It is clear that the U.S. President has reconfigured international trade and has transformed the way of doing business with the argument of the trade war with China that is losing, it is also clear that the free market is dying and we are going straight to the era of protectionism that favors the manufacturing powers and not Chile, because we only sell raw materials without added value.
In 2024, Chile exported approximately US$6.2 billion worth of copper to the United States, representing about 35.7% of total U.S. copper imports. In terms of volume, Chile exported 544 thousand tons of copper cathodes to the U.S. for a value of $5.08 billion between January and November 2024.
Our authorities went from astonishment and even ignoring the impact, to form a committee with the unions and the private sector, which pleases us, but there was also a phenomenon worthy of being made known: the whole of society is now talking about copper and that we must protect it, even President Boric expressed “that-if they touch our copper Chile will unite to defend it”.
We must be attentive to the words of the Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, who said: “we must bring all the copper to the US”.
As is well known, copper is a commodity with inelastic demand: even if its price increases, its consumption does not decrease significantly.
Expertos explican que, si consideramos Experts explain that, if we consider a 50% tariff increase, this could translate into a reduction of only 16% in U.S. demand, but over a medium term horizon of 7 to 10 years. The increase in tariffs could result in a reduction of only 16% in U.S. demand, but over a medium-term horizon of 7 to 10 years..
How much could Chile lose with a 50% tariff on copper?
In 2024, Chile exported US$ 5.9 billion in copper to the United States. A 16% drop would imply a loss of approximately US$ 900 million accumulated in that period.
In the opinion of the Chilean Mining Chamber, there is an opportunity to apply a strategy of negotiating with this country and offer it to set up factories in Chile, and thus obtain our copper, and also generate quality jobs in the country, this is a good strategy instead of going to negotiate tariff reductions, which will not happen.
It is also an opportunity to take advantage of the copper price boom and sell that 11.3% of refined copper exported to the U.S. to other countries free of these tariffs.
But what is Donald Trump's final strategy?
Perhaps our authorities have not realized it, but the ultimate U.S. strategy is the irrational exploitation of the seabed worldwide, it is betting on underwater mining?
WHY EXPLOIT SEABED MINERALS?
First, it is cheaper: it is faster to exploit the metallic nodules, they have excellent grades, better than those of the continent. He believes that in 10 years he can produce 1 billion tons of copper and thus be self-sufficient. It is the strategy of taking possession of the main critical raw materials or critical minerals that have no owner in the sea, unlike the continent.
In April 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to boost deep-sea mining, especially the controversial extraction of critical minerals, a key sector for technological development. The U.S. president ordered the secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, Doug Burgum and Howard Lutnick, to expedite exploration and permitting for deep sea mining, with the idea of the country leading this new industry.
There is a body, the AIFM, mandated by the United Nations that has been challenged in its role of governing the ocean floor to protect the common heritage of mankind and, in case of developing seabed mining, to ensure universal benefit, the U.S. created another parallel institution, NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this parallel regulatory agency was given the power to manage marine and coastal resources, among other powers.
The United States is not a signatory to UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes a legal framework for the oceans. Thus, not having a rational and fair Mining Code is an excellent argument for conducting any activity on the international ocean floor, given that the U.S. is governed by NOAA and not AIFM.
In other words, the U.S. is doing what it wants with the minerals that are on the seabed with the imminent danger of not only fouling them, and they are already contaminated, but also disrupting the commercial laws of critical minerals. Our oceans are home to great biodiversity, including species yet to be discovered, but the seabed now faces a new threat, undersea mining.
According to international scientific studies, the abundant polymetallic nodules on the seabed provide copper with an average grade of 7%, while the best grades in Chile's operating copper mines are between 0.5% and 1% (Mulsow, Fernandez).
We must remember that the seabed is a very important store of “blue carbon”, i.e. the carbon sequestered by the oceans, coastal ecosystems and the organisms that live in them, and stored in the form of biomass and sediments on the seabed.
Through international exploration and exploitation contracts (31 to date), concluded under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA), countries such as China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Belgium, can explore an area of the Zone (up to 75,000 km²). The exploration license is valid for 15 years.
The current regulations of these contracts, elaborated by the AIFM, will be subsumed in a broader international normative body: the Mining Code. This project contains technical, financial and environmental provisions, which could be approved before 2024, according to the moratorium agreed at the last session of the AIFM in July 2023. This moratorium was led by Chile and France, among twenty countries.
Significant reserves of copper, cobalt, nickel, zinc, silver, gold and rare earths are found in the seabed. Those that whet the appetite of the great powers.
In the deep sea, these minerals are found in slow-forming, potato-sized polymetallic nodules, as well as in polymetallic sulfides (large deposits of sulfur compounds and other metals that form around hydrothermal vents) and metal-rich crusts on seamounts (seamounts). While commercial interest in these minerals has existed for decades, recent technological advances have made it possible to mine these areas by sending vehicles to extract the mineral deposits from the seafloor.
Proponents of deepwater mining argue that it can help meet the pressing global need for critical minerals, which is likely to continue to grow as countries invest more in decarbonization, digitization, defense and infrastructure. It is estimated that global demand for nickel, cobalt and rare earths could double by 2040 in a net-zero emissions scenario. Several studies have concluded that there is no shortage of terrestrial mineral resources, but the world still faces significant hurdles in locating viable reserves and rapidly expanding mining and processing operations.
The Chilean government submitted a request to the UN for a 15-year moratorium so that more scientific evidence can be obtained to guarantee the protection of marine ecosystems.
In short, now not only continental copper is threatened by the U.S. but also possibly our seabed, where important deposits such as nodules and metalliferous reserves are found.
But what can Chile do with shares?
The Chilean Chamber of Mines recommends as immediate actions legislation and the definition of a policy for exploration and exploitation of the seabed, but with a planetary sense, that is, to take care of the ecosystems and the living beings that live there.
For copper, define the strategy for the U.S. to install factories in Chile and buy manufactured products, which should be for any company that sets up in our country with the policy of industrializing copper and lithium.
In order to industrialize, foundries are needed so that we are no longer vulnerable and dependent on protectionist measures from the U.S. or any other country.
Copper and the seabed are threatened. What to do, is the challenge for the authorities.
