- Applications of Hyaluronic Acid in Pharmaceuticals, Healthcare and Cosmetics and Its Biosynthesis Wiley Online Library
- Hyaluronic Acid Skin Care Products Market Set to Reach USD 3.90 Billion by 2033 as Global Demand for Advanced Hydration Surges Strategic Revenue Insights (SRI) Yahoo Finance
- Hyaluronic Acid Market to Grow Immensely at a CAGR of 8% From 2025 To 2034 openPR.com
- Are the benefits of hyaluronic acid just skin-deep? Here’s the science Australian Broadcasting Corporation
- Hyaluronic Acid Market Set to Reach $4.9 Billion by 2035, Growing at 7.12% CAGR openPR.com
Category: 3. Business
-
Applications of Hyaluronic Acid in Pharmaceuticals, Healthcare and Cosmetics and Its Biosynthesis – Wiley Online Library
-

Japan records a 5th straight yearly trade deficit
TOKYO — Japan posted a trade deficit for the fifth straight year in 2025, according to government data released Thursday, as exports were hit by U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and a diplomatic rift with neighboring China.
For the full year, Japan logged a 2.65 trillion yen ($17 billion) trade deficit, the Finance Ministry reported in its preliminary data.
That was nearly 53% smaller than the deficit Japan marked the previous year. Exports for the year rose 3.1%, while imports remained about the same on-year, gaining less than 1%.
For the month of December, Japan recorded a 105.7 billion yen ($669 million) trade surplus.
The monthly surplus was 12% smaller than what was racked up a year ago. Imports grew 5.3% from the same month a year ago, while exports grew 5.1%.
By nation, exports to the U.S. declined 11% in December, while exports to Britain, Africa and some other Asian countries rose. Imports from Europe were strong.
The United States has imposed a 15% tariff on most imports from Japan, a reduction from the 25% that Trump initially proposed but an increase from before he took office a year ago.
Another looming concern is the impact on Japanese manufacturing, including automakers, from China’s curbs on exports of rare earths.
The controls were announced by Beijing after Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi suggested a Chinese move on Taiwan could prompt a Japanese military response.
Takaichi has called a snap elections for next month in hopes her party can gain strength in Parliament while she is popular with the public.
Overall, Japan’s economy has held up, despite grumbling from the public about rising prices and stagnant wages. The benchmark Nikkei on the Tokyo Stock Exchange keeps hitting new records.
___
Yuri Kageyama is on Threads: https://www.threads.com/@yurikageyama
Continue Reading
-

Balaji Wafers Announces Strategic Investment from General Atlantic
Gujarat, 22 January 2026 – Balaji Wafers, one of India’s largest snack food brands, today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to receive a strategic investment from General Atlantic, a leading global investor. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
Founded in 1981 by the Virani family, Balaji Wafers has grown from a home-based enterprise into one of India’s largest packaged snack brands. The Company has built its brand on the promise of consistent high-quality, taste and availability, which is supported by its continuous investment in automation, supply chain, innovation, as well as its people and channel partners. Balaji Wafers offers a diverse portfolio across Namkeen, Western snacks, potato wafers, noodles, chikki, papad, and confectionery, all of which have been well received by consumers. Over the years, the Company has successfully scaled its operations from its home base in Gujarat to become a leading player across multiple states in India. In addition to its strong domestic presence, Balaji Wafers exports its products to around 25 countries worldwide.
With General Atlantic’s investment, Balaji Wafers will focus on further strengthening key corporate functions across the Company and accelerating innovation. Drawing on General Atlantic’s global expertise in the food and consumer sectors, the Company plans to accelerate its expansion across India.
Chandubhai Virani, Founder & Chairman at Balaji Wafers, said: “This partnership marks an important milestone in our journey. General Atlantic’s deep understanding of consumer businesses, track record of working with founder families and long-term approach to value creation, align well with our vision for Balaji Wafers.” Keyur Virani, Whole-time Director, added: “General Atlantic’s investment will support our efforts to establish and operate world-class facilities, invest in innovation and build a professional team to help drive the next phase of growth for the Company. We are excited to extend our footprint across India while staying true to the quality and taste that our consumers trust.”
Shantanu Rastogi, Managing Director and Head of India at General Atlantic, said: “Balaji Wafers is a true Indian success story. The Company has modernised its production capabilities while preserving the flavour and quality that its consumers have grown to love. We see significant growth potential in India’s packaged snacks market as households increasingly seek affordable, convenient and high-quality food products. Balaji Wafers is well positioned to capitalise on this opportunity, and we look forward to partnering with Chandubhai, Keyur and the entire Balaji team as the Company enters its next phase of growth.”
Intensive Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. acted as the exclusive advisor to Balaji Wafers. Under the leadership of Mr. D.K. Surana, Intensive Fiscal Services is a leading investment bank in the consumer sector.
The transaction is subject to customary regulatory approvals and is expected to close later in 2026.
About Balaji Wafers
Balaji Wafers is one of India’s largest snack food brands. Headquartered in Gujarat, the company is known for its wide portfolio of high-quality and affordable snack products. Supported by advanced manufacturing facilities, Balaji Wafers has established a robust and expansive retail footprint across multiple regions of India.
About General Atlantic
General Atlantic is a leading global investor with more than four and a half decades of experience providing capital and strategic support for over 830 companies throughout its history. Established in 1980, General Atlantic continues to be a dedicated partner to visionary founders and investors seeking to build dynamic businesses and create long term value. Guided by the conviction that entrepreneurs can be incredible agents of transformational change, the firm combines a collaborative global approach, sector specific expertise, a long-term investment horizon, and a deep understanding of growth drivers to partner with and scale innovative businesses around the world. The firm leverages its patient capital, operational expertise, and global platform to support a diversified investment platform spanning Growth Equity, Credit, Climate, and Sustainable Infrastructure strategies. General Atlantic manages approximately $118 billion in assets under management, inclusive of all strategies, as of September 30, 2025, with more than 900 professionals in 20 countries across five regions. For more information on General Atlantic, please visit: www.generalatlantic.com.
Media Contacts
Balaji Wafers
Jay Sachdev
[email protected]General Atlantic
Jess Gill
[email protected]Continue Reading
-

Australian shares shoot up after Trump walks back tariff threat | Australian economy
Australian shares shot higher on Thursday to recoup part of their recent losses, after Donald Trump dropped a tariff threat used against European allies amid his pressure campaign to gain control of Greenland.
The de-escalation fuelled a rally in global sharemarkets that flowed into Australia, sending the benchmark S&P/ASX 200 briefly above the 8,860 point mark, before a slight easing.
The US president’s retreat once again rewarded dip buyers, who have ridden the “Trump Always Chickens Out” – or TACO – trade strategy that relies on the American leader backing down from tariff threats after declaring victory.
Trump has said he has a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland, without elaborating.
But, in an interview with Sky News on Wednesday, a member of Denmark’s parliament, Sascha Faxe, has suggested that the deal Donald Trump claims to have struck with Nato over Greenland is “not real”.
“The thing is, there can’t be a deal without having Greenland as part of the negotiations, first of all,” Faxe said.
Veteran financial markets commentator Michael McCarthy said while risk was “building up in the market, all the arrows are pointing up” after the latest easing of geopolitical tension.“We’ve seen a number of things that in the past could have triggered a very significant correction in the equity market but investors have just shrugged it off,” said McCarthy, from online trading platform Moomoo.
McCarthy cites an outbreak of inflation, serious increase in geopolitical tensions, and risk of a sell off in US bonds as potential triggers for a sustained global equity correction.
A US bond sell off would signal investors have lost faith in US political and economic policies, with reverberations for global markets.
Chris Weston, the head of research at Melbourne-based financial firm Pepperstone, said investors will want to know more about Trump’s framework deal over Greenland’s future before completely discounting further risk in Europe.
“That said, it may not be entirely straightforward – many will want to see the devil in the detail of the deal and the finer details of any agreement, what is truly at stake, and how the deal is articulated from the European side,” Weston said.
Australia’s mineral-tinged share market has been helped by robust commodity prices, with iron ore demand proving resilient and gold and copper trading near record highs.
At the same time, sticky inflation and the growing prospect of a near-term interest rate hike has limited stock market gains.
The ASX momentum paused on Thursday after the release of an Australian jobs report that showed a surge in employment, fuelling the odds of a rate rise as early as next month.
Rising rates are generally bad for stocks, given borrowing costs increase and rival investments like bonds become more attractive.
Australia’s benchmark index was up about 0.6% in afternoon trading on Thursday, representing about $17bn in market value and recouping about half of its losses suffered over the past week.
The Australian dollar has hit a 15-month high against its US equivalent, trading near the US68c mark.
Continue Reading
-

Sumitomo Chemical Receives Clarivate Top 100 Global Innovators 2026 Award Selected as One of the World’s Top 100 Innovative Companies and Institutions for Five Consecutive Years | News Releases
Sumitomo Chemical Receives Clarivate Top 100 Global Innovators 2026 Award
Selected as One of the World’s Top 100 Innovative Companies and Institutions for Five Consecutive YearsJan. 22, 2026
Sumitomo Chemical has been recognized as a Top 100 Global Innovator 2026 by Clarivate, a global technology information services company. This marks the fifth consecutive year since 2022 that Sumitomo Chemical has received this award. Only three companies from the chemical and materials industry in Japan were ranked among the top 100 this year.
This award is given to the top 100 innovative companies and organizations selected by Clarivate from among companies and organizations worldwide based on its own patent-related data and evaluation criteria. Clarivate bases its evaluation on four factors: influence, success rate, geographic investment, and rarity. Of these, Sumitomo Chemical received particularly high praise in the factor of rarity, which is an indicator of the combination of multiple technologies.
Sumitomo Chemical has strengthened its business competitiveness by combining its unique core technologies and development capabilities of products and applications in organic synthesis, catalyst design, production technology, analytical evaluation, quality control, which it has cultivated over many years. In addition, the Company has also created synergies between different technologies. This award recognizes these technological achievements, as well as the strong patent portfolio Sumitomo Chemical has built by steadily filing and obtaining rights for its achievements globally.
Sumitomo Chemical’s long-term vision is to become an Innovative Solution Provider. It aims to remain a company with a global presence through continuously creating innovative products and technological solutions for societal issues across the fields of food, ICT, healthcare, and the environment, and providing them to society at large. The Company will continue to position intellectual property as an important management resource, and will accelerate the development of new products and technologies that contribute to solving societal issues by further promoting research and development and intellectual property activities, which are the foundation for improving its corporate value.
References
Contact
Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.
Corporate Communications Dept.
https://www.sumitomo-chem.co.jp/english/contact/public/Continue Reading
-
-

Trump credit card plan would be ‘disaster’, JP Morgan boss Dimon warns
US President Donald Trump’s proposal to cap credit card costs would be “an economic disaster”, the boss of one of the world’s biggest banks has warned.
JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon said the plan would remove credit from the majority of Americans and hit restaurants, retailers, travel firms and schools.
Trump this month wrote on Truth Social that interest rates on credit cards should be limited to 10% for one year from 20 January.
The cap has yet to come into force and the president did not say how it might be introduced or whether such a move would be legally enforceable.
Asked about the cap at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Dimon said: “It would be an economic disaster, and I’m not making that up because our business… we would survive it by the way.”
He said capping interest rates on credit cards at Trump’s suggested level of 10% would be “drastic” and cut access to credit for 80% of Americans, adding that it is “their back up credit”.
In a dig at senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have supported such a cap, he said if Trump did go ahead with the plan, it should be trialled in their respective states of Vermont and Massachusetts.
Dimon added: “The people crying the most won’t be the credit card companies, it will be the restaurants, the retailers, the travel companies, the schools, the municipalities because people will miss their water payments.”
Top JP Morgan executives including Dimon had previously warned that a 10% interest rate cap would severely hurt consumers, adding their voices to criticism of the proposal.
Trump doubled down on his suggestion on Wednesday, telling the business news channel CNBC: “I’ve had calls from credit card companies, people that are friends of mine, actually, and I treat them good.
“I respect them greatly, but they make a lot of money, they got to give people a break.”
US banking associations have said capping interest rates would make it harder for people to access credit and be “devastating” for millions of families and small businesses.
The average interest rate for credit cards in the US is roughly 20%.
In his statement on social media on 13 January, Trump called for a 10% limit, reviving an idea he put forward during his 2024 presidential election campaign.
“Effective January 20, 2026, I, as President of the United States, am calling for a one year cap on Credit Card Interest Rates of 10%,” he wrote. “Please be informed that we will no longer let the American Public be ‘ripped off’ by Credit Card Companies.”
The social media post spooked investors in credit card firms American Express, Visa and Mastercard, while UK bank Barclays also saw its shares dip.
Continue Reading
-
An update on the great reallocation in US supply chain trade
The era of ‘hyperglobalisation’ that defined world trade in the early 21st century has given way to a more fractured trade policy landscape (Gros 2017), under the strain of actions enacted by the first and second Trump administrations. Starting in 2018, the first wave of US tariffs was a shock especially to US–China economic relations, with China being singled out for Section 301 actions on the grounds of redressing unfair trade practices. By late 2019, average US tariffs on goods from China had been raised by around 20 percentage points (Bown 2021, Chor and Li 2024). An even more sweeping wave of tariff announcements followed, shortly after Trump’s return as president in 2025. The “Liberation Day” tariffs, if fully implemented, threaten to increase tariffs for all US trade partners, with additional rates ranging from a minimum of ten to a maximum of more than 50 percentage points.
Global firms and country governments now face the unenviable task of navigating a trade policy environment where US tariff rates are increasingly fluid and mercurial. The stakes are considerable: sourcing decisions made by firms and policy responses enacted by countries today are poised to reshape global supply chain activity for years to come.
Already, the first wave of US tariffs in 2018-2019 set in motion a shift in US sourcing away from China, which we described as a ‘Great Reallocation’ with the potential to significantly disrupt established supply chain relationships around the world (Alfaro and Chor 2023a, 2023b). While we had (somewhat tentatively) characterised these trends as ‘looming’ in our previous work, it is fair to say that this adjective can now be dropped without qualifications. In Alfaro and Chor (2025), we provide an update on the scope, pace, and composition of this ‘Great Reallocation’, using US import data for detailed product codes from 2013-2025. With the benefit of a longer time span of data, what can we say about the short- to medium-run effects of the 2018-2019 wave of Trump tariffs? And what do the most recent months of data tell us about the early impact of the “Liberation Day” announcements?
Our work adds to a growing body of empirical evidence on the far-reaching effects of the US–China tariff war. These have documented the effects on bilateral trade flows (Fajgelbaum et al. 2020), as well as on trade diversion involving third countries (Fajgelbaum et al. 2024, Iyoha et al. 2024). More broadly, this work speaks to a debate over whether what we are witnessing is a fragmentation of world trade along geopolitical lines (Aiyar et al. 2023, Gopinath et al. 2025).
Six facts on the Great Reallocation
We summarise our findings in a series of six stylised facts.
1. Decoupling from China, but not (yet) from the world at large
Between 2017 and 2024, aggregate US merchandise imports grew at an annual average rate of 5.7% (in nominal terms), faster than the annual rate of 0.8% in the preceding four years. This was happening even amid an ongoing decline in US direct imports from China (see left panel in Figure 1). In China’s stead, there has been strong growth in US imports from other trade partners, notably Vietnam, Mexico, and in the last few years, Taiwan. What the data show is thus a selective decoupling from China, rather than a full US retreat from globalisation at least for now (Antràs 2021, Baldwin 2022, Goldberg and Reed 2023, Conteduca et al. 2025).
Figure 1 Changes in US imports by major trade partners, 2015-2025H1
Notes: Based on US Census Bureau data, half-yearly averages of nominal imports; index values with 2017H1 as the base (= 100). The selected trade partners illustrated in the right panel are the top seven as ranked by the increase seen between 2017-2024 in US import market share.
2. Limited diversification in the pool of US import partners
The US has diversified its sourcing away from China, with Mexico and Canada overtaking China in their share of direct US imports. Even so, the reshuffling of these US import market shares has occurred almost entirely among the US’ 20 largest import partners, as the combined share held by countries outside this ‘top 20’ has barely changed since 2017. During this time, only one economy (the Netherlands) broke into the ‘top 20’ list. The reallocation of US sourcing shares has thus been happening largely among its existing trade partners and established industrial clusters.
3. Continued slide in China’s direct import share
China’s share of US imports peaked at roughly 21% in 2017. By the end of 2024, this had fallen to around 13%, extending the slide in China’s direct import market share reported in earlier work (Alfaro and Chor 2023a, Freund et al. 2024, Grossman et al. 2024, Garred and Yuan 2025). On the other hand, Vietnam, Mexico, and Taiwan each gained around two percentage points of US import market share by 2024 (see Figure 2). Although some of this increase in partner country imports could reflect rerouting of goods that originate from China, the available estimates of this phenomenon indicate that pure rerouting is unlikely to account for the bulk of the increase in Vietnam’s and Mexico’s exports to the US (Iyoha et al. 2024, Freund 2025).
Figure 2 Changes in US import shares across trade partners since 2017
Notes: Based on US Census Bureau data; the first seven trade partners illustrated from the left are the top seven as ranked by the increase seen between 2017-2024 in US import market share.
In our paper (Alfaro and Chor 2025), we also estimate Jorda (2005) local linear projections to trace out the year-by-year, HS six-digit product-level impulse responses of US imports following the 2018-2019 tariffs on China, separately for several key trade partners. Figure 3 presents the associated findings for US imports from China. This confirms the large and persistent decline in product-level import shares with the onset of the tariffs (top-left panel). This drop reflects both the cessation of imports of some products (the extensive margin), as well as reduced volumes among continuing flows (the intensive margin). Using data on duty-inclusive unit values (bottom-right panel), we also estimated tariff pass-through to be substantial (around 0.7), albeit slightly smaller than the full pass-through obtained from monthly data in earlier studies (Amiti et al. 2019, Fajgelbaum et al. 2020, Cavallo et al. 2021).
Figure 3 Local projection responses: China’s imports in the US, 2013-2024
Notes: Based on Jorda (2005) local projections, with the additional US product-level tariff on imports from China, i.e. Δln(1 + τ), as the tariff shock variable. The sample here comprises all available HS six-digit products. We average the data over 2018-2019 and set this as the base year (h = 0); the regressions are otherwise run on annual data. For pre-periods (h < 0), the outcome variable is defined as yp,h − yp,h−1. Standard errors are clustered at the HS four-digit level, with 90% confidence intervals illustrated.
4. Most of the adjustment has occurred on the product-level intensive margin
Using a product-level accounting decomposition, we find that most of the reallocation – both China’s drop and other countries’ gains in US import market share – stem from changes in volumes for products that were already being traded. There were some notable exceptions where the extensive margin – (net) entry of exports in HS6 codes – did play a more prominent role, namely, Vietnam and India after 2021.
5. Reallocation eventually affects more ‘sticky’ supply chain relationships
The decrease in China’s share in US imports was concentrated in 2017-2020 among products that could plausibly be sourced from alternative locations at short notice, such as various computer units and associated parts, as well as apparel items. By 2021–2024, however, the shift away from China spread to products that are contract-intensive (i.e. whose production relies more on specialised inputs, as measured by Nunn 2007) and that are relationship-sticky (i.e. that tend to feature more long-lived buyer-supplier ties, as measured by Martin et al. 2023). For such products, it appears that once it was clear that the Trump tariffs would persist under the Biden administration, firms stopped taking a ‘wait and see’ approach and instead started incurring the sunk costs of reorganising and relocating their cross-border supply chains.
6. Reallocation has accelerated since Liberation Day
The data through August 2025 already reveal a striking acceleration in the pace of reallocation in US import patterns following the 2 April 2025 tariff announcements. China’s share of US imports fell sharply by about four percentage points between March and August 2025, so much so that by late 2025, this share stood at approximately 9% (see Figure 2), a level last seen when China joined the WTO in 2001. US trade policies in the past eight years have thus effectively unwound the preceding two decades of deepening US-China trade ties (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 China’s import share in the US since 1991
Notes: Based on US Census Bureau import data. The bars illustrate China’s share in US imports (left vertical axis), while the line illustrates the rise in US total real imports over time (right vertical axis). The 2025 data point is based on partial year information.
Moreover, Figure 5 reveals how the Liberation Day tariffs have tilted reallocation in favour of US trade partners facing lower announced tariff rates, notably Mexico and Canada. Economies faced with higher announced tariffs, particularly in East Asia, instead lost further import market share. This speed of adjustment suggests that firms had already pre-emptively lined up alternative sourcing arrangements as a contingency plan, which they were then able to activate quickly once the full extent of the protectionist goals of the second Trump administration was confirmed on Liberation Day.
Figure 5 Changes in US imports by major trade partners, March to August 2025
Notes: Based on US Census Bureau import data and the Liberation Day tariff rates announced on 2 April 2025. The vertical axis plots the change in each trade partner’s share of US imports between March and August 2025, demeaned by the average import share change over the same months during 2022–2024. Marker sizes are proportional to each partner’s total import volume in 2024. The best-fit line is from a linear regression, weighted by initial US imports from the trade partner in 2024.
Concluding thoughts
Given how swiftly the ‘Great Reallocation’ in US supply chains has unfolded, a natural question to ask is whether US–China trade, and the international trading system more broadly, can bounce back. On this front, much depends on how permanent firms and supply chain managers envision the current slate of US trade policy measures to be. Specifically, which tariffs are likely to remain in force – perhaps even beyond the second Trump administration – and which could be rolled back? A plausible hypothesis here is that protectionist measures will persist for the foreseeable future in US trade with China and in industries deemed vital for American jobs. This is because concerns about trade with China and about competition for workers have been repeatedly cited by the US public as reasons for favouring limits on imports (Alfaro et al. 2023c).
References
Aiyar, S, C H Ebeke, R Garcia-Saltos, T Gudmundsson, A Ilyina, A Kangur, T Kunaratskul, S L Rodriguez, M Ruta, T Schulze, G Soderberg and J P Trevino (2023), Geoeconomic Fragmentation and the Future of Multilateralism, Technical Report, International Monetary Fund.
Alfaro, L and Davin Chor (2023a), “Global Production Networks: The Looming ‘Great Reallocation’”, in Structural Shifts in the Global Economy, Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium, pp. 213–278.
Alfaro, L and D Chor (2023b), “A Perspective on the Great Reallocation of Global Supply Chains”, VoxEU.org, 28 September.
Alfaro, L, M X Chen and D Chor (2023c), “Can Evidence-Based Information Shift Preferences Towards Trade Policy?”, NBER Working Paper 31240.
Alfaro, L and D Chor (2025), “An Anatomy of the Great Reallocation in US Supply Chain Trade”, NBER Working Paper 34490.
Amiti, M, S J Redding and D E Weinstein (2019), “The Impact of the 2018 Tariffs on Prices and Welfare”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 33(4): 187–210.
Antràs, P (2021), “De-Globalisation? Global Value Chains in the Post-COVID-19 Age”, ECB Forum: Central Banks in a Shifting World Conference Proceedings.
Baldwin, R (2022), “The Peak Globalisation Myth”, VoxEU.org, 31 August.
Bown, C P (2021), “The US–China Trade War and Phase One Agreement”, Journal of Policy Modeling 43(4): 805–843.
Cavallo, A, G Gopinath, B Neiman and J Tang (2021), “Tariff Pass-Through at the Border and at the Store: Evidence from US Trade Policy”, American Economic Review: Insights 3(1): 19–34.
Chor, D and B Li (2024), “Illuminating the Effects of the US-China Tariff War on China’s Economy”, Journal of International Economics 150, 103926.
Conteduca, F P, S Giglioli, C Giordano, M Mancini and L Panon (2025), “Trade Fragmentation Unveiled: Five Facts on the Reconfiguration of Global, US and EU Trade”, Journal of Industrial and Business Economics 52: 535–557.
Fajgelbaum, P D, P K Goldberg, P J Kennedy and A K Khandelwal (2020), “The Return to Protectionism”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 135(1): 1–55.
Fajgelbaum, P, P Goldberg, P Kennedy, A Khandelwal and D Taglioni (2024), “The US-China Trade War and Global Reallocations”, American Economic Review: Insights 6(2): 295–312.
Freund, C, A Mattoo, A Mulabdic and M Ruta (2024), “Is US Trade Policy Reshaping Global Supply Chains?”, Journal of International Economics 152, 104011.
Freund, C (2025), “The China Wash: Tracking Products To Identify Tariff Evasion Through Transshipment”, mimeo.
Garred, J and S Yuan (2025), “Relocation from China (with Chinese Characteristics)”, Journal of Development Economics 176, 103510.
Goldberg, P K and T Reed (2023), “Is the Global Economy Deglobalizing? If So, Why? And What is Next?”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring, 347–396.
Gopinath, G, P-O Gourinchas, A F Presbitero and P Topalova (2025), “Changing Global Linkages: A New Cold War?”, Journal of International Economics 153, 104042.
Gros, D (2017), “Globalisation: The hype, the reality, and the causes of the recent slowdown in global trade”, VoxEU.org, 30 June.
Grossman, G M, E Helpman and S J Redding (2024), “When Tariffs Disrupt Global Supply Chains”, American Economic Review 114(4): 988–1029.
Iyoha, E, E Malesky, J Wen, S-J Wu and B Feng (2024), “Exports in Disguise? Trade Rerouting during the US-China Trade War”, mimeo.
Jorda, O (2005), “Estimation and Inference of Impulse Responses by Local Projections”, American Economic Review 95(1): 161–182.
Martin, J, I Mejean and M Parenti (2023), “Relationship Stickiness, International Trade, and Economic Uncertainty”, Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.
Nunn, N (2007), “Relationship-Specificity, Incomplete Contracts, and the Pattern of Trade”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(2): 569–600.
Continue Reading
-

Lundin Mining Announces 2025 Production Results and 2026 Guidance
Lundin Mining Announces 2025 Production Results and 2026 Guidance
January 21, 2026
VANCOUVER, BC, Jan. 21, 2026 /CNW/ – (TSX: LUN) (Nasdaq Stockholm: LUMI) Lundin Mining Corporation (“Lundin Mining” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce production results for the year ended December 31, 2025. The Company achieved guidance on all metals for the year on a consolidated basis. This represents the third consecutive year that Lundin Mining has achieved consolidated production guidance, reinforcing the Company’s commitment to operational and financial consistency.
In addition, the Company is pleased to release production guidance for the three-year period from 2026 through 2028, as well as cash cost, capital and exploration expenditure guidance for 2026. Unless otherwise stated, all numbers are in US dollars.
Jack Lundin, President and CEO, commented “I am proud to report that Lundin Mining has delivered production in line with guidance for the third consecutive year, reflecting the accuracy of our planning cycle and our disciplined focus on operational consistency. In the fourth quarter, we produced over 87,000 tonnes of copper and over 34,000 ounces of gold, capping a strong year across our three Latin American operations. Notably, Caserones produced over 15,000 tonnes of copper in December 2025, marking the best monthly performance since Lundin Mining took ownership of the operation.
“Looking ahead, our three-year production and one year cost outlook remains firmly on track with previously disclosed forecasts. Mine sequencing optimizations are expected to increase copper production by 20,000 tonnes in 2027, while the midpoint of 2026 has been adjusted by 5,000 tonnes, resulting in a net increase of approximately 15,000 tonnes over the two-year period. Operationally, we remain focused on delivering consistent performance through disciplined planning, which we believe will translate into stronger financial returns in a robust commodity price environment.
“Brownfield growth initiatives across our operations continue to progress, and the advancement of the Vicuña project remains on track. With the RIGI PEELP application submitted in December, the integrated technical report results forthcoming this quarter, and continued progress on upsizing our credit facility, 2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal year as Vicuña moves into an exciting new phase of development.”
Highlights for 2025 Production and 2026 – 2028 Guidance
2025 Production Results
The Company beat original1 copper production guidance and was within the revised copper, gold and nickel production guidance for the year.
- 2025 full year production results (100% basis):
- Copper production of 331,232 tonnes (t);
- Gold production of 141,859 ounces (oz);
- Nickel production at Eagle of 9,907 t;
- During Q4 2025, Caserones achieved its highest quarterly consolidated copper production since the Company has owned the mine, producing 39,612 tonnes, driven by higher copper head grades and cathode production.
Guidance
- Updated three-year production guidance remains in line with previous 2026 and 2027 guidance2. The company forecasts 2026 consolidated copper production of 310,000 to 335,000 tonnes and gold production of 134,000 to 149,000 ounces at a cash cost guidance3 of $1.90/lb to $2.10/lb.
- Forecasted consolidated copper production of 315,000 to 340,000 tonnes in 2027 and 290,000 to 315,000 tonnes in 2028.
- Sustaining capital expenditures4 of $550 million and expansionary capital expenditures4 of $445 million in 2026.
- Exploration expenditures are forecast to be $53 million primarily for in-mine and near-mine targets in 2026.
____________________________________________
1 Guidance as announced by news release “Lundin Mining Announces Record Production Results for 2024 & Provides 2025 Guidance” dated January 16, 2025.
Summary of 2025 Production
The Company exceeded its original2 full year consolidated copper production guidance and was within the increased5 full year production guidance for 2025. Strong operational performance, particularly at Caserones drove production growth for the year.
Candelaria produced 145,471 tonnes of copper for the full year, benefiting from higher mill throughput due to softer ore.
Since Lundin Mining has owned the mine, Caserones achieved its highest quarterly copper production of 39,612 tonnes in the fourth quarter of 2025, supported by higher head grades and strong cathode production. For the full year, Caserones produced 132,881 tonnes surpassing original guidance.
Full year copper production at Chapada was 43,974 tonnes, which benefited from consistent grades and strong throughput during the year.
Q4 2025
Production
FY 2025
Production
2025 Original
Guidance2
2025 Revised
Guidance5
Copper (t)
Candelaria (100% basis)
34,272
145,471
140,000
–
150,000
143,000
–
149,000
Caserones (100% basis)
39,612
132,881
115,000
–
125,000
127,000
–
133,000
Chapada
11,191
43,974
40,000
–
45,000
40,000
–
45,000
Eagle
1,957
8,906
8,000
–
10,000
9,000
–
10,000
Total Copper
87,032
331,232
303,000
–
330,000
319,000
–
337,000
Gold (oz)
Candelaria (100% basis)6
19,055
80,528
78,000
–
88,000
78,000
–
84,000
Chapada
15,074
61,331
57,000
–
62,000
57,000
–
62,000
Total Gold
34,129
141,859
135,000
–
150,000
135,000
–
146,000
Nickel (t)
Eagle
2,174
9,907
8,000
–
11,000
9,000
–
11,000
Total Nickel
2,174
9,907
8,000
–
11,000
9,000
–
11,000
_________________________________________
2
Guidance as announced by news release “Lundin Mining Announces Record Production Results for 2024 & Provides 2025 Guidance” dated January 16, 2025.
3
This is a non-GAAP measure. For equivalent historical non-GAAP financial measure comparatives see the Historical Non-GAAP Measure Comparatives section of this press release. Please also see the Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024 and nine months ended September 30, 2025.
4
Sustaining capital expenditure is a supplementary financial measure and expansionary capital expenditure is a non-GAAP measure – see the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and the Historical Non-GAAP Measure Comparatives at the end of this news release.
5
Guidance as most recently disclosed in the Company’s Management Discussion and Analysis for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025.
Three-Year Production Guidance 2026 – 2028
Copper production is forecast to remain stable at approximately 310,000 to 335,000 tonnes annually in 2026, consistent with 2025 production, after accounting for the sale of the Eagle Mine to Talon Metals Corp. (see press release dated January 9, 2026 entitled “Lundin Mining Completes the Sale of the Eagle Mine and Humboldt Mill to Talon Metals”).
Mine plan updates at the Company’s Candelaria operation result in modifications to the previous 2026 guidance. At Candelaria, 2026 copper and gold production guidance reflects lower underground mining rates in the first half of the year as the Company insources the underground mining contract.
The outlook for consolidated copper production in 2027 increases compared to the previous 2027 guidance from higher forecast production at Candelaria, Caserones and Chapada resulting in an increase to the cumulative consolidated copper production over 2026 and 2027 by 15,000 tonnes when compared to the previous guidance during the same period and based on the midpoint of the guidance ranges, after accounting for the sale of the Eagle Mine.
Gold guidance for 2026 is forecast to be 134,000 to 149,000 ounces which reflects lower underground mining rates at Candelaria as mentioned previously. In 2027, gold production is expected to increase by approximately 10,000 ounces year-on-year, driven by higher production at Chapada, resulting in the cumulative consolidated gold production over 2026 and 2027 to remain essentially flat when compared to the previous guidance and based on the midpoint of the guidance ranges.
Production Guidance
2026
2027
2028
Copper (t)
Candelaria (100% basis)
135,000
–
145,000
157,000
–
167,000
135,000
–
145,000
Caserones (100% basis)
130,000
–
140,000
115,000
–
125,000
115,000
–
125,000
Chapada
45,000
–
50,000
43,000
–
48,000
40,000
–
45,000
Total Copper
310,000
–
335,000
315,000
–
340,000
290,000
–
315,000
Gold (oz)
Candelaria (100% basis) 6
77,000
–
87,000
85,000
–
95,000
75,000
–
85,000
Chapada
57,000
–
62,000
58,000
–
63,000
57,000
–
62,000
Total Gold
134,000
–
149,000
143,000
–
158,000
132,000
–
147,000
Candelaria: Annual fluctuations in copper and gold production forecasts for the next three years are primarily due to variations in the grade profile of Candelaria.
Revisions to Candelaria’s 2026 copper and gold production guidance incorporates lower underground mining rates in the first half of the year as the Company insources the underground mining contract. The production profile is forecast to be modestly weighted towards the second half of the year due to higher expected grades from Phase 12.
Higher copper production of approximately 7,000 tonnes in 2027 when compared to the previous 2027 guidance, results from revised ore sequencing and additional higher-grade ore from Phase 11.
Over the three-year guidance period, total mill throughput averages approximately 29 million tonnes per annum (“Mtpa”), slightly higher than previous years due to an improved ore hardness model that accounts for softer ore from Phase 11.
Caserones: Copper production in 2026 is modestly weighted toward the first half of the year due to the planned grade profile. As part of the mine sequencing, 2027 and 2028 production profiles reflect anticipated lower copper head-grades following the completion of Phase 6 in early 2027.
________________________________________
6
68% of Candelaria’s total gold and silver production is subject to a streaming agreement.
Caserones copper guidance in 2027 increases by ~10,000 tonnes to 115,000 to 125,000 tonnes when compared to the previous 2027 guidance, as a result of higher cathode production and increased mill throughput.
Over the guidance period, mill throughput is expected to rise to approximately 34–36 Mtpa, supported by ongoing Full Potential initiatives. Cathode production is expected to improve from optimization efforts implemented in 2025 and is forecast to be 26,000–28,000 tonnes per annum (“tpa”) over the period, an improvement of 6,000–8,000 tpa from prior levels.
Chapada: Copper production guidance increases by ~5,000 tonnes in 2026 to 45,000 to 50,000 tonnes and gold guidance is increased by approximately 10,000 ounces in 2027 as compared to the previous 2026 and 2027 guidance, respectively. Annual variations largely reflect mine sequencing and forecasted copper and gold grade profiles. An updated mine plan has reduced the proportion of stockpile material in mill feed from ~25% to ~10%, improving copper and gold recoveries over the three-year period.
2026 Cash Cost7 Guidance
Consolidated cash cost in 2026 is forecast to be within $1.90 to $2.10 per pound of copper, net of by-product credits. As part of the company’s Full Potential programs, the focus will continue to be on cost reductions and process improvements. Total cash cost guidance for 2026 is in line with 2025 guidance.
2026 cash cost guidance reflects higher by-product credits primarily from an increase in gold and molybdenum commodity price assumptions offset by a stronger Chilean Peso.
Cash Cost
20268
Copper
Candelaria9
$2.05/lb
–
$2.25/lb
Caserones
$2.05lb
–
$2.25/lb
Chapada10
$1.00/lb
–
$1.20/lb
Consolidated C1 Cash Cost
$1.90/lb
–
$2.10/lb
Candelaria: Cash cost guidance is forecast to be $2.05/lb – $2.25/lb of copper, after by-product credits. Lower production volumes and foreign exchange rates led to a slight increase in cash cost compared to 2025 guidance.
During the fourth quarter 2025, Lundin Mining successfully negotiated a new three-year labour agreement with the unions at Candelaria, a negotiation which originally was scheduled for 2026.
Caserones: Cash cost is expected to decline in 2026 (as compared to the revised 2025 guidance) and are forecast to be $2.05/lb – $2.25/lb of copper, after by-product credits, reflecting higher low-cost cathode production.
Chapada: Cash cost is forecast to be $1.00/lb – $1.20/lb of copper in 2026, after by-product credits, a slight increase from the prior year. This is the result of higher mining rates in 2026, partially offset by higher by-product credits.
_______________________________________
7
This is a non-GAAP measure. For equivalent historical non-GAAP financial measure comparatives see the Historical Non-GAAP Measure Comparatives section of this press release. Please also see the Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024 and nine months ended September 30, 2025.
8
2026 cash cost is based on various assumptions and estimates, including, but not limited to: production volumes, commodity prices (2026 – Mo: $20.00/lb, Au: $4,000/oz: Ag: $80.00/oz) foreign currency exchange rates (2025 – CLP/USD:900, USD/BRL:5.50) and operating costs.
9
68% of Candelaria’s total gold and silver production are subject to a streaming agreement and as such cash costs are calculated based on receipt of $437/oz and $4.36/oz, respectively, on gold and silver sales in the year.
10
Chapada’s cash cost is calculated on a by-product basis and does not include the effects of its copper stream agreements. Effects of the copper stream agreements are reflected in copper revenue and will impact realized price per pound.
2026 Capital Expenditure Guidance
Total sustaining capital expenditures11 are forecast to be $550 million, consistent with prior years’ guidance. Candelaria and Caserones account for approximately 80% of the sustaining capital budget, with the majority of expenditures directed to open pit waste stripping, underground mine development, tailings storage facility (“TSF”) and mining equipment. Expansionary capital expenditures11 are forecast to be $445 million and includes 50% of the expenditure related to the 50/50 joint arrangement between the Company and BHP for the Vicuña Project.
Capital Expenditures ($ millions)
202611,12
Sustaining Capital
Candelaria (100% basis)
$215
Caserones (100% basis)
$235
Chapada
$100
Total Sustaining Capital
$550
Expansionary Capital
$50
Vicuña (50% basis)
$395
Total Capital Expenditures
$995
Candelaria ($215 million): Capitalized waste stripping and underground mine development is forecast to be $60 million and TSF expenditures are forecast to be $40 million. Capital expenditure for mobile and mine equipment is forecast to be $20 million, and the remaining sustaining capital requirements are estimated at $95 million.
Expansionary capital is estimated to be $35 million, which includes approximately $25 million for pre-production stripping related to Phase 13.
Caserones ($235 million): Includes approximately $70 million for capitalized waste stripping, $50 million for TSF and water management projects, and $50 million for mine and mobile equipment. Sustaining capital requirements beyond these items are estimated at approximately $65 million.
Chapada ($100 million): Includes approximately $30 million for capitalized waste, $38 million for TSF and water management projects, and $16 million for mine and mobile equipment.
Vicuña ($395 million): Capital expenditures for the Vicuña project are forecast to total $395 million on a 50% basis for 2026. The 2026 workplan includes activities such as ongoing resource and infill drilling, equipment purchases for Josemaria to support earthworks, procurement of long lead equipment and the advancement of the Northern Access Road. Indirect activities, primarily related to Josemaria, include detailed engineering, construction management and preconstruction work associated with camp expansion, construction facilities, permitting and other owner’s costs to support continued project de-risking. Additional engineering studies will advance Filo leaching, Filo sulfides, desalinated water infrastructure and concentrate transportation to further refine project definition and support permitting activities.
A 50,000 metre (m) drill program is planned at Filo del Sol, the program will focus on resource conversion and growth, as well as drilling to support upcoming technical studies.
___________________________________________
11
Expansionary capital expenditure is a non-GAAP measure and sustaining capital expenditure is a supplementary financial measure. For historical comparatives see the Historical Non-GAAP Measure Comparatives section of this press release. Please also see the Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024 and nine months ended September 30, 2025 for discussion of non-GAAP measures.
12
Capital expenditures are based on various assumptions and estimates, including, but not limited to foreign currency exchange rates (2026 – CLP/USD:900, USD/BRL:5.50).
Vicuña is targeting completion of an integrated technical report in Q1 2026 which will outline the district’s development plan and include updated mineral resource estimates for both Filo del Sol and Josemaria.
2026 Exploration Investment Guidance
Exploration expenditures are planned to be $53 million in 2026, primarily for resource expansion at in-mine and near-mine targets at our operations. The largest portion of the planned expenditure will be at Caserones where drilling (39,800 m) and geophysical programs are planned. The drill program at Caserones will primarily focus on defining the size of the Angelica deposit, both in terms of leachable copper resources and the underlying copper/molybdenum sulphide mineralization, with a planned 26,900 m of drilling. Additional drilling at Caserones will be directed towards growing the size of the Caserones deposit laterally and testing at least two new district exploration targets (Centauro and Cordillera). Significant drilling programs are also planned at Candelaria (16,000 m), and Chapada (13,700 m) with the goal of growing resources. At Candelaria drilling is designed to continue expanding the underground resources, while also growing the shallow La Española deposit and neighboring La Portuguesa target area. At Chapada additional drilling at Saúva will continue to further define higher grade resources that will be incorporated into an updated resource estimate later this year.
About Lundin Mining
Lundin Mining is a Canadian mining company headquartered in Vancouver, Canada with three operating mines in Brazil and Chile. We produce commodities that support modern infrastructure and electrification. Our strategic vision is to become a top ten global copper producer. To get there, we are executing a clear growth strategy, which includes advancing one of the world’s largest copper, gold, and silver projects in the Vicuña District on the border of Argentina and Chile, where we hold a 50% interest. Lundin Mining has a proven track record of value creation through resource growth, operational excellence, and responsible development. The Company’s shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange (LUN) and Nasdaq Stockholm (LUMI). Learn more at www.lundinmining.com.
The information in this release is subject to the disclosure requirements of Lundin Mining under the EU Market Abuse Regulation. The information was submitted for publication, through the agency of the contact persons set out below on January 21, 2026 at 18:00 Eastern Time.
Other Information
The scientific and technical information in this press release has been prepared in accordance with the disclosure standards of National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and has been reviewed and approved by Eduardo A. Cortes, Vice President, Technical Services, a “Qualified Person” under NI 43-101. Mr. Cortes has verified the data disclosed in this release and no limitations were imposed on his verification process.
Historical Non-GAAP Measure Comparatives
Cash cost and sustaining and expansionary capital expenditures are non-GAAP financial measures and are not standardized financial measures under generally accepted accounting principles under IFRS and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. These amounts are intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. Please refer to the section titled “Non-GAAP and Other Performance Measures” in Lundin Mining’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024 and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, which are incorporated by reference herein and which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
Cash Cost – Year Ended December 31, 2024
Operations
Candelaria
Caserones
Chapada
Eagle
Total –
Continuing
OperationsNeves-
CorvoZinkgruvan
Total –
Discontinued
Operations($ millions,
unless otherwise
noted)(Cu)
(Cu)
(Cu)
(Ni)
(Cu)
(Zn)
Sales volumes
(Contained
metal):Tonnes
158,017
113,867
39,615
5,662
26,721
68,086
Pounds (000s)
348,367
251,033
87,336
12,483
58,910
150,104
Production costs
1,898.6
445.2
Less: Royalties
and other(84.5)
(4.8)
1,814.1
440.4
Deduct: By-
product credits2(504.4)
(305.5)
Add: Treatment
and refining113.6
55.4
Cash cost
603.5
629.6
137.7
52.4
1,423.3
129.1
61.2
190.4
Cash cost per pound ($/lb)
1.73
2.51
1.58
4.20
2.19
0.41
Capital Expenditures – Year Ended December 31, 2024
($ millions)
Sustaining
Expansionary
Capitalized
InterestTotal
Candelaria
275.7
—
—
275.7
Caserones
144.0
—
—
144.0
Chapada
107.8
—
—
107.8
Eagle
21.2
—
—
21.2
Josemaria
—
243.6
14.6
258.2
Other
0.4
—
—
0.4
Continuing Operations
549.1
243.6
14.6
807.3
Neves-Corvo
89.3
—
—
89.3
Zinkgruvan
65.7
—
—
65.7
Total
704.1
243.6
14.6
962.3
Sustaining capital expenditures is a supplementary financial measure and expansionary capital expenditures is a non-GAAP measure. See the Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024, for discussion of non-GAAP measures heading “Non-GAAP and Other Performance Measures” which is incorporated by reference herein.
Cash Cost – Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
Continuing Operations
Candelaria
Caserones
Chapada
Consolidated
Eagle
Total –
Continuing
Operations($ millions, unless
otherwise noted)(Cu)
(Cu)
(Cu)
(Cu)
(Ni)
Sales volumes (Contained
metal):Tonnes
107,618
93,153
32,627
233,398
5,895
Pounds (000s)
237,257
205,367
71,930
514,554
12,996
Production costs
557.3
607.2
234.9
1,399.4
112.7
1,514.0
Less: Royalties and other
(9.5)
(32.0)
(17.4)
(58.9)
(12.7)
(73.4)
547.8
575.2
217.5
1,340.5
100.0
1,440.6
Deduct: By-product credits2
(136.3)
(108.0)
(162.4)
(406.7)
(66.0)
(472.7)
Add: Treatment and refining
17.3
6.4
4.6
28.3
—
28.3
Cash cost
428.8
473.6
59.7
962.1
34.0
996.2
Cash cost per pound ($/lb)
1.81
2.31
0.83
1.87
2.62
Discontinued Operations1
Neves-Corvo
Zinkgruvan
Total –
Discontinued
Operations($ millions, unless otherwise noted)
(Cu)
(Zn)
Sales volumes (Contained metal):
Tonnes
6,745
20,698
Pounds (000s)
14,870
45,631
Production costs
90.2
36.9
127.1
Less: Royalties and other
(1.3)
—
(1.3)
88.9
36.9
125.8
Deduct: By-product credits2
(67.0)
(23.3)
(90.3)
Add: Treatment and refining
5.4
7.2
12.6
Cash cost
27.3
20.8
48.1
Cash cost per pound ($/lb)
1.84
0.46
1 Discontinued operations results are to April 16, 2025
2 By-product credits are presented net of the associated treatment and refining charges.
Capital Expenditures – Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025
($ millions)
Total
Candelaria
21.7
Vicuña
126.0
Expansionary capital investment from continuing operations
147.7
Candelaria
144.9
Caserones
99.5
Chapada
75.7
Eagle
17.4
Other
0.1
Sustaining capital investment from continuing operations
337.6
Total capital expenditures from continuing operations
485.3
Sustaining capital expenditures is a supplementary financial measure and expansionary capital expenditures is a non-GAAP measure. See the Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, for discussion of non-GAAP measures heading “Non-GAAP and Other Performance Measures” which is incorporated by reference herein.
Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information
Certain of the statements made and information contained herein are “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts included in this document constitute forward-looking information, including but not limited to statements regarding the Company’s plans, prospects, business strategies and strategic vision and aspirations, and their achievement and timing; the Company’s guidance on the timing and amount of future production and its expectations regarding operational performance and the results of operations; the Company’s guidance and expectations regarding financial performance, including estimated capital expenditures and other costs, expenditures and financial metrics; the Company’s growth and optimization initiatives and expansionary projects, and the potential costs, outcomes, results and impacts thereof; approval of the RIGI application in Argentina for the Vicuña Project and the timing thereof; the operation of Vicuña with BHP; the realization of synergies and economies of scale in the Vicuña district; the timing and expectations for studies and updated estimates; permitting requirements and timelines; timing and possible outcome of pending litigation; the results and timing of any Preliminary Economic Assessment, Pre-Feasibility Study, Feasibility Study, or Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimations, life of mine estimates, and mine and mine closure plans; the step down of the gold stream at Candelaria and the impacts and timing thereof; anticipated market prices of metals, currency exchange rates, and interest rates; the Company’s ability to comply with contractual and permitting or other regulatory requirements; anticipated exploration and development activities, including potential outcomes, results, impacts and timing thereof; the Company’s integration of acquisitions and expansions and any anticipated benefits thereof; and expectations for other economic, business, and/or competitive factors. Words such as “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “contemplate”, “target”, “plan”, “goal”, “aim”, “intend”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “may”, “will”, “can”, “could”, “should”, “schedule” and similar expressions identify forward-looking information.
Forward-looking information is necessarily based upon various estimates and assumptions including, without limitation, the expectations and beliefs of management, including that the Company can access financing, appropriate equipment and sufficient labour; assumed and future price of copper, gold, zinc, nickel and other metals; anticipated costs; currency exchange rates and interest rates; ability to achieve goals and identify and realize opportunities; the prompt and effective integration of acquisitions and the realization of synergies and economies of scale in connection therewith; that the political, economic, permitting and legal environment in which the Company operates will continue to support the development and operation of mining projects; timing and receipt of governmental, regulatory and third party approvals, consents, licenses and permits and their renewals; positive relations with local groups; the accuracy of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates and related information, analyses and interpretations; and such other assumptions as set out herein as well as those related to the factors set forth below. While these factors and assumptions are considered reasonable by Lundin Mining as at the date of this document in light of management’s experience and perception of current conditions and expected developments, such information is inherently subject to significant business, economic, political, regulatory and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking information and undue reliance should not be placed on such information. Such factors include, but are not limited to: dependence on international market prices and demand for the metals that the Company produces; operational and financial projections, including estimates of future expenditures and cash costs, and estimates of future production may not be reliable; volatility and fluctuations in metal and commodity demand and prices; political, economic, and regulatory uncertainty in operating jurisdictions, including but not limited to those related to permitting and approvals, nationalization or expropriation without fair compensation, environmental and tailings management, labour, trade relations, and transportation; risks relating to mine closure and reclamation obligations; health and safety hazards; inherent risks of mining (including but not limited to risks to the environment, industrial accidents catastrophic equipment failures, unusual or unexpected geological formations or unstable ground conditions, and natural phenomena such as earthquakes, flooding or unusually severe weather), not all of which related risk events are insurable; risks relating to geotechnical incidents; risks relating to tailings and waste management facilities; risks relating to the Company’s indebtedness; challenges and conflicts that may arise in partnerships and joint operations; risks relating to joint ventures, joint arrangements and operations; risks relating to development projects, including Filo del Sol and Josemaria; project financing risks, liquidity risks and limited financial resources; risks that revenue may be significantly impacted in the event of any production stoppages or reputational damage in the jurisdictions in which the Company operates or elsewhere; the impact of global financial conditions, market volatility and inflation; availability and pricing of key supplies and services; business interruptions caused by critical infrastructure failures; unavailable or inaccessible infrastructure, infrastructure failures, and risks related to ageing infrastructure; challenges of effective water management; exposure to greater foreign exchange and capital controls, as well as political, social and economic risks as a result of the Company’s operation in emerging markets; risks relating to community or stakeholder opposition to continued operation, further development, or new development of the Company’s projects and mines; information technology and cybersecurity risks, including any breach or failure information systems; risks relating to reliance on estimates of future production; risks relating to disputes, litigation and administrative proceedings (including tax disputes) which the Company may be subject to from time to time; risks relating to acquisitions or business arrangements; risks relating to competition in the industry; failure to comply with existing or new laws or changes in laws; enforcing legal rights in foreign jurisdictions; challenges or defects in title or termination of mining or exploitation concessions; the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts; the outbreak of infectious diseases or viruses; risks relating to taxation changes; receipt of and ability to maintain and comply with all permits that are required for operation; minor elements contained in concentrate products; changes in the relationship with its employees and contractors; risks associated with the estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves and the geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits including but not limited to models relating thereto; actual ore mined and/or metal recoveries varying from Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates, estimates of grade, tonnage, dilution, mine plans and metallurgical and other characteristics; ore processing efficiency; the Company’s Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources which are estimates only; uncertainties relating to inferred Mineral Resources being converted into Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources; payment of dividends in the future; compliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including changes to such laws or regulations; interests of significant shareholders of the Company; asset values being subject to impairment charges; potential for conflicts of interest and public association with other Lundin Group companies or entities; activist shareholders and proxy solicitation firms; reputation risks related to negative publicity with respect to the Company or the mining industry in general; risks associated with climate change; the Company’s common shares being subject to dilution; ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees; reliance on key personnel and reporting and oversight systems; risks relating to the Company’s internal controls; counterparty and customer concentration risk; risks associated with the use of derivatives; exchange rate fluctuations; risks associated with acquisitions and related integration efforts, including the ability to achieve anticipated benefits, unanticipated difficulties or expenditures relating to integration and diversion of management time on integration; the terms of the contingent payments in respect of the completion of the sale of the Company’s European assets and expectations related thereto; and other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those described in the “Risks and Uncertainties” section of the Company’s MD&A for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, the “Risks and Uncertainties” section of the Company’s MD&A for the year ended December 31, 2024, and the “Risks and Uncertainties” section of the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2024, which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca under the Company’s profile.
All of the forward-looking information in this document are qualified by these cautionary statements. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, forecasted or intended and readers are cautioned that the foregoing list is not exhaustive of all factors and assumptions which may have been used. Should one or more of these risks and uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described in forward-looking information. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that forward-looking information will prove to be accurate and forward-looking information is not a guarantee of future performance. Readers are advised not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information. The forward-looking information contained herein speaks only as of the date of this document. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise forward‐looking information or to explain any material difference between such and subsequent actual events, except as required by applicable law.

SOURCE Lundin Mining Corporation

For Further Information, Please Contact: Stephen Williams, Vice President, Investor Relations: +1 604 806 3074, Robert Eriksson, Investor Relations Sweden: +46 8 440 54 50
Continue Reading
- 2025 full year production results (100% basis):
-
Fiserv and Sumitomo Mitsui Introduce Clover Suite of Products, Enabling Digital Commerce for Millions of Merchants – Fiserv
- Fiserv and Sumitomo Mitsui Introduce Clover Suite of Products, Enabling Digital Commerce for Millions of Merchants Fiserv
- Fiserv bets on Japan’s digital initiative; Klarna deepens Walmart ties American Banker
- Fiserv partners with Sumitomo Mitsui Card to bring Clover to Japan Investing.com
- Fiserv (FISV) Partners with SMFG to Launch Clover Products in Ja GuruFocus
- Fiserv expands Asia-Pacific footprint via new partnership with Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company FX News Group
Continue Reading
-
Emerging Data With Oral SERDs Reframe Frontline and Post–CDK4/6 Decisions in ER+ Breast Cancer – OncLive
- Emerging Data With Oral SERDs Reframe Frontline and Post–CDK4/6 Decisions in ER+ Breast Cancer OncLive
- High-Risk Populations, Patient Selection, and Advancements in Maintenance Therapy – Insights from Her2Climb05 CancerNetwork
- How HER2CLIMB-05 Fits Into First-Line Maintenance Strategies for Breast Cancer MedPage Today
- Optimising the Treatment Pathway in HER2+ Breast Cancer: From Neoadjuvant Therapy to Surgery Oncodaily
- Tukysa May Be ‘Patient Friendly’ Frontline Maintenance Option in HER2+ Breast Cancer Cure Today
Continue Reading