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)

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 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)

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)

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.

Signed in private, the order aims to accelerate the mining of critical minerals in both US and international waters, part of a broader strategy to counter China’s dominance in the global supply of these resources.

“The US authorization… violates international law and harms the overall interests of the international community,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said, the BBC reported.

The move has stirred international criticism, especially over its provision to allow seabed exploration beyond US jurisdiction. Deep-sea mining has increasingly come into focus as countries seek access to valuable metals like nickel, manganese, and cobalt — key components in batteries for electric vehicles and smartphones.

Estimates suggest the ocean floor holds between $8 trillion and $16 trillion worth of these metals. In US waters alone, more than a billion metric tons of mineral-rich nodules could be extracted, potentially adding $300 billion to its GDP over a decade and creating 100,000 jobs, according to administration officials.

“The United States has a core national security and economic interest in maintaining leadership in deep-sea science and technology and seabed mineral resources,” Trump stated in the order.

The directive calls for fast-tracking permits under the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and sets up a permitting process along the US Outer Continental Shelf. It also pushes for quicker review of applications to mine in international waters — a move expected to trigger push back from the global community.

“We want the US to get ahead of China in this resource space under the ocean, on the ocean bottom,” a US official told the BBC.

Environmental groups remain critical of seabed mining, warning it could irreparably damage fragile marine ecosystems that are still poorly understood and already stressed by pollution, industrial trawling and climate change.

In a recent interview, Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company (TMC), told MINING.COM that the US government’s renewed emphasis on domestic mineral production is well-timed.

“Mineral security is really important for critical minerals, and many in the new administration have been tremendous supporters,” Barron said. “So we’re going into 2025 thinking this will be a breakout year.”

TMC, which is partnered with the Republic of Nauru, plans to submit its first application to begin mining operations on June 27, just ahead of the International Seabed Authority’s next meeting in July.

The Hermosa project is currently the only advanced US mining project capable of producing two federally designated critical minerals: zinc and manganese, and received board approval for $2.16 billion in funding to develop the zinc-lead-silver deposit in February.

This represents the largest private investment in southern Arizona’s history, and the largest investment in the local Santa Cruz county economy to date by nearly nine times, the Australian miner said.

Last year, the Hermosa project became the first to be added to the United States’ FAST-41 permitting process. The company said it has the potential to become one of the world’s largest zinc producers.

Centro will use advanced automation to enhance safety and productivity — key pillars of sustainable operations, the company said, adding that the groundbreaking is the result of nearly three years of design and planning to align with its long-term economic and employment goals in Santa Cruz county.

Supporting an ‘All in Community’ workforce development ecosystem, the groundbreaking also marks the launch of the South32 Hermosa Workforce Development Executive Committee – an expanded initiative aimed at supporting long-term workforce development across Santa Cruz.

The committee brings together local education leaders and South32 representatives to focus on post secondary education, facilities development, resources and training needs of the local businesses, the company said.

“Centro represents more than just a facility – it is a commitment to create economic opportunity and shared value in Santa Cruz county,” South32 Hermosa president Pat Risner said in a news release.

“By establishing Centro in Nogales, we are ensuring that the economic benefits of Hermosa stay local, providing high-skilled, good-paying jobs and supporting the development of a skilled workforce for generations, while also providing opportunities for both populations historically excluded from the industry and underrepresented community groups.”

Attendees at the ceremony included Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, local and state officials, municipal leaders, and representatives from organizations such as the Port Authority, The Nature Conservancy and the University of Arizona.

“Centro, as the project’s state-of-the-art operations center, will create good-paying jobs and strengthen our economy,” said Congressman Juan Ciscomani.

“South32 Hermosa’s Centro is a major step forward for regional development and the production of critical minerals in southern Arizona,” Ciscomani added. “By anchoring high quality jobs, workforce training, and critical infrastructure in our communities, this project strengthens the local economy and positions our region to continue to serve as a hub for responsible innovation and growth.”

The order, which Trump signed in private, seeks to jumpstart the mining of both US and international waters as part of a push to offset China’s sweeping control of the critical minerals industry.

Reuters first reported last month that the order was under deliberation.

Parts of the Pacific Ocean and elsewhere are estimated to contain large amounts of potato-shaped rocks known as polymetallic nodules filled with the building blocks for electric vehicles and electronics.

More than 1 billion metric tons of those nodules are estimated to be in US waters and filled with manganese, nickel, copper and other critical minerals, according to an administration official.

Extracting them could boost US GDP by $300 billion over 10 years and create 100,000 jobs, the official added.

“The United States has a core national security and economic interest in maintaining leadership in deep-sea science and technology and seabed mineral resources,” Trump said in the order.

The order directs the administration to expedite mining permits under the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resource Act of 1980 and to establish a process for issuing permits along the US Outer Continental Shelf.

It also orders the expedited review of seabed mining permits “in areas beyond the national jurisdiction,” a move likely to spark friction with the international community.

The International Seabed Authority – created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the US has not ratified – has for years been considering standards for deep-sea mining in international waters, although it has yet to formalize them due to unresolved differences over acceptable levels of dust, noise and other factors from the practice.

Supporters of deep-sea mining say it would lessen the need for large mining operations on land, which are often unpopular with host communities. Environmental groups are calling for all activities to be banned, warning that industrial operations on the ocean floor could cause irreversible biodiversity loss.

“The deep ocean belongs to everyone and protecting it is humanity’s global duty. The sea floor environment is not a platform for ‘America First’ extraction,” said Emily Jeffers of the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group that opposes the practice.

Any country can allow deep-sea mining in its own territorial waters, roughly up to 200 nautical miles from shore, and companies are already lining up to mine US waters.

Impossible Metals earlier this month asked the administration to launch a commercial auction for access to deposits of nickel, cobalt and other critical minerals off the coast of American Samoa.

Shares of The Metals Company – among the most prominent of deep-sea mining companies – rose on Thursday by roughly 40% to hit a 52-week high of $3.39 per share after the Reuters report earlier in the day on the executive order.

“With a stable, transparent, and enforceable regulatory pathway available under existing US law, we look forward to delivering the world’s first commercial nodule project, responsibly and economically,” said Gerard Barron, CEO of the company, which aims to extract nodules from a vast plain of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.

Beyond The Metals Company, others eyeing deep-sea mining include California-based Impossible Metals, Russia’s JSC Yuzhmorgeologiya, Blue Minerals Jamaica, China Minmetals, and Kiribati’s Marawa Research and Exploration.

Other mining steps

US access to critical minerals – especially those produced by Chinese companies – has dwindled in recent months as Beijing has limited exports of several types. That, in turn, has ratcheted up pressure on Washington to support efforts to boost domestic mining.

Last week, Trump officials fast-tracked permitting on 10 mining projects across the United States and implemented an abbreviated approval process for mining projects on federal lands.

The administration also said it would approve one of the country’s largest copper mines.

Trump’s Thursday order uses the term “rare earths” to broadly refer to all critical minerals and is not meant to imply the administration believes the nodules contain neodymium and the 16 other rare earths, the administration official said.

(By Jarrett Renshaw and Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Aidan Lewis and Daniel Wallis)

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

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

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

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

Newcomers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing counters gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare earth representation

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

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

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

Lithium down to a single stock

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White House said it will add more projects.

The initial 10 are listed on a US federal website where their permitting progress can be publicly tracked, part of what the Trump administration calls a push for greater transparency and faster permitting.

“This transparency leads to greater accountability, ensuring a more efficient process,” the White House said in a statement.

The move boosts a proposed Idaho antimony and gold mine from Perpetua Resources, a proposed Arizona copper mine from Rio Tinto, a proposed Montana copper and silver mine from Hecla Mining, expansion of Albemarle’s Nevada lithium mine, an Arkansas direct lithium extraction project from Standard Lithium, and an Alabama metallurgical coal project from Warrior Met Coal, among others. Metallurgical coal is used to make steel.

Perpetua said it was “honored by this selection … which validates the urgency and importance of our project for America’s economic and national security.”

Rio said it believes its Resolution copper project in Arizona “is vital to securing America’s energy future and infrastructure needs with a domestic supply of copper.”

Albemarle said it looks “forward to further engaging with the administration as it seeks to advance a US lithium supply chain.”

Standard Lithium and Warrior were not immediately available to comment.

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.

Trump earlier this week 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 Lisa Shumaker and Chris Reese)

The company’s South Africa manganese operations produced 476,000 wet metric tons of manganese ore, down from 530,000 wmt a year before.

Its Australia manganese division reported no production in the third quarter as the primary concentrator at the operation was paused having established stockpiles ahead of the wet season.

The world’s biggest producer of manganese ore produced 476,000 wet metric tons (wmt) of the steel-making ingredient for the three months ended March 31, down from 1.2 million wmt a year earlier.

That compared with a Visible Alpha consensus estimate of about 678,900 wmt.

(By Sherin Sunny and Aaditya Govind Rao; Editing by Devika Syamnath)

The Trump administration is drafting an executive order to enable stockpiling of deep-sea metals found on the Pacific Ocean seabed to counter China’s dominance of battery minerals and rare earth supply chains, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The stockpile would “create large quantities ready and available on US territory to be used in the future,” in case of a conflict with China that might constrain imports of metals and rare earths, the report said.

China has placed some rare earth elements under export restrictions in retaliation to US President Donald Trump’s steep tariffs on Chinese goods, potentially cutting the US off from critical minerals vital to everything from smartphones to electric car batteries.

Following the report, the Chinese foreign ministry said that under international law, the seabed and its resources “are the common heritage of mankind.”

“Exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in the international seabed area must be conducted in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and within the framework of the International Seabed Authority,” the ministry said in a statement.

China produces around 90% of the world’s refined rare earths, a group of 17 elements used across the defense, electric vehicle, clean energy and electronics industries. The US imports much of its rare earths, which come largely from China.

(By Ethan Wang and Ryan Woo; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

“The pre-feasibility study is a strategic step in advancing mine permitting, de-risking the project and guiding forward planning. Our latest drill program, along with upcoming community engagement and environmental and geotechnical studies, plays a key role in this process,” CEO Martin Kepman said.

“Given Canada’s recent focus on sourcing its own critical minerals, such as manganese, the Battery Hill project is on track to accomplish this and, therefore, is positioned to play a crucial role in the North American supply chain,” he added.

The new results include assays from 12 drill holes that confirmed strong mineralization in several key areas, with manganese oxide (MnO) grades of up to 15.7%. This brings the company’s total drilling at Battery Hill to 104 drill holes for approximately 17,000 metres since 2016.

The latest program focused on infill and expansion drilling to upgrade inferred resources to measured and indicated categories to support the upcoming PFS. The company anticipates significant resource increases, driven by the newly discovered Moody northwest zone and the extended Sharpe Farm zone, which returned mineralization up to 72.6 metres in core thickness.

The new NI 43-101-compliant mineral resource estimate by Mercator Geosciences is now underway.

Perry MacKinnon, Manganese X’s vice president of exploration, said the drilling “defined the Battery Hill orebody with high confidence, with most resources classified as measured and indicated — an essential step for future conversion to proven and probable reserves during economic evaluation.”

According to the IEA, global battery demand reached a historic milestone of 1 terawatt-hour (TWh) last year, with annual electric car sales rising by 25% to 17 million.

At the same time, the average price of a battery pack in electric vehicles dropped below $100 per kilowatt-hour, commonly thought of as a key threshold for competing on cost with conventional models, the IEA said.

Driving the decline in battery prices are cheaper battery materials resulting from oversupply as well as advancements in the battery industry itself. Lithium prices, in particular, have dropped by more than 85% from their peak in 2022.

After years of investments, global battery manufacturing capacity reached 3 TWh in 2024, and the next five years could see another tripling of production capacity if all announced projects are built, the IEA predicts.

These trends point to the battery industry entering a new phase of development, the Agency says, noting that markets used to be regionalized and small, but are now global and very large, and a range of technological approaches is giving way to standardization.

China’s dominance

The IEA report also highlighted the continued dominance of China. As the world’s top EV market, it produces over three-quarters of batteries sold globally, and in 2024, average prices in China dropped faster there than anywhere else in the world, falling by nearly 30%.

Chinese batteries are now cheaper than Europe and North America by over 30% and 20%, respectively, the IEA said, citing estimates by BloombergNEF.

IEA ascribes the price advantage of Chinese producers to four main factors: 1) manufacturing know-how, which has supported the rise of giant manufacturers such as CATL and BYD; 2) supply chain integration resulting from acquisitions and co-operations; 3) cheaper battery chemistry, as evidenced by the rise of lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) batteries; and 4) fierce domestic competition between almost 100 producers that are driving down prices.

Declining battery prices in recent years are a major reason why many EVs in China are now cheaper than their conventional counterparts, the Agency points out.

Other major players

In Europe, many battery producers are postponing or cancelling expansion plans because of uncertainty about future profitability. IEA estimates that production costs in the region are about 50% higher than in China; meanwhile, the battery supply chain ecosystem is still relatively weak and a lack of specialized workers persists.

The bankruptcy of Northvolt – Europe’s largest investment in a homegrown battery maker – underscores the difficulties of competing with Asian producers, with smaller manufacturers struggling to scale up production, IEA stated.

However, the Agency said that there are still pathways for Europe to build a competitive battery industry, pointing to efforts to produce cheaper LFP batteries in the region, aided by investments from Korea. Chinese battery makers are also likely to keep expanding their European footprint, it added.

Korea and Japan, despite having limited domestic battery production, have strong innovation track records and are already major players in the industry with their overseas investments. Korea, in particular, leads in overseas manufacturing capacity, with nearly 400 gigawatt-hours (GWh), far ahead of Japan and China.

The United States is also on the rise. Its battery manufacturing capacity has doubled since 2022 following the implementation of tax credits for producers, reaching over 200 GWh in 2024, the IEA estimates.

The report also highlights Southeast Asia and Morocco as potential production hubs for batteries and their components, with the former attracting significant Chinese investment and the latter honing the largest reserves of phosphate, a mineral essential for LFP batteries.

The order, according to sources cited by Reuters, would affirm the United States’ right to extract critical minerals from the ocean floor, enabling companies to seek permits directly from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The move would mark President Donald Trump’s latest push to secure international sources of nickel, copper and other essential minerals. It follows his recent invocation of emergency powers to boost domestic mineral production.

The International Seabed Authority (ISA), established in 1982 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — which the US has not ratified — has spent years developing regulations for deep-sea mining.

In 2021, the island nation of Nauru sponsored Canada’s The Metals Company (NASDAQ: TMC) to begin deep-sea mining, forcing the ISA to draft rules before any company could start extracting minerals in international waters.

The 36-member ISA council has since met repeatedly to finalize regulations. In March, officials gathered in Jamaica to review hundreds of proposed amendments to a 256-page draft mining code, but the session ended without a resolution.

Frustrated by the ISA’s slow progress, TMC last week formally urged the Trump administration to issue deep-sea mining permits, arguing that “commercial industry is not welcome at the ISA.”

“The Authority is being influenced by a faction of States allied with environmental NGOs who see the deep-sea mining industry as their ‘last green trophy,’” TMC chairman and chief executive, Gerard Barron, said on Monday.

“They have worked tirelessly to continuously delay the adoption of the Exploitation Regulations with the explicit intent of killing commercial industry.”

Growing interest

Governments interested in developing deep-sea mining within their territorial waters — typically 200 nautical miles from shore — include the Cook Islands, Norway and Japan.

Proponents of seabed mining contend that its environmental impact is lower than land-based extraction. Critics warn that the long-term consequences remain uncertain and advocate for further research before large-scale operations begin.

Supporters argue that deep-sea mining is crucial to meeting rising mineral demand. The International Energy Agency projects that demand for copper and rare earth metals will grow by 40%, while the need for nickel, cobalt, and lithium—driven by clean energy technologies—could rise by 60%, 70%, and 90%, respectively.

Beyond TMC, other companies exploring deep-sea mining include California-based Impossible Metals, Russia’s JSC Yuzhmorgeologiya, Blue Minerals Jamaica, China Minmetals, and Kiribati’s Marawa Research and Exploration.

Launched in 2013, the BRI represents a massive global infrastructure development strategy adopted by the Chinese government to boost its trade, economic growth and regional influence. To date, China’s BRI spending has crossed $1.1 trillion, with the funds going towards key sectors such as mining, energy and transportation in partnership with 149 countries.

In 2024, mining maintained its status as a major area of focus under the initiative, accounting for 17.6% of last year’s total BRI-related investments, behind only energy’s 32.5%, GAI’s report shows. However, compared to the year before, when mining investment more than doubled to a then record of $19.4 billion, the sector’s share in 2024 is slightly down (from 21% in 2023).

Regionally, China’s engagement has been strong in various African countries, Bolivia and Chile in Latin America, and Indonesia, the report shows.

According to GAI, China already holds significant shares of global mining sources (over 80% of global graphite resources), and even more control in material processing (where across lithium, nickel, cobalt and graphite, China owns more than 50% of global capacity).

GAI’s report also notes that that Chinese firms are increasingly prioritizing equity investments in mining despite the high risks, while those in the energy sector mostly prefer to do construction deals, which are safer as they’re backed by financial institutions. Hence, construction deals have represented a larger share of BRI-related engagements, and in 2024, became much more abundant across every region except South Asia.

Like mining, China’s clean energy (solar, wind, hydropower) investments under the BRI also reached a record high of $11.8 billion. According to GAI’s estimates, this represents about 30% of last year’s total energy spend, which was the highest since 2017. The country also remained a large investor in fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) abroad, led by a resurgence of coal mining, processing facilities and pipeline projects.

Looking ahead, GAI expects a further expansion of BRI investments and construction contracts in 2025, given the “clear need” to support the green energy transition in both China and in BRI countries. This, as it points out, provides continued opportunities for mining and minerals processing deals, technology deals and green energy — which China now refers to as the “New Three”.

But even as European policymakers work to build a future industrial base, they are facing a crisis in the region’s existing metals sector.

Chinese over-capacity and high energy prices have accelerated the long-term decline of European steel and aluminum production.

The latest threat, however, is coming from the United States. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, particularly the increased tariff on aluminum imports, risk displacing a flood of metal into Europe.

Europe’s response is shaping up to be equally protectionist, heralding more fracturing of global trade patterns.

Building for the future

Europe’s strategic projects qualify for fast-track progression through the permitting stage – a maximum 27 months for mine projects and 15 months for processing projects – and access to funding both at European and national level.

The list is heavily weighted towards battery inputs such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite but also includes more esoteric elements such as gallium, germanium and tungsten. Fourteen out of 17 metals on the EU’s strategic metals list are represented.

The projects across 13 member states extend along the whole length of the supply chain from mining to processing to recycling and even materials substitution.

They should allow the EU to fully meet its 2030 domestic production benchmarks for lithium and cobalt and make “substantial progress” for other battery materials such as nickel, manganese and graphite.

In the case of gallium, used in semi-conductors and currently subject to Chinese export restrictions, METLEN’s project in Greece will cover the region’s needs by 2028.

There is more to come.

The European Commission received 46 applications for projects outside of the EU. A decision on the potential selection of such projects “will be decided at a later stage,” it said.

Current crisis

Europe’s bold ambitions for new energy metals stand in stark contrast to the dire problems facing its traditional metals production sectors.

EU steel output has declined from 160 million metric tons in 2017 to 126 million in 2023. Current steel capacity utilization of around 65% is unsustainable, the Commission said.

The region has lost a significant part of its primary aluminum production capacity for good and around half of what remains has been idled since 2021.

The Commission’s “Action Plan” identifies high power costs as a core problem for its industrial metals base. Power prices surged in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and although they have since fallen, they remain higher than historical levels and well above those in the United States.

A range of solutions is proposed from facilitating more long-term power supply contracts to improving network efficiency and accelerating permitting for building more renewable grid capacity.

In the short term member states are called “to rapidly implement and make use of all the flexibilities (of state aid rules) to lower costs for energy-intensive industries.”

Tariff turbulence

The threat of metal diverted from the United States washing up in Europe has focused minds on how to prevent further contraction in Europe’s steel and nonferrous metals sectors.

Tighter steel import quotas could come as soon as next month, according to European Commission Executive Vice-President Stephane Sejourne.

A “melted and poured” rule, allowing the Commission to take action against the original producer of the metal rather than a third-party transformer, is under consideration.

Plans for import restrictions on aluminum are being fast-tracked with the Commission gathering “relevant evidence” in preparation for some sort of safeguard measures.

This is a race against time for many struggling operators.

Paul Voss, Director General of European Aluminium, has called for “immediate, targeted interventions to stabilize the sector now.”

One of those interventions would be to stem the flow of recyclable materials out of Europe.

Scrap wars

Although the US tariffs of 25% on aluminum imports have been presented as “without exceptions of exemptions”, they do not apply to the movement of scrap.

Aluminum scrap exports from the EU were already on track to hit a record of 1.3 million tons last year. That figure is likely to rise this year as more material goes to the United States, where processors can remelt it into aluminum products and pocket the tariff premium.

European copper recyclers are similarly worried that the threat of US copper tariffs is already pulling more units to the United States along with refined metal.

The Commission is promising to propose by the third quarter of the year appropriate trade measures to ensure more scrap stays in the EU.

That will include reciprocal measures on both those countries applying metals tariffs and on those that currently block exports of scrap.

Global scrap trading has so far been largely unaffected by geopolitics but that looks about to change.

Sense of urgency

The European Union is playing catch-up with the United States, when it comes to investing in critical metals capacity.

But the 27-member bloc has no equivalent of the presidential powers used by both the Joe Biden and Trump administrations.

The combination of strategic projects and metals action plan shows that the European Commission has woken up to the urgency of both building for the future and protecting what it already has.

But as both corporates and lobby groups have been quick to point out, words need to be followed by action.

Or to quote Voss from European Aluminium, “strategy alone won’t keep our operations running.”

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

(Editing by Jane Merriman)

A 2023 expedition to the mineral-rich Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ) by a team of scientists led by Britain’s National Oceanography Centre found that the seafloor, a complex ecosystem hosting hundreds of species, still bears scars of a 1979 test mining operation.

The collection of small polymetallic nodules, potato-shaped rocks rich in minerals and metals, from an eight-metre strip of the seabed caused long-term sediment changes and reduced the populations of many of the larger organisms living there, the study, published in Nature, shows.

The team of researchers also found encouraging signs of recovery, with smaller and more mobile creatures returning to the area.

Lead author and expedition leader, Professor Daniel Jones of the National Oceanography Centre said that to tackle the question of recovery from deep-sea mining, it is necessary to first look at available evidence and use old mining tests to help understand long-term impacts. 

“Forty-four years later, the mining tracks themselves look very similar to when they were first made, with a strip of seabed cleared of nodules and two large furrows in the seafloor where the machine passed,” Jones said.

Among the first creatures to recolonize the disturbed areas were large, amoeba-like xenophyophores, commonly found throughout the CCZ — a vast area between Hawaii and Mexico. “However, large-sized animals that are fixed to the seafloor are still very rare in the tracks, showing little signs of recovery,” he said.

The study’s release coincides with a key meeting of the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Kingston, Jamaica, where delegates from 36 countries are reviewing over hundreds of proposed amendments to a 256-page draft mining code that will rule commercial deep-sea mining. 

Environmental groups have called for a halt to such activities, a position supported by 32 governments and 63 major companies and financial institutions.

While few expect a final text to be completed by the time the latest round of talks ends on March 28, Canada’s The Metals Company (NASDAQ: TMC) plans to submit the first formal mining application in June.

TMC, which will hold fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results calls after market close on Thursday, has long said that deep-sea mining has a smaller environmental footprint than terrestrial mining. 

Recovery not only possible, but likely

Chief executive officer Gerard Barron told MINING.COM that the new study supports this view. “For years, activists have pushed baseless claims that nodule-collecting robots will dig up the seafloor and devastate ecosystems. This new study proves otherwise — showing that even with outdated, far more disruptive technology, recovery is not only possible but likely within decades,” Barron said.

“Sessile megafauna such as sponges were scarce in track areas where nodules were removed, as expected, but were observed attached to nodules left behind by the 1979 collector. This suggests a potential mitigation strategy — leaving some nodules intact to support recolonization by reliant organisms,” he said.

TMC has pledged to leave at least 30% of its contract areas untouched to facilitate recovery. “Our own nodule collector will disturb just the top 3 cm of sediment, not the 80 cm as seen in the 1970s trials,” Barron noted.

Opponents warn that the long-term consequences of deep-sea mining remain uncertain, advocating for further research before large-scale extraction begins. Supporters argue that the industry is vital for meeting growing mineral demand.

According to the International Energy Agency, demand for copper and rare earth metals is expected to rise by 40%, while the need for nickel, cobalt, and lithium from clean energy technologies alone could increase by 60%, 70%, and 90%, respectively.

The batteries of electric vehicles, including plug-in and conventional hybrids, sold globally during 2024 contained a combined 1.76 million tonnes of graphite, LCE (lithium carbonate equivalent), nickel, cobalt and manganese, outpacing growth in GWh and unit sale terms. Also bear in mind that these are terminal installed tonnes and required primary production is significantly higher.

Nearly a third of all passenger EV battery capacity, and corollary battery metals, deployed since the emergence of the industry were rolled onto roads last year alone. Adamas Intelligence, a Toronto-based EV supply chain research firm, predicts 2025 will be the first year more than 1 terawatt hours will be added to the globe’s highways and byways. 

This bodes well for battery metal producers, but in the absence of a price recovery, the size of the market in dollar terms will remain well below its 2022 annual peak of more than $30 billion when lithium, nickel and cobalt prices were riding high. 

After another sharp year on year contraction thanks mostly to weak lithium prices, the battery metals deployed in 2024 was worth a total of $14.0 billion, a 44.5% drop compared to the year before.    

The right mix

Drilling down from the overall figure shows vast differences between automakers in terms of battery metals usage and costs.  

Despite selling 2 million more electric vehicles last year than Tesla, BYD’s bill of materials was $1 billion below that of its Texas-based rival. BYD’s in-house manufactured batteries cost the Chinese company  $1.07 billion last year, down by nearly half over 2023. 

BYD’s all lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) battery-powered model line-up concentrated at the lower end of the market and a sales mix that is now majority plug-in hybrids kept sales-weighted average material costs per EV to just $259 versus $1,152 for every Tesla model sold. 

Even when considering only  fully electric vehicles, BYD’s spending on raw materials are way below the average at $399 per BEV. The comparable number for the Volkswagen stable including Audi, Porsche, Skoda and others is $1,641 per BEV.

LFP-powered Models 3 and Y manufactured in China are a big part of Tesla’s sales but the slow buildout of LFP cell factories outside China means these nickel cobalt and manganese free powerpacks are largely absent from Western automakers’ lineups.

Heavy on HEVs 

From Tesla, there’s another big step up to General Motors which has to contend with an average battery metals bill of a hefty  $1,702 even after a reduction of 19.5% year on year thanks to weak lithium, cobalt and manganese prices. 

On a GWh basis, some three-quarters of GM’s batteries came from its venture with LG Energy Solution called Ultium. GM is overhauling this strategy after poaching a Tesla battery executive last year and is moving away from its heavy and beefy one-size-fits-all packs.

On the other side of the spectrum is Toyota, which spent on average just $185 per EV sold last year. That’s because of the Japanese giant’s focus on conventional hybrids where battery capacity rarely exceeds 2kWh. 

Last year 9 out of every ten Toyota (including Lexus) electrified vehicles sold were conventional hybrids fitted with mostly nickel-metal-hydride batteries which also shows that Prius and the like are still a meaningful source of battery nickel demand. 

That’s further underlined by the fact that while per EV battery metals costs for the industry as a whole fell by 44.5% last year to  $578 per vehicle, Toyota’s bill was down only 17% across the 4.2 million EVs it sold last year.     

Revved up about EREVs 

The spending on battery metals by Li Auto and the Seres Group – the world’s second fastest growing EV maker in GWh terms last year –  also stands out with higher than the average sales-weighted battery costs despite their heavy focus on plug-in hybrids.  

Both Chinese manufacturers have made the most of the growing popularity of EREVs, or range extenders, where the combustion engine serves only as a generator to charge the battery. 

Li Auto was until last year exclusively an EREV builder and its best-selling L6 sports a range that extends to just under 1,400 km (860 miles) without the need to refuel or recharge. 

The batteries of EREVs are on average larger than small and compact BEVs and many automakers opt for NCM (nickel-cobalt-manganese) batteries over LFP to provide the necessary energy density and power delivery.   

The EREV trend is good news for producers as ex-China OEMs scramble to add range extenders to their lineup. Ford scrapped plans for a three-row full-electric SUV to replace it with an as yet unseen EREV while Stellantis has pulled forward deliveries of its new Ramcharger EREV while postponing the launch of the BEV version of the popular pickup.  

Hyundai told investors early last year that EREVs will play a big part in its future, while Mercedes-Benz is also rumored to be considering an EREV option for its popular CLA-class sedans.   

For more on the battery metals market check out the latest issue of The Northern Miner print and digital editions. 

* Frik Els is Editor at Large for MINING.COM and Head of Adamas Inside, providing news and analysis based on Adamas Intelligence data.

Magara, a former chief executive of platinum miner Lonmin who also worked at Anglo American, takes over on April 1. He replaces finance director Riaan Koppeschaar, who served as interim CEO following Nombasa Tsengwa’s resignation. Tsengwa stepped down in February amid controversy over the handling of a probe into workplace conduct allegations against her.

Magara is expected to to lead Exxaro through declining profits caused by lower coal prices while advancing its strategy to acquire manganese and copper assets, crucial metals to the green energy transition, chairman Geoffrey Qhena said in a statement.

Exxaro has struggled to diversify beyond coal. In 2023, it lost out to China’s MMG in a bid for Botswana’s Khoemacau copper mine.

The company also reported on Thursday its 2024 financial results, showing a 32% drop in net income to 9.68 billion rand ($527 million) and a 6.9% decline in coal output. Profit fell to about 7 billion rand ($381 million) from nearly 11 billion the year before, and it cut its dividend to 8.7 rand per share from 10.10 rand.

_________
RELATED: Exxaro seeks to acquire manganese mining assets

Electric vehicle battery capacity could hit a record one terawatt-hour this year, according to Frik Els, a battery metals expert at Adamas Intelligence with China expected to represent up to 60% of the global total for 2025.

“The growth in battery capacity is not just about numbers; it signals a fundamental shift in how we source critical metals and design EV batteries,” Els said during a January industry conference in Vancouver.

Els says battery chemistries are changing. Automakers are moving from traditional nickel-cobalt-manganese cells to lithium-ion, phosphate, and mid-nickel technologies. This evolution is upending established supply chains and forcing a rethink in the metals market.

Els also points out that the change is partly driven by regional policy differences. Declining subsidies in North America, new emissions rules in Europe and China’s ongoing support of its EV industry will drive further changes in the global EV landscape.

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

The material, a precursor for the production of high-purity manganese sulfate monohydrate (HPMSM) used in electric vehicles and energy storage systems, was produced at the company’s demonstration plant in Johannesburg, South Africa.

According to Giyani, the HPMO samples are expected to be shipped this month to prospective offtake partners.

HPMO is becoming the preferred precursor for lithium-manganese-iron-phosphate (LMFP) and lithium-manganese-nickel-oxide (LMNO) batteries. While HPMSM remains the preferred precursor for nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) batteries, both HPMO and HPMSM can be used for LMFP and LMNO batteries.

Shares of Giyani rose 6.25% Monday morning in Toronto, giving the company a market capitalization of C$23.3 million ($16.2 million).

K.Hill project

Giyani said its demonstration plant remains on track to produce HPMSM during the first quarter 2025.

Subsequently, a commercial plant is expected to be constructed, also in Botswana. The company is currently working on a definitive feasibility study, expected to be completed this year.

A preliminary economic assessment in 2023 gave K.Hill a base case post-tax net present value (discounted at 8%) of $984 million and an internal rate of return of 29%. Over a projected 57-year mine life, the project is expected to produce over 3.5 million tonnes of HPMSM.

The K.Hill deposit is estimated to contain over 2.2 million tonnes in manganese oxide resources.

Read More: Critical minerals take centre stage in world politics

China’s involvement in the metals and mining sector — in the form of equity investments and construction contracts — reached over $21 billion under Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative, according to a report from Griffith University in Australia and the Green Finance & Development Center, founded at Shanghai-based Fudan University. The tally marks the highest since the Chinese president’s signature effort started in 2013.

China’s engagement has been very strategic and growing over the past years, thanks to advantages including its know-how and ability to fund large-scale projects, said Christoph Nedopil, a professor at Griffith University and one of the report’s authors.

“It is likely that Chinese policymakers are also welcoming strategic control by Chinese – often private – companies in critical minerals,” he said.

The country’s global footprint is a reflection of its dominance over production and refining of many minerals that gives it huge influence over commodity markets. Beijing earlier this month flexed its muscles by imposing export restrictions on tungsten and other critical metals used in electronic, aviation and defense industries, in response to the initial tariffs from the Trump administration.

The European Union, Japan and the US have been highlighting concerns over China’s hold on the metals value chain. Tokyo is considering anti-dumping duties on graphite electrodes produced in China, due to damage caused to the domestic industry, according to a joint statement Friday from the trade and finance ministries.

The world’s No. 2 economy accounts for more than half of the global production of battery metals including lithium, cobalt and manganese. In 2023, it also made up 69% of global rare earth output, according to the US government.

Lithium, used in electric-vehicle batteries, is a case in point. While the US is building out supply networks with free-trade partners such as Canada and Australia, China is consolidating its relationships with African nations that are expected to be among the world’s biggest producers of the metal by the end of the decade.

China has also sought to forestall the west’s efforts to develop new mining and processing capacity by restricting exports of key technology and equipment.

Read More: China’s grip on global nickel supply tightens with Anglo sale

Eramet recorded adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of 814 million euros ($847.29 million) in 2024, down 11% from the previous year, it said in a results statement.

The earnings exclude Eramet’s New Caledonian nickel subsidiary SLN, which is being propped up by French government loans.

Low prices, notably due to sluggish Chinese demand, combined with production cuts at Eramet’s flagship manganese and nickel mines weighed on its full-year performance, the company said.

Faced with low prices and still subdued demand in China at the start of this year, the group was focused on reducing its net debt, which rose to 1.8 times adjusted EBITDA at the end of 2024 from 0.7 time a year earlier, chief financial officer Nicolas Carre told reporters on a call.

The group is targeting capital investment of 400 million to 450 million euros this year, compared with 497 million in 2024, and expects productivity gains to be higher than last year.

The rise in debt last year was partly due to Eramet’s buying Chinese partner Tsingshan’s share of their lithium joint venture in Argentina.

Eramet’s Centenario facility, which started production in December, is expected to produce 10,000 to 13,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent in 2025 and reach its nominal annual capacity rate of 24,000 tons at the end of this year, chairwoman and CEO Christel Bories said during the call.

Eramet has limited direct exposure to potential US tariffs but could be affected by a reshuffling in trade from China, she said.

An end to the war in Ukraine, as sought by US President Donald Trump through talks with Russia, should not have a major impact on the nickel market as Russian supply has already shifted towards China, she added.

($1 = 0.9607 euros)

(By Gus Trompiz; Editing by Leslie Adler)

The company said the test is part of an 18-month feasibility program designed to process a 2,000-tonne sample of deep-seafloor polymetallic nodules at its partner PAMCO’s facility in Hachinohe.

After the commercial-scale production of calcine in September 2024, PAMCO operators conducted a 14-day continuous smelting campaign in January and February. They fed approximately 450 tonnes of calcine into an electric-arc furnace, producing high-grade nickel-copper-cobalt alloy and manganese silicate.

“Successfully converting nodules into high-grade nickel-copper-cobalt alloy and manganese silicate at PAMCO’s existing facility is a major milestone, eliminating the need to build new infrastructure from scratch,” TMC’s head of onshore development Jeffrey Donald said in a news release.

In November 2023, TMC signed a memorandum of understanding with PAMCO to complete a feasibility study for processing 1.3 million tonnes of wet polymetallic nodules per year into high-grade alloy and manganese silicate, key feedstock for energy infrastructure and steel production.

Trump administration support expected

TMC shares have trended higher since the beginning of the year amid growing anticipation of support for deep-sea mining under the Trump administration.

In December, the House of Representatives passed its annual defense funding bill, which included a provision directing the Secretary of Defense to conduct a feasibility study on processing deep-sea minerals within the US.

Members of the Trump administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have previously expressed support for ocean mining.

“If the US is to get involved in deep-sea mining, the political stars are more aligned than ever,” said Duncan Wood, president and CEO of the California-based think tank Pacific Council, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

The ocean floor is believed to hold vast reserves of metals such as nickel, manganese, and cobalt, with an estimated value ranging from $8 trillion to over $16 trillion. However, scientists caution that much remains unknown about the deep ocean and warn of potential environmental impacts on ecosystems already under threat from pollution, trawling and climate change.

TMC, in partnership with the Republic of Nauru, plans to submit its first application to mine the seafloor on June 27, ahead of the International Seabed Authority’s second meeting in July.

The United Nations body responsible for regulating deep-sea mining is scheduled to meet in March to discuss rules and regulations for seabed mining.

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

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

So what is a better definition of a critical mineral?

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

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

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

Why is this distinction important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New tactics needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Editing by Jamie Freed)

Eramet said that Castellari will assume the CEO position on May 27, following a vote at the group’s annual shareholder meeting. Bories will remain chairwoman of the group.

Castellari – born in 1970 and a dual Brazilian and Italian citizen – has over 30 years’ experience in mining and metals as well as in the fertilizers and energy industries in South and North America, Europe and Africa, Eramet said in a statement.

From 2003 to 2015 he worked at Anglo American, and in 2016, he was appointed deputy CEO and CFO of CEMIG, a Brazilian electrical power company, before joining aluminum producer EGA as CEO of Guinea Alumina Corporation.

Since 2019, Castellari has been CEO of the Brazilian branch of Appian Capital Advisory, a mining-focused private equity group.

Eramet said last month that Bories would give up the chief executive role in May while remaining chairwoman.

Bories, CEO since 2017, has overseen a shift in Eramet’s strategy towards minerals used for electric vehicle batteries, notably by developing a lithium mine in Argentina that began production at the end of last year.

(By Gus Trompiz; Editing by GV De Clercq and Nick Zieminski)

An uptick in aluminum prices, spurred by a constrained alumina market and supply deficit, led to the company’s aluminum division posting an increase in underlying operating earnings of $160 million for the first half.

Earnings for the copper division also increased by $98 million, boosted by higher prices and lower labour costs.

The Perth-based miner, which separated from BHP Group in 2015, declared a lower interim dividend of 3.4 cents per share, compared to 0.4 cent in the previous year.

South32, the world’s biggest producer of manganese, said its underlying earnings for the half-year ended December 31 came in at $375 million, ahead of $40 million a year ago. That beat a Visible Alpha consensus estimate of $370.1 million.

(By Aaditya Govind Rao and Sherin Sunny; Editing by Mohammed Safi Shamsi)

The MOU, says Firebird, marks another “significant milestone” on its journey to becoming a near-term, low-cost producer of battery-grade manganese sulphate (MnSO4) and manganese tetra oxide (Mn3O4) to supply electric vehicles.

Under the MOU, Eramet will provide ore from its Moanda mines in Gabon for the first stage of Firebird’s manganese sulphate operations. The agreement follows the testing of a 200 kg sample of Eramet ore that successfully produced MnSO4 and Mn3O4.

Firebird said the parties also will work to convert the MOU into a long-term supply agreement by 2026, following completion of financing and during construction of the manganese sulphate plant.

Last September, Firebird received all key permits to operate the manganese sulphate plant in Jinshi, Hunan province, with first production targeted for later this year. Stage 1 of operations is designed to process manganese ore sourced from third parties, and will aim to produce 50,000 tonnes of battery-grade MnSO4 and 10,000 tonnes of Mn3O4 (or the equivalent of 72,500 tonnes of MnSO4) annually.

According to a feasibility study released in May 2024, the project has a capex of $83.5 million and opex of roughly $609/metric tonne for the production of battery-grade manganese sulphate.

LMFP strategy

The manganese sulphate plant is part of Firebird’s growth strategy centred around the growing popularity of LMFP (lithium manganese iron phosphate) batteries in China, the largest EV market globally. MnSO4 is a key cathode material in LMFP batteries.

The Australian miner envisions its pilot plant is poised to be at the forefront of rapid development and growth in batteries for electric vehicles, being strategically located at the epicentre of the Chinese EV market.

“Securing this reliable and strategic supply of manganese ore marks a pivotal step in accelerating our journey to production and building a strong foundation for sustainable cash flow generation,” Firebird managing director Peter Allen said in a news release.

“This agreement with Eramet reflects our commitment to establishing a vertically integrated operation, and positions us to deliver on our long-term strategy of supporting the clean energy transition by becoming a key supplier of manganese for LMFP batteries,” he said.

Stripping away Trump’s bluster and often contradictory actions, the message seems to be fairly clear. Trump’s view of the world is that you are either with the United States or against it.

That presents a dilemma for Africa’s mineral rich countries as they want to develop their resources to provide them with the maximum benefit, but they also want to stay largely neutral.

But it’s increasingly likely that at some level African countries will have to decide whether they are more in the Trump camp, or whether they prefer to do business with the China-led BRICS group.

There are risks and rewards under both scenarios, and the circumstances of each African country may cause to lean one way or another.

Much of the debate at this weeks Investing in African Mining Conference in Cape Town has effectively been about the best path forward for Africa’s miners and governments.

The continent is already a major producer of minerals, but it’s untapped reserves are the major prize in coming decades, especially if the energy transition accelerates.

Africa is richly endowed, with an estimated 20% of global copper reserves, about the same for aluminum raw materials, 50% of manganese and cobalt, 90% of platinum group metals, 36% of chromium, as well as reserves of lithium, uranium, gold and rare earths.

But developing its mineral resources has been often too challenging, given political instability and corruption, poor infrastructure, lack of capital and legal frameworks that make long-term investments hard to justify.

However, the increasing appetite of the world for minerals, especially to enable the energy transition, is likely to set off a new scramble for Africa, this time Africans will have more say in how it unfolds.

Finding the right partners is the challenge for African countries.

On the one hand the Western world still offers deep capital reserves, sophisticated equity markets and investors and skills and experience in mining and engineering.

But Trump is undermining these advantages with his tariffs and threats to withhold aid and other funding, as well as his habit of turning on traditional allies and flip-flopping policies.

The main issue with Trump is his apparent transactional view of the world, in which there must always be a winner and a loser, and he always wants to be the winner.

This means getting a mutually beneficial deal from the United States is going to be more difficult while Trump is in office.

Not beggars

It was perhaps this frustration that boiled over in the remarks at the Investing in African Mining event, on Monday when South Africa’s Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe said Africa should withhold minerals from the United States if Trump cuts aid.

“If they don’t give us money, let’s not give them minerals. We are not just beggars,” Mantashe told the conference, which is also known as Mining Indaba.

“We cannot continue to debate these minerals based on the dictates of some developed nations as if we have no aspirations to accelerate Africa’s industrialization and close the development deficit,” Mantashe said.

These comments may be unwise in that they may serve to antagonize Trump, but they may also sharpen some thinking in the West on how best to get access to Africa’s minerals.

Should Africa be looking more toward China and the rest of the BRICS nations, as the best option to unlock its mineral wealth?

The experience here has been somewhat mixed. While China has been willing to develop mines in Africa, it tends to want to do it mainly using its own people and processes, and it wants to export raw ores and beneficiate them in China.

This has limited the benefits to African countries, but there may be an option to use legislation to copy what Indonesia has done in forcing companies to commit to domestic downstream operations as part of access to raw materials.

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

(Editing by Kim Coghill)

Shares of The Metals Company (Nasdaq: TMC) surged in January amid growing anticipation of support for deep-sea mining under the Trump administration.

TMC, in partnership with the Republic of Nauru, plans to submit its first application to mine the seafloor on June 27, ahead of the International Seabed Authority’s (ISA) second meeting in July.

The United Nations body responsible for regulating deep-sea mining is scheduled to meet in March to discuss rules and regulations for seabed mining.

According to the company’s chief executive editor, Trump’s victory is the best news for the deep-sea mining industry.

Gerard Barron told MINING.COM host Devan Murugan that the new administration’s focus on domestic mineral production comes at the right time.

“Mineral security is really important for critical minerals, and many in the new administration have been tremendous supporters. So we’re going into 2025 thinking this will be a breakout year,” Barron said.

The ocean floor is believed to hold vast reserves of metals such as nickel, manganese, and cobalt, with an estimated value ranging from $8 trillion to over $16 trillion. However, scientists caution that much remains unknown about the deep ocean and warn of the potential impacts of mining on ecosystems already threatened by pollution, trawling, and the climate crisis.

Studies conducted over five decades and funded by the Chinese show the iron ore and rubber exporter also has uranium, lithium, cobalt, manganese and neodymium deposits, among others, Boakai said in a state of the nation address late Monday.

Talks are currently underway with major multinational companies and local investors to mine the new minerals and invest in other related sectors such as energy, infrastructure and technology, he said.

The government projects economic growth to accelerate to 5.8% this year, supported by the new investments, from an estimated 5.1% in 2024, he said.

Inflation, which the central bank expects to quicken to as high as 12.3% by the end of March, will moderate to 6% by the end of 2025, Boakai said.

Boakai beat former football star George Weah to become president more than a year ago after campaigning to address high food and transportation costs and unemployment in the economy of 5.5 million people.

The faster growth could reduce the poverty rate in one of the world’s poorest countries to 27.8% this year from 31% in 2023, World Bank data shows.

(By Festus Poquie)

Organizations representing firms including Glencore Plc and a unit of Anglo American Plc are negotiating the terms of the pacts with Transnet, said Ian Bird, head of transport and logistics for B4SA, a business group that’s partnering with the government to revive South Africa’s sub-standard transport and energy infrastructure and operations.

The collapse of freight-rail lines due to poor maintenance and theft of equipment saw coal exports plunge to a 30-year low of 48 million tons in 2023 while iron ore railings slumped to the lowest in a decade. While coal railings improved to 52.1 million tons last year, the first increase since 2017, that was well short of a 60-million-ton target. It also equated to just over half of total rail capacity of 91 million tons.

The government has agreed to allow private operators to run trains on the lines from about April to boost export income.

“We are now at a point where something has to be done,” Bird said in an interview. The state of the lines has an “impact on both Transnet Freight Rail and third-party operators,” he said.

The parties haven’t publicly disclosed the likely terms of the agreements, which should facilitate an infusion of private capital and expertise. Transnet, in a response to Bloomberg queries, put the cost of repairing the coal line over three years, at about 12.9 billion rand ($700 million) and the iron ore line at about 9 billion rand.

Repairing all Transnet’s tracks, including those used to transport containers and manganese, would requite 64.5 billion rand over five years, Transnet said last year.

“The conclusion of the agreements with the customers is on track,” Transnet said. “The investment is required to get these lines back up to a standard at which we can move more volumes.”

Companies export iron ore from the Saldanha port on South Africa’s west coast, while they ship most coal from Richards Bay on the eastern seaboard. Alongside gold, platinum group metals and cars, the two commodities are among South Africa’s biggest exports.

The Ore Users Forum, which counts Anglo’s Kumba Iron Ore Ltd. and Assmang Ltd. among its members, declined to comment. Richards Bay Coal Terminal Ltd., the privately owned coal-export port whose shareholders include Glencore, Thungela Resources Ltd. and Exxaro Resources Ltd., also didn’t comment.

The aim is to restore the lines “to near-enough maximum operational capacity,” Bird said. “It’s now a case of where the money will come from.”

He expects the Treasury to provide some clarity on funding for Transnet, which is deeply indebted, in next month’s national budget. Projected revenue the company earns from third parties will be lower than forecast because tariffs were roughly halved after negotiation, Bird added.

Independent entities have completed technical assessments of the work needed on the coal and iron ore lines, and they will carry out further studies on the other routes.

Transnet’s own attempts to boost its volumes are stalling.

Below target

At the meeting between representatives from the government, state companies, B4SA and President Cyril Ramaphosa last week, Transnet said it disclosed that total freight-rail volumes for the year to March 31 were up 5.3% from a year earlier, but about 7 million tons below target. The annual objective is 170 million tons. Derailment, theft and vandalism are to blame, it said.

The goal for the 2025-26 financial year is 193 million tons and for 2029-30 it is 250 million tons, about a fifth of which would be due to private operators and investment, a document drawn up for the meeting by the Government Business Partnership, which includes B4SA, showed. The business group confirmed the authenticity of the document.

Processing of containers at Transnet’s ports will also miss a target of 4.4 million 20-foot equivalent units this financial year, with a throughput of 4.2 million containers compared with the previous year’s 4.1 million tons, the presentation showed and Transnet confirmed. The company has set the 2029-30 aim after private intervention at 5.4 million units, the presentation shows.

The rollout of new electricity-generation capacity and transmission lines last year was also 48% and 28% below target respectively, charts in the the presentation reveal.

(By Antony Sguazzin)

Read More: Scramble for critical minerals spurs an African rail revival

The company maintained its fiscal 2025 production guidance for all operations, except Mozal Aluminium in Mozambique. It had withdrawn its guidance for Mozal Aluminium in December following civil unrest in the country.

South32 has rebuilt alumina stocks at the Mozal smelter after implementing contingency plans and civil unrest eased.

Any escalation in civil unrest can impact the company’s critical trucking activity and operations, South32 said in a statement.

“The civil unrest… is one challenge expected to be faced in FY25, while volatile commodity prices will also likely fuel headwinds for any company in the mining sector, not just South32,” said Grady Wulff, a market analyst at Bell Direct.

South32 has undertaken a phased restart of manganese mining activities at its Groote Eylandt Mining Co (GEMCO) project and production has resumed from the primary concentrator, South32 said.

Operations were suspended in mid-March after category two tropical cyclone Megan severely damaged infrastructure at the site.

The project is co-owned by Anglo American and South32, and the Australian miner had earlier said it was open to buying Anglo American’s 40% stake in GEMCO.

South32, the world’s biggest producer of manganese, logged an output of 1.1 million wet metric tonnes (wmt) of the steel additive for the quarter ended Dec. 31, beating a Visible Alpha consensus estimate of about 602,000 wmt, but down from the 1.3 million wmt produced in the year-earlier period.

“Manganese is essential for iron and steel production, thus with China finally showing signs of material growth post-pandemic, we will likely see S32 benefit from increased steel production and commodity demand in 2025,” Wulff said.

Shares of South32 rose 1.2% to A$3.52 in early trade, while the benchmark stock index was up 0.3%.

(By John Biju and Adwitiya Srivastava; Editing by Diane Craft, Lisa Shumaker and Subhranshu Sahu)

Last month, the House of Representatives passed its annual defense funding bill, which included a provision instructing the Secretary of Defense to conduct a feasibility study on processing minerals from the deep sea within the US.

Meanwhile, Elise Stefanik, Marco Rubio, Howard Lutnick and William McGinley — all nominees for positions in the president-elect’s administration — have previously voiced support for ocean mining.

“If the US is to get involved in deep sea mining, the political stars are more aligned than ever,” said Duncan Wood, president and CEO of the California-based think tank Pacific Council, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Last year, TMC appointed former Tesla executive Steve Jurvetson, a friend of Elon Musk, to its board of directors. Both Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been appointed to lead the newly established Department of Government Efficiency under the Trump administration.

“This Trump administration is the shot in the arm this industry has been waiting for,” said TMC CEO Gerard Barron.

The ocean floor is believed to hold vast reserves of metals such as nickel, manganese, and cobalt, with an estimated value ranging from $8 trillion to over $16 trillion.

However, scientists caution that much remains unknown about the deep ocean, and they express concerns over the potential impacts of mining on ecosystems already under threat from pollution, trawling, and the climate crisis.

TMC, in partnership with the Republic of Nauru, plans to submit its first application to mine the sea floor on June 27, ahead of the International Seabed Authority’s (ISA) second meeting this July.

The United Nations body responsible for regulating deep sea mining is scheduled to meet in March to discuss rules and regulations for mining the seabed.

New Secretary-General of ISA

Leticia Carvalho, a Brazilian ocean scientist, assumed the role of Secretary-General of the ISA at the start of the year following her election last summer.

Before taking on the role, Carvalho stated that finalizing regulations for deep sea mining could take years of negotiations to ensure the protection of vulnerable ecosystems.

She also alleged that Kiribati’s ambassador, Teburoro Tito, attempted to bribe her to withdraw from the ISA election race. Tito claimed he merely suggested that Carvalho step aside to clear the path for Kiribati’s nominee, then-incumbent Michael Lodge, a known supporter of deep sea mining. Lodge denied any involvement in the matter.

“This is a new era for the ISA — one defined by collaboration, effectiveness, equity, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, and sustainability,” Carvalho said during her inauguration speech.

“The deep seabed is one of Earth’s least explored frontiers, yet its ecosystems are vital to the health of our oceans and the planet. Our mandate is both a privilege and a responsibility — to act in the interest of all humankind and future generations.”