A vocal Trump supporter who attended the president’s inauguration party in Mar-a-Lago in January, Rinehart told Reuters that rather than “whine and whinge” about Trump and his policies, Australia could benefit from a similar approach.

“Australia must reduce its costs, cut government wastage and the expense of government tape, regulations, compliance, licences…,” Rinehart said in exclusive comments sent to Reuters.

Rinehart is Australia’s richest person with a net worth Forbes puts at $30 billion. Her flagship mining company, Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd, is among the biggest donors to opposition leader Peter Dutton’s Liberal Party, more than tripling donations in the 2024 financial year to A$500,000 ($320,000), according to Australian Electoral Commission data.

Voter concerns over the global fallout from Trump’s stop-start tariffs and volatile diplomacy appear to have hurt the prospects of Dutton’s conservative coalition ahead of the May 3 vote, with polls in the final stretch of the campaign showing the ruling centre-left Labor Party of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese easing ahead.

The trend is similar to that seen in Canada this week where Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals staged a major political comeback, fuelled by a backlash against Trump.

Rinehart said the outcome of Trump’s tariffs policies may take a few months to play out, noting “more than 75 countries had asked to meet with US Administration officials to negotiate on tariffs.”

Dutton’s office and the Labor party did not respond to requests for comment.

Rinehart’s support of Dutton and the populist conservative movement in Australia has echoes of the support for Trump by billionaire Elon Musk, who is now a key adviser to the president.

Rinehart has not publicly sought any Australian government role, but has called for the establishment of a version of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). She also wants Australia to withdraw from the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, as Trump did during his first term.

When Trump was inaugurated in January, Dutton was ahead in opinion polls, as Australians expressed anger over the cost of living and housing affordability.

In the week after Trump and Musk arrived in the White House, Dutton criticized public servants hired as “culture, diversity and inclusion advisers.” He later promised to set up a Ministry of Government Efficiency, but has since played down comparisons with Trump and his policies.

Rinehart suggested without providing detail, that in Australia “the Left” was resisting public sector cuts because they benefited from bureaucratic largesse.

“Perhaps not surprising the Left are also against Elon Musk and DOGE, you might think, wouldn’t they like to see this taxpayer drain minimalized, but no, certainly not those with snouts in the trough. And not those who may be concerned they will have to pay money back where wrongly taken, or even go to jail.”

Dutton has proposed cutting around 41,000 non-frontline government jobs in Canberra, a figure Labor said was impossible given the number of jobs in the capital fitting the criteria.

Fossil fuels, defence boost

Rinehart has been a vocal supporter of fossil fuels to boost energy security and lower prices. She was pictured during the Trump campaign smiling and wearing a sign that read “Drill Baby Drill.”

Dutton has been a major backer of natural gas, pledging to incentivize more production, and wants to introduce nuclear power, in contrast to Labor which is relying on renewables and batteries to lower power prices and meet carbon commitments.

“Probably the biggest single government tape that needs to be on pause, so our economy has the chance to recover, is the Paris Accord,” Rinehart said.

“Could it be that the American public are ahead of us, they understand that cutting the mining and export of fossil fuels brings less revenue, less jobs and opportunities,” she added.

Last month, in response to questions that Liberal Party policies had not gone far enough for Rinehart on gas, while at the same time had not ditched a commitment to net zero emissions, Dutton said: “We’ll have points of difference with many people, but that doesn’t mean that it impacts your friendship or your relationship with different business people.”

Rinehart last week called for Australia, a key US security ally, to spend 5% of its gross domestic product on national security, in line with the Trump administration’s policies.

Labor has pledged to boost defence spending by A$50 billion over the next decade, but would have to more than double its current spending to meet a 5% goal.

Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting in February disclosed for the first time a roughly $1.3 billion US investment portfolio, with many of the largest holdings in companies involved in energy, mining and rare earths – crucial for defence and aerospace technologies.

A Reuters analysis of the 10 top holdings show they are up 2.3% in the first four months of the year, in contrast to a 5.5% fall in the S&P 500, thanks largely to a 57% surge in shares of rare earths producer MP Materials.

“Americans may be ahead of us recognizing they want strong leadership providing defence of their country and people, which President Trump is also busy doing,” Rinehart said.

“Although, they may not want their taxpayers dollars and defence personnel’s lives risked to help allies who don’t understand them, whine and whinge and worse, are incredibly rude to them, and who do bugger all to provide their own defence.”

($1 = 1.5603 Australian dollars)

(By Melanie Burton; Editing by Praveen Menon and Lincoln Feast)

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

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

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

Don’t mention the rare earths

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long road from mine to market

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

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

That is a long journey.

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

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

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

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

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

Price protection

Market price is another problem.

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

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

But will mining it in Ukraine be economically viable?

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

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

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

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

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

Staking the metallic future

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Editing by Barbara Lewis)

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

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

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

The charges stem from several investigations launched by the Canadian environment ministry’s enforcement officers.

The concerned subsection of the law prohibits depositing or permitting “the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish or in any place where the deleterious substance may enter any such water,” the government said.

(By Ismail Shakil and Kanishka Singh; Editing by Chris Reese)

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)

Rio Tinto pledged to reform its business practices after it blew up the 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge rock shelters in Western Australia in 2020 for an iron ore mine. The destruction sparked a huge public and investor outcry, a government inquiry and ultimately the exit of its CEO and chair.

Deanna McGowan of the Robe River Kuruma Aboriginal Corporation said at Rio Tinto’s annual general meeting in Perth that the Mesa J mine, the company’s largest on the group’s lands, had been operating for 30 years.

“You have paid us for three years,” she said. When Rio Tinto negotiated the agreement with the group’s elders twenty years ago, executives had said there was no need to include the mine because it would soon close, she added.

“And here we’re now … 17 years of payments that Rio has cheated us at Mesa J,” she said.

The lands belonging to the Robe River Kuruma group do not include Juukan Gorge but are in the same Pilbara region.

Rio Tinto chair Dominic Barton said the company was committed to reaching an agreement on the issues raised by McGowan.

“We want to be able to get to an agreement and a resolution working with you. We’ve had a number of conversations and we’ll be having after this meeting as well, but there is a very, very strong commitment to work through these issues with you,” Barton said.

Earlier in the AGM, Barton said the mining giant had relationships with more than 60 Indigenous and land-connected groups globally.

“Many of these are very positive relationships, while a small number remain challenged,” he said.

Inquiries in the aftermath of the Juukan Gorge destruction revealed that past agreements between miners and many Aboriginal groups had prevented the groups from speaking publicly about damage to their heritage and underpaid them royalties for mining on their lands.

As a result, Rio Tinto and other major miners such as BHP and Fortescue pledged to update their land-use agreements with traditional groups.

Failures by Rio Tinto to reach such agreements could disrupt its production schedule.

The miner warned in its quarterly production report that its guidance remains “subject to the timing of approvals for planned mining areas and heritage clearances.”

(By Melanie Burton and Renju Jose; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)

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.

Chief executive Gustavo Pimenta told reporters in Rio de Janeiro the market is oversupplied due to output from Indonesia. “Nickel remains attractive in the medium and long-term,” he said, citing demand for electric cars production.

“The question is how to remain profitable in the short term,” the executive added.

The CEO noted Vale must work to improve efficiency of its assets, and cut costs to have a profitable nickel business within current market prices.

“We are evaluating if some assets in the portfolio could have a strategic alternative,” Pimenta added.

In January, Vale said its subsidiary Vale Base Metals had started a “strategic review” of its nickel assets in Thompson, Canada, including their potential sale.

Pimenta also said on Tuesday that Vale has started to reverse in April the iron ore production decline it reported in the first quarter of the year, adding he is “very confident” that the miner will meet its 2025 production guidance for the steel-making ingredient.

The executive noted the company could again be the world’s largest iron ore producer if rivals such as Rio Tinto miss their output estimates for the year.

(By Rodrigo Viga Gaier, Gabriel Araujo and Andre Romani; Editing by Chris Reese and Aida Pelaez-Fernandez)

Fast-tracking approvals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investment in critical minerals

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

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

US tariffs

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

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

Energy superpower

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental commitments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Minerals belong to the people’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerdau, Brazil’s largest steelmaker by market capitalization and the owner of mills across the Americas, posted adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of 2.4 billion reais, beating the 2.29 billion reais seen by analysts in an LSEG poll.

Still, the adjusted EBITDA fell nearly 15% year-on-year, while adjusted net profit declined 39% to 758 million reais.

Gerdau noted, however, that adjusted EBITDA remained nearly stable quarter-over-quarter due to stronger results in North America.

In the earnings report, the firm said the higher demand in the United States was partly seasonal, “but also customers’ reaction to changes in US trade policy, increasing inventory levels and favoring the purchase of domestically produced steel.”

Net revenue in North America increased more than 16% from the quarter ended in December, while falling 3.5% in Brazil.

Gerdau’s total net revenues stood at 17.38 billion reais in the quarter, above the 17.06 billion reais expected in an LSEG poll.

($1 = 5.6537 reais)

(By Andre Romani; Editing by Kylie Madry)

The iron ore producer, chaired by its billionaire founder Andrew Forrest, posted quarterly iron ore shipments of 46.1 million metric tons (mt), compared with 43.3 million mt reported a year earlier. That was largely in line with a Visible Alpha consensus estimate of 46.8 million mt.

The uptick in iron ore shipments comes despite Fortescue facing significant weather disruptions, including a five-day closure of the port of Port Hedland and operational constraints from Tropical Cyclone Zelia that drove a 7% quarter-on-quarter decline.

Shares of the world’s fourth-largest iron ore miner rose as much as 2.1% to a four-week high of A$15.8, outperforming a 0.3% rise in the broader mining sector.

Fortescue said it continues to review the timeline for its Iron Bridge operations to reach full production capacity of 22 million mt annually, with an assessment of key processing equipment expected to be completed by June.

For its green energy division, Fortescue is reassessing development timeframes for its Arizona Project in the US and its Queensland-based Gladstone PEM50 Project, with “greater clarity” on external factors affecting these projects expected by June.

The company maintained its fiscal 2025 iron ore shipments guidance of 190 million-200 million mt, including 5 million-9 million mt for Iron Bridge on a 100% basis. Projected 2025 capital expenditure of $3.5-$3.8 billion also remains unchanged.

Fortescue delivered its first T 264 Power System to mining equipment manufacturer Liebherr during the quarter. The system is designed to convert diesel mining trucks to zero-emission vehicles as part of the company’s decarbonization efforts.

(By Roushni Nair, Adwitiya Srivastava and Melanie Burton; Editing by Shailesh Kuber and Rashmi Aich)

“We are encouraging our companies to acquire assets abroad, right from iron ore to coking coal to even limestone and dolomite,” Poundrik said at an industry event in Mumbai. “Raw material securitization is the most important aspect of steelmaking.”

India, the world’s second-largest producer of crude steel, aims to boost its overall steelmaking capacity to 300 million tons by 2030, up from about 200 million tons currently.

To support this expansion, coking coal imports are projected to rise to 160 million tons by 2030 from around 58 million tons now, Poundrik had projected on Friday.

Despite an uptick in steel output, India’s coking coal imports dipped 0.7% in the fiscal year ended in March due to lower shipments from Australia and the United States, said commodities consultancy BigMint.

India relies on imports to meet 85% of its coking coal needs, with Australia supplying more than half of those shipments.

In a bid to diversify supply, India has also been exploring partnerships with Mongolia. However, logistical challenges remain in sourcing material from the landlocked country, Poundrik noted.

India’s state-run miner NMDC is exploring coking coal assets in Indonesia and Australia, chairman Amitava Mukherjee said on Thursday.

(By Neha Arora and Sethuraman NR; Editing by William Mallard)

“Below $90 a ton there will be a very significant percentage of global production that will be under water, that will lose money, and probably stop producing,” chief financial officer Marcelo Bacci said in a press conference Friday after the company reported first-quarter earnings that missed estimates. “This generates a price improvement effect.”

Analysts from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and data provider Mysteel Global have said prices could slip below $85 a ton by the end of the year as tariff-related uncertainties put further pressure on prices.

Vale still sees solid demand for its flagship product from China, a market that accounts for 60% of its sales. Bacci said he’s confident that iron ore prices will stay around $100 per ton with stable supply and consumption.

Rio de Janeiro-based Vale has been adopting a strategy of maximizing value by offering a flexible portfolio to suit its clients’ demands. With steel mills navigating a challenging moment, customers aren’t always paying a premium to buy higher-quality ore. The Brazilian company said it plans to launch a mid-grade product using iron ore out of Carajas, a region of Brazil where the company has its most prized operations.

“This is much more appropriate to what the market is looking for,” Rogerio Nogueira, Vale’s commercial executive vice president, told investors on the call Friday. The company expects to present the new product to the market in the next 12 months.

(By Mariana Durao)

Read More: Vale to raise Carajas iron ore output with $12 billion investment

Vale, one of the world’s largest iron ore producers, posted a net profit of $1.39 billion for the quarter through March, slightly missing a consensus estimate of $1.68 billion by analysts polled by LSEG.

The company said earnings were hit by a decline in iron ore prices but the impact was partially offset by its production cost-cutting measures and the Brazilian real’s appreciation against the US dollar.

“We had a consistent start to the year, aligned with our objectives for management in 2025,” CEO Gustavo Pimenta said in the earnings report, noting a good cost momentum.

Vale posted adjusted core profit as measured by earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) at $3.12 billion, down 9% and close to the $3.16 billion expected by analysts.

The results came in line with expectations and cost performance was the highlight, Itau BBA analysts said. However, they added that “lower realized prices more than offset the improvement in volumes and lower costs in the yearly comparison”.

Vale’s so-called C1 cash cost of iron ore fines, which measures production costs from the mines to the ports, fell 11% in the quarter to $21 per ton.

The miner’s operational report last week had shown iron ore volume production falling 4.5% due to heavy rainfall in Brazil, although Vale was able to increase sales volume with supply from inventories.

Still, a 16% decline in market reference prices of iron ore, Vale’s main product, weighed on its own sales prices and led to a 4% net revenue decline to $8.12 billion, marginally above analysts’ estimate of $8.03 billion.

(By Marta Nogueira and Andre Romani; Editing by Brendan O’Boyle and Rashmi Aich)

Companies around the world have been bracing for the potential impact of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which have sparked a trade war and led business to warn of growing uncertainty and concerns about the global economy.

“For the second half of 2025, we foresee a challenging and uncertain scenario,” the Brazilian firm said in a securities filing after reporting its quarterly results.

“That is mainly due to high volumes of steel imports under conditions of unfair competition, the impact on domestic consumption caused by the current high interest rates, and uncertainties in international trade.”

Steelmakers in Latin America’s largest economy have long complained of an unfair playing field, saying that China floods the market with cheap material. Usiminas again called on the government to do more to control those imports.

The Brazilian firm reported a net profit of 337 million reais ($59.08 million) for the January-March period, up 845% year-on-year, beating the 225.02 million expected by analysts in an LSEG poll.

Steel sales were up 5% on a yearly basis to 1.09 million metric tons while iron ore sales jumped 13% to 2.11 million tons. Both should remain relatively stable in the second quarter, Usiminas said.

($1 = 5.7044 reais)

(By Gabriel Araujo; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

The startup, which came out of stealth in 2022, has raised a total of $214 million from investors including Bill Gates-led Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Singapore-based Temasek Holdings, and Capricorn Investment Group.

The latest round comes at a time when President Donald Trump is upending the clean-tech landscape. Though he has threatened to undo policies for carbon-saving technologies, his tariffs on steel imports are meant to spur US production. But with uncertainty around how long those tariffs will last, startups like Electra aren’t seeing increased interest yet.

In January public filings, Electra set an upper limit on the raise at $257 million, but the final sum for this round announced today is $186 million, of which $129 million is new money and the rest is equity converted from a previous round.

Electra is now building a demonstration plant in Colorado that will produce 500 tons of iron starting in early 2026. It will ship test materials to steelmakers, including Nucor Corp., which is also investing in the startup. Those companies can convert the iron into steel using electric-arc furnaces. If powered by renewables, the process would produce emissions-free steel.

If Electra’s iron meets the standards customers are looking for, chief executive officer Sandeep Nijhawan expects to convert those early deals into offtake contracts the company can use to raise loans to build its commercial plant. Electra is scouting for a location and is open to considering sites outside the US.

“We see the demand,” said Nijhawan. “But we have to temper that with the risk that comes to the table with the first-of-a-kind plant.” Nijhawan wouldn’t reveal the prices for Electra’s iron from such a plant, but said he has an understanding with steelmakers on the range of prices that the startup will need to achieve if it wants to quickly seal deals.

Electra initially planned to build a 50,000-ton plant by 2027 and a million-ton plant by 2029. However, Nijhawan now says that timeline was based on the desire to go as fast as possible and is no longer realistic. With the company working on a detailed plan that includes securing permits for land and green electricity, it now expects to have a 50,000-ton plant fully running by 2029 and a million-ton plant operating by the early 2030s.

It hasn’t been easy for climate startups to raise funds over the past few years, as venture capitalists have reined in spending after a post-pandemic boom. US funding ticked up to more than $5 billion in the first quarter of 2025, according to data from Pitchbook. But climate tech entrepreneurs remain cautious as Trump threatens to gut many of the government incentives for carbon-cutting technology.

Electra hadn’t secured any US government funding, so policy changes won’t directly impact the startup, said Nijhawan. Trump’s baseline tariffs on China and other countries are likely to make securing equipment and clean power more expensive, while the uncertainty about the level of tariffs and how long they’ll remain in place will lead to a purchasing decision slowdown.

Trump’s 25% tariffs on steel should incentivize domestic production — in theory. But the tariffs alone wouldn’t be a sufficient reason for Electra to build its commercial-scale facility in the US. The company is looking at other factors such as government incentives and easy access to clean power, both areas where the US scores lower than countries such as Australia.

“No doubt tariffs and the volatility in the market is not conducive for business, but we are taking a very long-term view and not being reactive,” said Nijhawan. “We have got to build this plant to withstand any political changes because this plant is going to last more than 20 years.”

Steelmaking accounts for about 7% of global carbon dioxide emissions — more than shipping and aviation combined. Converting iron ore to iron is responsible for 90% of that.

Traditionally, the process involves adding iron ore and high-grade coal into a furnace, which extracts the oxygen attached to iron atoms in the ore. Doing so also releases greenhouse gases, though. Electra’s technology performs the same chemical process, but it relies on electricity and does so without producing carbon dioxide if the power comes from clean sources.

Other startups are also attempting to decarbonize ore processing. Boston Metal, which has raised $370 million since it started a decade ago, also relies on electricity, but uses temperatures of up to 1,400C (2,550F). That means the process must run continuously or risk solidifying molten metal, unlike Electra’s, which operates at low temperatures and can be turned off whenever needed.

Sweden-based Stegra (formerly H2 Green Steel) also promises to produce emissions-free iron by relying on hydrogen derived from splitting water using renewable electricity. The company has raised more than €6.5 billion ($7.4 billion) to build its first commercial plant as soon as 2026. However, because hydrogen is still quite expensive, Stegra will have to rely on high-grade iron ore, which can be processed without too much wasted fuel. Electra says it can use low-grade ore, of which billions of tons are available at mines around the world.

All these green-steel startups have to rely on access to low-carbon, cheap power. Even though solar and wind power are the cheapest sources of new power to build, in Europe and North America, there’s a long and growing queue of companies trying to access these new renewable plants. Steel startups with thin margins have to compete with capital-rich tech companies building electricity-gobbling data centers that will pay higher power prices to jump the queue.

The main challenges for Electra remain whether it can show its technology can work at commercial scale and produce iron at prices that steel consumers are willing to pay. But before that, it will have to raise more money to build the commercial plant. That round will be hundreds of millions of dollars at least, and the process of seeking funds has already begun.

“We are always raising money,” said Nijhawan. “That’s the truthful answer.”

(By Akshat Rathi)

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

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

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

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

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

BHP declined to comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While prices of aluminum, zinc, and copper have given up the heady gains of 2024, the 71-year-old tycoon is betting that a simpler structure for the sprawling group and growing demand for critical minerals will add to the allure of his companies even as the specter of a global recession looms.

The overhaul will allow the group to list each of its key businesses: aluminum, oil & gas, power, iron & steel, along with the publicly traded core company Vedanta. The demerger could provide new funding sources and increase financial transparency across the group, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mary Ellen Olson.

“The time for growth is now as demand is strong, supply is tight, and we’re positioned in the right markets,” Agarwal said in a recent video interview from his London home, adding that most of the materials mined by his company are locally consumed. The billionaire said that this makes Vedanta less vulnerable to potential disruptions in global supply chains arising from US President Donald Trump’s tariff measures.

Vedanta is also expanding the gamut of its operations by winning rights to mine critical minerals like nickel, chromium, platinum, and cobalt in India through November auctions. The global demand for these and other metals that are key to energy transition remains high and will give the group the next fillip of growth, Agarwal said.

Middle East and Africa

Agarwal has long dreamed of building an empire that spans continents and competing with the ranks of the world’s largest diversified miners, including Rio Tinto Group and BHP Group Ltd.

The group plans to spend more on overseas projects and is doubling on investments in the Middle East and Africa. Vedanta is set to invest $2 billion in copper-processing facilities in Saudi Arabia — one of the largest by a foreign firm — as the oil kingdom aspires to build its metals and mining industries significantly.

“Saudi not only has good geology but strong local consumption too,” Agarwal said, adding that “funding is never a problem for a project like that.”

According to local government estimates, Saudi Arabia has untapped resources, including phosphate, copper, gold, and bauxite, worth as much as $2.5 trillion. About a third of its investments in the country will be funded through internal accruals, and for the rest, the group will seek project financing, Agarwal said.

The company is currently seeking funds to develop mines in Africa, too. The Konkola Copper Mines in Zambia, which it controls, has a major copper deposit and cobalt reserves, according to Vedanta.

The financing options being weighed range from a billion-dollar bond offering, “off-take financing, or sale of a minority stake to global investors, for which there is significant demand,” Agarwal said.

Cutting debt

Vedanta shares dropped about 7% this year in Mumbai trading amid a slump in commodities prices. Other than economic growth woes, weighing on investor sentiment is the company’s $6.2 billion debt, the upshot of an acquisition spree since the turn of the century that includes stakes in Bharat Aluminium Co. and Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

Over the last two years, Agarwal has been on a drive to cut leverage and push back repayment deadlines on the group’s borrowings. The plan is to halve it over the next three years.

The group will be cautious about loading up on debt as it chases growth for each demerged unit, he said. All existing shareholders of Vedanta will receive one new share in each of the newly listed entities against each share they own in the parent company.

“There is no need for a stake sale to reduce our debt at the parent company level, and neither are there any plans to sell our stakes in any of the demerged entities,” Agarwal, who started as a scrap metal dealer and has weathered cash crunches and government friction, said. Each listed company can look at issuing fresh shares to raise funds for expansion, he said.

The so-called debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ratio — a financial metric that measures a company’s ability to pay off its debt obligations — for Vedanta has to be brought down to 1 from the current 1.4 and maintained, according to him.

Over the years, Agarwal has been grooming his daughter Priya Agarwal Hebbar to take over from him as the head of the conglomerate. A psychology and film studies graduate from the University of Warwick, the 35-year-old is the chairwoman of Hindustan Zinc and is on the board of Vedanta.

“The group’s future is very focused on transition and critical minerals, and that is where the company will go,” Hebbar said.

(By Anto Antony)

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.”

ERG, a Luxembourg-based producer of copper, cobalt, aluminum and iron ore that is 40%-owned by the Kazakh government, said last year it had formed a task force to explore deposits of rare earth and rare metals in Kazakhstan.

Those minerals have gained particular attention in recent months as US President Donald Trump’s administration seeks alternatives to China to supply its domestic industry as a trade war between the countries escalates.

According to a source close to the company, talks between ERG and Cameron have been going on since the end of last year. Cameron shares a name with the Academy Award-winning film director, but the two are not related.

ERG, the Kazakh government, and Cameron, once a board chairman of former FTSE 250 mining firm Petropavlovsk, did not comment.

According to Cameron’s letter to the ERG board, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters, Goldman Sachs is in preliminary talks to advise on the deal.

“The financing will come from a combination of my own funds, as well as equity contributions from other investors in the United States, and possibly Australia and the Middle East,” the letter said.

Another source close to the transaction told Reuters the investor’s interest in ERG is partly linked to Kazakhstan’s potential in critical minerals exploration and mining. Kazakhstan aims to lift rare and rare earth metals output by 40% by 2028, with ERG seen taking a major role in the initiative.

This month, Kazakhstan’s government announced that its geologists had discovered a large rare earth deposit with estimated resources exceeding 20 million metric tons.

Kazakhstan’s Prime Minister Olzhas Bektenov said last year that data concerning the country’s deposits of rare and rare earth metals, a state secret since Soviet times, is being gradually declassified.

If confirmed, this discovery could position Kazakhstan among the top three holders of rare earth reserves globally, following China and Brazil.

ERG once produced one-fifth of the world’s gallium, a rare metal used in microchips and included on the US list of critical materials. However, it ceased production after China increased its output of the metal in 2012.

Beijing in December banned gallium exports to the US after a crackdown by Washington on China’s chip sector.

In 2013, ERG was taken private in a $4.5 billion buyout by its three founders, who each owned approximately 20% of the company, along with the government.

Last month, one of ERG’s founders and its board chairman, Kazakh-Israeli businessman Alexander Mashkevich, passed away, leaving only one of the original founders, Patokh Chodiev, among the current shareholders.

(By Gleb Bryanski and Mariya Gordeyeva; Editing by Guy Faulconbridge and Jan Harvey)

The most-traded September iron ore contract on China’s Dalian Commodity Exchange (DCE) dropped 1.76% to 699 yuan ($95.80) a metric ton, its lowest since April 11. It registered a weekly drop of 0.7%.

The benchmark May iron ore on the Singapore Exchange fell 0.88% to $96.95 a ton as of 0706 GMT, posting a 0.2% decline so far this week.

Even as US President Donald Trump signalled a potential end to the tit-for-tat tariff hikes between the US and China that shocked markets, all eyes are on more progressive signs of easing trade tensions between the two superpowers.

Goldman Sachs analysts forecast iron ore prices to fall to $90 by the fourth quarter and $80 by the fourth quarter of 2026, citing a return to surplus from the second half of the year.

“We expect tariffs to weigh on both China domestic demand and steel exports over the remainder of the year,” they said, lowering their ex-China seaborne ore demand growth forecast to 3% from previous 5%.

But near-term ore demand remained firm, limiting price loss. A Mysteel survey showed average daily hot metal output, a gauge of iron ore consumption, steadied at a nearly 17-month high of 2.4 million tons on Thursday.

Also, a raft of better-than-expected Chinese data, coupled with hopes of Beijing unveiling more measures to counter the US tariff shocks, boosted sentiment.

Other steelmaking ingredients on the DCE languished, with coking coal and coke down 0.68% and 0.35%, respectively.

Most steel benchmarks on the SHFE retreated. Rebar lost 0.81%, hot-rolled coil dipped 0.66%, stainless steel fell 0.62%. Wire rod advanced 0.48%.

($1 = 7.2961 Chinese yuan)

(By Amy Lv and Lewis Jackson; Editing by Sumana Nandy)

This week, BHP Group Ltd., Rio Tinto Group, and Vale SA all reported drops in quarterly shipments from the year before, the result of disruptions from cyclones in Australia’s Pilbara and heavy rains in northern Brazil. Rio was worst affected, with exports slumping 9% to a six-year low.

That leaves the companies needing to play catch-up on their supply targets at a time when escalating tensions with the US could wreak havoc on the Chinese economy. The question now is whether Beijing will deliver enough stimulus to support demand for steel and its inputs, of which iron ore is key.

“We might see a recovery phase where these companies ramp up production to compensate for the lost output,” said David Cachot, an iron ore research director at Wood Mackenzie Ltd. “Market participants are waiting to see what Beijing will do to further stimulate its economy, an additional source of concern the country did not need.”

Market dives

Before the supply disruptions hit and trade tensions ratcheted higher, the iron ore market was contending with a surge in supply just as demand in China’s maturing economy was dwindling. Still, benchmark iron ore futures in Singapore were steady, averaging around $103 a ton over the first three months, about the same as the previous quarter.

But the market dived earlier this month, to below $95 a ton at one point, after the Trump administration announced punitive tariffs on China, and Beijing responded with its own eye-watering levies on the US.

Now, China’s economic targets are in doubt, and officials have set a clear goal of expanding domestic consumption to counter the hit to exports. That could lift demand for the steel used in vehicles, household durable goods and machinery. Iron ore traders are also probably hoping that Beijing doesn’t ignore the playbook it has used during previous downturns, which involves splurging on more steel-intensive infrastructure to generate growth.

BHP chief executive officer Mike Henry warned on Thursday that slower global growth and a fragmented trading environment could have a significant impact on the company.

“China’s ability to shift toward a consumption-led economy and for trade flows to adapt to the new environment will be key to sustaining the global outlook,” he said.

(By Katharine Gemmell)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copper and potash

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

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

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

(By Paul-Alain Hunt)

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.

The company now expects Pilbara iron ore shipments for 2025 to hit the lower end of its forecast range of 323 million to 338 million metric tons.

A series of tropical cyclones in the first quarter snarled activities at the Dampier port in the Pilbara region, with the company previously warning of total losses of 13 million tons of iron ore due to bad weather.

Rio Tinto has implemented recovery plans to recoup about half the weather-related losses at a cost of about A$150 million ($95 million) for repairs and additional contract mining across its Pilbara operations.

“Pilbara iron ore guidance remains subject to the timing of approvals for planned mining areas and heritage clearances. The system has limited ability to mitigate further losses from weather if incurred,” the company said in a statement.

Shares of Rio Tinto fell 1.2% to A$110.14, in line with the 0.2% drop in the broader mining sector.

The miner has been struggling to consistently ramp up production while shipping more lower-grade ore as it prepares to bring its next generation of iron ore mines online.

It risks losing its position as the world’s top iron ore producer if Brazil’s Vale SA, which reported on Tuesday, achieves the upper end of its 325 million to 335 million tons guidance for 2025.

Rio Tinto’s 2025 outlook of 323 million to 338 million tons excludes an expected 9.7 million to 11.4 million tons from its Canadian operations.

Meanwhile, copper production on a consolidated basis rose 16% to 210 thousand tons compared with a year ago, but fell 8% quarter-on-quarter.

At its Kennecott operation in Utah, copper production plunged 32% from the previous quarter due to unplanned conveyor failures, though it increased 7% year-on-year. The affected conveyor has since been restored to full functionality, the company said.

The world’s largest iron ore producer shipped 70.7 million tons of the steel-making commodity from its Pilbara operations in the three-month period ended March 31, down from 78 million tons last year, and missed a Visible Alpha consensus estimate of 73.6 Mt.

($1 = 1.5785 Australian dollars)

(By Roushni Nair, Rajasik Mukherjee and Melanie Burton; Editing by Devika Syamnath and Sherry Jacob-Phillips)

One of the world’s largest iron ore producers, Vale said heavy rainfall impacted production in its Brazilian Northern mining complex.

The weaker first-quarter output had been expected, Vale said, and it reaffirmed its outlook to produce between 325 million tons and 335 million tons of iron ore in 2025, as it also began the ramp-up of mining projects VGR1 and Capanema.

Sales of iron ore rose 3.6% in the quarter year-on-year to 66.1 million tons, the report showed, with Vale attributing the increase to supply from inventories, while also noting it has been prioritizing medium-grade products given market conditions.

The average realized price of Vale’s iron ore fines was $90.80 per ton in the quarter ended in March, down almost 10% year-on-year and a 2.4% decline from the last quarter of 2024.

In a note to clients, Citi analysts said iron ore output and sales came mostly in line with expectations, but copper and nickel beat their estimates.

“We estimate very minor downgrades to consensus EBITDA estimates,” analysts Alexander Hacking and Stefan Weskott wrote, adding they expect the stock to perform in line following the results.

Vale will release its first-quarter earnings on April 24.

Vale’s copper production increased 11% in the quarter year-on-year to about 90,900 tons, with the firm citing strong performance at the Voisey’s Bay mine in Canada and the Salobo and Sossego operations in Brazil. Copper sales grew 6.6% to about 81,900 tons.

Nickel output rose about 11% year-on-year to around 43,900 tons, mainly due to higher output at Onca Puma in Brazil and better performance at its Canadian assets, Vale said. It sold 38,900 tons of nickel in the quarter, a 17.5% rise from a year earlier.

(By Andre Romani and Marta Nogueira; Editing by Natalia Siniawski and Sonali Paul)

The legislation was approved on Saturday by the House of Commons and the Lords after both chambers were recalled from their Easter recess. It hands Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds extensive powers to direct British Steel’s staff and operations and order raw materials to keep production going in Scunthorpe, the site of the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces that make steel from primary materials.

Neither Jingye nor British Steel responded to emailed requests for comment on Saturday. On Friday, the UK unit declined to comment about Parliament’s recall.

The new government powers were steamrollered through Parliament after Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government became concerned that Jingye was preparing to shutter the unprofitable furnaces, putting thousands of jobs at risk and leave the birthplace of the industrial revolution as the only Group of Seven nation without primary steel-making operations.

Jingye last month rejected a £500 million ($650 million) UK government rescue package. Opening the debate on Saturday, Reynolds told lawmakers that despite the government negotiating “tirelessly” with the Chinese firm, including making a “generous offer” to help keep the plant operational, the company had wanted an “excessive” amount.

“Over the last few days, it became clear that the intention of Jingye was to refuse to purchase sufficient raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running,” he said. “In fact, their intention was to cancel and refuse to pay for existing orders. The company would therefore have irrevocably and unilaterally closed down primary steel making at British Steel.”

Under the terms of the bill – which covers all steel facilities in England, not just those run by British Steel — any employee who fails to comply with the business secretary’s directions could face fines or as long as two years in prison. The legislation also provides for compensation for costs incurred by companies in complying with government orders.

Reynolds’ department said in a statement that the legislation meant that “anyone employed at the plant who takes steps to keep it running, against the orders of the Chinese ownership, can be reinstated if sacked for doing so.”

The move is the latest instance of the UK government falling out with a Chinese company over investments in critical national infrastructure. In 2022, the then-Conservative government announced it was buying out China General Nuclear Power Corp.’s investment in the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, while the UK also in recent years excluded Huawei Technologies Co. from supplying next-generation technology to Britain’s 5G wireless networks.

Funding to keep the Scunthorpe plant running will come from an existing government pot for the steel industry totaling £2.5 billion, according to the Department for Business and Trade. Reynolds said he didn’t want to keep the new powers that would result from passing the bill “longer than necessary,” though he also added that the full nationalization of British Steel is an option that remains “on the table.”

Nevertheless, Labour rejected proposals from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to add a sunset clause laying out when the business secretary’s new powers would end. Similar efforts in the Lords were withdrawn following assurances from Labour.

Summing up for the government at the end of the Commons debate, Industry Minister Sarah Jones said adding a sunset clause risked reducing the government’s leverage in negotiations with Jingye. She promised, however, that the government would “repeal this legislation as quickly as we can” and that Reynolds would update Parliament about its implementation every four working weeks. In the Lords, another business minister, Maggie Jones, said she would keep the upper chamber updated every four weeks, promising the powers would only be used “judiciously.”

Britain’s steel industry had been struggling even before the announcement of US President Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on imports of the alloy, with furnaces at Port Talbot shuttering last year. The closing of British Steel’s UK operations would jeopardize thousands of jobs in Scunthorpe and Teesside, also in northern England. The company employs around 3,500 people in total.

Trade unions last week warned that Jingye had canceled orders for iron ore, coking coal and other raw materials needed to make steel, raising concerns the Scunthorpe plant could effectively close within days.

Fuel shortages pose major operational and financial risks for steel mills, because blast furnaces need to be kept running continuously in order to stop molten metal from cooling and solidifying inside the furnace. Such events can severely damage the interior lining of a furnace and knock plants offline for months, and the cost of repairs can be sizable.

Recalls of Parliament from recess are rare events, with the last one taking place in August 2021 for a debate on the situation in Afghanistan. Saturday marked the 35th time it’s happened since 1948.

(By Alex Morales)

The suit brought by Tudor Jones’ family office in 2023 claims it helped Forrest’s Fortescue Ltd. find US renewable energy projects in which to invest as part of a joint venture but was “suddenly and abruptly” cut out of a $135 million (A$216.6 million) bid on a power-plant portfolio.

Though Fortescue’s bid was accepted, the deal ultimately fell through. Nonetheless, Tudor Jones’ family office may seek potential lost profits from the abandoned partnership.

Forrest, who is not named as a defendant, had fought being deposed in the case, but a federal judge in Connecticut last week ordered Australia’s second-richest person, to answer questions by Tudor Jones’ family office. Much of the deposition is likely to focus on Forrest’s relationship with former US Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. In his April 4 order, US Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector said there was evidence showing Forrest was directly involved in the bid and spoke to Manchin about it.

According to Tudor Jones’ family office, Fortescue pursued part of the power-plant deal that included a facility in West Virginia to curry favor with Manchin. Forrest allegedly wanted Manchin to support then-President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provided further incentives for renewable-energy investment.

But after the passage of the law in 2022, Forrest allegedly pushed to back out of the acquisitions and the partnership with Tudor Jones’ family office. In a message, Forrest had called it “at least the most stupid deal I’ve seen for a long while.” The West Virginia plant was eventually sold to a company partially backed by motivational speaker Tony Robbins.

The lawsuit doesn’t accuse Manchin of any wrongdoing. It also doesn’t allege his and Forrest’s interactions were improper. Manchin did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent to the Washington-based advisory firm where he now works.

A spokesperson for Fortescue said the company “disputes all claims made by the Jones family office.”

A spokesperson for the Tudor Jones’ family office declined to comment.

According to the lawsuit, the deal called for Fortescue to provide capital to fund the initial purchases of plants and related expenses. Meanwhile, Tudor Jones’ family office was to use its “deep understanding” of North American power and natural gas markets to assess and value assets and raise funds. It would then have the option to buy a 50% interest in the facilities. The family office says it spent $6 million researching deals.

Fortescue has argued that there was no formal deal with the family office and any oral promises about reimbursing due diligence costs were too vague to be enforced. Lawyers for the Australian company have also said Tudor Jones’ family office was free to make its own bid on the power plants.

The case is Kid Shelleen LLC v Fortescue Future Industries Pty Ltd, 23-cv-1311, US District Court, District of Connecticut (New Haven).

(By Chris Dolmetsch and Ava Benny-Morrison)

The offer strengthens the Rio Tinto and Mitsui partnership in the iron ore-rich region and follows Mitsui’s recent $5.34 billion acquisition of Rio’s Rhodes Ridge project. 

CZR’s board has already accepted the proposal, which outbids a competing offer from Fenix Resources (ASX: FEX).

Fenix, led by former rugby player John Welborn, must now either match or improve its bid if it wants to secure the 98.4-million-tonne Robe Mesa project. Its earlier all-scrip offer valued CZR at A$61 million ($38m) in February, based on a trading price of A$30.5 cents per Fenix share. The bid would have increased to A$98 cents per CZR share if 75% of shareholders had accepted by the March 21 deadline — a condition that was not met. Fenix shares have since dropped to A$28 cents.

The Rio-led offer includes a A$650,000 exclusivity payment and targets only the Robe Mesa tenements. CZR, backed by Australian billionaire prospector Mark Creasy, would retain its other assets. These include a 50% stake in the Ashburton Link export project, the Croydon gold project near De Grey’s Hemi discovery, the Buddadoo polymetallic project, and exploration ground at Shepherd’s Well and Yarrie.

CZR called the Rio-led bid “superior,” noting its higher value and the flexibility it provides to fund development of its remaining assets. Creasy, who owns 52.2% of CZR and already holds a 15% stake in Robe Mesa, said he would support the deal unless a better one emerged.

CZR shares rose 9.38% on Friday to close at A$30 cents, valuing the company at A$$69.8 million ($44m). Fenix shares fell to A$30 cents, leaving it with a market capitalization of A$204 million ($128m).

Trump’s comments were the latest in a series of confusing pronouncements in the long-running saga over Nippon’s pursuit of US Steel. Trump opposed the deal during the 2024 campaign, but has warmed to it since. On Monday, he directed a national security panel to take a fresh look at the all-cash bid for US Steel to help determine if “further action” is appropriate, raising hopes the deal could gain an elusive green light.

Since returning to the White House, Trump’s on-again, off-again approach to commerce has spooked business executives, who say the uncertainty has has clogged dealmaking and business activity, with the ramifications most evident in his decision to slap heavy tariffs on just about every major world economy, only to reverse course in the face of a market selloff and public pressure on Wednesday.

US Steel shares lost $3.12 to $42.02 on Thursday, well below Nippon Steel’s $55-per-share offer price.

“We don’t want to see it go to Japan,” Trump said, adding “We love Japan.”

“We don’t want it to go to Japan or any other place, and we’re working with them,” Trump said.

The comment shows the future of the deal remains uncertain given sudden changes in thinking at the White House.

White House officials gave no details about Trump’s comments or whether they contradicted Monday’s action. “Everything’s always on the table with the president,” one official said.

US Steel and Nippon Steel did not respond to requests for comment.

Outgoing President Joe Biden had blocked the merger in January on national security grounds.

After Biden’s decision, the two companies sued the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which scrutinizes foreign investments for national security risks, alleging Biden had prejudiced the committee’s decision and violated the companies’ right to a fair review.

The deal was announced in December 2023 and almost immediately ran into opposition across the political spectrum ahead of the November 5 US presidential election. Both then-candidates Trump and Biden vowed to block the purchase of the storied American company.

The companies had argued that Biden opposed the deal when he was running for reelection to win support from the United Steelworkers union in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, where US Steel is headquartered. The Biden administration had defended the review as essential to protecting security, infrastructure, and supply chains.

Last month, the Trump administration filed a motion to extend two deadlines in the lawsuit to give the government more time to wrap up merger talks with the firms.

Late on Monday, the Trump administration and the companies asked an appeals court to pause their litigation until June 5 while CFIUS reviews the tie-up again, noting that the process has the potential to “fully resolve” the companies’ claims.

(By Andrea Shalal; Editing by Scott Malone, Bill Berkrot, Jamie Freed and Anil D’Silva)

The rumours, reported in The Australian’s DataRoom column this week, claimed the Chris Ellison-led miner had “quietly” begun a sales process for Wodgina and tested investor appetite for a capital raise aimed at reducing its A$5.1 billion ($3.2 billion) net debt as of December.

MinRes reiterated last week and again in its half-year results that it has “no plans” to sell its Wodgina interest or launch an equity raising.

Despite that, market concerns persist. The company’s shares have slumped in recent months amid growing scrutiny of its debt-heavy balance sheet, corporate governance issues and downgraded credit agencies ratings.

Founder Chris Ellison, a self-made billionaire from New Zealand who left school at 15, is preparing to exit the company following an internal probe that found he failed to recognize the need for transparency and timely disclosure of conflicts of interest.

MinRes has struggled in its lithium division, with low prices forcing it to mothball operations at Bald Hill, near Kalgoorlie. The company has also scaled back iron ore production, suspended dividends, and faces unexpected costs to repair its Onslow iron ore haul road.

Net debt rose by A$656 million ($406m) by December last year, despite the company raising A$1.9 billion ($1.2bn) through the sale of a 49% stake in its Onslow iron haul road and its gas assets. In October, Australia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart, acquired MinRes’ energy business for A$1.1 billion ($680m).

Still, the company has said it remains confident in weathering the “miserable” lithium market, weak iron ore prices, and the impact of a “once-in-40-year” rainstorm that damaged its Onslow haul road in March.

Shares in MinRes surged 18.13% to A$17.01 on Thursday following the denial of the Wodgina sale rumours. The stock is down 51% since January and has lost 76% over the past year, dragging MinRes’ market capitalization to A$3.34 billion — well below its total debt.

The comment appeared to contradict recent actions by the Trump administration. On Monday, Trump directed a national security panel to take a fresh look at Nippon Steel’s all-cash bid for US Steel to help determine if “further action” is appropriate, raising hopes the deal could gain an elusive green light.

Following Trump’s latest comment, shares of US Steel fell as much as 14% to $38.57 in after hours trading before recovering slightly. They remained well below Nippon Steel’s $55 a share offer price.

“We don’t want to see it go to Japan,” Trump said, adding “We love Japan.”

“We don’t want it to go to Japan or any other place, and we’re working with them,” Trump said.

US Steel and Nippon Steel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The comment shows the future of the deal remains uncertain given sudden changes in thinking at the White House.

White House officials gave no details about Trump’s comments or whether they contradicted Monday’s action. “Everything’s always on the table with the president,” one official said.

Outgoing President Joe Biden had blocked the merger in January on national security grounds.

After Biden’s decision, the two companies sued the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which scrutinizes foreign investments for national security risks, alleging Biden had prejudiced the committee’s decision and violated the companies’ right to a fair review.

The deal was announced in December 2023 and almost immediately ran into opposition across the political spectrum ahead of the November 5 US presidential election. Both then-candidates Trump and Biden vowed to block the purchase of the storied American company.

The companies had argued that Biden opposed the deal when he was running for reelection to win support from the United Steelworkers union in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, where US Steel is headquartered. The Biden administration had defended the review as essential to protecting security, infrastructure, and supply chains.

Last month, the Trump administration filed a motion to extend two deadlines in the lawsuit to give the government more time to wrap up merger talks with the firms.

Late on Monday, the Trump administration and the companies asked an appeals court to pause their litigation until June 5 while CFIUS reviews the tie-up again, noting that the process has the potential to “fully resolve” the companies’ claims.

(By Andrea Shalal; Editing by Scott Malone, Bill Berkrot and Jamie Freed)