Anglo American’s AGM 2026: “I repeat what I said before” – evading accountability and broken promises

The company’s presentations and the opening speeches by the Chairman, Stuart Chambers, and Chief Executive Officer, Duncan Wanblad, are available on the company’s website. They spoke of their delight that the merger with Teck had been overwhelmingly approved by shareholders – a ‘pivotal moment in our long history’ that offers shareholders ‘more than 70% exposure to copper’, despite growing community resistance to Anglo’s copper expansions across Chile and Peru. 

They boasted of the simplification of the company’s portfolio; the demerger of Anglo Platinum in May to form Valterra Platinum and the sale of nickel and diamond assets. No mention was made of the powerful demands for reparations and accountability from communities and civil society across southern Africa. The fact that Anglo continues to be the third largest global exporter of metallurgical coal, having failed to sell the assets to Peabody, was brushed over.

Improvements in safety performance were highlighted, alongside regret that, despite this, there had been two fatalities in managed operations in the past year.

Adam Matthews, of the Church of England Pensions Board, then asked about the company’s Transition Plan. He said there was a need for greater discussion of the physical risks of combined operations, especially regarding water impacts. The industry review should include nature in general as well as climate. He also spoke about tailings dams, suggesting that the company should now sign the GTMI (Global Tailings Management Institute) standards. Finally, he said that institutional shareholders should “support boards more closely”, suggesting a need to keep an eye on them to make sure they are doing what they say they are going to do on matters such as waste disposal, water pollution and tailings dam safety, areas of concern in which the Church of England Pensions Board is particularly active, probably to the irritation of numerous company boards.

Stuart Chambers agreed that future discussion should be more detailed. He said he recognised the importance of nature-related impacts and disclosure. Duncan Wanblad added that Anglo American was 95% compliant with the GISTM (Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management) standards and that tailings dam management is a high priority for the company. Duncan stated that ‘as far as the the GTMI is concerned and becoming a signatory of that, I mean we are absolutely positively disposed to do this’, but that ‘it is really important that we iron out all the technical aberrations that potentially exist in interpretation of that’.

Rebeca Binda of London Mining Network asked about South Africa on behalf of MACUA (Mining Affected Communities United in Action). She said: “Anglo American have been divesting their assets in South Africa with tax revenue paid to the South African government and the number of local employees having declined drastically over the past five years. Mining affected communities in South Africa are demanding that Anglo American pay reparations for historic harms and ecological debt, including unrehabilitated mines, poisoned rivers, destroyed livelihoods and unpaid social commitments. Will Anglo American make commitments to meet the debts that it owes to communities and workers across South Africa?”

Stuart Chambers replied that “we fundamentally do not recognize these claims and we strongly disagree with the premise”. He said that Anglo American “has a long and very proud history of contributing to the economic growth of South Africa and supporting the country’s national priorities” and “continues to reaffirm its enduring commitment to South Africa and the investments that it is making in its operations and the social fabric and the local communities”.

He stated that the same point was made before and during the Extraordinary General Meeting in December. He claimed that Anglo American had reached out to MACUA but that MACUA had declined to engage. Stuart stated that “the AGM is not a suitable format and a suitable meeting to raise a grievance such as this which… MACUA is not prepared to engage with us offline”. 

Stuart Chamber’s arrogant and dismissive response to MACUA’s question ignores the fact that MACUA have submitted an extremely detailed and well researched petition to the South African parliament on Anglo American’s capital flight and failures of accountability. The petition evidenced the fact that Anglo’s tax and royalty payments to the South African government declined by 85% between 2021 and 2024, the number of employees by 22%, while vast assets such as those held by Anglo American Platinum have been demerged and divested. London Mining Network will continue to support MACUA’s 100 Year Debt Campaign, demanding justice and accountability for Anglo’s 100 years of extraction and devastation in South Africa.

Chitra Karve, Chair of ACTSA (Action for Southern Africa), asked about the company’s legacy in the town of Kabwe in Zambia. She said: “Following the November 2005 hearing, the judgement of the South African Supreme Court appeal in relation to the mass lead poisoning in Kabwe, Zambia, is imminently expected, perhaps as soon as 1^st May. What contingencies and provisions have Anglo American put in place to mitigate the ramifications of the court deciding that the case has legal merit and the case proceeding to the next stage? In particular, have shareholders been briefed on the potential liabilities and has there been disclosure to Teck Resources, as part of the merger process, for these potential liabilities and their impact on the valuation, insurance cover and future reputational risk to the organisation?”

Stuart Chambers said that the case was the subject of litigation, so Company Secretary Richard Price would respond, as Group legal counsel. Stuart Chambers said “whilst we have every sympathy… for the people of Kabwe, this is a very long-running and unpleasant business… but we are very clear, very clear that Anglo American is not responsible either legally or morally for what is the situation in Kabwe and simply maintains that this claim is entirely misconceived and misdirected”.

Richard Price added that “Anglo American South Africa stands by its belief that the claimants’ lawyers’ attempt to attribute legal responsibility to Anglo American South Africa for the current situation in Kabwe is both legally and factually flawed, particularly considering that the actual responsible party has acknowledged its responsibilities and is not a party to this lawsuit”.

He stated that “certification is a procedural step that every claimant in a class action lawsuit must obtain in order to commence the suit” and that “there actually exists a relatively low bar under South African law for a class action to be certified”. He stated that “the High Court dismissed the claim originally, concluding in the strongest possible terms that it would not be in the interests of justice for this claim to proceed”. 

He acknowledged that the case is being appealed, and stated that “once the judgment is received, we’ll take all necessary steps. If the court does conclude to certify the class action, we’ll continue to defend ourselves or defend Anglo American South Africa because as the chair says, we do not believe we’re either legally or morally responsible”. He stated that “ Tech is of course, as you would expect, well aware, of this matter and we have been entirely transparent about it”.

Chitra replied that shareholders must be concerned about the reputational risk to the company and that ACTSA and other responsible mining organisations would not be letting the matter go.

Rachel Palma Randle, Director of ACTSA, asked about former miners. She said: “According to the Tshiamiso Trust, hundreds of thousands of former miners who were deemed unfit for work because of silicosis and TB disease will no longer be able to access the compensation arising from the silicosis and TB settlement of 2019. This is because the Tshiamiso Trust has unilaterally decided that the medical role of the occupational diseases certificates, used for decades to determine the fitness for work or retrenchment of miners are no longer valid evidence for compensation claims from the Trust. Justice for Miners, a South African charity supporting miners to make their compensation claims, have registered their objection to this in the South African courts, and I raise it because I think it is important that shareholders are aware and the Board are aware of the real life implications of decisions made by this organisation on communities and on real people’s lives.

“My question is, as one of the six settling mines and therefore already legally committed to pay compensation, how does Anglo American South Africa plan to intervene to prevent proposed amendments to the Trust’s deed and ensure that there are no barriers to their former employees claiming rightful compensation through the Trust, compensation which ranges from just £539 through to £4,300 – peanuts, given what we have discussed here today. We have settled 26,939 claims of a potential 500,000. What steps will Anglo American South Africa take in the remaining five years of the Trust to ensure that the compensation committed by the mining companies is finally paid out to those former miners and their families, some who have already sadly passed an agonising death, as the Trust deed intended, without further delay?”

Stuart Chambers replied that “everybody should be really concerned about these people affected and these claimants”. He claimed that “Anglo American was quite instrumental and a leader in creating this settlement, and I think our contribution originally was somewhere around 100 million dollars into this fund”. He stated that “the Qhubeka Trust is is an independent trust and it has designed its own processes and procedures and engaged its own specialists, in order to deliver on this mandate of the settlement agreement and the trust deed, as endorsed by the High Court”. He stated that “it is the trust that manages the claims, quite rightly of course, and the payment process, not the settling mine companies… the mine companies of course fund the trust and have funded the trust, as stipulated in the deed. But it is expressly of course not the case that we can get involved in deciding, you know, claimant by claimant what is done and not.”

Stuart added that “the Qhubeka Trust publishes this stuff… it’s around 26, 27,000 so far [that] has been paid out and dealt with. But I don’t recognize the 500,000. You know, that would imply 84, 85% hasn’t, right?” He added that “Your point is is well made. Can I just say therefore that whilst it is not appropriate or acceptable for us to kind of intervene in the detail, we can of course proactively engage with some of the civil society organizations on matters such as this and as the trust.”

He stated “all we can do is take the spirit of your um your concerns here and in our proactive engagement, we can ask the same questions as a as a funder to satisfy ourselves that there are good reasons for what you are describing… so very happy to do that, of course, but please I want shareholders to understand that that’s no doubt achievable and influence is possible, but we are not able to interfere in the detail.”

Rachel said that ACTSA would be meeting with Anglo American South Africa in Johannesburg the following week. Stuart Chambers said he was pleased to hear this.

Diana Salazar of London Mining Network asked about the company’s Quellaveco operations in Peru on behalf of Red Muqui. She said: “In November 2025, Red Muqui, the Agrarian and Environmental Federation from Moquegua and MISEREOR submitted a formal complaint to the German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA) against Aurubis, a company identified as one of the purchasers of copper concentrate sourced from the Quellaveco mining project, operated by Anglo American in Peru. The complaint alleges adverse impacts on the human rights of the population of the Tumilaca Valley in the context of the company’s supply chain. In this regard, we respectfully request that you inform us whether any communications have been held with Aurubis regarding the aforementioned complaint, and whether you have received any information from the company concerning the procedure conducted before the German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control. Furthermore, we kindly request that you specify the volume of copper exported to Germany, as well as the specific volume currently being purchased by Aurubis.”

Stuart Chambers replied that “of course we are aware of the complaint against Aurubis in relation to Germany’s supply chain… and the alleged environmental pollution and the adverse human rights impacts of our mine and another mine”. He stated that “Anglo American takes any allegations of environmental harm extremely seriously”, but that “we do not believe that the matters raised in the complaint are well founded”. He claimed that “Quellaveco is in fact a blueprint for sustainable and responsible mining and we are very proud of the approach we take there, particularly in consultation with the communities which have been very, very long running… this includes of course those relationships nurtured over many, many years, I think started almost 20 years ago and then the dialogue tables being established in 2012”.

He stated that “any detail such as volumes in and out, these are supply chain questions of Aurubis and the amount that they buy from whom they buy it and from which mine is really a question which belongs in the claim and belongs to Aurubis”, and said they would “please urge you to ask your questions such as those detailed volume questions to Aurubis”.

Diana pointed out that the source of the information about the pollution was the Environmental Office in Peru. Stuart Chambers retorted that the claim was to Aurubis and that he did not recognise the allegations. Diana said that this is why it was important to have a due diligence policy here in the UK, and that LMN and Red Muqui are supporting that work in order to make Anglo American accountable for these kinds of chain processes.

Diana asked a further question. She said: “In 2012, the Moquegua Dialogue Roundtable was established, comprising Peruvian state institutions, social organisations from Moquegua, and representatives of Anglo American, in response to the arrival of the Quellaveco open-cast copper mine in the region. As a result of the negotiations held by this Roundtable, 26 agreements were reached.

“Under Agreement 11, the construction of a storage water system with a capacity of 2.5 million cubic meters was agreed upon, upstream of the Asana River diversion, as a water compensation measure. However, more than ten years after the commitments were signed, Agreement 11 has not been implemented. This situation has led to questioning by social organisations and the State. Nevertheless, Anglo American has maintained that the dam would not be technically feasible, which leads us to consider that this position constitutes a breach of the agreement.

“We kindly request to be informed whether the construction of the dam has been incorporated into the company’s planning for the coming years. We would also appreciate details regarding the estimated execution date and the actions planned for its implementation.”

Stuart Chambers replied: “the very short answer is yes. We are committed to the construction of the dam as we committed to in 2012, as number 11 of the 26.” He said “it has taken and is taking a long time. But its development has involved extensive technical evaluations, lots of multiple alternatives. I don’t know exactly but I’m pretty sure that more than 30 different locations were attempted to assess feasibility”. He stated “if we declared something unfeasible, it was not the construction of a dam, it would have been one of the proposed locations and the feasibility question probably around that”.

He stated that there is “quite a lot of technical complexity to overcome” but that “we have now managed together with the local authorities who have changed their minds quite a lot as well in terms of locations, but we’ve now whittled it down to two”. He said “we need to decide which of those two is right. As soon as we do that, the detail will follow quite quickly, and then the whole schedule can be confirmed to yourselves and everybody else as soon as that’s done. So we’re nearly there, but please be patient. We will do it, we will build it”. He added “Anglo American has committed to not only support the development but also the long-term operation and the maintenance of the infrastructure. And that reinforces its contribution to water security in Moquegua. So we won’t build it and just walk away, we will continue to participate in its ongoing sustaining and maintenance”.

After a clarification question from Diana, Stuart confirmed that “I mean definitely 2.5 million cubic meters. I am not familiar with the rate, but it will be what was specified in the original proposal, so there’s no attempt to change that.” He added that “it doesn’t uh materially affect the Asana river either”.

Richard Solly asked about the El Soldado mine in Chile on behalf of local farming families. He said:

(1) “What interest does Anglo American have in appointing a pro indiviso administrator for the common property of El Melón, the locality where the Soldado copper mine is located, considering that your core activity is mining and that the land comprising this common property is agricultural in nature? Does your company currently carry out any agricultural activities in El Melón?

(2) “Would Anglo American agree to determine the salary and mechanism to select the administrator with the Association and the comuneros?

(3) “What specific harm would it cause to Anglo American if the small farmers of El Melón were to distribute among themselves 15% of the surface area of the agricultural land comprising the common property, for the purpose of obtaining exclusive ownership of the portions allocated to them, considering that Anglo American own thousands of hectares of mining concessions?”

Stuart Chambers replied that the properties in question are collectively owned and must be managed in consultation with all the landowners in the area. Anglo American believes, supported by a majority of local residents, that the best way of doing this is by appointing a pro indiviso administrator. The other way would be chaotic, allowing individuals to do things with the land that the majority are not in favour of.

He stated that “we are not looking to develop productive activities in these sectors, but rather to have a security buffer around the tailings dam and to protect areas which are destined to the fulfillment of environmental commitments, including conservation and reforestation… not construction, not agriculture, none of those things”.

He said that regarding Anglo American getting involved in paying an administrator “I sincerely doubt it” but that he could not answer the question. He said he would be happy to give a fuller response ‘offline’ (presumably meaning after the meeting).

In reply to the third question, Stuart Chambers said that he wanted to repeat what he had said before: Anglo American had responded to a request submitted by a broad group of local community members and farmers to support the appointment of the court-appointed pro indiviso administrator. “We have responded to the majority and said yes, we support it, we think it’s the right approach.” He said it is not for Anglo American to decide how the communal land is used. This needs to be discussed locally in El Melon and addressed to the administrator, assuming the appointment goes ahead.

Jake Simms of London Mining Network, asked a number of questions about the company’s operations at Los Bronces in Chile, which Chairman Stuart Chambers took one by one.

Question 1: “The communities near Los Bronces have been requesting the maintenance and repair of Route G21 for years. This road is intensively used by Anglo American’s operations. Its deterioration directly affects our safety and quality of life, and there are evident risks—such as trees in hazardous condition—that have also not been addressed. Despite repeated requests, we have received neither formal responses nor concrete solutions. How does the company explain this lack of response to a persistent issue that is directly associated with its operations?”

Stuart Chambers replied that the road safety of Route G21 is a priority for Anglo American and the company has established specific commitments aimed at ensuring appropriate governance and recognising that G21 is a public road under the jurisdiction of the local authorities so the company does not have the remit to do just what it wants. It has to act through the local authorities. Anglo American is committed to acting as facilitator to a technical working group which, together with the Ministry of Public Works, will resolve the matters Jake had raised. Establishing clear and shared governance is essential. The delays have been caused because there are multiple stakeholders involved. The company’s objectives include defining a comprehensive road safety plan and formalising the agreement between the Director of Roads and the company. The agreement should be signed in the coming weeks.

Question 2: “In several countries where Anglo American operates, social investment in communities is public, quantifiable, and part of clearly defined commitments. However, in Chile there is no equivalent figure, nor a transparent framework that allows an understanding of the real scope of such investment. How does the company justify this discrepancy, and is it willing to establish clear commitments—through defined amounts and verifiable mechanisms—also for the communities of Los Bronces?” 

Stuart Chambers replied that the company recognises that full transparency in all its social investment is an ongoing challenge and it has to stick at it. The company has made efforts to share more information about social contributions. It discloses a topline number for each country on social investment in its annual tax and economic contribution report which is on the website and is publicly available. Around $24 or $25 million have been invested in communities in Chile.

Question 3: “At the local level, many of the initiatives promoted by the company are perceived as isolated and assistance‑based actions that do not address the structural problems arising from the operation. Is the company willing to move toward a relationship based on long‑term, substantive solutions, developed jointly with the communities and not limited to isolated interventions?”

Stuart Chambers replied that the company is not only willing to do so but believes that it is already doing so. People’s perceptions are real but in this case they are not correct. The company’s approach in Chile is aligned to its sustainability strategy and long-term vision and is grounded in collaborative work with communities and other stakeholders and is designed to move beyond short-term or isolated actions towards initiatives that generate lasting value in education, entrepreneurship and other fields.

Question 4: “The communities continue to face difficulties in obtaining formal responses, clear timelines, and identifiable responsible parties regarding specific issues. Is the company willing to establish enforceable commitments, with public monitoring, that allow a transition from voluntary statements to effective responsibilities?”

Stuart Chambers said that the company is willing to do so and is doing so. There are several established mechanisms for community engagement and dialogue. One is a National Accountability and Sustainability Forum, which exists to provide a formal arena to discuss such matters and follow up on them in order to enhance transparency. The company seeks to enhance the quality of its responses by providing clearer information, defined timelines and identifiable points of contact.

Question 5: “In the context of the merger with Teck Resources, the company projects global leadership. How will it ensure that such leadership is reflected in consistent standards across all countries where it operates, including a more transparent, equitable, and responsible relationship with communities in Chile?”

Stuart Chambers replied that Jake need not be concerned. Anglo American and Teck have received recognition around the world as leaders in sustainability within the global mining industry, including leading social and environmental stewardship, indigenous and community relations and responsible resource development. The merger will not change any of that. Anglo Teck will continue to prioritise long-term value creation that focuses on safety and health, is inclusive and responsible and catalyses environmental protection and social progress, building on the track records of both companies.

Jake Simms, of London Mining Network, asked a question related to the UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy. “It was reported in The Telegraph in February of this year that Anglo American were among the mining companies that met with the UK Government to discuss measures to crisis-proof the supply chain of UK domestic defence contractors. It was reported by The Telegraph that one such measure being considered was a supply deal that could see the companies, including Anglo American, agree to reserve a share of their output of key metals for the government and for British defence contractors and manufacturers. Can you confirm whether Anglo American have met with the UK Government since the publication of the Critical Minerals Strategy late last year to discuss these measures and can you rule out that a proportion of production would be reserved for UK domestic defence manufacturers as was reported in The Telegraph?”

Company Secretary Richard Price said that as a UK-based global mining company, Anglo American does engage with the UK government, including on the Critical Minerals Strategy, but the company does not produce anything of use to the defence industry. It produces copper concentrate but this is far from being useful in any defence capacity.

Jake asked whether Richard Price could confirm that the company had met with the government in 2026 to discuss these measures.

Richard Price replied that he could confirm that the company had met the UK government to discuss the UK Critical Minerals Strategy, probably in 2026. Stuart Chambers added that on detailed questions of share of output, they could not confirm what the company had committed and would need to check this. Duncan Wanblad said that they would certainly not have committed anything. The company’s engagement with the UK government and many other governments is regular and ongoing so it is entirely possible that Anglo American would have met with the UK government to speak about critical minerals strategies and progress, quite possibly in 2026 but more likely in 2025. Stuart Chambers advised that Jake take the response as “No, we have not signed up to those detailed points you have made in any meeting that we’ve had. I will check offline in the next week and if it’s different from my response I will get back to you. But I think you can take that as the response.” [So, all clear there, then.]

Holly Jones of London Mining Network asked three questions about Brazil. The first was about access to water. She said: “Anglo American presents its shareholders with flawless sustainability and ESG reports alongside promises of responsible mining. However, the reality of the Minas Rio project in Conceição do Mato Dentro, Brazil, is one of continuous silting up of water springs and severe water pollution, depriving local communities of their most basic right. How can the Board of Directors justify distributing record profits to shareholders while the families living in the shadow of your Brazilian operations are at this very moment losing access to clean drinking water due to this company’s activities?”

Stuart Chambers said that water access is a fundamental issue and Anglo American takes concerns from communities extremely seriously. Its updated surveillance and sustainability strategy which was published in February of this year sets out the company’s renewed focus on water stewardship. Each country has its own specific targets which reflect local concerns. At Minas Rio, the company’s target is to support protection of watersheds through forest restoration, local government initiatives, and improved operational systems to use water efficiently. It delivers this work through hydrological management plans which assess water availability, quality and quantity, across the entire river basis. Where communities face water access challenges, regardless of the root cause, the company has taken practical steps to support them, including the provision of water through artesian wells and treatment systems and, where necessary, temporary supplies such as water trucks while permanent solutions are being implemented. There is no evidence, he said, of structural leakage from company facilities. If there were, that would be a cause for immediate action. The company remains committed to transparent dialogue.

Holly’s second question related to socio-environmental risks and liabilities. She said: “The operational model of the Minas Rio project has caused the systematic degradation of local river basins in Minas Gerais. It is vital to know that this state is located within the Atlantic Forest, one of the world’s premier biodiversity hotspots due to its vast biological diversity and severe level of threat, with a mere 12% of the original native biome still standing. According to reports from the residents themselves, the impacts of this degradation are worsening day by day. Are the shareholders in this room being fully briefed on the true scale of the environmental liabilities and the imminent litigation risks arising from the destruction of water sources in Minas Gerais? What tangible financial provisions are being made for the rehabilitation of these essential ecosystems and the adequate reparation to these families?”

Stuart Chambers said that at Minas Rio the company has ongoing environmental monitoring, restoration programmes and active management with authorities and communities, and these include the catchment area initiatives, protection of thousands of hectares of land and structured programmes to address social and environmental impacts. Where there are legal proceedings, which can happen from time to time and include the public prosecutor’s office, these are being addressed through the appropriate judicial procedures. In terms of financial governance, the company applies rigorous internal standards to assess and provide for risks according to accepted international accounting procedures.

Holly’s final question was: “Anglo American use the narrative of the energy transition to justify the continuation and expansion of its activities. Yet iron ore extraction is actively destroying ecosystems that are essential for climate stability. Does Anglo American admit that it is using a green narrative, or greenwashing, to mask the fact that its mining operations, such as Minas Rio, continue to create environmental sacrifice zones in the Global South?”

Stuart Chambers replied that the company had set out clearly, on multiple occasions, that it believes that the metals and minerals that it produces are essential through and beyond the transition towards a lower carbon future, in particular the premium iron ore which is mined in Minas Rio and supplied around the world – with a few challenges into Bahrain at the moment – and is supporting the company’s steel-making customers to reduce their emissions, including moving towards supporting less carbon intensive technologies. This is crucial to the decarbonisation of the steel industry and that industry’s contribution to climate change. The company is confident that what it produces has a really important role to play in the energy transition but its responsibility is to ensure that it does this as carefully as possible. It does not rely on narratives and there is no greenwashing going on. It focuses on measurable actions, continuous improvement and transparency.

Paul Robson of London Mining Network asked about copper production. He said: “The statements of the Chair and CEO in the Annual Report suggest a strong future focus on the extraction of copper by Anglo American (and Anglo Teck). Is this correct? Do Anglo American and Anglo Teck have forecasts of likely future growth of copper production by the company over the coming decades? The UK government says that copper demand in the UK will double in one decade. Peru claims that it will double copper production in the next decade. Does the company envisage ramping up copper production at anything like this rate?”

Duncan Wanblad replied that after the merger the merged group would have 70% exposure to copper, so 70% of its product would be copper. It would be producing about one million tonnes per annum of copper. That would make it about the 5^th biggest copper producer in the world at that time. There is some natural growth that is embedded organically within the business. By the very nature of how the grades work and move around in the mine, a bit of a production increase would come from existing operations. Two very big projects are part of the company’s growth. Both of them are very interesting on two fronts – very low capital intensity and very low impact from a sustainability point of view. They will optimise the resources that exist. The production increment that comes from Collahuasi and Quebrada Blanca in Chile would be in the order of 175,000 tonnes; and then there is another 125,000 tonnes from the combination of Andina with the Los Bronces mine. So this is a long way from doubling production. The company has a number of other greenfield projects: Sucati, St Nicholas and Zafranel, which are options but they are all in the 100,000 tonne mark so a long way from doubling.

Paul asked whether the UK accessing double the current amount of copper was wishful thinking. Duncan Wanblad replied that he thought that this was the various governments projecting what they would need for electrification and decarbonisation of their economies, and that is the quantum of metal that would be required.

Paul asked whether the company saw a way of doubling copper production within a decade. Duncan Wanblad replied that the supply side of these metals is terribly constrained, and it is a big lift to get to that volume increase in such a short space of time.

Stuart Chambers added that for a country to be doubling its production of a product in ten years, it would need to be growing at 7% per year. For the global copper market to grow at that rate would not be possible, because there is not enough discovery of copper mines available to supply that. A global growth of 2% to 3% is much more imaginable and that in itself is a challenge.

Paul continued: “Almost all copper being mined globally at present has a grade of less than 1%. For example, a 2019 Anglo American publication says that the uppermost part of the ore body at Quellaveco (in Peru) has a grade of 0.84% but most of the ore body that will be mined has a grade of 0.57%. The final capacity of the Cortadera tailings dam at Quellaveco is 1.3 billion tonnes which is the same as the amount of ore that will be mined over the life of the mine. Almost all ore ends up as slurry in a tailings dam. Is this correct?”

Duncan Wanblad replied that Paul’s observation was absolutely correct. Generally in the industry grades are declining. The waste products are waste rock dumps and tailings dams. In the development of any tailings dams, all will be consistent with the GISTM standards, which fully take into consideration the impact and the risks of these tailings dams. There is no way to shortcut this. Land availability to develop tailings dams is a great limiting constraint to the whole industry. Anglo American has slightly higher grades, but to add the additional 175,000 tonnes and 125,000 tonnes it has the land for the tailings dams and will be able to build for the cases described earlier. A lot of work is going on for technology development in changing the way tailings are deposited. Anglo American is at the forefront of that change. Nothing is available right now but the space is moving quite quickly. This is one of the key constraints for the whole of the industry and quite a lot of technological focus is going into that.

Paul said that in the past, Anglo American had proposed Hydraulic Dry Stacking (HDS) as a way of reducing risk from tailings dams. There has been a pilot project at El Soldado (Chile). What was the scale of this pilot project? Are there any other pilot projects of HDS or will there be in the near future? What is the scale of these pilot projects? When is it envisaged that HDS can be applied at the scale of a typical modern copper mine?

Stuart Chambers said that Paul was right. Hydraulic Dewatered Stacking is of great interest to Anglo American. It has done a reasonable scale trial at El Soldado (he thought, around 100,000 tonnes) to start the process of proving this for eventual use at scale, and the indications of that were pretty good.

Duncan Wanblad added that very good progress has been made with saturation and water recovery, at El Soldado in this trial. This is a relatively large-scale trial relative to the size of the mine, so from the end of last year the company has been trying to take the data and the learnings from that and it has a programme with one of the universities in Chile. It is looking to run a second placement with an optimised design on the back of this, again at El Soldado later this year. It is going to take a while before the technology can be perfected but a lot is being learnt from the scale and size of the trials done to date. There has been one pilot in the context of the current technologies: several years ago a version of dry stacking was trialled at different locations (one of them being Collahuasi) which was unsuccessful.