Tag: copper

Ghost Taps and Golden Bottlenecks: The Coming Exploration Crisis

September 2nd, 2025
Introduction: The Seed Corn Problem

Civilization runs on minerals. Gold may glitter, but copper carries our current, uranium powers our grids, and rare earths anchor the very magnets that spin the world. Without them, the skyscrapers don’t rise, the phones don’t ring, and the servers that feed the cloud go dark. Mining is not just an industry; it is the bedrock upon which every other modern enterprise rests.

And yet, here we stand in 2025, after more than a decade of neglect. The global mining industry has starved its own “R&D department”—exploration. Budgets have been slashed, geologists retired without replacement, and entire districts left unmapped since the 1980s. Instead of planting seeds for the future, the sector has lived off old harvests, leaning on deposits discovered by the last great exploration wave of the 1960s–1990s.

It’s the equivalent of eating the seed corn to make it through winter. Yes, you may survive the lean season, but when spring arrives the fields are bare. The industry now faces a generational dilemma: demand is rising with electrification, AI-driven power consumption, and defense needs, but the pipeline of new discoveries is running dry.

The warning signs are already here. Grades are falling, permitting timelines stretch a decade or more, and the very talent pool of geologists—the human capital that finds ore before machines can mine it—is shrinking. The exploration torch is passing out, just as the world needs it most.

This is the seed corn problem: an industry that mistook austerity for efficiency, cost-cutting for strategy, and in doing so mortgaged its future.

Why Exploration Matters

Exploration is the ghost in the machine—the unseen force that keeps the gears of civilization turning. Mines are not infinite. Ore bodies deplete, grades decline, and production costs inevitably climb. Without a steady stream of new discoveries, the reserves that underpin our supply chains wither away.

When exploration falters, the ripple effects are immediate and profound:
- Depletion at the source: Mature mines close or shift to lower-grade zones, requiring more energy, more water, and more waste rock for every ton of metal produced.
- Fragile supply chains: Scarcity tightens the noose. Nations grow dependent on single suppliers or unstable jurisdictions, inviting shortages and geopolitical choke points.
- Economic exposure: Industries that appear cutting-edge—AI, data centers, quantum computing, crypto, electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels—become castles built on sand, unsupported by the very raw materials that make them possible.
History proves the point. The U.S. uranium boom of the 1950s, the global porphyry copper discoveries of the 1960s and 1970s, and the Carlin Trend gold rush in Nevada all reshaped economies and societies. But each relied on bold, boots-on-the-ground exploration—and each took decades to bring from discovery to production. Without planting new seeds today, there will be no harvest tomorrow.

Exploration is not optional. It is the bedrock of resilience, the insurance policy against scarcity, and the quiet act of faith that there will still be metal in the mill when the world comes calling.

What Happened to the Juniors?

Once, junior explorers were the daring prospectors of capital markets. They were scrappy, nimble, and driven by geologists with calloused hands and big dreams—funded by retail investors and risk-tolerant funds who saw the outsized upside of a drill-bit discovery. They were the seed planters.

Today, they’re skeletal. The ecosystem that once sustained them has been hollowed out by a perfect storm of mistrust, market shifts, and changing appetites for risk.
- Burned Trust (2011–2015): Billions vanished in the last gold cycle. Over-promises, bad geology, and outright scams poisoned the well. Investors fled, leaving legitimate juniors to starve alongside the frauds.
- ETF Domination: Passive index funds became the new custodians of capital. They allocate by market cap, not by exploration potential. Drill holes don’t move the needle. The capital pool that once flowed freely into high-risk discovery stories has shrunk to a trickle.
- Retail Drift: The everyday investor who once bought a thousand shares of a penny-stock explorer on a hunch now chases tech IPOs, cannabis booms, meme stocks, and crypto tokens. Rocks lost their shine in a world of instant returns and digital buzz.
- Risk Aversion: Institutional capital demands cash flow, not speculation. Money flows to mid-tiers and majors who can produce quarterly results, not to juniors who burn cash in search of something that may not exist.
The result? An entire generation of junior companies reduced to husks—managing legacy properties, eking out survival on private placements, or vanishing altogether. Where once the TSX-Venture exchange was a bustling bazaar of discovery, it is now a thinly traded echo chamber.

The juniors are left begging for scraps. And without them, the pipeline of new discoveries—the very seed corn of the mining industry—runs dry.

Why the Majors Look Away

Big mining companies are not innocent bystanders in this drought of discovery. They’ve made a calculated choice—a choice that prioritizes quarterly comfort over generational security.
- Dividends > Drills: Shareholders demand yield, not uncertainty. The likes of BHP, Rio Tinto, and Vale trumpet their dividend programs as proof of “discipline,” funneling billions back to investors instead of into the geologists who might find tomorrow’s ore bodies. The City of London and Bay Street cheer, but the exploration pipeline withers.
- M&A Is Easier: Why risk the cost and uncertainty of greenfield exploration when you can let juniors shoulder the burden and then swoop in later? Barrick, Newmont, and Anglo American have built portfolios on acquisitions rather than discoveries, paying premiums for ounces once desperation sets in. This strategy works only as long as juniors exist—and today, even that seedbed is failing.
- Permitting Pain: In the U.S., a new mine can take 10–15 years to permit. In Chile, Peru, and Argentina, political shifts and social unrest regularly derail development. Even Canada, once a paragon of mining stability, has bogged down in federal-provincial wrangling. To the majors, exploration feels like wasted effort if politics can veto production. Why drill if a discovery just becomes a stranded asset?
- Artificial Scarcity: A tighter project pipeline props up higher commodity prices. For majors, scarcity is profitable—at least in the short run. Copper prices hold stronger when new supply is uncertain. Uranium equities rally when no new projects are breaking ground. But this “discipline” is short-sighted. Artificial scarcity enriches today’s balance sheets while mortgaging tomorrow’s grids.
The majors’ restraint looks like prudence, but in truth, it is systemic neglect. They have mistaken risk aversion for strategy. Instead of seeding the next generation of mines, they are cannibalizing the last generation’s discoveries, hoping someone else will do the dirty work of prospecting.

Yet “someone else” no longer exists. The juniors are starved, governments are paralyzed, and the majors have parked their drills. The system is eating itself.

The Timeline of Consequences

The story of exploration neglect is not abstract. It unfolds on a clock, with milestones as predictable as they are dire. Here’s what we will see in the coming year, 5 years, and 10 years if this pattern of neglect is allowed to continue:

📍 1 Year (2026): The Plateau (if this isn’t already the case)
- Reserves continue to shrink across commodities—global copper reserves, for example, are already skewed toward lower-grade porphyries that cost twice as much to mine as their predecessors.
- Senior geologists retire, taking with them decades of local knowledge about belts in Nevada, the Andes, and the African Copperbelt. Their field notebooks, often never digitized, gather dust in basements.
- Once-vibrant districts—like northern Ontario’s greenstone belts or the Carlin Trend in Nevada—begin to lose their intellectual “muscle memory.” The living knowledge that connects old drill logs to new targets vanishes.
📍 5 Years (2030): The Gap
- Project pipelines hollow out. The majors’ development schedules, already thin, collapse into a handful of advanced brownfield expansions.
- Juniors consolidate into survival mergers or collapse outright, leaving only a skeletal handful of companies with active drills. The TSX-Venture—the historical cradle of global discovery—is reduced to a backwater of shell companies and recycled management teams.
- Governments scramble to reverse decades of neglect: Washington floats “Critical Mineral Moonshots,” Brussels pushes exploration tax credits, Beijing doubles down on African offtake agreements. But the measures are too late. You cannot conjure ore bodies with subsidies once the drills have gone silent.
- Supply deficits bite. Copper, lithium, and rare earths become the new oil shocks—triggering inflation, power rationing, and trade wars over who gets the last shipments.
📍10 Years (2035): The Ghost Tap
- You cannot turn on a tap that isn’t connected to a pipeline. Mines take 10–20 years to permit and build. By 2035, the missing decade of exploration has come due.
- Critical minerals are no longer market stories—they are national security flashpoints.
  - China leverages its dominance in rare earths to dictate terms in global trade.
  - The U.S. Defense Department stockpiles uranium and cobalt like Cold War-era oil.
  - Europe, unable to build batteries without imported lithium, faces rolling blackouts and stalled EV adoption.
- Even record-high commodity prices won’t matter. A $15,000/t copper price or $200/lb uranium price won’t magically materialize new deposits. Discovery takes decades, and the decade has already been lost.
- The result is a ghost system: idle smelters, shuttered gigafactories, and stalled wind and solar farms—technology stranded for want of the materials that should have been planted years before.
The Geopolitical Context

We are entering an era where geology is geopolitics. Control of the periodic table is now as decisive as control of sea lanes or satellite constellations.
- China throttles rare earth exports, weaponizing its near-monopoly in magnets and battery materials. Its Belt and Road Initiative has already secured lithium and cobalt across Africa and South America.
- Russia leans into resource nationalism, tying uranium exports and energy corridors to its foreign policy goals. Kazakhstan—producer of over 40% of the world’s uranium—sits in Moscow’s orbit.
- India is no longer just a consumer but an aggressive competitor, racing to lock down lithium supplies in Argentina and rare earth projects in Australia.
- The West risks becoming a permanent importer, dependent on rivals for the metals that power its grids, weapons, and economies.
This is not about abstract “market dynamics.” It is about whether democracies will control their own futures.

Without uranium, copper, lithium, and rare earth elements, there is no AI revolution, no data center backbone, no renewable transition, no electric vehicle fleet. Strip away the minerals, and the high-tech towers of modernity collapse like sandcastles in the tide.

And here lies the hard truth: exploration is the first act of sovereignty. Mines take 10–20 years to permit and build. If we do not plant seeds now, by the 2030s the United States and its allies will be paying whatever price Beijing or Moscow demands—or doing without altogether.

The call to action is clear:
- Reinvest in exploration with the urgency of a Manhattan Project—geological surveys, public-private partnerships, and incentives that pull risk capital back into the field.
- Build Western supply chains that can withstand geopolitical shocks, from Nevada lithium to Saskatchewan uranium to Australian rare earths.
- Treat geology as strategy, not afterthought. The United States Geological Survey should be viewed with the same seriousness as the Pentagon, for both are guardians of national defense.
This is the rallying cry for the U.S. and its allies: sovereignty begins at the drill rig. Without exploration, there is no mining. Without mining, there is no economy. Without an economy built on secure foundations, there is no freedom to defend.

A Glimmer of Policy Reform

For all the gloom, there are sparks of recognition—early shoots that hint the field may not be barren forever.
- FAST-41 Permitting Reform: Once a bureaucratic chokehold, permitting in the U.S. is showing signs of movement. The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FAST-41) is beginning to streamline timelines for “covered projects.” Uranium juniors like Anfield Energy with its Velvet-Wood mine in Utah, and EnCore Energy with Dewey-Burdock in South Dakota, have already secured wins under this process. What once looked like stranded assets are edging toward daylight.
- Pentagon–MP Materials Partnership: The U.S. Department of Defense has invested directly in MP Materials’ Mountain Pass rare earth mine in California—hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to secure separation and magnet manufacturing capacity on U.S. soil. This is no boutique project: MP Materials controls the only rare earth mine (of scale) in the U.S. and is ramping toward vertical integration that could anchor a Western supply chain.
- Copper as a Keystone: Projects like Resolution Copper in Arizona—one of the largest undeveloped copper resources in the world—remain politically tangled, but their scale makes them unavoidable. If unlocked, Resolution alone could supply up to 25% of U.S. copper demand for decades.
- Lithium Rising: The controversial but progressing Thacker Pass project in Nevada, and Ioneer’s Rhyolite Ridge, have secured federal loans and partnerships, positioning the U.S. as a serious player in lithium carbonate production. Thacker Pass, with more than $2 billion in projected investment, is not just a mine but a downstream refining hub in the making.
- Downstream Momentum: Supply chains are finally catching political attention. From rare earth magnet plants in Texas to lithium hydroxide refineries in Nevada, the U.S. is beginning to invest not only in the rocks, but in the capacity to turn them into finished products. That is the true measure of sovereignty.
These reforms are encouraging, but they are still small strokes on a canvas that demands bold, sweeping lines. A handful of permitting wins and defense contracts are not a revolution. What’s needed is a scale-up—tenfold, a hundredfold. Only when the U.S. and its allies treat minerals with the same urgency once reserved for oil, or for the space race, can we say things have truly changed.

This glimmer is fragile, but it is real. If fanned, it could light the torch of a new exploration renaissance.

Conclusion: Choose Risk or Embrace Ruin

The mining industry thought it was playing it safe by pulling back on exploration. In truth, it was gambling the future—trading short-term stability for long-term scarcity. The result is hollow pipelines, fragile supply chains, and a generation of geological knowledge at risk of fading into silence.

Exploration is not a luxury. It is the R&D of civilization itself. Without it, there is no copper for wires, no lithium for batteries, no uranium for baseload power. Starve exploration, and we starve the future.

The real risk isn’t in drilling holes—it’s in failing to drill them. The world’s faucets are running, but the reservoir is dropping. The only question that remains is whether we have the vision and courage to dig the next well before the water stops.

For those still with me at the end of this essay, here’s the wry truth in one line:

“Exploration: the riskiest bet we can’t afford not to make.”
When Prices Fall Before the Wall: Copper, Tariffs, and the Market’s Game of Chicken

July 28th, 2025
By Mark Travis | July 28, 2025

The copper market blinked.

Just days ahead of what should’ve been a bullish bonanza — the looming August 1 implementation of a 50% U.S. tariff on imported copper — prices fell sharply. COMEX futures dropped nearly 3%, pulling back from last week’s near-$6/lb. euphoria, while the London Metal Exchange saw a similar retreat.

Now, if you’re scratching your head wondering why copper’s pulling back when tariffs typically restrict supply and boost prices, you’re not alone. But this is no anomaly — it’s classic commodity market psychology. And as we all know in exploration and resource markets: expectations drive the drill, but uncertainty drills the nerves.

Let’s unpack what’s really going on here, rock hammer in hand.

📉 The Market Moved Before the Tariff Did

Prices already surged earlier this month in anticipation of the tariff. Traders, speculators, and procurement teams raced to get their metal booked, shipped, and landed before the August deadline. It’s the age-old adage in the markets: buy the rumor, sell the news — or, in this case, sell the uncertainty.

That run-up pushed U.S. copper prices well above global benchmarks. But when the details of the tariff still weren’t confirmed by late July — no clarity on origin exemptions, product classes, or how incoming shipments would be treated — many market participants decided they’d rather not play roulette with that kind of policy fog.

⛴️ A Glut Before the Gate

In the scramble to beat the tariff clock, global traders sent a wave of copper across the seas to U.S. ports. Warehouses are fuller than usual. End users and suppliers alike stocked up while they could, which means…

Short-term supply is high, and immediate demand is low. The buyers already bought. And the sellers? They’re now looking for the next cue — and a price correction was inevitable once that panic buying wave receded.

So while the long-term logic of tariffs suggests upward pressure on prices, the short-term reality is a copper pile-up, not a copper pinch.

📉 Dislocation and Arbitrage: LME vs. COMEX

The difference between U.S. and global copper prices widened during the July run. Smart money — and quick hands — are now playing that gap, selling into the higher-priced U.S. contracts, or waiting for post-tariff clarity before betting on further upside.

We’re seeing a market pause, not a policy reversal. Call it a breath before the next sprint.

🪙 Enter the Fed: When Macroeconomics Muddy the Metal

Layer on top of all this the Federal Reserve’s upcoming policy meeting. Rates are expected to stay flat, but every trader knows the real action is in the tone of the Fed’s language. If they lean hawkish, the dollar strengthens — and a stronger dollar makes commodities more expensive for the rest of the world, cooling demand.

That macro undertow adds to copper’s momentary slip, even with tariffs looming like a guillotine over future imports.

🎯 The Takeaway for Exploration Geologists and Critical Mineral Investors

This is a perfect case study in why price volatility doesn’t always follow supply logic. Emotion, expectation, and market structure shape the narrative — and short-term jitters often misrepresent long-term fundamentals.

For those of us in the rocks-and-rebar world of copper exploration and development, this moment is a gift in disguise:
- If you’re advancing a domestic copper project, this tariff cycle could set the stage for future premiums.
- If you’re investing, this dip might be your window before tariffs create sustained dislocation.
- If you’re lobbying, point to this disjointed response as more reason to shore up North American supply chains.
The ground may be stable under our boots, but the market’s a tightrope — and it pays to read the wind.

Let me know what you’re seeing out there — from porphyry prospects to policy posturing. The copper game isn’t cooling off; it’s just shifting gears.

– Mark
Oak Flat, Copper Dreams, and the Long Road to Resolution

May 27th, 2025
By Mark Travis | May 27, 2025

“If mining is the front end of every supply chain, then permitting is the front end of every bottleneck.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has just handed down a decision that echoes through copper country like a rock hammer in a silent drift: they won’t hear Apache Stronghold’s final appeal to halt the Resolution Copper project in Arizona. That means, after decades of debate, delay, and deep division, the project may finally break free of its legal chains.

But before we pop the champagne—or grab the pickaxe—it’s worth pausing to ask: why did it take nearly 20 years to reach this point? And what does this drawn-out saga say about the future of domestic mining in the United States?

A Copper Giant, Chained by Red Tape

The Resolution Copper deposit is no minor prize. Tucked deep beneath Arizona’s Tonto National Forest, the mine holds what’s believed to be the third-largest copper deposit on Earth. If brought online, it could supply 25% of U.S. copper demand for decades—a critical win in a world marching headlong into electrification, AI hardware, EVs, and renewable energy.

Yet since the early 2000s, this project has been stuck in slow-motion—a labyrinth of environmental reviews, legislative wrangling, tribal legal challenges, and shifting political tides.

Yes, mining must be done responsibly. Yes, communities deserve a voice. But what we’ve witnessed here is something else entirely: a cautionary tale of policy paralysis and bureaucratic stagnation.

Oak Flat: Sacred Ground, or Stalled Progress?

At the center of the controversy is Oak Flat, known to the Western Apache as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel. It’s sacred land. And that’s not metaphorical—Apache Stronghold has argued passionately and consistently that mining operations would obliterate a ceremonial site tied to generations of cultural and spiritual practice.

Their legal case, filed in 2021, invoked religious freedom and treaty rights, even citing an 1852 federal agreement promising protection and prosperity to Apache lands. Lower courts sided with the government, citing Congress’s 2014 defense spending bill, which included a provision for the land swap that enabled the project. That bill—quietly signed by President Obama—was the bureaucratic key that opened the door for mining.

But the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case signals the end of the legal line. With that, the mine’s developers—Rio Tinto and BHP—can move forward. The U.S. Forest Service is expected to reissue the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as soon as June 16.

$2 Billion Invested. Zero Pounds of Copper Mined.

It’s worth stating plainly: over $2 billion has already been sunk into Resolution Copper, and not a single pound has made it to market. Let that sink in.

For perspective, that’s enough to build three medium-sized uranium mills, fund 100 junior exploration programs, or pay for an entire domestic supply chain initiative. Instead, it’s just the cost of waiting.

In a world where China streamlines mining permits in months, and resource-rich nations in Africa are fast becoming the new frontiers for copper giants, the U.S. cannot afford 20-year approval cycles.

If we want energy security, technological independence, and real momentum toward a low-carbon economy, we need permitting reform that preserves environmental and cultural values without stalling progress into geological purgatory.

The Bigger Picture: America’s Mineral Awakening

Resolution is just one battle in a much larger resource war. The U.S. needs copper, uranium, lithium, REEs, and graphite—not just to decarbonize but to defend, to manufacture, to compete. And yet, we’ve allowed a thousand roadblocks to rise: overlapping jurisdictions, lawsuits without end, missing timelines, and agencies afraid to make a decision.

Rio Tinto knows this. That’s why they’ve hedged their bets: expanding into Peru with La Granja, going full-speed underground in Mongolia with Oyu Tolgoi, and investing in next-gen leaching tech like Nuton to squeeze copper from the margins.

If America wants to be a leader in this new mineral age, it must not just produce—it must permit. Not recklessly, but responsibly and resolutely.

Let’s Talk:
- What lessons can we take from Resolution Copper’s permitting saga?
- Should sacred lands be permanently protected from development, even when national resource needs are at stake?
- What would a just, streamlined permitting process actually look like in the U.S.?
- Is the real battle over minerals—or over who gets to decide?
Let’s open the floor. The future is underground—but we’ve got to start digging smarter.
Cobre Panama: The Geological Marvel in Limbo

April 11th, 2025

Introduction: The Copper Behemoth on Pause

Nestled within Panama’s lush tropical forests lies Cobre Panama, a remarkable testament to modern mining engineering and geological wealth. Operated by First Quantum Minerals, this massive copper mine once contributed an impressive 1.5% of global copper output. Since its start of operations in 2019, it stood as an example of what contemporary porphyry copper mines could achieve. However, for the past 18 months, it has been eerily silent—halted by a combination of legal rulings, widespread public protests, and political turbulence in Panama. This article delves deeper into the mine’s significance, its challenges, and what its future may hold.

The Geological and Economic Significance of Cobre Panama

Cobre Panama is no ordinary mine. It holds not just immense copper reserves but also deposits of gold, silver, and molybdenum, making it one of the most promising polymetallic orebodies discovered in recent decades. In 2023, the mine had just hit record production levels before its operations were forcibly ceased. To put its scale into perspective, Cobre Panama produced enough copper annually to surpass the total output of some copper-producing nations.

Economically, the mine had a profound impact on Panama’s economy, contributing 5% to the nation’s GDP at its peak. Its fiscal contributions, including wages, taxes, and domestic procurement, totaled $1.8 billion in 2023, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Beyond direct economic benefits, the mine supported 54,000 direct and indirect jobs and accounted for a staggering 75% of Panama’s export earnings (source: IMF, 2024 report).

However, this pause in production comes at a high cost. The company has been spending approximately $15 million per month on maintenance, while valuable deposits remain untapped. A stockpile of 120,000 tonnes of copper concentrate sits at a port, awaiting clearance to be shipped—an unprecedented logistical dilemma.

Environmental Concerns and Social Unrest

Mining, by its nature, often finds itself at odds with environmentalists and local communities. In Cobre Panama’s case, these tensions reached a boiling point. Environmental NGOs and prominent figures like Greta Thunberg and Leonardo DiCaprio have criticized the mine, claiming it poses risks to Panama’s fragile ecosystems. However, First Quantum Minerals has staunchly defended its operations, emphasizing that the mine’s flotation circuits rely purely on gravity-based separation rather than harmful chemicals like cyanide or mercury.

The mine’s closure has had ripple effects far beyond its gates. In nearby communities, informal mining has proliferated as local residents struggle to make ends meet, often resorting to rudimentary and environmentally unsound mining practices. Organized crime has also taken advantage of the void left by the mine’s shutdown, infiltrating unauthorized mining operations. Furthermore, tourism operators in the region, once buoyed by the economic activity brought by the mine, have seen their businesses suffer.

Rust and Ruin: The Challenge of Restarting Operations

While the geological promise of Cobre Panama remains intact, the mine itself paints a grim picture. Equipment worth millions lies rusting in the damp jungle air, and conveyor belts sit idle, their heaped ore baking under the tropical sun. Only a third of the workforce remains on-site, maintaining what they can and preparing for a potential restart. However, bringing the mine back online is no small feat.

According to industry analysts, the longer a mine stays inactive, the more challenging it becomes to restart. In the case of Cobre Panama, logistical hurdles such as re-recruiting skilled labor, repairing infrastructure, and renegotiating contracts loom large. The mine may technically be “shovel-ready,” but operational readiness will require months of preparation.

Global Dynamics: A Copper Mine in a Shifting World

Cobre Panama’s closure isn’t just a local issue; it underscores broader global dynamics in the resource sector. Copper’s designation as a critical mineral by the U.S. in 2024 highlights its strategic importance in modern technologies, including renewable energy systems and electric vehicles. The U.S. has moved swiftly to reassert influence over Panama, replacing Chinese operators in its ports with American firms like BlackRock.

At the same time, Panama itself has experienced significant political and social upheaval. The fallout from the Panama Papers scandal, coupled with the economic effects of the pandemic, has eroded public trust in the government. These tensions have contributed to the controversies surrounding Cobre Panama, as politicians weigh the economic benefits of the mine against public opposition and environmental concerns.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead for Cobre Panama

The story of Cobre Panama is one of immense promise and equally immense challenges. Its reopening remains uncertain, contingent on navigating complex political, social, and economic landscapes. For geologists and industry professionals, the mine’s tale serves as a case study in the intricate interplay between natural resource extraction and human factors.

As the world continues to demand copper for its transition to green energy, the stakes for Cobre Panama have never been higher. Whether it becomes a cautionary tale or a comeback story will depend on the decisions made in the months and years ahead.

What are your thoughts on the challenges and opportunities surrounding Cobre Panama? Share your perspective in the comments below or reach out to discuss further!
Cobalt, copper added to China’s state metal reserves: How it impacts U.S. markets & mining

March 24th, 2025
China’s Strategic Metal Reserves Expansion

China’s decision to bolster its strategic reserves of critical industrial metals, including cobalt, copper, nickel, and lithium, reflects its focus on securing mineral supply chains amidst rising energy-transition demands and geopolitical tensions. The National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration has been actively seeking to purchase these metals, as highlighted in the National Development & Reform Commission’s (NDRC) annual report. This move aims to stabilize prices, balance supplies, and ensure resilience during supply crunches. However, details regarding the timing and quantities of these stockpiles remain confidential.

Market Impacts
- Copper Prices: Copper on the London Metal Exchange recently surged past $10,000 per ton, marking its highest level since October. On New York’s Comex, prices neared record highs before slightly declining.
- Cobalt Trends: Cobalt prices have soared this month, driven by an export moratorium from the Democratic Republic of Congo, the world’s largest producer.
Implications for U.S. Domestic Mining

China’s strategic stockpiling underscores the urgency for the U.S. to reduce its reliance on foreign mineral imports. The Trump administration’s recent executive order to boost domestic mineral production aligns with this goal. The order invokes the Defense Production Act to expedite permitting, provide financing, and prioritize mineral production on federal lands.

Key Measures
- Streamlined Permitting: Federal agencies are directed to fast-track approvals for mineral production projects.
- Defense Production Act: This act is being utilized to expand domestic capacity for critical minerals, including uranium, copper, and rare earth elements.
- Private Sector Collaboration: The administration is working with private companies to ensure a stable and resilient domestic supply chain.
Challenges and Opportunities
- The U.S. currently imports 70% of its rare earth elements from China, posing significant economic and security risks.
- Domestic mining projects, such as Alaska Energy Metals’ Nikolai Nickel Project, stand to benefit from increased government support and funding.
Exploration Potential Within the USA

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been prompted to update its critical mineral list to include uranium and other lucrative minerals for the energy transition and for the use in nuclear power. This highlights the broader exploration potential for critical minerals across the country.

Promising Regions
- Great Basin Region: Includes Nevada, Idaho, and surrounding states.
- Four Corners States: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.
- Other Mineral Districts: Alaska, Wyoming, areas within East & West coasts, and historic mining regions throughout U.S..
Strategic Importance
- These findings could diversify the U.S. energy portfolio and reduce reliance on foreign imports.
- Exploration efforts are likely to focus on regions with high prospectivity for critical minerals and clean energy resources.
Investment Opportunities in the U.S. Mining Sector

The Trump administration’s push to onshore mineral production has created a favorable investment climate for the U.S. mining sector. This includes opportunities in both major mining companies and junior exploration firms.

Key Investment Areas
- Critical Minerals: Increased demand for metals like uranium, lithium, cobalt, and nickel, essential for electric vehicles and nuclear energy technologies.
- Junior Exploration Companies: These firms, akin to tech startups, offer high-risk, high-reward opportunities for investors.
- Reliable Mining Jurisdictions: Companies focusing on mining within well-known and reliable mining juridictions are likely to attract significant investment.
Economic Impact
- The U.S. mining industry is poised to create jobs and fuel economic growth by tapping into its vast mineral resources.
- Enhanced domestic production capabilities will strengthen national security and reduce dependence on foreign suppliers.
China’s strategic moves and the U.S. response highlight the critical role of minerals in the global energy transition and economic security. The U.S. mining sector, supported by favorable policies and innovative exploration efforts, is well-positioned to capitalize on these opportunities.
Copper Imports to Rise on Threat of Commodity Tariffs

March 12th, 2025

The Ripple Effect of Trump Tariffs on Metal Commodity Prices

The Trump administration’s recent tariff policies have sent shockwaves through the global metal markets, particularly impacting commodities like copper. These tariffs, aimed at bolstering domestic production, have created a unique interplay of short-term opportunities and long-term economic challenges.

The Arbitrage Opportunity for Metal Traders

The mere announcement of potential tariffs on copper imports has already sparked a frenzy among metal traders. With the U.S. copper market experiencing unprecedented price dislocations, traders are exploiting the widening gap between domestic (CME) and international (LME) copper prices. For instance, CME copper contracts are trading at a significant premium over their LME counterparts, creating a lucrative arbitrage opportunity. This has led to a surge in copper imports as traders rush to stockpile the metal before tariffs take effect.

A Short-Term Boon for Domestic Mines and Explorers

This run on copper and other metals has inadvertently benefited domestic mines and explorers. As the market braces for higher import costs, domestic producers find themselves in a favorable position to meet the rising demand. This short-term boon could lead to increased investment in domestic mining projects, potentially accelerating the development of new mines. However, the timeline for such projects to become operational often spans years, meaning the immediate benefits may be limited.

The Long-Term Economic Implications

While the short-term effects of tariffs may appear beneficial for certain sectors, the long-term consequences paint a more complex picture. Tariffs act as a double-edged sword: they protect domestic industries but also disrupt global supply chains and inflate costs for consumers and businesses alike. Over time, these stop/start economic mechanisms can lead to reduced productivity, strained trade relationships, and a less competitive domestic market.

Moreover, the uncertainty surrounding tariff policies can deter investment and innovation, as businesses grapple with fluctuating costs and market instability. Retaliatory measures from trading partners further exacerbate these challenges, potentially leading to a downward spiral of reduced trade and economic growth.

Conclusion

The Trump tariffs on metals like copper highlight the intricate balance between short-term gains and long-term economic stability. While they may provide a temporary boost to domestic industries, the broader implications underscore the need for a more nuanced approach to trade policy—one that fosters both domestic growth and global cooperation. The question remains: can the U.S. navigate these turbulent waters without capsizing its economic ship? Only time will tell.