Teck Resources eyes output boost for chipmaking-metal germanium
LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) - Canada's Teck Resources (TECKb.TO), opens new tab is weighing options to expand production of germanium, a strategic metal key to chipmaking, and is currently talking with governments, including Canada and the United States, on available funding, said Doug Brown, VP communications & government affairs.
Teck's plan comes amid growing efforts to diversify supplies of critical minerals needed for the tech and defence sectors, as geopolitical tensions and trade barriers complicate access to materials mainly produced or refined in China.
"We are examining options and market support for increasing production capacity of germanium," he told Reuters.
China, which supplies around 60% of the world's refined germanium, restricted exports of the metal - along with gallium and antimony, all having broad military applications - to the United States, further escalating trade tensions between the world's two largest economies following Washington's crackdown on Beijing's chip sector.
The export curbs were part of a broader effort launched in 2023, when China began imposing restrictions on critical mineral shipments, citing national security concerns.
By controlling the export of these minerals, China aims to exert influence over the industries that use them, including renewable energy, defence, and chip manufacturing.
Germanium is also used in semiconductors and infrared technology, fibre optic cables and solar cells.
Teck is exploring ways to add to the current processing line using existing technology as one of the options, Brown said.
Teck is North America's biggest germanium producer, and the fourth largest globally. Most of its germanium, a by-product of zinc ore concentrate at its Red Dog operations in Alaska, goes to the United States, via smelting and refining in British Columbia.
Canada's germanium exports to the United States are currently exempt from tariffs as they comply with the USMCA (United States, Mexico, Canada) trade agreement.
In a speech in Washington last January, Canada's Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson welcomed partnerships with the United States to invest in critical minerals, including germanium.
Canada's Energy Ministry declined to comment on funding for Teck, while saying that the prime minister is leading broader trade negotiations with the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
Vance, in Los Angeles, says troops need to stay, blasts Newsom over immigration
LOS ANGELES, June 20 (Reuters) - Republican Vice President JD Vance on Friday met troops who have been deployed in Los Angeles to quell protests against immigration raids, as he accused Democratic state and city leaders of encouraging immigrants to cross the U.S. border illegally. Vance, who met some of the 700 U.S. Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops recently deployed to Los Angeles by President Donald Trump, also accused the Democratic leaders of failing to support local law enforcement. Trump deployed the California National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this month, against the wishes of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, to quell protests triggered by immigration raids on workplaces by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. A U.S. appeals court on Thursday let Trump retain control of California's National Guard. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second most-populous city. Vance said the court's decision made clear that Trump's troop deployment "was a completely legitimate and proper use of federal law enforcement." Vance gave no indication of when the Marines and National Guard would leave Los Angeles, and hinted that they might stay in the city for some time. "The soldiers and Marines are still very much a necessary part of what's going on here, because they're worried that it's going to flare back up," Vance said. He accused Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of failing to crack down on people in the city illegally, and of failing to support local and state law enforcement. "They have treated Border Patrol and border enforcement as somehow an illegitimate force, instead of what they are, which is the American people's law enforcement trying to enforce the American people's laws," he said. Newsom is tipped to mount a presidential bid in 2028, and could conceivably face off against Vance. Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for Newsom, called Vance's claim "categorically false." "The Governor has consistently condemned violence and has made his stance clear," she said. She cited posts Newsom made on X, including one on June 9 when he said, "Foolish agitators who take advantage of Trump's chaos will be held accountable." Newsom has said Trump's deployment of troops exacerbated the protests, increased tensions and is unconstitutional.
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Los Angeles Dodgers turn on Donald Trump just months after cozying up to him at the White House
The Los Angeles Dodgers have donated $1million to assist families impacted by two weeks of immigration raids in Southern California. It comes just over two months after the reigning World Series champions cozied up to the president during a ceremony to mark their victory at the White House. The defending World Series champion Dodgers also said Friday that they intend to form partnerships with the California Community Foundation, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and other organization to continue providing aid to immigrant families. 'What's happening in Los Angeles has reverberated among thousands upon thousands of people, and we have heard the calls for us to take a leading role on behalf of those affected,' Dodgers president Stan Kasten said. 'We believe that by committing resources and taking action, we will continue to support and uplift the communities of Greater Los Angeles.' The Dodgers announced the steps in a five-paragraph news release that was delicately worded to avoid potentially inflammatory political terms, and which stopped short of an explicit condemnation of the federal policy. The team said only that the financial aid would be provided 'for families of immigrants impacted by recent events in the region.' It comes just months after the World Series champions cozied up to Trump at the White House 'I think it's great,' Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said before his team faced the Washington Nationals. 'I'm sure the money is going to be allocated in the right way. I'm happy to hear that the Dodgers have done that, and it´s certainly the right thing to do.' The Dodgers were briefly at the center of Southern California's opposition to federal immigration policy when the team asked federal agents to leave the stadium grounds Thursday after they amassed at a parking lot near one of the gates. Dozens of federal agents with their faces covered arrived at a lot near the stadium's Gate E entrance in SUVs and cargo vans. A group of protesters carrying signs against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrived shortly afterward, and the agents eventually left. Roberts claimed his players haven't extensively discussed the situation in the clubhouse, but some Dodgers have been paying attention. Kike Hernandez, a Puerto Rico native, sharply criticized the raids on social media last weekend. Baseball Hall of Famer Jaime Jarrin, the Dodgers' lead Spanish-language broadcaster from 1959 until his retirement in 2022, also spoke up against the federal actions. Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass praised the Dodgers in the team's news release. A number of ICE agents were spotted descending on Dodger Stadium just after 10am local time 'I want to thank the Dodgers for leading with this action to support the immigrant community of Los Angeles,' Bass said. 'These last weeks have sent shockwaves of fear rippling through every neighborhood and have had a direct impact on our economy. My message to all Angelenos is clear: We will stick together during this time and we will not turn our backs on one another - that´s what makes this the greatest city in the world.' Fans and lawmakers have called upon the Dodgers for several days to make an unequivocal statement of opposition to the raids, given their vast Latino fan base and heavy influence in the region. Other teams in the region have expressed their solidarity with the immigrant community, including Los Angeles FC and Angel City FC. U.S. Rep. Jimmy Gomez, who represents the Los Angeles area, went on social media earlier Friday to ask the Dodgers to speak up. 'In a city where 36 per cent of the residents are immigrants and nearly 40 per cent of the team's fan base is Latino, saying nothing is not just disappointing - it's a betrayal and an insult,' Gomez wrote. 'Silence is not an option. It's a choice.'
