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)

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

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

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

Don’t mention the rare earths

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long road from mine to market

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

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

That is a long journey.

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

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

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

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

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

Price protection

Market price is another problem.

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

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

But will mining it in Ukraine be economically viable?

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

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

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

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

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

Staking the metallic future

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Editing by Barbara Lewis)

On the COMEX, copper for July delivery rose for a second straight session, gaining 2.5% to $4.743 per pound ($10,434 per tonne).

China’s Commerce Ministry said it had taken note of US officials’ interest in talks and was evaluating the possibility of engagement. The development offered some relief to markets rattled by escalating trade tensions.

Copper has come under pressure from US President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, which have raised concerns about slowing economic growth and weakening demand for industrial metals. So far, Beijing has rebuffed requests for direct talks between the two leaders.

Adding to the bullish sentiment, copper stockpiles in Shanghai have dropped significantly.

On Friday, available inventories on the London Metal Exchange also declined, following a large drawdown of material stored in Taiwan.

Copper and the new resource spheres of control

MINING.COM and The Northern Miner mapped global copper production through a geopolitical lens, dividing the world into five “spheres of control”: American, Chinese, Russian, Coalition of the Willing, and Undrafted.

These groupings reflect geographic, social, cultural, and economic ties—as well as potential alignments in an increasingly polarized world.

Explore the full infographic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slow pace of mining licences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The initiative, led by US President Donald Trump’s senior Africa advisor Massad Boulos, is designed to accompany the bilateral minerals pacts being ironed out with both nations, which would see billions of dollars of Western investments in the region.

“The (agreement) with the DRC is at a much bigger scale, because it’s a much bigger country and it has much more resources, but Rwanda also has a lot of resources and capacities and potential in the area of mining as well,” Boulos told Reuters.

DRC is currently the world’s largest cobalt producer and the leading copper producer in Africa. The country also produces nearly 70% of the world’s tantalum, extracted from coltan. Its eastern provinces hold significant reserves of tin, tungsten and additional coltan deposits.

For decades, Congo has been at odds with the neighbouring Rwanda due to ethnic tensions and control over the region’s natural resources. The conflict escalated earlier this year when the Rwandan-backed M23 rebels attacked and seized control over parts of eastern Congo, including the strategic mining hub of Walikale.

As part of the US peace mediation process, both African nations are expected to submit separate drafts of a peace agreement on Friday, with meeting scheduled in mid-May involving US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the foreign ministers of the DRC and Rwanda to finalize the accord, according to Reuters.

For the peace agreement to succeed, Boulos said several key security concerns must be addressed: Rwanda must withdraw its troops and cease support for the M23 rebels, while the DRC must address Rwandan concerns with militias like the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).

A multinational oversight committee, including the US, Qatar, France and Togo, is monitoring the progress of the peace deal, Boulos added.

Earlier this year, Agnico overtook Barrick Mining’s market capitalization to become the world’s second-largest gold miner, just below Newmont Corp, the largest extractor of bullion by production and market capitalization.

Agnico is expanding its Hope Bay gold project in Nunavut, the northernmost province of Canada that borders the Arctic Ocean and Greenland and wants the incoming Canadian government to promote investment in infrastructure in the Arctic.

“It’s noise (Trump’s threats), but as a country, we have to take it really seriously… and we have been calling for a more formalized, structured Arctic strategy in this country,” Boyd told Reuters in an interview.

He said the company would be “way more forceful” going forward to advocate for the Arctic strategy with Ottawa, because it sees the opportunity for growth in the North.

“It’s pretty clear, based on the US interest in Greenland and the US administration’s comments around Canada and critical metals, that Canada needs to focus more on the opportunity that exists in Canada’s far north and in the communities and in the people that live in the far north,” Boyd said.

Hope Bay is expected to come back into production by early next year after the company put the mine in care and maintenance in 2023 to focus on drilling its resources.

Agnico, one of the few gold miners with assets in Canada, is betting big on the country even as some of its other peers look to sell their domestic assets.

Its strategy has paid off with investors as its share price has jumped by 45% year to date, making it one of the best-performing mining companies among its peers, Refinitiv data show.

Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that Barrick Gold, another Canadian miner, was looking to sell it’s only mine in the country. However, Boyd has ruled out Agnico buying the asset as it’s too small.

“We’ve got a really strong pipeline of bigger projects. So our strategy isn’t to pick up smaller things and try to make them better,” he said.

Canada’s North has some of the biggest mineral resources in the world, including gold and other critical metals, but it has poor infrastructure compared to the rest of Canada. Nunuvut Premier P.J. Akeeagok, told Reuters last month that the threat from the south of Canada means it is time for the new government to step up and build the basic infrastructure in the region.

“I think there’s an incredible opportunity here in the north to bring different corridors through,” Akeeagok said.

(By Divya Rajagopal; Editing by Veronica Brown and Susan Fenton)

The inclusion process, issued through an interim final rule on Wednesday, also eliminates the Section 232 aluminum and steel exclusions process, the Commerce Department said in a statement.

The action follows proclamations by President Donald Trump to establish a mechanism for expanding the scope of steel and aluminum tariffs to cover “derivative” articles that contain steel or aluminum, the department said.

(By Jasper Ward and Ismail Shakil; Editing by Leslie Adler)

The decision comes just weeks after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Ex-Im, the International Development Finance Corporation and other federal agencies to ensure their policies don’t deter coal mining and power projects.

The now-jettisoned restrictions, first adopted in 2013 following a lawsuit by the environmental group Friends of the Earth, barred Ex-Im support for coal projects in most countries unless carbon capture and storage technology was used to cut their emissions. The bank hadn’t financed any coal plants since the restrictions took effect.

Coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel and supplies about one-third of the world’s electricity generation, according to the International Energy Agency. Demand for coal has fallen in developed countries but is still rising globally.

The board’s vote means the bank’s internal Environmental and Social Due Diligence Procedures and Guidelines (ESPGs) now are aligned with a separate Trump mandate, signed his first day in office, to put the interests of the US first in developing international agreements, Ex-Im said in an emailed statement.

“Coal-fired power projects will continue to be subject to the remaining provisions of the ESPGs in the same manner as other projects,” the bank said.

Conservationists blasted the move to unleash taxpayer dollars for foreign coal projects at a time when the Trump administration is moving to slash government funding and international aid.

And, they said, it’s only the latest disappointment by the Export-Import Bank. Although it has long been seen as a potential lender for emission-free energy projects overseas, the bank has instead been a persistent source of support for fossil fuel projects, under Democratic and Republican presidents alike.

For example, under former President Joe Biden, the bank continued providing loans for overseas oil and gas projects, with Ex-Im’s supporters stressing that its charter bars the denial of financing “based solely on the industry, sector or business.” The bank’s charter also empowers it to block support for projects based on environmental concerns.

Thursday’s decision “basically says the US government is no longer supporting projects that save people, it is supporting projects that kill people,” said Kate DeAngelis, international finance program manager for Friends of the Earth. “Why are we still allowing this agency to exist?”

Before Trump returned to the White House, the EU, UK and US pushed to limit export-credit agency finance for global fossil fuel projects, in what was seen as a bid to protect against a shift like Thursday’s. But that effort broke down last year in the final weeks of the Biden administration.

The bank’s decision is likely to intensify scrutiny of its role and stoke more questions from critical lawmakers about whether its congressional authorization should be allowed to lapse next year.

The change shifts Ex-Im’s policies back to a time when it was “one of the largest financiers of overseas coal projects in the world,” said Jake Schmidt, senior strategic director of international climate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, another environmental nonprofit. “Congress needs to realign this rogue agency when it considers its reauthorization next year.”

(By Jennifer A Dlouhy)

That market malaise leaves the US without a major site to process lithium – the cornerstone metal of the energy transition – and essentially dampens efforts by US President Donald Trump and other Washington officials to bolster the country’s minerals supply chain and curb its reliance on China.

The US refines only small amounts of the ultralight metal and has only one lithium mine, in Nevada, controlled by Albemarle. Last year, the company paused plans to build a $1.3 billion processing plant in South Carolina due in part to overproduction from Chinese rivals.

While lithium prices can vary by region and type, an index of prices tracked by Benchmark Mineral Intelligence has dropped by 74% in the past two years.

“We’ve been wanting to build this Western supply chain. The economics just aren’t there to build that plant out in South Carolina,” Albemarle CEO Kent Masters told Reuters. “The math doesn’t work today.”

The company, which posted better-than-expected quarterly results on Wednesday, has a lithium price at which it would resume the project’s development, but Masters declined to name it.

“We don’t have the confidence to say where (the lithium price) is or where it’s going, which is why we’ve kind of gone to the strategy we have of making sure that we can compete at the bottom of the cycle,” said Masters.

Western minerals supply chains may need some kind of government support in order to develop projects and offset global competition, he added.

“I don’t think private companies are going to be able to do it on their own,” Masters said.

M&A

While Rio Tinto and other rivals have been buying lithium assets during the downturn, Masters said that Albemarle has yet to find an interesting target.

“We don’t have that war chest to go out and look at M&A activity the way we might have if prices were at a different level,” he said. “If we saw some super quality resources we could go after, that might be a little different.”

In Chile, Albemarle is “pretty focused” on its work in the Salar de Atacama and while it considered bidding to access other salars, the company “didn’t find them interesting,” Masters said.

Albemarle also is investing in direct lithium extraction projects in Chile and the United States, but Masters declined to say when either might progress.

Amid the market turmoil, Albemarle held auctions for the battery metal as part of a bid to generate higher returns. Those auctions were paused while the company prepared for its quarterly earnings and may soon resume, Masters said.

“We kind of like the idea of understanding pricing better and getting more transparency in the market,” he said.

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Launched in late 2023 by the US Department of Defense, the Open Price Exploration for National Security AI metals program is an attempt to counter China’s sweeping control of the critical minerals sector, as Reuters reported last year.

Now, more than 30 mining companies, manufacturers and investors – including auto giant Volkswagen – have joined the Critical Minerals Forum non-profit and will be its first users, according to Rob Strayer, a former US diplomat and the organization’s president.

“Everyone in the critical minerals sector is looking for more price transparency,” said Seth Goldstein, a lithium industry analyst with Morningstar. “Any tool like the CMF that could help would be welcome.”

Other members include copper miner South32, rare earths producer MP Materials and defense contractor RTX. The CMF held its first meeting with members in November. The privatization and CMF’s membership have not previously been reported.

Armed with the AI model, the CMF aims to help manufacturers curb their reliance on China by signing more metal supply deals with Western mines, according to more than two dozen industry consultants, purchasing agents, analysts, regulators and investors who told Reuters the program reflects one of the boldest efforts to date to transform the ways certain metals are bought and sold.

The goal is for the AI model to calculate what a metal should cost when labor, processing and other costs are factored in – and Chinese market manipulation is factored out – and thus give buyer and seller confidence in a deal’s economics.

Some deals with the CMF are beginning to take shape. Nevada officials this week said they would work with the CMF and its AI model to help attract copper smelting to the state. The US has only two copper smelters and as such imports nearly half of its demand for the red metal.

The program has already faced skepticism over whether it can achieve the goal of transforming the long-established ways metals are bought and sold.

Yet it is aimed less at heavily traded metals – such as aluminum – and toward lightly traded metals or metals that see heavy overproduction from some in an attempt to sway market pricing.

For example, the CMF model could help manufacturers forecast available nickel supplies in 2028 if the US were to impose a 100% tariff on that metal from Indonesia, the top global producer.

That data that could help a manufacturer determine whether to invest in a US nickel mine or agree to buy its future production, a step that would help obtain financing for a mine’s construction.

In such a scenario, the nickel buyer would use the AI model’s data to negotiate a long-term deal for guaranteed supply, regardless of whether Chinese miners boost production and drive down market prices, as they have done in recent years.

The CMF’s aim with the AI model does assume that a buyer would be comfortable paying more than the market price for a metal if supply were guaranteed.

China squeeze

The CMF’s entrance into the complex metals markets comes as Beijing restricts critical minerals exports, the very kind of market interference that the CMF officials said underscores the need to build more US mines and processing facilities to power the energy transition.

Prices on the London Metal Exchange and other futures exchanges for nickel, cobalt and some other battery metals have been dominated in recent years by overproduction from Chinese miners operating at a loss in Indonesia and Congo to boost market share.

Many niche-but-essential battery minerals on which Beijing has imposed export controls are not traded or lightly traded, including rare earths – a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion – as well as germanium and gallium.

In response to a request for comment about the CMF, the Chinese embassy in Washington, DC, said that China manages its exports of rare earths in accordance with rules from the World Trade Organization.

“China will continue to work with other countries to jointly undertake the responsibility of global rare earths supply,” said embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu.

Volkswagen and some other CMF members said they see the CMF as helping boost visibility into what can be an opaque critical minerals supply chain. MP Materials and RTX did not respond to requests for comment.

US President Donald Trump has already ordered his administration to work with private developers to boost US crucial minerals production, a step that could be aided by the data CMF aims to provide markets, program officials said. The president has also launched a study into potential tariffs on all US minerals imports.

Drawing on its government connections, the CMF aims to connect mining projects with potential investors and manufacturers needing more-secure metals supply, said Strayer.

Massachusetts-based rare earths processing startup Phoenix Tailings hopes the CMF can help create US-based prices for minerals tied to actual production costs, said CEO Nick Myers.

Phoenix aims to use data from the CMF as negotiating leverage with potential customers, including manufacturers that are themselves CMF members, Myers said. “In a sector that is opaque, it is one of the tools to get more information,” Myers said.

Not all market observers are convinced that the CMF’s AI model is revolutionary.

“I’ve tried to politely say I think this is worthless,” said Ian Lange, who teaches mining economics at the Colorado School of Mines. Lange contrasted the goals of the Pentagon’s AI model with the much-larger and more-complex global oil market.

“Can we predict the price of oil better now than five years ago? The answer is no. Machine learning doesn’t help,” Lange said.

‘Encourage more visibility’

The Pentagon’s AI model is being trained using more than 70 mining-related data sets and aims to guide investment decisions out for at least 15 years based on how unexpected market shocks – export restrictions, for example – could affect the production or price of a metal.

FactSet, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence and other pricing providers are supplying data, as is the US Commerce Department, officials said.

It is access to analysis of that data – some of which is not public – that the CMF says it believes sets the Pentagon’s AI program apart from ChatGPT or other AI programs.

And that data is the CMF’s biggest cost, part of the reason why the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will fund it for the next few years while the CMF determines whether to charge all members or create a tiered structure with basic members getting free access and others paying for more granular data, officials said.

S&P Global, AI developer Charles River Analytics, and software firm Exiger with price reporting agency partner Metal Miner have developed the model, according to the Pentagon.

S&P Global declined to comment. Charles River Analytics did not respond to a request for comment. Exiger said it believes its data can help forecast a material’s cost and availability and boost supply chain visibility.

The CMF has been organized as a nonprofit trade association with a board of directors comprised of its members. Its staffing is small – fewer than 10 employees – and its annual budget is not disclosed.

DARPA does not have a representative on the CMF board, but is funding the program through at least 2029 and plans to transfer the AI model’s intellectual property to the CMF by the beginning of 2027, officials said.

There are no plans to make the CMF a for-profit entity, although there may be charges in the future for access to more detailed data sets, officials said.

The CMF is launching a campaign to attract more members – especially from the semiconductor, aviation and defense industries – and offering free membership for the next 14 months while the Pentagon funds data collection, Strayer said.

Foreign governments are also studying whether to join the CMF and use its data, including copper-rich Zambia and cobalt-rich Democratic Republic of Congo, CMF officials said, adding they aim to make the program international in scope to boost metals market transparency.

The Zambian and DRC embassies in Washington, DC, did not respond to requests for comment.

As Western miners begin to demand green premiums for their metals, those new agreements increasingly require the very market intelligence the CMF model aims to provide.

“Any mechanism that can give you better modeling of markets is obviously enormously valuable,” said Brian Menell, CEO of TechMet, a mining investor and CMF member.

The AI model introduces another variable for the LME to contend with, especially as the exchange is struggling as rivals in Chicago and Shanghai try to take market share for some niche battery metals.

The LME declined to comment.

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Veronica Brown and Claudia Parsons)

Gold has climbed more than 25% this year, extending a stellar run in 2024, on the back of central bank buying, Asian investor interest, and growing haven demand. However, shares of gold miners have lagged, with some investors put off by production misses and rising costs, while others have been lured by higher returns in technology stocks and other sectors.

But with fears growing that the US economy will nosedive as President Donald Trump’s trade war intensifies, gold miners could soon catch up as bullion prices keep rallying and other asset classes become less appealing, according to McEwen, who founded Goldcorp and now leads McEwen Mining Inc.

His company — which has seen a 34% drop in its own shares over the past year — runs a handful of small mines and a portfolio of projects that it’s seeking to bring into production. While investors’ aversion to the gold-mining sector has been a headwind to those efforts, McEwen is confident that the industry as a whole is set for a revival.

“You have this cascading effect of gold’s going up, and then there’s interest in the majors, and then it goes down to the mid-tier, and then the juniors and the explorers,” he said in an interview. “When it gets down to that stage, it becomes very explosive in terms of the upward push.”

The mining veteran said bullion is still in the early stages of a bull market and expects gold equities to eventually outperform that of gold in the next two to three years, as the metal surges to $5,000 an ounce.

That’s higher than mainstream gold analysts are forecasting, but many of them have been raising their targets as prices has soared to new all-time highs.

(By Yvonne Yue Li)

Read More: Gold equities going under investors’ radar as metal continues to rise: Peter Schiff

The following is an overview of the critical minerals, including rare earths, and other natural resources in Ukraine:

What are rare earths and what are they used for?

Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion for electric vehicles, cell phones, missile systems, and other electronics. There are no viable substitutes.

The US Geological Survey considers 50 minerals to be critical, including rare earths, nickel and lithium.

Critical minerals are essential for industries such as defence, high-tech appliances, aerospace and green energy.

What mineral resources does Ukraine have?

Ukraine has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as critical, according to Ukrainian data. They include industrial and construction materials, ferro alloy, precious and non-ferrous metals, and some rare earth elements.

According to Ukraine’s Institute of Geology, the country possesses rare earths such as lanthanum and cerium, used in TVs and lighting; neodymium, used in wind turbines and EV batteries; and erbium and yttrium, whose applications range from nuclear power to lasers. EU-funded research also indicates that Ukraine has scandium reserves. Detailed data is classified.

The World Economic Forum has said Ukraine is also a key potential supplier of lithium, beryllium, manganese, gallium, zirconium, graphite, apatite, fluorite and nickel.

The State Geological Service said Ukraine has one of Europe’s largest confirmed reserves, estimated at 500,000 metric tons, of lithium – vital for batteries, ceramics, and glass.

The country has titanium reserves, mostly located in its northwestern and central regions, while lithium is found in the centre, east and southeast.

Ukraine’s reserves of graphite, a key component in electric vehicle batteries and nuclear reactors, represent 20% of global resources. The deposits are in the centre and west.

Ukraine also has significant coal reserves, though most are now under the control of Russia in occupied territory.

Mining analysts and economists say Ukraine currently has no commercially operational rare earth mines.

China is the world’s largest producer of rare earths and many other critical minerals.

What do we know about the deal?

The two countries signed the accord in Washington after months of sometimes fraught negotiations, with uncertainty persisting until the last moment with word of an eleventh-hour snag.

The accord establishes a joint investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction as Trump tries to secure a peace settlement in Russia’s three-year-old war in Ukraine.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko were shown signing the agreement in a photo posted on X by the Treasury, which said the deal “clearly signals the Trump Administration’s commitment to a free, sovereign, prosperous Ukraine.”

Svyrydenko wrote on X that the accord provides for Washington to contribute to the fund. She also said the accord provides for new assistance, for example air defense systems for Ukraine. The US did not directly address that suggestion.

Svyrydenko said the accord allowed Ukraine to “determine what and where to extract” and that its subsoil remains owned by Ukraine.

Svyrydenko said Ukraine has no debt obligations to the United States under the agreement, a key point in the lengthy negotiations between the two countries. It also complied with Ukraine’s constitution and Ukraine’s campaign to join the European Union, she said.

The draft did not provide any concrete US security guarantees for Ukraine, one of its initial goals.

Which Ukrainian resources are under Kyiv’s control?

The war has caused widespread damage across Ukraine, and Russia now controls around a fifth of its territory.

The bulk of Ukraine’s coal deposits, which powered its steel industry before the war, are concentrated in the east and have been lost.

About 40% of Ukraine’s metal resources are now under Russian occupation, according to estimates by Ukrainian think-tanks We Build Ukraine and the National Institute of Strategic Studies, citing data up to the first half of 2024. They provided no detailed breakdown.

Since then, Russian troops have continued to advance steadily in the eastern Donetsk region. In January, Ukraine closed its only coking coal mine outside the city of Pokrovsk, which Moscow’s forces are trying to capture.

Russia has occupied at least two Ukrainian lithium deposits during the war – one in Donetsk and another in the Zaporizhzhia region in the southeast. Kyiv still controls lithium deposits in the central Kyrovohrad region.

What opportunities does Ukraine offer?

Oleksiy Sobolev, first deputy economy minister, said in January that the government was working on deals with Western allies including the United States, Britain, France and Italy on projects related to exploiting critical materials. The government estimates the sector’s total investment potential at about $12-15 billion by 2033.

The State Geological Service said the government was preparing about 100 sites to be jointly licensed and developed but provided no further details.

Although Ukraine has a highly qualified and relatively inexpensive labour force and developed infrastructure, investors highlight a number of barriers to investment. These include inefficient and complex regulatory processes as well as difficulty accessing geological data and obtaining land plots.

Such projects would take years to develop and require considerable up-front investment, they said.

(By Olena Harmash; Editing by Kirsten Donovan and Neil Fullick)

On the COMEX, copper for July delivery climbed 1.6% to $4.683 per pound ($10,302 per tonne) after tumbling 5% on Wednesday. In London, three-month copper futures rose above $9,200 per tonne, recovering part of Wednesday’s 3% loss.

The rebound came after US President Donald Trump said there was a “very good chance” of reaching an agreement with China, although he emphasized it would need to be on US terms. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer added that the US was close to announcing an initial batch of trade deals.

Copper fell 6% in April — its worst monthly performance since mid-2022 — amid growing concerns of a global trade war. Washington is also reviewing whether to impose tariffs on US copper imports.

Adding to the volatility, supply concerns resurfaced in Peru — the world’s third-largest copper producer — as community protests disrupted operations at two major mines. While protests at Antamina (owned by BHP and Glencore) were quickly resolved, logistics at Las Bambas (operated by China’s MMG.) are still being restored.

Meanwhile, the International Copper Study Group now forecasts a larger global surplus of the metal. After meeting with industry leaders in Lisbon, the group revised its 2025 forecast to a surplus of 289,000 tonnes — more than double the 138,000 tonnes from last year and significantly above its previous 2025 estimate of 194,000 tonnes.

The surplus is projected to remain elevated in 2026 at 209,000 tonnes, marking three consecutive years of oversupply.

(With files from Bloomberg)

Spot gold was down 2.0% to $3,221.94 per ounce as of 10:30 a.m. ET, after touching its lowest since April 14 earlier. Three-month gold futures saw a bigger drop of 2.7% to $3,230.10 an ounce in New York.

Gold has now pulled back sharply from the $3,500-an-ounce milestone reached a week ago, coinciding with improved market sentiment after the Trump administration hinted it is closing in on the first tranche of trade deals, as confirmed by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Wednesday.

On the same day, US President Trump said he has potential deals lined up with India, Japan and South Korea. There also is a “very good chance” of securing a deal with China, he added.

“There’s hints of upcoming trade deals, and talk from China that the Trump administration had reached out. A risk-on trade is going on, leading to some profit-taking in gold’s safe-haven,” said Bob Haberkorn, senior market strategist at RJO Futures.

Despite the profit-taking, bullion remains one of the best-performing assets this year, recording a gain of 23% in 2025 while setting multiple record highs along the way.

Bullish sentiment

Analysts remain bullish on the yellow metal due to its reputation as a haven asset, as Trump’s fast-evolving trade policy continues to cast doubt on the global economy.

The latest quarterly poll by Reuters is forecasting gold prices to average above $3,000 annually for the first time, supported by global trade frictions and a swing away from the US dollar.

Last week, JPMorgan said it expects gold to average $3,675 in the fourth quarter, on its way to reaching $4,000 an ounce by the middle of next year on rising probability of a recession.

Data on Wednesday showed that the US economy contracted in the first quarter at the start of the year for the first time since 2022 due to a monumental pre-tariffs import surge. That saw traders boost wagers on four quarter-point rate cuts by the Federal Reserve this year to help prevent a recession, adding support to gold.

“While the short-term correction has been driven by improved market sentiment, the structural drivers underpinning gold’s strength remain firmly in place,” Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote.

(With files from Bloomberg and Reuters)

Trump may be unlikely to gain dominion over Canada or Greenland, but he’s vying to supersede the UN treaty that governs nations’ use of the ocean, potentially with far-reaching consequences for untouched and biodiverse deep sea ecosystems targeted for exploitation.

“‘The next gold rush’: President Trump unlocks access to critical deep seabed minerals,” the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proclaimed in a press release on Friday.

Just days after Trump issued an executive order expediting the processing of seabed mining applications, The Metals Company (TMC) on Tuesday applied for a US license to extract minerals from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, an immense region of the Pacific that stretches from Hawaii to Mexico. 

There’s a hitch, though. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone and the rest of the ocean floor in international waters falls under jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority, whose 169 member nations plus the European Union are loath to give up their mandate to regulate deep sea mining for the benefit of humanity while ensuring the effective protection of the marine environment. 

ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho on Wednesday warned that unilateral action by the US “sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the entire system of global ocean governance.”

At stake is not just who gets to exploit polymetallic nodules — potato-sized rocks rich in cobalt, nickel and other metals that carpet the Clarion-Clipperton seabed — or the fate of  the otherworldly deep sea life that lives on them, but the future of a treaty that has kept commercial peace on the world’s oceans for more than 30 years.

Here’s what else to know.

Who is in charge of deep-sea mining in international waters?

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea established the ISA to regulate deep sea mining beyond national jurisdiction, with royalties on any mining to be distributed among member states. The organization, which is headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica, has spent more than a decade negotiating mining regulations with an end currently not in sight.

For more than 30 years, the ISA has forestalled a deep-sea gold rush as nations respected its mandate to first develop regulations to minimize harm from mining to unique marine life that evolved over eons in the frigid darkness of the abyss. Then TMC grew weary of waiting, saying it spent half a billion dollars on environmental assessments required to prepare an ISA mining license application.

What is The Metals Company?

TMC is a public company registered in Canada and run by Gerard Barron, an Australian former internet advertising entrepreneur. It holds two of 31 ISA exploration licenses. As ISA negotiations dragged on, company executives lobbied Trump White House officials to issue seabed mining licenses. A polymetallic nodule “was presented to the president last week and now sits on the Resolute Desk” in the Oval Office, Barron said at a congressional hearing on Tuesday. The company’s US subsidiary has applied for the US seabed mining licenses.

What is the US authority to issue mining licenses in international waters?

It’s complicated. While the Law of the Sea treaty was being negotiated, the US enacted the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act to allow it to grant mining licenses in international waters. The idea at the time was that the law would serve as a placeholder — “an interim legal regime,” in the words of the legislation, until the treaty came into force so that companies would be encouraged to develop deep sea mining technology.

But when the Law of the Sea treaty became what is called “the constitution of the ocean” 14 years later, the US Congress declined to ratify it. Though the US isn’t a member of the ISA, it participates in the organization’s proceedings as an observer and has generally abided by  the treaty’s provisions. (The ISA reserved a permanent seat on its policymaking body for the country in case it eventually ratifies the treaty.) With his executive order, Trump reversed the US government’s longstanding position, upending multilateral deliberations about deep-sea mining. TMC is the first company to apply for a mining license under the 45-year-old US seabed mining law.

Doesn’t TMC already hold ISA exploration licenses?

Yes, and what’s fueling outrage among the diplomatic corps is that TMC wants US permission to mine an area it licensed from the ISA under the sponsorship of Nauru, a tiny and impoverished Pacific island nation to whom the company has agreed to pay royalties under its ISA contract. TMC declined to comment on whether those obligations to Nauru remain if it is issued a US mining license. Even as it seeks a US license, the company still plans to apply for an ISA mining contract in June, despite the absence of mining regulations.

How has the ISA responded to Trump and TMC?

Member nations are divided over whether deep sea mining should proceed but agree that the ISA is the sole authority empowered to make such decisions. “Circumventing the regulatory authority of ISA not only breaches international law, but also erodes trust, exacerbates global inequality and silences the voices of least developed countries,” the ISA said in a statement released after Trump signed the executive order.

What happens next?

TMC said it expects the initial US review of its mining application to be completed within 60 days. Matt Giacona, the acting principal deputy director of the US Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said that other deep-sea mining application reviews, such as for exploration licenses, will move faster. “These new permitting procedures will reduce a multi-year process down to just 28 days upon request by project applicants,” he said at a press briefing last week.

That timeline worries deep-sea biologist Diva Amon. “It will likely prevent robust assessment of whether environmental obligations will be fulfilled,” said Amon, a science advisor to the Benioff Ocean Science Laboratory at the University of California at Santa Barbara. “Currently we know little about the animals inhabiting the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, including their ecology and how they will cope with the potential impacts of deep-sea mining.”

TMC has previously said it expected to begin commercial mining in 2026 if it obtained an ISA license. While the company tested a small-scale prototype of a nodule mining machine in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in 2022, it will need to secure a full-size commercial version capable of operating continuously under crushing pressure and ice-cold conditions.

Where would nodules be processed?

The US has no current capacity to process and refine the minerals contained in nodules into metals suitable for making electric car batteries and other products. A Japanese company has conducted processing trials for TMC but building industrial-scale operations for nodules could require billions of dollars in investment. “Polymetallic nodules are a unique resource, and there is no proven processing technology that can recover all four saleable elements contained in them,” stated an April RAND report on seabed mining.

(By Todd Woody)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ukrainian parliament must still approve the pact.

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

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

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

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

Vatican talks were key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following the company’s annual general meeting in Perth on Thursday, chief executive Jakob Stausholm said the board had discussed rare earths this week and would take a “serious look” at their potential role in Rio Tinto’s portfolio.

Stausholm said that as the company continues to optimize its iron ore operations in the Pilbara and advances developments like the Simandou iron ore project in Guinea, it’s also reshaping its aluminum, copper, and lithium businesses to support the energy transition.

“So you could say, the next thing is to look a little bit deeper on critical minerals, and you have to think about that, not necessarily as separate mines,” Stausholm told reporters. He noted critical minerals are often present in Rio’s existing operations as a by-product, so “it’s a question of whether we should process them more deliberately.”

Rio Tinto already produces scandium as a by-product of titanium dioxide in Quebec and is weighing the production of gallium from its aluminum operations. Stausholm noted that the absence of a robust spot market for many critical minerals means Rio must ensure demand before scaling up production.

Chairman Dominic Barton echoed the cautious approach, pointing to the limited scale of the sector. “That’s why you don’t typically see the top five [largest miners] in this space,” he said. But with global supply chain diversification becoming a priority, Barton said they are asking themselves whether they should revisit what they already have and assess the economics.

Barton also said critical minerals could help strengthen Rio’s social licence to operate. “It’s interesting how often those with fewer resources are the most vocal,” he added.

Tariffs, Canada and the aluminum market

On tariffs, Barton said Rio could compete under the current global framework, though the company isn’t enthusiastic about trade barriers. “We’re not excited about tariffs, but we’ve got to live with what governments are doing,” he said, adding that if they’re applied uniformly, the company “would manage” because of its position on the cost curve.

Barton welcomed the recent Canadian election results, suggesting they provided a mandate for continued negotiations. He praised the country’s recognition of aluminum’s economic importance, especially given Rio’s workforce in Canada.

As a former Canadian ambassador to China, Barton said China’s economy could absorb short-term tariff impacts.

“Urbanisation, GDP consumption rates, and green infrastructure investment all support long-term steel demand,” he said. “We expect a new equilibrium despite near-term discomfort.”

Working in the US

Stausholm highlighted Rio’s significant presence in the US, including the Kennecott copper mine and smelter in Utah, a boron mine in California, and the Resolution copper project in Arizona.

“The US government is very, very keen on seeing us getting the most out of those assets, so it provides opportunities to serve the US government,” Stausholm said.

He added that tariff policies wouldn’t necessarily affect Rio’s long-term investment decisions. Last month, the US government fast-tracked permitting for the Resolution project, and Stausholm said the joint venture with BHP (ASX: BHP) is moving forward.

“Unlike Australia, the US has seen limited mining development in recent decades—this represents a shift”, he said.

Activist campaign fails

A proposal from UK-based hedge fund Palliser Capital to force a review of Rio’s dual-listed company (DLC) structure failed to gain traction. The company rejected the motion, with Barton stating the board had already reviewed the structure in detail last year with advice from five external consultants.

“All of this work showed that a unification of the DLC would be value destructive for the group and its shareholders,” Barton said.

Only 19.35% of shareholders supported the motion. Under UK law, a 75% majority is required to mandate a review, while 20% support would have have required the company to engage further with shareholders.

The agreement “signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine over the long term,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement late Wednesday.

Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko also confirmed the deal on social media. In a post on X, she wrote: “Together with the United States, we are creating the Fund that will attract global investment into our country.”

The deal, as first reported by Bloomberg News, will grant the US priority access to new investment projects involving critical materials such as aluminum, graphite, oil and natural gas. It also establishes a reconstruction fund, managed by Washington, through which profits will be funneled.

The fund is intended to support Ukraine’s recovery and offset future US military assistance, the draft of the agreement reads.

Trump’s 100th day

The announcement comes as US President Donald Trump marks the first 100 days of his new term, amid mounting pressure to deliver foreign policy wins and restore his political standing. Trump, whose support Kyiv views as critical to any potential truce with Moscow, has expressed frustration with the pace of ceasefire negotiations.

“We made a deal where our money is secure, where we can start digging and doing what we have to do,” Trump told a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. “It’s also good for them because you’ll have an American presence at the site … that will keep a lot of bad actors out.”

The agreement follows weeks of negotiations, including a visit by Ukrainian officials to Washington earlier this month. Talks had stalled over technical details until the sides agreed to finalize all components of the deal simultaneously.

Earlier in the day, the Financial Times reported the deal had hit a last-minute snag, with issues arising related to governance, transparency mechanisms and the traceability of funds.

Resource partnership

The reconstruction fund is designed to facilitate future cooperation in energy and resource development, including mining and technology. Kyiv views the pact as a strategic step toward its long-term goal of joining the European Union—an issue Ukraine insisted must not be compromised.

According to Reuters, while the agreement gives US preferential access to new Ukrainian natural resources deals, it would not automatically hand Washington a share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth.

US officials said that the deal does not require Ukraine to repay past military aid, estimated in the billions of dollars since Russia’s full-scale invasion began over three years ago. Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal confirmed that Washington had dropped its earlier demand for retroactive compensation.

“This economic partnership positions our two countries to work collaboratively and invest together,” the US Treasury said.

As part of the agreement, OM Commodities will supply Ace Green with at least 30,000 metric tons of lead scrap annually, which the company expects to recycle at its planned flagship facility in Texas, with production expected to begin in 2026.

The level of feedstock is sufficient to cover 100% of Ace Green’s Phase 1 recycling capacity at its future Texas facility, it said.

The agreement is for a term of at least 15 years and provides Ace Green with the option to obtain more supply from OM Commodities as it scales up its recycling operations.

Ace Green said it is also in active discussions with OM Commodities for future lithium battery recycling collaborations.

“Ace is a pioneer when it comes to providing an environmentally friendly and economically superior solution to recycle valuable material from lead scrap,” OM Commodities president Yiannis Dumas said in a news release. “We look forward to supporting Ace with lead feedstock as they scale up their operations in Texas and helping create a more circular and sustainable battery materials supply chain in the US.”

With more than 1.5 million metric tons of lead battery scrap available for recycling in the US alone, there is a critical gap in smelter capacity to keep valuable lead material within the domestic supply chain.

Ace said its GREENLEAD recycling technology is a fully electric process that produces zero Scope 1 emissions and is capable of recovering up to 99% of battery-grade lead with more than 99.98% purity.

The company said its process is designed to replace legacy smelting operations that are detrimental to the environment and human health due to potential lead poisoning. It also said the innovation helps to facilitate a more streamlined permitting process.

“We believe that Ace’s future Texas facility is poised to play a key role in addressing many of the current challenges in the lead industry in the US, while helping the country meet the growing domestic demand for valuable battery materials,” Ace Green CEO Nishchay Chadha said.

“This agreement with OM Commodities will provide us with enough supply to support our Texas facility during all of its current planned phases, enabling us to achieve optimal efficiencies as we deploy our solutions in the US market.”

The Charlotte, North Carolina-based company, which operates across the Americas, Asia and Australia, kept its sales and earnings forecast for the year, noting that the lithium and some other critical minerals are for now exempt from tariffs that Washington aims to impose on trading partners.

“While the full economic impact of the recently announced tariffs and other global trade actions is unclear, we benefit from our global footprint and the current exemptions for critical minerals,” CEO Kent Masters said in a press release.

Still, Albemarle, like many of its peers, has struggled the past two years to weather a lithium supply glut caused by overproduction in China that has forced it to cut staff and curtail expansion projects.

The company gave no indication that market dynamics are improving, with Masters noting the company continues “to focus on what we can control.”

Albemarle reported a first-quarter net loss for common shareholders of $340,000, or zero cents per share, compared to a loss of $9.1 million, or 8 cents per share, in the year-ago period.

Excluding costs to curtail expansion projects, losses on investments and other one-time items, the Charlotte, North Carolina-based company lost 18 cents per share.

By that measure, analysts expected earnings of 59 cents per share, according to IBES data from LSEG.

The company’s Energy Storage division, which sells lithium, reported a $276.3 million drop in revenue caused by a 34% slide in prices the company receives for its lithium.

The company’s stock fell slightly to $58.35 in after-hours trading.

Albemarle plans to discuss the quarterly results on a Thursday morning conference call with investors.

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Stephen Coates)

Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion for electric vehicles, cell phones and other electronics.

The existing standard to refine these minerals, known as solvent extraction, is an expensive and dirty process that gradually became unpopular in the United States after it was developed in the 1950s but one that Chinese companies have mastered.

China’s exports of rare earths have ground to a halt, fueling a scramble across the West for replacements. Phoenix says its process can produce rare earths from mined ore or recycled equipment with little to no emissions.

Sumitomo’s Presidio venture arm, along with Builders Vision, Yamaha Motor, and venture capital funds Envisioning Partners, MPower and Escape Velocity, joined a $33 million tranche for Phoenix’s Series B funding round, which closed on April 25, the company said.

Phoenix declined to disclose each investor’s funding.

The company will use the funding as part of its construction of a $13 million facility in Exeter, New Hampshire, that can produce 200 metric tons of rare earths annually initially and should open later this year.

The company last December closed a first tranche of its Series B round worth $43 million, bringing the total round to $76 million.

A $10 million Series A funding round closed in August 2021.

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

USAR is currently finishing the construction of a 310,000-square-foot facility in Stillwater, Oklahoma — also known as Innovation Lab — which it officially opened in late March, having already produced the first batch of sintered magnets earlier in the year.

The plant is designed to replicate the complete rare earth magnet production process, the company said. Following the recent commissioning, it will begin producing protypes for customers ahead of commercial operations in 2026.

At full capacity, the state-of-the-art facility is expected to produce 5,000 tonnes, or hundreds of millions of magnets annually, according to company estimates.

The company, which debuted on the NASDAQ mid-March, previously said that it would invest $100 million in the manufacturing facility.

As part of a vertically integrated supply chain strategy, USAR holds the Round Top deposit in West Texas, where it produced its first sample of dysprosium oxide in January.

The company has said it aims to bring the deposit towards production around the same time as the Oklahoma plant.

The $75 million funding was made via a private investment in public equity (PIPE), the company said.

“This sizable commitment from a single institution allows us to fully fund the capex required for the first phase of our rare earth magnet facility,” USA Rare Earth CEO Joshua Ballard said in a statement.

He also highlighted this as a “pivotal moment” in the company’s push to build what would be one of the largest sintered rare earth magnet facilities in the US.

Under the PIPE transaction, the investor would acquire 8.55 million shares of common stock, pre-funded warrants to purchase another 2.16 million shares and warrants to purchase the combined total number of shares at a strike price of $7.00 per share.

Despite the funding, USAR fell 18.3% at market close to $10.51 apiece, close to where it traded at when it first listed. The stock decline gives the company a market capitalization of $861.3 million.

A new chart from MINING.COM and The Northern Miner shows China now controls over half the world’s copper processing capacity, far ahead of its rivals.

 MINING.COM‘s Devan Murugan sat down with Northern Miner Group President Anthony Vaccaro, to unpack what this power shift means for global supply chains and investors.

Explore the full infographic:

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

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

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

China takes lead

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

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

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

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

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

Vast thorium supply

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

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

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

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

Total gold demand reached 1,206 tonnes in the first three months of 2025, a 1% increase from the same period a year ago, the WGC said in a new report Wednesday. Soaring inflows into gold ETFs fuelled a 170% surge in investment demand to 552 tonnes, the highest since the first quarter of 2022, WGC said.

As gold prices set multiple record highs this year, including touching $3,500.05 per oz. last week, investors have piled into physical gold ETFs, which grew by $21 billion in the first quarter, their second highest quarterly level since the second quarter of 2020.

Gold’s average price reached $2,860 per oz. in the quarter, a 38% jump from a year ago, according to data compiled by the London Bullion Market Association.

Flows into gold

Investment flows into physical gold will probably continue to gather pace this year, the WGC said. Key factors supporting demand include continued geopolitical tensions, near-term stagflation risks, medium-term recession risks, elevated correlations between stocks and bonds and an expected increase in US deficits.

Central banks bought 244 tonnes of gold in the first quarter, 21% less than in the same period a year ago but within the quarterly range of the last three years. Persistent trade tensions will probably drive full-year central bank purchases close to the range of the past three years, according to the WGC.

First-quarter bar and coin demand rose 2.6% to 325 tonnes, which is 15% above the five-year quarterly average. China accounted for much of the increase, posting its second-highest quarter of retail investment.

Tech demand

Technology demand was little changed at 80.5 tonnes. Ongoing artificial intelligence adoption drove continued growth in the electronics sector, but uncertainty over tariffs should result in a challenging environment for the rest of the year, the WGC said.

Jewelry consumption shrank 21% from the year-ago quarter to 380 tonnes, weighed down by elevated prices. Consumption in the period hit its lowest level since the Covid-19 pandemic brought global economies to a standstill in 2020, and WGC economists predict full-year jewelry demand will be weaker than expected in 2025 on lower growth and higher prices.

Total gold supply grew 1% from a year earlier to 1,206 tonnes, with mine production hitting a first-quarter record of 856 tonnes. Recycling declined 1% as consumers kept their gold hoping for higher prices.

Mine supply this year will probably stay close to its 2024 record level, the WGC said. “Unprecedented” cash generation should allow announced development plans to advance and mine production to stay strong. While Ghana, Chile and Canada have healthy production pipelines, disruptions in Turkey and Russia and cutbacks in Australia are expected to weigh on total output.

Read More: Annual gold price forecast tops $3,000 for first time: Reuters poll

The poll of 29 analysts and traders returned a median forecast of $3,065 per troy ounce of gold for this year, up from $2,756 predicted in a poll three months ago. The estimated price for 2026 rose to $3,000 from $2,700.

Spot gold prices have risen by a quarter so far in 2025, almost equalling the 27% increase recorded for the whole of 2024. Bullion, often seen as a store of value during uncertain times, has averaged $2,952 so far this year, according to LSEG data.

“Gold looks set for what can only be described as another epic year,” said independent analyst Ross Norman. “Like in the early 2000s, gold is seeing buying on price strength which can have the effect of feeding upon itself.”

Bullion broke above the $3,000 mark for the first time in mid-March and topped $3,500 last week as the trade battle between the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, boosted safe-haven demand, on top of persistent central bank buying.

Although the gold price has since eased to $3,273, analysts expect it to remain supported by the wild swings in US tariff policies and what are likely to be protracted trade negotiations.

“Gold’s fortune will continue to depend on other markets’ misfortune,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank. Bullion will remain supported, according to Hansen, as long as the focus remains on de-dollarization and the impact of US tariffs on global growth and fiscal stability.

At the same time, analysts warned of a crowded trade, while the high prices are curbing jewellery sector demand.

“Price risks persist given the physical market is wavering and central bank flows – while positive – are slowing, while an unwinding of tariff risk and fading recession risk can stall gold’s safe-haven appeal,” said Standard Chartered analyst Suki Cooper.

Silver, meanwhile, has underperformed gold with a rise of 12% so far this year, as it doesn’t benefit from central bank buying while investment demand has been dampened by growth worries. Half of total demand for silver comes from the industrial sector.

The poll forecast an average 2025 silver price of $33.10 per ounce, unchanged from the previous survey. It has averaged $32 so far this year.

Analysts lifted their 2026 silver price forecast to $34.58 from $33.45, expecting a structural market deficit and the global clean energy transition to provide support.

“Industrial demand is currently a little hampered by oversupply of solar cells but this should work its way through. Strengthening demand from autos and AI will also help to keep the market in a deficit of supply vs fabrication demand, which will widen in 2026,” said StoneX analyst Rhona O’Connell.

(By Anmol Choubey, Kavya Balaraman and Polina Devitt; Editing by Veronica Brown and Kirsten Donovan)

The Group, which recently concluded its biannual meeting with key industry players in Lisbon, forecasts global copper surplus to reach 289,000 tonnes in 2025, more than double the 138,000 tonnes from last year. This forecast also represents a larger surplus than its earlier projection of 194,000 tonnes.

In 2026, the surplus is expected to remain high at 209,000 tonnes, extending the surplus for a third straight year after a largely balanced market in 2023.

The widening surplus over the 2025-26 period, according to ICSG, can be largely attributed to higher mine supply and rising smelting capacity.

Mine supply growth

For 2025, the Group expects global mine production to increase by 2.3% to 23.5 million tonnes, benefiting mainly from the ramp-up of the Kamoa-Kakula mine in the DRC and Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia and the commissioning of the new Malmyz mine in Russia.

In 2026, a higher growth of 2.5% is anticipated, supported by the continued ramp-up of new/expanded capacity (including China), an expected improvement in Chilean and Zambian output, and a recovery in Indonesia from expected declines in 2025.

In both years, ICSG said a series of smaller expansions and the start-up of a number of small and medium-sized mines will also contribute to the increase in global production notably in the DRC, Brazil, Iran, Uzbekistan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Greece, Angola and Morocco.

Higher refining capacity

The ICSG also sees expanded Chinese smelting capacity, as well as the start-up of new refineries in India, Indonesia and DRC, to contribute to a 2.9% increase in refined copper output this year.

In 2026, however, total refined production is expected to decline by 1.5%, due to constrained availability of copper concentrates leading to a slowdown in primary refined production. This will be offset partially continued growth in the secondary processing sector, which generates refined copper from scrap.

Demand impact

According to the ICSG, uncertainty surrounding international trade policy is likely to weaken the global economic outlook and negatively impact copper demand, dragging this year’s refined copper usage down to 2.4% compared to its previous forecast of 2.7% and the 2.8% recorded in 2024.

Copper usage growth is expected to slow further to 1.8% in 2026, largely reflecting an anticipated loss of momentum in China, where copper usage is expected to shrink from 2% this year to just 0.8% next year.

Demand in other key copper regions such as Europe, Japan and the US is also expected to remain “subdued”, leaving the Asia region as the lone key driver of demand.

However, ICSG also acknowledged that demand drivers such as energy transition technology and data centers will continue to support copper usage, helping to offset some of the broader manufacturing hit from a prolonged trade war.

The full ICSG report is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A historic run in gold prices has shaken up the MINING.com Top 50, putting precious metals back on top—and pushing battery metal and base metal giants down the list.

The latest rankings reveal fresh momentum for gold stocks, new market entrants, and a major geographic shift in mining power.

In a conversation with Devan Murugan, Frik Els, the editor behind the list, breaks down what these changes signal for investors, and where the industry may be heading next.

The price forecast is one of the most bullish yet as banks and others move to increase their own estimates after gold hit a record high just above $3,500 last week. Deutsche Bank, for one, expects bullion to hit $3,700 an ounce by next year.

Already the largest shareholder in Idaho gold and antimony developer Perpetua Resources, Paulson last week bought a 40% stake in NovaGold’s Donlin gold project in Alaska from Barrick.

Asked where he expects bullion prices to head, Paulson cited a recent estimate put to him for levels at the “high $4,000 range” within three years.

“It’s a well-informed prediction. I think that’s a reasonable number,” Paulson said.

“As central banks and people look to put their money in a more stable source… I think gold will increase its position in the world,” he added.

The New York-based investor cited Western confiscation of Russia’s foreign reserve holdings after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine as a catalyst for the world’s central banks – especially China’s – to pile into gold.

“When the war started, (Russia) kept their physical gold, that was safe, but all their cash – the paper reserves – were confiscated,” Paulson said.

“So that caused other central banks to wake up and say … ‘What happens if there’s a conflict with the US? Could the US keep our treasuries, and all our savings would disappear?'” Paulson said.

He added that he sees global trade uncertainty, fueled in part by Washington’s tariffs, as further underpinning gold.

“The best place to go if your faith in the (US) dollar diminishes is gold as a reserve currency,” said Paulson, who was considered for a role in US President Donald Trump’s second-term cabinet.

Paulson declined to discuss details of conversations with Trump, but said the president has been “very pro on America first and the golden age of America, and bringing manufacturing and mining back to America.”

Mines

Paulson, who has long invested in gold, said he has no interest in expanding into copper or other metals. “Other minerals are a whole different world, so we’re concentrating our efforts in gold,” he said.

In Idaho, Paulson is the largest shareholder in Perpetua, which received its federal mining permit in January, is applying for funding from the US Export-Import Bank, and has received support from Trump’s White House.

Perpetua’s gold production is seen as financially buttressing the mine’s antimony production and ensuring a domestic supply of the metal – used in bullets and other weaponry – for the Pentagon. China has blocked antimony exports to the US.

Perpetua is working with Sunshine Silver & Refining – backed by metals investor Thomas Kaplan’s Electrum Group – to build an antimony refinery. Sunshine holds permits to build such a refinery, which would supply 40% of the nation’s needs.

“It’s a very well-established (refining) process,” said Kaplan. “We’re just upgrading it and putting it back into production.” In Alaska, the Donlin project has federal permits and Paulson said should have operating costs around $1,000 an ounce, far below current gold prices.

Paulson and Electrum are also invested in International Tower Hill, which is developing an Alaska gold mine, as well as Trilogy Metals, which aims to develop projects in Alaska’s Ambler district.

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Veronica Brown and Jan Harvey)

In February, Sibanye pulled out of a $490 million investment for a 50% stake in the project, citing it did not meet the company’s “investment hurdle rates at prudent pricing assumptions”. The South African miner has recorded two consecutive years of losses, amid a slump in platinum and palladium prices that curtailed its core mining business.

Sibanye initially agreed to invest in Rhyolite Ridge in September 2021, recognizing the project’s potential as the largest lithium mine in the US. At the time, it was one of the largest investments ever announced in the US lithium market amid a battery metals boom. Since then, the lithium market has gone on a rollercoaster ride, with the metal’s price falling sharply after peaking in late 2022.

Despite a still-sluggish lithium market, ioneer is confident of finding a new investor to replace Sibanye.

Managing director Bernard Rowe told FT he is “very confident that in the near term we’ll have that equity in place”, adding that the company wants to sell 40% of the project to one or two investors. The proposed mine, located roughly 362 km north of Las Vegas, hosts one of the largest lithium resources in America, and one of only two projects currently in the advanced stage.

A 2020 Rhyolite Ridge definitive feasibility study modelled a mine life of 26 years, with annual production of 22,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate. The production is expected to power approximately 370,000 electric vehicles per year. Initial capital cost of the lithium mine is estimated at $785 million.

Federico Gay, a lithium analyst at Benchmark, told FT that the Rhyolite Ridge mine would be expensive to build, but would be competitive compared with other lithium mines once operational.

Higher valuation

In the FT report, ioneer said it is “looking for a higher valuation” than the $1.3 billion net present value estimate from 2020, as the project is now fully permitted and the deposit is larger than forecast.

A February 2025 resource update showed a 45% increase to 510 million tonnes, containing nearly 4 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent. Over 80% of the resource is in the higher-confidence measured and indicated categories.

The Australian miner also reiterated the backing from the US government, which in January approved a loan of nearly $1 billion to fund the construction of a processing facility alongside the mine. The loan, however, is contingent on the company securing an equity partner for the Rhyolite Ridge project.

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

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

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

Resilience amid volatility

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

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

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

Supply lags demand

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

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

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

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

Fast-tracking approvals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investment in critical minerals

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

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

US tariffs

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

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

Energy superpower

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental commitments

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

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

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

The US president has put pressure on Kyiv by threatening to stop the flow of military supplies to help it fight Russia’s invasion unless the US gets some payback for the billions of dollars the aid is costing.

But the deal is sensitive for Ukraine, which has a proud history of mining coal and iron ore and hopes to exploit seams of increasingly sought-after rare earths. Mineral revenues are a crucial pillar of the state budget.

In the city of Kryvyi Rih, on whose outskirts open-cast iron ore mines have gouged huge craters in the landscape, 71-year-old pensioner Oleksandr had little time for Trump: “You can’t trust that ginger guy, he’s not that kind of person.”

“From what I can see, they only want to take, not to give,” he said as he shopped near the UGOK iron ore mining and processing plant.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, himself from Kryvyi Rih, said on Monday the negotiations on creating a mineral revenue fund from which the US would draw had made progress since a memorandum of intent signed on April 18:

“The document has become much stronger – more equitable – and could be beneficial to both our peoples, for Ukraine and for America.”

‘Minerals belong to the people’

Zelenskiy knows he must win Trump over after a difficult relationship so far, but that there will be uproar at home if he makes a bad deal.

About 60 km (40 miles) north of Kryvyi Rih is the town of Zhovti Vody – or “yellow waters” – where uranium and iron ore were mined for decades.

“I hope that the people who are involved in this think about Ukraine and its people, because our mineral riches belong to the people,” said 71-year-old resident Nina Fesenko.

Olga Marynska, 68, said she hoped the government would prevent Ukraine being exploited.

“We don’t have to give them everything,” she said. “I don’t think we have to do it in such a way that they take everything out of that fund.”

Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said on Sunday that there was now agreement that the deal would not seek to pay for US aid provided to Kyiv in the past.

That may help to reassure Ukrainians who feel they have battled Russia since 2022 not only for themselves but also on behalf of the West: the US-led NATO defence alliance that they seek to join, and the European nations to which many Ukrainians feel much closer than to President Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

“I do think that for us as Ukrainians, it feels a little bit like another country is using our vulnerability, which was not created by us,” said Ukrainian legislator Inna Sovsun.

She said it was “critically important when we are designing the future to keep in mind that people will live here in the future”.

(By Vladyslav Smilianets, Thomas Peter, Anastasiia Malenko and Christian Lowe; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

The company’s US subsidiary, TMC USA, filed the applications under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) and regulations set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which collectively form the US seabed mining code. 

The move comes just days after President Donald Trump issued an executive order to fast-track offshore mining, aiming to boost access to critical minerals despite strong opposition from environmental groups.

TMC’s two exploration licence applications cover a combined 199,895 square kilometres, while the commercial recovery permit covers 25,160 square kilometres within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a resource-rich swath of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico. These areas include the company’s indicated and measured polymetallic nodule resources.

The zones hold 1.63 billion wet metric tonnes of SEC SK 1300-compliant nodules, with an estimated exploration upside of 500 million tonnes, according to the company.

The resource is projected to contain 15.5 million tonnes of nickel, 12.8 million tonnes of copper, 2 million tonnes of cobalt, and 345 million tonnes of manganese — metals critical for batteries, clean energy, infrastructure and defence applications.

“This marks a major step forward — not just for TMC USA, but for America’s mineral independence and industrial resurgence,” CEO Gerard Barron said in a statement. “We’re offering the US a shovel-ready path to new and abundant supplies of critical metals.”

The Trump administration views deep-sea mining as a strategic route to reduce dependence on foreign mineral supply chains. A White House official suggested the industry could generate up to 100,000 jobs and add hundreds of billions to the economy over the next decade.

Hurdles remain

The company’s ambitions are not without controversy. Environmentalists have long warned that the impacts of deep-sea mining are poorly understood. Critics argue more scientific research is needed before any commercial extraction begins, citing risks to fragile ecosystems and ocean biodiversity.

Supporters counter that deep-sea mining is essential to meet rising global demand for minerals. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts the need for copper and rare earth elements will grow by 40% in the coming years, driven by clean technology and electrification.

TMC has pledged to mitigate environmental damage by leaving at least 30% of its contract areas untouched. The company also claims its modern nodule collector disturbs only the top three centimetres of seabed sediment, far less than earlier technologies.

Still, TMC’s application could reignite tensions at the international level. The company has been operating in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone for years under exploration contracts backed by the UN-affiliated International Seabed Authority (ISA), which governs mining in international waters. But the US is not a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and TMC’s move to seek approval under US law may be seen as sidestepping international consensus.

Critics warn such actions could undermine more than a decade of negotiations aimed at finalizing global regulations for seabed mining, potentially setting a precedent for other countries or companies to bypass multilateral frameworks.