Global mining trends that are becoming the new normal

As the importance of developing mining resources increases and the capital costs associated with doing so not only increase, but evolve in complexity, keeping up with global trends is not easy. In this article, we present some observations from the multi-disciplinary, international global mining team at Dentons. On the front end, we are seeing the world of structuring international mining transactions becoming more complex. On the back end, because of that increasing complexity, we are seeing disputes arise more often and increasing in complexity.

Transactions

The mining sector is undergoing dramatic consolidation. From January 2024 to mid-2025, mining companies announced or closed 18 deals over $1 billion, totaling approximately $47 billion. While mining M&A has always been cyclical, the past 18 months have marked a major shift in both the scale and frequency of large transactions. But unlike earlier deal activity driven by optimism about rising commodity prices, this one is being fueled by sharper pressures: geopolitical uncertainty, trade disputes, rising costs, supply gaps, strategic urgency and the accelerating shift toward clean energy. Companies are not speculating — they are securing future output, cash flow, and critical materials in a world that is changing fast.

Trend #1: Buy baby buy. Three major forces are pushing mining companies to buy rather than build

The energy transition and copper’s critical role: The clean energy transition has made copper the most strategic metal of the decade. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the share of total demand for copper and rare earth elements (REEs) will rise significantly over the next two decades to over 40% in a projected scenario that meets the Paris Agreement goals, driven by copper’s role in clean technologies like electric vehicles and storage, wind turbines, solar PV, electricity networks, and hydropower and bioenergy. While gold may bring resilience and balance sheet strength, copper brings relevance and strategic leverage. Every part of the energy transition — from EVs and solar panels to transmission lines — relies on copper. This supply crunch is triggering intense competition for mining assets with the following:

• Low carbon intensity (renewable energy, high-grade minerals).
• Brownfield expansion potential (less regulatory uncertainty).
• Logistics advantages (rail or port proximity).

Rising project costs, but borrowing is relatively attractive: Major miners entered 2024 with record cash reserves. At the same time, falling interest rates reopened the debt market, allowing mining companies to borrow at rates below 5%. That matters because new mining projects are getting much more expensive. The result? This makes M&A a faster, less expensive, more certain, and lower-risk way to secure mineral resources than building new mines, and low-cost funding provides the sector with the capacity to do it.

Reshaping portfolios for the future: Miners are actively restructuring — selling off older, carbon-intensive or non-core assets and reinvesting in future-facing materials.

Acquiring existing mining assets, especially those already in production, offers a way around these risks — especially for public mining companies that are under pressure to demonstrate near-term growth to their shareholders. As a result, M&A offers a faster, less risky, and often more cost-effective and certain path to resource expansion.

Trend #2: Divest-to-invest — Selling to fund the pivot

Some of the largest mining transactions have been motivated by actual or proposed strategic exits involving the sale of older or carbon-intensive assets to fund critical mineral, future-facing investments:

• South32 / Golden Energy and Resources / M Resources (August 2024): US$1.65 billion divestiture of South32’s Illawarra Metallurgical Coal mine to fund its zinc expansion in Arizona.

Trend #3: Geographies of growth — Latin America and Africa

Latin America remains the epicentre of copper deal-making. S&P Global’s 2024 World Exploration Trends study shows Latin America again attracted the largest share of global metals-exploration spending — US$3.38 billion, up 2% year-over-year — even when iron-ore and coal projects are left out. Copper remains the dominant driver of Latin American transactions, with the 2024 BHP & Lundin Mining joint venture (JV) deal in Chile and Argentina serving as the marquee example. But that budget is also resulting in other headline mining M&A leading to Latin America being responsible for 17% of global megadeal value.

Meanwhile, Africa is the fastest-rising arena. Supported by government roll-out of the African Green Minerals Strategy and national beneficiation mandates, the continent is quickly emerging as one of the prime targets for the development of new mines to meet the demand for copper, lithium, and others. The 2023-2024 period saw a 32.4% increase in lithium exploration allocations and a 23.6% increase in copper exploration allocations for the continent.

The bottom line is that while North America and Australia still log more billion-dollar closings, Latin America offers the deepest copper pipeline, while Africa delivers the fastest growth and favourable policy momentum, making both regions pivotal to the next wave of energy-transition mining M&A.

Trend #4: Joint ventures — Sharing risk, speeding up results

Where outright acquisitions are not possible or practical, companies are teaming up through in-district partnerships. Joint ventures are the rising stars of the megadeal landscape. JV structures enable miners to share infrastructure, split costs, achieve operational efficiencies, access in-country expertise, and navigate tricky regulatory or political environments together.

These structures are gaining traction, as companies are looking to get complex projects off the ground quickly and collaboratively, particularly in regions with underdeveloped infrastructure. JVs in mining are evolving from traditional investment vehicles into strategic governance tools that address regulatory, environmental, and social complexity. Globally, JVs account for over 40% of production among the ten largest mining operations, underscoring their central role in complex, large-scale projects.

In Chile, a top global copper producer and rising lithium powerhouse, this evolution is particularly evident. New JV structures increasingly involve state-owned enterprises, Indigenous communities, and multinationals, creating hybrid models of governance designed to align profitability with long-term sustainability.

Disputes

Trend #5: Royalty disputes

Royalty rights, like net smelter royalties, are often conferred on a JV partner at a very early, pre-production stage. Ownership rights subsequently change hands, the royalty right is not clearly identified in assignment agreements, years go by and the mine eventually goes into production. The holder of the right eventually takes notice and asks to be paid. This basic fact pattern has repeated itself many times over the years and has given rise to both arbitration and court proceedings. As more royalty stream companies emerge, the potential for more disputes has become heightened.

Trend #6: Long term supply contracts no longer economical

This is one of the larger sources of disputes and applies equally to long-term supply contracts as it does to royalty agreements. As a result of more volatile markets over the past two decades, supply contracts in mining are being negotiated for shorter terms, often including complex price review mechanisms within the terms of the contract. These mechanisms tend to take averages from several indices over a quote period to specify a price per unit, which is then discounted across the duration of the contract.

Market conditions provide strong motivation to proceed to arbitration, where the average price becomes favourable to one party and not the other.

Relatedly, for truly long-term supply contracts or longer-term royalty arrangements, sometimes an index or benchmark on which the contracted pricing mechanism depends disappears or merges into another, requiring the parties to find a suitable alternative, which often requires arbitration. The same applies where the agreed index ceases to be the appropriate index for the parties, which may happen for a variety of reasons.

Trend #7: Commercial disputes

Sometimes, parties will disagree over the interpretation of a commitment to deliver or purchase a specified amount and whether that commitment is binding. When the prices of minerals fluctuate, as they have recently, parties may have an interest in changing their commitments.

These contracts typically specify supply in three ways:

• The mine sells the buyer a specified quantity;
• The mine sells the buyer a specified percentage of yearly production; or
• The mine sells the buyer a minimum quantity, and the buyer has the option to purchase more if yearly production allows it.

Directly related to disputes of quantity, sometimes the contract has terms specifying a quantum owed where a mine fails to provide or a purchaser fails to purchase their commitment under the contract.

This also applies to quality disputes, when the purity of a metal, or the proportion of metal in an ore shipment, falls below a certain threshold specified in the contract.

Disputes under this topic are generally less factually complex, since there is no need to determine pricing and use valuation experts. However, it may be more legally complex given the treatment of liquidated damages by courts in the past.

Without a specific clause outlining the rights and thresholds required for a buyer to refuse a shipment, there is an open question as to whether a buyer may refuse a shipment of ore for falling below a certain specification. The question becomes more complicated where the contract includes a complex pricing mechanism that accounts for the purity of the product.

This is a specialized area that has its own case law/statutory framework. Given that most mines exist in remote areas, often on other continents, the transport of products is a necessity of the industry.

Trend #8: Disputes involving governments

When a government nationalizes or expropriates a mine, that often results in a direct taking under law, meaning that compensation is due. Under some laws, there is also an avenue where the government engages in de facto expropriation, or a constructive taking, which has been litigated in the context of mineral rights.

The legal issue of whether compensation is due may depend on whether there is direct or indirect expropriation, either under the laws of that jurisdiction or based on a relevant treaty. In recent years, such treaty-based disputes, and international arbitrations, have significantly increased.

State–Investor arbitration remains a cornerstone mechanism for resolving disputes in the mining industry. The number and proportion of cases involving extractive activities and energy supply have risen sharply in recent years, accounting for over half of all new filings in 2024. A significant share of these disputes stems from mining operations, with cases involving critical minerals increasing notably. Both trends underscore the disruptive impact of the global energy transition on mining activities and national resource policies.

The most frequent causes of these disputes include abrupt regulatory changes, direct or indirect expropriations, disagreements over the renewal or termination of mining concessions, unilateral alterations to tax stability agreements, and the imposition of environmental or social restrictions that disrupt ongoing operations. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Investor–State Investment Agreements remain the primary legal instruments invoked by investors seeking protection against measures perceived as arbitrary or discriminatory.

A prominent recent example is the arbitration between Barrick Gold Corporation and the Republic of Mali, initiated by Barrick in early 2025 over disputes related to the Loulo-Gounkoto gold mine. The conflict stems from amendments to Mali’s Mining Code and focuses on the interpretation and enforcement of tax and royalty obligations as well as fiscal stability clauses embedded in the investment agreements. Barrick contended that Mali’s actions — including the suspension of gold exports and the placement of the mine under temporary state administration — constituted a substantial breach of the Mining Conventions between Barrick’s subsidiaries and the Malian State.

The dispute escalated dramatically in December 2024, when Malian authorities issued an arrest warrant for Barrick CEO Mark Bristow, alleging violations of the revised fiscal regime. Shortly thereafter, Barrick offered to pay US$370 million as part of ongoing settlement discussions. In mid-2025, the Malian government took control of the Loulo-Gounkoto mine, appointing former minister Soumana Makadji as state administrator. By October 2025, operations had resumed under state management without Barrick’s consent — an unprecedented development in international mining disputes.

The Barrick versus Mali case epitomizes a broader global trend: the growing tension between resource-rich states, which seek greater economic participation and sovereign control over their natural resources, and international mining companies, which demand legal certainty and regulatory stability. This tension has intensified the ongoing debate over the modernization of investment protection mechanisms, spurring efforts to design clauses that better balance state sovereignty and sustainable development goals with investor expectations.

Conclusion

The global mining sector is entering a period of structural change. Consolidation, shifting capital strategies, and evolving forms of dispute resolution are reshaping how companies operate and invest. As the energy transition accelerates and geopolitical factors continue to influence access to resources, these trends are likely to define the industry’s direction for years to come.

• Michael Schafler is a partner in Dentons’ Toronto office. He is a member of Denton’s global arbitration steering group and previously co-led both the global and national litigation and dispute resolution groups.
• Greg McNab is a partner in the Dentons’ Corporate group and serves as Canada co-chair for Dentons’ mining group.
• José Ignacio Morán is a partner in Dentons’ Santiago office. He is the global mining & natural resources sector leader and a member of the ESG LAC committee.
• John Mollard is a partner in Dentons’ Melbourne office, working closely with lawyers across all mainland capital cities. He leads the China Australia collaboration group.

---