Harsh global economics have dragged investment levels from boom to bust in many sectors. However, 2014 may be the year the industry touches bottom and begins to regain economic traction.

By Viktoriya Larsson and Magnus Ericsson

The end of the mining-investment boom was signaled by the global financial crisis that started in late 2007, but the actual decline in new project announcements appeared much later—in late 2011 (as recorded by the Raw Materials Database). The situation worsened in 2012 and project announcements reached record lows last year. 
Only 95 new projects, with a total projected cost of $38 billion, were registered in Raw Material Group's mines/projects database in 2013. This compares with 113 projects (valued at $47 billion) in 2012 and the peak year of 2010, when 167 projects worth $115 billion were reported. Historically, these figures have proven to be reliable leading indicators of future mining industry capital expenditure.
The rate of decline in new project announcements eased, however, in 2013. This suggests that the slowdown in mining investments will start to bottom-out this year or next. (There has, historically, been a time lag of one or two years.)
In 2010 and 2011, the increase of the total number of projects in the pipeline was around 20% annually, while in 2012 and 2013 the figures were 9% and 8%, respectively. Given the continued growth of metals demand, albeit at a lower pace than a few years ago, the need for continued huge amounts of mining capex is obvious. 
The complexity of new projects and the necessity to invest heavily in infrastructure (whether roads, ports or utilities, such as electricity and increasingly, water) will keep average project costs at high levels. The investments necessary to increase mine production by 3%-4% annually from the new, higher level will be higher than that of a 7%-8% production from a lower base tonnage. Accordingly, despite the recent, widely publicized cuts in major companies’ investment budgets, RMG does not expect a return to the low global capex levels of the 1990s and early 2000s. 
Most of the cutback in corporate capex has fallen on gold and nickel projects. These include projects on hold, such as Barrick Gold’s Pascua-Lama in Chile (total capex of $8 billion), and Goldcorp and New Gold’s El Morro project, also in Chile (capex of almost $4 billion). Abandoned projects include the Reko Diq venture in Pakistan of Antofagasta and Barrick ($3 billion in capex), Metals X’s Wingellina nickel project in Australia (capex of around $2.3 billion) and, also in Australia, Mitsubishi’s Jack Hills iron-ore project (where all operations have been suspended, and the expansion project was earmarked to cost $4 billion). 
However, mining is a cyclical business, and RMG expects investment activity to increase in 2015. Population growth, urbanization and general economic development in the emerging economies are less than the recent experience but remain positive, and so provide a strong base for continued growth in metal demand. In addition, the sharp drop in exploration expenditure in 2013 indicates that too few new deposits will be ready to develop into new mines in  five to 10 years. 
 Mine Project Investment Pipeline, 2013New Projects: Led by Lead
The fall in metal prices (especially for copper and gold), and the related slowdown of Chinese consumption, clearly influenced last year’s mining investment. The only metal that showed a continued price increase last year was lead (where there is a supply deficit), and RMG expects this trend to continue for the next few years. 
The number of projects announced in the third and fourth quarters of 2013 was lower than both the first half of the year and the equivalent period of 2012. However, there is always a delay in reporting new projects, and this analysis is based only on figures captured up to early December. Nevertheless, RMG is cautious about price expectations, and has reduced its investment forecasts for both the year just ended and the new year.
RMG annually monitors the 700 companies that report capex data. These represent the majority of all mining-related companies listed on the world’s stock exchanges outside China but, taken together, only account for 40% of the total value of all metals, industrial minerals and coal production in the world. This indicates the growing value of production coming from countries, mainly China, where transparency—related to investment plans in particular—is low. 
Project costs have been rising. This trend continued in 2013, and even strengthened. Many of the industry’s largest gold and copper projects reported higher-than-expected capital expenditure. RMG has previously noted that project costs grow when moving from feasibility to the construction phase, and this tendency has continued. In 2013, 13 leading copper projects increased their capex (by a total of $19 billion, 54% above the level of 2012). Gold projects saw an increase of 60% ($7 billion spread among 11 projects). 
The share size of projects at the feasibility stage increased strongly in 2013, and reached 30% of total investment value. This growth is to be expected given the high numbers of new projects announced in 2010 and 2011 (these projects have matured and passed to the next stage in the project chain). The number of projects at the conceptual and pre-feasibility stages has decreased because of a lack of inflow of new early-stage projects. This reflects declining investment appetite and increasing corporate financial problems. This will likely cause some problems in the future, as there will not be enough projects at the conceptual and prefeasibility stages to satisfy demand. 
The share of projects at the construction stage fell 9% in 2013. Investment in these projects also fell, to $68 billion from $82 billion in 2012. The average cost of projects under construction in 2013 amounted to $787 million, which is 15% lower than the average cost in 2012 (and close to the $645 million average of 2011). This is due to several high-cost projects being put on hold (or went into production). 
The average cost of “brownfield” projects is generally much lower, and last year averaged $430 million per project. This reflects the advantages of such projects over their “greenfield” equivalent. During the past four years, the share of expansion projects at existing mines has increased, whereas the pipeline share of the restarting of suspended or closed brownfield projects has fallen.
RMG’s statistics focus on projects with a reported investment. RMG removes all projects where there has been no news for eight years. However, the Raw Materials Database (RMD) also includes more than 3,400 projects for which no investment estimates have been given. Most of these projects are at the conceptual stage and cost estimates often cannot be made in such an early phase. The investment total for all mining projects, including also those projects for which no investment estimate has been published, is hence higher than the recorded $791 billion at the end of 2013—but it is difficult to estimate how much bigger. 
The metals not covered in this report, but available in RMD, such as bauxite and some of the alloying metals, also demand continuous investments, but at a much lower level and of only marginal importance compared with those covered in the survey. 
Given the continued strong metal demand from China, India and other emerging economies, RMG anticipates metal prices to decline a bit further in the first half of 2014 but to pick up again in the second half of 2014 and in 2015.
Many of the early stage projects included in the $791 billion figure will not pass from the conceptual study phase to the construction stage. For example, according to RMG statistics, only around 60% of all iron-ore projects in the pipeline (with a planned start up in the next three years) will materialize (in that period). This statistic for projects that are actually completed on time has declined from the 75–80% level of 10 years ago.
Mining Project Investment by Metal, 2013 The Big 4 Metals Retain Their Rank
Iron ore, copper, gold and nickel, in that order, are still the most important investment targets for mining companies. 
These four metals account for 87% of the total number of projects in the pipeline (their share in 2012 was 86%), and they also dominate in terms of the total value of investments, together being valued at $682 billion. Iron ore was under-represented in the project pipeline before 2004 but, since then, the continued high demand for iron ore (and increase in its price) has moved iron ore to the top of the metals ranking. 
Iron ore has accounted for more than a one-third share each year since 2011, and its related capex amounted to $261 billion in 2013 (33% of the pipeline total, compared with 34% in 2012). In second place, copper projects accounted for 29% of the total pipeline, with an investment value of $228 billion (an increase of $30 billion since 2012). The absolute amount of capital put into copper projects has risen by almost 50% since 2009. 
Gold follows, with $131 billion in project investment (giving the metal a 17% share, the level maintained annually for at least five years). Although gold is not the highest ranking metal in terms of project investment, it is, however, ranked highest in terms of the number of new projects reported per year (representing 33% of the total in 2013). 
The investment value of nickel projects has not grown since 2009, and the metal saw a fall in its share of the project pipeline last year (accounting for only 8% of the total), with a value of $62 billion. There is a gap, representing some $16–$24 billion, for the investment into projects for uranium, lead-zinc and the PGMs (in that order).
The average iron-ore project costs about $1,240 million, four times more than the average gold project ($303 million). Copper and nickel project costs average $993 million and $792 million, respectively. These numbers were slightly lower in 2012, indicating that projects are becoming more expensive.
In 2013, the growth rate for iron ore and gold again decreased considerably, down from some 13%–14% in 2012 to 4% and 7%, respectively (the growth for iron ore and gold was around 33% in 2011). The growth rate in the gold project pipeline had started to recover in 2011, after a weak year in 2010, with a growth rate of only 11%. New gold projects in 2013 added up to $8 billion compared with $14 billion the year before, which reflects the metal’s price fall. 
Iron ore continued its recent rate of growth but at a much slower pace. Only $11 billion was added to the pipeline in 2013, compared with $13 billion during 2012. Copper investment grew by much less in 2013 ($8 billion, compared with $10 billion in 2012 and $24 billion in 2011). 
Many gold projects are relatively small in terms of the investment, and the physical number of projects (although still accounting for a high share of the total) has fallen considerably. Only 43 new projects were announced in 2013, compared with 64 projects in 2012. This is not surprising considering the sharply lower gold price last year. 
Thirteen new iron-ore projects were announced in 2013, along with six new copper projects (compared with 16 and 21, respectively, in 2012). Overall, gold is still the most popular metal in terms of the number of new projects in 2013, but the number of new nickel projects actually increased in 2013 (after a poor year in 2012), with five new projects at a total investment of $2,300 million. Surprisingly, the interest in silver projects also revived in 2013, with eight new projects (total planned investment of $735 million). Uranium gained six projects, and three new lead-zinc projects were added to the pipeline in 2013.
North American Investment Share Grows
Latin America maintained its top position in 2013, with its share of the total investment pipeline increasing to 29%. This share is lower, however, than the 32% recorded in 2010. North America’s share of the total is growing strongly, up from 15% in 2010 to 20% in 2012 and the same share again last year. In absolute terms, the continent accounted for $161 billion in 2013, compared with $86 billion in 2010. 
Europe, including all of Russia, reached a share of 13% in 2013, compared with 10% in 2012 (gaining an additional $26 billion). Asia reached an investment peak of 14% in 2009 and has fallen since, accounting for only 9% in 2013. Africa’s share of total world investment remained at 14% last year, but the dollar amount increased to $110 billion. The investment pipeline in North America grew by $15 billion in 2013, and fell in Oceania by $5 billion. 
The Latin American project pipeline shows the highest project-investment average of all regions. This is a result of the large number of mega-projects in the continent. The average investment is $780 million in Latin America, which is more than twice the Asia figure ($340 million). The other regions are in between these
two extremes: Europe $563 million, Africa $549 million, North America $740 million and Oceania $572 million.
Mining Project Investment by Region, 2013 Canada and Australia Swap Positions
The growth of the cumulative share of the top 10 countries rose in 2013, compared with 2012, and reached 72%. Australia and Canada remain the top two countries, and dominate both in terms of the capital expenditure volumes and the number of projects. Canada, however, outperformed Australia last year, taking the leading position with investments of $117 billion (a growth of 12%). Australia, on the other hand, suffered a fall of 5%. Together they account for $217 billion divided over 328 projects. 
Russia is in third place, moving from fifth in 2012, with investments of $74 billion, an increase of 53%. The main reason why Russia has increased its ranking is the announcement of three high-cost projects this year. The Oroyek poly-metallic deposit, with a preliminary cost of $5 billion, was announced by the Russian government but has not yet been put up for auction. The Elanskoye nickel deposit, owned by Norilsk Nickel, has around $3.3 billion in capital expenditure, and also includes the Elkinskoye deposit. Intergeo has the $2.3 billion Kingashsky nickel-copper-PGM project. The company is a subsidiary of Onexim Group, owned by Mikhail Prokhorov. 
Mining Project Investment by Country, 2013 Each of those projects involves base-metal, and particularly nickel, deposits. Most of the projects in Russia are financed by local investors, and the share of funding from abroad is minimal.
It has previously been concluded that there is a trend toward a more even spread of mining investment across the globe. On the contrary, it now seems that a limited number of countries attract a large share of the investments. The growing trend toward “resource nationalism” is most certainly a key factor in this trend. Countries perceived as stable are receiving increased attention. 
Russia and Mexico saw strong increases (26%), with the latter making it into the top-10 ranking. Peru last year increased its investment by 13% to $49 billion, with Brazil, South Africa and Philippines growing by 8%–10%. The United States also continued to grow but at a slower pace (5% in 2013, compared with 34% in 2012). Countries that weakened in 2013 included Chile, Canada and Guinea (the latter dropping from the list of top countries with a 21% decrease in investment).
Even though Australia fell from top place in terms of the value of its overall investments, it is still the leading country regarding the number of projects in the pipeline. Iron-ore projects in Australia continue to dominate, and account for nine of the top 30 iron-ore projects worldwide, with total investment of $33 billion. 
Canada has a much wider mix of projects, including several gold and base metal projects among the global top 20; with five iron-ore projects, 12 gold projects, two copper projects, five nickel projects, four diamond and four uranium projects on the list.
The changed ranking left Canada in top place, pushing Australia out. Russia rose to fifth position, with Chile and Brazil falling. Mexico’s increased investment level moved it to eighth place, exchanging slots with Guinea.
Below the cutoff are Papua New Guinea, Argentina, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Indonesia, Sweden, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Congo (Brazzaville), Cameroon and Kazakhstan (in that order). Each country has a portfolio of projects amounting to $8–$16 billion.
The investment figure for China is most certainly an underestimate, since many of the projects run by the state-owned companies are never reported in channels that reach the international mining press. With comparable reporting from China there is no doubt that the country would be high among the top 10 countries—although Chinese projects are mostly small, with an average project cost of just $193 million. By comparison, the average cost of a mining project in Canada is $840 million.
Chinese investments, whether in exploration or into new mine projects outside China, are still marginal. It will take years before Chinese companies and China becomes a powerful global player in the mining industry, but it will undoubtedly happen.
Viktoriya Larsson is a senior research analyst at IntierraRMG. Magnus Ericsson is a co-founder and partner of the Raw Materials Group and professor of mineral economics at the Luleå University of Technology in Sweden.
About This Survey

E&MJ's annual review of metal mining projects is based on the Raw Materials Database, which is researched and published by Stockholm-based Raw Materials Group (RMG), part of the IntierraRMG group (www.intierra-rmg.com). The database includes more than 4,700 projects, ranging from those in early stages to those currently under construction. Most of these projects are described in detail, including stage of project, location, resource/reserve figures, metals to be mined and owner of the project. Approximately 1,300 current projects include a more detailed description with planned investment cost and often a planned completion date.


This survey includes all major metals (except bauxite and magnesium, which are included in the full database) and diamonds. RMG continues to monitor the rare earths, which have attracted rising political interest. Coal projects are not included but are covered in the RMD Coal database.


Eligibility for a full listing requires each project to have an announced investment cost estimate, reserve/resource data and anticipated future production figures available. The comparability of figures from different companies, countries and regions varies—for example, project definition may vary among sources, and some project data may include large infrastructure investments.


The information contained in the survey is global in scope; however, complete coverage in some regions or countries, such as China, is difficult to achieve. However, the survey includes mine projects from more than 70 countries, and RMG believes its aggregate figures reflect overall investment trends in the mining industry. For more information, please visit Raw Materials Group on the Web at www.intierrarmg.com or call +46-8-7440065.


Major Mining Investment Projects Worldwide, Year End 2013

Project Name Location Status Type  Products Controlled by Project Cost (US$ M)
Cerro Casale Chile Prefeasibility OP Au, Ag Barrick, Kinross Gold 6,000
Donlin Creek USA Feasibility OP Au Barrick, NovaGold Res 5,845
KSM Canada Feasibility OP Au, Cu Seabridge 5,312
Galore Creek Canada Prefeasibility OP Au, Ag NovaGold Res, Teck 5,208
Metates Mexico Feasibility UG Au, Ag Chesapeake 4,360
Dome Mountain  Canada Suspended, restart/feasibility UG Au Metal Mountain 4,187
Caspiche Chile Prefeasibility OP Au, Ag Exeter Resource 2,800
Livengood USA Feasibility OP Au, Ag Intl Tower Hill  2,790
Tasiast  Mauritania Operating, exp/constr OP Au Kinross Gold 2,700
Olimpiada  Russia Operating, exp/plans OP Au Polyus Gold 2,500
Sukhoy Log Russia Feasibility OP Au, Pt State of Russia 2,500
Cerro Negro Argentina Construction UG Au Goldcorp 1,800
Davidson-Blackwater Canada Conceptual OP Au, Ag New Gold 1,800
Natalka  Russia Suspended, restart/constr OP Au Polyus Gold 1,800
Eleonore Canada Construction UG Au Goldcorp 1,751
Courageous Lake  Canada Prefeasibility OP Au Seabridge 1,520
Lihir Papua New Guinea Operating, exp/plans OP Au Newcrest 1,400
Rosia Montana  Romania Feasibility OP Au, Ag Gabriel Res 1,400
Konevinskoye  Russia Operating, exp/plans OP Au Vertex, Rusfinansgrup 1,400
Bakyrchik Kazakhstan Suspended, restart/feasibility OP, UG Au Sumeru 1,124
Bystrinskoye  Russia Feasibility OP Au, Cu Norilsk Nickel 1,100
Mount Todd Australia Suspended, restart/constr OP Au, Ag Vista Gold 1,046
South Deep South Africa Operating, exp/plans OP, UG Au Gold Fields 1,023
Bloemhoek South Africa Feasibility UG Au Wits Gold 1,000
Hycroft (Crofoot/Lewis) USA Operating, exp/feasibility OP Au, Ag Allied Nevada 0,985
Plavica Macedonia Conceptual OP Au, Ag Genesis Res 0,902
Golden Meadows USA Closed, reopen/plans OP Au Vista Gold 0,879
Prosperity (Fish Lake) Canada Feasibility OP Au, Cu Taseko 0,807
Meliadine Canada Prefeasibility OP, UG Au Agnico-Eagle 0,786
Spanish Mountain Canada Prefeasibility OP Au, Ag Spanish Mountain 0,756
Volta Grande  Brazil Feasibility OP Au Belo Sun 0,749
Brisas Venezuela Feasibility OP Au, Cu Gold Reserve 0,731
Rainy River Canada Feasibility OP, UG Au, Ag New Gold 0,717
Jiama China Operating, exp/feasibility OP, UG Au, Cu CNGC 0,705
Lobo/Marte Chile Prefeasibility OP Au Kinross Gold 0,700
Panimba Russia Prefeasibility OP Au, Au Polyus Gold 0,699
Morelos Mexico Construction OP Au Torex Gold 0,675
Kibali Congo (Dem Rep) Operating, exp/constr OP, UG Au Anglogold, Randgold Res, State of Congo (Dem Rep) 0,670
Angostura Colombia Prefeasibility UG Au, Ag Eco Oro 0,649
Kiaka  Burkina Faso Feasibility OP Au Volta 0,610
Back River Canada Prefeasibility OP, UG Au Sabina Gold 0,608
Golden Highway Canada Conceptual OP Au Moneta 0,608
Tarkwa  Ghana Operating, exp/feasibility OP Au Gold Fields 0,600
Udokan  Russia Prefeasibility OP Cu, Ag Metalloinvest 10,500
Andina Chile Operating, exp/constr OP, UG Cu, Mo Codelco 6,400
Cobre Panamá Panama Feasibility OP Cu, Au First Quantum 6,181
Frieda River Papua New Guinea Feasibility OP Cu, Au Glencore Xstrata 5,600
Quebrada Blanca (SX-EW)  Chile Operating, exp/constr OP Cu Teck 5,600
Quebrada Blanca (primary)  Chile Feasibility OP Cu Teck 5,600
Las Bambas  Peru Construction OP Cu Glencore Xstrata 5,200
Tampakan  Philippines Feasibility OP Cu, Au Glencore Xstrata, Indophil Res 5,200
Oroyek Russia Conceptual OP Cu, Ag State of Russia 5,000
Golpu  Papua New Guinea Feasibility OP Cu, Au Harmony, Newcrest 4,845
Pebble USA Prefeasibility OP, UG Cu, Au Northern Dynasty 4,500
Caserones  Chile Construction OP Cu JX Nippon Mining, Mitsui Mining  4,200
Chuquicamata Chile Operating, exp/constr OP Cu, Mo Codelco 4,156
Cerro Verde Peru Operating, exp/plans OP Cu FCX, SMM, Buenaventura 4,000
Los Azules Argentina Prefeasibility OP Cu, Au McEwen Mining 3,920
Sierra Gorda Chile Construction OP Cu, Mo KGHM, SMM, NSSMC 3,900
Escondida Chile Operating, exp/constr OP Cu, Au BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto Group, Mitsubishi, JX Nippon Mining, Mitsub Materials 3,800
Kamoa Congo (Dem Rep) Conceptual OP Cu Ivanhoe Capital 3,529
Toromocho  Peru Feasibility OP Cu, Mo Chinalco 3,500
Ministro Hales  Chile Construction OP Cu Codelco 3,500
Schaft Creek  Canada Prefeasibility OP Cu, Au Copper Fox, Teck 3,258
Grasberg/Ertsberg  Indonesia Operating, exp/plans OP, UG Cu, Au FCX 3,175
El Teniente  Chile Operating, exp/constr UG Cu, Mo Codelco 3,039
Escondida  Chile Operating, exp/constr OP Cu, Au BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto Group, Mitsubishi, JX Nippon Mining, Mitsub Materials 3,002
Taca Taca  Argentina Conceptual OP Cu, Au Lumina Cu 3,000
Resolution  USA Prefeasibility UG Cu, Mo Rio Tinto Group, BHP Billiton 3,000
Aynak  Afghanistan Closed, reopen/feasibility OP Cu MCC, Jiangxi Copper 2,890
Haquira  Peru Conceptual OP, UG Cu First Quantum 2,824
CuMo  USA Prefeasibility OP Cu, Mo American CuMo 2,800
La Granja  Peru Prefeasibility OP Cu Rio Tinto Group 2,500
Galeno  Peru Prefeasibility OP Cu, Au Minmetals, Jiangxi Copper 2,500
Casino  Canada Feasibility OP Cu, Au Western Copper 2,469
Collahuasi Chile Operating, exp/feasibility OP Cu, Mo Anglo American, Glencore Xstrata, Mitsui, JX Nippon Mining 2,400
Quellaveco  Peru Feasibility OP Cu, Mo Anglo American 2,200
Agua Rica  Argentina Feasibility OP Cu, Au Yamana 2,055
King-king  Philippines Feasibility OP Cu, Au B2Gold 2,040
Trident  Zambia Conceptual OP Cu, Ni First Quantum 2,000
Aktogay  Kazakhstan Feasibility OP Cu, Au Kazakhmys 2,000
Iron Ore            
Lac Otelnuk  Canada Prefeasibility OP Fe Wugang, Adriana 12,967
Simandou  Guinea Prefeasibility OP Fe Rio Tinto Group, Chinalco 10,000
Timir  Russia Conceptual OP Fe Evraz Group, Alrosa Group 10,000
Minas Rio (MMX)  Brazil Construction OP Fe Anglo American 8,800
Serra Sul  Brazil Construction OP Fe Vale 8,089
Zanaga  Congo (Brazzav) Feasibility OP Fe Glencore Xstrata, ZIOC 7,545
Sino/Balmoral Central Australia Operating, exp/constr OP Fe Citic Pacific 6,319
Vetria Brazil Operating, exp/constr OP Fe ALL, Vetorial, Triunfo 5,540
Tonkolili  Sierra Leone Operating, exp/plans OP Fe African Minerals, Shandong I&S 5,000
Mbalam  Cameroon Feasibility OP Fe Sundance Res 4,686
Chineiskoye  Russia Feasibility OP Fe EN+ Group 4,506
Balmoral South  Australia Feasibility OP Fe Clive Palmer 4,040
Duncan Lake  Canada Conceptual OP Fe Wugang, G-Y Gagnon fam 3,833
Cape Lambert  Australia Feasibility OP Fe MCC 3,833
KeMag  Canada Feasibility OP Fe Tata Steel 3,800
Cerro Ccopane  Peru Conceptual OP Fe Cuervo Res 3,500
Vale Northern System (Carajas) Brazil Operating, exp/constr OP Fe Vale 3,475
Jimblebar Australia Operating, exp/constr OP Fe BHP Billiton 3,400
Pampa de Pongo Peru Conceptual UG Fe Nanjinzhao 3,280
Solomon  Australia Operating, exp/constr OP Fe FMG 3,200
Extension Hill Australia Feasibility OP Fe Shougang 3,108
Valentines Uruguay Feasibility OP Fe Zamin 3,000
Nkout Cameroon Conceptual OP Fe Afferro Mining 3,000
Tonkolili  Sierra Leone Operating, exp/plans OP Fe African Minerals, Shandong I&S 3,000
Southdown  Australia Feasibility OP Fe Grange Res, Sojitz Corp, Kobe Steel 2,988
Hawson  Australia Prefeasibility OP Fe Carpentaria, Pure Metals 2,887
West Pilbara - Mt Stuart  Australia Feasibility OP Fe AMCI, Aquila Res, Cullen 2,864
Hopes Advance  Canada Prefeasibility OP Fe Oceanic 2,850
LabMag  Canada Feasibility OP Fe Tata Steel 2,750
Bong  Liberia Closed, reopen/feasibility OP Fe Wugang, China Union 2,600
Voisey's Bay  Canada Operating, exp/constr OP Ni, Cu Vale 4,250
Weda Bay  Indonesia Feasibility OP Ni, Co State of France, Mitsubishi 4,000
Kalgoorlie (Heron) Australia Feasibility OP Ni, Co Heron Res 3,595
Marlborough (Gladstone) Australia Feasibility OP Ni, Co QLD Nickel 3,400
Elanskoye Russia Conceptual OP Ni Norilsk Nickel 3,276
Mindoro Philippines Feasibility OP Ni, Co Intex 2,455
Kingashsky Russia Feasibility OP Ni, Cu Intergeo 2,297
Mount Margaret Australia Feasibility OP Ni, Co Glencore Xstrata 2,072
Honeymoon Well Australia Feasibility OP Ni, Co Norilsk Nickel 1,533
Goongarrie Australia Prefeasibility OP Ni, Co Heron Res 1,443
Decar Canada Prefeasibility n/a Ni, Fe Cliffs Nat Res, First Point 1,391
Araguaia (Lara) Brazil Conceptual OP Ni Teck 1,383
Ramu Papua New Guinea Construction OP Ni, Co MCC 1,370
Turnagain Canada Conceptual OP Ni, Co Hard Creek Ni 1,319
Rönnbäcken Sweden Prefeasibility OP Ni, Co Amarant 1,260
Yerilla  Australia Prefeasibility OP Ni, Co Heron Res 1,200
Dumont  Canada Feasibility OP Ni, Co Royal Nickel 1,191
Gag Island  Indonesia Feasibility OP Ni, Co Antam 1,160
Talnakhskoye  Russia Operating, exp/plans OP, UG Ni, Cu Norilsk Nickel 1,000
Fenix  Guatemala Feasibility OP Ni Solway Group 0,984
Nunavik  Canada Conceptual OP Ni, Cu Jilin Haorong, Nearctic Nickel 0,970
Mindoro  Philippines Feasibility OP Ni, Co Intex 0,960
Nonoc  Philippines Suspended, restart/feasibility OP Ni, Co Philnico 0,950
Mayaniquel  Guatemala Prefeasibility OP Ni, Co Anfield 0,946
Agata North Philippines Feasibility OP Ni, Co Mindoro Res 0,906
Ferguson Lake  Canada Prefeasibility OP, UG Pd, Cu Starfield 1,500
Bafokeng Styldrift  South Africa Construction UG Pt, Pd Royal Bafokeng Nation, Anglo American 1,437
Twickenham  South Africa Operating, exp/plans UG Pt, Pd Anglo American 1,248
Bakubung  South Africa Construction UG Pt, Pd JNMC 1,087
Sheba's Ridge  South Africa Feasibility OP Pt, Pd Aquarius, Anglo American, State of South Africa 0,972
Afplats  South Africa Feasibility UG Pt, Pd Implats 0,731
Sedibelo West  South Africa Feasibility OP Pt, Pd Pallinghurst Res, Bakgatla, State of South Africa, Lonmin 0,700
Akanani  South Africa Prefeasibility UG Pt, Pd Lonmin, Shanduka Group 0,650
Garatau  South Africa Feasibility UG Pt, Pd Nkwe 0,650
Fedorova Tundra  Russia Feasibility UG Pd, Pt Barrick 0,640
Impala  South Africa Operating, exp/constr UG Pt, Pd Implats 0,616
Impala  South Africa Operating, exp/constr UG Pt, Pd Implats 0,511
Western Bushveld Project 1 South Africa Construction UG Pt, Pd PGM Ltd, JNMC 0,506
Konimansuri Kalon  Tadjikistan Prefeasibility UG Ag, Pb State of Tadjikistan 2,000
Pitarrilla  Mexico Feasibility OP, UG Ag Silver Standard 0,741
Brucejack  Canada Feasibility OP Ag, Au Silver Standard 0,664
Cordero  Mexico Conceptual OP Ag, Pb Levon Resources 0,647
Corani  Peru Feasibility OP Ag, Pb Bear Creek Mg 0,574
San Julián Mexico Construction UG Ag, Au Fresnillo Plc 0,550
Venetia  South Africa Operating, exp/constr OP Diamonds Anglo American, Ponahalo 2,100
Star  Canada Feasibility OP Diamonds Shore Gold  1,939
Verkhotina/Grib  Russia Feasibility OP Diamonds Lukoil-Northwest  0,850
Renard  Canada Feasibility OP, UG Diamonds Stornoway Diamonds  0,756
Cullinan  South Africa Operating, exp/plans UG Diamonds Petra Diamonds  0,632
Gahcho Kue  Canada Feasibility OP Diamonds Anglo American, Mountain Prov  0,553
Jwaneng  Botswana Operating, exp/feasibility OP Diamonds Anglo American, State of Botswana  0,500
Botuobinsk  Russia Feasibility OP Diamonds Alrosa Group  0,350
Ekati  Canada Operating, exp/plans OP, UG Diamonds Dominion Diamonds  0,319
Liqhobong (Main)  Lesotho Feasibility OP Diamonds Firestone Diamond, State of Lesotho  0,185
Viken  Sweden Prefeasibility OP U, V Cont Precious 3,734
Elkonskoye  Russia Conceptual ISL U Atomenergoprom OJSC 3,600
Imouraren  Niger Construction ISL U Areva, State of Niger, KEPCO 1,541
Rossing South (Husab)  Namibia Prefeasibility OP U CGNPC, CADFund 1,480
Khiagdinskoye  Russia Operating, exp/plans ISL U Atomenergoprom OJSC 1,156
Cigar Lake  Canada Construction UG U Cameco, Areva, Idemitsu, Tepco 1,106
Michelin  Canada Prefeasibility OP, UG U Paladin 0,994
Etango  Namibia Feasibility OP U Bannerman Res 0,870
Kvanefjeld  Greenland Feasibility OP U, REO GGG 0,810
Roughrider  Canada Conceptual OP U Rio Tinto Group 0,567
Eco Ridge  Canada Closed, reopen/plans UG U, REO Pele Mtn Res 0,563
Dugald River  Australia Feasibility UG Zn, Pb Minmetals 1,543
Mehdiabad  Iran Feasibility OP Zn, Pb State of Iran, MB Holding 1,300
Ozernoye  Russia Construction OP Zn, Pb CNMC, IFC Metropol 0,975
Admiral Bay Australia Prefeasibility UG Zn, Pb Kagara Ltd 0,837
Selwyn Canada Conceptual OP Zn, Pb Yunnan Chihong 0,685
Bahuerachi Mexico Conceptual OP Zn, Ag JNMC 0,619
Garpenberg Sweden Operating, exp/plans UG Zn, Ag Boliden 0,576
Izok Lake Canada Feasibility OP Zn, Pb Minmetals 0,539
Terrazas Mexico Prefeasibility OP Zn, Cu War Eagle 0,500
Hilarion Peru Prefeasibility UG Zn, Pb Votorantim 0,470
Tulsequah Chief Canada Feasibility UG Zn, Ag Chieftain Metals 0,440
Citronen Greenland Feasibility UG Zn, Pb Nyrstar 0,429
Oued Amizour  Algeria Feasibility UG Zn, Pb Terramin Aust, State of Algeria 0,413
Hackett River Canada Feasibility OP, UG Zn, Ag Glencore Xstrata 0,409
Asmara Eritrea Feasibility OP Zn, Cu Sunridge Gold 0,403
McArthur River Australia Operating, exp/constr OP Zn, Pb Glencore Xstrata 0,373
Accha  Peru Prefeasibility OP, UG Zn, Pb Zincore 0,346
Khnaiguiyah Saudi Arabia Feasibility OP Zn, Cu Alara Resources, Manajem 0,257
Aripuana Brazil Prefeasibility UG Zn, Pb Votorantim, Karmin 0,250
Zhairem Dalnezapadny Kazakhstan Suspended, restart/plans UG Zn, Pb ENRC plc 0,250
Altyn-Topkan Tadjikistan Suspended, restart/plans UG Pb, Zn Xinjiang Tacheng, State of Tadjikistan 0,250

Resource Center Whitepapers, Videos, Case Studies

Let's stay in touch!

All of the latest mining news and our digital edition sent to your inbox once a week.

We'll never share your email address, and you can opt out at any time, we promise.