impact. U.S. Department of Energy. September 2024. Critical Materials Innovation Hub: 10 Years of Innovation, Influence, & Impact

Critical Minerals Atlas. US Geological Survey. Critical Minerals Atlas | USGS