alfa-marushima-tokyo-japan

This earnings season, companies in some sectors have started spelling out the potential financial impact of tariffs, while others have withdrawn their outlooks citing too much uncertainty

Artemis Resources Ltd operates in Australia as a mineral and mining exploration. The company is focused on exploration in the West Pilbara for gold, cobalt, base metals, platinum, and platinum group elements. Some of its projects include Armada/Paterson Range, Carlow Castle, Radio Hill Processing Plant, Munni Munni PGE Project, among others. The firm has two reportable segments, being mineral exploration activities and development expenditure.

Struggling to get your team to think like you do? Learn how to delegate more effectively with this guide.

It took more than four years, but Epic Games finally prevailed this week in its antitrust case against Apple, the world’s most valuable company with a market value of $3.2 trillion. And now it’s possible that the floodgates are open to bring competition and financial gains for mobile game companies on iOS. Epic CEO Tim […]

At Gamescom Latam, Roblox announced it has broken ground on a new data center in Brazil — slated to go live in early 2026.

Once again, DOGE cuts and tariffs did not appear to have any meaningful impact on the overall job market (yet).

The world’s oceans are increasingly becoming an important new frontier in the geopolitical and economic race for critical minerals, with countries fast-tracking plans for deep-sea mining.

Meanwhile, the global body tasked with regulating such activities is struggling to keep pace.

As sovereign states ramp up efforts to access seabed resources crucial for clean energy and defense technologies, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) finds itself sidelined — raising alarms among environmentalists and nations alike.

Stoking these tensions, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this month with the aim of expediting deep-sea mineral extraction in both national and international waters.

The directive, which calls for faster permitting and exploration, bypasses multilateral negotiations at the ISA and uses a 1980 domestic statute — the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act — to justify the unilateral action.

The order “establishes the US as a global leader in seabed mineral exploration and development both within and beyond national jurisdiction,” signaling Washington’s intent to secure independence from Chinese mineral supply chains.

But the move has drawn fierce criticism from multiple fronts.

---

“The US authorization … violates international law and harms the overall interests of the international community,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun. Such sentiments echo concerns that unilateral actions could unravel decades of work toward collective seabed governance under the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea.

At the heart of the dispute lies the ISA, the UN agency responsible for regulating mining in international waters.

Though it has issued over 30 exploratory permits, it has yet to finalize rules for commercial extraction. That regulatory vacuum has encouraged countries to approach the issue alone and in accordance with their own different agendas.

Norway reverses course on deep-sea mining

In January 2024, Norway became the first country to approve commercial-scale deep-sea mining within its own exclusive economic zone, greenlighting exploration across 280,000 square kilometers — an area larger than the UK.

The move, passed through parliament despite strong domestic and international opposition, is part of the country’s bid to secure metals like cobalt, scandium and lithium for green technologies.

“We will have a relatively long period of exploration and mapping activity to close the knowledge gap on the environmental impact,” Walter Sognnes, co-founder of Loke Marine Minerals, a Norwegian company focused on deep-sea exploration, told the BBC in an interview at the time the news was announced

However, environmentalists argued that the plan undermined Norway’s own standards.

“The Norwegian government always highlighted that they want to implement the highest environmental standards,” said Martin Webeler of the Environmental Justice Foundation.

“That is hypocritical whilst you are throwing away all the scientific advice.”

The Norway Institute of Marine Research also criticized the government’s decision, saying the existing environmental impact assessment was based on limited data and not representative of the vast areas opened for mining. It called for an additional five to 10 years of research before proceeding.

Against that backdrop, Norway reversed course, suspending its deep-sea mining plans at the end of 2024 following mounting political and environmental pressure.

The first licensing round, originally set for 2025, was blocked after the Socialist Left Party threatened to withhold support for the government’s budget unless the initiative was halted.

India eyes Clarion-Clipperton zone, Pacific Islands at crossroads

For its part, India has announced plans to ramp up its presence in the Pacific’s Clarion-Clipperton zone, one of the world’s most mineral-rich deep-sea regions. Although the ISA has already granted India two exploration contracts, the country has opted to hold off on operations as regulations remain in flux.

M. Ravichandran, secretary of the country’s Ministry of Earth Sciences, said the country is seeking to apply to the UN-backed ISA next year to focus on exploring the zone.

Meanwhile, the resource-rich Pacific Islands are emerging as battlegrounds in this high-stakes race.

Kiribati, a small island nation with jurisdiction over 75,000 square kilometers of prospective seabed, is reportedly in talks with China after a previous deal with Canada’s The Metals Company (NASDAQ:TMC) collapsed late last year.

In a statement dated March 17, the Kiribati government called discussions with Chinese ambassador Zhou Limin “an exciting opportunity” to explore its deep-sea resources.

But critics say such moves by smaller nations are often driven by economic desperation and can lead to exploitative outcomes. This tension is familiar in Papua New Guinea, where the failure of the Nautilus Minerals project left environmental damage and financial losses in its wake.

Some Pacific nations are now calling for a global moratorium on seabed mining, citing concerns about the unknown risks to ecosystems and the climate.

Patchwork governance, fragmented oversight

The race toward seabed mining is exposing a critical flaw in global governance: fragmentation. The ISA, which was supposed to provide a unified framework, is losing relevance as more countries chart independent courses.

“The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom,” Jeff Watters, vice president for external affairs at the Ocean Conservancy, told the Guardian.

A study by the Natural History Museum and the UK’s National Oceanography Center analyzing a 1970s test site concludes that some sediment dwellers were able to recover, but larger animals dependent on polymetallic nodules did not return — likely because the nodules, which take millions of years to form, were destroyed.

Despite these warnings, the Metals Company continues to push forward. It has said it plans to mine by the year’s end, pending US government approval, as CEO Gerard Barron remains unfazed by the backlash.

“Here there’s zero flora,” Barron told the BBC in a January 2024 interview. “If we measure the amount of fauna… in the form of biomass, there is around 10g per square metre. That compares with more than 30kg of biomass where the world is pushing more nickel extraction, which is our equatorial rainforests.”

Beyond environmental concerns, the deep-sea mining surge is reshaping geopolitical dynamics. China, which dominates global production and processing of rare earths, has long used its position as leverage in trade disputes. In response to US tariffs, Beijing recently introduced new export controls on rare earths — further intensifying the mineral arms race.

Trump’s executive order makes clear that seabed mining is now viewed as a national security imperative.

“It’s not just drill, baby, drill. It’s mine, baby, mine,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum at a recent conference. “We will literally be at the mercy of others that are controlling our supply chains,” he warned.

But this approach risks setting a dangerous precedent. If powerful nations begin issuing their own licenses outside multilateral systems, others are likely to follow suit. The result could be a patchwork of conflicting claims and reduced protections, particularly for vulnerable maritime nations.

With the ISA still developing a mining code and more countries rejecting its pace, the world faces a dilemma: how to balance the urgent demand for critical minerals with the equally pressing need to preserve fragile marine ecosystems.

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.

Australia is currently betting big on critical minerals.

Government support is growing, with the country positioning itself as a key player in the global energy transition; however, some are convinced that the nation is rushing into a crowded race.

The Albanese government recently vowed to establish a critical minerals strategic reserve upon re-election, pledging an initial investment of A$1.2 billion. In an April 24 announcement, the government outlines that the reserve would build on the Australian government’s extensive investment in critical minerals through two new mechanisms.

Does an Australian critical minerals reserve make sense?

National offtake agreements are one of the planned mechanisms. These would allow the government to acquire agreed-upon volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects via voluntary agreements, or to establish an option to purchase at a given price, holding security over these assets as part of the strategic reserve.

The second mechanism outlined is selective stockpiling, wherein the government promises to establish Australian stockpiles of certain key critical minerals produced under offtake agreements as required.

Following the government’s announcement, Tania Constable, CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, published a piece on the move, questioning whether a critical minerals strategic reserve is the best approach.

In her view, the initiative is “certainly not without domestic risk,” and “may impact the commercial viability of operations through continued downward pressure on commodity prices.”

---

She recommends that Australia focus on fundamentals that will give it back an edge over other mining nations.

“That means lower energy prices, a windback of draconian industrial relations laws, and faster environmental approval times,” Constable’s statement reads.

Australia’s current critical minerals strategy

Australia’s current Critical Minerals Strategy is focused on the period from 2023 to 2030, and is centred on developing strategically important projects, attracting and unlocking investment and promoting the country as a world leader in environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.

It also includes a commitment to reviewing the country’s critical minerals and strategic materials list every three years, updating it in response to global strategic, technological, economic and policy changes.

As of writing, 31 critical minerals were recognised in Australia, plus six strategic materials.

AU$4 billion in total commitments are covered under the strategy, including AU$2 billion from the Critical Minerals Facility via Export Finance Australia, and an extra AU$2 billion in 2024.

In an article in the Australian, Lynas Rare Earths (ASX:LYC,OTC Pink:LYSCF) CEO Amanda Lacaze criticises the government’s critical minerals policy, arguing that it is “flawed and uneconomical.”

She notes that even a significant portion of the fund wouldn’t match Lynas’ annual production costs. Lynas is recognised as the largest separated rare earths producer outside of China.

In a separate article written by the Australia-China Relations Institute, James Laurenceson, director at the University of Technology Sydney, says that the current strategy may be too optimistic.

In his view, the real problem is that Australia’s strategic partners aren’t delivering on their end of the supply chain further downstream. His recommendation is to focus on upstream activities like mining and processing, where Australia has a clear comparative advantage.

Critical minerals deals and funding heat up in Australia

Since the announcement of the Critical Minerals Strategy, Australia’s critical minerals industry has seen various developments in mergers and acquisitions, as well as government project funding.

Notable M&A activity includes mining giant Rio Tinto’s (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO) acquisition of Arcadium Lithium, first announced as an all-cash transaction for US$6.7 billion in October 2024.

Another is the AU$560 million deal between Pilbara Minerals (ASX:PLS,OTC Pink:PILBF) and Latin Resources, made legally effective last January. The transaction gives Pilbara ownership of Latin’s Salinas lithium project in Brazil.

On top of these acquisitions are government funding to accelerate critical minerals projects.

Under the Critical Minerals Facility, Iluka Resources (ASX:ILU,OTC Pink:ILKAF) received AU$400 million from the Australian government in December, granted for the Enneaba rare earths refinery.

According to Iluka, the refinery will establish Western Australia as a strategic hub for the downstream processing of rare earths. It is expected to produce neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, terbium and more starting in 2027.

Alongside these moves, Australia is strengthening its rare earths strategy.

On February 12, Australia passed the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive, which will provide a refundable tax credit on 10 percent of eligible costs associated with the production of critical minerals and rare earths.

“The incentives are valued at AU$7 billion over the decade,” said Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King.

“The passing of this legislation is a historic moment for the resources industry and a big deal for resource states like Western Australia and Queensland,” she added. “By processing more of these minerals here in Australia we will create jobs and diversify global supply chains.”

Will history repeat itself? ​

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) states in an article that the critical minerals reserve would be an important step in securing Australia’s economic future, but warns that the nation must learn from “past mistakes.”

It points to the Pinjarra gallium refinery in Western Australia in its May 2 statement, saying that it represented one of the boldest critical minerals initiatives outside China in the late 1980s.

“Designed to produce 50 tonnes of gallium per year, it promised to place Australia at the heart of the global gallium and rare earths value chain, just as the modern world’s appetite for advanced materials was accelerating.”

However, in only a few years, Pinjarra encountered delays due to environmental permits; meanwhile, gallium prices crashed due to oversupply and China’s competitive spirit strengthened.

“Australia’s lack of midstream and downstream refining capacity added crushing costs and complexity,” ASPI explains in its commentary. “In short, Pinjarra had the ambition — but not the resilience — to withstand the inevitable shocks from operating in niche, high-risk commodity markets.”

The question ASPI poses now is: Can Australia guarantee that the same mistake will not be repeated?

According to the institute, Australia has the resources and strategic location.

“It must now summon the strategic patience and coordinated leadership needed to build true critical minerals sovereignty,” ASPI concludes.

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Resource for real-time news updates!

Securities Disclosure: I, Gabrielle de la Cruz, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Ontario has introduced legislation aimed at tightening control over the province’s mining and energy sectors by limiting foreign involvement, fast-tracking resource development and scaling back species-at-risk protections.

The Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025, also known as Bill 5, was announced at the Toronto Stock Exchange on April 17 by Premier Doug Ford and Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce.

According to the government, the new bill is designed to “safeguard Ontario’s critical minerals, secure the province’s energy infrastructure, and reduce regulatory bottlenecks that hamper development.”

“With President Trump taking direct aim at our economy, it cannot be business as usual,” Ford declared during the announcement, referring to recent US moves to prioritize domestic supply chains for critical resources.

The proposed law would grant the Ontario government sweeping new powers over the mining sector.

These would include the ability to suspend or revoke mining claims, deny transfers or leases and limit access to Ontario’s Mining Lands Administration System — particularly for entities linked to “hostile foreign regimes.”

It would also allow the government to restrict foreign participation in the province’s energy sector.

---

“In today’s changing world, we need to be clear-eyed about the risks from those who want to exploit our resource bounty,” Lecce said in an April 25 press release that covers the legislation. “That is why it is essential that Ontario is protecting our critical minerals and energy sector from getting into the wrong hands.”

Kevin Holland, member of provincial parliament for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, added that the measures are especially significant for Northern Ontario, where the economy is deeply tied to resource extraction.

“Ontario is taking important actions to protect our mining and energy assets during this volatile time,” he said.

Rolling back environmental protections

According to the provincial government, the legislation is partially a response to concerns raised in a 2021 national security report in which Canada’s natural resources are identified as a strategic vulnerability.

However, the proposed legislation has sparked sharp criticism from environmental advocates who warn that Bill 5 undermines Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. It would be replaced with a much narrower Species Conservation Act that redefines what constitutes a species’ habitat.

Under current law, a habitat includes all areas a species needs to live, migrate and reproduce. The new definition reduces this to “a dwelling place, such as a den, nest or other similar place,” plus the immediate surrounding area.

Critics argue that this change all but guarantees habitat loss for vulnerable species.

“The definition of habitat is so narrow that what it means is less habitat than the species has now,” Laura Bowman, a lawyer with the environmental law charity Ecojustice, told CBC. “And less habitat than the species has now, for a species already in decline, virtually ensures extirpation or extinction,” she added

The bill would also eliminate the requirement for recovery strategies once a species is declared at risk — a key mechanism under the current law that sets out steps to restore populations to sustainable levels.

The legislation is part of Ontario’s push to accelerate development in the Ring of Fire, a mineral-rich region in the province’s far north. The Ford government has long touted the area’s potential to supply key inputs like nickel, lithium and chromite for electric vehicles and clean technologies. According to the government, Bill 5 will “cut red tape and streamline approvals” to jumpstart projects that are currently mired in lengthy environmental and consultation processes — often involving Indigenous communities whose territories overlap with planned developments.

Despite the growing need for secure critical minerals supply chains, the decision to pair national security rhetoric with the rollback of environmental protections is likely to ignite political and legal challenges in the months ahead.

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.

Interview with Nick Scarpino, the CEO of Giordano’s, a famous deep-dish Chicago pizza brand.