Mining companies are no strangers to technical risk. However, the challenge today is political as well as commercial. Governments and state-linked actors are playing a far more active role in deciding where value is created along the supply chain, who gets to participate and on what terms.
In this environment, relying on generic ‘country risk’ scores is no longer enough. Companies need sharper intelligence on political and commercial dynamics if they want to de-risk projects and keep capital flowing.
Many resource-rich governments are no longer content with the traditional ‘extract and ship’ model. They are using regulation and export controls to force more value to be captured at home. Indonesia’s nickel export ban is the most prominent example, used to catalyse a domestic mid- and downstream processing industry.
Similar examples can be found elsewhere: Guinea pushed Rio Tinto to commit to local refining capacity at Simandou, and Gabon has signalled it will ban manganese exports by 2029 to secure more domestic value-add.
These policies are colliding with pushes from the US and the EU to ‘de-risk’ critical minerals supply chains by bringing processing and refining back to their own territories. The result is a more crowded policy space.
Host governments want to capture value downstream, consuming countries want to secure strategic supply at home and investors are caught navigating competing imperatives across multiple jurisdictions.
At the same time, the US government is becoming a more direct participant in mining and materials markets. Washington has used executive orders and the Defense Production Act (DPA) to support strategic initiatives, recently offering US$29.9 million in DPA funds to ElementUSA to build domestic gallium and scandium supply.
Elsewhere, “golden share” arrangements, export controls and stockpiling policies are increasingly shaping the economics of operations as much as ore grades or operating costs.
This convergence of state and commercial interests raises a simple question for miners and investors: how to navigate this environment without guessing?
This is where commercial intelligence becomes essential.
The case for commercial intelligence
Traditional risk management looks backward. It tracks known variables and stress tests them against future scenarios. Commercial intelligence looks ahead, seeking to understand how political, market, and competitive dynamics are likely to evolve and what that might mean for assets, partners and timing.
Done well, this kind of analysis can show how geopolitical tensions might translate into sudden supply disruptions (for example, Chinese restrictions on rare earths), or when environmental regulation and community opposition can derail a flagship operation (as seen at Cobre Panamá, which closed after a public backlash in 2023).
This goes beyond ad hoc local insight or standard market research. It involves a systematic effort to gather, analyse, and apply information on markets, supply chains, regulatory environments and stakeholder power structures.
Such work decodes forces like resource nationalism, shifting tax and royalty regimes, infrastructure bottlenecks, technology transitions, the influence of local political or community leaders and geopolitical pressures. The goal is not to eliminate uncertainty, but to translate it into usable insight for boardrooms, management and investment committees.
Central to this effort is understanding and nurturing what might be called a “triangle of trust” between a company, the host government and local – often Indigenous – communities.
If any side of that relationship is weak, operations become far more vulnerable to shocks, including elections, protests, legal challenges or sudden changes in policy.
When that trust is strong, companies can secure and maintain their social license to operate and are better positioned to negotiate changes in fiscal terms, local content or downstream commitments over the life of the mine.
Better intelligence can also have direct financial effects. If a company can demonstrate that it understands in-country conditions and has built resilient relationships with key stakeholders, it can lower perceived exposure for equity, debt and even government financiers.
It can also prevent companies wasting time and resources engaging with officials and other interlocutors without the influence needed to secure approvals and otherwise remove blockages.
That, in turn, can help reduce hurdle rates and unlock capital that might otherwise remain uncommitted. The result: investments remain viable even in more complex jurisdictions.
Turning uncertainty into strategic advantage
So how can mining companies build this capability in practice? For those that have yet to establish a dedicated commercial intelligence function, four broad approaches exist:
1. In-house risk mitigation and engagement: Building internal capacity provides direct control over intelligence, ensuring insights are closely tied to strategy. Teams engage local officials, non-governmental organisations and communities, allowing fast response to a narrow set of risks.
2. Tapping embassies and state-run intelligence functions: Country embassies, trade offices, and state-linked chambers have deep institutional knowledge and local networks that companies cannot easily replicate.
3. Leveraging experts and intermediaries: Engaging former diplomats, intelligence analysts, and knowledgeable consultants brings nuanced understanding of political, social and cultural dynamics. Experts interpret signals from informal networks, assess the credibility of intelligence and objectively identify risks or opportunities that aren’t public. They can quickly deepen trust via existing relationships that would take years for a company to develop on its own.
4. A hybrid approach: Combining in-house intelligence with external partnerships creates robustness, allowing companies to cross-validate insights and balance internal knowledge and critical ‘outside-in’ perspective. This approach bridges long-term capability development with rapid trust-building and access and leverages external advisors’ ability to operate discreetly when independence is required.
A long-term mindset is necessary
Whichever path companies choose, the underlying mindset is the same.
Navigating in-country conditions is not a one-off exercise around licensing or a single investment decision; it’s a capability that needs to be nurtured from the exploration phase to a mine’s closure. If the objective is only to win mineral rights, without investing in relationships and analysis over time, the venture is already on the back foot.
No company can predict or avoid every risk. But those that invest in serious political and commercial intelligence can materially reduce the likelihood of adverse surprises, lower their risk profile in the eyes of lenders and investors and increase the odds that projects will clear key hurdles.
In a world where governments are reshaping the rules of the mining game, that edge may prove decisive.
Peter Bryant is the board chair of Clareo, a strategy consulting firm providing expert advice to the mining, energy and food sectors. Benjamin Weiss is CEO of Veracity Worldwide, a strategic intelligence and advisory firm specialising in resources, tech, and defence.