Investment Insights. Stay Ahead.
Congo bans copper and cobalt concentrate exports as global supply risks grow
The Democratic Republic of Congo has banned exports of copper and cobalt concentrates with immediate effect under a June 29 order signed by three government ministers, according to a Reuters report that reveals the order states “the export of copper and cobalt concentrates is prohibited.”
The order pushes mining companies to process more material inside the country and so allow the government to retain a larger share of the value generated by its mineral resources.
Congo accounted for an estimated 73% of global cobalt mine output in 2025, as well as about 14% of mined copper and 10% of refined copper.
One-year export waivers are permitted in strategic circumstances and a three-month transition to a new tax regime for economically significant mining by-products has also been introduced.
Three-month copper on the London Metal Exchange rose as much as 1.8% after the news to US$14,369.50 per tonne, close to the record US$14,527.50 reached in January 2026.
Most of Congo’s copper already leaves as refined metal
Congo exported 696,725 tonnes of copper cathode in the first quarter of 2026. Over the same period, it exported 53,926 tonnes of concentrate containing 18,863 tonnes of copper metal, according to the official data. On a contained-metal basis, concentrate represented only about 2.6% of the copper in those two reported export streams.
In other words, this does not represent an immediate embargo on copper from the Congo.
The country already processes most of its copper domestically, while earlier concentrate bans introduced in 2013, 2019 and 2023 were softened by waivers when local smelting capacity was insufficient.
However, the latest order is still more consequential than the headline tonnage suggests as it repeals the 2023 framework and exemptions, forces operators to re-establish their right to export, and makes access to a domestic smelter — or to a government waiver — more valuable.
Kamoa-Kakula shows why the timing is different from previous attempts. The complex’s on-site smelter has 500,000 tonnes-per-year of design capacity and was operating at about 60% of capacity in the first quarter, producing anode copper and high-strength sulphuric acid. Ivanhoe Mines said the next stage of the ramp-up was constrained by concentrate availability and that it was considering toll treatment of third-party Congolese feed. That creates a potential domestic processing market.
It also creates a new chokepoint: smaller mines and exporters without integrated capacity may have to compete for smelter access, accept less favourable commercial terms, or seek a waiver.
Cobalt is already under state control
Since October 2025, the country has regulated cobalt exports through quotas. The 2026 ceiling is 96,600 tonnes of contained cobalt, including 9,600 tonnes controlled as a strategic quota by regulator ARECOMS.
The latest order adds a second layer of control for the quota to govern how much cobalt can leave, while the concentrate ban governs the form in which at least part of it can be exported.
That distinction matters as Congo shipped 51,940 tonnes of cobalt hydroxide containing 17,054 tonnes of cobalt metal in the first quarter. Cobalt hydroxide is a processed intermediate rather than a concentrate, and the order reported by Reuters specifically prohibits concentrate exports.
So the immediate cobalt shock will depend on how the government defines covered products, coordinates the order with the quota system and awards exemptions. The strategic direction, however, is clear with Kinshasa wanting greater control over volume, processing and value capture.
The economic logic is substantial. The IEA estimates that if Africa refined lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and rare earths locally — and processed two-thirds of its copper production within the region — the value generated could rise by nearly 50% from today to about US$220 billion by 2035. Its 2026 outlook also warns that Congo’s cobalt policy has already created a projected supply gap in what had previously looked like a better-supplied market.
Chile is exposing the geological constraint
The Congolese order, however, is not the only supply risk in the global copper market.
Codelco has paused work at Andes Norte, part of the project portfolio designed to extend the life of El Teniente by 50 years, after studies identified an emerging seismic risk associated with mining at greater depth. The decision comes a year after a rock burst killed six workers and generated an impact equivalent to a magnitude-4.2 earthquake.
Andes Norte contains 375 million tonnes of reserves and is designed to produce 35,000 tonnes of ore per day at an average copper grade of 0.99%.
The pause also follows a weak May for Chile’s largest producers, with Codelco’s output fell 18.3% year on year to 106,300 tonnes, Escondida’s fell 17.6%, and Collahuasi’s fell 19.3%.
Congo is restricting how material can leave. Chile is showing how difficult it is to replace production from mature, increasingly deep ore bodies. Both reduce supply.
There is copper, but much of it is in the wrong place
Visible inventories appear to offer a counterargument to the shortage narrative.
The US imported more than 200,000 tonnes of copper in July 2026, its largest monthly inflow in at least 12 years, as traders shipped metal ahead of a possible tariff on refined copper. Combined COMEX and LME stocks exceeded 740,000 tonnes, with another 110,860 tonnes held in private storage at US ports.
This is not the same thing as comfortable global availability, with tariff arbitrage pulling refined metal toward the US, while Chinese buyers have faced a much tighter physical market. China’s copper import premium reached US$100 per tonne in July as Shanghai Futures Exchange inventories fell to 79,909 tonnes, down more than 80% from their March peak.
The latest International Copper Study Group forecast still points to a modest 96,000-tonne refined copper surplus in 2026, but the group explicitly notes that unreported stock changes can materially alter the apparent balance.
That is the market Congo’s order enters: copper may exist in aggregate, but policy, geography and product form determine whether it is available to the next buyer.
The processing chokepoint is becoming the market
The near-term impact of Congo’s ban should not be overstated, as concentrate exports are small relative to cathode exports, existing smelting capacity is expanding, and the government retains the ability to grant waivers.
But the strategic impact should not be dismissed either, especially as global supply remains tight in the face of an expanding copper demand stack, making the impact of tight marginal supply even greater.
Subscribe for Investment Insights. Stay Ahead.
Investment market and industry insights delivered to you in real-time.
F3 Uranium’s high-grade resource stands out in Athabasca
- F3 Uranium resource at JR Zone totals 11.801 million pounds U3O8 Indicated at 4.41% U3O8, including 10.788 million pounds at 12.23% U3O8
- estimate prepared by SLR International for F3’s NI 43-101 technical report, supporting third-party resource confidence
- F3 is now pairing JR Zone with exploration upside at Tetra, where 2026 drilling confirmed uranium mineralization in multiple step-out holes
- timing matters, with approx 80 nuclear reactors under construction and 120 planned worldwide, with nuclear energy generation hitting an all-time high in 2025
The Athabasca Basin is where investors go looking for exceptional uranium grades, and F3 Uranium (TSXV: FUU, OTCQB: FUUFF) has given them a number worth paying attention to: 10.8 million pounds of U3O8 grading 12.23% inside an 11.8 million pound Indicated resource.
To put this in context:
- the uranium in Canada’s Athabasca Basin are mostly in high-grade deposits, up to 100 times the world average, with McArthur River and Cigar Lake among the largest and highest-grade uranium mines in the world
- outside the Athabasca, many major sandstone uranium deposits are commonly low-to-medium grade at 0.05% to 0.35% uranium
F3 Uranium’s JR Zone looks less like a typical global uranium deposit and more like the kind of exceptional-grade system that makes the Athabasca famous.
This matters because uranium investors are not short of discovery stories, but are short of credible pounds in a market where primary mine supply covered only 90% of 2024 reactor requirements, leaving a deficit of 18 million pounds U3O8 before inventories and secondary supply.
And the world is currently building into that deficit, with at least 79 reactors under construction, 121 planned and 315 proposed (and Japan alone has 15 reactors restarted with 10 more in the restart approval process since Fukushima). Uranium requirements are projected to rise 86,000 tU by 2030 and 150,000 tU by 2040, just as current ore-grades are declining.
High-grade Indicated Resource
The word “Indicated” is not marketing language. It is a confidence category.
Most junior uranium stories start with a drill hole, but F3 Uranium now has something more valuable: an independently supported Indicated resource. That matters because uranium investors are not necessarily short of discovery stories, but they are short of credible pounds.
Under internationally recognized resource definitions followed by Canadian NI 43-101 reporting, an Indicated mineral resource has enough exploration, sampling and testing information to assume geological and grade continuity with reasonable confidence.
F3’s JR Zone resource is 121,259 tonnes grading 4.41% U3O8 for 11.801 million pounds U3O8, with the headline figure of 39,997 tonnes grading 12.23% U3O8 for 10.788 million pounds U3O8.
| JR Zone domain | Classification | Tonnes | Grade | Contained U3O8 |
| High-grade domain | Indicated | 39,997 | 12.23% U3O8 | 10.788 million lb |
| Low-grade domain | Indicated | 81,262 | 0.57% U3O8 | 1.031 million lb |
| Total JR Zone | Indicated | 121,259 | 4.41% U3O8 | 11.801 million lb |
That does not make JR Zone a reserve. F3 is explicit that mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. But for a junior explorer, it changes the conversation.
Canaccord Genuity has initiated coverage on F3 Uranium with a Buy rating and a CAD$0.30 target. Other broker targets are materially higher: SCP at CAD$0.70, Red Cloud at CAD$0.55, and Haywood at CAD$0.55.
F3 is no longer asking the market to value only potential. It has a third-party resource base, a high-grade core and a district-scale exploration plan across Patterson Lake North.
Tetra Zone gives F3 another discovery front
F3 reported in April 2026 that its winter drilling at Tetra intersected uranium mineralization in three of six step-out holes, with geological work supporting a link between Tetra and the high-grade JR Zone system.
In June 2026, the company said its summer program would advance new targets across Patterson Lake North, Minto and Broach, with drilling expected to start in early July and initially comprise about 4,000 metres.
In other words, PLN is not a single-zone project, with Tetra and the broader PLN package giving it room to grow.
“Just as the team was completing the work to release the maiden resource estimate for JR Zone, the new game-changing Tetra Zone Discovery was made, the first in the Clearwater domain. At the same time, we continued a systematic project wide approach that has now advanced several additional prospective trends on the PLN Project to the drill-target stage. The PLN Project is one of the largest land packages in the highly prospective south-western Athabasca Basin, home to Paladin’s Triple R, and NexGen Energy’s Arrow deposits.
With our exploration funding in place, in parallel with the continued evaluation of the JR and Tetra Zones, the upcoming summer program will also include drill testing some of the most prospective of the newly defined trends to continue to realize the considerable exploration upside that remains across the three properties”
— Raymond Ashley, President & COO
Conclusion
F3 has an Indicated resource, a high-grade core, a 100%-owned PLN project and recently disclosed Cdn$23 million to advance drilling across multiple target areas in 2026.
The near-term milestone is drill-driven. If Tetra, Broach, Minto or other PLN targets begin showing continuity, F3’s story shifts from high-grade resource to district-scale system.
Q&A
What is the F3 Uranium resource?
F3’s JR Zone has an initial Indicated resource of 11.801 million pounds U3O8 at 4.41% U3O8, including a high-grade domain of 10.788 million pounds at 12.23% U3O8.
Why is F3’s Indicated resource important?
An Indicated mineral resource carries a higher confidence level than an Inferred resource, making it a stronger technical foundation for future studies.
Where is F3 Uranium’s JR Zone?
The JR Zone is on F3’s Patterson Lake North Project in Saskatchewan’s southwest Athabasca Basin, with the company describing it as about 23 km northwest of Paladin’s Triple R deposit.
What is the next catalyst for F3 Uranium?
F3’s 2026 summer exploration program is expected to start with about 4,000 metres of drilling across new PLN target areas, while Tetra remains a key follow-up zone.
Subscribe for Investment Insights. Stay Ahead.
Investment market and industry insights delivered to you in real-time.
US suppliers not ready for Pentagon’s 2027 ban on China-sourced magnets and minerals
Major US mineral suppliers say they will not be ready for a January 1, 2027 Pentagon deadline requiring defense contractors to stop purchasing covered rare-earth magnets, tungsten, tantalum and molybdenum sourced from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
US demand for neodymium-iron-boron, or NdFeB, magnets reached roughly 48,000 tonnes in 2025, according to Arthur D. Little data, reported by Reuters — but domestic sources supplied just 300 tonnes.
“It’s going to take many more years to get the needed infrastructure in the ground to compete” — Chris Berry, a minerals industry analyst and consultant, told Reuters.
And, even if US magnet production capacity reaches the projected 5,000 tonnes by the end of this year, it would still represent little more than 10% of total national demand.
To be clear, that comparison overstates the Pentagon’s direct requirement: 48,000 tonnes covers the entire US market, not defense procurement alone, but the numbers reveal the scale of the industrial gap.
This is not simply a ban on Chinese magnets
The Pentagon’s 2027 rule reaches much further upstream than just Chinese magnets, with the updated Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement extending restrictions across critical supply chains:
- mining the constituent minerals
- refining and separation
- metal and alloy production
- powder formation and pressing
- sintering or bonding
- magnetisation
- production of the finished magnet
The governing law, 10 USC 4872, covers samarium-cobalt and NdFeB magnets, tungsten metal powder, tungsten heavy alloy and components, tantalum metals and alloys, and molybdenum. It applies to Pentagon prime contracts and subcontracts at every tier.
In other words, assembling a magnet in Texas does not make it compliant if its oxide, alloy or another restricted input came from China.
And China still produces 60% of mined magnet rare earths, 91% of refined output and 94% of sintered permanent-magnet production.
This is why the deadline is so difficult: the bottleneck is not the ore body, but the supply and processing chain between the mine and the finished magnet.
China tightens its own rare earth restrictions
China’s rare earth export restrictions are also adding pressure to the Pentagon deadline.
China has added MP Materials and USA Rare Earth to its export control list, restricting Chinese companies from supplying the two US rare earth firms with certain dual-use goods and technologies, putting two of America’s most important rare earth producers directly in Beijing’s sights.
Announced capacity is arriving too late
America’s project pipeline is growing rapidly has the potential to establish the first serious non-Chinese rare-earth industrial ecosystem in decades, but unfortunately much of it is scheduled to arrive after the deadline:
| Supplier or project | Near-term position | Larger-scale capacity |
|---|---|---|
| MP Materials | Its Independence facility is commissioning and ramping towards a projected 3,000 tonnes per year of magnets. | The additional 7,000-tonne 10X facility is only expected to begin commissioning in 2028. |
| USA Rare Earth | Stillwater Phase 1A is targeting a 600-tonne annual run rate by the end of Q4 2026; Phase 1B is expected to bring total capacity to 1,200 tonnes in Q1 2027. | Its 6,400-tonne South Carolina facility is targeted to begin commissioning in 2028. |
| Ucore | Its initial Louisiana machine will separate about 600 tonnes per year of rare-earth oxides—not produce magnets—and is scheduled for installation, testing and commissioning in H1 2027. | The proposed complex is designed for approximately 9,600 tonnes of oxide throughput. |
| VAC, Sumter | The recently commissioned South Carolina facility has 2,000 tonnes of magnet nameplate capacity. | Planned upstream integration relies on projects and processing expansions stretching into 2027–2029. |
| Evolution Metals & Technologies | The counter-case: it says 13 new machines could lift allied production capacity to approximately 10,000 tonnes by November 2026. | The equipment was still awaiting delivery, installation and commissioning when the target was announced. |
USA Rare Earth commissioned Phase 1A of its Stillwater facility in March, but reported no revenue from neo-magnet manufacturing during the first quarter. The company expects the line to ramp towards 600 tonnes of annual capacity by the end of 2026.
MP Materials has commenced manufacturing magnets on industrial-scale equipment at Independence, but remains in the final stages of commissioning. Its filing says production will increase in phases as additional capabilities are commissioned and scaled towards a projected 3,000-tonne annual capacity.
Evolution Metals, meanwhile, says 13 ordered magnet-production machines represent more than one year of their manufacturer’s planned Western output. The equipment was scheduled for delivery and installation by November 2026, leaving only a short period for commissioning and production ramp-up before the Pentagon deadline.
Rare earths are only part of the problem
The same deadline covers tungsten and tantalum, where the US upstream position is arguably even weaker.
- according to the US Geological Survey’s 2026 tungsten summary, tungsten has not been mined commercially in the US since 2015. The country remains more than 50% import reliant, with China accounting for 26% of imports during 2021–2024
(See our recent analysis — Why tungsten prices are rising so fast: inside the supply crunch) - the USGS tantalum assessment is more stark: America has not mined tantalum since 1959 and was 100% net import reliant in 2025; China supplied 22% of total tantalum imports and 47% of imported tantalum metal and powder during 2021–2024
- Molybdenum is the exception. US mines produced an estimated 40,000 tonnes in 2025 and the country was a net exporter
Importantly, the new rule does not require every mineral to be mined domestically — Australian tantalum, South Korean metals or European magnets may comply — but the entire relevant chain must be documented.
The waiver has not disappeared
Trump’s Executive Order 14415, “Securing America’s Defense Supply Chains and Ensuring Domestic Acquisition of Critical Materials,” signed on July 20, 2026, tightens the waiver process ahead of the deadline.
From January 1, waivers generally require an approved mitigation plan documenting exhaustive attempts to find compliant material and a timetable for removing non-compliant supply. The order also directs the Pentagon to develop rules requiring contractors to trace critical supply chains back to raw-material origin and allows contractual remedies against companies that fail to qualify alternative suppliers or implement approved mitigation plans.
The executive order was presented as a hardening of the deadline (it stops routine waivers, threatens contractual remedies and requires contractors to map supply chains back to raw-material origin), but the it also preserves a route for non-compliant material where contractors submit an approved mitigation plan that:
- identifies the non-compliant source
- documents exhaustive efforts to find compliant supply
- shows how the material will be removed from the supply chain
- provides a firm transition timetable
We do not expect the January 2027 deadline to be repealed and waivers do exist, but we do not yet know how vigorously the Pentagon will apply them. Instead it is likely to become a forcing mechanism: contractors will map their supply chains, qualify allied material, place more long-term orders with Western producers and seek waivers where no alternative exists.
Subscribe for Investment Insights. Stay Ahead.
Investment market and industry insights delivered to you in real-time.
Why Geopolitics Has Overtaken Supply And Demand In Commodity Markets
For decades, commodity investors focused on supply-and-demand fundamentals. However, the models that guided commodity investing for much of the past 30 years were built on assumptions that no longer hold: stable trade flows, predictable geopolitical relationships, reliable access to global supply chains and the belief that markets would efficiently allocate resources across borders with minimal government interference.
Consider what commodity markets have absorbed in just the past few years. China has tightened controls on exports of critical materials such as gallium, germanium, graphite and rare earths. Governments from Indonesia to Mexico have become increasingly assertive about controlling access to natural resources. Even relatively obscure inputs like sulphuric acid have become concerns as geopolitical tensions have disrupted supply chains and increased processing costs across the critical minerals sector. These developments are no longer isolated events. They are becoming a recurring feature of the commodity landscape.
For executives and investors who still think about commodities primarily through a supply-and-demand lens, the risk exposure you’re carrying may be larger than you realize.
The Map Has Changed
Geopolitical risk in commodity markets used to mean something relatively contained—a strike at a Chilean copper mine, a coup in a producer nation or a temporary export restriction that lasted a few months before markets adjusted.
What we’re seeing today is different. Countries increasingly view access to resources not simply as an economic issue, but as a strategic advantage. Control over critical minerals, processing capacity and manufacturing infrastructure is becoming intertwined with national security, industrial policy and geopolitical influence.
China’s position in many critical mineral supply chains is difficult to overstate. In rare earths alone, it dominates both processing and magnet manufacturing. Similar patterns exist across graphite, gallium, germanium and other materials that are essential to semiconductors, defense technologies and advanced manufacturing.
Having spent much of my career investing in mining and resource companies, I have noticed a subtle but important shift. Ten years ago, most conversations with investors centered on demand forecasts, project economics and commodity prices. Today, discussions increasingly focus on where materials are processed, which governments control supply chains and how quickly alternative sources can be developed if trade flows are disrupted. This is not simply a market disruption; it’s the emergence of a new geopolitical architecture around commodity flows, and many corporate and investment strategies have not fully adapted.
Over $750 billion needed for energy mineral supply to meet demand
More than US$750 billion needs to be invested in mining and refining between 2026-2040 to meet demand for key energy minerals, according to the latest report by the International Energy Agency.
Copper and nickel dominate the capital requirement, with copper needing approx US$310 billion and nickel US$280 billion, together accounting for almost 80% of the total.
The estimate covers new mines, brownfield expansions, refining capacity and sustaining capital, and reflects rising development costs as ore grades decline, particularly in mature copper-producing regions.
The challenge is that the investment requirement is increasing as industry spending slows with critical-mineral investment falling 9% in 2025, ending several years of growth. Spending by battery-material companies dropped more than 20%, while lithium producers cut investment by around 40%.
Copper, however, was the exception, with capital spending by copper-focused companies rising 8%, and merger and acquisition values increasing by 20% from 2024.
The IEA expects supply deficits for copper and lithium to persist through 2035 with only about 75% of projected copper requirements being met in 2035 in its base-case scenario, despite progress at projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia.
Nickel faces a different financing problem, with large volumes of low-cost Indonesian supply pressuring competing producers, even as the IEA estimates the industry needs US$280 billion of investment through 2040. The challenge is that virtually all recent growth in refined nickel supply has come from Indonesia but, as we have highlighted in our recent analysis, environmental concerns and stalling ore grades have started to throttle growth in the country.
The project pipeline is also heavily weighted towards mining, with new refining and downstream capacity outside dominant producing countries continuing to lag proposed mine supply.
By 2035, planned rare-earth refining capacity in diversified regions is expected to equal only around two-thirds of mine output, while magnet production would cover just one-third. Planned cathode capacity outside the dominant supplier is similarly equivalent to only about one-third of projected lithium mining capacity.
Governments support is rising, with public-finance commitments for critical-mineral value chains reaching about USD 65 billion in 2025, more than x4 levels in 2023 — however, the IEA warns a wide gap remains between announced commitments and capital actually deployed.
The investment challenge is therefore not simply to build more mines. It is to finance complete supply chains, from extraction through refining and manufacturing, while low prices, concentrated production and rising project costs continue to constrain private capital.
Subscribe for Investment Insights. Stay Ahead.
Investment market and industry insights delivered to you in real-time.
Copper is the new oil
We’re not ready for the rising needs and the infrastructure takes years to build, says Anthony Milewski for Fast Company
For most of the past decade, technology companies have had the luxury of treating raw materials as someone else’s problem.
If you were building software, cloud infrastructure, electric vehicles, or clean-energy technologies, the assumption was that the underlying materials would simply be available when needed. Supply chains weren’t perfect, but they were generally reliable. If demand increased, producers would respond. If prices rose, markets would adjust.
Among the commodities that will shape the next decade, copper deserves far more attention than it gets today. It lacks the excitement of artificial intelligence and rarely generates headlines outside the mining industry, yet it sits at the center of nearly every major technological and industrial trend underway.
The reality is straightforward: The world is preparing for a significant increase in copper consumption at the same time that bringing new supply online is becoming more difficult.
For business leaders, particularly those involved in AI infrastructure, electrification, advanced manufacturing, and energy, that should matter.
US suppliers not ready for Pentagon’s 2027 ban on China-sourced magnets and minerals
Why Geopolitics Has Overtaken Supply And Demand In Commodity Markets
Over $750 billion needed for energy mineral supply to meet demand
Copper is the new oil
China’s rare-earth restrictions push Japan to mine the Pacific seabed
China shipped no gallium, dysprosium, terbium or yttrium to Japan in June, extending an eight-month halt in shipments of critical magnet materials — pushing Japan to search for alternative rare earth sources almost six kilometres beneath the Pacific Ocean.
Exports of dysprosium and terbium oxide to Japan have remained at zero since November, Chinese customs data show. The squeeze is targeted: China’s worldwide rare-earth magnet exports rose 19% month-on-month in June to 5,649 tonnes.
Japan’s potential answer lies in rare-earth-rich mud near Minamitorishima, a remote island about 1,900 kilometres southeast of Tokyo.
Recent analysis found medium and heavy rare earths, including yttrium, gadolinium and dysprosium, made up 54% of the rare-earth content in mud recovered during a government-backed trial earlier this year.
The drilling vessel Chikyu raised about 50 tonnes of mud, excluding seawater added during extraction, from three deposits over a three-day test. Japan described it as the first continuous recovery of seabed sediment from a depth of 5,569 metres.
The deep-sea mining project plans to extract mineral resources from the ocean floor, but, for now, remains an experimental operation, not a commercial mine. This is possible as the deposit sits inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, it is outside the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority, which regulates mining beyond national waters.
Yttrium, terbium and dysprosium are rare earth elements used in heat-resistant magnets for electric vehicles, wind turbines and weapons, and in coatings that protect aircraft and power-generation turbines. Japan has the world’s largest rare-earth magnet industry outside China and, before the latest restrictions, China accounted for 80% of Japan’s rare earth imports.
Beijing introduced licensing controls on seven medium and heavy rare-earth families in April 2025. It tightened restrictions on Japan early this year after Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments about Taiwan deepened a diplomatic dispute. China says the controls protect national security and support its non-proliferation obligations.
The impact is spreading beyond specialist materials companies. More than two-thirds of almost 200 Japanese corporate filings that mentioned rare earths in May and June said the controls were hurting business or could do so, according to a recent Reuters analysis.
Tokyo plans a month-long seabed trial in February 2027, covering extraction, dewatering, transport, separation and refining. It expects to complete an economic assessment by March 2028.
Commercial supply remains years away. Operating at extreme depth, transporting material from one of Japan’s most isolated territories and rebuilding domestic separation capacity will be expensive. The government’s closed-loop lifting system is designed to limit sediment plumes, but analysis of the wider environmental effects is continuing.
Japan is therefore pursuing several routes at once: stockpiling, recycling, financing overseas producers and working with the US and other Group of Seven countries on alternative supply. A Japanese-backed processing and recycling plant in France is expected to supply dysprosium and terbium equal to about 20% of future Japanese demand.
Subscribe for Investment Insights. Stay Ahead.
Investment market and industry insights delivered to you in real-time.
China’s helium ban strengthens US grip on global supply
- China halted helium exports on July 10, with no fixed end date
- China had become a re-export hub for Russian helium, including cargoes reaching Europe
- the ban follows Russian export controls and disruption to Qatar, which supplied roughly one-third of global helium
- semiconductor, medical and aerospace buyers face higher prices and tighter allocations
China has imposed a ban on helium exports, adding another layer of state control to a market already strained by war, sanctions and highly concentrated production — with helium spot prices have roughly doubled since the Middle East conflict began.
The July 10 order from China’s Ministry of Commerce and customs authority gave no expiry date, with Beijing stating the controls will be adjusted as domestic and international supply conditions change.
China depended on imports for 84.4% of its helium supply in 2025, and is seeking to protect its domestic semiconductor, artificial intelligence and medical industries from a supply shock.
But the helium ban’s impact extends beyond China.
China is a conduit, not just a consumer
China may not be a major primary helium producer, but its importance comes from its increasing role as a trading and redistribution hub for Russian helium supply.
Russia secured more than half of China’s helium import market in 2025, with some of those lower-cost volumes subsequently re-exported across Asia and into Europe — especially important after the EU banned direct imports of Russian helium in 2024. That route is not closed.
Global helium bans and disruption
The China helium ban is the latest in a sequence of shocks to the industry:
- Qatar, responsible for close to one-third of global production, lost significant output after attacks and disruption at Ras Laffan. A partial restart has remained fragile and well below normal operating levels, especially as conflict reignites across the region
- Russia, the world’s third-largest producer, introduced controls in April requiring government approval for exports outside the Eurasian Economic Union, with the restrictions expected to run through the end of 2027
- in July 2026, China stopped exports entirely, for an unspecified period
The physical helium supply chain makes the shortage harder to solve, as it is lighter than air and very difficult to “trap” for transportation. Liquid helium must travel in scarce cryogenic containers and gradually evaporates during transport.
China’s ban does not remove anything close to Qatar’s share of primary production. Its significance is that it traps supply inside one of the world’s largest consuming markets while cutting off a redistribution channel for Russian helium.
Semiconductors and hospitals
Semiconductor manufacturers are among the most exposed to the series of bans: helium is used in wafer cooling, plasma etching, deposition, lithography support and leak detection, with few viable substitutes in the most demanding processes.
Industry executives were already reporting production and delivery impacts in March 2026.
A prolonged shortage would eventually feed into longer chip lead times, higher manufacturing costs and greater competition between semiconductor plants, MRI operators, aerospace groups, fibre-optic manufacturers and defence users.
Global helium demand is forecast to rise from 176 million cubic metres to 322 million cubic metres by 2035, driven principally by semiconductors, AI infrastructure and data centres.
The United States as the world’s largest helium producer
As we reported in our recent analysis, the global helium crisis puts the US in control of the semiconductor supply chain.
The produced about 81 million cubic metres of helium in 2025, more than 40% of estimated global output, and has the scale to redirect volumes toward premium markets.
China’s move to restrict helium exports is the clearest sign yet that this once obscure gas has become a strategic choke point. For Europe and import‑dependent Asian manufacturers, the era of abundant, freely traded helium is rapidly slipping out of reach.
Subscribe for Investment Insights. Stay Ahead.
Investment market and industry insights delivered to you in real-time.
China’s copper premium jumps fivefold as inventories collapse
China’s premium for imported copper has surged from around $20 per tonne in late January to $100 per tonne, its highest level since May 2025, according to Shanghai Metals Market.
At the same time, copper inventories monitored by the Shanghai Futures Exchange fell 20% in one week to 79,909 tonnes. Stocks are now at their lowest level since August 2025 and have dropped more than 80% from their mid-March peak.
In other words, the world’s largest copper consumer is paying its highest import premium in 14 months, with buyers paying substantially more to secure physical metal just as locally available inventories are collapsing.
The Yangshan premium measures the additional price paid to import copper into China. Unlike futures prices, it offers a direct indication of demand for deliverable metal. Its move into triple digits suggests that the physical market is significantly tighter than the headline copper price implies.
China is pulling in metal
China’s refined copper imports reached a nine-month high in June, according to Reuters.
The squeeze is partly the unintended result of Beijing’s crackdown on China’s “invoice economy.” Authorities have intensified scrutiny of circular trades in which related parties exchange metal and use the resulting tax invoices to obtain financing. Restrictions on those invoices have reduced liquidity in the scrap market, constraining supplies and forcing some consumers to substitute refined cathode.
The higher Yangshan premium does not necessarily indicate a broad acceleration in Chinese end-user demand; it may instead reflect a sudden shift from scrap to imported refined copper. But the immediate physical consequence is the same: stronger competition for cathode at a time when exchange inventories are already falling.
London stocks are heading east
The pressure is now visible outside China.
Total copper inventories in London Metal Exchange warehouses stood at 295,275 tonnes, down 24% since the end of May. Although, more than half that metal had already been earmarked for withdrawal.
Cancelled warrants reached 166,025 tonnes, leaving only around 129,000 tonnes of on-warrant copper immediately available to the market. That available stock fell by roughly 35% in a single week.
Traders report that some of the metal leaving LME warehouses is being shipped to China, where the higher import premium has made those movements increasingly attractive.
The result is a reinforcing cycle: low Chinese inventories lift import premiums, higher premiums attract metal from the LME system, and falling LME availability tightens the market further.
Copper is plentiful, but in the wrong place
The exception is the United States.
Inventories held in CME Group’s Comex warehouse system have reached a record 630,293 tonnes after eight consecutive quarterly increases. Metal has been pulled into the country as traders position for possible US import tariffs.
This has produced a sharply divided market. Inventories are accumulating in the US while falling in China and across the readily available portion of the LME system.
The issue is therefore not simply how much copper exists in exchange warehouses. It is whether that copper is available in the right form and location.
Until the US tariff position is resolved, a large volume of metal may remain effectively trapped in American warehouses while consumers elsewhere compete for a diminishing pool of supply.
Chile offers little relief
The tightening is occurring as production from Chile, the world’s largest copper-producing country, continues to disappoint:
- in its production report published on July 15, Antofagasta said copper output fell 9.5% year on year to 285,000 tonnes during the first half of 2026
- in its June-quarter report published on July 20, South32 said its attributable payable copper production from Sierra Gorda fell 10% year on year to 16,000 tonnes during the three months ended June 30, as earlier weather-related disruption restricted mine access and forced the processing of lower-grade material
Individually, the production losses remain manageable but, collectively, they reduce the market’s ability to replace the copper now being withdrawn from warehouses, just as copper’s demand stack broadens:
The physical market is moving first
LME copper traded near $13,600 per tonne on Monday July 20, approximately 9% higher since the beginning of the year. Comex copper rose to around $6.35 per pound, less than 5% below its early-June record.
Yet macroeconomic uncertainty is mitigating the futures price from fully reflecting the deterioration in physical availability, as concerns over global growth, interest rates, geopolitical tensions and US tariff policy continue to constrain investor positioning.
However, China’s import premium is telling a different story, with the move from US$20 to US$100 per tonne, alongside an 80% decline in Shanghai inventories since March, is more than routine volatility. It is a warning that consumers are competing for a smaller volume of immediately available copper.
Subscribe for Investment Insights. Stay Ahead.
Investment market and industry insights delivered to you in real-time.
Congo approves rail deal after US$753 million Lobito Corridor financing
The Democratic Republic of Congo has approved a partnership with Portugal’s Mota-Engil to rehabilitate the Congolese section of the Lobito Corridor, moving the US-backed rail project closer to the copper and cobalt mines it was built to reach.
The approval, endorsed by Congo’s government on July 10, covers a “complete rehabilitation” of the rail line linking the Angolan border with mining hubs including Kolwezi, Tenke and Lubumbashi, according to cabinet meeting minutes, with Mota-Engil and the Congolese government are negotiating a 30-year operating agreement.
The decision lands days after the US International Development Finance Corporation and Development Bank of Southern Africa reached financial close on a US$753 million package for Lobito Atlantic Railway, the concessionaire on the Angolan side. The financing includes a US$553 million, 15-year DFC senior secured loan and a US$200 million DBSA facility to upgrade the 1,300km railway from Lobito to Luau, on the DRC border, plus the mineral terminal at Lobito.
“The Lobito Corridor is fast becoming one of the most important trade routes for vital copper metal and other critical minerals required for our planet’s energy transition. The annual export capacity of the Lobito Corridor is expected to reach over 1 million tonnes within 5 years” — Robert Friedland, Founder, Ivanhoe Mines
“Reaching financial close on the Lobito Corridor Railway Project is the culmination of years of work and a defining moment for infrastructure finance in Sub-Saharan Africa. This transaction demonstrates that complex, multi-lender, cross-border project financings can be structured and successfully closed on the continent” — Nuno Gil, Founding Partner of Eaglestone
The Lobito corridor in central Africa is an ambitious project of 2,600km of railway linking copper mines in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia to Angola’s Lobito port on the Atlantic coast, with an estimated cost of $US6-8 billion.
The latest news means the railway project is moving past diplomacy to financing for the Angolan trunk line and political clearance for the Congolese link.
The copper belt in central Africa — about 450km long and 260km wide — runs from Luanshya, Zambia into the Katanga region of DRC. It is estimated to contain more than one tenth of the world’s copper deposits.
The Democratic Republic of Congo, estimated to have the seventh largest reserves of copper, overtook Peru to become the world’s second largest producer of copper in 2023. And Zambia (the ninth largest copper producer in the world and second largest producer in Africa after DRC), found “one of the world’s biggest high-grade large copper mines” earlier this year, according to KoBold Metals, a metals exploration company, who discovered the deposit and is backed by Bill Gates and Sam Altman. The country hopes to increase output to 1 million tons by 2026 and 3 million tons by 2031.
Lobito Atlantic Railway, a Trafigura and Mota-Engil venture, has operated the Angolan corridor under a 30-year concession since 2024 and moved more than 200,000 tonnes of cargo in 2025, GTR reported. Volumes are expected to rise as upgrades proceed.
The Lobito Corridor has been promoted by Washington as a trade-focused model for Africa, with US officials presenting it as a way to tie infrastructure, regional integration and critical minerals together as a counter to Chinese mining investment in the region.
The latest approvals confirm our view that, yes, the “Copper Express” will leave the station. The question is how much copper will it be carrying?
Find out more: