Latest News
-
US Judge halts land swap for Rio Tinto copper mining opposed by Native Americans
A U.S. Federal Judge on Friday temporarily stopped the Trump Administration from transferring land for a copper mining project to Rio Tinto or BHP, which Native Americans opposed. The judge cited the Supreme Court’s ongoing deliberations. The Resolution Copper project has been a long-running battle between the San Carlos Apaches of Arizona and Washington, who want to increase minerals production while also protecting the religious rights. In an 18-page ruling, U.S. district judge Steven Logan stated that the Apache Stronghold (a nonprofit group comprised of Apaches and their allies) is likely to be dissolved. The Supreme Court of Canada has heard the appeal and ruled in favor of the plaintiff The land transfer should therefore be stopped for the time being. Logan stated that it was "clear that the balance is in favor of (Apache Stronghold) and that, even in the short-term, there's a high probability of irreparable damage if the transfer proceeds." The conflict centers around the federally-owned Oak Flat Campground, where many Apaches worship their deities. The site is located on top of a copper reserve that contains more than 40 billion lbs (18.1 million tons). Copper is a key component in electric vehicles and electronic devices. If the Resolution project were to be built, it would create a crater that was 2 miles wide (3 km) and 1,000 feet deep (304 m), which would slowly swallow up this worship site. The Apache has been unable to stop the transfer since 2021. The rulings Deferred to 2014 The U.S. Congress, and President Barack Obama at the time, made this statement. President Donald Trump Start the Land Transfer In his first term, the move undone Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether or not to accept the case. The Supreme Court has stated at least thirteen times that it will continue deliberating on the appeal request. This is an unusually lengthy timeframe. Meanwhile, Trump last month Restart the land transfer Logan was contacted by his administration to expedite the process. His administration is aiming to finish it as early as June 16. Logan stated in his ruling on Friday that "there are good reasons to anticipate" the Supreme Court taking the case. He added that Rio's and BHP’s promises that they would maintain the public access to land as long as it is safe to do so "are inadequate," since they are not legally bound. Logan dismissed the testimony of a Rio executive - given at a Hearing earlier in the week The company has "voluntarily" chosen to spend an extra $11 million per month on maintenance on top of the $2.7 billion it has spent so far on Resolution. Rio issued a press release to say that it would be reviewing the ruling of the district court. Rio's spokesperson said that "this short-term order... does not change anything about the merits" of the legal questions currently before the Supreme Court. BHP, who owns 45% to Rio's 50% of the project, has not responded to a comment request immediately. Wendsler Norsie, one Apache Stronghold leaders, expressed his gratitude that "the judge stopped this land take in its tracks, so that the Supreme Court can have time to protect Oak Flat against destruction."
-
Brazil's Unigel approves Petrobras deal on fertilizer plants
Petrobras confirmed a report from Friday that Brazilian chemical company Unigel had approved a Petrobras deal to settle legal disputes relating to two fertilizer factories in the northeastern Brazil. The agreement would allow Petrobras, the state-owned fertilizer company to resume operations at the two plants located in the states Sergipe and Bahia. This is part of President LuizInacio Lula Da Silva's efforts to reduce Brazil's dependence on imported fertilizer. Petrobras leased two nitrogen fertilizer facilities to Unigel under a 10-year contract in 2019. However, both plants have been closed since 2023. Unigel has cited unfeasible conditions for operating due to the high natural gas price in Brazil. Petrobras announced in a filing that the deal, which is still subject to arbitration court approval, restores Petrobras ownership of the two plants. It added that operations will resume following a bid process for contracting services to operate and maintain the plants. Reporting by Marta Nogueira, Rodrigo Viga Gaier and Gabriel Araujo. Writing by Chizu Nomiyama; Editing and proofreading by Rosalba o'Brien and Rosalba Nomiyama.
-
Source: Nippon Steel executive headed to Washington next Week in order to push for US Steel agreement
Nippon Steel Vice Chair Takahiro Muri will be in Washington next week to try to get approval for its $15 billion offer to buy U.S. Steel, according to a source familiar with the situation. Semaphor reported the news first, and cited sources to say that Mori will meet with officials of the Trump administration during his trip. U.S. Steel & Nippon Steel didn't immediately respond to comments. The former president Joe Biden, citing concerns about national security that were not specified and related to the national security review conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US on the deal in January, blocked the proposed tie up. The two companies then sued CFIUS (which examines foreign investments to determine if they pose a national security risk), claiming that Biden had influenced the committee's decisions and violated their right to an impartial review. Biden, they claimed, did this in 2024 when he expressed opposition to the agreement while running for reelection in Pennsylvania (a swing state), where U.S. Steel has its headquarters. The Biden administration defended the review, claiming it was essential for protecting infrastructure, security and supply chains. In April, Donald Trump was elected President CFIUS was asked to conduct a new review The merger will be evaluated to determine if “further action” is necessary, raising the hope that the deal may finally get the green light. Since then, Trump has doubled down On comments opposing the deal, he said later that month he didn't believe a foreign company could control U.S. Steel. This dimmed hopes of approval. Reporting by Alexandra Alper and Arsheeya Bjwa, both in Washington; editing by Shilpa Majumdar and Chizu Niyama
-
Sources: Brazil's Unigel approves Petrobras' deal on fertilizer factories
Two sources familiar with this matter say that the board of directors at Brazilian chemical company Unigel approved on Friday a deal proposed to them by Petrobras in order to settle legal disputes relating fertilizer plants located in the northeastern part of Brazil. The agreement would allow Petrobras, the state-run fertilizer company to resume operations at the two plants located in the states Sergipe and Bahia. This is part of President LuizInacio Lula Da Silva's efforts to reduce Brazil's dependence on imported fertilizer. Petrobras leased two nitrogen fertilizer facilities to Unigel under a 10-year contract in 2019. However, both plants have been closed since 2023. Unigel has cited unfeasible conditions for operating due to the high natural gas price in Brazil. According to Petrobras, the deal will reestablish Petrobras ownership over the two facilities, and operations are set to resume following a process of contracting services to operate and maintain them. Reporting by Marta Nogueira, Rodrigo Viga Gaier and Gabriel Araujo. Editing by Leslie Adler, Chizu Nomiyama and Leslie Adler.
-
Greenland's quest for special status intensifies as the US considers it
U.S. Officials are discussing a plan that would bring Greenland under the sphere of America's influence. This is a similar agreement the United States used to maintain close ties with a number of Pacific Island Nations, according to U.S. Officials and a person familiar with these discussions. According to the plan under consideration, the Trump Administration would suggest that Greenland's leadership enter into an agreement with the United States called a Compact of Free Association (COFA). COFA agreements vary according to signatory but the U.S. government provides most essential services. This includes everything from emergency management and military protection to mail delivery. In exchange, U.S. troops can operate freely in COFA nations and the trade between the U.S. and COFA is mostly duty-free. Donald Trump, who floated the idea to acquire Greenland during his first term, has been even more insistent since he took office in January. He refuses to rule out the possibility of taking the island with force. Denmark, the country that governs Greenland, has strongly rejected the idea. A COFA would not allow Trump to achieve his goal of making the island, which has 57,000 residents, a part the United States. The sources say that this is not the only Greenland proposal on the table and that it would have to overcome many practical obstacles. Before Trump's election, it was reported that some advisors had suggested the idea informally. It was not previously disclosed that White House officials had begun discussions about the logistics of such a proposal. Two sources confirmed that some officials from the National Security Council as well as the National Energy Dominance Council (both of which Trump created) are involved in these talks. One of the sources said that the National Economic Council was also involved. COFA agreements were previously signed with independent countries. Greenland, however, would need to be separated from Denmark in order for this plan to move forward. Greenlanders may be interested in independence but they are also not keen on being part of the U.S. Markus Thomi is one of the people involved in these discussions, according to the two sources. He is the acting senior director of the National Security Council Western Hemisphere Section. One of the sources stated that David Copley is the key mining official for the NEDC. The White House, the Danish Embassy and Greenland's Washington representative office did not respond to our request for a comment. Interior Department also didn't respond. The Office of Insular Affairs of the Interior Department plays a major role in implementing COFA agreements. COFA DEALS TROUBLES The existing COFA agreements between Washington and Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia is seen as crucial by all political parties in the United States to counter China's increasing influence in Asia Pacific. Yet, in the past, these agreements have run into problems. Republican lawmakers have sometimes opposed budget elements allocated to fund COFA agreement, causing deep frustration in countries that depend on the funds. A COFA does not guarantee that the United States will not use influence to try and influence a country. Reports in April indicated that Chinese nationals were able to establish close relationships with senior political figures on Palau. This alarming U.S. government officials. One senior European official stated that the White House has not approached the Danish government about the COFA plan and they have had no substantive discussions about Greenland’s future status. Danish officials publicly rejected the notion of the U.S. buying Greenland and insisted that Greenlanders should determine their own future. Officials in the administration claim that the island is vital to the U.S. because of its mineral deposits, which have high-tech and other military applications but are not tapped due to labor shortages and lack of infrastructure. A senior administration official said that the U.S. is helping Greenland to diversify its economy, and achieve greater economic independence with Denmark. Officials from the U.S. Development Finance Corporation and Export-Import Bank could both play a part in this process. According to the official, the Tanbreez project, where rare earths will be extracted and processed on the island, but then shipped back to the U.S. for processing, is a bright spot in Greenland's relations. New York's Critical Metals Corp has a stake of 42% in the project. However, that stake may increase as part a complex deal expected to be finalized later this year. The official stated that a COFA could be "an elegant way to address certain concerns we have in regards to Greenland's security," but made no other comments on the possible existence of such an agreement. Reporting by Gram Slattery and Valerie Volcovici; Editing Don Durfee, Alistair Bell
-
China's Tsingshan has not given up on Chile's lithium plans, despite the plant's retreat
Tsingshan, a Chinese metals company, said it was still interested in investing in Chile's lithium downstream sector on Friday. This follows reports that the group had abandoned plans to build a lithium cathode factory in Chile. This week, it was reported that Tsingshan (a Chinese automaker) and BYD (a Chinese automaker) had withdrawn from plans to build large lithium cathode factories in Chile. The report cited the Chilean economic development agency as well as Tsingshan. The two Chinese giants' retreat was a blow for Chile in its efforts to increase domestic processing of lithium - a metal that is essential to electric vehicle batteries. Chile is the No. The world's No. 2 lithium producer is Chile. Tsingshan's Friday statement referred to the plans it had for a Chile cathode factory in the past, but did not say that they were scrapped. The company said that it valued Chile's investment climate and was not going to miss the chance to explore ways to add value to Chile's lithium. China's Embassy said in a post on social media Thursday that Tsingshan & BYD had never stated they would stop investing in Chile and they will "continue the dialogue" with Chilean officials. The report also mentioned a "close friendship" between the two nations. Tsingshan had previously stated that it had withdrawn plans for a cathode-plant. BYD didn't immediately respond to an inquiry for comment. Corfo, Chile's investment agency, said on Wednesday in a press release that Tsingshan had withdrawn their plans through its subsidiary Yongqing and that BYD had rejected in January an offer of land it had selected previously for the project. (Reporting and editing by Daina-Beth Solomon and Kylie Madry, Anthony Esposito, Richard Chang and Aida Pelaez Fernandez)
-
Congo gold miner suspends operations over tax dispute with M23 rebel administration
Twangiza Mining is a gold mining company operating in the rebel controlled South Kivu Province of eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. According to a letter sent to the entire company, the rebel administration has ordered the suspension of operations. In a letter dated 8 May, the company, managed by Hong Kong registered Shomka Resources informed its employees that they would be forced to stop work immediately. Twangiza Mining has been ordered to suspend operations by the South Kivu Province administration, according to a letter signed by Chao Xianfeng, the General Director. The letter also stated that all equipment and vehicles had been placed in standby mode. The decision highlights tensions regarding resource control in Congo’s mineral-rich east regions where M23 rebels have advanced and placed strategic mining assets into a new administration. This has created uncertainty for international operators as well as commodity markets. Rwanda-backed rebels have taken control of Congo's mineral-rich eastern provinces in the first half of this year and are now consolidating their control. Manu Birato who recently became the M23 Governor of South Kivu Province said Twangiza Mining has to adapt to new rules and pay taxes that they had not been paying. Birato said, "We're in discussions with them to show them that they have to start paying taxes now." The country received no taxes at all from this company. He said that the money was transferred to private accounts. The administration did not order the closure of the operations. "We told them they would have to pay taxes." Birato explained that the people are struggling to adjust to this new requirement because they have been used to not paying taxes. Birato's claims were not addressed by a spokesperson from Twangiza. Twangiza Mining, a joint venture, is owned by Congolese Shomka Capital, with 65.5% of the shares, and Baiyin International Investments Ltd., with 34.5%. (Reporting and writing by Yassin Kobi; Editing by Bill Berkrot).
-
UK steel industry wants clarity on timeline for US 0% tariffs
The British steel industry demanded clarity on Friday regarding the date when U.S. Tariffs will be removed under a historic first agreement to remove President Donald Trump’s levies against the sector. Britain announced a deal on Thursday with the United States that would lower steel tariffs from 25% to 0%, allowing British producers to continue exporting to the United States. Details released late Thursday revealed that both sides still have to formalise security requirements and quotas for the steel industry, which leaves sector representatives unsure of when levies are going to be implemented. Chrysa glystra, Director of Trade and Economic Policy for industry body UK Steel, said: "It is not just a formality. There are still many things that haven't yet been determined and defined." Glystra said that companies did not know what conditions they had to meet in their supply chains to be eligible for the tariffs. We don't know when it will go into effect or what the timeline will be. The steel industry in Britain contributed £1.7 billion, or 0.1%, to the UK's economy in 2024. Its future has been a little uncertain. Last month, the UK government intervened in order to maintain the blast furnaces at the UK's final producer of virgin steel by seizing control from the Chinese owners. The British government released details of the U.S. agreement. It showed that the access to zero tariffs was conditional on Britain's commitment to "work quickly to meet U.S. demands on the security supply chains of steel products and aluminium intended for export into the United States, and on the ownership of relevant production plants." The General Terms of the Agreement stated that "understanding the United Kingdom would meet these requirements, United States will quickly construct a quote." The Office of the United States Trade Representative stated that the U.S., UK and Canada "will negotiate a different arrangement" regarding the steel tariff. The British trade ministry refused to provide a timeline for the formalisation of the steel deal. Glystra, from UK Steel, said that the ongoing engagement between UK Steel and the British government has been constructive. She said, "The fact we have now a better foundation than before is positive." It's not as good as if you told us that there are no tariffs on steel as of today. That would be better." (Reporting and editing by Toby Chopra; Alistair Smout)
Investors warn EU against data reductions in green rule review
The political drive to reduce EU sustainability regulations should not result in investors losing valuable information about material risks, or forcing them to rely on third party data providers more often. This was the message from Europe's leading asset management trade association on Friday.
The European Commission is reviewing the planned rules for corporate disclosures, amid concerns that they are preventing European companies from competing against other regions. This is especially true in light of a tariff war driven by the United States.
The Commission has proposed changes in February that will exempt thousands of smaller European companies from the rules and reduce the obligations on larger firms to monitor their supply chains and check for environmental and human rights problems.
The European Fund Managers' Association, EFAMA said that it supported the Commission in its efforts to reduce regulatory burden, but warned against removing key information about sustainability risks, which could harm the EU's broader climate objectives.
Ilia Békou, policy adviser at EFAMA said that simplifying disclosure requirements can help EU competitiveness, by promoting innovation and growth in key technological areas across the EU's economy.
EFAMA's proposal stated that it was preparing a list of data points which companies could report. It estimated this would reduce the reporting requirements by 80%. This could be supplemented with additional voluntary disclosures.
The report also cautioned against reducing too much the number of green companies that are covered by the regulation, as this could make it more difficult for European investors and businesses to invest in smaller green enterprises.
Another suggestion is to ensure that the changes are in line with an upcoming review of sustainability reporting for asset managers. (Reporting and editing by Simon Jessop, Susan Fenton and Virginia Furness)
(source: Reuters)