Archive

March 5, 2026

Browsing

Modern society has a metals problem. The demands of modern consumer culture, the energy transition and the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics have created a dilemma.

As demand rises, the supply of many metals is at a bottleneck brought about by a number of factors, from government red tape to civil unrest, as well as lack of capital expenditures leading to fewer new discoveries and mines.

On top of this, mining companies focused on essential metals like copper are facing additional challenges, as in many cases the easy discoveries have already been made and existing mines are seeing declining grades, causing further constraints to supply.

BHP (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP) Digital Officer Mikko Tepponen suggests that the very technologies that rely on metals and mining can be the answer in his presentation at the 2026 Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference.

Addressing data fragmentation in exploration

Once companies open up capital expenditures to the exploration side of the mining sector, several questions arise, most notably: Where are the minerals?

At its core, exploration relies on the geosciences, with a geologist in the field, sampling rocks, conducting surveys and using the data gathered to estimate where the best place is to put a drill for a look below the surface.

Mining is a data-driven enterprise, and depending on the project, the information can come from a range of methods, from modern techniques to historic observations, meaning the data is fragmented across a variety of sources and formats.

AI and machine learning can be good at processing and interpolating large quantities of information. However, data accessibility creates another roadblock.

“Across our industry, vast volumes of exploration data are sealed in archive rooms, and legacy systems can’t read through third-party data sets,” Tepponen said. “That data is neither structured, searchable nor interoperable. That means AI cannot make easy sense of it, and in many cases, that data was never extracted.”

For Tepponen, one of the challenges the mining industry needs to overcome is data fragmentation. Without enough data or proper information, there is an increased risk of making the wrong exploration decisions.

“Time matters because capital is finite. Drill meters are expensive, and decisions about capital allocation have multi-year impacts down the line,” he said.

The way BHP has implemented a data-centric approach is building a central data platform that integrates the decades of exploration data, standardizes it and makes it accessible through a central team within the company.

Tepponen says the platform supports 52 standardized core geoscience types, backed by more than 100 years of data, helping its exploration teams save months of time.

“Our geoscientists can access more than 4 million drill hole cores and 9,000 geophysical surveys through one portal,” he added.

Using BHP’s in-house AI extraction tool, one team of geoscientists obtained data from thousands of drill holes from 30,000 legacy document records. They then used the central data platform to combine that with modern drilling data.

According to Tepponen, the team completed the work in a few hours, while doing so manually would have taken months, and results were higher quality than the previous method.

However, he stressed that the integration of AI into its workflow wasn’t about replacing geoscience teams, but about “amplifying the work of geoscientists by creating a digital tool that enables them to focus on higher value.”

Additionally, the information in the platform is not limited to BHP’s data. Tepponen explained that the entire system is built on an open-source database designed to break down data silos and enable cross-sector collaboration.

Using targeted optimizations to avoid disruptions

While exploration poses a bottleneck to the development of new projects for future supply, disruptions to existing operations significantly impact current output.

It’s often impossible to predict major events like extreme weather, civil unrest or regulatory changes. However, operators can foresee some disruptions that result in hundreds of hours of downtime throughout the industry every year.

Tepponen outlined one persistent problem: oversized rocks and foreign objects making their way through processing plants.

“If an uncrushable rock or piece of metal gets into the crusher, it can cause blockages, damage belts and create significant downtime,” he said. “If it travels downstream, it can damage equipment and create critical bottlenecks.”

In Western Australia, BHP employs a hub-and-spoke model that connects five mines to a central processing facility. If one of the hazards disrupts operations at the facility, it can affect operations at the mines connected to it.

Additionally, fixing these issues exposes maintenance teams to higher-risk tasks, so eliminating the problem in the first place improves both productivity and safety.

Tepponen explained that historically, workers would be used to identify the hazards before they were loaded onto the truck, but once they reached the conveyor, they became much harder to remove.

The company now employs a real-time monitoring system that detects objects, alerts controllers and can automatically stop the conveyor.

“These are actually very simple technologies available commercially off the shelf. Cameras and machine learning control systems applied to a real world operational constraint,” he said.

In the prior three years, these incidents had caused over 1,000 hours of downtime, according to Tepponen. However, since it installed the monitoring system, the company hasn’t experienced any major disruptions or destruction events caused by oversized rocks, a change that he said amounts to hundreds of thousands of metric tons per year of increased processing.

“It’s a small system-level optimization that can deliver outsized returns on the AI journey. This is not a massive program. This is identifying simple constraints, applying proven technology,” he said, and emphasized the process of controlled testing, iteration and then deploying at scale. ‘That’s how systematic innovation actually happens.’

Testing scenarios with digital twin simulations

In his third use case example, he turned to BHP’s semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) mill at its Escondida operation in Chile, at which differing particle size and hardness in ore feed was impacting production.

The company used AI to create a digital twin of the value chain, which included everything that was known about the operation, such as ore body knowledge, processing behavior and operational constraints.

“That digital simulation enabled scenario testing and gave us the ability to inform blasting and blending strategies to predict granularity,” Tepponen said, noting that monthly production losses attributed to the problem fell by around 70 percent.

“The lesson, when the ore body knowledge is connected directly to the processing decisions, the system becomes more stable and predictable.”

BHP has since applied the approach to other operations, including ones in Australia and Chile.

“The Gen AI integration is multicultural, so non-technical users and the technical users can run scenarios in their first language,” he said, an aspect that he said is very important for the local companies at its operations.

Building foundations, collaboration key to AI usefulness

Tepponen was emphatic that AI alone wasn’t a “superhero.” BHP needed to specifically design these AI platforms in order to achieve these results.

“One of the most important lessons we have learned is we don’t actually get value from AI by starting with AI. The value comes from the foundations, consistent data standards, interoperability. You need to start at the bottom and make your way to the top.”

Tepponen also stressed the value of collaboration, noting that companies tend to be protective of their intellectual property, but opportunities are being missed that could be mutually beneficial.

“The hard truth is, no company can solve this problem of data fragmentation and system integration,” he said, and the industry would benefit from a collaborative approach on standards, interoperability and data throughout the value chain.

Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Iran’s tyrannical and ruthless regime is disintegrating. After yet again massacring thousands of its own citizens for voicing their dreams for liberty and better governance, the Iranian regime meantime resumed pursuing nuclear capability and its aggressive ICBM program. The regime’s overconfidence in U.S. inaction cost it its leader and its core military capabilities are going up in smoke. Against this backdrop, the conflict has spread to the Gulf, threatening the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for roughly one-fifth of the world’s petroleum, and forcing the rest of the world to rethink how it prices energy risk and political alignment.

This is not another regional flare-up. This is a rupture of an old equilibrium in which sanctioned oil, shadow fleets and calibrated escalation kept markets stable enough to function. That equilibrium is now breaking. A rapid political-military shift in the Middle East is unfolding alongside a restructuring of the global energy order.

When I was in Afghanistan during the surge, Tehran’s active support for the insurgency fighting the United States and Afghan forces fomented instability and amplified violence for which civilians paid the biggest price, a dynamic that so many across several nations have tragically encountered for decades. But Iran was never a contained regional problem.

While its terrorism was widely perceived as a Middle East issue, its cyber and intelligence operations spanned continents, with assassination plots that included the American president. As to global effects, Iran’s energy has always made its regime globally significant.

At this stage of the conflict, the most economically significant and immediate geography is the Strait of Hormuz which Iran is working to choke off. Roughly one-fifth of global petroleum and a substantial portion of liquefied natural gas move through that narrow corridor. As strikes intensified, vessels paused transit, insurers reassessed exposure and operators rerouted cargoes. Markets adjusted immediately. Energy security and geopolitical stability are now inseparable; maritime risk has become the pressure valve through which regional conflict spills into global consequence. 

This realignment did not begin in the Gulf this weekend. It started with U.S. actions in Venezuela. Caracas holds the world’s largest proven crude reserves — about 303 billion barrels — and even marginal normalization under a more U.S.-cooperative government alters the supply calculus for Washington and its allies.

The new U.S.–Venezuela arrangement has already generated roughly $2 billion in transactions in just weeks, pulling Venezuelan barrels back into wider circulation and altering the discount ecosystem Moscow had grown accustomed to. Stack that with a post-crisis Iran re-entering markets on different terms, and the shadow ecosystem of discounted, sanctioned crude — Russia, Iran, Venezuela — begins to fracture and reprice simultaneously.

But the most consequential energy recalibration runs through Beijing. China is essentially Iran’s oil export market. In 2025, China bought more than 80% of Iran’s shipped oil, averaging ~1.38 million barrels per day, about 13.4% of China’s seaborne crude imports—meaning Beijing is simultaneously Tehran’s economic lifeline and its strategic choke chain.

By turning a sanctioned producer into a quasi-captive supply relationship — sustained through gray-market routing, reflagging and intermediary hubs — Beijing secured discounted barrels in normal times and leverage in crisis. Any sustained disruption of Iranian flows forces China into replacement buying that tightens global markets and exposes China’s own energy security; Iran exports about 1.6 million bpd mainly to China and such disruptions pushes Beijing to pivot to alternatives.

The relationship is therefore best understood as a dependency loop: Iran needs China for revenue and sanctions relief-by-proxy; China uses Iran as a discount supplier and as a pressure valve in the sanctioned crude system — one that can be tightened or loosened depending on Beijing’s broader negotiation posture with Washington and its appetite for risk in the Gulf. That Iran-China dependency is no longer stable.  With Iranian oil flows disrupted, China faces a choice between turning to alternative suppliers at higher cost or even tapping strategic reserves. Tightening global crude markets resulting from U.S. actions in Venezuela and now Iran give Washington leverage in energy pricing.

Beyond the tanker decks, this shift underscores the larger theme of reconfiguration: resources once bundled to manage sanctions are now subject to heightened geopolitical risk, forcing China to rethink dependencies while the U.S. and its partners are positioning to shape the post-conflict energy order. Energy supply patterns will restructure global power relations. And where China is recalibrating exposure, Russia is recalculating opportunity.

The same forces reshaping China’s calculations are altering Moscow’s. As India trims Russian purchases, Moscow has been pushing more barrels into China, and Reuters reports China’s Russian crude imports hitting new records in February while Russian sellers widened discounts to keep demand — Urals trading roughly $9–$11 below Brent for China deliveries, and other Russian grades also cutting hard as sellers chase Chinese refiners.

The new U.S.–Venezuela arrangement has already generated roughly $2 billion in transactions in just weeks, pulling Venezuelan barrels back into wider circulation and altering the discount ecosystem Moscow had grown accustomed to. 

This matters because China is also the anchor buyer for sanctioned Iranian crude; the ‘discount market’ is not infinite, so Russia and Iran are now competing for the same limited pool of Chinese buyers, driving deeper concessions and leaving cargoes idling — exactly the kind of sanctions-economy dynamic.

Add the West’s tightening focus on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ and the risk of seizures or insurance denial, and you get an energy chessboard where coercion moves from rhetoric to logistics: who can ship, insure and clear payments reliably becomes as strategic as who can produce.

In that context, Russia’s loud warnings about Hormuz disruption are not just diplomacy, they are a reminder that Moscow profits from volatility, but also needs a functioning gray-market channel to China, and Iran’s crisis threatens to scramble the very discount ecosystem Russia has used to finance its war in Ukraine. Structural realignment threatens the very gray-market architecture on which Moscow has relied.

Energy is only one layer of a global shift. Strategic minerals remain critical. The Trump administration has increased economic and maritime pressure on Cuba, tightening an effective oil blockade that choked off fuel imports. President Donald Trump has authorized tariffs targeting countries supplying oil to Havana.

This is not simply punitive policy. It reflects a broader strategic doctrine: deny adversarial regimes energy lifelines while repositioning the Western Hemisphere’s resource base toward U.S. leverage. Oil is only one domain. Rare earth elements are a strategic asset. Cuba’s nickel and cobalt output, combined with China’s tightening grip through rare-earth export controls indicates that leverage is not just oil fields but also supply chains. America achieving rare earth elements sovereignty will remain a strategic goal and such a global realignment on this front is much needed.

By the close of the first weekend, Iran appeared intent on accelerating its own collapse by compounding strategic error with strategic error. Iran felt it wise to respond to U.S. and Israeli strikes by pushing a half dozen other nations against it. On Saturday afternoon, Feb. 28, Iran launched attacks on seven sovereign nations – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Israel. It added Oman shortly after.

These nations now have a legal and political basis to deepen security ties with the U.S. and Israel that they could never have justified domestically before today. Iran has arguably done more to consolidate the anti-Iran regional architecture in one afternoon than a decade of American diplomacy. Watch for accelerated Abraham Accords-adjacent normalization with Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks.

Any sustained disruption of Iranian flows forces China into replacement buying that tightens global markets and exposes China’s own energy security…

After massacring thousands of its own citizens for demanding better governance, the regime’s long-standing presumption of U.S. inaction cost the 1979 Revolution its dream of ruling over Iranians perpetually. After 47 years, its leader is gone, and its core military capabilities are being dismantled.

The lesson is not simply that the Iranian regime is falling. It is that when it falls amid energy chokepoints and great-power competition, supply chains, alliances and leverage structures shift simultaneously. Iran’s collapse is not the end of the story; it is the catalyst for a broader redistribution of power across energy, alliances, and great-power leverage. America should exploit these shifting dynamics fully. 

The views expressed here are his and do not reflect the policy or positions of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advisory Council, U.S. Army or Department of Defense. 

Related Article

Gas prices could jump as Middle East tensions threaten global oil supply
This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Justice Department’s endeavor to break up Live Nation, Ticketmaster’s parent company, has officially made its way to the courtroom.

The antitrust case, which began with jury selection Monday, is unfolding in federal court in New York. Opening statements are scheduled to start Tuesday, with the trial expected to last six weeks.

The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by the Justice Department and dozens of state attorneys general, as well as Washington, D.C., alleges that Live Nation has illegally dominated the live concert industry by monopolizing ticketing, concert booking, venues and promotions.

The complaint, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, accuses the company of engaging in ‘anticompetitive conduct’ that leads fans to pay more in fees, artists to get fewer opportunities to play concerts and venues to have limited choices for ticketing services.

Ticketmaster has for years been the target of scrutiny by music fans who reported frustrations with buying tickets through the platform.

Live Nation directly manages more than 400 musical artists and owns or controls more than 265 concert venues in North America. And through Ticketmaster, the lawsuit says, it controls around 80% of major concert venues’ ticketing — as well as a growing share of the resale market.

“Through interconnected agreements associated with Live Nation’s various roles as ticketer, promoter, artist manager, and venue owner,” the complaint says, “Live Nation has created a feedback loop that pushes ticketing and ancillary fees higher while allowing Live Nation to be on all sides of numerous transactions and thereby double-dip from the pockets of fans, artists, and venues.”

Here’s what else to know.

Attempts to advocate for ticketing reform have spanned decades. The rock band Pearl Jam tried to push the issue forward 30 years ago when its members testified before Congress, saying Ticketmaster had refused to agree to low concert ticket prices and fees. The case was dismissed a year later, and Ticketmaster’s dominance has persisted over the decades that followed.

But frustration over Ticketmaster began to boil over when it incurred the wrath of one of the country’s largest fan bases: Swifties, aka followers of Taylor Swift.

In late 2022, overloaded presale queues for the domestic leg of Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour caused the site to crash and led Ticketmaster to cancel the sale. The fiasco even drew the attention of Swift herself, who called it “excruciating” to watch.

Soon afterward, in January 2023, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing examining Ticketmaster’s dominance in the industry. During the bipartisan hearing, which probed whether Ticketmaster’s outsize control has unfairly hurt customers, even senators couldn’t refrain from making references to Swift.

The Swifties also brought their own lawsuits against Ticketmaster in December 2022. One class-action suit was dropped by the end of 2023, while another suit, filed together by 355 individual ticket buyers, still awaits trial.

Live Nation Entertainment has denied that it’s a monopoly.

The company has told NBC News that the Justice Department’s lawsuit “won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows.”

“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment, such as the fact that the bulk of service fees go to venues, and that competition has steadily eroded Ticketmaster’s market share and profit margin,” the company said.

Last week, Live Nation asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to pause the case so it could appeal his decision denying the case’s dismissal.

Subramanian, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, declined to delay the trial and ruled to allow the Justice Department’s claims to proceed.

Potential witnesses for the trial include: musician Kid Rock (whose real name is Robert Ritchie), Minnesota Timberwolves CEO Matthew Caldwell, Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez, Live Nation Entertainment CEO Michael Rapino and Mumford & Sons keyboardist Ben Lovett.

Kid Rock is expected to testify about ‘competitive conditions for concert promotions and primary ticketing, including the impact of Defendants’ actions on artists and fans,’ according to the potential witness list provided by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. In January, he told the Senate Commerce Committee at a hearing that the ticketing industry is ‘full of greedy snakes and scoundrels.’ (It appears Kid Rock is still partnering with Live Nation for his “Freedom 250” tour, with tickets currently being sold exclusively through the platform.)

Lovett’s testimony, meanwhile, would be likely to address ‘artist preferences and competitive dynamics associated with the promotions and amphitheaters markets,’ according to the plaintiffs’ potential witness list document. He’s also listed on the defendants’ potential witness list document.

Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino and former Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff are also expected to take the stand. They were instrumental figures in the 2010 merger.

Azoff, who represents major artists such as Harry Styles, is ‘likely to testify about industry trends, dynamics, and competition, the selection of live event promotion companies, and tour and show routing and venue selection, as well as ticketing provider preferences,’ according to the potential witness list provided by the defendants’ attorneys.

Rapino’s expected testimony would focus on ‘the company’s business, its corporate structure, strategy, and finances, including the different lines of business and how they interact, as well as industry trends, dynamics, and competition.’ The defendants’ attorneys also said he would be likely to ‘rebut the plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct and anticompetitive effects.’

Last year, the Federal Trade Commission separately sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster over allegations of illegal and deceptive business practices that it says caused consumers to pay ‘significantly more’ than the face value of a ticket.

Seven states — Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia — joined the FTC’s suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS