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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M&A

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

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

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

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

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

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

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China squeeze

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Encourage more visibility’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The LME declined to comment.

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ukrainian parliament must still approve the pact.

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

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

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

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

Vatican talks were key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tariffs, Canada and the aluminum market

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

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

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

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

Working in the US

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

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

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

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

Activist campaign fails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(By Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Stephen Coates)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Higher valuation

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

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

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

European Metals Holdings (EMH), the project’s majority shareholder, announced that the funding will come from the EU’s Just Transition Fund and will be overseen by the Czech Ministry of Environment.

The funds are contingent on the project’s environmental impact assessment (EIA), which must be submitted and approved by the Czech environment ministry by year-end.

EMH said the grant will help accelerate development and potentially increase the project’s annual lithium production by unlocking economies of scale. Executive chairman Keith Coughlan said the financing would allow the company to “fast-track a number of critical path items” as the project moves toward construction.

Cinovec, located in the Krusné Hory Mountains near the German border, is the largest hard rock lithium resource in the European Union. It was declared a Strategic Project under the EU Critical Raw Materials Act in March and also recognized as a Strategic Deposit by the Czech government. These designations are expected to streamline permitting and secure support from EU institutions.

EMH has appointed engineering firm DRA Global Limited to complete a definitive feasibility study by the end of 2025. If environmental approval is granted, construction permits could follow within 24 months.

Separetely, EMH posted its March quarter report, showing a cash balance of A$4.3 million and no debt as of the end of the first quarter. 

Cinovec remains central to Europe’s strategy to secure domestic sources of critical raw materials, particularly lithium, which is vital for electric vehicle batteries and renewable energy storage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benjamin Katabuka, the country’s newly appointed director general, told the British newspaper that KoBold is looking to “go big” in the DRC, currently the world’s biggest producer of cobalt and the leading copper producer on the continent.

He added the company plans to apply for licences to explore for these two critical minerals as well as lithium, of which the DRC holds significant deposits but has yet to fully unlock.

These investments could potentially be “in the billions”, Katabuka said, as cited by the Financial Times on Saturday.

The report comes amid heightened trade tensions between the US and China, which saw the latter flex its dominant position in the critical minerals supply chain by placing export restrictions on rare earths.

In the Congo, many of its biggest mines are run by Chinese groups, while American companies have had little presence since Freeport-McMoRan sold its stake in the Tenke Fungurume copper mine to China’s CMOC in 2016.

Katabuka said the Congolese government is “interested in having some Western investors coming into the country” to balance China’s presence in the nation.

Congo minerals

KoBold’s push into Congo comes at a time when the African nation is negotiating with the US on a potential minerals pact. Earlier this year, DRC President Felix Tshisekedi offered a minerals-for-security deal to Washington in an effort to end the ongoing armed conflict with Rwanda-backed M23 rebels.

On the jurisdictional risk, DRC’s Katabuka acknowledged that it has been “difficult” to do business in the country, but added that KoBold has assured that the company will demand “high standards” for its operations.

KoBold — which specializes in using artificial intelligence to identify untapped critical minerals deposits — has around 60 active projects across four continents. In Africa, its focal point has been Zambia, where last year it made what was the country’s largest copper discovery in a century.

A move into Congo means the company would have a presence in Africa’s two largest copper producers. Earlier this year, it also expanded into Namibia, focusing on its deposits of lithium and nickel.

To support its critical minerals exploration, KoBold raised $537 million during its latest round from investors including Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Earthshot Ventures, Equinor, July Fund, Mitsubishi Corporation and Standard Investments.

To date, the California-based company has raised $1 billion.

Speaking at the Future of Energy Security summit held in London this week, IEA executive director Fatih Birol highlighted the strong expansion of clean energy technologies in recent years — while remarkable — also creates a new problem: the urgent need for raw materials.

“To manufacture this new clean energy technologies, you need critical minerals,” Birol said during the two-day event co-hosted by the British government. “We look at where the critical minerals are produced, where they are refined and where they are manufactured, that is a huge concentration, and this is something that we think is risky.”

According to the IEA, the world’s supply of critical minerals — such as copper, cobalt, lithium and rare earth elements — are currently dominated by China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Australia, Chile, Indonesia and, to a lesser extent, the US.

This concentration of raw materials, said Birol, represents a “new emerging energy security challenge”, and the reason why the Agency launched its critical minerals program.

“Currently, we are A) not able to keep up with the demand, and B) the ability of manufacturing these critical minerals is concentrated in one single country or two,” Birol said in a speech last year when announcing the program.

In response to this challenge, the IEA urged nations to focus on policies that promote the diversification of mineral sources and move away from “critical mineral monopolies.”

“Most of these critical minerals are currently controlled by just one or two countries and it is important to ensure diversity in clean energy,” Birol told reporters from Turkish state-owned news agency Anadolu on Friday.

“This is not about whether a country is good or bad. If there is a technical problem or a geopolitical development in that country, entire energy supply chains could be jeopardized,” he said.

On the sidelines of the summit, Birol noted China’s dominance in the critical minerals sector and its contribution to low-cost clean energy technologies. The Asian nation is the main producer for 30 out of 50 minerals deemed critical by the US, and is the world’s top miner and processor of rare earths.

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)

Speaking at a conference organized by the Hamm Institute for American Energy this week, Burgum said the Trump administration is exploring various investment strategies — including a sovereign wealth fund — to strengthen the US supply of critical minerals such as rare earths.

As first reported by CNBC, Burgum told the conference Wednesday the government should use its balance sheet to make investments and that the world’s largest economy should be able to have the biggest sovereign wealth fund.

However, such funds as held by Norway, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are fed by strong resource-rich export surpluses, which the US doesn’t have federally. Washington runs persistent budget deficits rather than surpluses, and the country’s political and structural preferences favour private capital markets over state-owned investment funds. Still, some states such as Alaska, Texas, California and New York control large investment funds.

Burgum, who previously served as the governor of North Dakota, said a government fund would be able to repay companies that invest in approved projects if changing political winds in Washington rescinded support.

Dominant China

China is the top global producer of 30 of the 50 minerals that the US Geological Survey considers to be critical. For rare earths, which comprises a group of 17 elements, it has a near monopoly over the global supply chain, accounting for over 60% of the mine production and nearly all of the processing.

The US, meanwhile, has limited domestic production and imported about 80% of the rare earths it used last year, with most of those coming from China.

Amid heightened trade conflicts between the world’s two biggest economies, China has weaponized its critical minerals dominance by imposing export restrictions on seven rare earths, highlighting the urgency for US to developing its own sources.

Fast-tracked projects

Last week, the White House identified 10 mining projects to be fast-tracked under the FAST-41 permitting initiative. These include projects covering copper, lithium and antimony in states such as Idaho, Arizona and Nevada.

On Wednesday, Burgum’s Interior Department announced that it will expedite the development of domestic energy resources and critical minerals. Under the new emergency permitting system, mine project approvals could be reduced from years down to just 28 days at most.

As part of its plan to boost domestic production of critical minerals, the Trump administration has also proposed to build metals refining facilities on Pentagon military bases as part of an executive order last month, Reuters previously reported.

Under the partnership, Codelco will hold a majority stake — 50% plus one share — aligning with President Gabriel Boric’s push to increase state control over the production of lithium, a key component in electric vehicle (EV) batteries.

The green light from Chile’s Fiscalía Nacional Económica (FNE) follows approvals from regulators in the European Union, Brazil, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. A decision from Chinese authorities is still pending.

“This is an important milestone. The regulator examined the transaction over nine months with the necessary scrutiny,” Codelco chairman Maximo Pacheco said in the statement.

He noted that discussions with local Indigenous communities are progressing and that final approval from Chile’s nuclear energy commission (CCHEN) is expected later this year.

The joint venture has met opposition from some Chilean lawmakers and legal challenges from Tianqi, a major Chinese stakeholder in SQM.

Since 2016, the company has invested roughly $70 million in developing the project. But lithium prices have plunged over 80% since peaking in November 2022, driven by a global oversupply and slower-than-expected electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Ghana, Africa’s top gold producer, granted Atlantic Lithium a 15-year lease to develop Ewoyaa by late 2024, aiming to tap into the growing EV sector. However, current market conditions could derail those plans.

“While current lithium prices present headwinds, we believe that through collaboration and prudent fiscal measures, we can advance Ewoyaa to production and deliver lasting value for all stakeholders,” executive chairman Neil Herber said in a statement. 

He added that the company remains committed to working closely with the Ghanaian government and local communities to make Ewoyaa a regional flagship.

Despite a slight recovery in lithium prices thanks to normalizing auto production, analysts remain cautious. Additional tariffs in the US, including a 25% levy on auto parts expected by May 3, have further clouded the demand outlook.

New mining revenue framework

Atlantic Lithium is seeking concessions on Ghana’s new mining revenue framework, which includes a 10% free carried interest for the state and a special 13% royalty on gross revenue from lithium production.

General manager Ahmed-Salim Adam told Reuters the project’s internal rate of return has plummeted from 105% to just 13.6%. “Nobody is going to put their money in that,” he said. “It should have been 30% to make sense.”

In response to the financial strain, the company laid off 25 employees in October and plans to lay off about 50 more in May.

Half of Ewoyaa’s lithium output is earmarked for a US-based refinery owned by Piedmont Lithium (NASDAQ, ASX: PLL), Atlantic Lithium’s second-largest shareholder, which has also agreed to finance most of the mine’s construction.

Atlantic Lithium aims to produce 3.6 million tonnes of spodumene concentrate over 12 years — roughly 350,000 tonnes annually — which would rank Ewoyaa among the world’s ten largest lithium projects.

For BMI, a price reporting agency (PRA), this is an important step in having its prices used to settle derivative contracts traded on exchanges, an area dominated by information firms Fastmarkets and S&P Global Commodity Insights.

An agreement between BMI and ICE signed earlier this year covers prices of lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, spodumene concentrate and cobalt hydroxide, BMI said. Spodumene concentrate contains lithium.

They are all crucial materials for lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles, a key plank of the global energy transition.

BMI said the contracts will be cash-settled and listed in London on ICE Futures Europe. New contracts typically need regulatory approval.

ICE declined to comment.

“BMI is the benchmark for lithium and critical mineral prices that settle billions of dollars of contracts,” said BMI executive chairman Simon Moores.

Industry sources say BMI has pioneered price assessments for lithium, cobalt and critical minerals price reporting.

Approval by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) indicates that BMI’s assessment methodology has been reviewed and conforms with international best practices and standards.

In March, ICE Futures Europe president Chris Rhodes told the FT Global Commodities Summit in Switzerland that the exchange was planning to launch lithium, cobalt and spodumene derivatives in London this year.

At that time Rhodes said the advantage of these contracts on ICE is that many of the participants active in these markets are already managing their wider energy portfolio at ICE.

Last year, UK-based Global Commodities Holdings Ltd said it was working with ICE to create cash-settled derivatives contracts for nickel, also used in electric vehicle batteries.

Commodity exchanges across the globe are seeking to capture strong expected growth in demand for minerals needed for electric vehicles and renewable energy.

CME Group and the London Metal Exchange (LME), owned by Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, offer futures in lithium and cobalt, while China’s Guangzhou Futures Exchange has listed lithium carbonate futures.

Singapore-based Abaxx Commodities Exchange launched lithium carbonate and nickel sulphate contracts this year.

(By Pratima Desai; Editing by Eric Onstad and Alexandra Hudson)

The stock surged to 0.092p in late-morning trading in London, up from Tuesday’s close of 0.030p. By midday, it was up 80% at 0.056p, valuing the company at £25.3 million ($33.6 million).

Premier, which operates the Zulu lithium-tantalum mine in Zimbabwe, said a potential deal with Glencore could help it resolve a $35 million debt owed to major shareholder Canmax Technologies. The debt stems from an offtake prepayment arrangement tied to a 2022 agreement that promised Canmax 50,000 tonnes of spodumene concentrate annually from Zulu, beginning in May 2023.

Repeated delays in bringing a spodumene concentrator online have prevented Premier from meeting production targets.

The company is now looking to finalize a binding purchase agreement with Glencore within three months. If successful, Glencore would also support Premier in managing and repaying its outstanding obligations to Canmax and other creditors.

The agency stated that it has accepted applications from Eramet in the Agua Amarga salt flat; from Eramet, Quiborax, and state-copper giant Codelco, for the Ascotan salt flat; and from the Caliche Kairos consortium for the Coipasa salt flat.

Leftist President Gabriel Boric introduced a plan to boost state control over lithium, a light metal key in electrical vehicles and the energy transition, in 2023 and form public-private partnerships to expand the industry.

The plan included a state-controlled joint venture between Codelco and SQM, the country’s largest lithium miner, as well as opening up other salt flats for development.

On Tuesday, the mining ministry said that once indigenous consultations in the salt flats and other conditions for the CEOL, a special permit to mine lithium, are established, the contract will be signed if applicants agree.

“Otherwise, public bidding processes will be initiated, as was the case with the Ollague salt flat in the Antofagasta region, and Piedra Parada and Laguna Verde in the Atacama region,” the statement said.

To qualify for the expedited process, parties had to demonstrate a certain level of ownership of the mining concession, financial capacity and experience in mining or the value chain.

The statement also noted that a dialogue for indigenous consultation to modify a CEOL at the Maricunga salt flat on behalf of Codelco had concluded.

“All that remains is the publication of the closing resolution, which will include the 11 agreements reached with the six communities that participated in the process,” the statement said.

(By Fabian Andres Cambero; Editing by Alexander Villegas and Alistair Bell)

The state-run miner said the deals will deliver 1.5 terawatt-hours of green power annually starting in 2026, sourced from Generadora Metropolitana — owned by Chile’s AME Group and France’s EDF — and GR Power Chile.

The contracts, awarded through a public tender, include lithium-ion battery storage and will run from January 2026 to December 2040. They will supply both current and future energy needs across Codelco’s operations.

“With these contracts, we are strengthening our plan to completely decarbonize our electricity grid by 2030,” chief executive Rubén Alvarado said in the statement. “This reinforces the path towards sustainable mining, aligned with our purpose of being a pillar of sustainable development in Chile and the world.”

Codelco began its shift to renewables in 2018, renegotiating legacy contracts and launching new tenders to replace coal-based power with cleaner, cheaper, and more stable energy sources.

One of those renegotiations, with Colbún and CTA, freed up capacity beginning in 2026, enabling a pair of tenders. The first, awarded in 2024, went to Atlas, Innergex, and Colbún for 1,800 GWh per year. The second, sparked by a renegotiation with Engie (CTA), led to the agreements just finalized.

The shift is expected to cut annual CO₂ emissions by 2.78 million tonnes, as Codelco replaces all remaining fossil-fuel electricity with renewables. The move also shields the company from potential carbon tax hikes and future regulatory costs.

Codelco currently consumes about 9% of Chile’s total electricity.

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

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

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

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

Newcomers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing counters gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare earth representation

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

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

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

Lithium down to a single stock

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newcomers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing counters gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare earth representation

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

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

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

Lithium down to a single stock

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australia has two major political parties, Labor and Liberal, though the Liberal Party and National Party have an alliance known as the Coalition.

Before the election was called in late March, the two main parties were neck and neck in the polls.

Peter Dutton, leader of the conservative Liberal Party, initially leaned into the early popularity of US President Donald Trump, a move that has led to him being nicknamed “Trump Lite” or “Temu Trump”.

That strategy seems to have backfired in recent weeks, with Dutton and the Liberals slipping in the polls.

While the Australian Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, is leading on a two-party preferred basis, if it can not win a majority, it will likely look to the Australian Greens for support to be able to form government.

Campaigns launched

Both Labor and the Coalition formally launched their campaigns on Sunday, April 13.

Albanese held his campaign launch in Perth in a nod to the importance of Western Australian resources sector.

He was introduced by popular WA Premier Roger Cook, who won re-election last month in a landslide.

Two days before the launch, Albanese and Resources Minister Madeleine King were hosted by Rio Tinto during a visit to the Pilbara town of Karratha.

Labor did not outline any new policies to support the resources sector but has pledged A$8 billion ($5.1 billion) of additional investment in renewable energy and low emissions technologies via an expansion of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. 

Dutton launched his campaign in Sydney and promised to be a “friend of the mining and resources sector”.

He has warned Labor would shut down mining, particularly if it needs the support of the Greens.

Dutton and Shadow Resources Minister Susan McDonald unveiled the Coalition’s “Plan for a Strong Resources Industry”, which promises to cut red and green tape, expand the critical minerals list to include uranium, zinc, bauxite, alumina, aluminium, potash, phosphate and tin, and refocus the critical minerals strategy to better align with the defence and strategic needs of Australia and its allies.  

The plan also included a A$3.4 billion investment in Geoscience Australia over 35 years to map all of Australia, an announcement slammed by Albanese.

“That was in last year’s budget, last year’s budget that the Coalition, now, more than a year later, they’ve decided to pretend that it’s a new policy announcement at this election,” he told reporters. 

Three years of Albanese

The current government has a mixed record when it comes to mining.

One of the initiatives popular with the mining sector was the establishment of the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive (CMPTI), a 10% tax credit for processing and refining costs of Australia’s 31 critical minerals from July 1, 2027.

The bill was passed by the Senate in February.

“This is the first time any Australian government has put their money where their mouth is for the critical minerals industry,” the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) CEO Warren Pearce said.

“This will stimulate billions in new investment in critical minerals processing, which will be far more valuable than the incentives on offer.”

One of the low points of the government’s relationship with miners was the rejection of Regis Resources’ (ASX: RRL) McPhillamys gold mine last year.

After a lengthy approvals process, the proposed mine was approved by New South Wales and federal regulators but was overturned by federal Environment Minister Tania Plibersek on Aboriginal heritage grounds.

“That is a really bad message for Australia and the rest of the world,” Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) chair Andrew Michelmore told the Melbourne Mining Club in March.

Last year, the government introduced the ‘Same Job, Same Pay’ industrial relations legislation, which was slammed by BHP (ASX: BHP) as requiring it to pay inexperienced labor hire workers the same as a worker with decades of experience, impacting costs and productivity.

Dutton said he would not repeal the law.

“I understand the difficulty for some of the companies who are facing already a fairly militant union sector and want reforms but that’s our position,” he said on April 3.

Coalition all-in on nuclear

One of the Coalition’s key election policies is a plan to introduce nuclear energy into Australia’s power mix, which has been estimated to cost A$331 billion.

The policy has won the support of the MCA, while BHP is open to nuclear being considered.

“For Australia to be able to compete globally – and let’s face it, there’s economic headwinds that we’re leaning into in the coming years and decades in Australia – we have to be able to keep existing businesses competitive and to be able to grow new industries to overcome some of those headwinds,” BHP CEO Mike Henry told reporters in February.

“That requires affordable, reliable supply of electricity, whilst meeting this long-term ambition of being net zero. In order to achieve that, we have been strong proponents of a technology neutral strategy, and so, are we supportive of nuclear being part of the mix for consideration? Yes.”

Fortescue (ASX: FMG) founder and executive chairman Andrew Forrest has a different view, telling a Perth event on April 10 that he was close to the nuclear industry and knew it well after weighing up its potential for the past two decades.

He questioned why the taxpayer should have to pay for technology he described as “high cost and high risk” when compared to renewables.

“I know young males think nuclear is pretty cool but all I can say is, that’s until they’re educated. That’s until they’re told it’s not cool, it’s highly expensive to build, it’s almost impossible to take down and its power costs are nothing fancy at all,” Forrest said.

Permitting in focus

Lengthy approvals processes are a sticking point for the mining sector, something the Coalition has promised to address.

In a speech to the WA Mining Club in March, MCA chief executive Tania Constable accused the Albanese government of taking “a particular bent against our industry”.

“There is no reason in 2025 that environmental assessments and approvals could not move from years to hours, with the use of AI and enhanced environmental data,” she said.

Miners have been particularly vocal in its opposition against the government’s now-defunct Nature Positive legislation, which proposed the establishment of a national environmental protection agency, in addition to existing state agencies.

The bill never passed the Senate after protests from the resources sector and WA Premier Roger Cook, with even the Greens opposing it.

Plibersek says Labor is still keen to establish a federal environmental protection agency, but rather than duplicating approvals processes, she maintains it would speed up permitting.

“Our laws are 25 years old. They’re not fit for purpose, they don’t protect the environment, they’re not good for business,” she told the ABC on April 12.

“We want better environmental protections and faster, clearer decision making. We can do both, but it’s going to take common sense and compromise.”

The same day, WA Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash told reporters the policy would have a “devastating” impact on mining projects.

Incentive schemes under threat

The Coalition has committed to repeal the CMPTI, with Dutton long maintaining that projects needed to be economically viable on their own.

Former WA Nationals leader turned federal Nationals candidate Mia Davies criticised the stance.

“Good policy deserves support,” she told the ABC on April 15. 

Her comments were welcomed by AMEC CEO Warren Pearce, which described the CMPTI as a policy that focused on realising more value from Australia’s minerals.

“Right now, it is the only policy that does so – that’s the truth of it,” he said.

In March’s federal budget, it was revealed that it would not extend the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive (JMEI).

Earlier this year, modelling by BDO, commissioned by AMEC, found the JMEI had stimulated A$404 million in greenfield exploration activity since 2017, at a cost to taxpayers of A$182.2 million in credits.

The Coalition has vowed to reintroduce the JMEI, pledging A$100 million for the scheme.

“The reinstatement of the incentive is necessary to decrease the risk for junior explorers,” MCA’s Constable said.

“Australia’s vibrant junior exploration sector plays a crucial role in the mining ecosystem by driving innovation, discovering new mineral deposits, and providing the foundation for future large-scale mining operations.”

Strategic minerals reserve

In a statement responding to US tariffs on April 3, Albanese announced that if re-elected, his government would establish a Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve.

Albanese and King have each said more details of the policy would be provided before the election.

King’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Cook confirmed he was working “closely” with Albanese on the details of the policy.

AMEC’s Pearce suggested a Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve could further incentivize critical minerals exploration and production and create a strategic stockpile that provided greater resilience against global trade measures, and greater influence over critical mineral supply chains.

“Make no mistake. Australia is a critical minerals powerhouse. We can be the reliable supplier of critical minerals to the world, including the United States,” he said.

“Given the ground is moving so quickly, the onus is now on our political parties, to figure out how best to take advantage of this opportunity.”

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)

Mines Minister Dele Alake said the two countries will partner on mining, including geological mapping using drones, share mineral data, and jointly explore agro and energy minerals in Nigeria.

Besides oil, Nigeria is also rich in gold, limestone, lithium, iron ore and zinc. Nigeria has around 23 mineral deposits in commercial quantities.

Nigeria is seeking to revamp a mining sector that has long been underdeveloped, contributing less than 1% to its gross domestic product.

South Africa’s established mining expertise makes it a key partner in this effort, Alake said.

(By Camillus Eboh; Editing by Elisha Bala-Gbogbo and David Evans)

The move secures the permit’s validity and clears the way for final export approvals for spodumene concentrate, expected to begin next quarter. It also resolves compliance issues around Malian government participation, as required by the country’s new mining framework.

LMLB is 65% owned by Kodal Mining UK (KMUK), a joint venture between Kodal Minerals (49%) and China’s Hainan Mining (51%). The remaining 35% stake is held by the Malian government.

Shares in Kodal rose 3.7% to 0.39p in mid-afternoon London trading, pushing its market cap to nearly £80 million ($106 million).

Bougouni is on track to become Mali’s second operational lithium mine, following Ganfeng Lithium’s first spodumene production at the Goulamina project in December.

Kodal chief executive officer, Bernard Aylward, said earlier this month the company was confident it would meet its production target of 11,000 tonnes of spodumene concentrate per month.

Located 170 kilometres south of Bamako, Bougouni sits in a mining-rich region that includes Hummingbird Resources’ Yanfolila gold mine and B2Gold’s Fekola operation.

Mali’s military government has tightened control over the mining sector since seizing power, introducing a new mining code in August 2023. The law increases the state’s share of mining revenues and scraps tax exemptions for mining firms.

The junta has proved aggressive in implementing the new rules, souring relations with major investors, including Barrick Gold, Resolute Mining and B2Gold.

The iron ore and lithium miner said that Susie Corlett and Jacqueline McGill, were leaving the board, without given further details. They were two of the three-member ethics and governance committee formed after an internal probe found that outgoing managing director Chris Ellison had withheld details about personal transactions, causing what the company described as a “significant reputational impact.”

Independent director Denise McComish remains the sole member of the three-person committee.

Chairman James McClements, who is also set to depart in the coming months, thanked Corlett and McGill for their efforts. “Susie and Jacqui have dedicated substantial time and effort over recent months in our efforts to improve governance and procedures across the business, whilst navigating their significant other professional commitments,” he said in the statement. 

It is unclear whether Corlett and McGill, who were privately the most critical of Ellison’s conduct, will be replaced.

Mineral Resources’ stock closed at A$16.61 in Sydney on Wednesday. The company has lost more than 52% of its value since the start of the year and now holds a market cap of A$3.3 billion ($2.1 billion), well below its gross debt of A$5.8 billion.

Ellison, a self-made billionaire from New Zealand who left school at 15, has vowed to quit the company by next year. He admitted to participating in an offshore tax scheme that benefited him and others at the company’s expense.

MinRes has been struggling financially, particularly in its lithium division, where low prices led to the shutdown Bald Hill, near Kalgoorlie. The company has also scaled back iron ore production, suspended dividends and is facing a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Additional pressure has come from unexpected costs related to repairs on its Onslow iron ore haul road.

US President Donald Trump is seeking a bilateral minerals deal as part of his push to end Ukraine’s war against the Russian invasion. Trump also sees it as a way to recover billions of dollars the US has spent on military assistance to Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has said that Ukraine would not recognise past US military aid as loans.

“Our technical teams have worked very thoroughly together on the agreement, and there is significant progress. Our legal staff has adjusted several items within the draft agreement,” Svyrydenko said in a social media post on X.

Svyrydenko said the work on the deal would continue and that both sides agreed to sign a memorandum in the near term as the first stage to record the progress.

Deputy Ukrainian Economy Minister Taras Kachka told national television that talks were advancing and that it was likely a provisional document, or memorandum, could be signed very soon.

“A final document won’t be signed this week. There is a lot of work to be done because the ideas included in the agreement by the US side need to be developed further,” Kachka said.

The United States has reduced its cost estimate for the assistance provided to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in 2022 to about $100 billion from $300 billion, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Last month, the Trump administration proposed a new, more expansive minerals deal, which gives Ukraine no future security guarantees but requires it to place in a joint investment fund all income from the exploitation of natural resources by state and private enterprises across Ukrainian territory.

The future agreement would require ratification in Ukraine’s parliament and was expected to help economic growth in both countries, Svyrydenko said, but provided no more details.

“It will create opportunities for investment and development in Ukraine and establish conditions for tangible economic growth for both Ukraine and the United States,” she said.

(By Yuliia Dysa and Olena Harmash; Editing by Frances Kerry, Ron Popeski and Bill Berkrot)

The order lays bare what manufacturers, industry consultants, academics and others have long warned Washington about: that the US is overly reliant on Beijing and others for processed versions of the minerals that power its entire economy.

China is a top global producer of 30 of the 50 minerals considered critical by the US Geological Survey, for example, and has been curtailing exports in recent months.

Trump signed an order directing Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to begin a national security review under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. That is the same law Trump used in his first term to impose 25% global tariffs on steel and aluminum and one he used in February to launch a probe into potential copper tariffs.

Asked for comment on the order, China’s foreign ministry said on Wednesday that “artificial interference in the supply chain violates the laws of the market economy and international trade rules.”

US dependency on minerals imports “raises the potential for risks to national security, defense readiness, price stability, and economic prosperity and resilience,” Trump said in the order.

Within 180 days, Lutnick is required to report his findings to the president, including whether to impose tariffs. Were Trump to then impose a tariff on a nation’s critical minerals, the rate would supersede the “reciprocal” tariffs Trump imposed earlier this month, according to the White House.

The review will assess US vulnerabilities for the processing of all critical minerals – including cobalt, nickel and the 17 rare earths, as well as uranium – how foreign actors could be distorting markets, and what steps could be taken to boost domestic supply and recycling, according to the order.

The US currently extracts and processes scant amounts of lithium, has only one nickel mine but no nickel smelter, and has no cobalt mine or refinery. While it has several copper mines, the US has only two copper smelters and is reliant on other nations to process that essential metal.

The probe may create an opportunity for some friendly supplier nations angling for exemptions, given Washington has previously flagged potential tariff carve outs for energy and other minerals that are not available domestically.

“Given Australia is a trusted supplier of critical minerals essential to US industries, this investigation presents an opportunity for the nation to strengthen its position as a reliable supplier of these essential resources,” said Tania Constable, CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia.

“But we cannot afford to be complacent. Australia must negotiate a framework that delivers mutual benefit to both Australian producers and US industries, while also continuing to forge and deepen strategic partnerships with other like-minded nations.”

Rare earths producer Australian Strategic Materials, which has been supported by US government funding, welcomed any efforts to build an alternative supply chain for critical minerals, “particularly in the current environment where supply of critical minerals is dominated by one state player,” its CEO Rowena Smith told Reuters.

The company can support Washington in building domestic capability by replicating its Korean processing plant in the United States, she said.

The order is the latest in Trump’s effort to jumpstart US minerals production and processing. The president last month signed an order directing federal agencies to create a list of US mines that could be quickly approved and federal lands that could be used for minerals processing.

Still, it takes years to build a new mine and processing facility, which has sparked concern about where the US could procure minerals were tariffs broadly imposed.

“Ultimately the US gets certain minerals from China because there are not alternative supplies elsewhere,” said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the critical minerals security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

‘Full scope’

Beijing earlier this month placed export restrictions on rare earths in response to Trump’s tariffs, a move that further exacerbated supply concerns amongst Trump officials.

Rare earths are a group of 17 elements used across the defense, electric vehicle, energy and electronics industries. The United States has only one rare earths mine and most of its processed supply comes from China.

The restrictions from China were seen as the latest demonstration of the country’s ability to weaponize its dominance over the mining and processing of critical minerals after it put outright bans on the export of three other metals last year to the US and imposed export controls on others.

Chinese mining companies across the globe have been flooding markets with cheap supplies of critical minerals like rare earths in recent years, fueling calls from industry and investors for Washington to support US projects.

The White House also said Trump was focused on closing tariff loopholes. As with other products, the supply chain for critical minerals processing involves multiple countries.

“An effective policy should take into account the full scope of the supply chain to level the global playing field,” said Abigail Hunter, executive director of SAFE’s Center for Critical Minerals Strategy.

(By Ernest Scheyder, Costas Pitas, Fransiska Nangoy, Melanie Burton and Amy Lv; Editing by Sonali Paul, Saad Sayeed and Tomasz janowski)

Evelyn Matthei has asked her coalition lawmakers to request information “in order to review the suitability of the pact for the country and the future development of that industry in Chile,” the center-right presidential candidate posted Tuesday on her X account.

Matthei’s pledge is the latest twist in drama surrounding a deal that would see SQM relinquish a majority stake in its prized Atacama salt flat mine to Codelco in exchange for three more decades of operations. Tianqi Lithium Corp., a key SQM shareholder, has said the tie-up lacks transparency and should go to a shareholder vote.

To be sure, Codelco expects to have the approval process wrapped up next quarter, which would allow the two companies to begin joint lithium operations before the next government takes office in 2026.

The tie-up is part of current President Gabriel Boric’s policy of requiring state-owned companies to partner with private-sector firms in lithium areas deemed to be strategically important.

The government accused Matthei of “engaging in discussions that divert attention from important matters, that ignore the progress we have made as a country, and that, in this case, call into question the world’s leading mining company,” spokesperson Aisen Etcheverry told the 24 Horas news network later on Tuesday.

Matthei garnered 20% of voter support, up from 18% the week prior, a Cadem public opinion survey published late Sunday showed. That level of backing puts her ahead of all other contenders. Chile’s first-round presidential vote will take place on Nov. 16 and a run-off, if needed, would be on Dec. 14.

(By James Attwood)

The state-owned mining company has been approached by copper users as well as global trading firms to potentially put up funds to rebuild the Paipote smelter that was mothballed early last year, chief executive officer Ivan Mlynarz said Monday in an interview.

Sinking money into smelting would appear to make little business sense right now given there’s a global glut, which may be exacerbated by the US’s push to be self sufficient in copper. But Mlynarz says the project is viable, considering it would use more efficient technology and produce byproducts such as gold and sulfuric acid. Chile is among countries looking to boost local smelting for sustainability reasons and to ease their dependence on China.

Enami has started sounding out advisers for a process to finance the project, in which the state company will retain 100% ownership, Mlynarz said. One option is that metal buyers would essentially pay up front for copper. Multilateral lenders offer another option, he said.

Mlynarz is striving to get the project moving before the government’s term ends in March, with environmental permitting and the results of an independent audit expected to be in place by mid year.

“Today, there are a range of interested parties — that’s very different from 20 months ago,” Mlynarz said. Asked what’s changed, he said: “The certainty of the project — the probably that it will be a reality.”

Separately, Chile’s other state mining company Codelco is working on a proposal to develop a new smelter with private capital. Codelco closed one of its smelters in 2023 for environmental reasons, while a proposed toughening of emission rules poses a threat to another.

Enami’s other big project is in lithium. Latest drilling puts resources at the Altoandinos project at about 3 million tons of the white metal. That indicates it could sustain annual output of as much as 100,000 tons compared with an original estimate of 60,000 tons, Mlynarz said.

The state firm is seeking a partner to develop Altoandinos, with four shortlisted candidates — Rio Tinto Group, China’s BYD Co., France’s Eramet SA and Posco Holdings Inc. of South Korea — due to make binding offers April 21 and a winner to be chosen in May. Bidders are betting lithium will recover from the lowest levels on almost four years as a glut works its way through battery supply chains.

(By James Attwood)

The US company said its platform can provide the charge even at low temperatures — without compromising safety, cycle life or compatibility with existing manufacturing processes.

Developed in partnership with the University of Michigan, the breakthrough validates Arbor’s drop-in technology as a scalable, chemistry-agnostic upgrade to today’s lithium-ion batteries, the company said. 

The platform integrates into conventional formats and production lines, eliminating the need for new materials, designs or factory retooling, it added.

“This is fast charging without compromise,” Arbor CEO Andrew Davis said in a news release. “We’re not asking battery makers to change chemistries or reconfigure production. Arbor fits into the battery factories of today — and delivers the performance tomorrow demands.”

Key results from the Joule study confirmed 10-minute charge (6C) at temperatures down to -10°C; No lithium plating was observed, even under fast-charging and low temperature conditions and all in commercially relevant pouch cells using rapidly scalable processes that are drop-in compatible with current Li-ion manufacturing.

By enhancing charge uniformity and suppressing lithium plating — common challenges in high-rate cells — Arbor said its platform enables step-order performance gains using current battery materials and processes. It is compatible across scales, from R&D to gigafactory, and across use cases from EVs to defense.

The need for faster, safer and more efficient batteries continues to grow across sectors — from automotive to aerospace. Arbor said its platform meets these demands while preserving manufacturers’ existing infrastructure.

“Battery makers have invested billions in their production ecosystems,” said Davis. “We built a solution that honors those investments.”

The full study is available here.

The move is aimed at countering Chinese global dominance in the critical minerals sector by tapping into a largely unexploited part of the Earth. The polymetallic nodules formed on the sea floor are said to contain rich amounts of nickel, cobalt, copper and manganese used in batteries, as well as traces of rare earth minerals, a group of 17 elements required to build high-tech applications.

China is currently by far the world’s biggest supplier of rare earth minerals, accounting for nearly 70% of the global production, the US Geological Survey estimates. The Asian nation also controls about 90% of the world’s processing of rare earths, and is a world leader in the processing of battery metals.

The executive order, according to FT, would allow the US government to build a “strategic reserve” of these critical minerals, like it had done with gold and oil. The plan is to “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 FT sources said.

Amid escalating trade tensions between the two countries in recent months, China has already leveraged its supply dominance by placing export restrictions on some rare earth minerals.

The critical minerals stockpile is part of a broader push to fast-track deep-sea mining applications under US law, and to create onshore processing capacity, the FT report added. It coincides with a Reuters report earlier this month that the Trump administration is considering an executive order to accelerate seabed mining by allowing companies to bypass authorities backed by the United Nations and seek permits directly from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Like the US, China also has ambitions to mine the ocean floor, and according to reports, is poised to lead the “race to the bottom”.

As for the minerals found onshore, Trump signed an executive order last month to activate the Defense Production Act with the aim of boosting domestic mining and processing of critical minerals and making the US less reliant on China.

To avoid focusing on just one asset, the company last year bought the Tanbreez rare earths project in Greenland, one of the world’s largest hard rock deposits of the rare metals.

“Geopolitics is one of the main reasons I got into rare earths,” Sage said in an interview last month at the annual Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention in Toronto. “[With the tariff situation], it’s had a reaction from China straight away. Our asset in Greenland is now very valuable, because the flow of those minerals will now come to the west.”

After the company closed a $22.5 million financing in February, it plans to split the cash between building roads to the mine in Greenland and for developing land at Wolfsberg to build a concentrator plant.

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