MABC’s 2025 Economic Impact Study assesses the potential economic impact of 18 proposed critical mineral mines, six precious metal mines and three steelmaking coal mines.

The independent study examines 27 mining projects in advanced stages of development. Of the 27 projects assessed, 21 are new mining projects and six are extensions to existing mines.

BC mineral producers have among the lowest carbon footprints globally and are world leading suppliers of responsibly-produced materials, according to the report, essential for technologies like EV batteries, smartphones, MRI scanners, wind turbines and jet engines.

The study concludes the near-term economic impact of project construction represents over C$41 billion in near-term investment, thousands of jobs that will generate C$27 billion in labour income, and more than C$12 billion in tax revenues.

Mine construction would result in C$20 billion worth of goods and services being purchased from mine suppliers across the province, MABC said.

The study estimates the operation of these mines over several decades could reach C$984 billion in economic activity.

“BC has the minerals, precious metals and steelmaking coal the world needs. Mining has the potential to drive a new wave of economic growth – creating jobs, strengthening local and First Nations communities, and generating revenues for government services,” MABC CEO Michael Goehring said in a news release.

But British Columbia’s mining projects face challenging permitting backlogs. Last year, the province’s exploration sector had over 60 critical mineral projects waiting for permits in a C$38 billion ($27 billion) pileup of economic opportunities.

“BC and Canada must take urgent and bold action to assert our economic sovereignty amidst global trade disruptions and the potential for escalating trade wars. Persistent permitting delays must be addressed to accelerate the development of mining,” Goehring said.

Last year, Canada and British Columbia announced an investment of C$195 million ($142 million) into critical minerals infrastructure in northwest BC, aimed at bolstering development and safety within the region.

“The responsible development of BC’s critical minerals, precious metals, and steelmaking coal resources can secure BC’s economic future, resiliency and long-term prosperity. It’s time to get more mines built,” said Goehring.

The full report is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(By Jennifer A Dlouhy)

The company’s over the counter units trading on US markets (OTCPK:GLNCY) was down by 8.6% in mid-afternoon dealings, recovering from a double digit fall at the open.

Glencore stock is down more than 26% so far this year, affording the company a market capitalization of just under $40 billion. Its market value peaked at the end of Q1 2022 at more than $90 billion.

The Swiss-headquartered miner and commodities trader reported a 30% drop in first-quarter copper production to 167,900 tonnes, but maintained its full-year forecast for 2025 at 850,000-910,000 tonnes, expecting higher output in coming months.

The top of that range would still be down from the company’s 2024 annual production of 952,000 tonnes. The Q1 production miss was primarily due to lower ore mining rates, head grades and overall recoveries at Collahuasi (29,400 tonnes), Antapaccay (20,800 tonnes) and KCC (16,700 tonnes) Glencore said.

First-quarter production of cobalt rose 44% on higher grades and volumes at its Mutanda mine, while nickel production fell 21%, it said. The company kept 2025 production guidance unchanged for both.

Glencore forecasts full-year trading and marketing earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) in the middle of its long-term guidance of $2.2 billion to $3.2 billion this year, compared to $3.2 billion in 2024.

“Since quarter-end, financial markets, including commodities, have been highly volatile and unpredictable, responding rapidly to US tariff newsflow and uncertainty.

“In such an unpredictable environment, risk management has been a primary focus, noting the many complex supply chains we are exposed to, including the US, China, Europe and Canada. Despite the ‘noise’, primary commodity trade routes to date have not been meaningfully disrupted.

“However, owing to the various proposed and currently being implemented tariffs across commodity supply chains, it is likely that some physical trade flow re-orientation and dislocation will manifest over the coming months, which may present opportunities for our marketing business,” Glencore said in a statement.

The trading division, whose profit hit a record $6.4 billion in 2022, includes coal, oil, liquefied natural gas and related products, as well as metals.

“Disappointing that in these volatile times with significant regional arbitrage in copper that marketing guidance was not at the top end of the range,” RBC Capital Markets analysts told Reuters.

Glencore’s first-quarter thermal coal production fell 7% to 23.4 million tonnes from 25.2 million tonnes a year before on lower output from its Australian mines.

The company is one of the largest producers and exporters of thermal coal, mining 99.6 million tonnes in 2024.

Glencore said in March it would begin reducing production at its Colombia mine Cerrejon by between 5 million and 10 million tonnes annually.

(With files from Reuters)

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)

“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)

A unit of Vulcan International, which owns the Moatize mine, has told the government it intends to cut 105 workers, an official with the Ministry of Labor said. Vulcan directly employs 3,365 people at its operations in Tete province, according to the firm’s website.

Vulcan – headed by Indian businessman Naveen Jindal – has attributed the proposed reduction in workforce to a restructuring of the company and a fall in coal prices, Adelaide Jantar, a provincial inspector at the ministry, told Bloomberg. Other coal mining companies are also cutting hundreds of workers, she said.

Violent protests following contested elections in October “made things worse,” she said. “We have never had such a huge number of dismissals in recent times.”

Vulcan Mozambique did not respond to emails requesting comment. Jindal’s company acquired the Moatize asset from Brazil’s Vale SA for $270 million in late 2021.

Coal sales, which are Mozambique’s biggest export, were worth $2 billion last year, according to data from the country’s central bank. Futures for coal loaded at South Africa’s Richards Bay port are down about 17% since the start of the year.

(By Tavares Cebola and William Clowes)

India, the world’s second-largest producer of crude steel, meets 85% of its coking coal requirements through imports. Australia accounts for more than half of the country’s coking coal imports.

The company is looking at this as a business opportunity, Mukherjee said. “They (explorations) are in different stages of negotiations.” He did not disclose the details of these talks due to confidentiality.

State-owned NMDC is India’s largest iron ore miner with four operational mines across the country.

The country’s top steelmaker JSW Steel’s CEO Jayant Acharya had told Reuters earlier in the day that the company sources coking coal from Australia, the United States and Mozambique. State-owned SAIL also procures coking coal from countries such as Mongolia.

Coking coal has traditionally been a volatile commodity because of its dominance in exports and the variability of weather, according to commodity consultancy firm BigMint.

In 2023, erratic weather conditions hit coking coal supplies from Australia.

(By Neha Arora and Manvi Pant; Editing by Mrigank Dhaniwala and Shilpi Majumdar)

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

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

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

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

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

BHP declined to comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newcomers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing counters gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare earth representation

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

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

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

Lithium down to a single stock

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newcomers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing counters gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare earth representation

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

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

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

Lithium down to a single stock

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That ended two years ago when, at the age of 43, he was diagnosed with advanced black lung disease. He’s now waiting for a lung transplant, breathes with the help of an oxygen tank, and needs help from his wife to do basic tasks around the house.

His saving grace, he says, is that he can still earn a living. A federal program run by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health called Part 90 meant he was relocated from underground when he got his diagnosis to a desk job dispatching coal trucks to the same company, retaining his pay.

“Part 90 – that’s only the thing you got,” he told Reuters while signing a stack of documents needed for the transplant, a simple task that left him winded. “You can come out from underground, make what you made, and then they can’t just get rid of you.”

That program, which relocates coal miners diagnosed with black lung to safer jobs at the same pay – along with a handful of others intended to protect the nation’s coal miners from the resurgence of black lung – is grinding to a halt due to mass layoffs and office closures imposed by President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, according to Reuters reporting.

Reuters interviews with more than a dozen people involved in medical programs serving the coal industry, and a review of internal documents from NIOSH, show that at least three such federal programs have stopped their work in recent weeks.

A decades-old program operated by NIOSH to detect lung disease in coal miners, for example, has been suspended. Related programs to provide x-rays and lung tests at mine sites have also shut down and it is now unclear who will enforce safety regulations like new limits on silica dust exposure after nearly half of the offices of MSHA were slated to have their leases terminated.

The details about the black lung programs halted by the government’s mass layoffs and funding cuts have not previously been reported.

“It’s going to be devastating to miners,” said Anita Wolfe, a 40-year NIOSH veteran who remains in touch with the agency. “Nobody is going to be monitoring the mines.”

The cuts come as Trump voices support for the domestic coal industry, a group that historically has supported the president.

At a White House ceremony flanked by coal workers in hard hats earlier this month, Trump signed executive orders meant to boost the industry, including by prolonging the life of aging coal-fired power plants.

“For too long, coal has been a dirty word that most are afraid to speak about,” said Jeff Crowe, who Trump identified as a West Virginia miner. Crowe is the superintendent of American Consolidated Natural Resources, successor to Murray Energy.

“We’re going to put the miners back to work,” Trump said during the ceremony. “They are great people, with great families, and come from areas of the country that we love and we really respect.”

Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIOSH, said that streamlining government will better position HHS to carry out its Congressionally mandated work protecting Americans.

Representatives for MSHA and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Black lung has been on the rise over the last two decades, and has increasingly been reported by young workers in their 30s and 40s despite declining coal production.

NIOSH estimates that 20% of coal miners in Central Appalachia now suffer from some form of black lung disease, the highest rate that has been detected in 25 years, as workers in the aging mines blast through rock to reach diminishing coal seams. Around 43,000 people are employed by the coal industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

More mining, more risk

Around 875 of NIOSH’s roughly 1,000-strong workforce across the country were terminated amid sweeping job cuts announced by HHS this month, according to three sources who worked for NIOSH.

That’s put the department’s flagship black lung program, the Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance Program, on hold, according to an internal NIOSH email dated April 4.

“We will continue to process everything we currently have for as long as we can. We have no further information about the future of CWHSP at this time,” the email says.

The CWHSP’s regular black lung screenings, which deploy mobile trailers to coal mines to test coal miners on site have ended too, because there’s no money to fuel the vehicles or epidemiologists to review the on-site x-rays or lung tests, according to sources familiar with the program.

For many miners, this program is the sole provider of medical checkups, according to NIOSH veteran Wolfe.

The loss of staff at NIOSH has also crippled black lung-afflicted miners’ ability to get relocated with pay as part of the Part 90 program.

Miners can only become eligible for the Part 90 benefit by submitting lung x-rays to NIOSH that show black lung. But all NIOSH epidemiologists in West Virginia required to review the x-rays were laid off, according to Scott Laney, who lost his job as an epidemiologist.

Laney told Reuters he and his fellow laid-off team have been working in an informal “war room” in his living room to try to draw attention to the issue among Washington lawmakers.

“I want to make sure that if there are more men who are going into the mines as a result of an executive order, or whatever the mechanism, they should be protected when they do their work,” he said.

Sam Petsonk, a West Virginia attorney who represents black lung patients, said relocating sick miners is crucial because the risks of continuing to work in dust-heavy areas while ill are so severe.

“It gets to the point that days and months matter for this program,” he said.

Silica threat

Last year, MSHA finalized a new regulation that would cut by half the permissible exposure limit to crystalline silica for miners and other workers – an attempt to combat the rising rates of black lung.

Enforcing that rule, which comes into force in August after being pushed back from April by the Trump administration, may prove difficult given the staff cuts and planned office closures at MSHA, said Chris Williamson, a former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health under the Biden administration.

He told Reuters that before he left MSHA in January, there were 20 mine inspector positions unfilled. A pipeline of 90 people that had already secured MSHA inspector job offers, meanwhile, had their offers rescinded after Trump took office, and around 120 other people took buyouts.

Mine inspectors are meant to uphold safety standards that reduce injuries, deaths and illnesses at the mines.

That loss of staff and resources raises the likelihood that black lung could become even more pervasive among Appalachian coal miners – particularly if mining activity increases, said Drew Harris, a black lung specialist in southern Virginia.

“As someone who sees hundreds of miners with this devastating disease it’s hard for me to swallow cutting back on the resources meant to prevent it,” he said.

Kevin Weikle, a 35-year-old miner in West Virginia who was diagnosed with advanced black lung disease during a screening in 2023, said the cuts make no sense at a time the administration wants to see coal output rise and will set back safety standards by decades.

“Don’t get me wrong, I mean, I’m Republican,” Weikle said. “But I think there are smarter ways to produce more coal and not gut safety.”

(By Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Anna Driver)

Australian Newcastle futures declined to $94.25 a ton on Thursday, the lowest for a front-month contract since May 2021. Seaborne coal prices have collapsed in recent months after milder winter weather curbed demand in China and other major Asian importers.

China’s fuel oversupply was exacerbated by a drop in output from thermal power plants in the first quarter, while coal production hit an all-time high last month. And a tit-for-tat trade war between the world’s two largest economies threatens economic growth and consumption of coal.

“We expect the seaborne market to track sideways for a while as the effects of global trade disruptions play out,” said Steve Hulton, senior vice president of coal markets at Rystad Energy. “However, in our view, the likely price direction is up as there are producers at the top end of the cost curve who are hurting at prices below $100 per ton.”

Chinese spot coal prices are near the rates of long-term contracts set by the government, according to the China Coal Transportation and Distribution Association, a theoretical bottom for the market.

That, along with with action from producers to cut back output, could slow price declines. Glencore Plc, the world’s biggest coal shipper, said last month that it is cutting planned production at its Cerrejon mine in Colombia to halt a prolonged collapse in prices.

Read More: China to keep building coal plants through 2027, state planner says

“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 changes to be introduced largely mirror those touted in a public consultation last month, with formerly flat levies on output now rising with commodity prices, according to a regulation document seen by Bloomberg and confirmed by people familiar with the matter. They asked not to be named as the details aren’t yet public.

The increase, at a time of trade turbulence and uncertainty in metals markets, is indicative of the extent to which the expense associated with flagship policies, including a new state investment fund and free school lunches, are weighing on Jakarta. Many producers are already under pressure from low prices.

The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, which regulates mining, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

According to the document, a flat levy of 10% on nickel ore production will be replaced with taxes varying from 14% to 19%, depending on price levels determined by the government. Lower grade ore that’s then processed into battery-grade nickel will pay a smaller 2% royalty.

“The regulation comes with a slight change to what had been proposed,” Ryan Davies, an analyst at Citigroup Inc, wrote in a note. “Overall, this might affect Indonesia’s dominance in the down streaming industry.”

“This might affect Indonesia’s dominance in the down streaming industry,” amid potential supply response in the medium-to-longer term via deterrent of new supply growth

Royalties paid on higher grade ferronickel and nickel matte will be lower than stipulated in the public consultation. Indonesia’s huge smelting industry has been grappling for months with a shortage of ore which has crimped margins and forced many firms to slash output.

Changes to royalties paid on open pit coal production, which accounts for the lion’s share of Indonesia’s massive output, will depend on existing permits. The levies for underground coal mining, however, will be lower by comparison.

Shares of coal companies including PT Bumi Resources and PT Indika Energy, who will see their royalties lowered under the new regime, rallied on Wednesday. Other Indonesian mining stocks were mixed.

The regulation comes into effect 15 days from April 11, the registration date, according to the document. The royalty increases were first reported by Bloomberg Technoz, a partnership between Mayapada Group’s PT Berita Mediatama Indonesia and Bloomberg Media Group, a division of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.

(By Eddie Spence)

The decision gives BHP, the world’s largest mining company, more time to extract between 13 and 15 million tonnes of thermal coal from what is currently NSW’s largest coal mine. The miner had announced in 2022 that it would wind down operations at Mount Arthur by 2030 — 15 years earlier than initially planned — after failing to find a buyer and as the mine approaches the end of its economic viability.

As part of its exit strategy, BHP has partnered with renewable energy and infrastructure firm ACCIONA Energía to explore converting the 7,000-hectare site into a pumped hydro energy storage facility. The proposal aligns with community calls to repurpose the site for long-term regional benefit.

“The community has told us they want to see Mt Arthur repurposed when mining ends,” BHP president Australia Geraldine Slattery said in a statement. “This study will examine the role pumped hydro at the Mt Arthur site could play in the region’s future.”

Preliminary studies suggest the project could support about 1,000 construction jobs in the Upper Hunter region, stimulate local economic activity in Muswellbrook, and provide enough power for up to 500,000 homes in New South Wales each day.

Life beyond coal

ACCIONA Energía, which operates more than 14 GW of generation capacity worldwide and is expanding rapidly in Australia, will lead a 12-month due diligence program to assess the project’s technical and commercial viability. The company already manages 600 MW of operating assets in Australia and has 1.3 GW under commissioning.

BHP also announced a A$30 million ($19m) community fund to support the Upper Hunter region’s transition beyond coal. The fund will be co-managed with local stakeholders and focus on job creation, economic empowerment, and industry diversification.

Pumped hydro systems provide dispatchable electricity by storing energy in the form of water at elevation. When demand spikes, the water is released downhill through turbines to generate power. 

BHP said that Mount Arthur’s topography and catchment potential make it well-suited for such a transformation.

That policy may raise questions about China’s commitment to phasing down coal use during the 2026-2030 period, although it says new coal projects are considered a back-up for renewable generation whose output depends on sunlight and wind conditions.

The guidelines, issued by the state planner and energy regulator, say that newly built coal plants should have 10-20% lower carbon emissions per unit of power output than the 2024 fleet, and also call for upgrades to some existing coal plants to meet those conditions.

Newly built and upgraded coal plants should also be able to safely and reliably adjust their output to help meet peak power demand.

The plan follows a report from the China Coal Association last week that said China’s coal consumption would not peak until 2028 – later than other forecasts that said China’s coal consumption could peak this year.

Rising coal usage in the power and chemicals sectors this year will support a small uptick in consumption, the association said, offsetting declining demand from the steel and building material industries.

(By Colleen Howe; Editing by David Holmes)

The state-controlled company wants the authorities to let it pay the 1.3 billion zloty ($345 million) due this year in installments starting in January 2026, it said in a statement on Friday. It’s the second time this week that the miner of coal for steel production is seeking financial relief from public institutions. On Monday, it said it would apply for a 1.6 billion zloty refund from the country’s power price subsidy fund.

The board is closely monitoring the financial and liquidity situation and is taking a “range of steps to avoid liquidity shortage,” JSW deputy chief executive officer Remigiusz Krzyzanowski said at an earnings call on Wednesday, when asked if the firm is prepared for cash shortage at the end of the year.

In November, the company employing more than 32,000 people announced an ambitious plan to trim investments and costs, while boosting production. Even as it has made some progress, JSW is still tapping its rainy-day fund to improve cash flows. Only this year, it has paid out 2.2 billion zloty from the fund.

The scale of the efforts to slash costs is “definitely too small,” according to Erste Group Bank AG’s analyst Jakub Szkopek, who predicts that JSW continued to consume “significant” amounts of surplus cash in the first quarter. The company is due to release its earnings report for the January-March period on May 20.

“Within two or three quarters the cash reserves will run out and the situation will become bleak,” Szkopek warned in a note earlier this week.

JSW shares rebounded from a 3.6% decline on Friday and were little changed at 1:20 p.m. in Warsaw, taking this week’s gain to 2.1%.

(By Maciej Martewicz)

“Anglo American continues to work with Peabody towards satisfying the remaining customary conditions in those agreements that are required for completion of the transaction,” the London-based miner said in statement Thursday. Conditions in the mine “remain stable, with data and camera footage showing no evidence of damage,” it added.

Peabody’s shares surged in New York after it said it was reviewing the deal, announced in November, due to the fire at its Moranbah North Mine in Queensland. It was considering “all options related to its acquisition” and remained in talks with Anglo about a so-called “ignition event,” it said.

Anglo is seeking to sell its steel-making coal business as part of a simplification strategy aimed at placating investors following a failed takeover attempt by BHP Group last year. Peabody was the winning bidder to buy the assets, with the transaction set to close in the coming months.

In July last year, a fire at the prized Grosvenor mine — the largest in Anglo’s coal portfolio — erupted, causing a long-term shutdown. That mine accounted for about a third of Anglo’s output from the Queensland coalfields.

(By Paul-Alain Hunt)

The deal was signed last year and expected to close in mid-2025.

Production at Anglo American’s Moranbah North coal mine – located in the Bowen basin in Queensland, Australia – was suspended after an underground fire broke out at the mine last week.

Peabody said on Tuesday it was in conversation with Anglo American to better understand the impacts of the event and would preserve all rights and protections under its purchase agreements.

Anglo American said it was providing information to Peabody on the suspension at Moranbah North.

“At the mine, conditions remain stable as we progress with developing our staged re-entry management plan and risk assessment,” it said in an emailed statement on Wednesday.

US-based coal producer Peabody said it had engaged in preliminary discussions with potential investors regarding permanent financing for the acquisition.

Peabody’s deal for Anglo American’s assets included an upfront payment of $2.05 billion at completion, deferred cash consideration of $725 million and another potential $550 million. It also included a contingent cash consideration of $450 million linked to the reopening of the Grosvenor mine, after another fire broke out there in June, ahead of the acquisition.

Anglo American’s Peabody deal was its first major divestment in a wider restructuring plan. The London-listed company, which last year fended off a $49 billion takeover bid from the world’s biggest miner BHP Group, has agreed to sell its nickel and coal assets and is in the process of divesting platinum and diamonds to focus on copper and iron ore.

(By Clara Denina and Vallari Srivastava; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli and Jane Merriman)

Trump directed federal agencies to lift Obama-era limits on coal mining, leasing, and exports. He instructed the Interior Department to locate coal deposits on federal lands, remove barriers to mining, and fast-track leasing processes.

“All those plants that have been closed are going to be opened if they’re modern enough, or they’ll be ripped down and brand new ones will be built,” Trump said, surrounded by coal miners in hard hats at the White House. “We’re going to put the miners back to work.”

Coal companies held just 279 federal leases across nearly 422,000 acres as of 2023, a sharp drop from 489 leases covering about 730,000 acres in 1990.

Trump also ordered his newly formed National Energy Dominance Council to classify coal as a critical mineral, equating it with materials essential for defence systems and battery production. The move builds on a previous executive order allowing emergency powers and funding to boost domestic supply chains for critical minerals and rare earths.

“Coal is the single most reliable, durable, secure and powerful form of energy,” Trump said Tuesday. “It’s cheap, incredibly efficient, high density, and it’s almost indestructible. You could drop a bomb on it, and it’s going to be there for you to use the next day, which you can’t say with any other form of energy.”

The Department of Energy and other agencies will now examine whether more coal-fired plants can be kept online or reactivated to meet rising electricity demand. Some aging coal plants previously set for retirement may stay in operation.

This surge in power demand stems from rapid growth in data centres, artificial intelligence and electric vehicles (EVs). Trump argues coal is essential to power these technologies and to support industries like steelmaking.

Despite Trump’s long-standing pledge to bring back what he calls “beautiful” coal, the sector has been in long-term decline. US coal production has fallen dramatically in recent years, outpaced by cheaper natural gas and increasingly affordable renewable energy.

EPA’s help

Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is already working to ease pollution regulations on coal plants, including limits on mercury and carbon dioxide. It’s considering exemptions for certain facilities from air quality rules.

Environmental groups blasted the executive order, calling it a backward move at odds with market trends. Renewables now dominate new power generation: 93% of electricity added to the US grid this year will come from solar, wind, and batteries, according to government forecasts.

Coal accounts for only 15% of power generation in the US today, down from more than half in 2000, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

While Trump failed to revive coal during his first term, the landscape has shifted. Utilities now warn that retiring coal plants too quickly could strain the grid, especially as extreme weather events become more frequent due to climate change.

The executive order underscores Trump’s broader energy strategy: maximize domestic fossil fuel production to meet surging power demands and maintain grid reliability, regardless of environmental consequences.

(With files from Bloomberg, Reuters)

Glasenberg’s shareholding in the miner and commodity trader rose to 1.219 billion shares — worth $3.7 billion at current prices — according to a regulatory filing. That represents an increase of about 7.4 million shares from the level detailed in Glencore’s annual report last month.

Disclosure was necessary because his stake rose above 10% of the outstanding stock. While Glasenberg isn’t obliged to file such reports whenever he buys or sells shares, the company does disclose his stake in its financial data — showing that he’d held the same amount of stock since 2015.

That year was one of the toughest in Glencore’s history, when a commodity downturn and a crisis of confidence forced it to issue $2.5 billion of new equity in the face of a slumping share price. At the time, Glasenberg paid about $210 million to buy stock in order to maintain his percentage shareholding.

Commodity markets tumbled after President Trump announced global tariffs last Wednesday. Glencore was one of the hardest-hit large mining companies, its shares closing Monday at the lowest in more than four years.

(By Jack Farchy)

Read More: Glencore halts Chilean smelter in setback for US copper rush

The result was in line with preliminary data reported by the company in early March.

JSW is the European Union’s largest producer of coking coal, which is essential for steel production.

Coking coal is on the EU’s list of critical raw materials because steel is vital for building renewable energy and other infrastructure. The bloc aims to ensure secure and sustainable supply of materials on the list.

In 2024, JSW was hit by falling coking coal prices, weak demand due to lower steel production, and increased competition from non-European suppliers such as China and Indonesia.

The company proposed not paying a dividend for 2024. It stopped paying dividends in 2018.

JSW’s sales revenue dropped to 11.33 billion zlotys last year from 15.34 billion zlotys in 2023, primarily due to lower coal prices and reduced demand.

It reported a loss before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of 6.50 billion zlotys for the year, compared with earnings on the same basis of 4.56 billion zlotys in 2023.

($1 = 3.9126 zlotys)

(By Rafal W. Nowak; Editing by Mark Potter)

In an executive order Trump is set to sign Tuesday afternoon, the president will direct a number of steps by the federal government meant to reinvigorate coal, said a senior White House official. The actions including emphasizing the US is back in the business of selling coal mining rights on federal land and ordering the rock be designated as a critical mineral. Other steps include accelerating the export of US coal and related technologies.

Yet it’s unclear whether the new initiative will be enough to dramatically shift the domestic landscape for coal, which has declined in the face of competition from low-cost natural gas and renewable power, as well as environmental regulations and climate change concerns. It’s also not certain technology companies that have embraced emission-free nuclear and renewable energy will be eager to power their data centers with coal.

Nevertheless, the executive order underscores Trump’s commitment to tapping America’s coal resources as a source of both electricity to run data centers and heat to forge steel. The president and top administration officials have made clear boosting coal-fired power is a top priority, one they see as intertwined with national security and the US standing in a global competition to dominate the artificial intelligence industry.

The US is “way ahead right now in the AI race with China,” Trump told reporters Monday during an event in the Oval Office. But, Trump added, the provision of electric power for data centers is critical to maintaining that advantage.

Trump vowed to revive coal while campaigning for president last year, following through on a political priority he also embraced his first term in the White House. The order comes as his administration weighs other steps to boost the fossil fuel, including tapping emergency authority to reopen shuttered coal-fired plants that have closed while preventing others from closing.

Trump is slated to sign the executive order during a 3 p.m. event in the East Room of the White House, with attendees set to include executives from some of the US’s biggest mining companies, including Peabody Energy, Core Natural Resources and Ramaco Resources.

Trump has complained previous administrations waged war on coal, stifling its potential with environmental regulations on power plants as well as curbs on mining. In his order Tuesday, Trump will take aim at one high-profile barrier, by directing the Interior Department to acknowledge the end of on-again, off-again leasing moratorium first initiated under former President Barack Obama. Trump will also direct government agencies to identify coal resources on federal lands and prioritize leasing there while lifting barriers to mining those deposits, the senior White House official said.

The shift could encourage coal companies to expand existing their holdings on federal land, which have declined over the past three decades. Coal companies held just 279 federal leases spanning nearly 422,000 acres as of 2023, according to Interior Department data, down from 489 leases covering roughly 730,000 acres just 33 years earlier.

Trump is also directing his new National Energy Dominance Council to designate coal as a critical mineral, putting it on par with those needed for defense systems and batteries. An executive order signed by the president last month set the stage for such a move, authorizing the use of emergency powers and funding to help boost domestic production and processing of critical minerals and rare earths.

Similarly, Trump will task Energy Secretary Chris Wright with determining whether coal used in steel production should win coveted ‘critical’ status under federal law.

In his order, the president will require agencies to rescind policies that seek to transition the nation away from coal production or otherwise establish preferences against using the fossil fuel as a source of electricity. The electric sector is the second-largest source of greenhouse gases in the US, behind transportation, and coal produces twice as much as its nearest rival, natural gas, when burned to generate electricity.

Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is already moving to revise a suite of regulations governing coal-fired power plants, including limits on mercury pollution as well as carbon dioxide. The EPA is also weighing exempting some power plants from specific air pollution controls.

Coal accounts for about 15% of power generation in the US today, down from more than half in 2000, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Since 2000, about 770 individual coal-fired units have shuttered, according to data from Global Energy Monitor, with more set to close.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who heads Trump’s energy dominance council, has cast coal-fired power as affordable and reliable, saying that makes it key to meeting demand from data centers, new factories and increased electrification in transportation and heating. NextEnergy has predicted US power demand will grow 55% over the next 20 years.

Renewable power advocates have argued that Trump’s bid for US energy dominance demands a wider array of options, especially given challenges securing critical components needed to produce electricity from coal and natural gas. Northeast US states and grid managers in particular have been counting on supplies from offshore wind farms to help meet demand.

Trump, who last week ordered sweeping tariffs on US trading partners and is urging European allies to buy more American energy, sees coal as a valuable export too. Tuesday’s order will direct US authorities to promote the foreign sale of US coal as well as coal-related technology, including by pushing other countries to sign purchase agreements.

(By Ari Natter and Jennifer A. Dlouhy)

Montana’s Colstrip power plant has applied for a two-year exemption from Environmental Protection Agency standards compelling stringent mercury and air pollution controls. Talen Energy Corp. subsidiary Talen Montana owns the plant along with Northwestern Energy Group Inc., among others.

The plant, located in eastern Montana, has the highest emission rate of fine particulate matter out of any coal-burning plant in the nation, according to EPA data and the nonprofit Montana Environmental Information Center.

Talen Montana didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The EPA referred questions to the White House.

“We will not get ahead of the president, but we can confirm President Trump’s commitment to unleashing American energy, protecting our national security interests, and ensuring environmental stewardship,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in an email.

The aging 1,480-megawatt plant, which has two active-units, is the only coal-fired power plant in the US that hasn’t installed modern pollution controls to limit particulate matter, according to the EPA.

Coal-fired power plants are a major source of air pollutants, including particulate matter that is made up of dust, fly ash and other materials. When inhaled, the finest particles are able to penetrate deep into the lungs and even potentially the bloodstream, exacerbating heart and lung disease, causing asthma attacks and even sometimes leading to premature death.

Trump may allow some power plants, chemical makers and others to bypass a range of regulations under the Clean Air Act using an obscure provision of the Clean Air Act, according to the EPA, which notified companies last week they had set up an email for companies to apply for the exemption.

“The Trump EPA is offering a free pass for the country’s dirtiest power plant to keep polluting the air we breathe,” said Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Colstrip is the only coal plant in the entire nation that doesn’t have modern pollution controls. It’s long past time for it to clean up its act.”

Colstrip’s effort to obtain a waiver is being backed by Montana Republican Senator Steve Daines and the rest of the state’s congressional delegation, who said limits on air toxics for coal-fired power plants put in place by the Biden administration would require the installation of $500 million in new pollution controls. The delegation said that would make the upgrades both technologically and economically unavailable — a requirement in order to achieve a presidential exemption.

“All of this endangers the economic viability of the plant, which if closed, would undermine the region’s electric grid as there is insufficient time to plan and construct adequate replacement generation,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

(By Ari Natter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decision marks a shift from the previous practice, where consultation occurred during the exploration permitting phase, and follows a 2023 BC Supreme Court ruling in Gitxaała v. British Columbia, which established that First Nations must be consulted at the time of claim staking.

Under the new system, individuals holding a Free Miner Certificate can apply for a mineral or placer claim through the Mineral Titles Online (MTO) system. Application fees remain unchanged.

Once an application is submitted, provincial staff will consult with First Nations. The chief gold commissioner will then determine whether the duty to consult has been met and whether the claim should be registered, registered with accommodations, or denied.

In 2024, British Columbia registered 5,048 mineral claims and 1,635 placer claims. The province says all pre-existing claims will remain valid.

First Nations criticize new framework

Following the announcement, BC Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Terry Teegee criticized the changes, stating they “do not come close” to aligning with the collaborative approach outlined in the province’s Indigenous rights law.

In an op-ed published in the Vancouver Sun, Teegee argued that BC’s law adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) reflects a “duty to consent,” which goes beyond the duty to consult. He called the new mineral framework “a step backward.”

According to Teegee, the changes prevent companies from registering large swaths of land for mineral exploration without First Nations’ awareness, requiring them to notify Indigenous communities and await responses. He warned, however, that this shift could overwhelm First Nations offices, which often face staffing and capacity challenges.

“The framework risks perpetuating business-as-usual practices that exclude First Nations from critical decision-making processes,” he wrote.

The analysis, commissioned by the United Nations and published in ACS’s journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, was based on data from aircraft that flew over the site in 2022 and 2023 equipped with atmospheric sensors as well as a spectrometer pilots used to observe invisible plumes of the gas spewing from the mine. It’s the most comprehensive research on coal mine methane emissions undertaken by the UN’s monitoring body.

“The discrepancy between operator-reported emissions and our two aircraft-based estimates underscores the need for a comprehensive review of the bottom-up reporting methods currently applied at Hail Creek,” the more than 20 authors of the report wrote.

Australia has established an expert panel on measuring fugitive methane emissions, which will examine methodologies such as the ones used in the study and advise the government on their potential use to improve the estimates, a spokesperson for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water said.

Glencore, the world’s largest coal trader, cast doubt on the peer-reviewed study. The paper relied on “extremely limited aerial surveys conducted over a period representing less than 1% of the mine’s operating time within a two-year period,” the Switzerland-based company said in an email. “This limited data was then used to extrapolate an annual emissions inventory for the mine. The use of such a small data sample lacks credibility.”

The study also fails to assess upwind methane emissions and “simplistically attributes any methane anomalies in the vicinity of the mine to the mine,” Glencore said.

The implications of potentially under-reporting methane emissions from Australia’s coal mines are significant both for the nation’s own climate goals and because undocumented releases could reverberate through global energy supply chains. Australia exports more than half the world’s seaborne metallurgical coal used in steelmaking and the Bowen Basin in Queensland, where Hail Creek is, provides a major share of that.

“Any steel producer in the world is likely getting chunks of their metallurgical coal supply chain from Australia and potentially from the Bowen Basin,” said Chris Wright, a climate strategy adviser for energy think tank Ember. “If you don’t get emissions monitoring right you would be affecting importers’ ability to say what their emissions are.”

Hail Creek was first identified as a methane hotspot in 2021 by researchers in the Netherlands studying satellite observations. They estimated the mine’s releases exceeded its operator-reported Scope 1 emissions, which include methane and carbon dioxide, by more than 12 times, according to the UN-commissioned paper. Discrepancies between satellite and aircraft-based measurements may stem from multiple factors including the lower spatial resolution of the satellite, which could make it more difficult to distinguish plumes from other mining pits.

All available atmospheric data-based estimates indicate higher emissions rates than would be reported through Australia’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme or the nation’s Safeguard Mechanism, according to the study. Results from the aerial survey show “substantial alignment” with the gas content for Hail Creek’s coal seams, which are approximately four times higher than a Bowen Basin-wide government emissions factor, the authors said, citing data from the Queensland Petroleum Exploration Database.

Methane from coal mining accounted for about 5% of Australia’s emissions in 2020, according to its latest submitted report to the UN.

“If a country should get this right, it should be Australia,” said Peter Rayner, science lead for Open Methane, a platform for detecting and measuring the country’s emissions. “We’ve got the technological capability to do this properly.”

(By Aaron Clark)

Read More: JP Morgan investing $250M in Glencore through ‘sustainability’ funds — reports

The giant commodity trader will produce between 5 to 10 million tons less coal than previously expected at its Cerrejon mine in Colombia. The mine will produce between 11 to 16 million tons this year.

“The rationale for the cut is primarily driven by the unsustainable prices for seaborne thermal coal,” Glencore said in a statement on Tuesday.

Glencore has a long history of pulling back production when prices are weak and said earlier this year it was prepared to act to support one of its most important commodities.

The move comes as coal prices remain in the doldrums. The slump to the lowest levels since mid-2021 has been driven by record production in India and China. That’s seen stockpiles swell in these countries.

Australia’s Newcastle coal futures have fallen to around $100 a ton, down about 20% since the start of the year. They hit a record of over $450 a ton in September 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Mining has boomed since then on the back of spiking prices and energy security fears.

The company, which posted record profits just two years ago, cashing in on the global energy crisis, has since seen earnings decline. Glencore previously said it will produce between 92 million and 100 million tons of coal this year.

(By Thomas Biesheuvel)

Read More: JP Morgan investing $250M in Glencore through ‘sustainability’ funds — reports

Just this week, President Donald Trump in a social media post touted “BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL.” His administration has signaled it’s eyeing emergency powers to restart shuttered plants and has launched a sweeping overhaul of US environmental mandates. The moves overlap a macro trend that’s also poised to help the industry: surging power demand from data centers. Already, power companies have extended, or are considering extending, the lives of some plants that had been ticketed for extinction. All of this suggests the US may burn more coal in the near term.

But in some ways, rhetoric from the current administration is a bit toned down from Trump’s first term and national political support has also eased since then. Even more fundamentally, experts argue that the industry is still battling headwinds that will drag on for years.

“Power-plant owners, operators and developers don’t think of investments in terms of administrations — they think 10, 15, 20 years down the road,” said Timothy Fox, an analyst at Washington-based ClearView Energy Partners.

Much of the demise for coal has been in the cards for years. The challenge has come not just from federal mandates and public pressure to cut back on emissions, but also competition from cheaper sources of energy. Federal regulations have also raised operational costs.

Coal power in 2024 made up around 15% of US electricity generation for all sectors, down from more than 50% in 2001, according to the Energy Information Administration. As recently as 2020, Peabody Energy Corp., the largest US coal miner, was at risk of declaring bankruptcy for a second time due to demand declines. And banks have also pulled out from financing coal in recent years on concerns over backing stranded assets.

Joe Biden’s administration sped up coal’s inexorable decline. US data show that 71 coal units are set to retire by 2030.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in an interview with Bloomberg News this month that the Trump administration is working on a plan to stem the closure of plants. Wright declined to provide specifics of the proposal other than to say the “general mechanism” of it would be market-based in an effort to remove obstacles “so entrepreneurs can build new systems and operate the ones they’ve got already.”

There are significant challenges to overcome, according to Josh Price, director of energy and utilities at Capstone LLC.

Restarting a closed plant would require capital expenses to fix it up so that it can run properly, and it’s unclear who would bear that cost. The industry would also grapple with a labor shortage and inadequate rail infrastructure to transport the fuel, Price added.

That doesn’t mean Trump’s efforts won’t create at least a short-term boost for coal use. Some plants undoubtedly will stay online longer than planned.

In December, Vistra Corp. said it planned to prolong the life of a large coal-fired plant in Illinois. Utility giant Southern Co. says extending coal is among its options to meet demand from artificial intelligence.

The strongest prospects for coal, though, appear outside the US. Demand continues to rise in India and China. And Japan — the lone G7 country without a phaseout deadline for coal-fired power — has taken the view that scrapping inefficient coal plants will need careful consideration to maintain a stable power supply.

In the US, there’s the question of how long policy support will last. A climate-focused president could, of course, return to the White House as soon as January 2029.

There’s also uncertainty over what industry groups (outside of coal producers) would be supportive of plans to revive the fossil fuel. Independent power producers may not be keen on the idea, the oil and gas industry would back gas instead and utilities are concerned about consumer impact, Capstone’s Price said.

(By Shoko Oda)

An executive order signed by the president Thursday taps the Defense Production Act as part of an effort to provide financing, loans and other investment support to domestically process critical minerals and rare earth elements, according to a White House official. The US International Development Finance Corporation, working with the Department of Defense, will provide financing for new mineral production projects.

The order, which also encourages faster permitting for mining and processing projects and a directive for the Interior Department to prioritize mineral production on federal land, comes as a direct response to long-held concerns among the US and allies that China overwhelmingly controls the processing of some of the most important critical minerals.

These elements are used in a number of products from batteries to defense systems that are seen as crucial to the nation’s energy and security.

Shares of MP Materials Corp., a rare earths miner, rose as much as 4.6% in after-hours trading. Peabody Energy Corp., a coal producer, gained more than 2%.

Despite possessing some critical minerals, the US currently imports a significant amount, creating economic and security risks, according to the White House. The administration said the US is import-reliant on at least 15 critical minerals and that 70% of imports of rare earths come from China.

The Trump administration will also coordinate with the private sector to ensure a stable and resilient domestic supply chain for critical minerals, which under the executive order includes uranium, copper, potash, gold, as well as any other element, compound, or material as determined by the chair of the National Energy Dominance Council, the White House official said. That designation could also cover coal, the official added.

Government support offers to help boost domestic production to satisfy the needs of the Defense Department and private industry amid growing concerns about shortages. China is beginning to implement export controls on materials such as germanium, gallium and antimony.

The Defense Production Act is a 1950s law that former President Harry Truman enlisted to ramp up steel production for the Korean War. Former President Joe Biden similarly invoked the law to encourage domestic production of critical minerals, adding battery materials such as lithium, nickel, graphite, cobalt and manganese to the list of items covered under the measure to help companies access $750 million in funds. He also used the law to support American production of electric heat pumps.

Trump used the law in his first term to spur mask production during the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump teased his plans during his Joint Address to Congress earlier this month, saying he planned to take “historic action to dramatically expand production” of critical minerals and rare earths.

A House select committee on China previously recommended creating a reserve of critical minerals “to insulate American producers from price volatility” and protect against Beijing’s “weaponization of its dominance in critical mineral supply chains.”

Trump said Thursday the US will soon sign a deal on rare earths with Ukraine.

(By Ari Natter and Joe Deaux)

The announcement was made by Alvaro Pardo, president of the government’s National Mining Agency, at a business event in the Caribbean city of Cartagena.

Colombia produces commodities including oil and coal, but lags far behind regional peers Chile and Peru in output of the red metal, valued for its ability to conduct electricity in cables as well as in construction and manufacturing.

The auction will offer up a total of 17 exploration and production blocks located in Antioquia, Cesar and La Guajira departments, said Pardo.

He said more copper is needed to address growing demand for the metal in Colombia, including for green energy projects. Pardo noted that the high rate of local theft of copper telephone cables also pushes up demand.

“We want to replace imports and put an end to copper theft and be able to bring copper to all Colombian industrialists who require it, especially for the energy transition,” he added.

Last year, companies submitted 293 applications to mine copper, gold, and other metals, surpassing the number of applications for coal projects.

“There are many offers coming in, especially for strategic minerals, including copper,” said Pardo.

The mining official also noted that between March and April, the results of a feasibility study to build a steel mill in the South American country will be known, but without mentioning the company that would handle it.

(By Nelson Bocanegra; Editing by David Alire Garcia and David Gregorio)

A climate-related push to exclude thermal coal producers from financial services meant that New Hope, which produces more than 90% thermal coal, was challenged to find even bank guarantee facilities for rehabilitation 18 months ago.

But now that push has receded, eclipsed by concerns over energy security and the sector’s profit potential. Investor appetite for its debt has grown, Bishop told Reuters as the miner posted a rise in first-half profit on Tuesday, beating analyst expectations.

“There are sources of capital out there, so we’re not too concerned about whether we can obtain capital for an acquisition, for example. And if it was a met coal acquisition, then obviously that broadens your availability for funding,” he told Reuters.

Some banks including Macquarie are reversing restrictions around financing coking coal because alternatives to make steel are not yet commercial.

Private equity house EMR, which is undertaking a sales process for its Kestrel coal mine in Queensland state, is one that New Hope plans to review, he said.

“We’ve been approached by banks about that opportunity coming up, and yes, for sure, we will look at it,” he said.

EMR last year hired Macquarie and Bank of America to run the sale process for the mine which analysts estimated could fetch as much as $3 billion.

New Hope has seen steady demand for its convertible notes in the secondary market, where investors purchase the securities from other investors, it noted.

The miner has also crept up its ownership of Malabar Resources in New South Wales to 22.97 pct. It is looking for high quality, low cost, cash generative assets without big rehabilitation liabilities. It has reviewed opportunities in the Americas and Europe but it sees Australia’s Eastern seaboard as an attractive region, Bishop said.

For the half year ended January 31, New Hope posted a net profit after tax of A$340.3 million ($217.2 million), up from A$251.7 million a year earlier, which beat the Visible Alpha consensus forecast of A$302.2 million. Its shares jumped as much as 8.6% on Tuesday.

Total coal sales for the period rose 44% to 5.4 million metric tons, driven primarily by the restart of its New Acland mine in Queensland, where production rose tenfold.

The boost in volume helped offset lower average realized prices for coal during the reported period. Backed by the jump in profit, New Hope announced a share buyback program of A$100 million, set to commence around April 1, 2025, and to be completed within a year.

It declared an interim dividend of 19 Australian cents, above 17 Australian cents last year.

($1 = 1.5664 Australian dollars)

(By Kumar Tanishk and Aaditya Govind Rao; Editing by Alan Barona and Michael Perry)

The funding will match Ramaco’s future investment in building a rare earth and critical minerals pilot processing facility north of Sheridan, Wyoming, the company said.

In 2023, Ramaco acquired a patent from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the US Department of Energy’s research institution, for the commercial development of its coal-to-products technology. The US government has already begun to look at coal ash, coal waste and acid mine drainage as feedstock for rare earth elements (REEs). In the same year, it set aside $450 million to advance clean energy projects on current and former coal mine sites, giving special attention to those that can provide new economic opportunities for coal communities.

Ramaco’s process, which the company calls “revolutionary”, uses coal as feedstock to help create vehicle batteries, construction and infrastructure materials, and a range of consumer products.

The company said it is pioneering rare earth and critical minerals processing and carbon ore-to-products research, with a state-of-the-art park to be constructed adjacent to the 16,000-acre Brook property in northern Wyoming. The proposed Brook mine would be the first new REE mine opened in the United States since 1952.

There is only one active mine for magnetic REEs in the country — the Mountain Pass in California.

Ramaco seeks to extract REE and critical minerals from unconventional coal and carbonaceous ore deposits contained at the mine. The Brook mine has been called one of the largest unconventional deposits of these elements in the world by the NETL.

“Our approach is to use the commodity as a low-cost carbon feedstock to make high-value advanced carbon products and materials that we call ‘coal to products.’ We have coined the phrase ‘carbon ore’ to refer to coal used in this manner,” Ramaco CEO Randall Atkins said in a testimony to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2021, which he called “The New Carbon Age”.

“The recent discovery that our state’s rich coal resources also contain the rare earth and critical minerals our country so desperately needs, now puts Wyoming at the center of delivering on our nation’s energy and national security requirements,” Atkins said in Monday’s news release.

The planned facility will be an enclosed structure located on Ramaco-owned property, with initial construction scheduled to begin in the fall of 2025, the company said.

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

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

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

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

_________
RELATED: Exxaro seeks to acquire manganese mining assets