China has yet to approve the deal, with Bunge executives and advisers growing increasingly concerned the political rift will continue to hold up the process, said the people, who asked not to be named because they’re not authorized to discuss the progress of the merger. Chief executive officer Greg Heckman has traveled to China a number of times for talks with authorities, the people said.

Bunge, which has its corporate headquarters in Missouri, is the B in the so-called ABCD quartet of storied agricultural commodity trading firms that dominate crop markets. The company announced it would buy Viterra in June 2023. At the time, JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated the acquisition would create a $25 billion agriculture giant capable of competing with Cargill Inc., the world’s top crop trader.

Bunge is in the final stage of regulatory approval and it’s had a “constructive dialogue” with Chinese officials, the company said in a statement to Bloomberg. A spokesman for Viterra deferred questions to Bunge. China’s commerce ministry and the state administration for market regulation didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The company has already missed its initial deadline to close the deal by mid-2024. It has also blown past the two automatic three-month extensions in the agreement. If the deal falls through due to failure to obtain antitrust approvals, Bunge would have to pay Viterra a $400 million termination fee.

It isn’t unusual for Chinese reviews of takeovers by foreign companies to drag on. But the recent souring of relations between the US and China and President Donald Trump’s sweeping trade tariffs have come at a critical point for the merger.

The deal has already received the green light from the European Union and Canada, where there were concerns about the impact on competition. Argentina has yet to weigh in, but antitrust laws in the South American nation allow for the deal to be completed, with any remedial action potentially being required later.

Bunge shares fell 2% on the news, and then quickly erased losses. The stock was up 0.3% as of 12:20 p.m. in New York. The company operates about five oilseed plants in China, while Viterra has a crop marketing unit there.

China has only blocked deals on rare occasions since its anti-monopoly law came to force in 2008, such as Coca-Cola Co.’s bid to buy China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. in 2009. Other deals in limbo amid the trade war include chip-designer Synopsys Inc.’s pending $34 billion purchase of software developer Ansys Inc., one of the biggest acquisitions in recent years.

China could impose conditions on deal terms to maintain competition. When Japanese trading house Marubeni purchased US grains trader Gavilon a decade ago, China required the companies to maintain independent trading units for selling soybeans to China.

On the Bunge deal, there was scrutiny from the Chinese side that the merger will increase industry concentration and could impact Beijing’s food security interests, one of the people said. The person added that the relevant regulators are conducting a careful compliance review amid the significance of the deal.

Bunge was founded in 1818 by Amsterdam importer Johann Bunge, and seven decades later it allied with another family to start trading grains. It expanded to Latin America in 1884 and the US in 1923. The company has repeatedly shifted its headquarters — to Argentina, Brazil, New York and, more recently, Chesterfield, Missouri, which is a suburb of St. Louis

The company said in the statement the deal will “strengthen global food supply resilience, benefiting farmers and end consumers around the world by ensuring a stable, diversified and reliable supply of key agricultural products.”

While Bunge is listed in New York, it’s domiciled in Switzerland, with its commodities trading desk based in Geneva. About 80% of the processing capacity of a combined Bunge-Viterra company would be located outside the US, as would more than 85% of employees.

(By Isis Almeida and Hallie Gu)

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.

The company, 90% owned by billionaire Patrice Motsepe’s African Rainbow Capital Investments, applied in March to extract phosphate — a key ingredient in fertilizer production — from land within the park. 

The application sparked immediate backlash from conservation groups, including the World Wide Fund for Nature, which is already engaged in a legal dispute with Kropz over the Elandsfontein mine.

“SANParks cannot allow any mining activities within a declared national park, as this is prohibited,” spokesperson JP Louw said. He confirmed the agency has informed Kropz of its decision

Located in a biodiversity hotspot, the West Coast National Park is home to 250 bird species—over a quarter of South Africa’s total—including flamingos and sandpipers. The park also features ancient human footprints and a seasonal bloom of wildflowers that draws tourists from across the country.

Kropz acquired the Elandsfontein phosphate deposit in 2010 and has developed an open-pit mine and processing facility with an annual capacity of one million tonnes. Despite this, the project has faced persistent opposition from environmentalists concerned about its proximity to the park.

In addition to Elandsfontein, Kropz operates phosphate projects in the Republic of Congo and aims to become a leading mine-to-market plant nutrient company in sub-Saharan Africa.

Trading in Kropz shares was suspended in mid-April. At the time, the company had lost more than 55% of its value, closing with a market capitalization of £9.5 million ($12.7 million).

The understanding at BHP is that Henry is now heading toward the end of his tenure, according to company insiders. They emphasized that no decision has been made. But some people close to the company say a change could come as soon as early next year, and some top executives have begun increasing their interaction with investors and other stakeholders ahead of a likely succession process.

The internal frontrunners for the role are seen to be Geraldine Slattery, who heads the company’s Australian mines, chief financial officer Vandita Pant, and Ragnar Udd, who runs the commercial team. However, the CEO search is also likely to include external candidates, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing private information.

A change of leadership would come at a pivotal time for both BHP and the wider mining sector. The company and its biggest rivals spent the past couple of years pursuing a series of failed mega deals, while President Donald Trump’s trade war has cast a new level of uncertainty over future demand for key commodities.

BHP itself is embarking on a slew of expensive growth projects and Henry’s successor is likely to face some tough questions about capital allocation, including whether the company can pursue its aggressive spending plans while sustaining its dividend and debt policies.

The miner is already tightening its belt and has significantly sharpened its focus on cost cutting across its business, some of the people said.

BHP declined to comment.

The process to find a replacement for Henry is likely to kick-start in earnest in the coming months, the people said, making it one of the first major tasks of new chairman Ross McEwan. Henry has led BHP since January 2020, which means that an early 2026 departure would mean he has completed a six-year tenure — roughly in line with his most recent predecessors.

During that time, the 59-year-old BHP veteran has reshaped the company. Within the first two years of his leadership, the miner announced plans to sell its oil and gas business and dismantle a dual listing structure, as well as approving a giant potash mine in Henry’s native Canada.

Henry also led BHP through a return to dealmaking after years on the sidelines, culminating in the company’s ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful bid for Anglo American Plc. The $49 billion takeover attempt sent shockwaves through the mining industry but was rebuffed by the smaller company as too complex and risky.

Slattery — previously operator of BHP’s offshore oil and gas assets, which it spun off to Woodside Energy Group Ltd. — was placed in the far more public role of president of the Australian unit in 2022.

Pant, a former banker, has been at BHP since 2016. She served as chief commercial officer before becoming CFO last year. Udd has a technical past but was put in more operational roles and has proven success across BHP’s important copper business in the Americas.

The appointment of either Pant or Slattery would mark the first time that the world’s biggest mining company is led by a woman, in an industry notorious for the lack of diversity in its top ranks. Of the three dozen miners in the ASX200 index, just one has female CEO.

And Henry’s successor will inherit some thorny challenges. Despite recent years of record profits, BHP is looking financially stretched — already trending toward the top of its self-imposed debt target before it starts to pay for the series of hugely expensive growth projects.

The company is planning to spend billions of dollars to halt a decline in copper production at its crucial Escondida copper mine, further expand the Canadian potash mine, as well as develop copper projects in Argentina and Australia.

BHP isn’t alone. Capital allocation is likely to be a focus across the largest miners this year, according to analysts from Citigroup Inc. and Jefferies Financial Group Inc.

In BHP’s case, the company has ramped up its focus on cost reduction. Wage inflation is just one contributing factor: In Australia’a iron-ore rich Pilbara region unions are organizing to navigate salaries, something not seen in over two decades, adding further pressure to other areas of the business.

The company has already lowered its dividend to the minimum payout under its current policy and insiders said they don’t expect the policy to change. Unless commodity prices rise significantly, the company may have to change its debt policy or move to stagger some of its growth plans as a result, they said.

(By Paul-Alain Hunt, Thomas Biesheuvel and Archie Hunter)

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.

“Despite the limited direct impact of tariffs on BHP, the implication of slower economic growth and a fragmented trading environment could be more significant,” chief executive officer Mike Henry said in a statement Thursday. “China’s ability to shift toward a consumption-led economy and for trade flows to adapt to the new environment will be key to sustaining the global outlook.”

The global commodities market has been one of the sectors most exposed to the fallout from Trump’s burgeoning trade war. That could complicate Henry’s agenda to grow BHP’s holdings of what he calls “future facing commodities” — copper and potash. The drive has been backed by revenue derived from the miner’s long-standing iron ore business, which still accounts for more than half of its earnings.

BHP’s production of copper in 2025’s first three months climbed 10%, boosted by a ramp up of its Escondida operations in Chile, it said. Meanwhile, output from its Australian iron ore projects was steady at 68.1 million tons, and it kept its full-year guidance for the steel-making material unchanged.

Prices of copper — seen as a global economic bellwether — tumbled from late March as Trump launched his tariff spree, before recovering some losses. Iron ore has been comparatively stable, despite dropping below $100 a ton during April on concerns of oversupply as Beijing battles with a property crisis and slowing economy.

Henry backed his company to benefit from the turmoil, saying investors will be attracted to its large-scale, low-cost projects. BHP is one of the lowest cost iron ore miners in the world at around $18 a ton, while selling at an average of about $83 to the market during the quarter, according to the filings.

“In the face of global volatility and policy uncertainty, BHP is poised to benefit from a flight to quality with Tier-one assets, industry-leading margins and high-return organic growth opportunities that will underpin value and returns through the cycle,” Henry said.

That doesn’t mean BHP is immune to the challenges facing the mining sector. In February, it slashed its dividend by 31%.

BHP was also impacted by seasonal weather interruptions across its iron ore and coal operations during the period, which is its third quarter. Like peer Rio Tinto Group, it posted lower production quarter-on-quarter in the iron-rich Pilbara region due to severe cyclone events.

Rio reported on Wednesday that iron ore shipments had fallen 9% due to cyclones. The impact on BHP’s iron ore operations was comparatively smaller, but it said its coal fields in Queensland were hit by heavy rainfall, with production of the steelmaking fuel down 12% on the previous three months.

Copper and potash

The company has sold off many of its coal assets and exited oil and gas under Henry’s management, turning to copper — used in electrification and key to the energy transition — for its next leg of growth. BHP made a $49 billion bid for Anglo American Plc last year, which ultimately failed.

BHP has a controlling 57.5% interest in the massive Escondida project, which was hit by power outages over the reporting period. Still, it delivered better yields over the three months, driven by higher-quality ore.

While its Nickel West business remains in care and maintenance, due to a crash in prices driven by oversupply from Indonesia, it is developing a major potash mine — Jansen —- in Canada, which is set to become a big supplier to the fertilizer market. The project’s first stage is 66% complete, with initial production is scheduled for next year, BHP said.

(By Paul-Alain Hunt)

“This is going to be one of the first, if not the first, potash producers in Africa,” Abasov said last month at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada’s annual event in Toronto. “We want to supply African agriculture and become a local supplier to Brazil as well.”

The company is to drill two new holes, building on a resource estimate from last March of 656 million indicated tonnes grading 15.9% potassium chloride and 1.16 billion inferred tonnes at 16%. The updated drilling and environmental baseline studies will support a revised NI 43-101 report, feeding into a feasibility study by March next year, he said.

Millennial’s April 2024 preliminary economic assessment outlines a $1.07-billion after-tax net present value at a 10% discount, a 32.6% internal rate of return and a target production rate of 800,000 tonnes a year. The company estimates $480 million in initial capital costs and $61 per tonne in operating costs, with a planned port and processing facility 50 km away at Mayumba on Gabon’s Atlantic coast.

Millennial’s team, which also built and sold Millennial Lithium and Allana Potash, owns 35% of the company’s shares. A Singapore-based fertilizer group holds about 26%, with institutional backers in Canada and London holding up to 20%.

Watch the full conversation with The Northern Miner’s western editor, Henry Lazenby.

As BHP moves its portfolio away from steelmaking materials and towards what Gistelinck calls “future-facing commodities,” it’s striving to align its sustainability goals with how it produces potash.

“By design the mine in Saskatchewan is about 30% more energy-efficient than an average mine in Saskatchewan,” Gistelinck said in an interview last month at the annual Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention in Toronto. “And (it’s) also more than 40% more water-efficient than any mine in Saskatchewan.”

With tariff tensions dominating headlines and the United States a major potash consumer, Gistelinck says BHP is focusing on diversifying its customer base to help it weather political headwinds.

Watch the full conversation with The Northern Miner’s western editor, Henry Lazenby:

According to sources cited by Reuters, the potential separation coincided with BHP’s strategy to become a “greener” miner by placing priority on “future-facing” commodities such as potash and copper. This would mean distancing itself from iron ore and coal, both key raw materials in steelmaking and which have been core to its business for decades.

BHP is currently the world’s third-largest producer of iron ore, operating five mines in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. It is also a major producer of metallurgical coal, with five mines in the Bowen Basin area of Central Queensland.

Divesting its iron ore and coal assets would significantly reduce the group’s presence in Australia, where it is based. The units would most likely be listed in Australia, should BHP chooses to proceed, Reuters sources said.

BHP would still keep its Australian copper assets such as Olympic Dam, host to one of the world’s largest copper deposits, as it continues to push towards becoming a global leader in the red metal’s production. Its copper ambitions were evident in the failed attempt to acquire rival Anglo American (LON: AAL) a year ago.

This is not the first time that BHP’s management has brought up the idea of restructuring the business.

Chief executive officer Mike Henry and then chief financial officer David Lamont discussed with investors in early 2024 the plan to separate its declining growth businesses towards the end of the decade. Ultimately, they dropped such plans as BHP still needed the cash generated by the Australian divisions to fund capital spending at the Escondida copper complex in Chile and its Jansen potash mine in Canada.

The company has also shown that it would not hesitate to spin out businesses, having already done it with South32 (ASX: S32) a decade ago.

BHP’s view was a spin-off of iron ore and coal would generate cash and franking credits that benefit Australian tax-payers, meaning there could be considerable Australian interest in any flotation, one of the Reuters sources said.

The US gets roughly 90% of its potash — used in the production of corn and soybeans, the nation’s two biggest crops — from other countries. Most of that comes from neighboring Canada, the top producer. US potash production accounts for less than 1% of the country’s total demand, according to Corey Rosenbusch, chief executive officer of the Fertilizer Institute.

“Increased production helps, but we still would be very reliant on Canadian potash,” Rosenbusch said in an interview Friday.

Farmers and fertilizer companies are bracing for possible new US tariffs this week, just as planting season gets under way. The potential for 10% to 25% duties on potash and other Canadian fertilizers coming into the US poses the risk of higher costs for growers that in turn are passed along to consumers.

Rosenbusch said he’s hopeful that Canadian fertilizer might be spared new levies. The Fertilizer Institute, the US lobby for the industry, has been pushing for the federal government to add potash to its permanent list of critical minerals, which are considered essential to US national security and the economy.

While noting there are no guarantees, “we would feel a lot better about our ability to make the case for specific exemptions if it were on the list,” Rosenbusch said.

Michigan Potash & Salt Co. is among companies seeking to ramp up domestic output of potash. The closely held firm has identified a huge potash deposit in Michigan with an estimated value of “up to $65 billion” that can be accessed, according to founder and CEO Theodore Pagano.

The company aims to produce about 10% of the US’s potash needs by 2028, and could ultimately reach as much as 40% with the one reserve, said chief operating officer Aric Glasser.

(By Kim Chipman)

While signing executive orders in the Oval Office on Thursday afternoon, Trump recounted the action to remove 25% duties on all goods covered by the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement as well as 10% on fossil fuels and minerals. He said separate proposed 25% duties on aluminum and steel from Canada and other nations would proceed on March 12, as well as global reciprocal tariffs on April 2.

“Those aren’t modified, those are happening next week, and the big one will be on April 2 when reciprocal tariffs [come],” Trump told reporters. “We don’t need trees from Canada. We don’t need cars from Canada. We don’t need energy from Canada. We don’t need anything from Canada.”

The announcement comes a day after Trump gave a 30-day tariff reprieve to the big three automakers – Ford, GM and Stellantis – in light of the heavily-integrated cross border vehicle assembly process. There was no indication from Canadian leaders they would drop the C$30 billion in tariffs they launched in retaliation on Tuesday when the US first levied the duties.

But they did postpone a scheduled further C$125 billion in measures to at least April 2 from around March 25. Officials said cross-border talks continue.

Projects prodded

The trade war has had at least the benefit of unifying Canadians and forcing government levels to advance mining projects, John Turner, head of the mining practice at law firm Fasken in Toronto, said in an interview on Thursday.

“The only thing that I can see that is good about this is it’s caused Canada, both federally and in the provinces, to make sure that we’re advancing projects, that we have the opportunity to send our metals to other places and reduce some of these interprovincial barriers,” Turner said by phone. “This should have been done 20 years ago, but I’m glad that people are talking about it with some conviction right now.”

Markets dropped Thursday on tariff fears. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 427.51 points or 1% to 42,579.08 in New York. The S&P/TSX Composite Index plunged 286.78 points or about 1.2% to end the day at 24,584.04.

“Trump’s ultimately driven by the market, and we saw some of the market went down when he said he was going to do [the tariffs] – on Monday, the market was negative,” Turner said. “I don’t think the market’s there for that.”

Turner said he was at a mining discussion this week when a presenter said 60% of the nickel for the American military comes from Ontario.

“Are you really going to shoot yourself in the foot and add 25% of that cost? It just doesn’t make sense.”

‘Psychodrama’

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said Wednesday Canada wouldn’t stand for a “psychodrama” every 30 days. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday morning he had a “colourful but substantive” call with Trump.

“Our goal remains to get these tariffs, all tariffs removed,” Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa. “We will not be backing down from our response tariffs until such a time as the unjustified American tariffs on Canadian goods are lifted.”

Premiers across the country echoed the stance, from David Eby in British Columbia through Doug Ford in Ontario. Ford plans to impose a 25% tax on electricity exported to New York, Michigan and Minnesota on Monday.

“A pause on some tariffs means nothing until President Trump removes the threat of tariffs for good,” Ford posted online. “We will be relentless.”

The past few months have seen Western miners initiate arbitration proceedings amid disputes with host governments in West African countries, including Barrick Gold (TSX: ABX; NYSE: GOLD) in Mali, French uranium miner Orano in Niger and Sarama Resources (TSXV: SWA) in Burkina Faso. In some cases, authorities arrested employees, revoked permits and cancelled projects.

“There’s this evolving scope of what the protections are for, not only full protection and security, but for equitable and fair treatment (and) protection against illegal expropriation without just compensation,” Tom Villalon, associate at Three Crowns law firm, said Tuesday on a PDAC panel. “And it may rise to a new chapter of interesting and very complicated investor-state work.”

Seeking $120M redress

Vancouver-headquartered Sarama had been exploring at the Sanutura gold project in the country’s southern Houndé Belt but the post-coup government of Ibrahim Traoré cancelled the permit for the multi-million-ounce Tankoro project in 2022.

The next year, Sarama heard from then-mines minister Simon-Pierre Boussim that the permit could be bought. It was later given to a local Burkinabe company, according to law firm Boies Schiller Flexner (BSF), which has taken on Sarama’s case in international arbitration.

The company is seeking $120 million in compensation.

“Sarama’s claim under the Canada-Burkina Faso Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) is reflective of the unfortunate resurgence of resource nationalism that has accompanied the wave of coups d’état across West Africa in recent years, including in Burkina Faso,” BSF partner Kristen Young told The Northern Miner by email on the sidelines of PDAC. “The Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) registered Sarama’s claim on Dec. 23 2024, and we look forward to vindicating Sarama’s rights in full under the treaty.”

State miner takes licence

The New York-based BSF is also representing Emmerson (LSE: EML), which is developing the Khemisset potash project in northern Morocco.

Emmerson held a mining licence for Khemisset through its Moroccan subsidiary, Potasse de Khemisset. But after a dispute over the company’s environmental and social impact assessment over 2023 and 2024, a regional English-language newspaper reported in January 2024 that Morocco state miner OCP Group had won rights to develop an adjacent potash project. The move annulled Emmerson’s licence, BSF said.

Last November, Emmerson’s UK and Moroccan subsidiaries served a notice of dispute under the 1990 UK-Morocco treaty. The company seeks the full compensation of the loss of Khemisset. Though that amount is yet to be quantified, the project’s post-tax net present value (at an 8% discount rate) is estimated at $2.2 billion, according to Emmerson’s latest corporate presentation.

“Emmerson’s claim under the UK-Morocco BIT arises out of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of a mining investor in favour of a state-owned company, similar to Poland’s breaches in the GreenX Metals (ASX, LSE: GRX) arbitration,” Young said, citing the Australian coal miner’s case from 2020.

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ruled in GreenX’s favour last October and awarded it about $325 million in damages, though Poland continues to challenge the award through courts in the United Kingdom and Singapore. A final resolution is pending.

‘Adaptability, innovation’

In all such cases, mining companies must do more than just comply with local agreements, Young said.

“Mitigation of risks such as political changes demands adaptability and innovative strategies,” she said. “Where companies have a direct agreement with the state, they should negotiate robust contractual protections. These include stabilization clauses, which protect investors from adverse changes in law or policy after the agreement has been signed, and arbitration clauses, which allow companies to bypass the local courts, which may not be impartial or reliable.”  

Young also recommends companies ensure from the start that their investments are covered by the protections of one or more bilateral investment treaties, which give access to international arbitration in the event of unlawful expropriation or interference by states.

Finally, Young said companies should think carefully before putting all of their resources into one region, especially if there is political instability.

“Diversification of assets across different countries reduces the impact of political risks in any one region,” she said.

Notable international disputes now include First Quantum Minerals (TSE: FM) in Panama after the government shut its Cobre Panama copper mine in November 2023, as well as Barrick in Mali, according to John Turner, co-head of global mining at Canadian law firm Fasken.

“Even the government of Panama is signalling that that mine will get back into production, so that will be a big signal when that happens,” Turner told The Northern Miner by phone on Thursday.

“With Barrick and Mali, that’s obviously a bit of a special circumstance. Those mines are very important to Barrick, but it sounds like they’re making progress, which is good. The government was taking executives hostages, which you know is never good for business.”

Disputes on the horizon

Back at PDAC, Villalon, who spoke on a panel about “2025’s emerging trends in mining disputes,” drew a correlation between commercial tensions due to China’s critical mineral export bans over the last few months, and the Vattenfall case in Germany.

Swedish nuclear power plant operator Vattenfall was forced to close its facilities in 2011 in Germany after that country opted to phase out nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster. Vattenfall launched arbitration through the ICSID against Germany under the Energy Charter Treaty, arguing unlawful expropriation of its assets.

In 2021, Germany awarded the company €1.42 billion in a settlement. “That’s an interesting example of what could come, Villalon said, “as we start to see more sort of retaliatory measures coming from the US White House, but also from Beijing.”

Even if US tariffs are swiftly dropped and Canadian retaliatory duties follow suit, lingering mistrust will cast a long shadow over their relationship. The threat of renewed trade disputes will loom over Canada and Mexico as they approach the USMCA joint review.

Given these tensions, analysts must remain realistic about the prospects for strengthening US-Canada ties in the near future. However, dismissing the North American project entirely would be premature. The size of the two economies, the complementarity of their industries, and their shared geopolitical challenges persist, regardless of political disagreements. One sector where cooperation remains especially vital is critical minerals.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently released a policy brief, Mining for Defense: Unlocking the Potential for US-Canada Collaboration on Critical Minerals. Although the report was published before the latest tariffs, it serves as a blueprint for how the two nations can rebuild cooperation around one of the most strategically significant industries of the 21st century.

Why minerals matter

Before delving into the brief’s recommendations, it is crucial to understand why critical minerals should be at the centre of any effort to revitalize US-Canada ties. Mining projects are uniquely vulnerable to tariffs. Unlike industries such as automotive manufacturing, mining companies are price-takers and cannot easily pass costs onto consumers. Mining also requires patient capital—investors willing to wait years before seeing returns—yet trade wars breed uncertainty, which causes such capital to evaporate. As a result, trade disputes can be existential threats to mining operations on both sides of the US-Canada border, potentially shuttering mines at a critical moment for North American mineral security.

Moreover, miners must go where the minerals are. No tariff policy can alter geological realities and make it more effective to mine niobium in the US than in Canada, which holds the world’s second-largest reserves of the mineral. Even if the US were to discover new mineral deposits, it currently takes an average of 29 years from identification to first production at a mine. While the Trump administration has committed to expediting this timeline, even a 50% reduction would still mean waiting over a decade before seeing meaningful results. Meanwhile, imposing barriers to allied imports while China restricts its mineral exports would only exacerbate supply vulnerabilities.

This is particularly concerning for minerals with unique defence applications, where global demand is relatively low but overwhelmingly concentrated in China. Beijing has strategically positioned itself as the dominant supplier of several specialty minerals and metals, giving it significant leverage over the global supply chain.

Five key minerals for defence

The CSIS report identifies five critical minerals essential to the defense industry, currently reliant on foreign adversaries for supply, and with the potential for Canada to serve as an alternative provider: gallium, niobium, rare earth elements (REEs), cobalt, and tungsten. Each of these minerals is already produced in Canada, in many cases with US backing, and all are at heightened risk of supply disruptions from China as trade tensions escalate.

Historically, the US and Canada have collaborated closely on mining for defence. During World War II, Canada’s mineral resources were vital to the Allied war effort, supplying 40% of Allied aluminum, 95% of Allied nickel, and 12% of Allied copper.

More recently, under the first Trump administration, the two nations finalized a joint action plan for critical minerals cooperation, which has since guided bilateral investment.

Over the past five years, the US has invested $63.4 million under Title III of the Defense Production Act (DPA) into Canadian mineral projects, including a tungsten mine in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, as well as cobalt refineries and battery production facilities. Canada, for its part, has contributed $35.9 million in matching funds.

While this cooperation is significant, it is not sufficient to meet the challenges ahead. The CSIS brief outlines several policy recommendations to enhance US-Canada mineral security:

Creating a Canadian minerals fund

Canada should create its own financing instrument for defence-critical minerals, similar to the US DPA Title III. This would enable Ottawa to direct investments toward key projects, help new mining initiatives navigate the difficult early stages of development, and attract private sector investment.

Such an initiative would also address a longstanding point of contention between the two nations: defence spending. With Washington increasingly scrutinizing allies perceived as free-riding on US security guarantees, a Canadian critical minerals fund for defence applications could help Ottawa scale up its defense contributions. The recent rare earths agreement between Ukraine and the US sets a precedent for using minerals cooperation as a bargaining chip for security commitments—an approach Canada could leverage to reinforce US support for NATO and NORAD.

USMCA minerals chapter

The upcoming 2026 review of the USMCA was initially expected to be a straightforward reauthorization. The recent tariff measures, however, suggest the US intends to revisit the agreement more broadly and perhaps on an accelerated timeline. Rather than resisting renegotiation, Canada and Mexico could use this opportunity to enhance the agreement’s strategic value.

A dedicated USMCA chapter on critical minerals could include provisions to facilitate government investment in mining and processing, expedite permitting for mineral projects, stabilize prices, and incentivize long-term industry investment. Such measures would transform the USMCA from a trade pact into a strategic economic security framework for North America.

Beyond these primary recommendations, the US and Canada should work together to attract patient capital for long-term mining investments, build strategic stockpiles of critical minerals vulnerable to supply disruptions, and jointly identify priority projects. Additionally, investment in new mines and supporting infrastructure in Canada’s High North could serve the dual purpose of strengthening both mineral security and Arctic defence—another key area of US-Canada security cooperation.

Neighbours by geography, allies by necessity

Restoring trust between the US and Canada will not be easy. But in the race to secure critical mineral supply chains, both nations would do well to recall the words of President John F. Kennedy: “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.”

For all their recent tensions, the US and Canada remain bound by shared economic and security interests. When it comes to securing the minerals that will define the future of defence and technology, cooperation is not just preferable — it is essential.

____________________________________

Christopher Hernandez-Roy and Henry Ziemer are analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a non-partisan think tank based in Washington, D.C., which focuses on US defense/military policy and related issues.

The US depends on Canadian oil, nickel, zinc, uranium, potash and germanium – among other resources – to make steel, ships and planes, fuel power plants and grow food, Jonathan Wilkinson said at the Prospectors & Developers of Canada Association’s annual convention in Toronto.

“When President Trump says he doesn’t need something from Canada, that’s just not true,” Wilkinson told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “And so looking at putting on either our own export tariffs or looking at other measures that would include deciding we’re going to sell some of those products elsewhere, those are fully on the table.”

After the US imposed 25% tariffs on most Canadian goods, and 10% on oil and minerals, Canada fired back with its own levies.

Separate 25% duties on aluminum and steel are due March 12. The minister’s planned trip to meet this week in Washington with Doug Burgum, US Secretary of the Interior, was postponed, Wilkinson’s staff said Wednesday.

The situation is fluid, with President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau due to speak by phone Wednesday morning. Trump is to make an announcement Wednesday afternoon that might exempt the auto sector or contain reduced tariffs, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg News.

The stunning move by the Trump administration to levy tariffs on its oldest ally and biggest trading partner when the continent has had a free trade agreement for more than 30 years has left Canadians bewildered but determined to fight back. While mining executives generally welcome a US President who’s keen to slash red tape and approve projects, the mood at PDAC was one of defiance against an irrational trade war.

Tariff irony

“With critical minerals, the option that the Americans have is to buy more from China, or it’s to buy more of some of them – the potash trade, in particular – from Russia,” Wilkinson said. “It’s hard to see how the measures that are being taken by the American president to a country that has historically been their closest friend and ally leads them down a path to purchasing more materials from their greatest adversaries.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Tuesday he would consider export taxes on nickel and electricity that could be around 25%. A day earlier, he suggested nickel could be stockpiled and sold in other markets. However, Minister Wilkinson and Vic Fedeli, Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, couldn’t say exactly how these plans would work other than through federal-provincial cooperation. While provinces control extraction, Ottawa determines export policies.

Wilkinson noted that Atlantic region giant Irving Oil raised prices for its US-bound fuels like gasoline and heating oil by 10% on Tuesday. Canadians have already begun making choices to replace American products like Kentucky bourbon and Florida orange juice, while US Republican Senators Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell and Paul Thune expressed opposition to the tariffs.

“First and foremost, Americans are going to feel it at the pump and in their utility bills simply because of the tariffs that the President himself has imposed on American consumers,” Wilkinson said. “The first point of departure is to create domestic pressure, to get the administration to reflect on its decision.”

The tariff actions, which could upend nearly $2.2 trillion in two-way annual US trade went live at 12:01 a.m. (0501 GMT), hours after Trump declared that all three countries had failed to do enough to stem the flow of the deadly fentanyl opioid and its precursor chemicals into the US.

China responded immediately announcing additional tariffs of 10%-15% on certain US imports from March 10 and a series of new export restrictions for designated US entities. Later it said it had raised complaints about the new measures with the World Trade Organization.

Canada and Mexico, which have enjoyed a virtually tariff-free trading relationship with the US for three decades, were poised to immediately retaliate.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Ottawa would respond with 25% tariffs on C$30 billion ($20.7 billion) worth of US imports, and another C$125 billion if Trump’s tariffs were still in place in 21 days. He said previously that Canada would target American beer, wine, bourbon, home appliances and Florida orange juice.

“Tariffs will disrupt an incredibly successful trading relationship,” Trudeau said, adding that they would violate the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement signed by Trump during his first term.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford told NBC that he was ready to cut off shipments of nickel and transmission of electricity from his province to the US.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum was expected to announce her response on Tuesday, the country’s economy ministry said.

The European Union’s executive Commission said it “deeply regrets” the decision, which risked disrupting global trade. Trump has also floated “reciprocal” tariffs on EU goods.

Stacking China tariffs

The extra 10% duty on Chinese goods adds to a 10% tariff imposed by Trump on February 4 to punish Beijing over the US fentanyl overdose crisis. The cumulative 20% duty comes on top of tariffs of up to 25% imposed by Trump during his first term on some $370 billion worth of US imports.

Some of these products saw US tariffs increase sharply under former president Joe Biden last year, including a doubling of duties on Chinese semiconductors to 50% and a quadrupling of tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to over 100%.

The 20% tariff will apply to several major US consumer electronics imports from China previously untouched, including smartphones, laptops, video game consoles, smartwatches and speakers and Bluetooth devices.

China’s new tariffs announced on Tuesday targeted a wide range of US agricultural products including certain meats, grains, cotton, fruit, vegetables and dairy products.

Beijing also placed 25 US firms under export and investment restrictions on national security grounds. Ten of these firms were targeted for selling arms to Taiwan.

China’s commerce ministry said the US tariffs violated World Trade Organization rules and “undermine the basis for economic and trade cooperation between China and the US.”

US farmers were hard hit by Trump’s first-term trade wars, which cost them about $27 billion in lost export sales and conceded share of the Chinese market to Brazil.

Recession fears

The tariffs on Mexican and Canadian products could have much deeper repercussions for a highly integrated North American economy that depends on cross-border shipments to build cars and machinery, refine energy and process agricultural goods.

“Today’s reckless decision by the US administration is forcing Canada and the US toward recessions, job losses and economic disaster,” Canadian Chamber of Commerce CEO Candace Laing said in a statement.

She said the US tariffs will raise costs for consumers and producers and disrupt supply chains. “Tariffs are a tax on the American people.”

Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council representing Detroit automakers, called for vehicles that meet the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement’s regional content requirements to be exempted from the tariffs.

Even before Trump’s tariffs announcement, US data on Monday showed factory gate prices jumped to a nearly three-year high, suggesting that a new wave of tariffs could soon undercut production.

Trump’s confirmation that the tariffs would proceed sent financial markets reeling with global stocks tumbling and safe-haven bonds rallying. Both the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso fell against the US dollar.

Piling on

Trump has maintained a blistering pace of tariff actions since taking office in January, including fully restored 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports that take effect March 12, rescinding prior exemptions.

Trump on Saturday opened a national security investigation into imports of lumber and wood products that could result in steep tariffs. Canada, already facing 14.5% US tariffs on softwood lumber, would be hit particularly hard.

A week earlier, Trump revived a probe into countries that levy digital services taxes, proposed fees of up to $1.5 million on every Chinese-built ship entering a US port and launched a tariff investigation into copper imports.

These add to his plans for higher “reciprocal tariffs” to match the levies of other countries and offset their other trade barriers, a move that could hit the European Union hard.

(Reporting by David Lawder, Andrea Shalal, David Shepardson, David Ljunggren, Ismail Shakil, Kylie Madry, Ana Isabel Martinez and Joe Cash; Editing by Sam Holmes, Neil Fullick and Sharon Singleton)

The deal would have been a showpiece for Trump’s transactional presidency and another sign of the resource nationalism that’s swept the globe in recent years as countries transition away from fossil fuels. The scrubbed signing comes as overt US support for Nato declines and Trump pushes for a stronger European role in its own defence.

Reports showed the mood soured quickly in the White House when Trump pushed for the mineral deal and Zelenskiy sought a security backstop. Then, Vice-President J.D. Vance raised his voice and told the Ukrainian leader he should “be thankful” for US efforts, while Trump said Zelenskiy “was gambling with World War Three.”

“You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out,” Trump said. “I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out, but you don’t have the cards, but once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position, but you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing.”

As Zelenskiy’s motorcade prepared to depart, Trump criticized the Ukrainian leader on Truth Social: “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.

“I have determined that President Zelenskiy is not ready for peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage. I want peace.”

$12T in resources

While some US estimates have put Ukraine’s mineral wealth at $12 trillion, little recent prospecting has been done and any projects would take years if not decades to develop. The country produces some titanium, gallium and neon, and holds zirconium, graphite, rare earths, lithium and uranium.

“The practical value of the deal is, however, more uncertain,” Alexey Eremenko, associate director at London-based consultant Control Risks said by email on Friday before the deal collapsed. “Even in a favourable scenario, getting these resources to the market would take years – quite possibly longer than Trump’s remaining time in office.”

The proposed resource deal with Ukraine would see Ukraine contribute half of future mining revenues into a reconstruction investment fund jointly owned by the US and Ukraine. After the fractious exchange in the Oval Office, officials cancelled another press conference due after the signing and Zelenskiy ducked into his car without comment.

“The resource deal with Ukraine has clear political value for Donald Trump,” analyst Eremenko told The Northern Miner. “He remains interested in obtaining a clear foreign policy achievement early into his presidency, and the agreement that can be promoted as one such, giving the US access to vast Ukrainian resources fits the requirements.”

At a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump said that if there were American companies on the ground as a result of a minerals deal, it would be a “sort of a guarantee anyway” for security. Trump also said Russia had offered US companies to invest in minerals in that country, a move the US president said he was considering.

‘In flux’

“Everything related to the Ukraine crisis currently remains in flux – including security guarantees to Ukraine, and future developments on Nato,” Eremenko said. “We would also advise not to assign too much weight to Russia’s business offers – we’re highly skeptical – and more broadly, to its willingness to negotiate in good faith and compromise.

“So far, the Kremlin has adamantly stuck to maximalist demands that have high potential as dealbreakers, such as further territorial concessions from Ukraine or a cap on the size of the Ukrainian army.”

Europe has committed $132 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine versus America’s $114 billion, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany. Trump again on Friday claimed incorrectly the US has provided $300 billion to Ukraine.

The televised Oval Office exchanges showed how the US is realigning its relationship with Russia to be more accepting of President Vladimir Putin than previous administrations. It followed separate meetings Trump held this week with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. They urged the US leader to back up peace efforts with security guarantees for Ukraine. Trump demurred.

The estimate includes the fixed-price engineering, procurement, and construction contract with PowerChina International Group Limited.

Kore expects construction at Kola to begin on January 1, 2026 and take around three and a half years. The project is designed to produce 2.2 million tonnes of potash annually over a 23-year period. 

The company sees potential to extend the mine’s life by upgrading inferred mineral resources through further exploration.

Estimated annual earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) from the project are forecast at around $733 million.

“Kola is of global significance, as the security of the world’s food supply remains vulnerable to disruptions in fertilizer production,” CEO Andre Baya said in a statement.

Kore estimates more than half a billion tonnes of sylvinite in the measured and indicated categories, with an average grade of 35% potassium chloride (KCl) — comparable to the highest-grade operating potash mines worldwide.

Baya noted that recent geopolitical events have underscored the risks associated with potash supply, given that production is concentrated among a handful of companies and countries.

Trump plans to place a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, which will take effect in March after granting a 30-day extension.

“Frankly, costs of this (tariff) will be borne by the US farmers … the US farmers will likely feel the impact after the spring planting season,” CEO Ken Seitz said during a post-earnings conference call.

Nutrien has assembled a team from various departments to manage tariff-related operations, including duty collection.

Seitz said US farmers will be able to get fertilizer for the upcoming spring planting season. Weather problems in late 2024 prevented some fertilizer applications US farmers planned to do, officials said, leaving more needed in 2025. US farmers are expected to plant 90+ million acres of fertilizer-hungry corn this spring, leaving the company optimistic about its 2025 US demand outlook.

The potential end of the war between Russia and Ukraine isn’t seen as a threat to 2025 Nutrien sales, Seitz said, since Russian potash has already been reaching the market and Belarusian supplies, presently under sanction by the European Union and others, will have trouble reaching markets through Europe.

Belarus has been cut off from Lithuania’s main port. It will have trouble getting access regardless of sanctions, and will probably have to move through Russia to reach world markets. Belarusian idle production won’t come back fast.

“We think that happens slowly over time,” said Seitz.

(By Mrinalika Roy; Editing by Devika Syamnath and Lisa Shumaker)

The biggest miner posted underlying attributable profit for the six months to Dec. 31 of $5.08 billion, it reported Tuesday. That was below analyst estimates of $5.39 billion. Steelmaking ingredient iron ore remains the company’s biggest earner — but only just — with copper now accounting for 44% of its revenue.

BHP’s move to cut its dividend to 50 cents a share, down from 72 cents the year before, will reinforce speculation the board has a renewed focus on capital management as it pursues growth. Analysts were anticipating a dividend of 53.3 cents.

The slip in profits continues a trend for BHP since it posted record earnings of $33.1 billion for the year to June 2022 as iron ore demand soared. Annual profits have since more than halved, with declining capital returns and rising capital expenditure weighing on its shares.

Still, chief executive officer Mike Henry struck a positive tone in Tuesday’s statement. “The demand for BHP products remains strong despite global economic and trade uncertainties, with early signs of recovery in China, resilient economic performance in the US and strong growth in India,” he said.

BHP’s shares in Sydney were up 0.2% at 3:18 p.m. local time.

Benchmark iron ore prices dipped 5% during the reporting period, while copper fell 9%.

The mining giant’s iron ore mines in Western Australia’s Pilbara were hit by Tropical Cyclone Zelia last week. The company said that while it was maintaining its forecast output of the steelmaking material from the region of between 282 million tons and 294 million tons for the year to June 30, it no longer expects production to be in the upper half of the range due to the impact of the storm.

Analysts from Citigroup Inc. and Jefferies Financial Group Inc. have flagged that this year will be one where major miners’ primary focus will be on capital allocation, with a particular emphasis on expanding portfolios of commodities central to the energy transition, such as copper.

Ongoing capital expenditure pressures will be a key focus of incoming chairman Ross McEwan, who will succeed outgoing Ken MacKenzie after he served in the role since September 2017.

During MacKenzie’s tenure, BHP focused on higher investor returns to ensure investor confidence, overseeing the divestment of a vast oil and gas portfolio and a large chunk of the company’s coal business. More recently, he steered the company back to inorganic growth with the acquisition of Australian copper play OZ Minerals Ltd. in 2022 and last year’s failed $49 billion takeover attempt of Anglo American Plc.

Adding pressure to the iron ore business are ongoing macroeconomic challenges in China. Despite attempts by Beijing to stabilize its debt-ridden property sector, the nation’s economic recovery remains brittle.

The top metals consumer is also yet to feel the sting of tariffs leveled by the US. Just two weeks ago, President Donald Trump signed executive orders imposing tariffs of 10% across the board on all imports from China.

“There have been some overall economic challenges and headwinds in China, but the sectors of the economy that are important to BHP’s commodity demand, for the most part, have been performing strongly,” Henry said in an interview on Bloomberg TV.

Meanwhile, India continues to be a “bright spot” for commodity demand, BHP said in the statement.

BHP sees copper as one of its most important growth areas, along with potash used to manufacture fertilizer, as China’s demand for steelmaking material iron ore plateaus.

During the reporting period, BHP announced it would spend at least $10 billion to maintain and grow copper production across its Chilean portfolio over the next decade and a half. It will spend at least $4 billion at its Escondida copper mine alone.

Mines such as Escondida, where BHP has an operational 57.5% interest alongside Rio Tinto Group, are aging and deposits of such size and scale are rare. In January, BHP completed its acquisition of Filo Corp. with partner Lundin Mining Corp., which owns the Filo Del Sol mine in Chile. BHP’s 50% stake in Filo cost around $2.1 billion.

“BHP will never be reliant on acquisitions or external opportunities,” Henry told Bloomberg TV when questioned about the company’s appetite for inorganic growth. “In the current market, it has become increasingly difficult for companies to pursue large-scale M&A for value.”

(By Paul-Alain Hunt)

What is needed is a new definition that differentiates between what is genuinely vital to a country, and what is just something of importance.

It also was clear at last week’s Mining Indaba 2025 conference in Cape Town that what is critical to one country isn’t necessarily of much importance to another.

So what is a better definition of a critical mineral?

Simply put, it’s a mineral that you don’t have and are worried that you won’t be able to get in the future.

This means that a critical mineral is one that you need, but you don’t have domestic reserves, your strong allies also don’t have sufficient deposits and you don’t control enough of the supply chain to ensure you get what you need when you need it.

A mineral in this situation is distinct from what commodity analysts CRU refer to as a core mineral, which is one that you need but you are fairly confident that you will be able to source now and in the future.

Why is this distinction important?

From a Western perspective, a core mineral is one that you largely can leave to market forces to supply, relying on private mining companies to explore, develop and produce on commercial terms.

However, a genuinely critical mineral is likely to require a different strategy to acquire, such as directly funding new mines, building strategic relationships with host countries and offering offtake agreements that aren’t dependent on market prices.

China has proven much more adept at targeting minerals it sees as critical, investing in mines and infrastructure in foreign countries and in processing plants at home, thereby locking in control of the supply chain.

This has seen China, the world’s biggest importer of commodities, come to dominate much of the global supply chain for minerals vital to the energy transition, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earths.

It’s no surprise that these four are on China’s list of critical minerals, but given that China now dominates their production and supply, are they still critical to China?

The answer is probably not, but only because Beijing was strategic, rather than solely commercial, in how it went about ensuring it could ensure supply.

These four minerals are also on the critical list of both the United States and the European Union, as are copper, aluminum, antimony, graphite and tungsten.

Critical minerals that are on China’s list alone include iron ore, gold, potash and uranium.

It could be argued that these are indeed genuine critical minerals for China as they are both vital to the economy and ones where Beijing has limited influence over the supply chains.

Take iron ore for example. China relies on imports for more than 80% of its needs, and of its imports more than 90% come from Australia, Brazil and South Africa.

While there are Chinese shareholdings in some of the companies mining iron ore in these countries, Beijing lacks control over the resources and has in effect been a price-taker for the past two decades.

New tactics needed

Turning to the United States and Europe, it could be questioned as to why copper is on their critical mineral list, as there is little threat to supply, given much of the world’s mined copper is controlled by Western companies in countries that are broadly aligned with the West.

The same could be said for aluminum and lithium, and there are questions as to whether cobalt is actually that vital for the energy transition any longer.

Nickel is an interesting case, as both the United States and the European Union classify it as critical, but they have done nothing to ensure supply.

Rather, they have allowed Chinese-controlled mines and processing plants in Indonesia to dominate the market while those in countries like strong ally Australia are shuttered amid low prices.

If nickel was truly critical, it would be logical to ensure the continued supply from allied nations, even if it cost more to do so.

Likewise if Western countries are genuinely worried about securing minerals such as graphite, tungsten and rare earths, then they need to amend the ways they go about developing mines.

Western mining companies find it difficult to secure long-term funding as they can’t guarantee the price to be received in several years’ time, when a mine can be built and become operational.

This means they lose out to Chinese companies that don’t care about the commercial outcomes as much.

Western governments also have to become more proactive in engaging countries with resources, using both soft power such as aid programs and direct benefits such as market access in order to cultivate stronger resource relationships.

However, it appears that US President Donald Trump is adopting the exact opposite tactic, abandoning aid and threatening widespread tariffs on allies and enemies alike.

The European Union also appears to move at a glacial pace, producing policies and reports on critical minerals but seemingly doing very little to actually go out and develop supply chains it controls.

(The views expressed here are those of the author, Clyde Russell, a columnist for Reuters.)

(Editing by Jamie Freed)

Maaden attracted over $10 billion in offers from investors for the sukuk, which was split between $750 million maturing in 2030 and $500 million maturing in 2035.

“The market appetite for investing in Saudi Arabia, in mining, and in Maaden specifically, is strong, and a sign of the untapped potential seen in the kingdom,” Maaden chief executive officer Bob Wilt said in an interview. Around half of the demand came from US investors with the rest split between Europe, Asia and the Middle East, he said.

The company is tapping fixed income investors as it embarks on a more than $12 billion investment drive through to the end of the decade that includes major expansions of its gold, phosphate and aluminum businesses. It’s also ramping up efforts to explore for more copper in the kingdom.

Maaden’s board will make a final decision on new investments in gold and phosphate production around the middle of this year, Wilt said.

Maaden is unlikely to tap bond markets again soon but may do so in future to raise further funds for growth projects, he added.

Maaden, majority owned by the kingdom’s sovereign wealth fund, is one of the key entities behind the country’s push to make mining a so-called third pillar of the Saudi economy along with oil and petrochemicals, as part of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s economic master-plan.

Maaden announced in January it was working on creating a joint venture with state-controlled oil giant Saudi Aramco for the exploration and mining of energy transition metals in the country.

(By Matthew Martin)

Read More: Saudi Arabia in advanced talks over Zambia copper mine stake, Ma’aden CEO says

Most Canadian mining companies will weather US President Donald Trump’s impending tariffs by pivoting to alternative global markets, according to Pierre Gratton, president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada. 

In an interview with MINING.COM, Gratton emphasized that while the tariffs pose challenges, they also present opportunities for strategic realignment.

Gratton highlighted the temporary reprieve offered by a 30-day delay on proposed tariffs — a 25% levy on most Canadian imports and a 10% tariff on energy resources, including coal, uranium, and critical minerals. “This provides breathing room for our industry,” he remarked. However, he cautioned against complacency, urging industry leaders to use this time for strategic planning.

Canadian miners, Gratton noted, benefit from their ability to operate independently of the US market. Even companies reliant on American buyers can pivot to global markets, securing alternative buyers for their metals and minerals.

Gratton also voiced concern about the broader implications of the tariffs on Canada-US trade relations, particularly in critical minerals.

“These tariffs could undermine our established relationship in critical minerals,” he warned, underscoring the need for continued cooperation and a robust trade alliance between the two nations.

Strategic diversification

With the US market’s reliability now in question, Gratton advocated for diversification, pointing to Europe as a promising alternative. “We must explore new markets now,” he urged, emphasizing Europe’s growing demand for sustainably sourced minerals. Diversifying markets, Gratton argued, is vital for ensuring the resilience and growth of Canada’s mining sector.

Looking ahead, he stressed the importance of preparing for less favorable scenarios. “We can’t be solely dependent on one market,” Gratton said, calling for investment in alternative supply chains and infrastructure to improve access to new markets.

Gratton also suggested that the tariffs threat might serve as a catalyst for necessary change within Canadian mining.

“This could be the push we needed to diversify, ensuring not just economic but strategic resilience,” he said.

“The Unites States, one of the largest users of potash fertilizers, does not have any noteworthy potash fertilizer production of its own and therefore relies on larger import quantities,” the company said in a statement, when asked to comment on the tariffs.

“The decision that was just taken therefore poses a great challenge for the domestic agriculture sector,” it added.

The group ships about 300,000 tonnes of potash from its Bethune site in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan into the US per year, which compares with about 10 million tonnes of total US potash imports.

The impact on its business was therefore “relatively minor”. K+S added that it could redirect volumes from Canada elsewhere on short notice and that it was considering expanding exports from its German mines into the United Sates.

(By Patricia Weiss and Ludwig Burger; Editing by Kirsti Knolle and Miranda Murray)

More than half of Canada’s mineral exports —valued at more than C$80 billion— went to the US in 2022. And just two years earlier Trump in his first term set up the Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals Collaboration.

But Trump seemed ready to tear everything up with comments this week:

“We have a tremendous [trade] deficit with Canada,” the president said. “We don’t need them to make our cars, and they make a lot of them. We don’t need their lumber, because we have our own forests, etc, etc. We don’t need their oil and gas. We have more than anybody.”

As most Canadian industry leaders have pointed out, the US depends on Canada for a host of minerals and supplies. It gets germanium, aluminum and nickel far easier than from China, whose stranglehold on critical minerals Washington is trying to loosen.

“We produce a certain refined product of nickel that is suited for the US industries,” Pierre Gratton, president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada, said in a phone interview. “When China imposed a ban on the export of germanium to the United States, we could supply them with germanium, and this underpinned how important our trade relationship is to one another.”

Decision

Gratton said it’s difficult to believe that Trump will actually follow through on the tariff threat against a major supplier to the American economy, but equally as difficult to determine Trump’s final decision.

“It sure sounds like that’s what he wants to do, just put a shock to the system and make Canada buckle, and that’s very scary, scary for all of North America,” Gratton said. “But will he in the end get advice that cautions him against that kind of an approach, and will Canada be able to negotiate its way out of this? I don’t know. I don’t know because the story changes daily.”

Pierre Lassonde, a founder of Franco-Nevada (TSX: FNV; NYSE: FNV) and a former president of Newmont (NYSE: NEM, TSX: NGT), said Trump is unlikely to impose tariffs.

“All mine output is raw material for the US industrial complex,” Lassonde told The Northern Miner by email. “[The higher costs associated with] any tariffs automatically go to the consumers as all commodities are traded worldwide for the same price.

“As well, if the USA wants our critical metals, why would they put a tariff to get them? My sense is that Trump will mostly refrain from tariffs on all raw materials including carbon products, i.e. oil and gas.”

Early days

Stephen Roman, the founder and co-chairman of Gold Eagle Mines, which was acquired by Goldcorp for $1.5 billion in 2008, said it was early to determine the final outcome but suggested Trump is unlikely to levy tariffs on Canada.

“He had to come out with some fairly strong statements to wake up Canadians that were under a Trudeau government that’s very lackadaisical on many issues and it seems to have had the right effect,” Roman, who now heads Global Atomic (TSX: GLO; US-OTC: GLATF) and its uranium project in Niger, said by phone.

“At the end of the day, it wouldn’t be good for the United States or Canada to start raising costs for mineral products, whether they be oil and gas or metals. We just have to assess it when the final [tariff] determination is made.”

Originally, Trump declared the tariffs would be slapped on Canada and Mexico (and 10% on China) within hours of his inauguration. Then there was talk of studying the process and some pundits said Trump would have to assemble a trade negotiation team. Trump changed his levy date to Feb. 1, then floated it could be April 1. It was widely reported that no American officials had in fact informed their Canadian counterparts to expect tariffs.

Experts suggested this was a way to keep Canada and Mexico off balance, a negotiating tactic to reopen the North American free trade agreement within months, a year earlier than the deal allows.

“Part of the strategy for him is to create uncertainty in the hopes of creating a better transactional bargain,” Clifford Sosnow, head of law firm Fasken’s international trade and investment group, said by phone. “Maybe he wants to use tariffs to get an energy new deal. It’s really not clear at this stage of the game.”

Orders

One of the scores of executive orders that Trump signed within hours of occupying the Oval Office was a declaration of emergency regarding energy and critical minerals to thwart China’s control over the industry in the name of national security.

The American departments of energy and defence are already sending tens of millions of dollars to critical mineral projects in Canada. Trump wants to make the US the dominant producer and processor of minerals, including critical minerals, but that doesn’t mean funding only US mining projects, the trade lawyer said.

“He’s clearly trying to say, ‘it’s time we look to other sources of supply’ and so there’s openings there for Canada,” Sosnow said. “What does that mean in terms of increased investment in the Canadian mining space? That’s where negotiations come in.”

However, getting a common stance on those negotiations and how to respond to the tariffs threat is creating political in-fighting on both sides of the border. Republicans may not be aware of how tariffs would harm Midwest state economies, especially in the automotive industry.

In Canada, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe expressed concern retaliatory tariffs or export bans could slash their billions in revenue from of oil and gas, and uranium and potash, respectively. Meantime, Ontario’s Doug Ford has called for strong retaliation.

Gun fight

“You can’t bring a knife to a gun fight,” Ford told reporters Jan. 22. “We have to make sure we match these tariffs dollar for dollar. We’re need to target where it’s going to impact Americans the most.”

Canada’s stance is further complicated. Ford has emerged as captain of Team Canada after Justin Trudeau said he intends to resign as prime minister. But the Ontario premier may be distracted by holding an early election this month. Even so, the Conservative Party’s Ford and the Liberal Party’s Trudeau agree on the country’s response if Trump carries through on his threat.

“Canada will have a strong, robust response, because we don’t want this, but we will respond if necessary,” Trudeau told reporters within hours of Ford’s gun quip. “Prices for American consumers on just about everything will go up, and we don’t think he wants that.”

Federal opposition leader Pierre Poilievre said he would “fight fire with fire,” but he has dodged questions in news conferences on whether he’s actually more aligned with Smith in Alberta – a core constituency of his – to avoid a strong response to Trump.

Sosnow, the partner at Fasken, questioned the rationale of export bans and strong retaliatory tariffs. Would Ford shut the auto sector or cross-border electricity deals that would ditch billions in revenue? 

“It’s a bit like radiation treatments,” he said. “You want to kill the tumor without killing the patient, right? And some of these retaliations could have devastating impacts on the economy.”

At the end of  2024, the MINING.COM TOP 50* ranking of the world’s most valuable miners had a combined market capitalization of $1.28 trillion, down $126 billion for the year after a dismal final quarter when even gold firms succumbed to overall bearish sentiment.

The total stock market valuation of the world’s biggest mining companies declined by 9% or a combined $126.2 billion over the course of 2024. 

A promising Q3, when the index touched its second highest level on record, quickly turned sour and only eight constituents made gains over the final three months of the year. 

The Top 50 is now trading a stomach churning  $480 billion below the peak hit in the second quarter of 2022, when the entire mining complex was riding high from uranium and nickel to copper and gold. 

Much of the blame for the drift lower can be laid at the door of mining’s traditional champions.

Passing parade

Mining’s traditional big 5 – BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore, Vale and Anglo American – that trace their roots back many decades if not more than a century, were pounded down in 2024.

Together the stalwarts shed 25.3% or $119.7 billion of their value as their bread and butter commodities – copper and iron ore – went into retreat. 

The rampant dollar over the final months of 2024 only compounded losses: MINING.COM’s Top 50 considers performance in US$ market capitalisation terms, not share price changes in local currency on domestic exchanges.  

In the past these companies would, apart from wobbles as the Chinese supercycle became just a cycle, consistently occupy the top five slots in the ranking, supported by vast asset portfolios covering a range of commodities across many regions. 

Now the big diversifieds stocks – the mining industry’s now erstwhile version of the Mag 7 – make up less than 28% of the total index, down from a height of 38% at the end of 2022.  

Vale, down 44.9% for the year, a dismal outcome made worse by the 22% fall in the real last year, is the ranking’s worst performer of the year. 

Vale topped $100 billion in value briefly in 2022.  Now the Rio de Janeiro based giant’s market cap is down to $37.7 billion and the counter has dropped out of the top 10 position pushed out by Indonesian upstart Amman Mineral.

Anglo American is not a top 10 company anymore either but has the distinction of being the only one of the old guard which ended 2024 in positive territory, adding $5.5 billion, or 18.1% last year. 

How much of that valuation is the lingering effects of BHP’s approach is debatable, but long term investors will still be carrying the shock of January 2016 when Anglo’s market cap fell below $5 billion after it came close to suffocating under a pile of debt.  

With the exception of Glencore which trades but does not mine the steelmaking raw material, iron ore has been the cash cow for the big 5 as China’s massive infrastructure investment sucked upwards of 80% of seaborne cargoes and prices flirted with $200 a tonne. 

In 2011, iron ore came with some of the fattest margins mining had ever enjoyed. With two-thirds of pre-tax profits coming from iron ore that year BHP recorded a $24 billion windfall, Vale reaped $23 billion, Rio racked up $15 billion and Anglo made $11 billion. 

Today iron ore is back to double digits and a looming supply surge coupled with the prolonged construction malaise in China, offer little hope of a return to the go-go days. 

Copper cop out 

Copper was going to play the role of iron ore for the Top 5 going forward and in the first half of 2024 that notion began to seem plausible.

Comex copper hit an all-time intraday high of nearly $5.20 a pound or $11,500 per tonne. In one 24-hour period trading volumes scaled $100 billion (twice the Dow daily average) with the bellwether metal attracting investors well beyond mining.  

Amid the frenzy, forecasts became ever more outlandish with 50% upside from the all-time high actually one of the more sober predictions.  But it didn’t take long for the squeeze to be squoze and by the end of the year copper had barely eked out a gain. Turns out copper is not the new oil. 

With the copper-heavy Anglo deal dead in the water, a pivot to organic growth is under way at BHP with up to $10bn being spent on Escondida alone, the world’s largest copper mine. 

Rio Tinto benefits from the fact that BHP has been working its Melbourne neighbour’s 30% stake in Escondida so hard while its Resolution copper project in Arizona languishes in permitting hell. 

The long-running battle to expand Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia also seems to have reached a steady state, but Rio’s diversification bent and penchant for opportunistic investment are intact. 

The company, one of only two miners with a $100 billion-plus valuation (and only just) spent $6.7 billion to buy into lithium in 2024 just as its Jadar project in Serbia was thrown a lifeline. Whether the project goes into production is still in dispute, much like the prospects for lithium.  

Glencore finally got a piece of Teck Resources last year, but while highly profitable at the moment, coal is not exactly the future of mining. 

With geopolitics and global trade entering ever more dangerous territory, Glencore may find its trading business beginning to throw off cash. The Swiss company, which has for decades been negotiating commodity trading waters few are willing to wade into may also want to avoid the Las Bambas effect.  

The prospects of an IPO for Vale’s base metals spin-off seems to be vanishing into the distance and is now scheduled “going into 2027”. Moreover, the $25 billion to $30 billion promised spending to build up the business seems lavish with copper and nickel’s medium term prospects less than inspiring.   

The other 5

Southern Copper, part of conglomerate Grupo Mexico, seems unlikely to be toppled from the third spot any time soon while fellow copper specialist Freeport-McMoRan edged Glencore out of the top 5. 

One out of only five listed companies with a copper production target for 2024 above one million tonnes, fourth-placed Zijin’s management seems to hold to the belief that in a boom and bust industry diversity is still the key to success. 

The rapidly growing company’s latest acquisition target is another billion dollar lithium miner, the $6.4 billion market cap Shenzhen-listed Zannge. The Zannge approach follows the rather controversial takeover of the giant Manono lithium project in the DRC which Australia’s AVZ Minerals claim was unlawful.  

Lithium stocks made the worst performing list their own during 2024 and the ranks of the battery metal producers have thinned. Already a crowded space, and with deep-pocketed Big Oil taking an active interest, most notably the new Ma’aden and Aramco deal, lithium will be tightly contested in the years ahead. Surging demand notwithstanding.   

Amman Mineral continues its run up, piercing the top 10 for the first time after gaining 24.7% in 2024, and 360% since its debut in Jakarta in early 2023. Some froth has disappeared from the copper-gold company’s valuation as losses from its peak at the end of Q2 last year now top $13 billion. 

While First Quantum Minerals ended up the clear leader among the best performers as the prospects of the re-opening of Cobre Panama mine become brighter, Polish copper major KGHM leaving the Top 50 in Q4 puts a cap on a what-could-have-been year for copper stocks.  

Not that shiny

The value of precious metals and royalty companies climbed by a modest $18.4 billion or 7.2% in 2024, compared to gold’s 27% run up and silver’s 22% charge.

Gold stocks’ relative weakness against the gold price is a perennial problem for the industry exemplified by the world’s top two producers Newmont and Barrick, which lost ground in 2024. 

Apart from missed targets and rising production costs at both firms, Barrick is also dealing with severe problems in Mali where it is halting its Loulo-Gounkoto mine in a dispute with the West African country’s military rulers.

While Barrick moves into copper (upper guidance for 2024 is 210kt) and Newmont trims its portfolio, Agnico Eagle continues to pick up assets large and small.

On a dollar basis Agnico is the best performing stock in the Top 50, adding $12.6 billion in value in 2024 (versus $9.3 billion for Zijin and $8.8 billion for India’s Vedanta) and enters the top 10 for the first time.  

Were it not for the limited tradability of stock in Russia’s Polyus, which greatly underperformed its peers on an ounce for ounce basis (the Moscow-based company’s 2024 target is 2.8moz) the sector’s standing in the ranks would also be greater. 

The position and annual performance of South Africa’s Goldfields were also hurt by exaggerated moves in its stock and the South African rand on the day the snapshot was taken. The Johannesburg-based company is off to the races in the opening weeks of 2024, jumping by 14% for a $13.3 billion valuation. 

Alamos Gold joined the top 50 for the first time in Q3 last year and with a more than 50% jump in value in 2024 now appears firmly ensconced in the top 50 with a valuation of $8.1 billion at the end of the quarter. 

The second quarter’s newcomer Pan American Silver (following its absorption of Yamana Gold) is also likely to be a permanent fixture.

Uzbekistan is readying an IPO for Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combinat – the world’s fourth largest gold mining company and significant uranium producer in 2025. NMMC debuted a $1 billion bond offering in September, marking the first global debt market issuance from a gold mining company since June 2023.

Navoi should easily join the ranks of gold producers in the top 50 thanks to ownership of the world’s largest gold mine, Muruntau, and annual production of 2.9 million ounces at grades and per ounce extraction costs the envy of the sector.  

NOTES:

Source: MINING.COM, stock exchange data, company reports. Share data from primary-listed exchange at close Dec 30/31, 2024 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 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 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 specialised 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.

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.

The deal aligns with Mosaic’s strategy to review and monetize non-core assets while reallocating capital to higher-return investments, the company said. Mosaic, the world’s fourth-largest potash producer, emphasized that the transaction is part of its broader effort to optimize its asset portfolio.

“This agreement represents an important step for the phosphate supply to the Brazilian fertilizer market and demonstrates our commitment to advancing the National Fertilizer Plan,” Rodolfo Galvani Júnior, owner of Fosfatados Centro, said in the statement.

Mosaic’s South American operations include potash and phosphate facilities across Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru, comprising 26 locations in total. These include production and blending facilities, offices, and infrastructure. 

Its São Paulo-based subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizantes, manages regional commercial and production facilities, as well as port and storage units. The company operates 11 blending facilities, 8 toll units, 1 port terminal, and has a blending capacity of 8.6 million tonnes annually.

Mosaic’s move comes as global potash prices have started to fall supply levels return to those seen before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Top producers Russia and Belarus have circumvented Western sanctions by increasing shipments to Asia and South America, contributing to the market’s recovery.

Wilkinson, who is speculated to be a contender to succeed Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister, highlighted Canada’s critical role as a supplier of resources the US lacks feasible alternatives for, including crude oil, uranium, potash, and critical minerals.

“The United States derives enormous economic value from Canada,” Wilkinson said during a CTV News interview. He noted that US refineries, particularly in the Midwest, rely on Canadian heavy crude oil. Alternatives, like Venezuelan crude, present logistical and geopolitical hurdles, while critical minerals and uranium from Canada fill gaps that would otherwise leave the US dependent on China or Russia.

Canada also supplies potash, a key ingredient for American agriculture, and hydropower to states like New York and Massachusetts. “There is no alternative,” Wilkinson emphasized, describing the deep interdependence of the two nations’ economies.

The minister emphasized the critical role of Canada’s resources in supporting the US energy and defence sectors. American nuclear plants rely heavily on Canadian uranium, and the US Department of Defense has invested in Canadian projects to secure alternatives to Chinese supplies of critical minerals, including cobalt and graphite.

Wilkinson also revealed that Canada is prepared to take strong retaliatory measures if the US imposes tariffs, including an export tax on Canadian energy or targeted levies on American goods.

Ready to act

According to reports from CBC News, a list is circulating among Canadian officials that includes America-made goods that could be targeted by retaliatory levies. Items like US steel products, ceramics, and even Florida orange juice are reportedly being considered for these measures.

“That list will certainly be focused on looking to extract the greatest amount of pain in the United States to ensure that there is pressure put on President Trump to withdraw [the tariffs],” Wilkinson said.

Trump has floated the idea of imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, citing trade imbalances. Media reports have suggested he may exclude commodities like oil and uranium and target manufacturing industries instead. Sectors such as auto manufacturing, aerospace, and aluminum — concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, where the majority of Canadians live — are seen as more vulnerable to tariffs.

Despite Parliament being suspended until March 24 following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement of his impending resignation, the federal government retains the authority to impose retaliatory duties without new legislation. This approach was used during in 2018, during Trump’s fist term in office, in a trade spat over steel and aluminum tariffs.

________
RELATED: Trump tariffs could reshape global copper landscape

As diversified miners shift their focus to metals needed for the transition to cleaner energy, copper, with multiple uses from power to construction, has attracted intense interest.

BHP wants Anglo’s prized copper assets in Chile and Peru.

Its $49 billion, or 31.11 pounds sterling ($39.38) a share, attempt failed in May, but BHP did not rule out a renewed offer.

Investors and banking sources say at least a 15-to-20 pound per share premium to its current value of around 23 pounds per share, including a cash component, is needed to make any offer compelling.

Anglo has strengthened its balance sheet after receiving almost $6 billion in cash from selling coal assets and shares in its South African platinum unit as part of a restructuring plan CEO Duncan Wanblad announced in May.

Its shares have rallied by just over a fifth during the last 12 months, LSEG data show, while BHP’s stock has lost almost the same percentage over the same period.

The market is anticipating any renewed offer from BHP could face competition, the sources said, as a restructured Anglo focused on copper could attract rival bids.

The sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the need to come up with an offer that could succeed was a challenge given CEO Mike Henry’s stated aim of maintaining spending discipline.

Investors also said it would be difficult.

“There probably is a window for a deal still, but I don’t think there is much of one,” Ian Woodley, a fund manager at Old Mutual, which holds shares in both Anglo and BHP, told Reuters.

“They (BHP) really have to come in with a strong bid and that’s not what they want to do.”

BHP chairman Ken MacKenzie told the company’s annual general meeting on Oct. 30, it had “moved on” from pursuing Anglo.

The company, however, immediately contradicted its top director. It said the UK Takeover Panel had confirmed MacKenzie’s comments “will not be treated as a statement of intention not to make an offer in respect of Anglo”.

BHP declined to comment for the purposes of this story. Instead it referred to comments Henry made at a conference in Paris on Tuesday.

“We did try the Anglo American acquisition. They had other ideas and they’ve kind of gone off on their own, but I step back and say plan A for BHP is always to make more of the resources we have both through productivity but also developments,” he said.

Hefty offer?

Some Anglo investors said they expected BHP could renew its bid after the company completes the spin-off of Anglo American Platinum in mid-2025.

An investment banker said Anglo investors could agree to a “hefty offer”, but one that comes with a higher cash split. He cited the premium Rio Tinto offered to acquire Turquoise Hill Resources in 2022, as an example.

BHP outlined plans to invest between $10 billion and $14.7 billion within 10 years to extract more copper from its giant Escondida mine, where output is forecast to decline, and from the smaller Spence operation. It also wants to restart the Cerro Colorado mine.

Anglo will keep drawing interest from rivals primarily because of its Collahuasi, Quellaveco and Los Bronces mines in Chile and Peru, with rich copper deposits making them longer life assets. It aims to raise output to about 1 million metric tons of copper by 2030 from about 790,000 tons now.

Wanblad’s gambit

BHP investors have long warned the company against costly deals and could resist any attempt to pay up for Anglo assets.

“They (BHP) clearly like the assets, but the reality is you can’t make the numbers work,” Jack Gabb, an investment analyst at Pendal Group in Sydney, said.

Without a reversal in share price values of each miner, making an offer would be tough, investors said.

Investors in Anglo American, which was long undervalued relative to its mining peers, expect to capitalize on a higher premium as the company is re-rated closer to a pure-play copper producer.

A spokesperson for Anglo American said the re-rating was expected to continue and the company had already increased from trading around 4.5 times forward EV/EBITDA in the middle of the year to between 5.5 and 6 times now.

The enterprise value (EV) to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) ratio is a valuation multiple that compares a company’s value to its cash earnings.

“This would indicate that the market is starting to value us differently as we focus the portfolio around copper, premium iron ore and crop nutrients,” the spokesperson said.

Even after its restructuring, another investment banker said Anglo would not be a pure play copper producer given its Brazilian iron ore business, limiting the extent to which it could be re-rated.

Some Anglo investors also want to see the strategy fully implemented, Old Mutual’s Woodley said.

“People might say, let’s see Anglo get on with their restructuring and we can see what sort of a company we’re left with at the end of that, rather than having someone come in and take it now,” he said.

(By Felix Njini, Clara Denina, Melanie Burton, Pratima Desai and Amy-Jo Crowley; Editing by Veronica Brown and Barbara Lewis)

Export levies would be a last resort for Canada, according to officials familiar with the discussions inside Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government. Retaliatory tariffs against US-made goods, and export controls on certain Canadian products, would be more likely to come first, said the people.

But commodity export taxes — which would drive up costs for US consumers, farmers and businesses — are a real option if Trump decides to start a full-scale trade war, said the officials, speaking on condition they not be identified.

Trudeau’s government may also propose giving itself expanded powers over export controls as part of a scheduled update on the country’s fiscal and economic situation to be released on Monday, they said.

Canada is by far the largest external supplier of oil to the US; some refineries depend on buying cheaper Canadian heavy crude and have few alternatives to it. The US Midwest would be hit particularly hard by higher costs. Fuel makers in the region rely on Canada for almost half of the crude they turn into gasoline and diesel.

Canadian uranium is also the biggest foreign source of fuel for US nuclear power plants, and potash from the country’s western provinces is a huge source of fertilizer for American farms. Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense has been investing in Canadian projects to secure sources of cobalt and graphite and reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains.

For those reasons, some observers have said they expect Trump will exempt commodities from his threat to place 25% levies on goods from Mexico and Canada, and focus instead on using tariffs against their manufacturing industries. In Canada’s case, that includes the auto manufacturing, aerospace and aluminum sectors, which are centered in Ontario and Quebec, where about 60% of Canadians live.

Trudeau’s government would have no choice but to respond if Trump simply exempted energy while hitting all other Canadian products, said the officials, adding that’s a scenario that could prompt the use of export taxes by Canada.

‘Terrible idea’

But for the prime minister, going down this path would cause serious political divisions within Canada. Oil, uranium and potash production are concentrated in the western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Those provinces are the strongest voter base for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, and their provincial governments are staunch right-wing opponents of Trudeau.

“It’s a terrible idea,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said when asked about the possible use of export taxes.

“I don’t support tariffs on Canadian goods and I don’t support tariffs on US goods because all it does is make life more expensive,” Smith said. “Instead, we’re taking a diplomatic approach and we’re meeting with our allies in the US.”

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said export taxes “are the wrong approach and Saskatchewan will vehemently oppose the federal government imposing export taxes on our potash, uranium or oil.”

In an emailed statement via a spokesperson, Moe said Trudeau has not brought up export taxes during his phone calls with premiers, so “if they are under consideration, that would be a complete betrayal by the Trudeau government of the team approach they have been advocating and a complete betrayal of Canadians.”

The Canadian dollar extended losses after the Bloomberg News report, falling as low as C$1.4212 per US dollar. Shares of some Canadian commodities producers, including uranium miner Cameco Corp. and potash producer Nutrien Ltd., intially dropped.

A spokesperson for industry group Fertilizer Canada said export curbs are a bad idea. “Due to the significant role fertilizer plays in food security, we consider it a humanitarian product and as such should not be subject to trade restrictions,” spokesperson Kayla FitzPatrick said by email.

High-grade uranium

Although oil has received the most attention, uranium is also a critical source of imported energy for the US. Due to its civilian-military dual uses, the Canadian government can already apply export controls under existing authorities.

Canada supplies the US with about a quarter of its uranium needs for nuclear reactors, with the bulk of the material coming from ultra-high-grade mines in Saskatchewan. Cameco, the world’s second-largest uranium producer, sells its uranium and fuel services directly to nuclear utilities predominantly in the Americas. US nuclear reactors rely heavily on uranium imports, as domestic production of the material is virtually non-existent.

Trudeau has publicly said Canada’s economy would be devastated if Trump followed through with 25% tariffs on everything the US imports from Canada. An export tax on commodities is a risky proposition for the Canadian economy, too — energy products alone make up about 30% of its exports to the US.

Steve Verheul, who was Canada’s chief trade negotiator during Trump’s first term and is now a private consultant, raised the prospect of export taxes as a tool Canada might need to use in a negotiation over tariffs.

Trump may decide to exempt oil, gas and food from his tariff plan, Verheul said at a Bank of Montreal event last week. Canadian officials are well aware of this, he said, and there is a discussion that it could “make sense for Canada to apply export taxes to those products in order to try to negotiate a broader exemption across all the sectors,” he said.

“I think this fight could escalate in certain ways if that kind of action is taken,” Verheul said.

Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s finance minister and deputy prime minister, has also suggested retaliation involving commodities. After a meeting with provincial premiers on Wednesday, she said some of them had proactively listed items — including critical minerals and metals — that could be part of a response.

Trudeau has experience battling Trump on tariffs during the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2017 and 2018.

Trudeau’s primary goal is still to avoid a trade war with its No. 1 trading partner, and his government is planning major announcements on border security to show they are responsive to Trump’s goal of stemming the flow of migrants and fentanyl into the US. Canada is a much smaller source of both compared with Mexico, according to US government data.

(By Brian Platt)

Installation of the initial two hoists is already in progress, while the further two hoisting systems are being prepared for installation and commission between 2026 and 2027.

According to ABB, this represents a milestone for the mining industry, as one of the two production hoists will have the largest production capacity in the world, able to transport payloads of 75 tonnes. Its six ropes will be able to support the heavy loads from 1 km underground at a maximum speed of 18.3 metres per second, supported by dual 7,700kW motors.

As the mining industry evolves to keep up with increased demand, this project represents a breakthrough in enhanced productivity, the Swedish group added.

The service shaft and production shaft have both been sunk in preparation for the hoisting systems. ABB supplied two hoists to the service shaft, including the cage. At the same time, it delivered the hydraulic braking system as well as electrical controls and powertrain for a temporary Blair cage hoist being commissioned in the production shaft, which will be in operation for two years while the higher-capacity production hoist is prepared.

The latter will then be installed and is expected to be up and running for production use by 2027.

Each mine hoist is being supplied with ABB Ability Safey Plus for hoists, the world’s first fully SIL 3 certified safety solution.

“The hoists and hoisting systems will play a crucial role in the efficient and safe extraction of potash, giving Jansen its competitive edge,” said Simon Thomas, vice president of potash projects at BHP. “The new contract further strengthens our existing strategic partnership with ABB, and we look forward to continuing to work together as we plan to drive productivity, safety, and sustainability.”

“We are happy to continue our work with BHP on increasing the efficiency and productivity of the Jansen mine while continuously helping to improve the safety of people and operations,” added Björn Jonsson, global business line manager for hoisting at ABB Process Industries.

“ABB’s mine hoists are some of the safest in the world, adhering to the highest regulations, and we are pleased to combine this with enhanced capacity loading as the industry continues to look for solutions that maximize productivity in order to meet demand.”

This new contract between ABB and BHP follows previous collaboration on the integration of power management systems for the Jansen project, and the creation of a multi-year global framework agreement.

The Jansen project aims to become the largest potash mine in the world. Initial Stage 1 capacity is expected to reach 4.5 million tonnes per annum, while future development is projected to increase this by a further 16 to 17 million tonnes.

Construction of the Stage 1 project is currently ahead of schedule, with first production expected in two years’ time, said BHP.

Much of the drag on the index comes from the top – the mining industry’s traditional Big 5  – BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore, Vale and Anglo American. 

With the exception of Anglo, which received a fillip from BHP’s approach, the stocks are deep in the red for 2024.  

Together, the large diversified companies have lost nearly $60 billion in value this year. One bad week – say copper retreats further and iron ore goes into double digits – would see them hit new 52-week lows. As the table shows, on a longer horizon their underperformance is even more startling.

In the past these stocks would consistently occupy the top five slots in the ranking, supported by vast asset portfolios covering a range of commodities across many regions. 

In a boom and bust industry that was the key to success (if not survival) for companies that trace roots back many decades if not more than a century.   

In a new report, Boston Consulting Group points out mining companies’ underperformance over the last decade when only about one in four companies delivered a total shareholder return (TSR) greater than the bellwether MSCI World Index and return on capital has been equally inferior:

“In their pursuit of growth, miners triggered price crashes that destroyed value. Given this performance, it’s not surprising that many investors commonly view mining companies as a “trade,” and that many active and specialist investors have abandoned the market.”

While the industry faces many common challenges including grade fade, geopolitical and policy uncertainty, particularly in permitting (more than 90% of exploration projects fail to turn into physical mines), climate disruption, and social pressures, BCG’s study of 77 companies across commodities and regions did find some industry darlings.

The top-quartile performers, many of them based in frontier jurisdictions, achieved an average TSR of 22% over the past decade (year-end 2013 through year-end 2023), outperforming the other industry participants by 18 percentage points.

While the first quartile were able to deliver stellar results through revenue growth and margin expansion, the mining majors have been unable to increase production to a meaningful extent, and margins shrank on average by around 20%, says BCG.

BCG sees two reasons for the struggles of the majors:

“First, their strategic choices have limited their degree of freedom. The focus on large, long-life, and low-cost assets may have improved their resilience through cycles, but good assets alone do not yield TSR outperformance. The focus on low-risk jurisdictions has constrained their ability to quickly develop and access high-grade ore. 

“Furthermore, their reluctance to invest in smaller (and somewhat easier to build) mines has made it harder for them to adapt to development challenges and consistently deliver steady growth. 

“In addition, diversification has increased the complexity of the majors’ businesses without an apparent corresponding payoff for shareholders. By complexity, we mean everything from organizational structure and business systems to different types of operations and value-chain integration.”

BCG’s remedies for this drag on performance include “having a playbook for value-creating M&A,” committing to new locations and adopting new mining methods:

The process of simplifying operations, shedding assets, spin-offs and the like is well underway at the top tier.

But as BHP’s failed takeover of Anglo, which indeed did come with demands for non-core asset sales and divestment from certain locations, shows value-creating M&A is easier said than done.

Mosaic had cut its third-quarter production forecast in September following equipment failures in Canada and hurricanes at the US Gulf Coast.

Shares of the company fell 1.7% premarket.

The company also appointed Luciano Siani Pires as its new chief financial officer, who will start from Jan. 1. Pires succeeds Freeland who is retiring from his role as executive vice president and CFO, but will continue as a senior advisor until July 1.

Siani Pires was the group finance chief of Brazilian miner Vale for nearly a decade and also served on Mosaic’s board for more than four years until August 2022, according to his profile at the professional networking platform LinkedIn.

His appointment follows the tenth successive quarter where the Tampa, Florida-based company failed to beat market estimates, according to data compiled by LSEG.

Mosaic said its third-quarter net sales declined 21% compared with a year earlier to $2.81 billion, weighed down by lower potash prices. Analysts expected net sales of $3.16 billion.

Global potash prices have been pressured as supplies are back up to the levels seen before the invasion of Ukraine, as top producers Russia and Belarus sidestep Western sanctions by increasing shipments to Asia and South America.

Mosaic said potash and phosphate producing operations have returned to normal following the disruptions in the previous quarter and it expected an uptick in sales for both in the fourth quarter.

The company reported adjusted earnings of 34 cents per share for the quarter ended Sept. 30, compared with analysts’ average estimate of 54 cents per share.

Mosaic said its Carlsbad potash operation in New Mexico is under strategic review.

(By Sourasis Bose; Editing by Krishna Chandra Eluri)

Tight global supply, low channel inventories and seasonal demand in several key markets have kept prices for nutrients such as potash and phosphate high at a time when crop prices have declined, forcing farmer to curb spending on fertilizers.

“Global phosphate markets remain tight supported by Chinese export restrictions and production outages in the US. We anticipate some impact on global demand due to tight supply and weaker affordability,” the company said.

Nutrien lowered its outlook for annual phosphate sales volumes to be in the range of 2.4-2.5 million tonnes from 2.5-2.6 million tonnes previously.

However, Nutrien raised its annual forecast for potash sales volumes, owing to expectations of stronger demand in key markets. Other producers are also hopeful about a rebound in demand and prices during the second half of 2024.

The company’s net profit fell nearly 70% to $25 million in the third quarter, while net sales declined 5% to $5.35 billion.

Lower sales volumes and a decline in seed margins in key markets led to a 23% fall in adjusted core profit at Nutrien’s retail segment – its largest by revenue.

Nutrien’s results are in contrast to peers including CF Industries and Norwegian firm Yara International, both of which posted higher quarterly profits.

The Saskatoon, Canada-based firm posted an adjusted profit of 39 cents per share for the three months ended Sept. 30, compared with analyst’s estimates of 46 cents per share, according to data compiled by LSEG.

(By Vallari Srivastava; Editing by Maju Samuel)

Read More: Potash supply nears pre-war levels, pushing producers to cut output

The company announced a restructuring plan in May as part of its successful rebuttal of a $49 billion takeover approach from BHP (ASX: BHP), the world’s biggest miner. The plan focused on divesting from diamonds by spinning off or selling its 85% stake in De Beers, the world’s largest diamond producer by value. It also included restructuring its platinum operations, and selling its coal assets.

Anglo confirmed on Monday it would sell its 33.3% stake in Jellinbah Group to Zashvin Pty Ltd., the Australian power generation operator that already owns a third of the venture, alongside Japan’s Marubeni Corp. This transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2025.

Jellinbah holds a 70% stake in two metallurgical coal mines located in Queensland — Jellinbah East and Lake Vermont.

Anglo said it continues to work on divesting its remaining Australian coal operations, which are expected to fetch between $4 billion and $5 billion, adding that is in discussions with six interested buyers. 

Market rumours indicate that the potential buyers include major names such as include Peabody, Yancoal and Glencore.

The Jellinbah sale is set to reassure investors of Anglo’s commitment to its restructuring goals as the sale of its Grosvenor metallurgical coal mine, the company’s larger coal assets, has faced delays due to a fire affecting the operation.

Grosvenor reached first output in 2016 but was closed in mid-2020 after an explosion that seriously injured five workers. It only returned to production in February 2022.

“Trophy asset” hard sale

Anglo’s plan to exit the diamond business has also been challenged, as the sector is going through a downturn. Sources close to the process have said that Anglo American would prefer to wait for a recovery in the diamond market before letting go of De Beers. The internal view at the company is that the world’s largest diamond producer should command a price that reflects its status as a trophy asset.

The company has done better when it comes to offloading its its platinum business. It sold in September about 5% of Anglo American Platinum, reducing its stake from 78.6% to 73.7%.

Anglo American’s current share price is 33% lower than BHP’s final all-share offer in May, which valued the company at £31.11 per share. Chief executive Duncan Wanblad is facing pressure to prove to shareholders that his strategy will generate value for them.

“Our process to sell the rest of our steelmaking coal business – being the portfolio of steelmaking coal mines that we operate in Australia – is now at an advanced stage and we are on track to agree terms in the coming months,” Wanblad said in the statement.

The company’s exposure to copper though its world-class assets in Latin America have attracted the attention of larger competitors looking to boost their involvement in the crucial green energy transition metal.

Anglo has set the ambitious goal of increasing annual copper production to more than 1 million tonnes by the early 2030s, thanks to its Chilean and Peruvian mines.

BHP (ASX, LSE, NYSE: BHP) announced on Thursday that it has strengthened its partnership with Swiss technology firm ABB with the signing of a multi-year global framework agreement.

ABB is a leader in industrial automation, electrification and digitalization. It currently delivers critical technologies and equipment for BHP’s global operations including the Escondida copper mine in Chile, the Jansen potash project in Canada and various Australian assets.

This new agreement, says BHP, allows the companies to collaborate in support of project delivery, operations and maintenance, as well as progressing operational decarbonization efforts across its global operations.

The agreement comes as the world’s leading miner continues to progress towards its goal of achieving net zero operational greenhouse gas emissions (Scopes 1 and 2 emissions) by 2050.

Working with leading global technology partners such as ABB has the potential to play a key role in supporting BHP’s decarbonization ambition, as well as supporting more sustainable growth in copper, potash and iron ore, it stated.

“Strategic partnerships like the one we have with ABB will be integral in supporting BHP’s growth ambitions, such as those we have in South Australia, as well as our operational decarbonization efforts globally,” commented Rag Udd, BHP’s chief commercial officer.

“This global framework agreement underscores our long-standing partnership with BHP, strengthening our collaboration to drive productivity, safety and sustainability,” Joachim Braun, president of ABB process industries, added.

“Together, we are committed to accelerating the deployment of advanced technologies that not only optimize productivity, but also drive decarbonization efforts in line with global climate ambitions.”