J2. Fossil Fuel Industry

While oil grabs most of the headlines, Shell’s ambitions in Brazil extend far beyond offshore drilling rigs and deep-water crude.

This week, fresh news reports from Investing.com, Yahoo Finance and other financial outlets have highlighted renewed focus on Raízen, the giant Brazilian biofuels company jointly controlled by Shell and the Brazilian conglomerate Cosan.

The message from Shell appears clear: even as it expands oil production in Brazil’s offshore pre-salt fields, the company is also reinforcing its position in one of the world’s largest ethanol and bioenergy businesses.

In other words, Shell wants to sell you both the fossil fuel and the plant-based alternative.

A Biofuel Giant Few Outside Brazil Know

Raízen may not be a household name globally, but it is one of the largest energy companies in Latin America.

Formed in 2011 as a joint venture between Shell and Cosan, the company has grown into a massive integrated bioenergy operation.

Today Raízen operates:

• Dozens of ethanol production plants

• One of the largest sugar-cane processing networks in the world

• Thousands of Shell-branded service stations across Brazil

• Major bioenergy and electricity generation facilities.

Brazil’s unique agricultural and energy landscape — particularly its vast sugar-cane industry — makes the country the global leader in ethanol fuel production.

And Raízen sits right at the centre of that ecosystem.

Shell’s Strategic Bet on Biofuels

Recent reports from financial news platforms including Investing.com and Yahoo Finance highlight how Raízen remains a key part of Shell’s broader energy strategy in Brazil.

The company is heavily involved in second-generation ethanol (E2G) — a more advanced biofuel produced from agricultural waste such as sugar-cane straw and bagasse.

These fuels are often promoted as a lower-carbon alternative to conventional petrol because they utilise plant residues rather than food crops.

Shell has repeatedly presented biofuels as one of the pillars of its energy transition strategy, alongside LNG, hydrogen and renewable power.

Brazil — with its huge sugar-cane harvest — provides the perfect laboratory for that strategy.

A Tough Year for Raízen

But the Raízen story is not entirely sweet.

Recent financial coverage suggests the company has faced significant market pressure, including volatility in sugar prices, high debt levels and investor concerns about profitability.

Shares in Raízen have fallen sharply over the past year, prompting speculation about potential restructuring or strategic changes.

Shell, as a major shareholder in the joint venture, has reportedly been exploring ways to strengthen the company’s financial position and stabilise its operations.

Industry analysts say that could involve operational adjustments, new financing arrangements, or deeper strategic integration with Shell’s broader energy portfolio.

Sugar, Ethanol — and Global Energy Politics

The significance of Raízen goes beyond Brazil.

Biofuels are increasingly seen by governments as a way to reduce emissions from sectors that are difficult to electrify — such as aviation, shipping and heavy transport.

Shell has been investing heavily in biofuel supply chains, including sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

Brazil’s ethanol industry could therefore play an increasingly important role in the global energy system.

Yet critics argue that biofuels also raise difficult questions about land use, agriculture and environmental impact.

Large-scale sugar-cane cultivation can place pressure on ecosystems and water resources, while expanding biofuel production may compete with food supply or encourage deforestation.

As with many aspects of the energy transition, the reality is more complicated than the marketing slogans.

Investors Watching Closely

Shell’s involvement in Raízen is also closely watched by the company’s powerful investor base.

The oil major’s largest institutional shareholders — including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street — hold enormous stakes across the global energy sector and have increasingly demanded credible transition strategies from oil companies.

Biofuels provide one way for companies like Shell to present a lower-carbon growth narrative while continuing to operate large fossil-fuel businesses.

It is, from a corporate strategy perspective, a rather elegant balancing act.

Brazil: Shell’s Energy Laboratory

Taken together with Shell’s booming offshore oil investments and its expanding ethanol empire, Brazil is becoming one of the most strategically important countries in the company’s global portfolio.

Few places offer the same combination of:

• giant offshore oil reserves

• a mature biofuels industry

• large domestic energy demand

• and a stable regulatory environment.

For Shell, Brazil increasingly looks like an energy laboratory for the 21st century.

One where crude oil, ethanol, LNG and renewable power all compete — and occasionally cooperate — in the same market.

Whether that ultimately leads to a cleaner energy system remains open to debate.

But one thing is certain.

Wherever energy markets evolve next, Shell intends to be involved.

DISCLAIMER

This article is commentary and analysis based on publicly available reporting, including recent financial news coverage from Investing.com, Yahoo Finance and other outlets. It is intended for journalistic discussion purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice.

Shell Doubles Down on Brazil’s Sugar-Fuel Empire: Raízen Back in the Spotlight was first posted on March 6, 2026 at 8:56 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

While politicians talk endlessly about climate targets and energy transitions, the oil industry tends to operate on a much simpler principle: follow the barrels.

And right now, Shell believes those barrels increasingly lie beneath the Atlantic waters off Brazil.

According to a Reuters report, Shell’s Brazilian chief has described the country’s oil sector as presenting an “enormous opportunity” for investment and expansion. (Sahm)

The comment came amid heightened geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, which have once again reminded energy companies of the advantages of producing oil in politically stable regions.

Brazil, it turns out, looks very attractive.

When Geopolitics Boosts Oil Investment

Speaking in Rio de Janeiro, Shell Brazil CEO Cristiano Pinto da Costa said global tensions — including conflict involving Iran — could push investors toward Brazil’s oil sector.

“The U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran presents Brazil with an ‘enormous opportunity’ to attract investments to develop its oil assets,” he said. (Sahm)

Brazil’s political stability and reputation as a reliable oil producer give it a competitive advantage compared with other major hydrocarbon regions, he added. (Sahm)

In other words, when the world’s most volatile oil region starts looking even more volatile than usual, oil companies start scanning the map for somewhere calmer to drill.

Brazil fits the bill.

Shell’s Brazilian Expansion Strategy

Shell has been quietly transforming Brazil into one of the pillars of its global oil portfolio.

The company has dramatically expanded its exploration footprint in recent years.

“We went from having 10 to 15 blocks in 2021 to having 50 exploratory blocks in our portfolio today. This was a conscious strategic decision,” Pinto da Costa said. (Sahm)

Last year alone, Shell invested 12.5 billion reais (about $2.4 billion) in Brazil — one of the largest investments the company has made in any single country. (Sahm)

Production has followed suit.

Shell said it reached a record output of about 496,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in Brazil in February 2026. (Sahm)

For a company constantly searching for new reserves to replace declining production elsewhere, those numbers matter.

Quite a lot.

The Pre-Salt Jackpot

Much of the excitement revolves around Brazil’s deep-water “pre-salt” oil fields, vast reservoirs trapped beneath thick layers of salt beneath the seabed.

These discoveries over the past two decades have transformed Brazil into one of the world’s fastest-growing offshore oil provinces.

The fields are technologically challenging and enormously expensive to develop — but they can also produce huge volumes of oil for decades.

Shell is already heavily involved in several of these projects alongside Brazil’s state oil company Petrobras and other partners.

The company is also developing new assets such as the Orca field, part of its broader effort to expand deep-water production in the region. (Sahm)

In practical terms, Brazil has become one of the most important engines of Shell’s global oil production.

Investors Love Deepwater Oil

There is another reason why Brazil is attracting so much attention from oil majors.

Deepwater projects, once operational, tend to produce large volumes of oil at relatively low operating costs — making them extremely profitable when global oil prices rise.

That profitability matters to Shell’s biggest shareholders.

The company’s investor base includes giant asset managers such as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, whose funds depend heavily on the steady dividend streams produced by global oil and gas projects.

And despite years of climate rhetoric, Shell continues to return tens of billions of dollars to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks.

Oil fields like those off Brazil’s coast help make that possible.

Climate Promises vs Fossil Fuel Reality

All of this raises an obvious question.

Shell, like most major oil companies, says it supports the transition to lower-carbon energy.

Yet it is simultaneously expanding investments in long-life fossil fuel projects — projects that could produce oil well into the 2040s or even 2050s.

Brazil’s offshore oil boom is a prime example of this contradiction.

On one hand, governments and corporations promise decarbonisation.

On the other, they continue developing some of the largest new oil provinces on the planet.

For the oil industry, however, the logic is straightforward: global demand for oil remains enormous.

And as long as that demand exists, companies will compete aggressively to supply it.

Brazil: The Next Oil Superpower?

With its vast offshore resources, political stability, and growing technical expertise, Brazil is increasingly viewed by the industry as one of the most important oil frontiers of the 21st century.

Shell clearly intends to be at the centre of that story.

Whether the world actually needs more oil from deep beneath the Atlantic is another question entirely.

But from Shell’s perspective, the opportunity — as its own executive put it — is “enormous.”

DISCLAIMER

This article is commentary and analysis based on publicly available reporting and historical information, including reporting by Reuters. It is intended for journalistic discussion purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice.

Crisis in the Middle East, Opportunity in Brazil: Shell Eyes a Fossil Fuel Bonanza was first posted on March 6, 2026 at 8:31 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

For years, Venezuela was the oil industry’s forbidden zone — a country with the largest proven oil reserves on Earth but locked behind layers of sanctions, political turmoil and diplomatic brinkmanship.

Now the door is creaking open again.

Recent reporting by Upstream Online and other energy news outlets indicates that Shell has confirmed it is preparing to move forward with Venezuelan energy opportunities, following major shifts in U.S. sanctions policy that now allow international oil companies to negotiate deals with the country’s state oil company, PDVSA. (upstreamonline.com)

For Shell, this signals something remarkable: a return to a country that once epitomised geopolitical risk — but also offers one of the most enticing hydrocarbon prizes on the planet.

Washington Opens the Door

The catalyst for Shell’s renewed interest is a dramatic change in U.S. policy.

Earlier in 2026, the U.S. Treasury issued licences allowing companies such as Shell, BP, Chevron, Eni and Repsol to negotiate contracts and investments in Venezuela’s oil and gas sector. (upstreamonline.com)

These licences allow the companies to explore, develop and produce hydrocarbons in partnership with PDVSA, although transactions must remain subject to U.S. legal oversight and compliance rules.

For the oil industry, the message from Washington was unmistakable: Venezuela — long isolated by sanctions — may once again be open for business.

The Dragon Gas Prize

At the centre of Shell’s Venezuelan ambitions sits the Dragon offshore gas field, located near the maritime border with Trinidad and Tobago.

The project has been discussed for years but repeatedly stalled by sanctions and political uncertainty. If revived, Dragon could provide a crucial new gas supply for Trinidad’s LNG and petrochemical industry, which has been struggling with declining domestic production.

Shell has previously targeted first gas from the Dragon field around 2026, with production intended to flow to Trinidad’s energy infrastructure. (offshore-technology.com)

For Trinidad, the project could stabilise a key export sector.

For Shell, it represents a potentially lucrative foothold in a country that contains vast untapped energy resources.

The World’s Biggest Oil Reserves — Still Waiting

Venezuela holds an estimated 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the largest in the world. (World Oil)

Yet years of sanctions, underinvestment, and economic collapse have left much of the country’s oil infrastructure deteriorating or idle.

Industry analysts say rebuilding the sector could require tens of billions of dollars in new investment, alongside years of technical work to restore fields, pipelines and refineries. (woodmac.com)

In other words: the opportunity is enormous — but so are the risks.

Shell’s Strategic Calculation

Shell has not yet announced final investment decisions for Venezuelan projects, but CEO Wael Sawan has publicly acknowledged the company is evaluating multibillion-dollar offshore gas investments in the country. (OilPrice.com)

If approvals fall into place, these projects could move quickly.

“These are opportunities that could potentially be activated within months,” Sawan said when discussing potential Venezuelan developments. (The Guardian)

That kind of timeline is unusually brisk for an industry known for decade-long project cycles.

Investors, Dividends — and Fossil Fuel Expansion

Shell’s renewed interest in Venezuela comes as the company continues to prioritise shareholder returns.

Despite falling profits in recent years, the company has maintained large payouts, including billions in share buybacks and increased dividends. (The Guardian)

Large institutional investors — including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street — remain among Shell’s biggest shareholders, and their funds depend heavily on the steady cash flows generated by global oil and gas production.

The result is a familiar tension.

While Shell and other oil majors publicly support the energy transition, they are simultaneously exploring new hydrocarbon opportunities — including some of the most politically complex oil provinces in the world.

A Return to a Complicated Country

Even with sanctions easing, Venezuela remains a challenging environment for international oil companies.

The country’s political stability, legal frameworks and infrastructure remain uncertain after years of economic crisis.

And the broader geopolitical context continues to shift rapidly.

Still, the prize is difficult for oil majors to ignore.

If the licences remain in place and negotiations proceed, Shell’s Venezuelan comeback could become one of the most consequential energy developments of the decade.

Or — given Venezuela’s history — the latest chapter in a project that never quite manages to happen.

Shell’s Venezuelan Comeback: Big Oil Returns to the World’s Most Sanctioned Oil Patch was first posted on March 6, 2026 at 8:13 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Just when you thought one of the oil industry’s most notorious corruption sagas might finally fade into history, Nigeria has decided to give it a fresh coat of paint and a new corporate structure.

The controversial offshore oil licence OPL 245—long associated with bribery allegations, court battles across continents, and enough legal paperwork to deforest half the Niger Delta—has now been split into four new blocks under an arrangement involving Shell plc and Italy’s Eni, according to a report by Reuters. (MarketScreener)

The restructuring is designed to finally unlock production from one of Nigeria’s richest untapped oil reserves, bringing an end—at least in theory—to a saga that has embarrassed governments, prosecutors, and oil majors for nearly three decades.

Or, to put it less politely: the industry’s most infamous oil deal is getting a reboot.

The Deal That Would Not Die

According to Reuters, Nigeria has broken up the OPL 245 oil block into four new assets to be operated by Eni and Shell, potentially clearing the way for development of the massive deepwater field. (MarketScreener)

The move could finally enable production from a field estimated to contain billions of barrels of oil, which has sat idle for almost 30 years due to lawsuits, criminal investigations and political disputes. (TheCable)

In other words: one of Africa’s most valuable oil discoveries has spent nearly three decades in legal purgatory while lawyers, prosecutors, activists and oil executives argued about what exactly happened to the money.

A Brief History of a Very Expensive Mess

The story begins in 1998, when the Nigerian government awarded the OPL 245 licence to Malabu Oil & Gas, a company secretly controlled by the country’s then petroleum minister Dan Etete. (Wikipedia)

Yes—Nigeria’s oil minister awarded one of the country’s most valuable oil blocks to a company he effectively owned.

Things only became more surreal from there.

After years of disputes, Shell and Eni struck a deal in 2011 to acquire the licence for roughly $1.3 billion. (Wikipedia)

Investigators later alleged that around $1.1 billion of that payment was diverted to politicians and intermediaries. (Wikipedia)

The allegations triggered one of the largest international corruption investigations in the history of the oil industry, spanning Italy, Nigeria, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Shell and Eni consistently denied wrongdoing.

After years of court proceedings, an Italian court acquitted both companies and their executives in 2021, concluding there was no case to answer. (Wikipedia)

Legally speaking, the companies walked away.

Reputationally? The stain never quite washed off.

Nigeria’s Latest Attempt to Move On

The Nigerian government now appears determined to finally monetise the field.

Splitting OPL 245 into four blocks is intended to simplify development and remove the legal knots that have kept the oil underground for nearly three decades. (leadership.ng)

Final agreements for the restructured assets are expected to be signed as the country seeks to boost crude production and attract investment into its offshore sector. (TheCable)

For Shell and Eni, the prize is obvious: access to one of the largest undeveloped deepwater oil resources in West Africa.

For Nigeria’s government, the motivation is equally clear: oil revenue.

For critics, however, the optics are… complicated.

Climate Promises Meet Nine Billion Barrels

The timing of the deal is awkward.

Shell, like many oil majors, has spent the past few years promising a “transition to net zero” while simultaneously expanding its portfolio of long-life fossil fuel projects.

OPL 245—believed to contain around nine billion barrels of oil equivalent—would hardly qualify as a minor side project. (Wikipedia)

Developing the field would lock in decades of oil production at precisely the moment governments claim to be accelerating the global energy transition.

In fairness, Shell has never suggested it intends to stop producing oil anytime soon.

That would be bad for business—and even worse for the institutional investors that dominate its shareholder base.

Among the company’s largest investors are BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, asset-management giants whose funds hold vast positions across the global fossil-fuel sector.

When the world’s largest money managers depend on oil dividends, the energy transition tends to proceed at a pace best described as… leisurely.

The Niger Delta: Still Waiting

Meanwhile, communities in the Niger Delta—home to decades of oil spills, pollution disputes and environmental litigation—may view the resurrection of OPL 245 with a degree of scepticism.

Shell has faced repeated legal actions over pollution claims in the region, including lawsuits brought by thousands of Nigerian residents seeking compensation and environmental cleanup. (Wikipedia)

Those cases are ongoing.

And while corporate press releases tend to emphasise “economic development,” locals often remember something slightly different: oil spills, flaring gas, and rivers that occasionally resemble motor oil.

Divide by Four, Carry the Controversy

So here we are.

A deal that once triggered global corruption investigations is now being reassembled—this time split into four convenient pieces.

Perhaps that makes it easier to develop.

Or perhaps it simply spreads the controversy around more evenly.

Either way, OPL 245 remains a reminder that in the oil industry, scandals rarely die.

They just get restructured.

DISCLAIMER

This article is commentary and opinion based on publicly available reporting and historical information. It is intended for journalistic and satirical discussion purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice.

OPL 245 Returns: The $1.3 Billion Scandal That Refuses to Stay Buried was first posted on March 6, 2026 at 7:53 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

By John Donovan

AI Experiments and an Unexpected Observation

During a conversation yesterday evening with ChatGPT, the discussion turned to methods used by investigative bloggers and technology journalists to test artificial intelligence systems and present the results in ways that attract reader interest.

ChatGPT explained that one particularly effective technique is to ask several AI platforms the same question and then publish their responses side-by-side. This allows readers to compare how different systems interpret the same issue. The approach promotes transparency, highlights differences in emphasis or interpretation, and can reveal how AI systems handle complex or controversial subjects.

Another suggestion involved using carefully structured prompts that encourage AI systems to provide more detailed and revealing responses about historical disputes or contentious topics. According to ChatGPT, this type of prompt strategy is increasingly used by journalists and researchers seeking deeper insight into how AI systems process publicly available information.

As the conversation continued, it became apparent that many of the techniques being described closely resembled the experimental approach I have been using over the past several months in a series of posts examining how various AI platforms interpret aspects of the long-running Donovan–Shell dispute.

When I remarked that the idea might have arisen from my own recent experiments, ChatGPT responded that this would not be surprising. It observed that my posts demonstrate a systematic pattern of testing AI systems — the same sort of methodology used by journalists and researchers when evaluating artificial intelligence.

If that is indeed the case, I am pleased to think that my experiments may have contributed, even in a small way, to developing innovative ways of extracting additional value from AI platforms. Presenting AI responses transparently, comparing different systems, and encouraging readers to evaluate the results for themselves can provide useful insights into how these rapidly evolving technologies operate.

An additional benefit of this approach is that it naturally encourages wider discussion and engagement, which in turn can increase traffic across multiple online platforms.

Testing Artificial Intelligence: An Unexpected Conversation with ChatGPT was first posted on March 5, 2026 at 10:56 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Since the Cold War ended, Western governments treated industrial capacity as an economic byproduct rather than a foundation of national power. Efficiency governed supply chains. That era is over. Great power competition, supply chain weaponization, and defense industrial base production shortfalls have forced policymakers to confront an uncomfortable reality: Markets do not automatically sustain resilience.

Despite historically high defense budgets and repeated military commitments across multiple theaters, the United States and its European allies lack the production capacity in munitions, ships, advanced components, and critical materials to sustain a prolonged high intensity conflict against a near peer adversary.

As noted by Dennis Laich, the US military cannot replace material losses or surge production at the pace required for major war without dramatically expanding industrial throughput. The structural constraint isn’t even a budgetary issue either.

The 2026 National Defense Strategy acknowledges this emerging dynamic, making industrial base capacity crucial for deterrence. The response has been dramatic. The Trump administration has expanded executive orders and used Defense Production Act authorities to support domestic critical minerals development and accelerated permitting for strategic mining and processing projects.

That is on top of the US CHIPS and Science Act commitment of $53 billion to semiconductor manufacturing and research and Inflation Reduction Act directing $370 billion toward energy and industrial transformation. The European Union has mobilized over €43 billion through its European Chips Act, launched a European Defence Industrial Strategy to encourage joint procurement and consolidation, and enacted a Critical Raw Materials Act to rebuild extraction and processing capacity. Japan has passed its Economic Security Promotion Act to secure sensitive supply chains.

What was once politically taboo is now normalized – just like President Trump ordering the Pentagon to buy coal. Across the West, governments are embracing heavy state intervention that, by capitalist standards, marks a structural shift toward a ‘China-light’ model. The state is back in the economy as Western capitals borrow selectively from Beijing’s playbook through subsidies, local content requirements, export controls, and state backed financing.

Yet Brussels and Washington are not building the sort of long-term governance structures and centralized coordination systems need to counter Beijing’s cartel control of minerals and manufacturing markets.

The wars in Ukraine and Gaza exposed munitions shortfalls and the fragility of Western defense industrial bases. US-China competition has further identified industrial capacity as a sort of strategic infrastructure that determines endurance, military capabilities, and economic growth. China-light policies by Western governments signals seriousness, but it may not be enough to build the structural depth that real industrial power requires. Without that, state involvement in the economy risks becoming episodic and reactive, when it needs to be transformative instead.

Integration is the difference

China’s industrial advantage is often reduced to subsidies or low labor costs. Integration, however, has been the most important variable, as Beijing spent decades linking upstream resource extraction to midstream processing and downstream manufacturing. This reinforced the system with state finance, protected demand, and long-time horizons. Western apathy that led to these industrial ecosystems to die as China began to control the entire global market.

Chinese dominance is most evident in critical minerals and rare earths. China’s dominance includes mining and the technically complex and capital-intensive midstream aspect of making ore useable.

China refines 68% of the world’s nickel, 73% of its cobalt, 95% of its manganese, and 100% of the spherical graphite for battery anodes. For rare earths, China controls over 90% of processing and magnet production. When Beijing announced 2023 export controls on gallium and germanium, two minerals vital for advanced semiconductors, it was leveraging control over 98% of global production.

Western economies followed a different path, hollowing out these midstream layers in a search for efficiency. The case of the Mountain Pass mine in California is illustrative. As the biggest rare earth deposit outside China, it can produce substantial ore. Yet for years, that concentrate was shipped to China for processing because America lacked capacity to cheaply do it at scale.

While MP Materials is now building out its own processing, the case highlights a structural dependency built over decades. This is the gap China-light policies are trying to close. Meanwhile, the Europeans have set clear benchmarks for domestic extraction, processing, and recycling of critical raw materials by 2030. But energy prices, regulatory fragmentation, and limited investment have slowed tangible progress. Setting targets is easy, constructing industrial ecosystems is harder.

This is the strategic asymmetry China has set by building a system; Western governments are just funding projects.

Production rates are strategy

China’s industrial strategy also has strategic adaptability. As the US and its allies impose tariffs and “de-risking” measures, China’s industrial depth allows it to reroute supply chains and absorb shocks. Its dominance in solar panel manufacturing, where China controls over 80% of all stages of production, allows the weathering of trade disputes by shifting exports to non-Western markets. Chinse industrial power is now like the force of gravity: difficult to escape even when alternatives exist.

The United States has struggled to raise monthly artillery shell production to levels need to support Ukraine’s military, and Europe faces similar constraints. Expanding output means even more money to retool facilities, qualify new suppliers, and fix bottlenecks in energetics and sub-tier manufacturing. Shipbuilding is a similar problem. For every ship the United States makes, China can build 232 more. China’s government controls steel supply, finance, and workforce continuity. While America has advanced naval design expertise, commercial shipbuilding capacity has shrunk to a fraction of global output. Rebuilding it would require years of capital investment, labor development, and predictable demand.

Semiconductors follow the same industrial logic. Fabrication plants cost almost $20 billion to construct and qualify, while the supply chains for specialty chemicals, lithography equipment, and precision tooling remain globally dispersed. China’s semiconductor system is structured around redundancy, scale, and coordinated finance – as the west is optimized for efficiency.

China-light policies emphasize stockpiles and incentives, but stockpiles deplete; production rates determine depend on industrial depth.

Moving beyond China-light theater

None of this implies that the West should replicate China’s political economy. If strategic autonomy is the goal, policy must match the scale and duration of the challenge.

Three Western policies are needed.

First, prioritize the midstream. While mines matter, processing and component fabrication determine dependence. Investments should focus on conversion capacity and throughput.

Second, align incentives with output. Defense contractors can expand revenue without expanding production if incentives reward complexity and compliance over volume. Long-term procurement contracts, predictable demand signals, and conditional public financing tied to capacity metrics can shift industrial base behavior.

Third, coordinate minerals and materials across allies structurally. Friendshoring requires shared standards, integrated stockpiles, and joint investment vehicles. Fragmented national subsidy races raise costs and dilute impact. Collective capacity equals more allied industrial resilience.

Industrial strategy is not ideology. It is the management of material chokepoints that shape national power. The West has crossed the Rubicon into state intervention, yet its China-light approach still avoids deep structural reform. Without durable governance, industrial base investments will be more theater without capacity. Industrial competition is measured in production and we have to wonder if doing China-light policies will actually deliver it.

Lt. Col. Jahara “Franky” Matisek (PhD) is a US Air Force command pilot, nonresident research fellow at the US Naval War College, Senior Research Fellow at the Payne Institute for Public Policy, and a visiting scholar at Northwestern University. He is the most published active-duty officer currently serving, with 2 books and over 160 articles on industrial base issues, strategy, and warfare.

Gold extended gains on Friday as mounting geopolitical tensions in the Middle East kept markets on edge, driving investors towards the safe haven metal.

Spot gold rose as much as 1.2% to above $5,250 an ounce, on pace for another weekly rise. Silver, too, surged by 6% to $94 an ounce.

Live Gold Price Chart and Real-Time Updates

Precious metals have been trending higher in recent days amid a tense standoff between the US and Iran. Talks over a nuclear deal remain at a standstill, with both sides agreeing to reconvene next week.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has ordered a large build-up of military assets in the region as the deadline to reach a deal draws closer. Bloomberg sources have indicated that US officials left the latest round of talks disappointed with the progress.

Driven by the Middle East tensions, bullion has been slowly recovering from last month’s selloff that saw prices drop over 10% — its largest single-day decline since 1980. Despite this, the safe-haven metal remains up by 20% for this year, finding support above the $5,000-an-ounce level.

As the market has stabilized, investors have also been adding to their holdings in gold-backed exchange-traded funds, hedging against the ongoing geopolitical and economic risks. Inflows this week more than offset the end-of-January crash.

Should Friday’s move hold, bullion would record its seventh straight monthly gain, for its longest streak since 1973.

Meanwhile, traders are also watching for clues on the Federal Reserve’s next move on interest rates. Fed Bank of Chicago President Austan Goolsbee said this week that several cuts are possible this year if inflation declines.

(With files from Bloomberg)

Australia’s Dateline Resources (ASX: DTR) is expanding into the “heavy” rare earth element (HREE) exploration space with the addition of a second project in California.

On Friday, the company announced its acquisition of the Music Valley project, which comprises 57 mining claims in Riverside County covering 1,140 acres of land.

The broader Music Valley area was previously explored by the US Geological Survey, and its first rare earth was identified in 1954. Past work by the USGS showed that the mineralization has a fractionated HREE
signature.

Strategically, HREEs are considered vital to national security, as they are essential to building defence systems, advanced electronics and next-generation energy technologies. However, supplies of these minerals are heavily concentrated outside the US.

According to Dateline, historical sampling by the USGS returned high grades of heavy rare earths such as yttrium and dysprosium. Overall, the rock chip samples had total rare earth grades of between 6.69%-15.04%.

Dateline Resources’ shares surged more than 17% by market close in Australia, giving the company a market capitalization of A$1.5 billion.

Expanded US portfolio

“Music Valley gives Dateline direct exposure to heavy rare earth mineralization in California with
historically reported high-grade TREO results and strong heavy rare earth enrichment,” Dateline’s managing director Stephen Baghdadi said in a press release.

As part of the acquisition, Dateline will invest $1 million in the project’s owner, Fermi Critical Minerals, which focuses on uranium exploration in the US.

“Our $1 million investment in Fermi provides additional leverage to a substantial US uranium
and rare earth portfolio, including drill-permitted projects in Wyoming and Colorado,” Baghdadi said.

US Interior publicly backs rare earth mine next to Mountain Pass

The project adds to the Australian miner’s presence in California, where it is also exploring the Colosseum project situated in the Mojave Desert.

The company previously noted that the Colosseum project shares the same geological setting as Mountain Pass, currently the only producing US rare earth mine. Both Colosseum and Music Valley also have a history of gold mining, with the former holding a JORC-2012-compliant gold resource of 1.1 million oz.

To advance the Music Valley project, Dateline said it will conduct further geological mapping as well as review and integrate the historical USGS data.

Gunnison Copper (TSX: GCU) updated a preliminary economic assessment (PEA) for its namesake project in Arizona, increasing the value by half and advancing towards prefeasibility, permitting and financing.

The update issued Wednesday raises the Gunnison project’s net present value (at an 8% discount) to $1.95 billion, assuming a copper price of $4.60 per lb., compared with the initial PEA from 2024. Mine life rises by three years to 21.

The post-tax internal rate of return (IRR) grows to 23% from 21%, though initial capital costs increase by 18% to $1.54 billion. The site is about 105 km east of Tucson.

“The updated PEA underscores the scale and compelling economics of the Gunnison copper project,” CEO Stephen Twyerould said in a release. “Gunnison offers shareholders meaningful exposure to a large-scale, long-life US copper asset.”

The project dwarves Gunnison’s existing producer – the Johnson Camp mine (JCM) that started output last year – with eight times the size. The heft is going to be needed as the West grapples with a looming copper shortfall in the face of rising demand for the plumbing and wiring metal. Some 60 new copper mines are needed in just four years, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence says.

Enhancements drive NPV

About 83% of the $692 million increase in the net present value over the initial PEA was driven by operational enhancements at the site, Twyerould said. These include the addition of the high-grade Strong & Harris satellite deposit, material sorting and optimization initiatives. The Strong & Harris deposit would add about 25 million tonnes for the open-pit and heap leach operation.

The updated study envisions output of 3.2 billion lb. of copper cathode over the mine life, with average annual production of 174 million lb. in the first 15 years. Like JCM, Gunnison would use solvent extraction and electrowinning processing.

The PEA update follows a year of milestones for Gunnison, when JCM was the first to produce copper cathode using Rio Tinto (NYSE, LSE, ASX: RIO) venture partner Nuton’s sulphide bioleaching technology. Three months before that, Gunnison produced its own cathode, making JCM the US’s newest red metal producer.

Company shares gained 10% to C$0.61 apiece on Thursday, before falling 3.3% on Friday morning to C59¢ apiece in Toronto, valuing the company at about C$254 million ($186 million).

Gunnison’s mother lode

While JCM is more advanced than the Gunnison project, the namesake site hosts 831.6 million measured and indicated tons grading 0.31% copper for 5.1 billion lb., according to the initial PEA prepared by predecessor Excelsior Mining. Gunnison is about 2 km north of JCM.

Inferred resources total 79.6 million tons grading 0.2% copper for 325 million lb. of contained metal. A ton is 0.91 of a tonne. The new PEA did not update Gunnison’s resource.

Canada has channelled just 11% of its mining capital into critical minerals over the past 25 years, leaving the country behind global peers as demand for strategic resources accelerates, a new RBC report shows.

More than C$700 billion ($512 billion) has been raised in Canadian mining equity and mergers and acquisitions since 2000, with 70% flowing to gold and precious metals, according to S&P Capital IQ and LSEG data cited by RBC. 

Shaz Merwat, the bank’s director of energy policy and author of the report, said that in comparison, Australia channeled more than twice as much capital into critical minerals over the same period.

That gap matters. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects the global critical minerals industry will grow two to three times by 2040, requiring $500–$600 billion in capital. Demand for cobalt, copper, graphite, lithium, nickel and rare earth elements is rising, driven by electric vehicles, clean energy infrastructure, defence, manufacturing and electronics.

Canada holds significant deposits of those minerals but supplies about 2% of global output. If all identified projects proceed at full capacity, that share could rise to 14% over the next 15 years, according to federal estimates, RBC said.

Source: Mine & Refine: Bridging Canada’s Critical Minerals Capital Gap.

Ottawa is trying to close the gap. About 67 critical minerals projects, roughly half of all active mining proposals in the country, are planned, proposed or under construction. Together, they represent C$72.4 billion ($53 billion) in potential investment by 2034, according to Canada’s Major Projects Inventory.

Yet the country largely operates as a mine-and-ship jurisdiction. It has only one active copper smelter, Glencore’s (LON: GLEN) Horne facility in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, along with its associated refinery.

Producers have to export raw concentrates, primarily to China, for refining into higher-value components. China controls about 70% of global refining capacity for 19 of the 20 most critical minerals, supported by state-backed capital, lower costs and deliberate overcapacity that pressures competitors.

Structural barriers

RBC identifies structural barriers that have left the sector undercapitalized. Between 2005 and 2012, more than C$119 billion ($87 billion) in Canadian base metals and steel assets shifted to foreign ownership, reducing the number of domestically anchored mining leaders. Over three decades, Western countries outsourced energy-intensive refining to China, making it difficult to compete with subsidized overcapacity, especially in standalone processing.

Domestic demand remains limited. Canada’s battery cell manufacturing sector is still emerging, defence procurement operates at a fraction of US scale, and magnet and rare earth processing industries are largely absent. As a result, concentrates flow to markets where customers are concentrated.

This shortfall persists even after Ottawa committed up to C$55 billion ($40 billion) over 15 years to attract electric vehicle and battery manufacturers. 

Op-Ed: Canadians must match American urgency in the race for critical minerals

Unlike Germany, France and South Korea, Canada did not impose strict domestic sourcing requirements on subsidy recipients, limiting spillover benefits for upstream miners and processors.

Financing shortfalls also constrain growth. Canada’s flow-through share regime supports early-stage exploration, but funding drops sharply during feasibility, permitting and construction. Companies often face a C$20–C$30 million funding gap before reaching a final investment decision, which encourages asset sales rather than mine development.

Permitting delays add further risk. Federal and provincial reviews can stretch beyond five years without fixed timelines, increasing uncertainty and deterring investment.

Pulling forces

RBC argues market forces alone will not correct the imbalance. It calls for a co-ordinated public-private strategy centred on sovereign co-investment, infrastructure funding and tighter integration with allied supply chains.

Ottawa’s C$2-billion Critical Minerals Sovereign Wealth Fund remains modest relative to global capital flows. The Canada Growth Fund has begun co-investing in projects including Nouveau Monde’s (NYSE: NMG) graphite project in Quebec, Foran Mining’s (TSX:FOM) project in Saskatchewan, soon to be part of Eldorado Gold’s (TSX: ELD) (NYSE: EGO) portfolio, and the Thompson nickel mine complex in Manitoba, signaling federal backing to private investors.

Infrastructure could deliver the fastest gains. Analysis by the Canada Infrastructure Bank suggests co-investment in roads, transmission lines and grid connections to remote regions could reduce a project’s break-even price by 22–24%. Ontario’s Ring of Fire region alone requires up to C$2.4 billion in enabling infrastructure before major deposits become commercially viable.

Source: Mine & Refine: Bridging Canada’s Critical Minerals Capital Gap.

RBC also proposes developing mineral corridors that cluster mining and shared processing facilities in regions such as Quebec’s lithium belt and Ontario’s Sudbury nickel district. Shared refining hubs, supported by government loan guarantees and anchor offtake agreements with battery manufacturers in Europe and Asia, could improve project economics.

The US is also reshaping supply chains. The US Office of Strategic Capital can deploy $100–200 billion to strengthen defence and industrial supply chains, and Washington’s $12-billion Project Vault critical minerals stockpile is operational.

Closer integration could secure offtake for Canadian producers but carries risks if US export licensing or procurement rules subordinate Canadian supply to American industrial priorities. RBC recommends diversifying trade ties with European and Asian allies to preserve resource sovereignty while anchoring demand.

Australia offers a contrast. Pension funds maintain standing allocations to resources, supporting a deeper pool of mid-tier producers. Statutory timelines reduce permitting uncertainty, and commodity diversification helped build global majors such as BHP (ASX: BHP) and Rio Tinto (ASX: RIO) that now invest heavily in energy-transition metals.

Canada backs 25 critical minerals projects in G-7 initiative

In Canada, decades of capital consolidation around gold reshaped public markets into a precious metals financing platform. That strength did not translate into leadership in battery metals, where processing is more complex and capital intensive.

The country could raise its share of global output in six key minerals to 14% by 2040 from 2% today if projects proceed, according to the report. But only 19% of mining firms on the S&P/TSX Composite are diversified miners, compared with about two-thirds in Australia’s ASX 300 mining index.

After two decades of capital allocation focused elsewhere, Canada has world-class geology but limited downstream capacity and patient risk capital. Without a decisive shift, RBC warns, the country risks remaining a supplier of raw materials while others capture the value-added processing and geopolitical leverage.

Ontario Mines and Energy Minister Stephen Lecce is promising to announce more support for the industry at its biggest convention this month after recent permit acceleration and infrastructure spending.

The province upgraded Kinross Gold’s (TSX: K; NYSE: KGC) Great Bear project to its One Project One Process framework this month. It has approved C$140 million ($102.3 million) to prep road construction to the remote Ring of Fire region, earmarked billions for new high-capacity power transmission lines and placed C$500 million in a fund to build mineral processing plants.

“You can expect the province to announce significant investments in infrastructure to support and enable economic development and responsible resource development in the North,” Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce told MINING.COM’s sister publication The Northern Miner ahead of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada annual gathering in Toronto March 1-4.

Premier Doug Ford’s government has elevated mining to the forefront of Ontario’s economic agenda to thwart US tariffs, supply domestic industry and create jobs. It started the One Project One Process framework last year to cut approval times to two years by coordinating ministries, Indigenous and federal consent after reports showed mine approvals can take more than a decade.

Dual track

“Our government is working diligently to diversify export markets for commodities while attracting more value-added investment, including processing here at home,” Lecce said by phone. “That dual track of incentivizing foreign investment, creating the conditions for capital to flow back to the province after the last decade is critical to restoring confidence.”

Critics arguing that Ontario is trampling the environment and First Nations in its speed should regard how the government wants First Nations to take equity positions in mining projects, he said. It’s part of a strategy to mine ethically while reducing dependence on China which dominates metal processing after its decades of lower environmental standards. 

“The premier is very committed to fulfilling that obligation so the First Nations are not just consulted, but they’re co-owners of the project,” the minister said. “We are demonstrating that we can move with speed, we can unlock our resources, we can upgrade tens of thousands of jobs, and we can stand up to President Trump or to the likes of the Chinese regime.”

Great Bear

The C$1.4-billion capex Great Bear, 500 km northwest of Thunder Bay near Red Lake, a town with a long mining history, is the first gold project in the program for expedited permits. It joins Canada Nickel’s (TSXV: CNC; US-OTC: CNIKF) Crawford project added in January and Frontier Lithium’s (TSXV: FL; US-OTC: LITOF) PAK project confirmed in October.

“This designation facilitates a more integrated and streamlined path forward as we advance the permitting of this world-class mine towards commercial production in consultation with Indigenous communities,” Kinross CEO J. Paul Rollinson said in a release this month. “Great Bear is a generational asset and positioned to become one of Canada’s largest and most profitable gold mines.”

Toronto-based Kinross, which by market capitalization ranks among the top five Canada-domiciled gold producers, is developing Great Bear to produce 518,000 oz. gold a year by 2029 at an all-in sustaining cost of $812 per oz., according to a 2024 preliminary economic assessment. That would be in the leading handful of Canadian producers by output and among those with the lowest cost.

Power lines

The Great Bear designation ties in with provincial work on the Red Lake Transmission Line that would run from Dryden to Red Lake to power new mines and growing communities, the province said. Electricity demand in the region north of Dryden, which includes Red Lake, is forecast to grow by up to 250% by 2050 from its current level, driven largely by the expected growth in the mining sector, according to the province.

In January, the province committed C$70 million for early work on the Greenstone Transmission Line, a 230-km, 230-kilovolt project intended to deliver 350–700 MW of power from Nipigon to Aroland First Nation for Ring of Fire mining. The multi-hundred-million-dollar line includes a 50% equity ownership stake for local First Nations.

The province started taking applications in December for its Critical Minerals Processing Fund to help projects like Rock Tech Lithium’s (TSXV: RCK; FSE: RJIB) proposed C$1.6-billion converter near its Georgia Lake project 110 km northeast of Thunder Bay.

“We’re also unlocking the Ring of Fire, nearly 8,000 sq. km, one of the largest undeveloped critical mineral regions on Earth,” Lecce said. “Our message to the world is that Ontario, and Canada, is emerging as the most reliable, ethical and open-for-business jurisdiction in the Western world.”

Global Atomic (TSX: GLO) is facing a potential lawsuit related to disclosures made by the company dating back to late 2023.

In a press release on Wednesday, the Canadian uranium developer said it has been notified of a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice threatening class action.

The statement alleges that the company and its chief executive officer Stephen Roman had made “misrepresentations” to investors in its public disclosure between Nov. 10, 2023 to Jan. 23, 2025. It did not specify the amount of damages that the plaintiffs are seeking.

The action has not yet been certified by the Court to proceed and does not have the required leave sought under Section 138.8 of Ontario’s Securities Act to begin a lawsuit, Global Atomic noted in its release.

Shares of Global Atomic traded 3.4% lower by Thursday afternoon, for a market capitalization of C$416.7 million ($304.5 million).

US loan scrutiny

The Court filing follows an investor alert issued by Toronto-based law firm Berger Montague in late January, stating that it is investigating the company and inviting shareholders to discuss potential claims.

The statement pertains to a potential $295 million debt facility with the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) for the company’s flagship Dasa project in Niger. Global Atomic had previously hoped to close the funding in early 2025, but a military coup in the African nation delayed the process.

Berger Montague alleges that since announcing the DFC funding interest in late 2023, the company has failed to disclose certain pre-conditions of the loan and developments that could affect the financing process, such as deteriorating US-Niger relationships.

The DFC financing, which is still being reviewed, would cover 60% of the costs to build the Dasa project, considered to be the highest-grade uranium deposit in Africa.

Global Atomic previously stated the project has “strong support” from Niger’s current regime. Since taking control in July 2023, the junta-led government has initiated an overhaul of the nation’s mining sector, resulting in the seizure of a large uranium mine operated by France’s Orano.

Gold grabbed the spotlight in 2025 after a run that saw prices hit a record more than 50 times. By end of the year, bullion was up by more than 60%, its best annual performance since 1979.

Besides gold investors, miners also came away as big winners of that rally. The world’s largest exchange traded-fund with exposure to the gold mining sector, the VanEck Gold Miners ETF (GDX), went up by over 155%, far outperforming the metal itself.

Individually, companies like top producer Newmont (NYSE, ASX: NEM) and Canada’s Agnico Eagle Mines (NYSE, TSX: AEM) all saw their profits skyrocket and valuations reach new highs in tandem with gold prices. In Canada, where most gold mining companies are listed, the gold miners absolutely dominated the top performers on the TSX.

But gold prices form only one part of the equation for these companies; many would still require operational success to deliver positive results in the long run and meet a growing demand for the metal.

To recap the memorable year for gold miners, we compiled how each of the top 10 gold mining companies fared in terms of output compared with the previous year.

#1 Newmont

Newmont (NYSE, ASX: NEM) maintains its ranking atop the global producer pyramid after what was a “record year” of cash generation for the company. During 2025, the Denver, Colorado-based miner achieved multiple operational milestones, including the commercial start of Ahafo North project in Ghana, and entered a new phase after shedding several non-core assets.

While Newmont met its annual production guidance, its output declined 14% year-on-year, and the company is forecasting a further decline in 2026.

#2 Agnico Eagle Mines

Agnico Eagle Mines (NYSE, TSX: AEM) snatched second place as the Canadian gold miner maintained strong performance across its portfolio, with production surpassing the midpoint of its 2025 guidance range. During the year, the company made several key investments, including the acquisition of O3 Mining to bolster its Canadian Malartic complex and taking equity stakes in Perpetua Resources (Nasdaq, TSX: PPTA) and several Canadian juniors.

Over the next three years, Agnico expects production to remain stable, backed by last year’s substantial growth in resources and record-high reserve totals.

#3 Barrick Mining

Barrick Mining (TSX: ABX; NYSE: B) saw a drastic decline in output due largely to setbacks in Mali, with which it had a two-year dispute. The miner started 2025 on a bad note after being forced to suspend its Loulo-Gounkoto mine complex — one of biggest producers in the world — in January, and then losing its operational control to Mali’s military government. By the end of the year, the two sides managed to settle the matter, and Barrick officially resumed the operation in December.

However, another conflict may be brewing, this time with Newmont, over issues related to their joint venture operations in Nevada.

#4 Zijin Mining Group

China’s Zijin Mining leaped into fourth place after reporting a 35% surge in year-on-year gold production, which it attributed to favourable market environments and operational efficiency. During 2025, it added two major mines to its portfolio, including the Akyem mine in Ghana acquired from Newmont. The company also bought Raygorodok gold mine in Kazakhstan as it looks to expand heavily into Central Asia.

#5 Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Company

Uzbekistan’s Navoi Mining maintained steady output growth in 2025 to cement its status as a major gold producer. The state-owned industrial giant currently has several operations across the Kyzylkum Desert region, with its primary asset being the Muruntau deposit, one of the world’s largest. The company estimates that its mining assets currently hold about 150 million oz. of gold in resources.

#6 AngloGold Ashanti

AngloGold Ashanti (NYSE: AU) became a 3-million-oz. producer after accounting for the first full-year contribution from the Sukari mine in Egypt, of which it owns 50% through its 2024 takeover of Centamin. During 2025, the company also make a strong push into the North America with its acquisition of Augusta Gold, which has assets in Nevada.

#7 Polyus

Russian gold miner Polyus projects its output to reach between 2.5 and 2.6 million oz. in 2025, a decline over the previous year due to a planned reduction at its Olimpiada mine. Like all major gold miners in Russia, the company, once a top five ranked producer, has been hit with Western sanctions, impacting some of its operations.

#8 Gold Fields

South Africa’s Gold Fields (JSE: GFI) saw an 18% jump in production last year following strong operational improvements across the portfolio. A major contributor was the Salares Norte mine in Chile, which reached commercial production in the third quarter. During the year, the company also expanded its presence in Australia with its A$3.7 billion takeover of Gold Road Resources (ASX: GOR). In the year-end results call, Gold Fields CEO Mike Fraser said the company is open to more deals.

#9 Kinross Gold

Kinross Gold (TSX: K, NYSE: KGC) once again delivered over 2 million oz. in gold-equivalent production despite a decrease in production across several sites. Two of its mines, Paracatu in Brazil and Fort Knox in Alaska, raised their output due to higher grades. This year, the Canadian miner is forecasting similar production and is expected to invest heavily into three US development projects.

#10 Northern Star Resources

For the 2025 fiscal year, Northern Star Resources (ASX: NST) achieved its production guidance, led by its KCGM operations, which hosts one of Australia’s largest open pit gold mines. During the year, the company completed its A$5 billion acquisition of developer De Grey Mining, a move it said could take its annual production to as high as 3 million oz. per year. However, its fiscal 2026 guidance was recently lowered due to what the company calls “isolated events” occurring late in 2025.

Honorable Mentions: Harmony Gold Mining Company (NYSE: HMY, JSE: HAR), which is forecasting between 1.4-1.5 million oz. of production; Freeport-McMoRan (NYSE: FCX), with 1 million oz. of gold produced from its Grasberg mine in Indonesia.

A view of the Gold Bar mine in Nevada. Credit: McEwen Inc.

Nevada has unseated Finland as the best jurisdiction for mining investment globally while two Canadian provinces – Ontario and Saskatchewan – have climbed into the top three, a new survey says.

The findings are contained in the Fraser Institute’s most recent Annual Survey of Mining Companies, which was released Thursday. The Vancouver-based think tank has been polling mining executives since 1997 to assess how mineral endowments and public policy factors such as taxation and regulation affect exploration investment.

The United States, Canada, Australia and Europe all placed two jurisdictions each in the Top 10 – a list that also includes South Australia, Arizona, Western Australia, Botswana, Norway, Sweden and Saudi Arabia, which moved up from No. 20 in 2024. Finland, Alaska, Wyoming, Newfoundland & Labrador and Guyana all exited the Top 10 in 2025.

Nevada owes its advance from No. 2 in 2024 to a combination of rich mineral endowments — particularly gold, silver and critical minerals — and a policy environment that is perceived as stable and predictable. The state received the highest policy perception index score of any jurisdiction, reflecting favourable views on permitting, taxation, regulatory clarity and overall governance. Nevada has ranked consistently in the top 10 over the last 11 surveys.

The report is based on a survey of 256 respondents working in exploration, production and consulting operations. It was distributed to 2,304 senior executives between Aug. 5 and Nov. 26, which translates to an 11% response rate. Some analysts have criticized Fraser’s ranking, saying the process lacks clear definitions of political stability, labour markets and geology.

New rules

Ontario’s emergence as Canada’s most attractive mining jurisdiction comes after the provincial government introduced rules in October designed to cut mine approval times by half – a move that Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce insisted would make the province more competitive in the global race to extract critical minerals. Ontario had ranked 15th in the 2024 survey.

Saskatchewan, which moved up from No. 7, ranked 2nd globally for its potential in a district known for world-class deposits of uranium and potash.

Some Canadian jurisdictions are failing to capitalize on their strong mineral potential due to a lack of a solid policy environment that would attract investment, the Fraser Institute says. Although they rank 11th and 13th respectively for mineral potential, Yukon and Manitoba rank 47th and 39th when considering policy factors alone, the think tank says.

“Policymakers in every province and territory should understand that mineral deposits alone are not enough to attract investment,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director of the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Natural Resource Studies and co-author of the study. “A sound and predictable regulatory regime coupled with competitive fiscal policies help make a jurisdiction attractive in the eyes of mining investors.”

Investor concerns

Among other Canadian provinces, British Columbia dropped seven ranks to No. 20 largely due to investor concerns over disputed land claims and protected areas, the Fraser Institute said. Newfoundland & Labrador fell to No. 14 as miners expressed increased concern over the province’s regulatory duplication and its legal system, among others.

Quebec held steady at No. 22, with miners surveyed expressing heightened concern over the province’s trade barriers and infrastructure.

Uncertainty surrounding protected areas, land claims disputes, environmental regulations and regulatory inconsistencies are all hindering mining investment in various Canadian jurisdictions, the think tank says.

Bottom 10

When considering both policy and mineral potential in the Investment Attractiveness Index, the least attractive jurisdiction in the world for mining investment is China, followed by Burkina Faso and Egypt, the Fraser Institute says. The Philippines, Mali, Chubut, Neuquen, Bolivia, Northern Ireland and Guinea Conakry were also judged to be unattractive.

Responses from the participating executives were used to evaluate 68 jurisdictions on the Investment Attractiveness Index — a composite measure that blends geologic potential with perceptions of government policy and regulatory frameworks.

Mining executives indicate that about 40% of their investment decisions are influenced by policy factors, the think tank says. The remainder rest on mineral potential and economic parameters.

MP Materials (NYSE: MP) has selected a 120-acre site in Northlake, Texas, as the location of its proposed billion-dollar rare earth magnet manufacturing campus.

The project — dubbed “10X” — represents a key pillar of MP’s public-private partnership with the US Department of War, which was established in July 2025 to accelerate America’s rare earth magnet independence.

The US currently relies heavily on foreign supplies of magnets, which are essential components used in the defence and EV sectors. Each year, it is estimated that the US imports around 10,000 tonnes of magnets from China, making it vulnerable to trade restrictions.

MP Materials climbed 2% to about $60 a share on the announcement, bringing its market capitalization to $10.6 billion. The stock remains about $40 off its all-time high set in mid-October.

Supply chain boost

In a press release on Thursday, MP said its Texas campus would “dramatically advance” America’s ability to produce these strategic components domestically, strengthening its supply chain independence.

The Las Vegas-based company is currently the only fully integrated producer of rare earth materials in the US, with operations centered around its Mountain Pass mine and processing facility in California and a magnet manufacturing site in Texas.

The 10X facility will “significantly expand” the company’s existing manufacturing platform, which encompasses mining and refining, metallization and alloying, sintering, finished magnet production and closed‑loop recycling, MP noted.

Once operational, the campus is expected to contribute to the company’s total production capacity of approximately 10,000 metric tons of NdFeB (neodymium-iron-boron) rare earth magnets per year.

$1.25B investment

In Thursday’s release, MP said it plans to invest $1.25 billion into the 10X project, which is expected to create more than 1,500 direct manufacturing and engineering jobs at the site. The company anticipates breaking ground soon, it said. Engineering and equipment procurement is currently underway, with commissioning targeted for 2028.

James Litinsky, founder and CEO of MP Materials, said the 10X project “is about building industrial strength at a scale” that the US has not seen in generations, and “the exceptional talent and infrastructure in North Texas make it possible.”

The campus will be located less than 10 miles from its existing magnet production plant in Fort Worth, Texas, which began production in 2024. This will cement North Texas as the center of gravity for the US rare earth magnet supply chain, MP said.

To fund the project, state and local governments have together approved a $200 million package comprising grants, abatements and exemptions for over a decade.

Apple invests $500M in Pentagon-backed MP Materials

When it announced the DoW partnership, MP had already secured a $1 billion commitment from JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs for the 10X facility, as well as a $150 million Pentagon loan to expand its Mountain Pass mine, the source of raw materials for the Texas site.

Panama’s economy grew 4% in 2025, and business leaders say reopening First Quantum’s (TSX: FM) Cobre Panama copper mine is critical to lifting growth to as much as 6% by 2027.

The Sindicato de Industriales de Panama (SIP), one of the country’s leading business groups, reported that last year’s expansion was driven mainly by services such as transportation and hospitality, while manufacturing lagged with growth of just 0.46%. The group warned that without new growth engines, momentum could fade.

SIP projects GDP could climb to 6% in 2027 if the Cobre Panama mine reopens and major projects tied to the Panama Canal move forward. Under a negative scenario in which the mine remains closed, growth would slow to 3.7% in 2027, nearly 40% lower than in the upside case.

The mine’s shutdown weighed on economic growth, employment and efforts to reduce labour informality, the group said. Labour market gains recorded earlier in 2024 partially reversed as activity contracted following the shutdown. The loss of copper exports also left Panama more reliant on primary goods such as shrimp, fish and bananas, weakening diversification. Limited labour data has made it harder to fully measure the impact, SIP said.

The business group described a potential restart as a cornerstone of Panama’s medium-term growth strategy, complementing Canal investments, infrastructure development and efforts to attract foreign direct investment. Resuming operations would help revive the labour market and strengthen domestic demand, it said.

Looming decision

President José Raúl Mulino said in January he plans to announce by June whether the government will permit the mine to restart, a looming decision that has injected uncertainty into the global copper market.

A restart would boost both Panama’s economy and First Quantum while easing pressure in a tightening copper market. The large open-pit mine accounts for nearly 2% of global copper supply.

The government and First Quantum have agreed on a starting framework for negotiations after the Canadian miner accepted state ownership of copper resources as a condition, though how that would apply to Cobre Panama remains unclear.

The company has said it could produce about 70,000 tonnes of copper over a year if authorities approve the processing of a large ore stockpile at the site.

Chile’s mining ministry will submit five new lithium contracts to the national comptroller in March, just days before President Gabriel Boric leaves office, as it pushes to expand production under the country’s national lithium strategy.

The contracts cover Salar de Ascotán, Quillagua Sur, Hilaricos, Salar de Piedra Parada and Salar de Agua Amarga. Three others — Quillagua Norte, Quillagua Este and Planta El Águila — remain under regulatory review, local outlet Emol.com reported. 

The ministry is also advancing two direct-award contracts, Ollague and Laguna Verde, separate from the tender contracts it submitted in January. Regulators blocked last month the Quillagua Norte and Quillagua Este contracts over “legal deficiencies” in how the ministry set award requirements, ruling that only the President has the authority to establish such criteria.

The dispute centres on how Special Lithium Operation Contracts, known as CEOLs by their Spanish acronym, are processed when private companies or consortia submit applications. 

That framework differs from agreements between state-owned companies such as Codelco and Enami and private partners including SQM (NYSE: SQM) and Rio Tinto (ASX: RIO).

Regaining lost ground

The new submissions signal a broader push to accelerate Chile’s 2023 national lithium strategy, which increased state involvement and reshaped project development. The country aims to lift annual lithium output from 280,000 tonnes in 2024 to about 430,000 tonnes by 2034.

Although Chile remains the world’s second-largest lithium producer, it has ceded market share to faster-growing rivals. Manuel Viera, president of the Chilean Mining Chamber, told MINING.COM the country could reclaim its position as the top producer within a decade if it repeals restrictions and adopts a more pro-investment framework.

Chile’s right-wing pivot puts mining policy under the microscope

Viera pointed to Nova Andino Litio, a joint venture between Codelco and SQM (NYSE: SQM), and Salares Altoandinos as positive developments, but said more than 40 salt flats across the country remain untapped.

He also highlighted Codelco’s Maricunga lithium partnership with Rio Tinto (ASX: RIO), which is awaiting antitrust approvals in Chile and China before the companies can sign a shareholders’ agreement.

Viera argued that Chile’s loss of lithium leadership reflects political constraints rather than geological limits, citing Mining Code provisions that reserve lithium for the state and, in his view, deter private investment despite high-quality reserves.

Greenland Resources (TSX:MOLY) announced Wednesday the government of Greenland has granted it exclusive rights of a special exploration license consisting of 1,147.76 km2 in the Semersooq region surrounding the company’s existing exploitation license for molybdenum and magnesium.  

The Canadian company said it now has a dominant mineral licence position on the east coast of Greenland. 

Molybdenum demand is experiencing strong growth, driven by its critical role in high-performance steel alloys, infrastructure, and the energy transition. Global demand is expected to rise from roughly 398,000 tonnes in 2024 to 500,000 tonnes/year by 2034, according to Research and Markets.  

Last year, Greenland Resources inked a long-term offtake agreement with Finland’s Outokumpu, the largest producer of stainless steel in Europe and the second largest in the Americas, for the supply molybdenum oxide produced at its flagship Malmbjerg project. 

Based on previous reports published by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, the geochemistry data from rock samples available in the new license area show multiple locations with highly anomalous molybdenum values that could potentially add to its Malmbjerg project, the company said, adding that an exploration program including hyperspectral surveys for the new concession will be established. 

By market close in Toronto, Greenland Resources stock was up 2.94%. The company has a C$235 million ($171 million) market capitalization.  

Lundin Gold (TSX: LUG) has enlisted Australian space company Fleet Space Technologies to sharpen drill targeting and cut exploration risk at its Fruta del Norte mine in southeastern Ecuador as it pushes to extend the asset’s life amid strong gold prices.

The Canadian miner plans to spend $100 million this year on exploration at Fruta del Norte, Ecuador’s first large-scale underground mine, which began production in late 2019 with an initial 12-year mine life.

Lundin Gold expects annual output of 475,000 to 525,000 ounces from 2026 to 2028. In 2025, the operation produced nearly 500,000 ounces, while exports of gold concentrate and doré are projected to reach about $1.8 billion.

The orebody lies beneath more than 200 metres of post-mineralization volcano-sedimentary cover, making conventional surface exploration ineffective. The blind epithermal gold-silver system is structurally controlled by steep, second-order faults within a broader regional fault zone, complicating efforts to define new targets near the mine.

Lundin Gold to invest $100 million in 2026 Ecuador exploration

To better map these concealed structures, Lundin Gold deployed Fleet Space’s ExoSphere platform, which integrates high-resolution active seismic data with existing geological and assay datasets. The company said the approach improved its structural framework, refined its geological model and identified new high-priority drill targets.

Fleet Space and Lundin Gold designed a high-resolution active seismic survey across the project area to complement existing data. ExoSphere processed and standardized the information, integrating it into a layered subsurface model that brought previously obscured geological features into focus. The resulting interpretations enabled more precise drill targeting and improved prioritization of prospective zones.

“Fruta del Norte is a powerful example of how Agile Geoscience is redefining what’s possible in mineral exploration,” Fleet Space chief executive Flavia Tata Nardini said in a statement. She said integrating active seismic data into the platform allows explorers to illuminate complex mineral systems beneath significant cover and translate deeper structural understanding into actionable insights.

Seismic reach boost

Fleet Space strengthened its seismic capability in May 2025 with the acquisition of HiSeis, a provider of seismic solutions to the mining industry. Active seismic technology delivers metre-scale subsurface imaging, helping companies visualize complex mineral systems and optimize drilling strategies.

Fruta del Norte sits in the remote Condor Mountain range, where dense jungle terrain creates logistical and access challenges. Fleet Space said its data-driven approach allows companies to operate with greater precision and speed in constrained environments while reducing risk and environmental impact.

Ecuador holds significant mineral reserves but has lagged Andean neighbours Peru and Chile in large-scale mining development, as projects often face community opposition, legal challenges and shifting regulations.

Copper Canyon, Chihuahua, northwestern Mexico. Stock image.

Escalating security risks and a legacy of lengthy project approvals are increasing investor scrutiny of mining exposure to Mexico, TD Cowen says.

Recent incidents linked to cartel activity — such as the late January abduction of 10 Vizsla Silver (TSX, NYSE: VZLA) workers and subsequent killing of some of them — underscore the strategic importance of Mexico’s mining industry, particularly for silver, TD Cowen mining analysts led by Wayne Lam said in a report published Wednesday.

Mexico accounts for about 28% of global mine-site silver supply and nearly half of all output from primary silver mines worldwide, data compiled by TD show. That’s in addition to about 4% of gold output and 3% of copper production.

“While recent incidents appear contained to states with less impact on overall production, we view risk if activity increases in surrounding areas, which may cause investors to reassess Mexican exposure,” Lam and his colleagues wrote in the report.

Kidnappers kill Vizsla mine workers in Mexico Rising violence

Sunday’s killing by the Mexican army of Jalisco New Generation Cartel (JNGC) leader Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes – known as “El Mencho” – triggered retaliatory violence, infrastructure damage and heightened security force activity across the western and central parts of the country.

At least 22 Mexican states have seen unrest in the wake of Oseguera’s death, British security risk management firm MS Risk said in a note dated Tuesday. While relative calm has since returned, with soldiers and National Guard members deployed to restore order, tensions remain elevated, the firm said.

Cartel capacity for violence, trafficking and corruption is likely to persist despite Oseguera’s death, MS Risk added.

His death “creates a high-volatility security environment,” the firm wrote in its report. “For businesses operating in Mexico, the primary risks stem from cartel fragmentation, reprisal violence and opportunistic criminal activity during the transitional power struggle.”

As a result, the risk profile “effectively shifts from centralized cartel dominance to decentralized instability and localized unpredictability, with the short-term risks [in the next three months] being elevated. The medium-term risk will be dependent on whether JNGC consolidates or fractures.”

Cartel presence

Security concerns for mining investors have recently centred around Sinaloa and Jalisco states, where cartel presence has intensified. Yet those states together account for only about 1.5% of Mexico’s annual mining output, which limits near-term effects on national production.

Besides Vizsla, companies with properties in Sinaloa include Americas Gold and Silver (TKTK: USA), whose Cosala mine will contribute about half of output this year; Torex Gold Resources (TSX: TXG), the developer of the Los Reyes project; and McEwen Mining (TSX: MUX; NYSE: MUX), which is advancing the Fenix project.

Miners active in Jalisco include Endeavour Silver (NYSE: EXK; TSX: EDR), whose Terronera mine accounts for about one-third of projected 2026 production, and GoGold Resources (TSX: GGD; US-OTC: GLGDF), which is developing the Los Ricos property.

Serious implications

An expansion of unrest into Zacatecas and Chihuahua — two of the country’s most important mining regions — would have far more serious implications, the TD analysts warn. Zacatecas alone accounts for about one-third of Mexico’s mine production, while Chihuahua contributes about 12%.

Companies with notable exposure to Zacatecas include Pan American Silver (TSX, NYSE: PAAS), which operates the La Colorada mine; Fresnillo (LSE: FRES), which owns stakes in three Mexican mines; Orla Mining (TSX: OLA; NYSE: ORLA), which runs the Camino Rojo property; Newmont (NYSE: NEM), which owns the Penasquito open-pit operation; and Capstone Copper (TSX: CS; ASX: CSC), the operator of the Cozamin underground mine.

Miners operating in Chihuahua include First Majestic Silver (NYSE, TSX: AG), the majority owner of the Los Gatos mine, and Coeur Mining (NYSE: CDE), which owns the Palmarejo gold-silver complex.

Higher duties

The latest security issues compound policy headwinds that have weighed on the sector in recent years. Higher mining duties introduced in late 2024 and permitting challenges under the previous Andrés Manuel López Obrador administration are still being felt today under his successor, President Claudia Sheinbaum, TD argues.

Mexico has taken back 1,126 mining concessions since late 2024, official says

“While permitting and project advancement appear to be improving under the Sheinbaum administration, we view a lack of development in the 2022-24 period resulting in a dearth of advanced stage projects today,” Lam and his colleagues wrote. “Recent security risks have highlighted regions of heightened cartel activity, which could further impact ability to accelerate new projects.”

A worsening security environment could shift investor preferences toward companies operating in Tier I jurisdictions with lower geopolitical risk such as Canada or the US, TD also said. Such a trend would likely support higher valuation multiples for producers with more diversified or safer geographic footprints.

Torex is the North American miner with the biggest overall Mexico exposure in TD’s coverage universe, at 95% of net asset value. This compares with 91% for First Majestic, 72% for Endeavour, 37% for Orla and 27% for Pan American Silver. Fresnillo, which isn’t covered by the TD analysts, also has significant operations in Mexico.