It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
The unit of Zijin Mining Group (HKG: 2899) will purchase existing mainland-listed shares and newly issued Hong Kong shares, lifting its interest to nearly 26% and securing effective control with full financial consolidation, the companies said. Chifeng sold about 14.4 tonnes of gold last year from operations in China, Ghana and Laos, compared with Zijin Gold’s 46.6 tonnes.
Zijin will assume operational control of Chifeng, “further solidifying its position as China’s top gold miner,” Bloomberg Intelligence analysts said in a note on Monday. They added the target will benefit from improved efficiency under Zijin’s management.
The deal follows Zijin Gold’s C$5.5 billion ($4 billion) acquisition of Allied Gold (TSX, NYSE: AAUC) and reflects a broader push by Chinese miners to expand output and secure overseas assets amid strong bullion prices and constrained global supply.
Zijin Gold and other Chinese bullion miners including Shandong Gold Mining are poised to outperform global peers after a record 2025, driven by higher prices and rising production, even as gold retreats more than 10% from late-February highs above $5,000 an ounce.
Ongoing geopolitical tensions and safe-haven demand continue to underpin the market, while international rivals face declining output and thinner project pipelines.
Thursday, March 12, 2026
CRIMINAL MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M
Ticketmaster parent execs privately laugh over price-gouging: 'These people are so stupid'
Vancouver, CANADA - Dec 3 2022 : Twitter account of popular US singer-songwriter Taylor Swift in Twitter website seen in iPhone on Live Nation logo background. (Photo: Koshiro K/Shutterstock)
Newly revealed internal communications show a pair of executives at entertainment venue giant Live Nation laughing about how much they are able to gouge people for concert tickets.
"In a series of chats from 2022, Ben Baker and Jeff Weinhold, two regional directors of ticketing for Live Nation amphitheaters, boasted about their ability to raise so-called 'ancillary fees' – like parking, lawn chair rentals and VIP access – and still get concertgoers to pay for them," reported Bloomber News. "In one exchange, Weinhold gloated about raising VIP parking costs at a Virginia concert venue to $250. 'These people are so stupid. I almost feel bad taking advantage of them,' Baker wrote, adding later, 'I gouge them on ancil prices.' In another exchange, he bragged about charging '$50 to park in the grass' and '$60 for closer grass.'"
“Robbing them blind, baby, that’s how we do it,” Baker wrote.
Live Nation has been accused in a series of lawsuits of holding a monopoly over venues, that squeezes both performers and ticketholders alike — resulting in people being charged hundreds or thousands of dollars more than reasonable to see concerts, shows, and performances around the country. They also own the booking platform Ticketmaster, which has infamously hiked booking fees to higher and higher levels over the years, and can often be the only way to book tickets for Live Nation owned venues. The fiasco surrounding tickets for Taylor Swift's Eras Tour brought many of these issues into national focus.
This comes as the Trump administration Justice Department's antitrust division reached a settlement with Live Nation, which requires them to pay $200 million to several states, allow third-party sellers access to Ticketmaster, limit their exclusivity agreements, divest 10 of its amphitheaters, and cap service fees for amphitheater tickets to 15 percent of ticket price.
This settlement has been rejected by over two dozen state attorneys general as inadequate to resolve Live Nation's monopoly power, since it doesn't require Ticketmaster to be divested altogether, and state-level litigation is expected to continue.
Live Nation has reached a tentative settlement with the Justice Department in the antitrust case brought against the US entertainment giant - Copyright AFP/File Giuseppe CACACE
Live Nation reached a tentative settlement with the US Justice Department on Monday in the federal antitrust case brought against the entertainment giant, a senior official said.
The settlement, which still requires the approval of a judge, comes just days after the start of an antitrust trial against Live Nation in New York.
The case was initiated under then-president Joe Biden when the Justice Department labeled Live Nation a monopolist that controlled virtually all live entertainment in the United States.
The settlement requires Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, to open up the ticketing platform to competitors and to allow other concert promotors to stage events at certain Live Nation venues, the official said.
Live Nation will also divest up to 13 amphitheaters and pay $280 million in damages to the nearly 40 states that were parties to the antitrust lawsuit against the California-based company.
New York and a number of other states declined to join the settlement, however, and said Monday that their litigation would continue.
“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
“The settlement recently announced with the US Department of Justice fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers,” James said in a statement.
“We will keep fighting this case without the federal government so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly.”
Live Nation is a behemoth in its industry: in 2025 it organized more than 55,000 events worldwide, drawing 159 million attendees.
Beyond promotion, it holds stakes in 460 venues and, since 2010, has controlled Ticketmaster, the world’s leading ticket seller.
The Justice Department had accused Live Nation of abusing its dominant position to pressure artists and venues into signing with it, stifle competition, and impose excessive fees on fans.
The Trump administration’s decision to press forward with the case against Live Nation had surprised many observers, who had interpreted last month’s resignation of Justice Department competition chief Gail Slater as a sign the case would be dropped.
‘While No One’s Looking,’ Trump DOJ Settles Antitrust Case With Live Nation-Ticketmaster
“This settlement is the clearest sign yet that this administration serves big business, not the people.”
The Ticketmaster logo appears on a smartphone screen in the Apple app store on on March 6, 2026. (Photo by Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Trump Justice Department on Monday reportedly reached a tentative deal with Live Nation—the owner of Ticketmaster—to settle a Biden-era antitrustlawsuit that aimed to break up the company, accusing it of illegally monopolizing the live entertainment industry.
News of the settlement, which would not require a breakup of Live Nation, came days after the trial began, with a lawyer for the Trump Justice Department’s decimated antitrust division saying last week that the company abuses its market power and earns its massive profits “through illegal action.” The antitrust division’s counsel in the case, David Dahlquist, was apparently not made aware of the settlement until he appeared in court Monday morning.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said it is “highly unorthodox for the Justice Department’s lead litigator to be left out of the loop on the settlement and highly prejudicial to the jury’s deliberations.”
“According to every observer, this trial was already going well for the Justice Department and states,” said Hepner. “They had just won summary judgment and a jury had already heard evidence of Live Nation’s longstanding pattern of retaliation against venues who had attempted to open the market to competition. State AGs are once again left to clean up the mess left by this Administration’s incompetence.”
Under the settlement, which must be approved by a judge, Live Nation “would pay a fine of up to $280 million and divest itself of at least 13 amphitheaters across the country as it opens up its ticketing processes so that competitors can share in the sale of tickets,” the Associated Press reported.
The National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), a trade group representing thousands of independent live entertainment venues, festivals, and promoters, noted in a statement that the reported $280 million settlement amount “is the equivalent of four days of [Live Nation’s] 2025 revenue, which means they could potentially make it back by this Friday.”
“The reported settlement does not appear to include any specific and explicit protections for fans, artists, or independent venues and festivals,” said Stephen Parker, NIVA’s executive director. “Reported details also indicate that ticket resale platforms could be further empowered through new requirements for Ticketmaster to host their listings, which would likely exacerbate the price gouging potential for predatory resellers and the platforms that serve them.”
“If these facts are true,” Parker added, “NIVA views this as a failure of the justice system.”
The antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation was filed in 2024 after a nearly two-year investigation launched amid mounting public outrage aimed at Ticketmaster, spurred in part by its botched presale of Taylor Swift concert tickets in 2022. Then-President Joe Biden’s Justice Department filed the complaint in partnership with 30 state attorneys general, most of whom vowed Monday to continue the fight without the Trump administration’s support.
“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “My office has led a bipartisan group of attorneys general in suing Live Nation for taking advantage of fans, venues, and artists, and we are committed to holding Live Nation accountable.”
The settlement deal comes weeks after Gail Slater, the former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust arm, was pushed out by DOJ leadership. Prior to Slater’s removal, Live Nation executives and lobbyists had reportedly been negotiating the terms of a possible settlement with senior Justice Department officials outside of the antitrust office, heightening corruption concerns.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, said in a statement that “this settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist that tinkers around the edges of the real problem: Live Nation’s monopoly.”
“Instead of breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, Live Nation will now get to continue forcing the vast majority of live venues to use Ticketmaster,” said Peterson-Cassin. “Following the ousting of Gail Slater and the gutting of the government’s antitrust enforcement capabilities, this settlement is the clearest sign yet that this administration serves big business, not the people.”
Sunday, January 25, 2026
AU
Poland has more gold than the European Central Bank and has no intention of slowing down
The National Bank of Poland has increased its bullion reserves to around 550 tonnes, valued at more than €63 billion.
The President of the National Bank of Poland (NBP), Adam Glapiński, has emphasised for years that gold plays a special role in the structure of reserves.
It is an asset free of credit risk, independent of the monetary policy decisions of other countries and is resistant to financial shocks.
High gold reserves also contribute to the stability of the Polish economy.
The bank's ambitions are far-reaching: the target is to have 700 tonnes of gold and the total value of bullion reserves to be around PLN 400 billion (€94 billion).\\
As recently as 2024, gold accounted for 16.86% of Poland's foreign exchange reserves. Estimates at the end of December 2025 showed a jump to 28.22%, marking one of the fastest changes in the structure of reserves among central banks worldwide.
The largest transactions were carried out in the final months of 2025, during a period of heightened market volatility and geopolitical tensions.
Poland is steadily increasing its gold reserves.Euronews/Paweł Głogowski
On the initiative of Glapiński, the NBP's management board has decided to further strategically increase the share of gold.
Glapiński announced earlier in January that he would ask the board to adopt a resolution to increase reserves to 700 tonnes of bullion.
Investing in gold
According to analyses by the World Gold Council, 2025 brought a continuation of the global trend of gold accumulation by central banks. With few exceptions, most countries increased their holdings, treating bullion as a strategic hedge against currency and financial crises.
In 2025, as many as 95% of central banks surveyed expect global gold holdings to increase over the next twelve months.
The reasons why central banks invest in gold are explained by Marta Bassani-Prusik, director of investment products and foreign exchange values at the Mint of Poland.
A worker lays out one kilogram gold cast bars at the ABC Refinery in Sydney, 30 April, 2025 AP Photo
"One of the key motivators for central banks is the independence of the gold price from monetary policy and credit risk. Equally important is asset diversification and reducing the share of the dollar and other currencies in reserves," she explains.
Experts point out that not all central banks report the full scale of their purchases. China or Russia are often pointed to in this context. Some market observers interpret these actions as part of preparations for an alternative money model, in which gold could play a much greater role than before.
More gold than the ECB
The information that Poland now holds more gold than the European Central Bank (ECB) is not only symbolic. The ECB manages the monetary policy of the eurozone, but its own gold reserves are relatively limited and the burden of owning bullion lies mainly with the national banks of the member countries.
The ECB's gold reserves amount to around 506.5 tonnes. Against this background, the scale of the NBP's holdings - 550 tonnes - is impressive and strengthens Poland's position in the European financial architecture.
However, critics of the NBP's extensive acquisition of gold point out that the funds earmarked for the purchase could be placed in bonds, which generate interest income. Indeed, gold does not provide current income.
The US Depository at Fort Knox opened for inspection for members of Congress, 24 September, 1974 AP Photo
Record prices and forecasts for 2026
The NBP's purchases have coincided with historic records for gold prices. Although the rate of listing growth may slow down in 2026, forecasts from major financial institutions remain optimistic. ING estimates an average price of around $4,150 per ounce, Deutsche Bank says $4,450 and Goldman Sachs raises its forecast to $4,900. In a scenario of strong global demand, J.P. Morgan allows for as much as $5,300 per ounce.
"Rising demand from central banks is a response to economic tensions and dynamic geopolitical changes. Although institutional purchases do not directly translate into prices, they indirectly influence the decisions of individual investors," Bassani-Prusik emphasises.
Relate
Gold returns to the favour of investors
For the NBP, gold is an element of the country's long-term financial security strategy.
As Mint of Poland experts note, the greater the uncertainty in the markets, the greater the interest in assets perceived as a "safe haven." There is also a growing awareness among retail investors of the role of gold in long-term capital protection.
However, some economists oppose this thesis and feel that a high proportion of gold may not meet the needs of flexible reserve management in a modern economy and funds could be better allocated in other, more productive investments.
Reaching 550 tonnes is an important milestone, but announcements of further purchases suggest that Poland has not yet said its last word. In a world of rising geopolitical tensions and a changing financial order, gold is once again becoming one of the key assets and Poland wants to be at the forefront of this game.
Nevada Gold Mines is a joint venture between Barrick and Newmont. (Image courtesy of Barrick Mining.)
Canadian miner Barrick’s efforts to spin off its North American assets will hinge on the company’s joint venture partner Newmont, according to documents seen by Reuters and former Barrick executives that demonstrate a reversal of fortunes for two global mining companies.
Denver-based Newmont’s power over Barrick’s strategy is a significant change from a few years ago when the Canadian miner had hoped to buy Newmont’s minority stake in the Nevada mines. A decade earlier, Barrick tried to acquire Newmont.
Newmont has the first right of refusal if Barrick tries to sell its stake in Nevada Gold Mines (NGM), the company’s main North American asset, the documents show. Barrick owns 61.5% and Newmont 38.5% in the mine.
Barrick’s proposed initial public offering of North American assets includes NGM, Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic and the underdeveloped Fourmile mine, also in Nevada.
In filings made with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the joint venture agreement between Barrick and Newmont specifies that either party must offer its Nevada joint venture interest to the other member before it considers selling to a third party. Any transfer of shares requires the consent of the other party, the documents seen by Reuters show.
Barrick will also need Newmont to fund the capital for Fourmile, according to a person aware of the development which the miner has been touting as its future flagship asset and will also become part of the IPO. During a call with analysts in October 2025, Newmont’s incoming CEO Natasha Viljoen said the company was waiting for some information from Barrick before committing additional capital.
Barrick’s effort to restructure, potentially by splitting into two entities, is one of the most anticipated mining stories of 2026, given strong investor interest in gold bullion with prices hitting successive record highs. The company is expected to outline its plans in February during its Q4 earnings.
In an email response, Barrick said it respects the joint venture with Newmont and abides by all the terms. Newmont spokesperson said the company’s Nevada Gold Mines joint venture agreement has not changed from what is publicly available.
“Regarding Barrick’s potential IPO of its North American gold assets, Newmont does not have any information above and beyond what is in the public domain,” Newmont spokesperson said. The company did not comment on whether it will fund the Fourmile expansion.
Although Barrick shares jumped 130% in 2025, the company’s returns have been lower than its peers in the last five years, gaining 52% over the period while rival Agnico Eagle jumped 142%. Barrick is still considered undervalued.
Newmont’s say over the sale of the Nevada mines despite having only a minority stake in them is unusual, according to three executives aware of the restructuring efforts. The current contract was set up after years of back and forth between the companies, where Barrick in 2019 was keen to buy Newmont. The merger did not happen, and both companies struck a joint venture for Nevada.
“Newmont has done a really good job of being able to call the shots, it was not long ago that Barrick wanted to buy Newmont,” said a former executive of Barrick aware of the joint venture details.
Barrick had a tumultuous year in 2025. Mali’s military government seized its mine there and incarcerated its employees before the company negotiated a deal to get the mine back and its employees released. Barrick’s CEO left, and the company is looking to restore investor confidence under the leadership of chairman John Thornton.
Interim CEO Mark Hill is running the company while Barrick hunts for a new CEO, who must deal with large institutional investors such as BlackRock and activist firm Elliott. This month, Barrick appointed Helen Cai as new chief financial officer. The North America business is valued at around $42 billion and analysts expect the new company could trade better than the current combined entities.
On Friday shares of Barrick were trading up by 1.90% at the Toronto Stock Exchange and Newmont shares were trading up 1.52% at New York Stock Exchange.
(By Divya Rajagopal; Editing by Caroline Stauffer, Veronica Brown and David Gregorio)
Mali’s president tightens direct control over key mining sector
Mali’s military leader has created a new ministerial-level role to oversee the mining sector, strengthening the presidency’s direct oversight of the critical gold industry, and appointed a former Barrick Mining executive to fill it.
Legal documents governing the role show the minister will have powers to supervise mining policy implementation, monitor compliance with the mining code, and review reports submitted by title holders – responsibilities previously handled by the mines ministry.
According to a January 19 presidential decree, Hilaire Bebian Diarra, an earth-science specialist who switched from Barrick to the government last year while leading negotiations for the company over control of the Loulo-Gounkoto complex, has been appointed to the role.
The Malian national was named special adviser to the presidency during the bitter dispute over Mali’s top industrial gold mine, as Assimi Goita’s government pushed for higher taxes and greater state participation in mining projects.
The move was widely seen as a strategic blow to the Canadian miner.
Diarra was not immediately available for comment.
Stronger structures to oversee mining
Mali is one of Africa’s biggest gold producers, and several national mining forums in recent years have urged the creation of stronger structures to oversee security, compliance, and community impacts in its mining industry.
A senior government official said the presidency has assumed the lead on mining oversight, with key exploitation permits decided by the presidency and contract talks – including the Barrick dispute – also run from the presidential palace.
The finance ministry meanwhile now fronts fiscal matters, and the mining ministry focuses on regulation.
Diarra’s elevation comes as Mali tightens its grip on the mining sector, its biggest revenue generator, under a 2023 mining code that helped recover 761 billion CFA francs ($1.2 billion) in arrears, the government said in December.
Oyu Tolgoi open pit has been producing since 2012. (Image courtesy of Turquoise Hill.)
The proposed tie-up between Rio Tinto and Glencore could require asset sales to secure regulatory approval from top commodity buyer China, which has longstanding concerns about resource security and market concentration.
The two mining giants revealed last week that for the second time in two years they were in early merger talks – potentially creating the world’s largest mining company with a market value of more than $200 billion.
But analysts and lawyers said the scale of their sales to China means any deal will need approval from Beijing, as have past mining mega-deals such as Glencore’s $35 billion purchase of Xstrata in 2013.
China’s antitrust regulator is likely to be concerned about a combined entity’s concentration in copper production and marketing as well as iron ore marketing, several analysts and lawyers told Reuters. Beijing may also see an opportunity to force asset sales to friendly entities, they added.
Even before the Glencore talks were made public, Rio Tinto had already been exploring an asset-for-equity swap aimed at trimming the 11% holding of its biggest shareholder, state-run Aluminium Corporation of China, known as Chinalco. Rio Tinto’s Simandou iron ore mine in Guinea and Oyu Tolgoi copper mine in Mongolia were among the assets of interest to Chinalco, sources said then.
To get the Glencore deal over the line, assets in Africa are especially likely sales candidates as Latin America has become less accepting of Chinese investment, according to Glyn Lawcock, an analyst at Barrenjoey in Sydney.
“China will see this as an opportunity to squeeze out assets,” he said.
China’s commerce ministry, its market regulator and Chinalco did not respond to questions about the deal. Glencore and Rio Tinto declined to comment.
Glencore precedent
Glencore has been here before. In 2013, Chinese regulators forced the Swiss-based company to sell its stake in the Las Bambas copper mine in Peru, one of the world’s largest, to Chinese investors for nearly $6 billion in exchange for blessing its takeover of Xstrata.
“The Las Bambas deal is still looked at as a very successful solution and it’s going to be a potential playbook that regulators can draw on,” a China-based partner at an international law firm said on condition of anonymity.
Glencore also agreed to sell Chinese customers minimum quantities of copper concentrate at certain prices for just over seven years as Beijing was concerned the merged group would have too much power over the copper market.
Glencore is one of Australia’s largest coal exporters, operating 13 mines in New South Wales and Queensland. (Image courtesy of Glencore.)
Rio Tinto (RIO) and Glencore (GLEN) are said to be examining whether a coal-heavy business could be spun off into an ASX-listed vehicle as part of early-stage talks on a potential merger that would create the world’s largest mining company.
The companies confirmed last week they are discussing a possible combination of some or all of their businesses, sparking speculation about how assets that sit awkwardly together would be handled, particularly coal and Glencore’s lucrative trading arm.
“All we know is that they are trying to hammer out important details, like the price, the premium, who would run the new company, exactly what structure it would have,” Clara Ferreira Marques, Bloomberg’s Asia-Pacific head of commodities, said on the The Australia Podcast on Thursday.
“They’re hiring banking teams to help them do that, and they really have to come up with some sort of proposal by the fifth of February to meet the UK takeover panel rules.”
One option under consideration is carving out coal assets, potentially into a separately listed Australian vehicle, echoing BHP’s (ASX, LON: BHP) South32 demerger a decade ago.
Glencore’s coal operations across NSW, Queensland, central Africa and Latin America would account for about 8% of a combined group’s $45.6 billion in EBITDA and could be worth tens of billions of dollars. Glencore’s trading arm, which would represent about 9% of earnings, remains another sensitive piece of the puzzle.
Analysts have also floated alternatives, including Glencore spinning off coal ahead of any transaction or Rio bidding only for Glencore’s copper assets, following Glencore’s decision last year to abandon a self-driven coal separation.
Why now
The renewed talks come as pressures that were present a year ago have intensified, particularly around copper, scale and market positioning.
“What has changed since the last time they held talks is that some of the issues that were already there a year ago have become a lot more stark,” Ferreira Marques said. “You look at the copper price, we’re now over $13,000 a tonne. That makes the case for adding copper to your portfolio not only compelling, but urgent.”
She added that Rio’s recent share price performance has improved the financial logic of a deal, while the sector’s shrinking relative size has become harder to ignore.
Demand for the metal is anticipated to rise by as much as 50% by 2040, according to S&P Global Energy & Market Intelligence, leading to a projected production deficit of up to 10 million tonnes annually by that time.
A Rio Tinto-Glencore tie-up would position the new company as the leading copper producer globally, accounting for approximately 7% of the world’s output.
“You look at Rio Tinto at about $141 billion, and then you look at Nvidia at $4.5 trillion,” she said. “The problem of scale is very important. It’s not just about being the biggest, it’s about being able to attract generalist investors, talent and opportunities.”
1. Includes copper demand from construction, cooling, appliances, fossil power generation, machinery and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. 2. Includes copper demand from clean energy technologies, transmission and distribution and EVs. (Courtesy of S&P’s Copper in the Age of AI.)
Leadership changes have also helped reset the dynamic. Rio now has a new chief executive in Simon Trott and a more deal-minded chair in Dominic Barton, while Glencore is led by Gary Nagle, who has called the tie-up the “most obvious” deal in mining.
Previous talks in late 2024 stalled over valuation, culture and control, but people familiar with the discussions say both sides now appear more open to compromise.
Hurdles ahead
Price remains the primary obstacle, followed closely by cultural fit, coal exposure and regulatory risk. Rio exited thermal coal in 2018, and some investors remain constrained by mandates that bar coal holdings, even as the political climate in the US has softened and coal profitability has endured longer than expected.
Antitrust scrutiny would be significant, particularly given China’s role as a major stakeholder in Rio, and the operational risks tied to Glencore’s copper assets in jurisdictions such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.
“At this point, it’s unlikely,” Ferreira Marques said. “BHP is not a company that jumps on things at the last minute. The signalling is very much that they wouldn’t step in.”
She cautioned, however, that early-stage deals can still unravel. “When companies talk about an M&A deal, they basically tell the world that they need to do something,” she said, adding that BHP’s earlier bid for Anglo American (LON: AAL) helped reopen the door to mega-deals across the sector.
Whether the talks culminate in a full merger that gives rise to a GlenTinto, a RioCore or something else entirely, a partial asset deal or yet another false start, the discussions underscore how urgently the world’s biggest miners are hunting for growth in an increasingly copper-constrained world.
Copper assets are in even higher demand today given the metal’s role in the green transition and artificial intelligence. Rio Tinto and Glencore are shifting their focus to the metal, as are rival miners including Australia’s BHP.
Chinese regulators will also be examining a planned $53 billion copper-focused merger between Anglo American and Teck Resources, Teck CEO Jonathan Price said in September.
Political challenges
Copper’s rising importance is politicizing the metal. The White House has alluded to China’s dominance over the supply chain as a direct threat to national security, and it remains to be seen how it would react to major mineral asset sales to Chinese interests.
A combined Rio Tinto-Glencore would market about 17% of global copper supply, according to Lawcock, although analysts at Barclays say the share of mine production is only 7.5% and unlikely to trigger major antitrust concerns.
Nonetheless politics has doomed deals before.
US chipmaker Qualcomm walked away from a $44 billion deal to buy NXP Semiconductors in 2018 after failing to get approval from Chinese regulators in what was seen as a response to the trade war then underway between Washington and Beijing. The inability to get Chinese regulators on board similarly sank Nvidia’s proposed takeover of Arm Ltd.
In previous resource deals, however, Beijing has given approval as part of a bargain. A year before the sale of Las Bambas, Beijing required major changes to a tie-up between Japan’s Marubeni and US grain merchant Gavilon, citing food security concerns.
“Clearly this would be a long, complicated deal from a regulatory approval perspective,” Mark Kelly, CEO of advisory firm MKI Global Partners, wrote in a note, “and the presence of Chinalco on Rio’s shareholder register always complicates this picture further.”
(By Lewis Jackson, Amy Lv, Melanie Burton, Anousha Sakoui and Clara Denina; Editing by Veronica Brown, Tony Munroe and Jamie Freed)
Chevron currently extract oil from four fields and offshore gas from another field in Venezuela - Copyright AFP Yuri CORTEZ
The US oil company Chevron is walking a tightrope amid tensions between Washington and Caracas to retain its fragile position as the only foreign company allowed to exploit Venezuela’s oil reserves —- the largest in the world.
Washington’s total blockade of oil tankers, added last week to punishing US sanctions, has put Chevron and its presence in Venezuela back in the spotlight.
– Why is Chevron in Venezuela? –
The Venezuelan Gulf Oil Company, Chevron’s predecessor in Venezuela, was founded in April 1923 and began operating its first well in August 1924.
Initially operating near Lake Maracaibo, it then moved on to new deposits such as Urumaco and Boscan. Most reserves are now in the Orinoco Belt.
Gulf Oil merged with Standard Oil of California in 1984, forming the giant now known as Chevron.
The group currently extracts oil from four fields and offshore gas from another field, covering a total area of nearly 30,000 hectares (115 square miles).
This is part of a partnership with the state-owned company PDVSA and its affiliates that employs around 3,000 people.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2023, Venezuelan territory contained around 303 billion barrels, or about 17 percent of the world’s reserves.
The US embargo on Venezuelan crude oil, in place since 2019, was relaxed in 2023 with licenses to operate in the country.
But President Donald Trump revoked them all in the first half of 2025 before granting an exception to Chevron.
Yet, according to an industry expert, recent presidential decisions do not affect the group’s activities.
“We believe our presence continues to be a stabilizing force for the local economy, the region and US energy security,” the company told AFP, assuring that it operates in compliance with the law and “sanctions frameworks provided by the US government.”
Other foreign oil companies do not operate inside Venezuela because of the US embargo and a Venezuelan law that requires foreign firms to partner with PDVSA in majority state-owned ventures, a structure Chevron accepted when it was imposed.
– How many barrels? –
According to Stephen Schork, an analyst at the Schork Group consulting firm, Venezuela’s total production is around 800,000 to 900,000 barrels per day compared to more than 3 million at its peak.
With its license, Chevron generates around 10 percent of Venezuela’s production, although sources differ on the exact figure.
This currently represents around 150,000 to 200,000 barrels per day, 100 percent of which is exported to the United States.
But the oil is high-sulfur “sludge,” said Schork.
“It is heavy, nasty stuff. You can’t move this oil in a pipeline,” and it’s the hardest to refine, he explained.
Because of the embargo, Caracas is forced to sell its oil on the black market at heavy discounts, mainly to Asia.
But the new US blockade is expected to significantly reduce these illicit exports — by up to 50 percent according to experts.
– Does US need the oil? –
The United States has refineries around the Gulf of Mexico that were specifically designed decades ago to process this highly viscous Venezuelan oil.
Due to its lower quality, it is converted into diesel or by-products such as asphalt, rather than gasoline for cars.
“The United States does not need this oil,” noted Schork.
If they want it, he believes, it is for political reasons.
They want to “prevent the vacuum created by their departure from being filled by countries that do not share their values, such as China and Russia,” according to a source close to the matter.
US forces have launched dozens of deadly air strikes on boats that Washington alleges were transporting drugs - Copyright AFP Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo
Four United Nations rights experts on Wednesday condemned the US partial naval blockade of Venezuela, determining it illegal armed aggression and calling on the US Congress to intervene.
The United States has deployed a major military force in the Caribbean and has recently intercepted oil tankers as part of a naval blockade against Venezuelan vessels it considers to be under sanctions.
“There is no right to enforce unilateral sanctions through an armed blockade,” the UN experts said in a joint statement.
A blockade is a prohibited use of military force against another country under the UN Charter, they added.
“It is such a serious use of force that it is also expressly recognised as illegal armed aggression under the General Assembly’s 1974 Definition of Aggression,” they said.
“As such, it is an armed attack under article 51 of the Charter — in principle giving the victim state a right of self-defence.”
US President Donald Trump accuses Venezuela of using oil, the South American country’s main resource, to finance “narcoterrorism, human trafficking, murders, and kidnappings”.
Caracas denies any involvement in drug trafficking. It says Washington is seeking to overthrow its president, Nicolas Maduro, in order to seize Venezuelan oil reserves, the largest in the world.
Since September, US forces have launched dozens of air strikes on boats that Washington alleges, without showing evidence, were transporting drugs. More than 100 people have been killed.
– Congress should ‘intervene’ –
“These killings amount to violations of the right to life. They must be investigated and those responsible held accountable,” said the experts.
“Meanwhile, the US Congress should intervene to prevent further attacks and lift the blockade,” they added.
They called on countries to take measures to stop the blockade and illegal killings, and bring perpetrators justice.
The four who signed the joint statement are: Ben Saul, special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism; George Katrougalos, the expert on promoting a democratic and equitable international order; development expert Surya Deva; and Gina Romero, who covers the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
UN experts are independent figures mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to report their findings. They do not, therefore, speak for the United Nations itself.
On Tuesday at the UN in New York, Venezuela, having requested an emergency meeting of the Security Council, accused Washington of “the greatest extortion known in our history”.
Trump ‘Choosing From the War Crimes Menu’ With ‘Quarantine’ on Venezuela Oil Exports
“Economic strangulation is warfare and civilians always pay the price,” lamented CodePink. Oil tankers are seen anchored in Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela on December 4, 2025. (Photo by José Bula Urrutia/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
President Donald Trump has ordered US military forces to further escalate their aggression against Venezuela by enforcing a “quarantine” on the South American nation’s oil—by far its main export—in what one peace group called an attempted act of “economic strangulation.”
“While military options still exist, the focus is to first use economic pressure by enforcing sanctions to reach the outcome the White House is looking [for],” a US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.
The move follows the deployment of an armada of US warships and thousands of troops to the region, threats to invade Venezuela, oil tanker seizures off the Venezuelan coast, Trump’s authorization of covert CIA action against the socialist government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and airstrikes against boats allegedly running drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that have killed more than 100 people in what critics say are murders and likely war crimes.
“The efforts so far have put tremendous pressure on Maduro, and the belief is that by late January, Venezuela will be facing an economic calamity unless it agrees to make significant concessions to the US,” the official told Reuters.
The official’s use of the word “quarantine” evoked the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, an existential standoff that occurred after the John F. Kennedy administration imposed a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent Soviet nuclear missiles from being deployed on the island, even as the US was surrounding the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons.
“This is an illegal blockade,” the women-led peace group CodePink said in response to the Reuters report. “Calling it a ‘quarantine’ doesn’t change the reality. The US regime is using hunger as a weapon of war to force regime change in Venezuela. Economic strangulation is warfare and civilians always pay the price. The US is a regime of terror.”
Critics have also compared Trump’s aggression to the George W. Bush administration’s buildup to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, initially referred to as Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL). But unlike Bush, Trump—who derided Bush for not seizing Iraq’s petroleum resources as spoils of war—has openly acknowledged his desire to take Venezuela’s oil.
“Maybe we will sell it, maybe we will keep it,” he Trump said on Monday. “Maybe we’ll use it in the strategic reserves. We’re keeping the ships also.”
On Wednesday, a panel of United Nations experts said that the US blockade and boat strikes constitute “illegal armed aggression” against Venezuela.
Multiple efforts by US lawmakers—mostly Democrats, but also a handful of anti-war Republicans—to pass a war powers resolution blocking the Trump administration from bombing boats or attacking Venezuela have failed.
The blockade and vessel seizures have paralyzed Venezuela’s oil exports. Ports are clogged with full tankers whose operators are fearful of entering international waters. Venezuela-bound tankers have also turned back for fear of seizure. Although Venezuelan military vessels are accompanying tankers, the escorts stop once the ships reach international waters.
According to the New York Times, Venezuela is considering putting armed troops aboard tankers bound for China, which, along with Russia, has pledged its support—but little more—for Caracas.
Trump Isn’t Planning to Invade Venezuela. He’s Planning Something Worse
Rather than launching a military invasion that would provoke public backlash and congressional scrutiny, Trump is doubling down on something more insidious.
A vendor counts Venezuelan bolivar banknotes at La Hoyada market in Caracas on December 23, 2025. (Photo by Federico Parra/AFP via Getty Images)
The loudest question in Washington right now is whether Donald Trump is going to invade Venezuela. The quieter, and far more dangerous, reality is this: he probably won’t. Not because he cares about Venezuelan lives, but because he has found a strategy that is cheaper, less politically risky at home, and infinitely more devastating: economic warfare.
Venezuela has already survived years of economic warfare. Despite two decades of sweeping US sanctions designed to strangle its economy, the country has found ways to adapt: oil has moved through alternative markets; communities have developed survival strategies; people have endured shortages and hardship with creativity and resilience. This endurance is precisely what the Trump administration is trying to break.
Rather than launching a military invasion that would provoke public backlash and congressional scrutiny, Trump is doubling down on something more insidious: total economic asphyxiation. By tightening restrictions on Venezuelan oil exports, its primary source of revenue, Trump’s administration is deliberately pushing the country toward a full-scale humanitarian collapse.
In recent months, US actions in the Caribbean Sea, including the harassment and interdiction of oil tankers linked to Venezuela, signal a shift from financial pressure to illegal maritime force. These operations have increasingly targeted Venezuela’s ability to move its own resources through international waters. Oil tankers have been delayed, seized, threatened with secondary sanctions, or forced to reroute under coercion. The objective is strangulation.
The freedom of navigation on the high seas is a cornerstone of international maritime law, enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Unilateral interdiction of civilian commercial vessels, absent a UN Security Council mandate, violates the principle of sovereign equality and non-intervention. The extraterritorial enforcement of US sanctions, punishing third countries and private actors for engaging in lawful trade with Venezuela, has no legal basis. It is coercion, plain and simple. More importantly, the intent is collective punishment.
Trump’s calculation is brutally simple: make Venezuelans so miserable that they will rise up and overthrow Maduro.
By preventing Venezuela from exporting oil, which is the revenue that funds food imports, medicine, electricity, and public services, the Trump administration is knowingly engineering conditions of mass deprivation. Under international humanitarian law, collective punishment is prohibited precisely because it targets civilians as a means to achieve political ends. And if this continues, we will see horrific images: empty shelves, malnourished children, overwhelmed hospitals, people scavenging for food. Scenes that echo those coming out of Gaza, where siege and starvation have been normalized as weapons of war.
US actions will undoubtedly cause millions of Venezuelans to flee the country, likely seeking to travel to the United States, which they are told is safe for their families, full of economic opportunities, and security. . But Trump is sealing the US border, cutting off asylum pathways, and criminalizing migration. When people are starved, when economies are crushed, when daily life becomes unlivable, people move. Blocking Venezuelans from entering the United States while systematically destroying the conditions that allow them to survive at home means that neighboring countries like Colombia, Brazil, and Chile will be asked to absorb the human cost of Washington’s decisions. This is how empire outsources the damage. But these countries have their own economic woes, and mass displacement of Venezuelans will destabilize the entire region.
Venezuela is a test case. What is being refined now—economic siege without formal war, maritime coercion without declared blockade, starvation without bombs—is a blueprint. Any country that refuses compliance with Washington’s political and economic demands should be paying attention. This will be the map for 21st century regime change.
And this is how Trump can reassure the United States Congress that he is not “going to war” with Venezuela. He doesn’t need to. Economic strangulation carries none of the immediate political costs of a military intervention, even as it inflicts slow, widespread devastation. There are no body bags returning to US soil, no draft, no televised bombing campaigns. Just a steady erosion of life elsewhere.
Trump’s calculation is brutally simple: make Venezuelans so miserable that they will rise up and overthrow Maduro. That has been the same calculation behind US policy toward Cuba for six decades—and it has failed. Economic strangulation doesn’t bring democracy; it brings suffering. And even if, by some grim chance, it did succeed in toppling the government, the likely result would not be freedom but chaos—possibly a protracted civil war that could devastate the country, and the region, for decades.
Tomorrow, people in Venezuela will celebrate Christmas. Families will gather around the table to eat hallacas wrapped with care, slices of pan de jamón, and dulce de lechoza. They will share stories, dance to gaitas, and make a toast with Ponche Crema.
If we oppose war because it kills, we must also oppose sanctions that do the same, more quietly, more slowly, and with far less accountability.
But if this economic siege continues, if Venezuelan oil is fully cut off, if the country is denied the means to feed itself, if hunger is allowed to finish what bombs are no longer politically useful to accomplish, then this Christmas may be remembered as one of the last Venezuelans were able to celebrate in anything resembling normal life, at least in the near future.
Polls consistently show that nearly 70 percent of people in the United States oppose a military intervention in Venezuela. War is recognized for what it is: violent, destructive, unacceptable. But sanctions are treated differently. Many people believe they are a harmless alternative, a way to apply “pressure” without bloodshed.
That assumption is dangerously wrong. According to a comprehensive study in medical journal The Lancet, sanctions increase mortality at levels comparable to armed conflict, hitting children and the elderly first. Sanctions do not avoid civilian harm—they systematically produce it.
If we oppose war because it kills, we must also oppose sanctions that do the same, more quietly, more slowly, and with far less accountability. If we don’t act against economic warfare with the same urgency we reserve for bombs and invasions, then sanctions will remain the preferred weapon: politically convenient but equally deadly.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Michelle Ellner Michelle Ellner is a Latin America campaign coordinator of CODEPINK. She was born in Venezuela and holds a bachelor’s degree in languages and international affairs from the University La Sorbonne Paris IV, in Paris. After graduating, she worked for an international scholarship program out of offices in Caracas and Paris and was sent to Haiti, Cuba, The Gambia, and other countries for the purpose of evaluating and selecting applicants. Full Bio >
