Albanian police use water cannons as anti-government protesters clash in Tirana

FacebookTwitter

LinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bne IntelliNews July 24, 2026

Albanian police used water cannon and pepper spray against anti-government protesters outside parliament in Tirana on July 23, before demonstrators regrouped and marched to the prime minister's office, ATA reported.

The rally was the 54th since the movement began in the coastal village of Zvërnec on May 23, driven by a luxury resort project backed by Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump at the protected Vjosa-Narta wetlands and Sazan Island. What started as an environmental dispute has become the largest sustained unrest since the fall of communism, with demonstrators now demanding Prime Minister Edi Rama's resignation.

Clashes began after protesters threw eggs, tomatoes and other objects at officers guarding the parliament building.

Demonstrators gathered in Skanderbeg Square carrying banners and calling for Rama's resignation and an end to what they described as an entrenched political establishment.

Protesters repeated demands for changes to the electoral law, repeal of the strategic investor legislation known as the Mountain Package, and amendments to laws governing protected areas and cultural heritage.

Albania amended its environmental protection law in 2024 to permit developments described as structures of excellence rated five stars or above, a change that has become central to the dispute. Rama acknowledged last month that an environmental impact assessment for the resort had not begun.

A representative of the Albanian community in Western Australia told the rally that demonstrators had the backing of Albanians abroad. Parallel protests have been held in Berlin, Rome, London, Cologne and Paris.

Several speakers urged protesters to remain united and peaceful. One demonstrator said the movement's sole objective was Rama's resignation and that the protest was not directed against the police.

The Vjosa-Narta landscape hosts more than 200 bird species, including the flamingos that gave the movement its name, along with monk seals and sea turtles.

Ian Angus on capitalism, ecosocialism and metabolic rifts

By Ian Angus & Alex Bainbridge

Published 25 July, 2026

[Editor’s note: Ian Angus will be speaking at Ecosocialism 2026, September 11-13, Magan-djin/Brisbane, Australia. For more information on the conference visit ecosocialism.org.au.]

First published at Green Left.

Climate and Capitalism editor Ian Angus joined the Green Left Show to discuss his latest book Metabolic Rifts: Capitalism’s Assault on the Earth System. The discussion covered: Metabolic Rifts (0:50); Why is capitalism to blame? (3:05); Why ecosocialism? (6:05); The importance of science (7:05); Is it too late? (9:55); Capitalism and pandemics (11:59); and Ecosocialism 2026 (15:40).

Partido Lakas ng Masa (The Philippines): Rubio out! Stop US intervention and wars! Hands off our region!

By Partido Lakas ng Masa

Published 25 July, 2026

[Editor’s note: Filipino socialist activist Khyl Ramos, from the Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM, Party of the Labouring Masses), will be speaking at Ecosocialism 2026, September 11-13, Magan-djin/Brisbane, Australia. For more information visit ecosocialism.org.au.]

First published at Ang Masa Para sa Sosyalismo.

Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM) condemns the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to the Philippines to attend a series of ASEAN meetings. Rubio does not come as a friend of the Filipino people. He is one of the principal architects of U.S. imperialist foreign policy — a leading advocate of the economic siege and the overthrow of the Cuba’s revolutionary government, genocide in Gaza, escalating US-Israel war with Iran, and the expansion of U.S. military and economic dominance across the Asia-Pacific.

Rubio arrives in the Philippines as the U.S. is escalating the war against Iran, after betraying the ceasefire agreement, with President Trump declaring they would ‘open the gates of hell’ against Iran.

Rubio bears political and moral responsibility for the genocide committed by Israel-US on the Palestinian people in Gaza — therefore considered to be a war criminal by the Palestine solidarity movement.

Rubio is a very dangerous man on a very dangerous mission to the Philippines.

His visit is another step in Washington’s drive to tighten its grip on the Philippines and integrate our country more deeply into its confrontation with China. Rubio’s visit is officially aimed at deepening the U.S.-Philippines partnership and advancing Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy against China.

For decades, Rubio has been among the loudest defenders of the criminal U.S. blockade against Cuba. He has fought every effort to normalise relations, promoted Cuba’s continued designation as a so-called “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” and championed sanctions intended to strangle the Cuban economy by cutting off access to banking, fuel, tourism and international finance. These policies have imposed immense suffering on the Cuban people while failing to achieve their declared political objectives.

Rubio has also worked to isolate Cuba internationally by pressuring governments to support Washington’s campaign against the island and oppose efforts to end the blockade.

Rubio has made it abundantly clear that his aim is to overthrow the Cuban revolution. This will result in the establishment of a regime utterly subservient to US interests.

Rubio’s record extends across Latin America and the Middle East. He has consistently backed sanctions and regime-change operations against progressive governments in Latin America and Iran — the kidnapping of President Maduro and now the U.S. representative who de facto runs the Venezuelan government.

Rubio’s aggressive and interventionist foreign policy is contributing to greater instability and the constant danger of wider wars. His politics represent the continuation of a U.S. imperialist project that seeks to preserve US global dominance through military power, economic coercion and political interference.

In the Philippines, Rubio’s mission is clear: to consolidate Washington’s military alliance with the Marcos Jr. administration. As PLM has consistently warned, visits by senior U.S. officials are designed to push for greater U.S. military access, increased troop deployments and deeper integration of the Philippines into the U.S. war machine, regardless of the interests of the Filipino people. PLM has argued that such visits “push for more U.S. troops in the country” and further trample on Philippine sovereignty.

The Marcos Jr. administration has enthusiastically embraced this agenda. Through the expansion of EDCA sites, larger Balikatan exercises, increased rotational deployment of U.S. forces and the development of the Luzon Economic Corridor, the Philippines is being locked ever more tightly into Washington’s military and economic architecture. While the Luzon Economic Corridor is promoted as an infrastructure and investment initiative, it serves the strategic objective of strengthening U.S.-aligned supply chains and military logistics in preparation for intensified U.S. intervention in the Indo-Pacific. Rather than advancing genuine national development, these policies risk transforming the Philippines into a permanent forward operating base and frontline state in the U.S. war machine.

PLM rejects the use of our country as a pawn in U.S. imperialism’s strategy. We stand in solidarity with the Cuban people in their heroic resistance to more than six decades of economic warfare and with all peoples resisting imperialist intervention.

The Filipino people deserve an independent foreign policy based on peace, national sovereignty, regional cooperation and social justice — not subservience to Washington’s geopolitical agenda.

Rubio Out!

U.S. Hands Off Iran! Stop the War!

Stop Arming Genocide in Gaza!

Stop U.S. intervention in Cuba! Lift the U.S. blockade!

Junk EDCA, the Visiting Forces Agreement, and all unequal military agreements!

Reject the militarisation of the Philippines and the Luzon Economic Corridor as instruments of U.S. strategic domination!

Fight for an independent and genuinely sovereign Philippines!

Imperyalismo Ibagsak! Down with imperialism!
Itayo ang Gobyerno ng Masa! For a Government of the Masses!

July 19, 2026

Picturing Armageddon: US Government Responses to Nuclear War Movies

A feature film based on Annie Jacobson’s terrifying non-fiction book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, is now in pre-production with Dune director Denis Villeneuve at the helm. Looking back at how previous films about nuclear Armageddon have been received may give us a glimpse of how the current administration will respond to it.


(L-R) Sumaiya Kaveh, Susanne Scheel, Paul N. J. Ottosson, Volker Bertelmann, Kirk Baxter, Jeremy Hindle, Greg Shapiro, Aminah Nieves, Kaitlyn Dever, Kyle Allen, Willa Fitzgerald, Brittany O’Grady, Brian Tee, Jonah Hauer-King, Gabriel Basso, and Tracy Letts attend a special Los Angeles screening of Netflix’s A House of Dynamite at The Egyptian Theatre Hollywood on October 9, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.
(Photo by Charley Gallay/Getty Images for Netflix)

Jeff Peck
Jul 25, 2026

Common Dreams


In the recent Netflix movie, A House of Dynamite, an intercontinental ballistic missile of unknown origin is detected streaking across the Pacific on a course that, in less than 20 minutes, will turn Chicago to ash. Efforts to shoot the missile down fail, as the ground-based interceptors, or GBIs, miss their target and, as the seconds count down, the president, played by Idris Elba, has only seven minutes to decide how to respond. The consequences of his decision, which the film leaves open, could mean the end of human civilization and even most life on Earth.

What was the official response to the film? A week before it streamed, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) produced a memo attacking the film’s credibility. America’s GBIs, they said, are much more accurate than portrayed in the movie, with a 100% success rate. (The Center for Arms control puts that figure at 55% in carefully controlled tests.) And an article published by the West Point-based Modern War Institute argues that the film’s premise is flawed since no adversary would launch just a single missile at the United States.

It was also judged illogical that the president’s choices were limited to “surrender” or “suicide”—the latter meaning all-out nuclear war. The country could absorb the loss (meaning the 10 million inhabitants of Chicago) and respond only after the missile’s source had been determined. Finally, as the MDA memo helpfully pointed out, the plot of A House of Dynamite is “fictional” and “intended for the entertainment of the audience.” In other words, it’s just another disaster movie.

These themes are not new to governmental pronouncements on films about nuclear war. In the 1959 feature On the Beach, Gregory Peck plays the captain of a submarine that is America’s last surviving naval vessel as it docks in Melbourne, Australia after the entire Northern Hemisphere has been wiped out in a nuclear war—and a cloud of deadly radioactive fallout is inexorably making its way south. After a brief stay and with the inevitability of death by radiation poisoning, the crew votes to return to the US and die at home.

Which way will the Trump administration go in response to Nuclear War: A Scenario the movie? If the film is faithful to the book, it should have an even more devastating impact than The Day After.

Two weeks before the film’s worldwide release, the United States Information Agency produced an “Infoguide” stating that the film was “highly fictionalized and contains scientific inaccuracies.” It argued that, because fallout diminishes rapidly, it would only affect countries directly attacked or those nearby. Moreover, shelters and decontamination measures were effective against fallout and, as far away as the Southern Hemisphere, “if any protection at all were needed, an ordinary basement would suffice.” A later Infoguide reporting on the premier noted: “Most critics review [the] film as pure drama and there has been little emphasis on social and political significance.” In other words, no big deal.

Five years later, in 1964, Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, starring Peters Sellers in three different roles, was released. In this dark comedy, a psychotic Air Force General orders the B-52 bombers under his command to attack the Soviet Union, sparking a concerted but unsuccessful effort by the president and his advisers to recall the planes. As a single B-52 gets through and the plane’s pilot rides a nuclear bomb down to its target, it is revealed that the Soviets have a yet-to-be announced “Doomsday Machine” that, upon the country being struck by a nuclear weapon, will automatically trigger the detonation of a massive array of cobalt bombs whose radiation will render the Earth uninhabitable for a century.

Although obviously a farce, the film was panned as “juvenile, offensive, and inaccurate.” As reported in The New Yorker: “An expert at the Institute for Strategic Studies called the events in the film ‘impossible on a dozen counts.’ A former Deputy Secretary of Defense dismissed the idea that someone could authorize the use of a nuclear weapon without the President’s approval: ‘Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth.’” (These assertions are in doubt following the disclosure of the policy of “pre-delegation,” in force at the time, which gave authority to commanders to deploy nuclear weapons in circumstances where the president could not be reached.)

Two decades later, in the feature film Wargames, Matthew Broderick plays a teenager who successfully hacks into the Pentagon’s supercomputer. Unwittingly, he mistakes its nuclear war command and control function for a computer game—and nearly triggers global thermonuclear war.

This time, the government response was quite different. After viewing the film, President Ronald Reagan asked his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff if something like that could really happen. After a review, the president was told that, not only was the premise of the film realistic, “the problem is much worse than you think.” Fifteen months later, National Security Directive NSD-145 was issued, launching a sweeping governmental effort to improve cybersecurity.

Later in 1983, the television movie The Day After, which reached a record-breaking 100 million viewers, was the first American film to attempt a realistic depiction of the aftermath of a nuclear attack on an American city. The story revolves around a doctor, played by Jason Robards, as he tries to deal with the horrific effects of blast, fire, and radiation on the citizens of Lawrence, Kansas—targeted because of its nearby nuclear missile silos.

In this case, the response was mixed. The White House initially discouraged the making of the film. The Pentagon urged—unsuccessfully—to have the script make clear that the Soviets fired first and later refused to allow the filmmakers to use stock footage of real nuclear detonations. Henry Kissinger criticized the film as “simple minded” and in danger of leading the country to “make policy by scaring ourselves to death.” But the film’s graphic portrayal of the effects on the population of an American city could not be dismissed as easily as some of its predecessors, and Reagan wrote in his diary, “It’s very effective & left me greatly depressed.” It has been argued that the film influenced him to soften his Cold War rhetoric and to meet with Mikhael Gorbachev in Iceland in 1986, where the complete abolition of nuclear weapons was discussed. Unfortunately, that meeting ended without agreement; however, a year later, subsequent negotiations led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which resulted in the elimination of a whole class of nuclear weapons.

Which way will the Trump administration go in response to Nuclear War: A Scenario the movie? If the film is faithful to the book, it should have an even more devastating impact than The Day After. With today’s sophisticated special effects, it will, no doubt, create hyperrealistic imagery and make the absolute absurdity of nuclear war manifest. But will the administration call it unrealistic, inaccurate, alarmist or just fiction, as with On the Beach, Doctor Strangelove, or A House of Dynamite? Or will they see it as a prompt to take this existential threat seriously and move to reduce or eliminate the world’s nuclear stockpiles?

Regardless of the response, the movie should motivate us all to work to build a constituency for change in order to end the madness and build a saner world.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jeff Peck
Dr. Jeff Peck is a film and television writer and producer and has taught film history at universities in America and Australia.
Full Bio >

Insurers Flock to Oil Projects Outside the Middle East

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Jul 23, 2026

• Global insurers are slashing premiums by up to 50% for upstream oil and gas projects outside the Middle East as companies shift investment away from war-exposed regions.
• 
  
• Big Oil is accelerating exploration and development in lower-risk basins including Guyana, Namibia, Brazil, Nigeria, Venezuela, Turkey, and Cyprus to reduce geopolitical exposure.
• 
  
• Strong oil prices and the search for secure supply are driving a new wave of global upstream investment, with insurers competing aggressively for business outside the Gulf.
• 
  

Global insurers had just shaken off the ESG push from earlier this decade when the Middle East conflict upended oil and gas upstream project coverage.

The world’s lowest-cost oil and gas producing region became a war zone at the end of February, with war-risk premiums and oil and gas drilling and construction projects facing either delays or significant cost inflation.  

Five months of uncertainties about new oil and gas projects in the Middle East have prompted insurance giants to turn to underwriting drilling and project construction ventures outside the prolific but highly volatile region.

And the race is on for attracting insurance business in oil and gas basins less exposed to geopolitical flare-ups. Insurers are slashing premiums on upstream energy insurance for projects not depending on the on-and-off closed Strait of Hormuz and other chokepoints in the Middle East.

Insurers Compete for Underwriting Projects Outside Middle East

Premiums for upstream energy insurance outside the Middle East have tumbled by about 25% year to date, insurance brokers told the Financial Times.

In some cases, some insurers have slashed the premiums by as much as 50%, even at a short-term loss, according to industry insiders who spoke to FT. 

The reason is clear—as oil and gas companies boost exposure to basins and projects outside the Middle East, insurers are competing for a market share of the now-shrunk global pool of upstream developments that are not in an active war zone.

“Upstream [energy] has been a very profitable sector for the market for a number of years,” Rupert Mackenzie, a natural resources insurance broker at WTW, told FT.

“The view from insurers is, this is a sector which they would like to have ongoing exposure,” the broker added.

Mackenzie’s colleagues at WTW said in an April report, Energy Market Review 2026, that “ratings are ‘through the floor’”.

This year, “15–20% reductions are available for core upstream risks with clean loss histories and substantial premium on the slip, with 40%+ reductions still observed in exceptional cases,” WTW said in its annual report published a month and a half after the Iran war began

“The overarching pricing trend is unmistakable: even after a decade of softening, the market is still finding new downward territory,” according to WTW.

The Iran war and the Middle East becoming an active war zone have pushed the world’s biggest international oil and gas firms to pursue upstream projects away from the region, Mackenzie told FT.

Big Oil Firms Double Down on Exploration Far From Middle East

Amid the Middle East conflict, Big Oil firms are trying to minimize losses on curtailed production and barrels not lifted because of the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

And they are betting on high-impact exploration and upstream projects in hotspots such as Guyana, Suriname, Namibia, Brazil, Turkey, and Cyprus, to name a few.

Exxon and Chevron are doubling down on the billions of barrels of crude oil discovered offshore Guyana. Separately, Chevron is boosting its business in Venezuela, where the Trump Administration hopes U.S. firms would increase production and oil exports to the United States.

Exxon, for its part, expects to invest billions of U.S. dollars in Nigeria’s deepwater oil and gas fields. Exxon is progressing the $7-$8 billion billion-barrel Owowo deepwater project offshore Nigeria, “looking into an FID as early as next year,” Hunter Farris, Senior Vice President – Deepwater for ExxonMobil Upstream Company, said in April.

That’s only one of Exxon’s new projects in Africa’s top oil producer, which has raised its crude oil sales in Asia in recent months as refiners reel from the shock supply loss from the Middle East.

ExxonMobil’s subsidiary in Nigeria and its partners earlier this month committed $1 billion to the on-block activities for the Usan Infill Project in OML 138. The project will unlock 40,000 additional barrels of crude oil in 18 months. It also “signifies renewed interest and hope in Nigeria being Esso’s first major deep water project in the country since 2016,” the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) said in early July.

Elsewhere, BP in April bought into three offshore exploration blocks in Namibia, one of the hottest exploration destinations, where Shell, TotalEnergies, and Galp have already made large oil discoveries.

TotalEnergies in April signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortakl??? (TPAO) to evaluate exploration opportunities in the Black Sea region and internationally.

Companies are also increasingly looking at shale opportunities outside the U.S., with Argentina, China, Turkey, and Australia drawing interest for potential development of onshore resources far away from the Middle East. 

Oil and gas exploration has created a lot of value for the industry in recent years.

The industry created $54 billion of value after deducting $97 billion of spend on exploration from 2021 to 2025, under a long-term Brent price of $65 per barrel, an analysis by energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie showed in April.  

At $85 per barrel Brent, value creation more than doubles to $120 billion, according to WoodMac.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

 

BHP, Port Hedland union make progress, talks to resume next week

Reuters | July 21, 2026 |

Image courtesy of  Pilbara Ports Authority

BHP and unions representing workers at Western Australia’s Port Hedland, the world’s largest iron ore export hub, edged closer to a deal on Tuesday, though talks ended without an agreement and will resume next week, the union said.

Port Hedland is a major artery for Australia’s iron ore, through which $80 million of BHP’s products transit each day.

“Some progress was made, though no agreement was reached,” said the Combined Ports Unions in a statement. “We will continue negotiations for a safe, fair and productive iron ore industry on 28 July.”

Progress in the discussions suggests a lower chance that fresh industrial action will be announced before next Tuesday.

The world’s largest-listed miner has been in negotiations for more than seven months with unions representing around 450 operators and maintenance workers for a four-year enterprise agreement.

Last week, “well over” 100 workers at its Port Hedland iron ore operations downed tools for an eight-hour stoppage on Thursday, according to a union estimate. Combined Ports Unions, which represents three unions, had previously estimated as many as 200 workers would join the action.

“Our focus remains on making constructive progress towards fair and reasonable agreements,” BHP said earlier in a statement.

“We are committed to continuing to bargain in good faith on new workplace agreements across our iron ore operations and believe that the involvement of the independent Fair Work Commission for Port bargaining is the most constructive way to achieve the best outcome.”

The Fair Work Commission is an industry regulator that can be brought in to assist in the bargaining process and can ultimately become the final arbiter of any deal.

“It hasn’t seemed to have disrupted operations too much at the moment,” said portfolio manager Andy Forster of Argo Investments, which holds BHP shares.

“It’s clearly concerning if it starts to lead to further action and more interruptions,” he said, adding that for now, any impact appeared to be contained, and that BHP appeared hopeful an agreement could be reached.

The Electrical Trades Union, which represents electrical workers at Pilbara port, estimated that on average it was asking for an extra A$25,000 ($17,510) per worker for the 450 workers.

Fly-in-fly-out roles, where workers commute by plane to remote mine sites, missing family time, could no longer compete with city conditions, the ETU said in a statement. “In the past, workers could double Perth wages if they worked in the Pilbara … This is no longer the case.”

Its analysis found that wages for long-standing employees across BHP’s iron ore operations remained largely stagnant over the last five to six years, despite consistent corporate growth and rising living costs in regional and remote areas.

“In contrast, new hires are being offered higher rates to attract them to site, often creating a two-tiered workforce where experience is undervalued and equity is undermined,” it said.

Last week, electricians maintaining BHP’s high-voltage power network in Western Australia’s Pilbara region overwhelmingly backed strike action, escalating labour unrest. They will meet with BHP for talks on Thursday.

($1 = 1.4278 Australian dollars)

(By Melanie Burton; Editing by Thomas Derpinghaus and Jacqueline Wong)

 

China’s rare earth clampdown backfired: CSIS analyst 

Staff Writer | July 21, 2026 | 

CSIS critical minerals expert Gracelin Baskaran. (Image courtesy of MINING.COM.)

China’s decision to weaponize rare earth exports has accelerated the international cooperation that could ultimately weaken its grip on the sector, according to the head of the critical minerals security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The export restrictions extended beyond the US to Japan, the European Union, Australia and South Korea, prompting governments to coordinate investments in mining, processing and manufacturing outside China, Gracelin Baskaran told MINING.COM anchor Devan Murugan on Top of Mine.

She pointed to a February meeting convened by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that brought together representatives from 55 countries for what she called the largest State Department ministerial focused solely on critical minerals. Malaysia has also become the first country outside China to separate heavy rare earths, with more projects expected to follow.

“China certainly retains leverage now, but that leverage will only go down,” Baskaran said.

China still controls about 90% of global heavy rare earth separation and produces roughly 93% of the world’s permanent magnets, leaving governments racing to build alternative supply chains. Baskaran said Beijing’s restrictions have encouraged unprecedented collaboration among allies, making long-term diversification more likely even if China remains dominant in the near term.

Two chokepoints

The United States faces two major challenges despite being a significant rare earth producer.

Baskaran said US deposits are dominated by light rare earths, forcing Washington to secure heavy rare earth supplies through partnerships with projects in countries including Brazil, Angola and Australia. At the same time, the US is attempting to develop mines, separation facilities and magnet manufacturing simultaneously after China banned exports of rare earth processing technology in 2023, requiring domestic producers to develop expertise while constructing new plants.

“We are flying the plane as we build it,” Baskaran said.

Rather than seeking complete independence from China, Baskaran argued the objective should be resilience. She said reducing China’s share of heavy rare earth separation from about 90% to roughly half would leave the US and its allies far less vulnerable to future export restrictions. That thinking underpins a G7 agreement reached in France last month under which members aim to source no more than 60% of their rare earths from any single non-G7 country by 2030.

The Pentagon has already backed that strategy by taking a 49% equity stake in a planned Saudi Arabian rare earth refinery while supporting domestic processing through MP Materials (NYSE: MP) and projects being advanced by Lynas (ASX: LYC) and Alkane Resources (ASX: ALK). Baskaran said the remaining gaps are securing sufficient heavy rare earth feedstock and expanding magnet manufacturing, warning that neither mines nor processing plants are viable without the other.

Japan’s lesson

Japan offers the clearest example of how long diversification can take.

China halted rare earth exports to Japan during a 2010 territorial dispute, forcing Tokyo to rethink its supply chains. Since then, Japan has acquired a 50% stake in Namibia’s Lofdal rare earth project, financed Lynas’s Malaysian separation facility and begun piloting deep-sea rare earth mining this year. Even so, it remains China’s largest importer of permanent magnets.

The experience illustrates that rebuilding integrated supply chains takes years rather than political cycles. Baskaran said China’s dominance stems from controlling every stage of the value chain, not simply mining or processing, meaning companies pursuing only one segment risk being left behind.

“A mine without a processing facility is a stranded asset,” Baskaran said. “A processing facility without a manufacturer to buy that is a stranded asset.”

 

Lynas shares fall to five-month low after revenue miss

Bloomberg News | July 21, 2026 | 

(Image courtesy of Lynas.)

Lynas Rare Earths Ltd. shares dropped to a five-month low after Australia’s largest rare earths producer reported quarterly sales that missed analysts’ expectations.

Revenue increased 9% to A$288.9 million ($202 million) in the fourth quarter, according to an exchange filing Wednesday, below the A$391 million average of analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Rare earth sales volumes declined during the three-month period.

Lynas shares slumped as much as 9.1% to A$14.51, the lowest since early February, before paring some losses. That compares with a marginal gain in the benchmark S&P/ASX 200 Index.

The Perth-based miner — one of only two major producers of rare earths outside China — rallied to the highest level in 14 years in April. Lynas shares have steadily retreated over the past few months as a standoff eased between the US and China over critical minerals.

Lynas is also facing scrutiny in Malaysia over a deal to supply rare earth oxides to the Pentagon. The miner operates a massive refinery in Malaysia that helps it produce essential magnet metals that make up the backbone of modern technology.

Lynas reported rare earths oxide production of 3,481 tons, an increase from the prior quarter, although sales volume for the oxide declined, the filing said.

Production of neodymium and praseodymium, which combine to make powerful magnets used in everything from aircraft to headphones, came in at 1,857 tons, declining from the previous quarter.

(By Carmeli Argana)

AU

China’s gold imports surge after international prices slump

Bloomberg News | July 24, 2026 |

Shanghai Gold Exchange. Credit: J Lian | Flickr under Creative Commons licence CC BY 2.0

Chinese gold imports rose to a two-year high in June, underscoring resilient demand in the world’s biggest bullion market after a plunge in international prices. 

Overseas purchases rose a third month to about 173 tons, according to the latest customs data, the highest mark since March 2024. Cheaper prices and a stronger yuan kept investors interested, while banks were motivated to use up import quotas and stock up on bullion to meet retail commitments.  

“Investors buying the dip is an important driver of recent demand,” said Zijie Wu, an analyst at Jinrui Futures Co. “Commercial banks need to build up their inventories to provide the physical backing for retail bullion sales and gold accumulation plans, as well as preserving some safety reserve for when demand spikes.”

Accumulation plans are offered by numerous banks and allow individuals to pick up gold in small increments. They’re one of the main ways for Chinese retail investors to gain exposure to bullion.

Bullion-backed exchange traded funds, another popular investment, have also seen net inflows of around 28 tons this year, according to a tally by the Shanghai Gold Exchange.

Banks hold licenses to import gold based on strictly controlled quotas given out irregularly by the People’s Bank of China. Imports were also likely lifted by a new licensing regime from June 1, which would have encouraged banks to exhaust existing quotas.

Some banks may have booked shipments before June, but the gold wouldn’t have registered until later because of the time required for financing, transportation and customs paperwork, said Wu. 

The domestic premium on gold that has persisted for most of the first half means that it’s cheaper for banks to procure bullion from the international market, he said.

(By Yihui Xie)

Newmont eyes 5M-ounce boost from Lihir gold mine

Cecilia Jamasmie | July 24, 2026 

Lihir mine, in Papua New Guinea’s New Ireland Province. (Image courtesy of Newmont.)

Newmont (NYSE: NEM)(TSX: NGT) expects a nearshore barrier at its Lihir mine in Papua New Guinea to unlock more than 5 million ounces of gold beginning in 2028, as the world’s largest gold producer reaffirmed its 2026 production guidance after reporting record quarterly free cash flow.

Chief executive Natascha Viljoen said the company remains on track to meet its full-year guidance after producing 1.3 million oz. of gold, 17,000 tonnes of copper and 7 million oz. of silver in the second quarter. 

Cash flow from operations reached $2.9 billion after working capital, while free cash flow climbed to a quarterly record of $2.2 billion.

“We delivered a strong second quarter and remain on track to achieve our full year 2026 guidance,” Viljoen said in a conference call commenting on second quarter results.

Newmont returned about $1.9 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases since its previous earnings call, including buybacks completed in July. The company has now repurchased more than 100 million shares since launching the program just over two years ago.

Chief financial officer Brian Tabolt said adjusted EBITDA totalled $3.8 billion and adjusted net income reached $2.10 a share, supported by an average realized gold price of $4,414 per ounce. Gold all-in sustaining costs were $1,621 per ounce, below the company’s full-year guidance of $1,680 per ounce, although Tabolt warned sustaining capital spending is expected to rise by about $150 million in the third quarter, pushing unit costs moderately higher.

Growth pipeline

Management highlighted progress across several growth projects, including regulatory approvals for the Red Chris block cave project in British Columbia, Canada, which is advancing toward a feasibility study and a board investment decision.

At Cadia in Australia, production resumed from the operating caves in mid-June following an April seismic event, with no impact expected on full-year production guidance.

The company’s long-term growth outlook also hinges on a pipeline that includes Ahafo North, Cerro Negro, Tanami, Boddington and the Lihir nearshore barrier, which the company identified as key drivers of future production growth.

Viljoen told analysts the company was “quite positive and encouraged” by operational improvements at Lihir, citing greater mining stability, improved reliability and lower costs.

Investor concerns

The update comes as investors continue to scrutinize inflation, project capital costs and regulatory risks. Analysts pressed management on oil prices, Ghana policy uncertainty and expected cost increases at Red Chris, where Viljoen acknowledged capital spending will likely exceed estimates prepared under Newcrest.

She also said discussions with Barrick (TSX: ABX)(NYSE: B) over Nevada Gold Mines remain unresolved, while Newmont expects to revisit its approach to multi-year guidance early next year.

 

Gold miner Cadillac, backers raise $273 million in Canada IPO

Bloomberg News | July 24, 2026 | 

Stock image.

Cadillac Mines Corp. and some of its backers raised C$385 million ($273 million) in an upsized initial public offering, adding to the mining-driven rebound of listing activity in Canada.

The Toronto-based mineral exploration company priced the common shares at C$6.90 each and special flow-through shares at C$9.52 apiece, according to a statement late Thursday. It raised about C$190 million in gross proceeds, while the selling shareholders raised roughly C$173 million. 

The company sold 18.8 million shares and 6.3 million flow-through shares, the statement showed. The holders sold 28.2 million common shares, increased from 25.1 million.

 

Agnico bets $60M more on stake in Lassonde-backed Cadillac in Abitibi

Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd. had agreed to buy 8.7 million shares in a concurrent private placement for around C$60 million. The deal is set to increase Agnico Eagle’s stake in Cadillac to about 11%, up from 9.7%, a separate statement showed.

The company is one of Cadillac’s existing shareholders and entered into a royalty agreement in 2023, the preliminary prospectus shows. Franco-Nevada Corp., whose co-founder Pierre Lassonde is Cadillac’s chairman, also agreed a royalty deal at that time.

Cadillac holds claims to property in Ontario where its main Kerr-Addison gold mine is located, as well as Quebec, according to the preliminary prospectus. The mining firm is the latest in a growing Canadian listing pipeline of metals-based listings that also includes BG Gold Capital II Corp. and Amapa Minerals Holdings Inc., which announced the pricing of its IPO on Friday and expects to raise C$140 million. 

The offering adds to activity in Canada’s equity capital markets, which have seen $1.81 billion of IPOs this year, excluding blank-check firms and other financial vehicles, up from just $9.3 million of deals in the same period in 2025, data compiled by Bloomberg show. 

Also on Friday, Amapa Minerals Holdings Inc. raised C$140 million in its Toronto IPO. Shares are expected to begin trading July 27.

Bank of Montreal, National Bank of Canada and Stifel Financial Corp. led Cadillac’s IPO. The shares are expected to trade Friday on a when-issued basis on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol CADY.

By Stephanie Hughes