The Conversation (0)
March 31, 2025
EV Resources Limited (ASX:EVR) (“EVR” or “the Company”) has reached agreement with a resources private investor based in the USA, for the acquisition of 49 unpatented claims (“The Claims”) over the Coyote Creek Antimony Project.
Highlights:
- EVR has reached agreement with a private US Investor to acquire 49 unpatented claims over the Coyote Creek Antimony Project in Utah, USA.
- The claims cover both old workings and waste from historical antimony mining up to the 1920’s.
- A historical non JORC resource estimate of 12.7 million metric tons grading 0.79% Antimony was estimated by the Utah Geological and Mineral Survey in 1975.
- The historical estimate above is not reported in accordance with the JORC Code. A competent person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimates as mineral resources or ore reserves in accordance with the JORC Code, and it is uncertain that following evaluation and/or further exploration work that the historical estimates will be able to be reported as mineral resources or ore reserves in accordance with the JORC Code.
- The USA currently has no operating antimony mine and imports all its antimony concentrates.1
The USA imports all of its antimony concentrates at present1 and the Coyote Creek Project appears to have the potential to become a domestic supplier of antimony at a time of well documented supply shortages.
This acquisition follows EVR’s recent announcement of the proposed acquisition of 70% of Los Lirios, an open pit antimony mine in Oaxaca state Mexico. The Coyote Creek Project fits with EVR’s preference to develop an Americas antimony division based upon open pit mining opportunities. (See ASX announcement “Acquisition of Los Lirios Antimony Mine (EVR 70%) Mexico” dated 28th January 2025).
Background to Coyote Creek Antimony Project
The demand for raw materials for the defense effort during the 2nd World War prompted a review of the Coyote Creek Project, and field work including trenching was conducted between November 1941 and February 1942.
Location
The Coyote Creek claims are located in Garfield County, Utah, 11km east of the town named Antimony. The Canyon in which it is located is referred to variously as Coyote Creek Canyon or Antimony Canyon. Access to the project is via paved roads and then unpaved forestry roads navigable with a low clearance vehicle.
Map 1 Location of the Project
Map 2 Claims at Coyote Creek
Click here for the full ASX Release
This article includes content from Ev Resources Limited, licensed for the purpose of publishing on Investing News Australia. This article does not constitute financial product advice. It is your responsibility to perform proper due diligence before acting upon any information provided here. Please refer to our full disclaimer here.
17 September
Canada's Place in Global Mining: Why it's a Top Jurisdiction for Investors and Companies
For resource investors, geological potential is only one piece of the puzzle.
Whether it’s gold, silver, copper, nickel, uranium or any other commodity, the long-term success of a mining project is heavily dependent on jurisdiction. Mining is a capital-intensive, multi-year undertaking, and an asset's economics can be undermined by political instability, sudden regulatory changes or shifting government policies.
Canada stands out as a global leader in this regard. Its reputation as a stable and reliable mining jurisdiction is built on a foundation of political stability, the rule of law and a mature, transparent regulatory framework. This environment provides the certainty that investors require to commit the significant capital needed for exploration and development.
The Fraser Institute's latest Annual Survey of Mining Companies, which ranks jurisdictions based on the organization's Investment Attractiveness Index, puts Canada in the spotlight, with two regions in the top 10.
Read on to learn what makes Canada a strong mining jurisdiction for both companies and investors.
Canada's top mining provinces
The two Canadian jurisdictions ranked the highest by the Fraser Institute are Saskatchewan, which came in seventh on the Investment Attractiveness Index, and Newfoundland and Labrador, which took the eighth spot.
Both provinces ranked highly in terms of policy, with Saskatchewan earning a score of 96.37 to take the third spot out of 82, and Newfoundland and Labrador achieving a score of 91.84 for sixth place.
Alberta also placed in the top 10 for policy, coming in ninth place at a score of 87.8.
When it comes to mineral potential, both Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador were left out of the top 10, placing 21st and 16th, respectively. Still, Canada maintained a presence, with BC scoring 85.45 for fourth, Yukon receiving a score of 79.03 for eighth and Manitoba coming in ninth with 78.57.
Behind the figures, respondents to the Fraser Institute's survey identified uncertainty as their chief concern. In BC, political stability and disputed land claims were top concerns, but these worries were also accompanied by decreased apprehension surrounding regulatory duplication and environmental regulations.
In Saskatchewan, there were increased concerns over the province’s taxation regime and regulatory duplication, but there was less worry over the availability of labor.
Canadian mining policies and tax credits
At both the provincial and national levels, Canada has established various programs with the intent of attracting investment capital to the country's resource sector.
Among them are flow-through shares (FTS), which enable companies to pass certain expenses onto shareholders. For tax purposes, investors can claim 100 percent of eligible expenses, ultimately lowering their tax burden.
On top of FTS are several tax credit programs. The Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (METC) provides a 15 percent tax credit on exploration expenses incurred through FTS. The program was designed to stimulate investment in early stage exploration projects, which tend to carry higher risk than assets already in production.
The federal government has a similar program tailored for investment in critical minerals projects. Although it cannot be combined with the METC, the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (CMETC) doubles the tax credit to 30 percent and targets exploration for minerals, including lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel and rare earths.
Other programs exist at the provincial level as well. This is one of the reasons Saskatchewan scored so highly on policy in the Fraser Institute’s report — the province offers a 30 percent tax credit, which, when combined with either the METC or CMETC, gives investors total tax credits worth 45 percent and 60 percent.
BC has also incentivized investment in the mining sector with a 20 percent tax credit, which grows to 30 percent if projects are located in areas affected by the invasive mountain pine beetle.
Additionally, as tariff threats from south of the border loomed in the first half of 2025, the Canadian government introduced the Building Canada Act, intended to streamline the regulatory approval process for infrastructure projects deemed to be in the national interest, including resource development.
The goal is to reduce red tape by consolidating federal reviews into a single process, eliminating redundancies between the federal and provincial governments and reducing timelines to within two years.
Similar initiatives have been introduced on the provincial level. In May of this year, the BC government introduced the Infrastructure Projects Act, designed to expedite permitting and environmental reviews.
Mining challenges in Canada
Although regulations vary from province to province and are subject to change with the election of new governments, Canada has developed a reputation for being a safe mining jurisdiction due to its political stability.
These positive outcomes are reflected in how many provinces scored highly in the Fraser Institute’s report; however, respondents weren't without criticisms of Canada. One participant suggested that investment in BC is deterred by regulatory failures that create uncertainty, while another stated that taxation is a significant issue.
When examining Manitoba, which fell sharply in the standings to 26th from sixth in 2023, one exploration company president noted that a long list of roadblocks makes exploration in the province challenging.
How the new acts and shifts in policy will affect the mining industry won’t be known for some time. Still, they could go a long way to addressing issues outlined in the report and begin attracting new projects to the Canadian resource sector, which would be a boon to both mining companies and investors.
Don't forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Keep reading...Show less
11 September
Australia as a Mining Jurisdiction: Assessing Risk in an Evolving Landscape
Australia has long been recognised as a stable and reliable jurisdiction for mining, a reputation built on its rich history in the sector. However, the industry is now coming to a crossroads.
The country's mining sector is facing a shifting regulatory landscape as it contends with trade tensions, wage equity reforms and increasing environmental, social and governance (ESG) demands.
These new pressures are reshaping everything from project development and investment decisions to environmental approvals and land access, forcing the sector — and investors — to navigate a complex and evolving landscape.
In its latest Annual Survey of Mining Companies, the Fraser Institute ranks provinces, states and countries by investment attractiveness and policy perception, using responses from mining, development and exploration companies. Here's a breakdown of Western Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory, News South Wales and Tasmania.
Western Australia drops from Fraser Institute top 10
No state in Australia ranked in the top 10 of the Fraser Institute's latest Investment Attractiveness Index, with Western Australia, long regarded as a global mining hub, dropping from fourth to 17th place amid growing concerns over environmental approvals, land access and Indigenous rights disputes.
Australia's Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) issued a statement after the Fraser Institute list came out, underscoring the challenges the sector is facing.
“As a country and industry that relies heavily on overseas investment to support exploration and the development of new mining projects, we should always pay close attention to significant changes in investor attitudes," said AMEC Chief Executive Warren Pearce in the organisation's July press release.
"Regrettably, many of the concerns raised, reflect what Australian industry has been saying for some time, primarily about increased uncertainty around land access and approvals," he added.
These issues were highlighted in February, when Aboriginal group Yindjibarndi Ngurra Aboriginal Corporation sought AU$1.8 billion in damages from the state, saying the government had approved an iron ore project from global firm Fortescue (ASX:FMG,OTCQX:FSUMF) on ancestral land without a land-use deal.
The group said the action has “severely damaged its land and people.”
Fortescue responded via a Reuters statement that it “accepts that the Yindjibarndi People are entitled to compensation, however, the parties disagree on the amount of that compensation."
Hearings have been held, and a decision is awaited by the end of the year.
Western Australia is reviewing its cultural heritage protection laws. The goal of the reforms is to align Indigenous rights with mining development, but delays and uncertainty are affecting exploration timelines.
Queensland's new government may speed reform
Queensland declined by 16.36 points on the Fraser Institute's Policy Perception Index, with miners voicing growing concern over disputed land claims, as well as uncertainty around how existing regulations are administered, interpreted and enforced. They also highlighted issues with regulatory duplication and inconsistencies.
One executive said that “some mines recommended for approval by state authorities were blocked at the last minute by the federal government, creating uncertainty and deterring investment." Similarly, the president of an exploration company said environmental approvals for simple, low-impact shallow drill programs have been delayed.
For its part, AMEC notes that a government change in Queensland may bring change.
This past April, the state's Crisafulli government said it is working toward improving mining approvals, following a resources plan it revealed in December 2024. The government has also begun changes to the Resources Safety and Health Legislation Amendment Act 2024, introducing preventative and proactive reforms to improve the sector’s safety and health performance and reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious accidents.
Northern Territory highlights resource sector in budget
Like Queensland, the Northern Territory saw a decline in policy perception, with a decrease of 15.41 points.
According to the Fraser Institute, the president of a local exploration company raised concerns that in some cases, mines recommended for approval by state authorities were ultimately rejected by the minister.
Land claim disputes are also prevalent in this area of Australia, similar to Western Australia.
The government does note that it is making significant moves, including highlighting the resources sector in its 2025 to 2026 budget. Mining accounted for 25 percent of the territory’s gross state product in 2023 to 2024.
This past March, the Northern Territory published the latest edition of its Critical Minerals Guide, identifying 17 minerals with established reserves. It also points to geological potential for 13 "emerging critical minerals."
Besides these moves, the Northern Territory launched an open data portal on June 23, providing daily updates on current and pending mineral tenures under the Mineral Titles Act and related legislation.
The dataset reveals application status and transaction histories, encouraging transparency around tenures. It also allows explorers and investors to observe the permitting process and even plan their projects.
New South Wales a mixed bag
Looking at New South Wales, one executive told the Fraser Institute that the state's Resources Regulator is causing "significant issues" for exploration companies in the drill permitting process.
“The root cause appears to be a lack of communication between government agencies, leading to confusion for both investors and explorers," the person said.
The president of another company said the blocking of a new gold mine by Indigenous elders has created significant barriers to development, contributing to uncertainty and ultimately deterring investment.
In a statement on its priorities for H2 of this year, the Resources Regulator said:
“The regulator will continue its focus on implementing the regulatory framework to minimise the impact of mining on the environment, so mine rehabilitation benefits future generations. This will include undertaking targeted assessment programs for mine rehabilitation, which will include revegetation, landform establishment, and decommissioning.”
New South Wales saw a 20.86 point decline in the Fraser Institute's Policy Perception Index, but performed well in terms of permitting, with 29 percent of respondents reporting that they received permits in under two months.
Victoria faces permitting bottlenecks
Permitting bottlenecks and land access disputes are slowing project approvals in Victoria.
In comments to the Fraser Institute, the president of a producer said that when permits are overturned by the federal environment minister “on baseless grounds,” it creates uncertainty and discourages investment. An exploration company president similarly pointed to delays in development approvals as a growing concern.
In early December 2024, Victoria published a Critical Minerals Roadmap, underlining that its resources include globally significant quantities of titanium, zirconium and associated rare earth elements.
Included in the roadmap is a modern regulatory regime, wherein the government seeks to establish a Victorian Critical Minerals Coordination Office to engage industry on processes and standards and reduce approval timelines.
“The government will also review guidance materials and operational practices to provide greater clarity and streamline processes. This work will support the government’s continued implementation of a modernised duty-based regime for exploration and mining approvals," it states.
Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Australia for real-time updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Gabrielle de la Cruz, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Keep reading...Show less
11 September
LKY Doubles Landholding Abutting MP Materials in Mojave Hub
Locksley Resources (LKY:AU) has announced LKY Doubles Landholding Abutting MP Materials in Mojave Hub
10 September
EV Resources Acquires 100% of High-Grade Dollar Antimony Project in Nevada, USA
EV Resources Limited (ASX:EVR) (“EVR” or “the Company”) is pleased to announce it has secured 100% ownership of the historic Dollar Antimony Project, located in Nye County, Nevada – a Tier-1 mining jurisdiction strategically located near Military Metals Corp’s Last Chance Project. The project is comprised of 8 unpatented mining claims totalling 160 acres.
The acquisition underscores EVR’s strategy to secure critical mineral assets in North America, strengthening its position as a future supplier of antimony, a designated critical mineral in the United States essential for energy storage, and defence applications.
Acquisition Terms
- EVR acquires 100% ownership of the Dollar Project from Strategic Minerals Inc, a Nevada-based mining investment group.
- Consideration comprises US$50,000 refund of staking and administration fees and a 2% net smelter royalty (NSR) retained by the vendor.
Project Highlights
- High-Grade Potential: Historical assays returned up to 40.63% Sb, with USGS modern sampling confirming values up to 10,000 ppm Sb (1.0%), alongside silver, lead, and copper credits.
- Historic Workings: Development includes three adits (>400 ft total) and a 30 ft inclined shaft, providing direct access for future exploration.
- Favourable Geology: Located on the eastern slope of the Toiyabe Range at the contact of Tertiary volcanics and Paleozoic sediments – a structural setting highly prospective for antimony mineralisation.
- Proven District: Only 9 km south of Military Metals Corp’s Last Chance Antimony Project, highlighting a developing antimony camp in close proximity to US defence installations and Nevada’s military testing ranges.
- Strategic Location: Road accessible, close to Nevada State Route 376, and within one of the world’s most mining-friendly jurisdictions.
EVR Non-Executive Chairman, Shane Menere, commented:
“The acquisition of the Dollar Antimony Project provides EVR with a 100% owned, high- grade, strategically located asset in the heart of Nevada’s Great Basin. With assays up to 40% Sb and a geological setting comparable to other world-class antimony deposits, Dollar represents an exceptional opportunity for EVR to position itself as a key player in the development of critical mineral supply chains in the United States. Its proximity to Military Metals Corp’s Last Chance Project underscores the emerging potential of the district as a new antimony hub.”
Click here for the full ASX Release
This article includes content from EV Resources Limited, licensed for the purpose of publishing on Investing News Australia. This article does not constitute financial product advice. It is your responsibility to perform proper due diligence before acting upon any information provided here. Please refer to our full disclaimer here.
Keep reading...Show less
09 September
Navigating Uncertainty: How to Manage Jurisdictional Risk for Mining Stocks
In the high-stakes world of resource extraction, a nation's mineral wealth is a powerful magnet for investment, fueling economic growth and national prosperity. But not all countries are created equal.
For investors in the mining sector it's key to understand that jurisdictional risk can be profoundly impacted by political changes, as new administrations can swiftly alter the regulatory landscape. These policy shifts can present both opportunities and setbacks, introducing a complex layer of uncertainty to even the most promising ventures.
At the same time, regions traditionally seen as stable and secure for resource development can face their own challenges, including rigorous permitting regimes that can slow mine development activity.
Read on for three case studies on jurisdictional risk and how to navigate this type of complexity.
Case study: First Quantum's Cobre Panama mine
Perhaps the most notable example in recent years of how politics can affect operations is the closure of First Quantum Minerals' (TSX:FM,OTC Pink:FQVLF) Cobre Panama mine in Panama.
As with many mining operations, Cobre Panama took decades to bring into production. First Quantum received approval to begin work at the site in February 1997; however, it would take 22 years and US$10 billion to build the mine and the required infrastructure before production commenced in September 2019.
When it was placed on care and maintenance in November 2023, the mine was one of the largest in the world, accounting for approximately 1 percent of total copper supply.
The closure came after Panama's government faced intense public backlash for granting First Quantum a 20 year mining contract; it was quickly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The Panamanian government also introduced an indefinite moratorium on all mining concessions. The move put the country's mining sector in a state of limbo and led other companies to cease activities in Panama. For example, Orla Mining (TSX:OLA,NYSEAMERICAN:ORLA) decided to halt funding of its Cerro Quema project until it had “greater certainty with respect to the mining concessions, as well as fiscal and legal stability in Panama.”
Cobre Panama's closure and the subsequent moratorium led Fitch to downgrade its investment outlook for Panama in March 2024, from BBB- to BB+. The credit agency cited fiscal governance challenges that arose following the mine's closure, noting that Cobre Panama accounted for 5 percent of the nation’s GDP.
Although the International Monetary Fund expects Panama's GDP to rebound to 4.5 percent in 2025 as non-mining sectors of the nation's economy grow, the changes have already had a significant impact on the national economy, with GDP growth slowing to 2.9 percent in 2024, from 7.4 percent in 2023.
Case study: Barrick Mining's Loulo-Gounkoto complex
Another recent example is the impact of unrest on Barrick Mining's (TSX:ABX,NYSE:B) operations in Mali.
The African nation has experienced a prolonged period of instability, with the government being overthrown in three coup d’états within a 10 year span, in 2012, 2020 and 2021.
The most recent two came following months of turmoil after election irregularities and accusations of corruption in 2020, then calls for a more legitimate government to be installed in 2021.
Ultimately, the government was replaced by a military junta, and in 2022, it was announced that elections would be held in 2024. However, these were delayed until early 2025, at which time they were again postponed.
This past July, Malian military authorities granted current leadership a five year mandate, renewable as many times as necessary without requiring an election, which guarantees control of the government until 2030.
The impact on the mining sector has been notable. In 2022, the new government ordered an audit of the mining sector, which led to Mali adopting a new mining code in 2023 after limited industry consultation.
The code aims to generate more revenue for the government from mining operations by increasing government ownership to 35 percent from 20 percent and removing tax-exempt status for some operations.
Existing mining contracts were also reviewed, which limited the ability to renegotiate, leading to a protracted negotiation process between the Malian government and Barrick over its Loulo-Gounkoto complex.
While Barrick has said its commitment to Mali remains firm, going so far as to make a good-faith payment of US$83 million, the two parties were unable to reach an agreement. The stalled negotiations led the government to arrest or issue arrest warrants for key personnel over unpaid taxes and contract disputes, including Barrick CEO Mark Bristow.
With no resolution, Barrick was ultimately forced to shut down the mine in January of this year. Although arbitration proceedings continue, the operation was placed under provisional administration on June 16, and government helicopters were seen onsite removing more than 1 metric ton of gold on July 10.
According to the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, the mining sector makes a significant contribution to the nation’s economy, representing 79 percent of exports and 9.2 percent of GDP. Although other companies haven’t ceased operations in the country, the government’s action has created tensions for investors, with CEOs suggesting that the new rules make it economically unfeasible for new mines or takeovers in the country.
The Fraser Institute gave Mali a policy perception score of 14.94 in its 2024 Annual Survey of Mining Companies, a significant decrease from 2023, when it achieved 33.34, and a precipitous decline from 2020’s score of 78.18. In the overall ranking, Mali fell to 74 out of 82 countries included in the survey, down from 37 out of 77 in 2020.
The institute notes that companies say policy accounts for about 40 percent of their decision when choosing where to establish operations. The other 60 percent is based on the mineral potential. In this regard, Mali improved to 55.26 from 41.18 in 2023; however, it remains in the bottom half of all jurisdictions, ranking 40 out of 58.
The institute uses these scores to determine the overall investment attractiveness of jurisdictions. In 2024, Mali scored 39.13 and ranked 72 out of 82. Respondents to the survey suggested that the rejection of gold mining permits and the lack of transparency created uncertainty and deterred investment.
Even when investment is in the national interest, underlying issues can be hard to overcome.
Case study: The DRC's Lobito Corridor
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is endowed with a vast wealth of minerals, ranging from copper to cobalt and diamonds, but a lack of infrastructure and geopolitical instability have hindered investment.
However, the mining sector has seen steady growth in recent years as the government looks to attract investment. One project is the construction of the Lobito Corridor, Africa's first open-access transcontinental rail link. It connects Zambia and the DRC with the port of Lobito in Angola, providing improved shipping opportunities for producers.
Among the operations that have signed on to use the rail link is Ivanhoe Mines' (TSX:IVN,OTCQX:IVPAF) Kamoa-Kakula mine. The asset is one of the world’s largest copper mines, producing 964 million pounds in 2024.
In February 2024, the company signed a term sheet to access the corridor, allowing it to transport between 120,000 and 240,000 metric tons of copper concentrates per year for a five year term, commencing in 2025.
In a press release, Robert Friedland, Ivanhoe's founder and executive co-chair, said the corridor is “fast becoming one of the most important trade routes for vital copper metal in the world.”
He added that the rail link will unlock projects due to the lower logistical costs.
While development in the DRC is moving in the right direction, it’s not without its problems. Tensions remain with neighboring Rwanda, as Rwanda has backed anti-government M23 rebels. The groups have been warring since 2022, with much of the violence occurring in the Eastern DRC, a mineral-rich area of the country.
In April 2024, M23 seized the town of Rubaya, the center of coltan production in the DRC; coltan is a critical mineral for the tech sector. While Ivanhoe’s mine has avoided the violent uprisings elsewhere in the country, it still highlights key security challenges for operations in the country and underscores the fragility of stability.
Like Mali, the DRC declined in the Fraser Institute’s survey last year.
It dropped to 12.97 on policy, down from 24.93 in 2023, ranking 77 out of 82. However, its mineral potential ranked much higher, scoring 73.53 — that's up from 55 in 2023 and a rank of 14 out of 58.
On overall investment attractiveness, the DRC was middling, scoring 49.31 and ranking 58 out of 82. The report points to issues such as disputes over land tenure ownership, which have led to uncertainty and deterred investment.
Is there any truly safe mining jurisdiction?
The mining community has looked mainly to North America, Europe and Australia to minimize jurisdictional risk.
Canada, the US and Australia are widely considered safe places to invest in due to the stability of their governments and the absence of cross-border conflicts. Despite changes in government, political parties in these nations tend to support extractive industries through tax credits and investment programs.
As a whole, challenges in these jurisdictions tend to be more regulatory than geopolitical in nature, with strict environmental and social regulations adding years to development timelines.
Recently, however, there have been some moves to break down these barries.
The US and Canada have both made promises to streamline the permitting process to decrease timelines for critical minerals. Additionally, under the Biden administration, the US Department of Defense, increased funding for projects deemed critical to national interests, including those involving Canadian companies Fortune Minerals (TSX:FT,OTCQB:FTMDF) and Lomiko Metals (TSXV:LMR,OTC Pink:LMRMF).
The program has continued under US President Donald Trump, with the most recent award being announced on July 22, for US$6.2 million in funding for Guardian Metal Resources (LSE:GMET,OTCQX:GMTLF).
Although challenges in these regions still exist, in general they remain stable. For investors, it can help to de-risk portfolios and avoid the geopolitical tensions and uncertainty that arise elsewhere.
Don't forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Keep reading...Show less
04 September
Report: US$800 Billion in Mining Finance Could Derail Clean Energy Transition
A new report from the Forests & Finance Coalition warns that nearly US$800 billion in mining finance is accelerating extraction practices that could undermine global climate goals.
The study, titled "Mining and Money: Financial Faultlines in the Energy Transition," highlights what the organization calls “dangerously weak” safeguards in the sector.
Between 2016 and 2024, commercial banks extended US$493 billion in credit to companies mining copper, lithium, cobalt, nickel and other key transition minerals, according to the group.
By mid-2025, global investors held an additional US$289 billion in bonds and shares across 111 mining firms operating in environmentally and socially sensitive regions.
“The energy transition must not be built upon the same extractive model that created today’s planetary crises,” the report emphasizes. “We cannot fight climate change and biodiversity loss by scaling up systems which displace communities, pollute and destroy ecosystems, exploit workers and entrench injustice.”
Concentrated financial power
The research shows a highly concentrated sector, with just 10 mining companies receiving 53 percent of all bank credit and 10 investors holding 82 percent of all equity and debt in transition minerals producers.
Glencore (LSE:GLEN,OTC Pink:GLCNF) tops the list, securing US$64 billion in financing from 2016 to 2024; that's double the amount received by Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO), the second largest recipient.
Aluminum Corporation of China (HKEX:2600,SHA:601600), US-based Freeport-McMoRan (NYSE:FCX) and Brazil’s Vale (NYSE:VALE) round out the top five for the period.
On the investment side, US funds dominate. As of June of this year, BlackRock held US$29 billion worth of mining securities, followed by Vanguard (US$27 billion) and Capital Group (US$21 billion).
Together, the top 10 investors controlled US$118 billion.
Banks in just five countries — China, the US, France, Canada and Japan — accounted for 63 percent of all lending.
“This geographic concentration reinforces existing imbalances in who controls and profits from the energy transition,” the report explains.
Weak safeguards and mounting risks
Despite their central role in mining, the report says most financial institutions have inadequate or vague policies.
In an assessment of 30 banks and investors, the average score was just 22 percent against international benchmarks for environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards.
For instance, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, often cited as a global leader in sustainability, scored highest at 48 percent, but still lacks policies on mine reclamation, tailings waste and Indigenous land rights.
At the bottom were Vanguard and China’s CITIC, each scoring just 3 percent.
Eighty percent of institutions have no safeguards for human rights defenders, despite documented violence against activists opposing mining projects. No institution have protections for Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.
Since 2010, researchers have logged 835 allegations of abuse tied to transition mineral mining, from pollution to attacks on environmental defenders.
Case studies: Indonesia, Brazil and the DRC
The report from the Forests & Finance Coalition connects these financial flows to real-world harms by highlighting regions where investments are driving severe consequences.
For example, in Indonesia, a surge of nickel projects financed largely by Chinese capital has transformed regions such as Obi Island and Sulawesi. These operations have cleared forests, polluted rivers and entrenched dependence on coal-powered smelters, undermining the promise of a “green” supply chain.
Harita Group, cited in the report as receiving US$5.1 billion in bank credit, has faced allegations of attempting to conceal water contamination containing carcinogenic chromium.
In Brazil, mining giant Vale was at the center of two of the country’s worst industrial disasters.
The 2015 Samarco dam failure and the 2019 Brumadinho collapse together claimed nearly 300 lives and caused devastation across surrounding communities. In Pará state, home to the world’s largest open-pit iron mine, local residents continue to grapple with pollution and social conflict.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which supplies roughly 70 percent of the world’s cobalt, is another region that illustrates the problem. Communities living near major mining operations report polluted waterways, declining fish stocks and widespread health problems tied to industrial activity.
Investment without accountability
The International Energy Agency estimates that meeting projected mineral demand could require US$800 billion in new mining investment by 2030. Forests & Finance Coalition warns that without stronger regulation, this capital will fuel more “high-risk, environmentally destructive and socially harmful practices.”
South America has already emerged as the top destination for mineral finance, attracting 30 percent of all credit (US$151 billion) and 36 percent of investment (US$105 billion), largely for copper and lithium projects.
Oceania ranks second, driven by Australia’s role in supplying iron, copper, and lithium.
The findings echo concerns raised last month by the Fraser Institute, whose 2024 survey of mining executives cites policy instability, regulatory burdens and social conflict as growing deterrents to investment.
Civil society groups argue that reforming mining finance is as critical as reforming mining itself.
They call for binding safeguards on deforestation, tailings, Indigenous rights and human rights defenders, alongside greater transparency in how banks and investors allocate capital.
The United Nations (UN) has also weighed in. In 2024, the UN secretary-general convened a high-level panel on critical energy transition minerals, urging states and companies to align mineral supply chains with human rights and sustainability standards. However, the Forests & Finance Coalition argues the bar must be raised further.
"A truly just energy transition depends on just finance that reduces harm, upholds rights, protects nature and supports equitable clean energy access,” the report concludes.
Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time news updates!
Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Keep reading...Show less
Latest News
Latest Press Releases
Related News
TOP STOCKS
American Battery4.030.24
Aion Therapeutic0.10-0.01
Cybin Corp2.140.00