British Columbia 

In April 2008, Boss Power had applied to drill at its Blizzard uranium project southeast of Kelowna, just days before the province banned uranium and thorium exploration. Three years later, the provincial government and Boss agreed to a C$30 million settlement for the company to surrender its claims to Blizzard. The project hosts 2.2 million tonnes grading 0.214% uranium oxide (U₃O₈), for 10.4 million contained lbs. U₃O₈, according to an historical resource from 1979.

Quebec

Quebec imposed an unofficial moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in 2013. While uranium activity isn’t officially banned, it’s subject to numerous strict regulations in Quebec. No uranium mines have been developed in the province, and there are currently no uranium development projects there. However, there are at least 10 active exploration projects, three of which have published resources.

Nova Scotia

During a flurry of uranium exploration in Nova Scotia from around 1976 to 1981, companies spent millions of dollars searching for the nuclear metal, before the province banned it in 1981. Millet Brook is one significant uranium deposit discovered in Nova Scotia, and hosts about 450,000 kg of U₃O₈ grading 0.15% to 0.20% U₃O₈, a historical resource from 1982 shows. Much uranium remains under the surface across the province, according to geology mapping by the Mining Association of Nova Scotia.

Sources: The Northern Miner, British Columbia government, Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests, DigiGeoData, Mining Association of Nova Scotia, Atlantic Geology.

Ukraine gets a long-term commitment for US investment in “a free, sovereign, and secure Ukraine”. The United States gets a stake in Ukraine’s future resource potential. And Trump gets to prove that he is, to quote White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, “the great deal maker”.

Just don’t expect a Ukrainian critical minerals rush soon.

Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, posted on X that she does not expect the jointly-owned Reconstruction Investment Fund to pay out any dividends in the first 10 years.

Don’t mention the rare earths

At least everyone has stopped calling it the rare earths deal. The agreement covers all sub-soil resources, including oil, gas and a wide spectrum of metals.

Ukraine has a couple of rare earth deposits, which is not surprising given the size of the country and that rare earths are not as rare as their name suggests.

Deposits that are viable economically and technically are relatively unusual and how promising Ukraine’s are is unclear.

Even the best-mapped Novopoltavske field was last surveyed in 1982-1991. It is also inconveniently located just north of Chernihiv in Zaporizhzhia province, which is the wrong side of the front line from a Ukrainian point of view.

So are two of the touted lithium projects. Indeed, about 40% of Ukraine’s metal resources are under Russian occupation, according to estimates by Ukrainian think tanks We Build Ukraine and the National Institute of Strategic Studies.

Unlocking the full value of the minerals deal will be impossible without a definitive peace and reconciliation of Ukraine’s and Russia’s competing territorial claims.

Long road from mine to market

Ukraine has other lithium deposits and also hosts reserves of critical minerals such as uranium, titanium and graphite.

But since existing production facilities are not included in the deal and many have been closed since the start of the war anyway, Ukraine will be building a minerals production chain from scratch.

That is a long journey.

The challenge with many of the metals on everyone’s critical raw materials list is not getting them out of the ground, although that can be capital-intensive enough, but in refining them into high-purity products ready for the manufacturing process.

Rare earths’ separation and processing is notoriously tricky and dominated by Chinese operators, which is another reason why no-one’s calling it the rare earths deal any more.

Mined uranium also needs to be enriched before it can be fed into a nuclear power plant and titanium ore needs to be processed into aviation-grade alloy before it can be used to build aircraft.

It’s an inconvenient truth that Russia is one of the world’s largest titanium processors and accounted for 27% of the enriched uranium supplied to US commercial reactors in 2023.

Russia, however, is explicitly excluded from benefiting from the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Price protection

Market price is another problem.

Ukraine’s graphite deposits are both on the right side of the front line and relatively well mapped. The Balakhivske project is at the feasibility study stage, according to the Ukrainian Geological Survey.

There is a ready European market for the material needed for the anode in electric vehicle batteries.

But will mining it in Ukraine be economically viable?

Canadian miner Northern Graphite, the only producer in North America, has announced it is putting its Quebec plant on care and maintenance due to a 50% collapse in the graphite price.

China controls 70% of the global supply chain and can exert huge influence over pricing, in this case flooding the market to undermine potential competitors.

The West’s lithium ambitions are being similarly stymied by Chinese over-supply and rock-bottom market prices.

Ukraine will find that private investment will need government help to shield start-ups from price turbulence.

The United States has already understood the need for direct federal action. The Department of Defense is a strategic investor in a domestic rare earths processing project being led by Australia’s Lynas Rare Earths.

Staking the metallic future

This minerals deal is clearly going to come with a long repayment schedule.

But it is a sign of the times. As the world transitions from a fossil fuel economy to a metallic future, minerals have become the new geopolitical currency.

In this new world order China is the dominant incumbent and the West the challenger.

The United States has just made a strategic move in the great global minerals game. It will not be the last.

Next up is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where another minerals-for-security deal is on the table.

(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, Andy Home, a columnist for Reuters.)

(Editing by Barbara Lewis)

The projects – which would supply copper, palladium and other minerals – have been granted FAST-41 status, a federal initiative launched in 2015 to streamline approvals of critical infrastructure.

The Trump administration last month had named an initial 10 projects to the list and said that more would be added in the future.

All of the projects are listed on a US federal website where their permitting progress can be publicly tracked, part of what the administration calls a push for greater transparency and faster permitting.

The latest 10 include a proposed copper and nickel mine in Minnesota from a joint venture of Glencore and Teck Resources; a New Mexico uranium project from Energy Fuels; expansion of a Montana palladium project from Sibanye Stillwater; an Alaskan silver project from Hecla; and a Georgia titanium dioxide project from Chemours.

South32’s Hermosa zinc-manganese project in Arizona was fast-tracked by former President Joe Biden, the first mine to receive the FAST-41 treatment.

President Donald Trump also last month ordered a probe into potential new tariffs on all US critical minerals imports, a major escalation in his dispute with global trade partners and an attempt to pressure industry leader China.

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Developing mines that produce strategically important minerals in countries with established mining sectors such as Canada and Australia can take 10 to 20 years, mining consultants said on Thursday.

But most mineral deposits in Ukraine have scant data to confirm they are economically viable. Investors may also baulk at funnelling money into a country where infrastructure such as power and transport has been devastated by Russia’s three-year-old full-scale invasion and future security is not guaranteed.

“If anyone’s thinking suddenly all these minerals are going to be flying out of Ukraine, they’re dreaming,” said Adam Webb, head of minerals at consultancy Benchmark Minerals Intelligence.

“The reality is it’s going to be difficult for people to justify investing money there when there are options to invest in critical minerals in countries that are not at war.”

While the financial benefits from the deal are uncertain, officials in Ukraine hailed it as a political breakthrough: They believe it will help shore up US support for Kyiv that has faltered under President Donald Trump.

Ukraine needs US support – especially weapons and cash – to withstand Russia’s military invasion.

On the US side, Trump heavily promoted the deal, especially the access it provides to Ukraine’s deposits of rare earth elements which are used in everything from cellphones to cars. So government policy could hasten investment.

The US does not produce significant amounts of rare earths and has ramped up a trade war with China, the world’s top supplier.

The text of the deal signed in Washington showed that revenues for the reconstruction fund would come from royalties, licence fees and production-sharing agreements.

The text mentions no financial terms, saying that the two sides still have to hammer out a limited partnership agreement between the US International Development Finance Corp and Ukraine’s State Organization Agency on Support for Public-Private Partnership.

The text details 55 minerals plus oil, natural gas and other hydrocarbons. According to Ukrainian data, the country has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as critical, including rare earths, lithium and nickel.

“The transition from a discovered resource to an economically viable reserve requires significant time and investment, both of which have been constrained, not only since the onset of the war but even prior to it,” said Willis Thomas at consultancy CRU.

Ukrainian finance ministry data showed that in 2024, the Ukrainian state earned 47.7 billion hryvnias, or around $1 billion, in royalties and other fees related to natural resources exploitation.

But the joint fund created under the deal will only get revenue from new licences, permits and production-sharing agreements concluded after the accord comes into force.

Slow pace of mining licences

Ukraine was slow to issue new natural resources licenses before Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion. From 2012 to 2020, about 20 licences were issued for oil and gas, one for graphite, one for gold, two for manganese and one for copper, according to the Ukrainian geological service. There are 3,482 existing licenses in total.

Since the agreement creates a limited partnership, the two countries may be looking at direct government investment in a mining company, analysts said.

Chile, the world’s biggest copper producer and owner of state mining company Codelco, could be an example they follow, Webb said.

Another hurdle is that some potentially lucrative projects are on land occupied by Russia, and the agreement does not include any security guarantees. Washington has said the presence of US interests would deter aggressors.

Seven of 24 potential mining projects identified by Benchmark are in Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine and include lithium, graphite, rare earth elements, nickel and manganese.

An official of a small Ukrainian company that holds the licence for the Polokhivske lithium deposit, one of the largest in Europe, told Reuters in February it would be tough to develop without Western security guarantees.

“The deal ties the US more closely into Ukraine in that now they’ve got a bit more of a vested interest in this war coming to an end so that they can develop those assets,” Webb said.

(By Eric Onstad, Pavel Polityuk and Christian Lowe; Editing by Veronica Brown and Cynthia Osterman)

The Kremlin was silent on Wednesday’s agreement, but former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said it meant Trump had “broken the Kyiv regime” because Ukraine would have to pay for US military aid with mineral resources.

The accord, which was signed in Washington and heavily promoted by Trump, establishes a joint investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction as the US president tries to secure a peace settlement in Russia’s three-year-old war in Ukraine.

The agreement grants the US preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals projects. It is central to Ukraine’s efforts to mend ties with the White House, which frayed after Trump took office in January.

The deal will show the “Russian leadership that there is no daylight between the Ukrainian people and the American people, between our goals,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business Network in an interview.

“And again, I think this is a strong signal to the Russian leadership, and it gives President Trump the ability to now negotiate with Russia on even a stronger basis,” he said.

His remarks appeared to send a signal to Russia that Washington remains aligned with Kyiv despite question marks over its commitment to its ally since Trump’s return to power upended US diplomacy.

The Ukrainian parliament must still approve the pact.

Ukraine’s First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, who signed the accord, told reporters in an online briefing that would happen in the next few weeks.

“We want to ratify it as soon as possible. So we plan to do it within the coming weeks,” Svyrydenko said, adding that some technical details had to be completed before a joint US-Ukraine investment fund could become operational.

“We really need to be more sustainable and more self-sufficient, and this is a real tool that can help us achieve this goal,” she said.

Ukraine’s Economy Ministry said the two sides did not expect the agreement to begin generating revenue this year.

Vatican talks were key

Senior Trump administration officials said three agreements had been signed – a framework deal and two technical accords – and that they expected Ukraine’s parliament to approve them within a week.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said he hoped there would be no delays in securing parliament’s approval, although some lawmakers said they expected it to take longer than a week.

Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal met parliamentary factions at a closed meeting on Thursday. Some members complained they had not seen the text of the agreement or been properly consulted.

“The agreement has changed significantly in the preparation process,” Zelenskiy said in a video posted on Telegram, hailing what he called a “truly equal agreement” that created opportunities for investment in Ukraine and the modernization of industry and legal practices in his country.

He and Bessent both underlined that talks between Zelenskiy and Trump in Rome during Pope Francis’ funeral on April 26 played an important role in securing a deal.

“In fact, now we have the first result of the Vatican meeting, which makes it truly historic,” Zelenskiy said.

Kyiv has been highly dependent on US military supplies since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 and says Moscow has intensified attacks on Ukraine since the US stepped up efforts to secure a peace settlement.

Washington has signalled its frustration with the failure of Moscow and Kyiv to agree on terms, and Trump has shown signs of disappointment with Russian President Vladimir Putin for not moving faster towards peace.

Medvedev, who is now a senior security official in Russia, suggested Ukraine had been forced into the agreement.

“Trump has broken the Kyiv regime to the point where they will have to pay for US aid with mineral resources,” he wrote on Telegram. “Now they (Ukrainians) will have to pay for military supplies with the national wealth of a disappearing country.”

Ukraine’s international debt rallied after the signing of the deal, which financial analysts said had come with better terms for Ukraine than they had originally thought likely.

Ukraine is rich in natural resources including rare earth metals used in consumer electronics, electric vehicles and military applications, among others. Global rare earth mining is dominated by China, which is locked in a trade war with the US after Trump’s sharp tariff increases.

Ukraine also has reserves of iron, uranium and natural gas.

(By Doina Chiacu, Susan Heavey, David Lawder, Anastasiia Malenko, Tom Balmforth, Karin Strohecker, Yuliia Dysa and Timothy Heritage; Editing by Philippa Fletcher)

According to Chinese state media, a group of scientists recently managed to refuel a working thorium molten salt reactor without causing a shutdown — a feat never achieved before. The success was announced by the project’s chief scientist Xu Hongjie during a closed-door meeting at the Chinese Academy of Sciences on April 8, Chinese news outlet Guangming Daily reported last week.

Such a breakthrough could be transformative to the global energy landscape, as thorium has long been hailed as a far safer and cheaper alternative to uranium in nuclear reactors. While also a radioactive element, thorium produces less waste, and the silver-colored metal, mostly found in monazite, is much more common in the Earth’s crust.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), thorium is three times more abundant in nature than uranium, but historically has found little use in power generation due to the significant economic and technical hurdles.

China takes lead

The latest announcement in China represents a key step in removing some of the hurdles. In the April 8 meeting, Xu said China “now leads the global frontier” in nuclear energy, as cited by Guangming Daily.

The reactor used by Xu’s team is a prototype located in the Gobi Desert, known for its rich endowment of minerals such as uranium and rare earths. The experimental unit is able to generate 2 megawatts of thermal power, using molten salt to carry the fuel and manage heat, with thorium serving as its fuel source.

Compared to uranium, thorium can generate a significantly higher amount of energy via nuclear fission. A Stanford University research estimates that thorium’s power generation could be 35 times higher. Thorium molten-salt reactors (TMSRs) are also compact, do not require water cooling, cannot experience a meltdown and produce very little long-lived radioactive waste, according to the IAEA.

When announcing the breakthrough, Xu acknowledged that its project was based on previous research by US researchers who pioneered molten salt reactor technology in the 1950s, but abandoned shortly after to pursue uranium-fueled ones.

Xu — who was tasked with the thorium reactor project in 2009 — told Chinese media that his team spent years dissecting declassified American documents, replicating experiments and innovating beyond them.

Vast thorium supply

The technology breakthrough follows a report earlier this year that China’s thorium reserves, already known as the world’s largest, may actually be bigger than previously estimated, according to a national survey cited by the South China Morning Post in February.

In the report, scientists claim that the Bayan Obo mining complex in Inner Mongolia, which is the world’ s largest rare earth producer and has a huge amount of thorium in tailings, could yield 1 million tonnes of thorium – enough to fuel China for 60,000 years.

The Chinese government has long aimed to harness the power-generation potential of thorium, which it sees as part of the nation’s strategy to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. The country, as the world’s-second-largest carbon emitter, has reportedly been working on thorium-fueled reactors since the 1970s.

Last year, China approved the construction of the world’s first thorium molten-salt reactors in the Gobi Desert. These are larger than the one used in Xu’s project, and are expected to generate 10 megawatts of electricity starting in 2029.

The landmark agreement would grant Washington preferential access to new Ukrainian mineral and energy projects in exchange for future investment and military assistance, as reported by multiple media outlets.

According to unnamed sources cited by the Financial Times, Ukraine’s Minister of Economic Development Yulia Svyrydenko, who arrived in Washington on Wednesday, is aiming to revisit some of the terms that were initially agreed upon over the weekend.

The sticking points, according to sources cited by the Financial Times, revolve around governance, transparency mechanisms and the traceability of funds. In response, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his team warned that Svyrydenko should “be ready to sign all agreements, or go back home”.

However, Ukraine refuted the American version of the events, adding that the only reason why they could not sign all the documents on Wednesday was because the fund agreement, which would complete the full minerals deal, must be ratified by the country’s parliament first.

A draft of the deal, previously reviewed by Reuters, indicates that it includes the establishment of a joint US-Ukrainian reconstruction fund, which would receive half of the profits and royalties earned by Ukraine from newly issued natural resources permits.

While this arrangement does not transfer direct ownership of assets or infrastructure, it ensures that the US — or designated entities — would have first access to new licenses and projects.

The draft clarifies that existing mineral or energy contracts will not be affected, and earlier proposals that would have given the US influence over Ukraine’s gas infrastructure have been dropped, Reuters reported.

In parallel reporting, Bloomberg said the deal’s scope includes development opportunities across a range of critical commodities such as aluminum, graphite, oil and natural gas. According to officials familiar with the process, the agreement has been in the works since February and will require ratification by Ukraine’s parliament.

As part of the arrangement, the US has agreed that only future military aid will count toward its contributions to the fund.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal confirmed this change on Sunday, noting that previously delivered assistance—worth tens of billions of dollars—will not be monetized under the new framework.

Shmyhal described the agreement as a “strategic investment partnership” to rebuild Ukraine and foster its long-term development. “It is truly an equal and beneficial international agreement,” he told Ukrainian television on Wednesday, according to CNN.

US President Donald Trump has linked the mineral partnership to broader questions around Ukraine’s ability to “repay” Washington for its support since Russia’s 2022 invasion.

The deal also aligns with Trump’s broader push for a negotiated ceasefire. However, progress on that front remains stalled as Russia demands complete control over contested eastern Ukrainian regions.

Despite the high-level tensions—including a failed signing attempt in February following a contentious Oval Office meeting—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and President Trump appear to have restarted dialogue. The two met privately at the Vatican over the weekend during Pope Francis’s funeral.

Ukraine claims to hold nearly $15 trillion worth of mineral resources, making it one of the most resource-rich nations in Europe. The country is home to the continent’s largest reserves of lithium, titanium, and uranium.

A new estimate for District Metals’ (TSXV: DMX) Viken project in central Sweden raises uranium resources so much it’s now the world’s second largest deposit of the nuclear metal, the company said Tuesday. Shares shot up.

The report gives Viken 456 million indicated tonnes grading 175 parts per million (ppm) uranium oxide (U₃O₈) for 176 million contained lb. U₃O₈, an almost ninefold rise over the previous resource from 2010. Inferred resources grew 44% to 4.33 billion tonnes grading 161 ppm U₃O₈ for 1.53 billion contained pounds.

Viken was already one of the world’s largest uranium deposits, and the new report makes it the second largest, District CEO Garrett Ainsworth said in a release.

“The stunning growth of the current Viken [estimate] from the 2006 to 2012 drill data is a testament to the continuity in grade and thickness of the mineralized Alum Shale formation found across the Viken deposit,” he said. There’s “strong” potential to increase the inferred resource even more, he said.

District shares gained 23% to C$0.35 apiece in afternoon trading Tuesday in Toronto, for a market capitalization of C$45.9 million.

Swedish uranium momentum

The new resource for Viken, located 570 km north of Stockholm, adds to tailwinds for uranium in Sweden as the country moves towards lifting its 2018 ban on exploration and mining of the nuclear metal. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s government has sought to overturn the ban since 2023, and the legislative changes lifting it are expected to take effect next January.

Sweden’s uranium output is minor by global standards, with its resources accounting for 27% of the European total, according to the country’s geological survey. But demand for the metal is high around the world as countries seek zero-emissions energy to power electricity-hungry AI servers.

Viken’s global ranking

While Viken hosts the largest uranium resource by contained metal in Europe, how it ranks globally depends on how uranium projects are weighed.

District assumed a scenario in which Viken is compared to other deposits where uranium is the primary or secondary metal, Ainsworth said in an email to The Northern Miner, citing a table by S&P Global Intelligence on the world’s largest uranium deposits.

In that scenario, Viken sits under BHP’s (NYSE, ASX, LSE: BLT) polymetallic Olympic Dam project in South Australia.

Critical mineral bounty

Viken also hosts significant amounts of other critical minerals such as vanadium, zinc and nickel.

The new resource raises by more than 16 times the indicated vanadium tonnage, which now grades at 2,836 ppm vanadium oxide (V₂O₅) for 2.85 billion contained pounds. The inferred vanadium resource grows by 45% to 24.29 billion lb. grading 2,543 ppm V₂O_5.

The indicated zinc resource totals 413 contained lb. grading 411 ppm zinc, and inferred resources add 3.9 billion contained lb. at 417 ppm zinc.

Nickel comes to 332 million contained lb. at 330 ppm in the indicated category, and 3 billion contained lb. in the inferred category grades at 321 ppm nickel.

Sweden’s proposal to lift the uranium mining ban will influence District’s decision to pursue a preliminary economic assessment for Viken in the fourth quarter, Ainsworth said.

The new resource is based on 122 holes and includes data from holes drilled between 2006 and 2012 by previous operators, District said.

In its latest report, Sprott notes that uranium prices have stabilized near $65/lb following a correction driven not by weakening fundamentals, but by a pause in utility contracting. Buyers have been waiting for clarity on US tariffs and potential trade restrictions on Russian enriched uranium.

Some of that uncertainty began to clear in early April, helping steady the spot market. Sprott maintains that uranium’s decline reflects macro sentiment and technical selling—not a reversal in the commodity’s structural outlook.

“Despite market pressures, uranium’s term price remains stable at $80/lb and global supply is constrained below demand levels,” the firm said.

Resilience amid volatility

While broader equity and commodity markets have seen volatility in recent months, uranium has shown relative stability.

In early April, it remained uncorrelated with other risk assets—holding firm even as equities sold off, bond markets wobbled, and volatility spiked.

Uranium and uranium equities have outperformed other commodities and global equities over the past five years, driven by a deepening supply deficit and growing global policy support. That trend, Sprott argues, is far from over.

Supply lags demand

Supply constraints remain a central part of the bullish case. Few new uranium projects are advancing, and some juniors—like NexGen, Deep Yellow, and Paladin—have delayed development. Kazatomprom has also guided production toward the lower end of its outlook amid cost and input challenges.

In Australia, heavily shorted producers such as Paladin and Boss Energy have come under pressure, but Sprott believes short positioning in uranium equities is out of sync with underlying market dynamics. “This wave of equity weakness is a sentiment story, not a structural one,” the report reads.

On the demand side, China continues to expand its nuclear fleet, and the US—backed by bipartisan support—has reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear power as a strategic asset. Tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Meta are also pushing for an ambitious tripling of global nuclear power capacity by 2050 to meet growing baseload energy needs.

Sprott expects the next leg of the uranium bull cycle to begin as utilities return to the market and long-term contracting resumes. With global uranium production still well below reactor requirements and long timelines for new supply to come online, the firm sees a structurally tight market for years to come.

Fast-tracking approvals

Carney’s administration plans to establish a “Major Federal Project Office” with a “one project, one review” mandate. This initiative aims to streamline environmental assessments by eliminating duplication between federal and provincial processes, thereby accelerating the approval of mining projects. Such a move is poised to benefit companies involved in critical mineral extraction, including lithium, nickel, and cobalt, by reducing bureaucratic delays.

Carney has not provided clarity on how the consent process would be expedited to meet the timeline pressures of energy and infrastructure development. This ambiguity is notable, particularly as his promise to avoid forcing projects through appears to contradict his assurances that major projects will proceed swiftly. Past provincial experiences, such as B.C.’s attempts to expedite development under similar consent commitments, suggest that balancing these priorities is fraught with legal and political difficulty.

Carney’s approach implies an acknowledgment of a de facto Indigenous veto over resource projects—but rather than confronting this head-on, he proposes to “buy in” Indigenous participation through public financing mechanisms. This creates a practical route around a hard veto by offering Indigenous communities ownership stakes that align their interests with project success.

Reconciling the urgency of certain projects with the potentially time-consuming process of obtaining consent from multiple Indigenous nations will prove tricky. It begs the question of whether or not this model serves the public interest.

On one hand, it represents a constructive shift from conflict to partnership, promoting reconciliation and potentially leading to more stable and inclusive development. It avoids the legal and ethical risks associated with imposing projects on unwilling nations. On the other hand, it raises questions about the use of taxpayer-backed funds as a means of securing project approval. There is a risk that such financing becomes a permanent cost of doing business, even for projects that may not deliver strong returns to the public.

Whether this is sustainable or fair depends on how transparent and equitable the resulting arrangements are — and whether public funds are being used to create true partnerships or merely to neutralize opposition.

Investment in critical minerals

The Carney-led government plans to invest in the development of critical minerals by: 

• Connecting critical mineral projects to supply chains via the new First and Last Mile Fund (FLMF), enhancing integration within the Canadian economy;
• Supporting clean energy and critical minerals projects through the FLMF to reduce reliance on other countries and protect Canadian jobs;
• Accelerating exploration and extraction, including from recycling, by investing in prospecting activities and 
• Attracting and de-risking investment in critical mineral exploration and extraction through additional investments and expanded tax credits. 

US tariffs

In response to US President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Canadian imports, Carney has pledged a firm stance. His administration plans to invest billions to reduce Canada’s economic dependence on the southern neighbour, including a $2 billion strategic response fund to protect Canadian workers and fortify the auto supply chain.

This shift towards trade diversification and economic resilience is likely to open new markets for Canadian mining exports, particularly in Asia and Europe, thereby reducing vulnerability to US trade policies.

Energy superpower

Mark Carney’s campaign message on energy, echoing Stephen Harper’s “energy superpower” mantra, signals a sweeping ambition — but with a broader, more climate-conscious twist. In his election night speech, Carney declared it was “time to build Canada into an energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy” and pushed for an industrial strategy that boosts competitiveness while addressing climate change.

Now leading a Liberal government, Carney faces the challenge of balancing economic growth with environmental responsibility. His platform includes plans for national “energy corridors” designed to fast-track approvals for infrastructure such as pipelines and transmission lines. He has also pledged to streamline regulatory processes to reduce delays that have long hindered energy and resource development.

Carney supports carbon capture and storage technology, a key strategy for the oil and gas sector to reduce emissions. His promise of federal backing extends to major infrastructure and extraction efforts, notably the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario. The region is rich in critical minerals essential for electric vehicles, batteries and other technologies vital to a low-carbon economy.

Some First Nations groups with claims in the area oppose development, which could take a decade to implement judging by other projects. Environmentalists say it will release the same global warming gases from the region’s muskeg that the electric-battery vehicle metals it would produce are supposed to limit.

Canada’s elected Prime Minister has also committed to advancing transportation and energy projects in the Arctic, paired with a planned expansion of the country’s military presence in the region.

Environmental commitments

While promoting mining development, Carney’s administration also maintains environmental commitments, such as upholding the industrial carbon tax and imposing caps on oil and gas emissions. This approach aims to ensure that mining growth aligns with Canada’s climate goals. 

Despite facing challenges such as taxation, immigration and political influences, including Trump’s rhetoric, Canada’s natural resource development was a common topic brought up by the two main political parties.

Carney’s recent victory signals a proactive approach to strengthening Canada’s mining industry, a significant contributor to the country’s economy. The sector accounted for nearly 20% of the country’s gross domestic product in 2022, alongside C$422 billion ($305 billion) in exports.

PM and Liberal Party head Mark Carney, who’s leading in the polls, has pledged to approve resource projects within two years and broaden exploration tax credits as part of a plan to make Canada both an “energy superpower” and “the global supplier of choice for critical minerals.”

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, meanwhile, has vowed to open a resource-focused project office with an even shorter time limit – one year – to get “shovels in the ground” as fast as possible.  He also says he’ll build long-discussed infrastructure for Ontario’s Ring of Fire region, a set of three new roads and power lines linking future mines with the southern road network. Even so, his platform is thin on details about mining.

“Both parties would unlock stronger growth via major infrastructure and resource development, but each differs in approach,” Scotiabank Economics Vice President Rebekah Young said in a report issued Friday. “A complicated jurisdictional landscape, compounded now by global uncertainties, means either party would have its work cut out to spur greater investment.”

Critical minerals and industrial metals have emerged as essential economic building blocks in recent years as the world gears up for the coming energy transition. In the United States, President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order to increase American critical mineral production to dent China’s dominance after launching a Section 232 probe on all critical mineral imports – a process that typically results in tariffs.

‘Energy superpower’ goal

“Making Canada an energy superpower starts with critical metals and minerals, vital components to build everything from solar panels to electric vehicles,” Carney said last week during a campaign stop in Vancouver. “The market for these minerals is currently dominated by China and Russia. That must change.”

In his first election campaign, Carney has pledged to “kick-start” the “clean energy supply chain” by investing in critical minerals, spurring private investment and supporting early-stage mining companies.

If elected, Carney is proposing to adopt “Buy Canada” standards for products such as steel and aluminum while putting an increased focus on feedstock for battery supply chain buildouts.

First and Last Mile

A key measure included in the 67-page Liberal platform is the creation of the First and Last Mile Fund, an investment vehicle that Carney says will connect critical mineral projects to supply chains by supporting on-site development, processing and refining capacity.

Carney also wants to broaden the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit by including critical minerals necessary for defence, semiconductors, energy and clean technologies to the list of qualifying minerals.

A Liberal government would also expand eligible activities under Canadian exploration expenses to include the costs of engineering, economic and feasibility studies for critical minerals projects.

“All of these measures taken together will make Canada the global supplier of choice for critical metals and minerals,” Carney said.

Repealing obstructive laws

Poilievre, Carney’s main rival for the top job, has vowed to repeal various policies passed under former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau – including the Impact Assessment Act known as Bill C-69.

He calls Bill C-69 the “No More Development” law, saying it “makes it impossible to build the mines, pipelines and other major energy infrastructure Canada needs.” Removing it would trigger a boom in the country’s resource sector, he says.

“We will get big projects built again by repealing the Liberal anti-development laws and regulations that have cost us half a trillion dollars in lost investment over the last decade,” Poilievre said in a campaign document posted on his party’s website. “We’ll also work with Indigenous partners to process and sell our clean natural resources to get foreign countries off burning higher-emission fuels and fight climate change.”

Although the 30-page Conservative platform has a section on Canadian energy and resources, “mining” and “minerals” don’t appear at all in the document. The word “mines” is mentioned once.

If he becomes PM, Poilievre has vowed to accelerate priority resource projects and usher in “One and Done” approvals. He would create a single Rapid Resource Project Office to streamline all regulatory approvals into one application and environmental review, in cooperation with the provinces, with a target of six-month decisions and a one-year maximum timeline.

Fast-tracking projects

A key pledge for miners involves building the infrastructure project to Ontario’s Ring of Fire region, which is known for its vast potential but slow progress towards getting any mines built. A Conservative government would approve federal permits to harvest chromite, cobalt, nickel, copper and platinum in the area, Poilievre says.

In the Conservative leader’s view, these measures would give the Canadian economy a boost of several billion dollars, “allowing us to become less dependent on the Americans, while our allies overseas would no longer have to rely on hostile regimes for these metals, turning dollars for dictators into paycheques for our people.”

“It was agreed that assistance provided prior to the signing of the agreement will not be counted towards it,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal wrote on his Telegram channel on Sunday night, according to the Financial Times. He added legal teams were finalizing the document and noted that Ukraine’s “red lines” had been clearly defined.

The agreement’s momentum follows a brief meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at St. Peter’s Basilica on Saturday, ahead of Pope Francis’ funeral. The White House described the 15-minute conversation as “very productive,” while Zelenskiy called it “very symbolic” and said it had the “potential to become historic.”

Negotiations have been fraught. A signing ceremony for an earlier version of the agreement collapsed in February after a public clash between Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office.

Signs of progress resurfaced Friday when Trump posted on Truth Social that the rare earths deal was “at least three weeks late” but hoped Ukraine would sign it “IMMEDIATELY.” He also claimed peace talks between Ukraine and Russia were advancing “smoothly”.

Senior Ukrainian officials told the Financial Times that the framework agreement covers all mineral resources, including oil, gas, and major energy assets across Ukraine.

A draft signed earlier this month would grant the US access to Ukraine’s critical mineral deposits — which include graphite, lithium, titanium, uranium, and rare earth elements vital to high-tech industries. 

Under the partnership, Kyiv would be required to channel all income from natural resource exploitation into a joint investment fund controlled by Washington, with the US holding first claim on profits. Ukraine has pushed for improved terms, including security guarantees, and successfully resisted efforts to recognize previous US aid as a form of debt.

Both leading contenders for the prime minister’s job touted the merits of a “one project, one review” system during the federal election campaign, which is set to conclude with Monday’s vote. Liberal Party leader and PM Mark Carney pledged to approve resource projects within two years through a dedicated office, while Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre vowed to open a Rapid Resource Project Office with an even shorter time limit – one year – to get “shovels in the ground” as fast as possible. 

Drawn-out permitting timelines have been a long-standing irritant for miners. Canada is the third-slowest jurisdiction in the world when it comes to the amount of time required to develop a mine, S&P Global found in a study released last year. At 27 years, the average lead time for Canada trailed only that of the United States, at 29 years, and Zambia, at 34 years.

“I sure hope that the talk of shorter timelines is real because it’s a serious problem in Canada,” Sprott Asset Management CEO John Ciampaglia said in an interview. “Whether it’s new mines, new infrastructure or new pipelines, the timelines to permit new projects are beyond reasonable. Everybody is talking about wanting to be open for business but I need to see it. So far, nothing has changed.”

Largest fund

With holdings of about $4.3 billion as of mid-April, Ciampaglia’s Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (TSX: U.U for USD; U.UN for CAD) is the world’s largest physical uranium fund.

Units of the trust lost about 12% of their value in the first quarter, dragged down by a decline in the uranium spot price. They’ve fallen about 31% in the past year.

Mine construction delays have hit the uranium market particularly hard in recent years as demand climbed on electrification and artificial intelligence’s insatiable appetite for power.

Uranium stockpiles help sustain supply as demand outstrips production by 50 million to 60 million lb. a year, according to World Nuclear Association data. Demand for uranium is projected to triple by 2040, underscoring the urgent need to develop mines.

“There is a structural supply deficit, and it won’t be fixed unless the world builds a lot of new greenfield capacity – and sooner rather than later,” Ciampaglia said. “New projects are quite critical. They need to come online.”

Athabasca basin

Canada’s biggest opportunity lies in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca basin. As companies such as Cameco (TSX: CCO; NYSE: CCJ) Denison Mines (TSX: DML) and NexGen Energy (TSX: NXE) look to advance uranium projects in the province, Ottawa should follow Washington’s lead in fast-tracking mine approvals, Ciampaglia says.

“Canada has a huge opportunity,” he said. “Saskatchewan’s Athabasca basin has all sorts of undeveloped projects that have been stuck for 10 or 15 years. Politicians can talk all they want about reshoring the supply chain from China but the lead time for these projects is too long. We clearly need to take a different approach.”

Ciampaglia is especially irked to see setbacks pile up for NexGen Energy’s Rook I project, a long-awaited C$2.2 billion capex uranium mine and mill that could produce up to 30 million lbs. annually for at least 24 years.

Although Rook I has a provincial permit and full support from multiple Indigenous nations, a final federal approval is still lacking, two years after Saskatchewan gave the project the go-ahead.

‘Inaction and deceit’

Two rounds of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) hearings are scheduled to take place next fall and in February 2026, with a final approval decision set to follow soon after – some seven years after NexGen began the permitting process.

With construction expected to take three and a half years, that would push the start of operations out to late 2029 or early 2030.

The hearings “come much later than anticipated,” Red Cloud Securities head of research David Talbot said in a note in March. “This is contrary to what was conveyed to NXE and Indigenous communities.”

The elongated permitting timeline is “an ominous read-through for any other projects just entering the process,” he added.

Delaying Rook I’s approval until after the second hearing is “beyond comprehension, inconsistent with previous direction from the CNSC and extremely detrimental to the interests of our communities, the people of Saskatchewan and Canadians across the country,” the Clearwater River Dene Nation, Metis Nation-Saskatchewan and Metis Nation-Saskatchewan Northern Region II said in a joint statement in March. Canada’s regulatory process has become “a tyranny of inaction, deceit and dishonesty,” they said.

For Ciampaglia, Rook I is “a case study in delays” typical of Canadian mining projects.

“The mine originally was supposed to come online in 2028. Now it’s 2030. Why 2030? Is it the capital or the deposit? No, it’s the federal permitting process. The provincial permit came quickly and it’s been bogged down with the federal permit ever since,” he said.

Construction boom

Global utilities aren’t waiting for Canada to pick up the pace.

Some 65 nuclear reactors are being built worldwide. By 2030, they could generate an additional 70 gigawatts of additional power – assuming enough uranium is available.

“People sometimes get distracted by the new shiny object in the room, whether it’s AI or data centres, but the reality is that out of the 60-plus reactors that are under construction today, half of them are in China,” Ciampaglia said. “China and India are driving the growth. For them it’s business as usual.”

Even Europe, which had seemingly sworn off nuclear power, has changed course.

“Since 2021, almost every Western country that was going down the path of letting nuclear reactors close prematurely and focusing on renewable energy has stopped and shifted,” he said. “The Netherlands, Belgium, France and the UK have all done complete flip-flops back to nuclear and have signalled they want to build more capacity. Countries like Poland are going to be building reactors for the first time. The shift has been monumental, and it’s been driven by net zero decarbonization goals, energy security and the growing realization that you cannot run highly industrialized economies on renewable energy.”

Long-term bull

These long-term trends are the main reason Ciampaglia remains bullish about uranium – despite the current spot market dynamics.

“We’re frustrated by the spot price right now but we remain very constructive on the medium and long-term fundamentals, which we think ultimately will pull the price higher,” he said.

“Obviously we’ve had a correction in the last few months, but we think it’s transitory,” he said. “With all the uncertainty going on in the world, our sense is that utilities have stepped away from the market waiting for more clarity on tariffs. They should get back to buying uranium in larger quantities.”

How high could spot prices go? While uranium’s “geopolitically charged” nature makes predictions risky, Ciampaglia points out that the spot price hit an all-time high of $136 per lb. in 2007 during the last boom cycle. When adjusted for inflation, that translates to about $200 per lb. today, he calculates.

With the spot price hovering just above $65 as of Thursday, “we’re a long way off from peak-cycle pricing,” he said.

A nuclear accident, of course, would change all that.

“Having a large-scale accident that shifts public sentiment away from the technology is always the bear case,” Ciampaglia said. “After (the 2011 accident at) Fukushima, we went into a 10-year bear market.”

The company said it produced 745,484 pounds of uranium oxide from its Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia, the highest since the mine resumed operations in March 2024.

The company also reported uranium sales of 872,435 pounds, compared to 500,143 pounds in the previous quarter.

Its shares were last up 26.5% at A$5.035, set for their highest one-day gain since February 2021.

The stock was also the top percentage gainer on the S&P/ASX 200 index, which was up 1.5%.

The average realized price of which uranium sales was about $69.9/pound, beating Citi’s expectation of about $60/pound.

The surge in Paladin drove a wider boost in uranium miners in Australia.

Shares of Boss Energy and Deep Yellow rose 10% and 11.4%, respectively, rebounding from sharp declines on Tuesday.

(By Adwitiya Srivastava; Editing by Varun H K)

Read More: Paladin faces irate investors in class action

Since 2010, a trio of its team members have helped discover the Waterbury Lake and Patterson Lake South (PLS) deposits in the basin, projects later acquired by Paladin Energy (ASX, TSX: PDN) and Denison Mines (TSX: DML; NYSE: DNN), who have become C$1.5-billion-plus market cap uranium players. Strong results this spring from F3’s Broach Lake target, about 700 km north of Saskatoon, suggest the team might have found a third.

“Hardly anybody’s found one [big deposit], F3 CEO Dev Randhawa told The Northern Miner in an interview in Toronto. “Nobody’s found two. We found three. That just goes to the ability of the technical team.”

Uranium explorers have over the last 18 months been riding demand for nuclear as interest grows in zero-emissions energy to power artificial intelligence servers.

‘Where’s the fire?’

Broach Lake, located in the basin’s west about 12 km south of F3’s high-grade JR zone and north of Paladin’s Triple R deposit, is an area with “smoke,” Randhawa said.

“It’s a term geologists use when they haven’t found it yet. So, where’s the fire? The next step is to vector in and find that,” said Randhawa, who in 2013 was named one of The Northern Miner‘s Mining Persons of the Year, along with Fission Uranium’s president Ross McElroy.

Drillhole PLN25-205 at Broach intersected 33 metres of radioactivity, including a 0.56-metre interval registering more than 10,000 counts per second (cps) by spectrometer readings from 325 metres depth, F3 reported in mid-April. One 23.5-metre interval encountered 37,700 cps from 384 metres depth.

“This discovery is particularly meaningful as it is within the Clearwater Domain – a geological package predominantly thought to consist of intrusive rocks and historically considered less prospective for uranium mineralization,” Sam Hartmann, vice-president for exploration, said in a release. Hartmann worked on the Waterbury Lake and PLS finds as part of the geology team with Fission Energy and chief geologist with Fission Uranium.

‘Proven’ track record

“F3’s technical team has yet again proven their ability to unlock and define novel high-grade uranium domains within the western Athabasca Basin,” Haywood Capital Markets mining analyst Marcus Giannini said in a note.

Drilling in March at Broach intersected six zones of radioactivity ranging between 300 cps and 720 cps over a 90-metre interval in hole PLN25-202.

Finding the structure

But the key to making sure Broach is more than just a potential high-grade pod is connecting it with a larger structure, Randhawa said.

He cited drill results from December at JR – adjacent to Broach – that cut 7.5 metres at 30.9% uranium oxide (U3O8), including an ultra-high grade core with 4.5 metres of 50.1% U3O8.

The high-grade core “indicates potential for a major new Athabasca discovery,” SCP Resource Finance mining analyst Justin Chan said in a note then.

“When you start talking about mergers and acquisitions, we need to show that we have more than one pod now, and hopefully this Broach is one of them,” Randhawa said. “If you look at Triple R, we found very little bits, then massive amounts. It was just like pearls on a necklace, because [uranium] conductors generally tend to be straight. We need to show it’s a system. So that’s what a bigger company would secure. We need to acquire it.”

Deposit finders

Randhawa initially helmed Fission Energy, which discovered the high-grade J zone at Waterbury in the basin’s west in 2010. Denison acquired Fission for C$70 million in 2013. Under Fission Energy, the team also found PLS’ Triple R deposit, one of the basin’s largest uranium resources.

Randhawa also led spinout Fission Uranium, which Paladin acquired along with PLS last December in a C$1.1 billion deal. F3 president Raymond Ashley worked as vice-president exploration for Fission Energy.

“Real estate is ‘location, location, location’” Randhawa said. “Rick Rule and other smart people will tell you that when it comes to junior mining, it’s management, management, management. That’s where our big advantage is over a lot of other companies, having management that knows how to monetize, but also knows how to find it first, then cut deals with it.”

Two weeks into the second quarter, the MINING.COM TOP 50* ranking of the world’s most valuable miners had a combined market capitalization of $1.36 trillion, up $79.7 billion so far in 2025.

The total stock market valuation of the world’s biggest mining companies remains almost $400 billion below the peak hit in the second quarter of 2022.

This snapshot was taken at the close of trading on 17 April and not at the start of Q2 as usual to avoid some of the market distortions brought on by the chaotic weeks following Trump’s on-again off-again tariffs.

This flatters the index to some extent as gold stocks rode the coattails of the record setting bullion price and almost all big names regained some ground after the severe sell-off during the first week of April.

Newcomers

The volatile trading saw the greatest number of new entries – six in all – in a quarter since MINING.COM started tracking the Top 50 six years ago. From $6.7 billion at the end of 2024, the lowest ranked entry must now be worth $8 billion.

Mining and metals arguably suffered some of the biggest swings and roundabouts as the economic effects of a trade war and the focus on critical minerals played havoc – exemplified by the volatility on copper markets.

The bellwether metal hit a record high in the US at the end of March, only to plunge more than 20% over the next week and a half and then make up a big chunk of those losses going into the long weekend.

Amid the hectic trading, copper producers and diversified companies with large base metal portfolios lost a combined $53 billion to April 17 and are now trading $205 billion below their collective peak end-Sep 2024 as the sector’s ranks thin.

Lundin Mining dropped out of the Top 50 during Q1 following another copper counter, Poland’s KGHM, which did not make the cut off in Q4 last year. Q1 was a mixed blessing for the Canadian mining empire with the copper producer making way for Lundin Gold, entering the Top 50 for the first time after doubling in value in USD terms to $10.1 billion in Toronto.

Huayou Cobalt’s inclusion proved to be short-lived while South32 failed to make the cut for the first time since being spun out of BHP a decade ago. The base metals sans copper producer sits at position 51 after being narrowly edged out by Shanjin International Gold, so the stock may well return if (and not necessarily when) profit-taking in gold and gold stocks starts to make sense.

Another notable mover of 2025 is Amman Mineral, the worst performer in the index which lost over $10 billion in value as reality about its piercing run since its debut in Jakarta early 2023 continues to set in. The Indonesian copper-gold company is now worth an eye-catching $20 billion less than its high point at the end of Q2 last year, even after investors ran up the stock more than 20% just in the last week.

Nothing counters gold

While the direction of the copper price over the last few months was almost impossible to judge, gold’s record breaking run looked inevitable. At $3,420 per ounce gold at the time of writing, the yellow metal has now finally also surpassed its 1980 peak in inflation-adjusted terms.

Unsurprisingly, precious metals counters dominate the best performer list and make up the majority of new entrants. Gold, silver and PGM miners and royalty companies now represent a third of the value of the Top 50. The strength in precious metals has also seen Canada overtake Australia for the first time in terms of the value of miners headquartered there.

At 22% of the index, the 13 Canadian companies collectively are worth a smidgen under $300 billion compared to $275 billion for the now eight Australian firms with the inclusion for the first time of Sydney-based gold stock Evolution Mining. In their current form Melbourne-based BHP and Rio Tinto have been the top two global mining stocks since the turn of the century, together worth $220 billion today.

The MINING.COM Top 50 tracks stock value in USD terms not share price gains on local exchange and many stocks in the ranking benefitted from strengthening currencies against the USD.

South Africa’s Harmony Gold tops the gainers after jumping 24 spots to enter the ranking at no 37 following a 117% advance since end-2024. Like Harmony, Goldfields also benefited from the strong rand against the greenback, lifting the Johannesburg-based company’s shares by 83% year to date.

Russia’s Polyus, which added $14.4 billion in Q1, was only beaten by the top two gold stocks Newmont and Agnico Eagle which added $18.6 billion and $19.9 billion year to date in market cap gains. The ruble has strengthened by 20% against the US dollar in 2025 and Norilsk Nickel, thanks to captive investors on the MCX, has maintained its good standing in the Top 50 despite sanctions and trading restrictions. Norilsk is still worth north of $20 billion but still a far cry from its peak position as the world’s number 5 most valuable mining company reached mid-2021.

London-listed Fresnillo returns to the index after years in the wilderness thanks to a 74% surge in value for the Mexican silver and gold miner, majority owned by Mexican industrial group Peñoles. Together with Southern Copper, owned by Grupo Mexico, the country now represents nearly 6% of the value of the Top 50.

Gold counters are likely to only increase in number and size over the rest of 2025. Kazatomprom dual-listed in London and Astana in 2018, and Uzbekistan is now readying an IPO for Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combinat – the world’s fourth largest gold mining company and significant uranium producer later this year.

Rare earth representation

China Northern Rare Earth is the only producer of the 17 elements in the ranking and despite the frenzy surrounding the sector as China tightens control. There are no obvious REE candidates that could join the Top 50 in short order.

MP Materials, which operates the Mountain Pass mine in California, has surged by 69% in value year to date but the Las Vegas-based company is still worth only $4.3 billion.

The company’s valuation peaked above $8 billion in March 2022, but the whole mining industry was riding high at the time and the high price ticket for entry at the time meant it fell just outside the ranking. Australia’s Lynas Rare Earths have also come close in the past and is up 26% this year for a valuation of $5.3 billion.

Lithium down to a single stock

Lithium’s representation in the ranking is down from six companies to a single stock – Chile’s SQM languishing in position 42 and worth less than $10 billion – following the exit of China’s Tianqi and US-based Albemarle during the quarter, with the latter dropping by 38% in 2025.

The value destruction caused by the slump in lithium prices has been nothing short of astonishing. Lithium stocks in the index peaked in the second quarter of 2022 with a combined value of nearly $120 billion.

While Albemarle now worth $6.2 billion may well make a comeback (the longer term prospects for lithium demand remains bright), the absorption of Arcadium by Rio Tinto makes it unlikely that the Top 50 will see a rush of lithium stocks any time soon, a rebound of the commodity notwithstanding.

Zangge Mining, which does derive a good proportion of income from lithium, but is mostly a fertilizer producer, is bubbling under at number 53. The Chinese company may not stick around either – it’s the subject of takeover overtures by Zijing Mining, which also helps explain the 25% rise in the stock on the Shenzen exchange in USD terms.

Notes:

Source: MINING.COM, stock exchange data, company reports. Share data from primary-listed exchange at close April 17/18, 2025 close of trading converted to US$ where applicable. Percentage change based on US$ market cap difference, not share price change in local currency.

As with any ranking, criteria for inclusion are contentious. We decided to exclude unlisted and state-owned enterprises at the outset due to a lack of information. That, of course, excludes giants like Chile’s Codelco, Uzbekistan’s Navoi Mining (the gold and uranium giant may list later this year), Eurochem, a major potash firm, and a number of entities in China and developing countries around the world.

Another central criterion was the depth of involvement in the industry, and how far upstream is the bulk of its revenue, before an enterprise can rightfully be called a mining company.

For instance, should smelter companies or commodity traders that own minority stakes in mining assets be included, especially if these investments have no operational component or even warrant a seat on the board?

This is a common structure in Asia and excluding these types of companies removed well-known names like Japan’s Marubeni and Mitsui, Korea Zinc and Chile’s Copec.

Levels of operational or strategic involvement and size of shareholding were other central considerations. Do streaming and royalty companies that receive metals from mining operations without shareholding qualify or are they just specialized financing vehicles? We included Franco Nevada, Royal Gold and Wheaton Precious Metals on the basis of their deep involvement in the industry.

Vertically integrated concerns like Alcoa and energy companies such as Shenhua Energy or Bayan Resources where power, ports and railways make up a large portion of revenues pose a problem. The revenue mix also tends to change alongside volatile coal prices. Same goes for battery makers like China’s CATL which is increasingly moving upstream, but where mining will continue to represent a small portion of its valuation.

Another consideration is diversified companies such as Anglo American with separately listed majority-owned subsidiaries. We’ve included Angloplat in the ranking but excluded Kumba Iron Ore in which Anglo has a 70% stake to avoid double counting. Similarly we excluded Hindustan Zinc which is listed separately but majority owned by Vedanta.

With other groups like Mexico’s Penoles where refining and chemicals make up a substantial part of the business where possible the Top 50 would include separately listed operating subsidiaries that are dedicated to mining. This is also why Southern Copper represents Grupo Mexico in the ranking.

Many steelmakers own and often operate iron ore and other metal mines, but in the interest of balance and diversity we excluded the steel industry, and with that many companies that have substantial mining assets including giants like ArcelorMittal, Magnitogorsk, Ternium, Baosteel and many others.

Head office refers to operational headquarters wherever applicable, for example BHP and Rio Tinto are shown as Melbourne, Australia, but Antofagasta is the exception that proves the rule. We consider the company’s HQ to be in London, where it has been listed since the late 1800s.

Please let us know of any errors, omissions, deletions or additions to the ranking or suggest a different methodology: email Frik Els at fels@mining.com with Top 50 in the subject line.

Two weeks into the second quarter, the MINING.COM TOP 50* ranking of the world’s most valuable miners had a combined market capitalization of $1.36 trillion, up $79.7 billion so far in 2025.

The total stock market valuation of the world’s biggest mining companies remains almost $400 billion below the peak hit in the second quarter of 2022.

This snapshot was taken at the close of trading on April 17 and not at the start of Q2 as usual to avoid some of the market distortions brought on by the chaotic weeks following Trump’s on-again off-again tariffs.

This flatters the index to some extent as gold stocks rode the coattails of the record setting bullion price and almost all big names regained some ground after the severe sell-off during the first week of April.

Newcomers

The volatile trading saw the greatest number of new entries – six in all – in a quarter since MINING.COM started tracking the Top 50 six years ago. From $6.7 billion at the end of 2024, the lowest ranked entry must now be worth $8 billion.

Mining and metals arguably suffered some of the biggest swings and roundabouts as the economic effects of a trade war and the focus on critical minerals played havoc – exemplified by the volatility on copper markets.

The bellwether metal hit a record high in the US at the end of March, only to plunge more than 20% over the next week and a half and then make up a big chunk of those losses going into the long weekend.

Amid the hectic trading, copper producers and diversified companies with large base metal portfolios lost a combined $53 billion to April 17 and are now trading $205 billion below their collective peak end-Sep 2024 as the sector’s ranks thin.

Lundin Mining dropped out of the Top 50 during Q1 following another copper counter, Poland’s KGHM, which did not make the cut off in Q4 last year. Q1 was a mixed blessing for the Canadian mining empire with the copper producer making way for Lundin Gold, entering the Top 50 for the first time after doubling in value in USD terms to $10.1 billion in Toronto.

Huayou Cobalt’s inclusion proved to be short-lived while South32 failed to make the cut for the first time since being spun out of BHP a decade ago. The base metals sans copper producer sits at position 51 after being narrowly edged out by Shanjin International Gold, so the stock may well return if (and not necessarily when) profit-taking in gold and gold stocks starts to make sense.

Another notable mover of 2025 is Amman Mineral, the worst performer in the index which lost over $10 billion in value as reality about its piercing run since its debut in Jakarta early 2023 continues to set in. The Indonesian copper-gold company is now worth an eye-catching $20 billion less than its high point at the end of Q2 last year, even after investors ran up the stock more than 20% just in the last week.

Nothing counters gold

While the direction of the copper price over the last few months was almost impossible to judge, gold’s record breaking run looked inevitable. At $3,420 per ounce gold at the time of writing, the yellow metal has now finally also surpassed its 1980 peak in inflation-adjusted terms.

Unsurprisingly, precious metals counters dominate the best performer list and make up the majority of new entrants. Gold, silver and PGM miners and royalty companies now represent a third of the value of the Top 50. The strength in precious metals has also seen Canada overtake Australia for the first time in terms of the value of miners headquartered there.

At 22% of the index, the 13 Canadian companies collectively are worth a smidgen under $300 billion compared to $275 billion for the now eight Australian firms with the inclusion for the first time of Sydney-based gold stock Evolution Mining. In their current form Melbourne-based BHP and Rio Tinto have been the top two global mining stocks since the turn of the century, together worth $220 billion today.

The MINING.COM Top 50 tracks stock value in USD terms not share price gains on local exchange and many stocks in the ranking benefitted from strengthening currencies against the USD.

South Africa’s Harmony Gold tops the gainers after jumping 24 spots to enter the ranking at no 37 following a 117% advance since end-2024. Like Harmony, Goldfields also benefited from the strong rand against the greenback, lifting the Johannesburg-based company’s shares by 83% year to date.

Russia’s Polyus, which added $14.4 billion in Q1, was only beaten by the top two gold stocks Newmont and Agnico Eagle which added $18.6 billion and $19.9 billion year to date in market cap gains. The ruble has strengthened by 20% against the US dollar in 2025 and Norilsk Nickel, thanks to captive investors on the MCX, has maintained its good standing in the Top 50 despite sanctions and trading restrictions. Norilsk is still worth north of $20 billion but still a far cry from its peak position as the world’s number 5 most valuable mining company reached mid-2021.

London-listed Fresnillo returns to the index after years in the wilderness thanks to a 74% surge in value for the Mexican silver and gold miner, majority owned by Mexican industrial group Peñoles. Together with Southern Copper, owned by Grupo Mexico, the country now represents nearly 6% of the value of the Top 50.

Gold counters are likely to only increase in number and size over the rest of 2025. Kazatomprom dual-listed in London and Astana in 2018, and Uzbekistan is now readying an IPO for Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combinat – the world’s fourth largest gold mining company and significant uranium producer later this year.

Rare earth representation

China Northern Rare Earth is the only producer of the 17 elements in the ranking and despite the frenzy surrounding the sector as China tightens control. There are no obvious REE candidates that could join the Top 50 in short order.

MP Materials, which operates the Mountain Pass mine in California, has surged by 69% in value year to date but the Las Vegas-based company is still worth only $4.3 billion.

The company’s valuation peaked above $8 billion in March 2022, but the whole mining industry was riding high at the time and the high price ticket for entry at the time meant it fell just outside the ranking. Australia’s Lynas Rare Earths have also come close in the past and is up 26% this year for a valuation of $5.3 billion.

Lithium down to a single stock

Lithium’s representation in the ranking is down from six companies to a single stock – Chile’s SQM languishing in position 42 and worth less than $10 billion – following the exit of China’s Tianqi and US-based Albemarle during the quarter, with the latter dropping by 38% in 2025.

The value destruction caused by the slump in lithium prices has been nothing short of astonishing. Lithium stocks in the index peaked in the second quarter of 2022 with a combined value of nearly $120 billion.

While Albemarle now worth $6.2 billion may well make a comeback (the longer term prospects for lithium demand remains bright), the absorption of Arcadium by Rio Tinto makes it unlikely that the Top 50 will see a rush of lithium stocks any time soon, a rebound of the commodity notwithstanding.

Zangge Mining, which does derive a good proportion of income from lithium, but is mostly a fertilizer producer, is bubbling under at number 53. The Chinese company may not stick around either – it’s the subject of takeover overtures by Zijing Mining, which also helps explain the 25% rise in the stock on the Shenzen exchange in USD terms.

Notes:

Source: MINING.COM, stock exchange data, company reports. Share data from primary-listed exchange at close April 17/18, 2025 close of trading converted to US$ where applicable. Percentage change based on US$ market cap difference, not share price change in local currency.

As with any ranking, criteria for inclusion are contentious. We decided to exclude unlisted and state-owned enterprises at the outset due to a lack of information. That, of course, excludes giants like Chile’s Codelco, Uzbekistan’s Navoi Mining (the gold and uranium giant may list later this year), Eurochem, a major potash firm, and a number of entities in China and developing countries around the world.

Another central criterion was the depth of involvement in the industry, and how far upstream is the bulk of its revenue, before an enterprise can rightfully be called a mining company.

For instance, should smelter companies or commodity traders that own minority stakes in mining assets be included, especially if these investments have no operational component or even warrant a seat on the board?

This is a common structure in Asia and excluding these types of companies removed well-known names like Japan’s Marubeni and Mitsui, Korea Zinc and Chile’s Copec.

Levels of operational or strategic involvement and size of shareholding were other central considerations. Do streaming and royalty companies that receive metals from mining operations without shareholding qualify or are they just specialized financing vehicles? We included Franco Nevada, Royal Gold and Wheaton Precious Metals on the basis of their deep involvement in the industry.

Vertically integrated concerns like Alcoa and energy companies such as Shenhua Energy or Bayan Resources where power, ports and railways make up a large portion of revenues pose a problem. The revenue mix also tends to change alongside volatile coal prices. Same goes for battery makers like China’s CATL which is increasingly moving upstream, but where mining will continue to represent a small portion of its valuation.

Another consideration is diversified companies such as Anglo American with separately listed majority-owned subsidiaries. We’ve included Angloplat in the ranking but excluded Kumba Iron Ore in which Anglo has a 70% stake to avoid double counting. Similarly we excluded Hindustan Zinc which is listed separately but majority owned by Vedanta.

With other groups like Mexico’s Penoles where refining and chemicals make up a substantial part of the business where possible the Top 50 would include separately listed operating subsidiaries that are dedicated to mining. This is also why Southern Copper represents Grupo Mexico in the ranking.

Many steelmakers own and often operate iron ore and other metal mines, but in the interest of balance and diversity we excluded the steel industry, and with that many companies that have substantial mining assets including giants like ArcelorMittal, Magnitogorsk, Ternium, Baosteel and many others.

Head office refers to operational headquarters wherever applicable, for example BHP and Rio Tinto are shown as Melbourne, Australia, but Antofagasta is the exception that proves the rule. We consider the company’s HQ to be in London, where it has been listed since the late 1800s.

Please let us know of any errors, omissions, deletions or additions to the ranking or suggest a different methodology: email Frik Els at fels@mining.com with Top 50 in the subject line.

Shares of Energy Fuels were up 5.2% by midday Thursday in Toronto on this update, trading at C$6.49 apiece for a market capitalization of C$1.37 billion.

Earlier this month, China restricted its exports of seven types of rare earth elements (REEs) in retaliation against new tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump. These minerals are niche materials specific to technological processes or alloys and are hard to replace. The US relies heavily on foreign imports, as it has only one producing rare earth mine, Mountain Pass in California.

Colorado-based Energy Fuels operates the White Mesa mill in Utah, the only fully licensed uranium mill in the US and last year began producing neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) oxides on a commercial scale.

Neodymium and praseodymium, which are used to build permanent magnet motors, are the most common rare earths, and are excluded from the Chinese export restrictions, for now.

The Phase 1 separation circuit at White Mesa, according Energy Fuels, has the capacity to produce between 850 to 1,000 metric tonnes of NdPr per year.

The company has been conducting lab- and pilot-scale REE separations since 2021, leveraging the high REE content in monazite — a low-cost byproduct of heavy mineral sands mines found in the US.

The company believes that, through its ongoing testwork, it has the technical know-how to expand the existing infrastructure to produce six other rare earth oxides — samarium, gadolinium, dysprosium, terbium, lutetium and yttrium — all of which are subject to the Chinese export controls

“We now have the data, knowledge and much of the infrastructure in place to produce ‘light’, ‘mid’ and ‘heavy’ rare earth oxides at scale at the White Mesa mill,” Energy Fuels CEO Mark Chalmers said in a press release Thursday.

The expansion is expected to increase the mill’s monazite concentrate processing capacity sixfold, from 10,000 tonnes a year to 60,000 tonnes. While the company has secured decades of monazite supply, it anticipates these US mineral sands mines would only begin producing in 2028; before that, its supply would have to come from third parties.

Energy Fuels said it is now in the process of updating its 2024 prefeasibility study to a feasibility study to include the planned expansion.

The case filed with the Supreme Court of Victoria in Melbourne contends that Paladin made misleading representations and contravened its ASX continuous disclosure obligations between June 27 and Nov. 11, according to Paladin and Melbourne-based law firm Slater and Gordon.

“Paladin intends to strongly defend this claim,” the miner said in a statement.

The Perth, Australia-based company restarted its main producer, the Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia, in late 2023 after being on care and maintenance since 2018. The first official production guidance was announced on June 27 for the fiscal year 2025 (July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025), projecting an output of 4 million to 4.5 million lb. of uranium oxide (U₃O₈). This guidance was later revised on Nov. 12 to 3 million to 3.6 million lb. due to operational challenges including variability in stockpiled ore and water supply disruptions.

Then last month Paladin withdrew its 2025 guidance entirely following unseasonal heavy rainfall that disrupted mining operations.

Shares in Paladin fell 2% to C$3.95 apiece in Toronto on Wednesday morning, giving it a market capitalization of about C$1.54 billion. They’ve traded in a range of C$3.34 to C$8.55 since they listed in Canada in December.

Ian Weatherlake

Paladin’s ASX share price dropped by 22% across two trading day after the Nov. 12 output downgrade, says Slater and Gordon. The firm is leading the class action seeking undisclosed damages on behalf of Ian Weatherlake, the trustee for the Ian Weatherlake Staff Superannuation Fund and the Ian Weatherlake Family Trust. Their assets aren’t publicly disclosed.

“This claim alleges that Paladin knew or ought to have known that its June guidance was unreasonably optimistic and there was a material risk it would not be met,” the law firm says. “We allege that the plaintiff and group members paid more for shares in Paladin than would have been the case had the company revealed the true situation and alternatively, that some group members would not have purchased shares at all.”

A timeline for the class action isn’t yet clear, Ian Hamilton, a Paladin spokesperson based in Toronto, said by email Wednesday. There’s nothing more to add to the company’s statement at this point, he said.

Investors who purchased Paladin shares between April 2, 2024, and Nov. 12, 2024, may be eligible to participate in the class action. Slater and Gordon has provided a registration form on its website for interested shareholders.

Fission takeover

In December, the Canadian government approved Paladin’s $1.1-billion all-share takeover of Fission Uranium after a three-month national security review since Chinese state-owned companies held stakes in both firms. The approval bars Paladin from selling uranium, sourced from the Patterson Lake South (PLS) project that Fission was developing, to end-users in China.

PLS is an advanced-stage project in Saskatchewan hosting the high-grade Triple R deposit. It is expected to produce about 9.1 million lb. of U₃O₈ annually over a 10-year mine life starting in 2029, according to a 2023 feasibility study.

The company also holds the Michelin project in Newfoundland and Labrador, an advanced exploration project with a resource of 127.7 million lb. at 860 parts per million (ppm) U₃O₈. It has the potential for both open-pit and underground mining operations.

The Mount Isa project in Queensland, Australia, has a resource of 148.4 million lb. at 680 ppm U₃O₈, with potential for a 5 million to 7 million lb. a year open-pit mine. In Western Australia, the Manyingee and Carley Bore projects have a combined resource of 41.5 million lb. at 510 ppm U₃O₈, with potential for in-situ recovery mining methods.

The new figures, published Tuesday in the biennial Red Book — a survey of the uranium industry — may trigger concern over the direction of Iran’s nuclear program. The Islamic Republic has been digging at more than a half dozen new uranium mines since 2022 yet its resources are considered uneconomic and well below what is needed to fuel a nuclear reactor.

Tehran’s government “indicates that Iran’s uranium reserves are much larger than previously estimated,” wrote the authors of the report, who work at the Paris-based Nuclear Energy Agency and Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. The country may almost quadruple ore production to 71 tons this year, according to the report.

Unlike other parts of the nuclear-fuel cycle — the sprawling industrial process that concentrates uranium isotopes into fuel for energy — upstream mining activities are not frequently audited. IAEA inspectors track enriched uranium worldwide at gram levels because the material can also be used in weapons, but uranium ore can be mined and traded with fewer regulations.

While Iran has always maintained its nuclear program is peaceful, in 2015 world powers negotiated caps on its work in exchange for sanctions relief. US President Donald Trump left that agreement — which included IAEA safeguards on Iranian mining activities — in May 2018 and reimposed stringent penalties on Iran’s economy.

Since returning to office, Trump has said he wants a new nuclear agreement with Iran and has raised the threat of military action if Tehran doesn’t join direct talks to strike an accord soon.

After months of tensions, Tehran said it would hold talks with the US on Saturday in Muscat, Oman. Negotiations will be led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and mediated by Oman’s foreign minister, according to Iran’s state-run Nour News.

Iran’s uranium mining activities have drawn scrutiny from security analysts who point out that, while its reserves aren’t enough to fuel its lone atomic-power reactor, they would be sufficient to build nuclear bombs.

The reactor at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear-power plant needs the equivalent of about 160 tons (145.15 tons) of uranium ore annually, but the country has been mining just 21 tons a year. Russia’s Rosatom Corp., which built the plant, also supplies the fuel.

“Despite having already acquired sufficient uranium to supply a sizable nuclear weapons arsenal, Iran’s domestic uranium resources do not match its nuclear power reactor goals, meaning it cannot have an economically viable, domestic source of uranium,” wrote the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security in a report last year.

Iran’s engineers are now producing the equivalent of one bomb’s worth of 60%-enriched uranium per month, according to IAEA data. In February, an IAEA report noted that the country’s stockpile of this highly-enriched uranium had increased by 50% over the preceding three months, to 275 kilograms.

(By Jonathan Tirone)

In a press release Tuesday, the Australian miner said it would now take a phased development approach to the project instead of a full-scale project development, beginning with early works infrastructure development and detailed engineering to ensure the project is “shovel ready”.

However, construction of the processing plant, which involves the majority of estimated capital expenditure, will be postponed, it added.

The company reiterated that the key element to delivering an FID “was always going to be the prevailing uranium market conditions” that would justify the development of what it considers to be one of the most advanced greenfield uranium projects globally.

Despite the delayed FID, the company’s shares closed Tuesday’s session 4.9% higher with a market capitalization of A$826.7 million. The stock bounced off a 52-week low on Monday after recovering from last week’s global-wide market selloff.

“We have a situation where the long-term uranium market is essentially broken. This is due to more than a decade of sector inactivity, persistently depressed uranium prices, and utility offtake contracting practices which are yet to support the development of greenfields uranium production,” managing director John Borshoff said in a news release.

“Although the Tumas project is economic at current long-term uranium prices, these prices do not reflect or support the enormous amount of production that needs to be brought online to meet expected demand,” Borshoff added.

Deep Yellow has been working on the Tumas project since 2016, and has to date delineated a resource totalling 118 million lb. of uranium oxide (U₃O₈) at a grade of 255 parts per million U₃O₈. Within the resource is an estimated ore reserve of 79 million lb. grading 298 ppm U₃O₈. The reserves are expected to support a long mine life of at least 22 years, with annual uranium production of 3.6 million lb.

According to the company, the additional detailed engineering carried out in the past three months has confirmed Tumas as a robust, long-life project of over 20 years. Its post-tax net present value has been pegged at $577 million, with an internal rate of return of 19%. The initial capex is estimated at $474 million.

The latest optimization work by the company was based off a uranium price of $82.50/lb., while uranium futures are currently trading at around $64/lb.

The agencies’ biennial Red Book says demand for uranium is surging as countries and companies turn to nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel use and support the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI)-related power-hungry data centres. Without major new investment in uranium exploration and mining, supply may not keep up.

While the report concludes that enough uranium exists to support a “high-growth” scenario through 2050 and beyond, it stresses that unlocking those resources will require significant spending on exploration, mining operations, and new processing techniques.

Under that high-growth outlook, global nuclear capacity would rise 130% by 2050 compared to 2022 levels. However, that estimate is based on policies and data available at the start of 2023 — before a wave of renewed interest in nuclear energy by both governments and the private sector.

East Asia is expected to see the largest growth, with capacity potentially increasing by up to 220% over the 111 gigawatts of nuclear power it had at the end of 2022. Meanwhile, countries including the US, UK, South Korea and 20 others have pledged to triple global nuclear capacity by mid-century to help meet net-zero targets.

Iran concerns

From the region, Iran is by far the country with the most capacity to increase uranium output, the report shows. The nation could up its ore production by almost four times, reaching 71 tonnes this year, according to the report.

In addition to the current Ardakan uranium production facility in Yazd Province, feasibility studies are underway for the development of the Narigan production centre, also located in the same province.

Iran has always maintained that its uranium enrichment activities are for peaceful purposes. Last year, however, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security said that while Iran’s uranium resources could support a nuclear weapons arsenal, they are insufficient to fuel its growing nuclear power reactors.

Private sector investment is also climbing. Tech giants including Google, Amazon and Meta are betting on nuclear, investing heavily in the sector to power the next generation of energy-intensive data centres fuelling AI development.

The International Energy Agency said in January that nuclear power has entered “a new era,” with interest at its highest level since the 1970s oil shocks. 

The agency noted that annual nuclear investment rose nearly 50% between 2020 and 2023.

Pierre Poilievre, who’s running against Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney in an April 28 election, has pledged to advance projects including the second phase of LNG Canada in British Columbia, the Rook 1 uranium mine in Saskatchewan, Springpole Lake gold mine in Ontario and Suncor’s project. Poilievre said natural resource projects have been stymied over the past decade of Liberal leadership due to excessive regulations and slow approvals.

Suncor submitted a plan to the federal government in 2020 to extend the life of its Base Plant mine, which is more than 50 years old and forms the backbone of Suncor’s oil sands operations. The mine feeds bitumen into two upgraders that turn the ultra-heavy crude into lighter, higher-value synthetic oil.

In 2022, then-environment minister Steven Guilbeault signaled he may not approve the extension project, saying its emissions “may not align” with Canada’s climate targets.

In December, the government announced it would begin assessing the impact of the project, but Suncor has been working to secure alternative supplies of bitumen for its upgraders, including by acquiring full control of the Fort Hills oil sands mine from TotalEnergies SE and Teck Resources Ltd.

Suncor chief executive officer Rich Kruger has also said the company is considering boosting supply with more oil-sands well projects — known as in-situ developments — including the long-proposed Lewis project or Firebag South. Suncor didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

(By Robert Tuttle)

US President Donald Trump’s administration has proposed a more expansive minerals deal which Ukraine has been reviewing in the recent days.

(By Pavel Polityuk and Anastasiia Malenko; Editing by Toby Chopra)

Watch: What can a US mineral deal do for the Ukraine?

It made on-spec neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) in less than a week at its White Mesa uranium mill in Utah. The plant is part of the company’s plan to build a U.S. mineral hub that produces uranium, rare earth elements and heavy mineral sands, Chalmers said.

“Some people have told me it’s going to take years to get there and we did it in literally a week,” the CEO said at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada’s annual convention in Toronto. “We have a market cap of about $1 billion and it provided us with the strength to execute our strategy.”

Energy Fuels uses its experience to recover uranium from different feed streams. It also processes monazite, which contains rare earth oxides. The company seeks to scale production to 6,000 tonnes a year of NdPr and advance projects in Madagascar, Australia and Brazil.

Watch the full interview below with The Northern Miner western editor, Henry Lazenby.

Higher prices of uranium and the resumption of production at the White Mesa Mill in Utah, which is the country’s only active uranium mill, spurred the output increase, the EIA said in a report.

The rise of US electricity demand brought by data centers, onshored manufacturing and the electrification of transportation and buildings has renewed interest in power supplied by the country’s long-struggling nuclear energy industry.

Companies are now in the process of attempting to restart two fully shut nuclear reactors, including one at the former Three Mile Island facility. In an effort to kick-start the domestic supply chain for nuclear power, the federal government offered contracts to six companies to make uranium fuel late last year.

Output of the concentrate totaled 375,401 pounds in the fourth quarter of last year, which was higher than the total production for each of the three prior years, the EIA said. The supply, most of which came from two processing facilities in Texas and Wyoming, was more than triple what was produced in the third quarter of 2024, which totaled 121,296 pounds.

(By Laila Kearney; Editing by Paul Simao)

Read More: Uranium market freezes as Trump tariff threats rattle buyers

US utility purchases of the nuclear fuel dropped by half as the imposition of Trump’s 10% levy on Canadian energy exports approaches, according to the most recent data from pricing firm TradeTech. Reactor operators who typically rely on term contracts are standing on the sidelines to see how the tariffs play out.

Few sectors are as at-risk as US nuclear power, which relies on Canada for more than one-fourth of its uranium — more than any other source. Uncertainty about the scope and duration of levies, set to kick in on April 2, has discouraged buyers of the reactor fuel. It’s also setting the stage for additional market dislocation when nuclear operators eventually begin to exhaust inventories.

The turmoil complicates decision making for utility executives trying to balance expansion plans with conflicting signals on electricity demand for data centers.

“Utilities are waiting to see what this all means before they take action,” said Karen Radosevich, manager of nuclear fuels supply at Entergy Corp., which operates four reactors in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

For now, investors are wary: a closely watched exchange-traded fund that includes uranium miners has tumbled 16% this year, more than twice the slide in the S&P 500 Index. The world’s No. 2 uranium producer, Cameco Corp., is down 21%. Meanwhile, uranium futures are down roughly 40% from the 2024 peak.

There’s little near-term danger of US reactors running short of fuel. Given the long-term nature of uranium supply contracts, utilities are well-supplied for this year and most of 2026, Cameco chief financial officer Grant Isaac told an industry conference in Florida in February.

Still, some utilities have sought to ensure uranium access to avoid cost bumps. Entergy began accelerating deliveries of Canadian uranium weeks ago, after Trump announced a delay to the tariff’s implementation, Radosevich said.

“We’re looking at everything that we can do within our portfolio of contracts,” she added. “But we’re not really looking to sign new long-term contracts.”

The US is the world’s largest uranium buyer, home to 94 nuclear reactors that power tens of millions of homes and offices. Most of the material comes from foreign imports, with US utilities sourcing 95% of nuclear-fuel abroad.

Trump initially threatened 25% tariffs on Canadian uranium and other energy products before lowering that figure to 10% and delaying the levies twice. Canada’s government has also threatened to slap export tariffs on uranium from high-grade mines in Saskatchewan. US reactor operators typically buy five million to eight million pounds of the metal a month but the start of this year has been “very quiet,” said Jonathan Hinze, president of UxC LLC, which tracks uranium prices and market activity.

“We’ve seen nothing near that amount, in terms of contracts being signed,” Hinze said. “Utilities are currently relatively inactive on the contracting front. There are still many utilities that have to fill fuel needs as soon as 2027 or 2028, but the latest market uncertainty is keeping most of them on the sidelines.”

Utilities like Entergy, which powers the homes and businesses of three million US customers in part through nuclear plants, would likely bear responsibility for additional costs resulting from tariffs. Uranium producers like Cameco used to foot the bill for such levies, but that changed during renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2018 when the miner tweaked contract terms to pass tariff costs onto customers.

“In the absence of any clarity, and with the rules constantly changing — tariffs on today, tariffs off tomorrow — it’s just created this complete paralysis,” said John Ciampaglia, chief executive officer at Sprott Asset Management, which operates the world’s largest physical uranium trust. “There are just too many ‘what-if’ scenarios the market is trying to digest at once.”

(By Jacob Lorinc)

Earlier this week, a government bill that includes a repeal of Nova Scotia’s uranium ban was cleared for third reading at the legislature — a major step towards the provincial government’s plan to unlock its vast wealth of the nuclear fuel.

Nova Scotia was once a hotbed of uranium exploration in the late 1970s, with tens of millions of dollars spent by major energy companies like Shell and Esso. However, due to public health concerns raised, the province declared a moratorium on uranium mining activities 1981. In 2009, the NDP government legislated a full ban on uranium.

However, MANS believes that modern uranium methods are much different than what they were some 40 years ago. Today, most uranium is mined using solution mining (aka in-situ leaching), which results in less disturbance at surface and produces basically no tailings or waste rock, the Association said.

“Modern uranium mining is a safe, environmentally responsible activity that is essential to achieving climate goals,” Kirby said in a press release this week. “There is no health, safety or environmental reason to ban uranium, and the ban harms our industry’s ability to create more jobs for Nova Scotians.”

A poll by MANS showed that 54% of Nova Scotians are in support of uranium mining, while only 22% oppose it. According to estimates, Nova Scotia’s mining and quarrying industry currently employs over 3,000 people, with average total compensation (wages and benefits) of C$102,000 per year.

The groundwork for revoking the uranium ban had been laid out by Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston, who presented the policies under Bill 6 as a way for the province to capitalize on its natural resources, especially during the ongoing trade war with the US. Nova Scotia’s Energy Minister Trevor Boudreau has also been in favor of the bill.

“Nova Scotia has potential for uranium,” Kirby added. “Lifting the province’s uranium ban will let us see whether our deposits are economically viable and whether we can contribute to global supply of this critical mineral.”

While it remains to be seen how much uranium resources Nova Scotia holds, experts have drawn geological similarities to another uranium hotspot in Canada: the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan.

While operations have now resumed at the Langer Heinrich mine, the weather incident disrupted plans for the early commencement of mining to access higher grade ore, it said in a statement Wednesday. The rain delayed the mobilization of key mining equipment and personnel.

Paladin’s share price fell 11.6% in Sydney on Wednesday, closing at the lowest level since May 2023.

The company still expects to improve production levels in the second half of this calendar year, it said in the statement.

Full-year earnings for fiscal 2025 are expected to decline 2%, with the following year’s projected to drop 11%, Morgan Stanley analysts led by Shannon J Sinha wrote in a note.

(By Nasteho Said)

Escalating trade tensions between the US and Canada, one of the world’s key producers of the nuclear fuel, are playing a major part. Lately, so are talks toward a ceasefire in Russia’s war in Ukraine, which raise the prospect of looser sanctions on Russian production of the radioactive metal and the potential for more supply.

The price of uranium is now down more than a third from early 2024, and has slumped roughly 11% this year alone. The widely followed $2.9 billion Global X Uranium ETF, which mostly tracks mining shares, has declined about 5% in 2025. Meanwhile, Saskatchewan-based Cameco Corp., the largest uranium miner in North America, has dropped 11%, following five years of gains.

It was just a little more than a year ago that uranium was booming after roughly a decade in the doldrums. More countries were moving to re-open nuclear reactors, and electricity demand was expected to surge with the growth of artificial intelligence and data centers. Russia’s early 2022 invasion of its neighbor only tightened supplies.

But for weeks now, the headwinds have been mounting. Investors are reluctant to bet that the stability seen in the shares in recent days will last until they get a better picture of what will happen in Ukraine. Meanwhile, questions around President Donald Trump’s tariff proposals have caused utilities to delay signing long-term purchase agreements for the metal, says John Ciampaglia at Sprott Asset Management.

“They’re just blowing so much smoke at the market and nobody knows what’s what,” said Ciampaglia, CEO of the firm, which offers natural resource-focused ETFs. “It just creates so much uncertainty that it’s paralyzing people making decisions.” Investors, in the meantime, have “just stepped to the sidelines.”

On Monday, uranium shares rallied as part of a broad advance in the stock market on signs that US tariffs will be more targeted than anticipated, lifting the mood around the economic outlook, at least briefly.

There’s been some other supportive news lately as well. Uranium shares and the commodity price got a lift last week when the world’s largest miner, Kazakhstan’s NAC Kazatomprom JSC, said it was experiencing supply-chain issues that were making it hard to access the sulfuric acid needed to produce the nuclear fuel.

However, that development didn’t appear to be enough to sweep away all the doubts that have been building.

Another drag on shares of uranium producers lately has come from China, where companies have produced approaches to training AI models that may require less energy, possibly diminishing the push for more nuclear power. In January, the emergence of Chinese AI startup DeepSeek sparked a selloff in energy stocks. Now comes news that Jack Ma’s Ant Group had developed its own AI model using Chinese-sourced chips that would cut costs.

“There are going to be more DeepSeeks coming along,” said Brooke Thackray, a research analyst at Global X, an ETF division of Mirae Asset Financial Group. That offering “changed the backdrop” for expected power demand, Thackray said.

Add it all together and “everybody is kind of in wait-and-see mode,” said Sprott’s Ciampaglia.

(By Geoffrey Morgan)

Read More: What can a US mineral deal do for the Ukraine?

As a direct consequence of the severe weather event, access to the mine has been severely impeded and all activities have been put on hold, Paladin said.

The Langer Heinrich mine is 75% owned by the company and is a significant contributor to its uranium production.

Shares of Australia’s biggest pure-play uranium miner as per market value fell as much as 8.9% to hit its lowest level since March 13, as of 2339 GMT, and were on track for their weakest session since January 28.

In December, the mine was restarted after a planned shutdown in November to undergo plant maintenance activities and a number of improvement works.

Along with the shutdown, Paladin had slashed its annual production forecast to 3.0–3.6 million pounds from 4.0-4.5 million, citing operational challenges and delays in ramping up production.

Paladin said on Friday the full impact of the weather event and disruption to production would be assessed when conditions have stabilized.

(By Adwitiya Srivastava; Editing by Rashmi Aich)

According to FT’s analysis of government publications, at least half of the 34 provincial governments have given additional subsidies or expanded access to mineral exploration companies over the past year. These include top resource-producing regions such as Xinjiang, which increased its spending on exploration to 650 million renminbi ($90 million) this year from 150 million ($21 million) in 2023.

Since 2022, the nation as whole has devoted $13.8 billion to geological exploration annually — the highest investment over a three-year period in a decade, FT estimates.

A director at China’s natural resources ministry told reporters recently that “a series of major breakthroughs in mineral exploration have been achieved,” which would significantly enhance the nation’s ability to “ensure the safety of important industrial chains and supply chains.”

In January, the China Geological Survey (CGS) confirmed that Chinese geologists have found what could be the largest medium and heavy rare earths deposit in the country, containing over 1 million tonnes in resources.

In the same month, the CGS also announced the discovery of a 2,800-km belt in Western China that it says could “reshape the distribution pattern of lithium resources” and more importantly, has elevated China as the second-largest holder of lithium resources in the world.

Tightening grip

The heightened focus on minerals stems from President Xi Jinping’s repeated emphasis on self-reliance in science and high technology, which requires China to tighten its control over key raw materials used across a variety of applications.

Currently, China is the world’s largest producer of 30 of the 44 minerals deemed as “critical” by the US government for their indispensable roles in the manufacturing of semiconductors, electric vehicles and weapons.

To the US and other Western powers, China’s dominance in the critical minerals supply chain gives it the geopolitical leverage in global trade relations. Amid escalating trade tensions over the past year, China has already curbed its exports of many strategic minerals including gallium, germanium, antimony, graphite and tungsten.

Xi’s government has also enacted policies aimed at protecting its wealth of strategic resources, including a move in 2021 to block foreign companies from investing in the mining of tungsten, rare earths and uranium.

China has also been looking to exert its control over minerals beyond its borders.

Earlier this year, FT reported that the Chinese government, through state-backed entities, has issued $57 billion in loans to support the mining and processing of copper, cobalt, nickel, lithium and rare earths across the developing world.

The meeting took place one week after Washington said it was open to exploring critical minerals partnerships with Congo. A Congolese lawmaker in February contacted US officials to pitch a minerals-for-security deal.

A presidency statement described Jackson as a “special envoy” for US President Donald Trump.

Tshisekedi faces an insurgency by Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in east Congo and his government plans to send a delegation to peace talks in Angola on Tuesday.

Congo has vast reserves of cobalt, lithium and uranium among other minerals.

The government has not publicly detailed a proposal for a deal with the US, saying only that it was seeking diversified partnerships.

There was no direct mention of minerals in Sunday’s statement.

“We want to work so that American companies can come and invest and work in the DRC. And to do that, we have to make sure that there is a peaceful environment,” Jackson was quoted as saying in the statement.

The long-running conflict in east Congo is rooted in the spillover into Congo of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide and the struggle for control of Congo’s vast mineral resources.

It escalated significantly this year and M23 now controls east Congo’s two biggest cities. Rwanda is accused of backing the Tutsi-led M23, which it denies.

Byron Cabrol, senior Africa analyst at Dragonfly, said last week it would be a struggle to entice US mining companies to invest in Congo due to poor infrastructure, insecurity, corruption and the dominance of Chinese firms.

(By Ange Kasongo and Sofia Christensen; Editing by Robbie Corey-Boulet and Angus MacSwan)

Lotus said the buyer, whose name it did not disclose, is one of the largest energy companies in North America.

US President Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on some imports from Mexico and Canada took effect on March 4, which also include 10% tariffs on energy imports from Canada. He granted some exemptions but those expire on April 2.

In 2023, Canada was the largest source of uranium for the US, supplying 27%, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration.

Lotus’ Kayelekera project produced around 11 million pounds of yellowcake between 2009 and 2014 before the mine was shut down due to a sustained low uranium price, according to the company’s website.

Lotus said it is now on track for production of its first uranium from Kayelekera in the third quarter of 2025.

The company added it has now entered into sale agreements for up to 3.2 million pounds of uranium to be produced from the project from 2026.

(By Nikita Maria Jino; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Jamie Freed)

Vancouver-based NexGen Energy (TSX: NXE; NYSE: NXE; ASX: NXG) announced this week that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission CNSC has set commission hearing dates for NexGen’s Rook I project for November 19, 2025, and February 9 to 13, 2026.

After CNSC hearings conclude, the CNSC will render final approval of the project.

NexGen has proposed Rook 1 as a new underground mine and mill development located in the uranium-rich district of the Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan. The project is centred around the Arrow deposit, which industry observers have labelled as one of the world’s leading resources.

The company has maintained Rook 1 has a robust economic profile and is following high ESG commitments focused on environmental protection and maximizing community benefit through a partnership approach. The Rook I project is supported by a feasibility study which outlines its environmental performance and industry leading economics.

NexGen commenced the regulatory environmental assessment (EA) process for the project six years ago in April 2019. It received provincial EA approval in November 2023, and has since successfully completed the federal technical review and the acceptance of the federal environmental impact statement as final.

Further, all local communities located in the project area have formally endorsed the project through the signing of impact benefit agreements covering the entire life and closure of operations.

Having now reached the final approval stage, NexGen — together with its Indigenous partners — is considering the implications of the timing with respect to the project.

The mine is expected to produce for over a decade, with peak output forecast at 700 metric tons of uranium a year, Orano said in a statement.

Japan’s ITOCHU Corporation has also acquired a minority stake in the joint venture, the statement said, and the partners will embark on an exploration program with the aim of at least doubling the JV’s mineral resources.

(By Forrest Crellin; Editing by GV De Clercq and Mark Potter)