India is intensifying its global quest for critical minerals by engaging in high-level negotiations with Brazil, Canada, France, and the Netherlands for collaborative exploration, extraction, processing, and recycling projects, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions, who spoke to Reuters.

The talks, spearheaded by the Ministry of Mines, center on securing reliable supplies of lithium and rare earth elements while gaining access to advanced processing and recycling technologies—key steps in reducing New Delhi’s heavy dependence on China, which controls the majority of global rare earth processing and a dominant share of lithium refining capacity.

The initiatives aim to replicate and expand upon the comprehensive critical minerals cooperation agreement India signed with Germany in January 2026. That pact covers joint exploration, processing, recycling, and the acquisition and development of mineral assets in both countries and third nations.

“There are requests and we are talking to France, Netherlands and Brazil while the agreement with Canada is under active consideration,” one of the sources said.

Canada’s Natural Resources Department referred to a January statement confirming that both sides had agreed to formalize cooperation on critical minerals in the coming weeks. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to visit India in early March, where he is likely to sign agreements covering uranium, energy, minerals, and artificial intelligence, further cementing bilateral ties in strategic sectors. Brazil’s embassy in New Delhi, India’s Ministry of Mines, and the foreign ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

The embassies of France and the Netherlands either declined to comment or did not respond. India’s expanding international engagement comes at a time when finance ministers from the G7 and other major economies met in Washington last month to discuss strategies for reducing dependence on Chinese rare earths and other critical minerals.

In 2023, India officially identified more than 20 minerals—including lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and rare earth elements—as “critical” for its energy transition, defense needs, and growing high-tech manufacturing sector. The strategic imperative is clear: China currently dominates global supplies of many critical minerals and possesses advanced mining and processing technologies, creating significant vulnerabilities for India as it accelerates its shift to electric vehicles, renewable energy storage, and electronics manufacturing.

Heavy reliance on Beijing for these materials poses both economic and national security risks, particularly amid geopolitical tensions and potential supply disruptions. Mining experts highlight the long timelines involved. From initial discovery to commercial production, developing a viable mine typically takes 10–15 years, with the exploration phase alone often requiring five to seven years and frequently ending without a commercially viable deposit.

India’s domestic reserves of many critical minerals remain limited or underdeveloped, making secure foreign partnerships essential to meet rising demand. India has already signed critical minerals pacts with Argentina, Australia, and Japan, and is engaged in broader bilateral discussions with Peru and Chile that also encompass these resources. The new talks with Brazil, Canada, France, and the Netherlands are designed to diversify supply sources, secure technology transfers, and establish joint ventures that can accelerate India’s midstream (processing) and downstream (manufacturing) capabilities.

Canada stands out as a particularly valuable partner due to its vast reserves of lithium, nickel, cobalt, and rare earths, along with advanced mining expertise and a strong commitment to sustainable practices. A potential deal could also include cooperation on uranium—vital for India’s expanding nuclear energy program—and joint initiatives in artificial intelligence, aligning with Carney’s anticipated visit.

France and the Netherlands bring sophisticated processing and recycling technologies, areas where India is keen to build domestic expertise to move up the value chain. Brazil offers significant lithium and rare earth potential, along with established mining infrastructure in key regions. The Ministry of Mines is leading these negotiations, with an emphasis on incorporating safeguards to protect India’s industrial capacity and prevent market flooding by subsidized imports.

Officials have stressed that any agreements will prioritize long-term strategic benefits over short-term gains. This diplomatic push reflects India’s broader strategy of “friend-shoring” critical supply chains in a multipolar world. By forging partnerships with resource-rich and technologically advanced nations, New Delhi aims to secure stable supplies, attract investment, and position itself as a key player in the global clean energy transition.

The outcomes of these talks are expected to significantly influence the pace of India’s green ambitions, including its target of 30% electric vehicle penetration by 2030 and substantial growth in renewable energy storage. Success would also strengthen manufacturing competitiveness and reduce vulnerability to external supply shocks.

The agreements, if finalized, could reshape supply chains, bolster energy security, and help India reduce its strategic dependence on any single supplier.

BP’s suspension of share buybacks marks a decisive pivot toward balance-sheet repair as lower oil prices, investor pressure, and an impending leadership change converge.

BP on Tuesday reported fourth-quarter earnings that met market expectations but took the notable step of suspending share buybacks, a move that signals growing caution as weaker crude prices weigh on cash flows across the oil and gas sector.

By suspending share buybacks, the British oil major has signaled a more defensive stance as the industry grapples with weaker crude prices, rising capital discipline demands, and growing uncertainty over the pace and profitability of the energy transition.

The company reported underlying replacement cost profit of $1.54 billion for the final three months of 2025, in line with analyst forecasts. Full-year net profit came in at $7.49 billion, slightly below expectations and down sharply from nearly $9 billion a year earlier. While the miss was modest, the year-on-year decline highlights how sensitive Big Oil earnings remain to commodity price swings, even after years of cost-cutting and portfolio reshaping.

BP’s decision to suspend buybacks was framed as a proactive balance-sheet move. The board said excess cash would now be fully allocated to strengthening financial resilience, rather than returning capital through repurchases. That marks a break from recent practice, with the last $750 million buyback only announced in November alongside third-quarter results. The company maintained its quarterly dividend at 8.320 cents per share, suggesting BP is keen to preserve a baseline income stream for investors even as it reins in more flexible forms of capital return.

Interim chief executive Carol Howle struck a careful tone, pointing to “strong operational performance” and progress on strategic priorities, while conceding that execution risks remain. Her emphasis on urgency reflects the narrowing margin for error facing BP. Lower oil prices have eroded cash buffers just as investors are demanding clearer evidence that long-term investments, particularly in lower-carbon energy, will deliver acceptable returns.

Operationally, BP’s numbers show a company still generating solid cash but choosing caution. Fourth-quarter operating cash flow rose to $7.6 billion from $7.43 billion a year earlier, while net debt edged down to $22.18 billion. The reduction in leverage is incremental rather than dramatic, reinforcing why management appears keen to conserve capital. BP’s 2026 capital expenditure guidance of $13 billion to $13.5 billion sits at the lower end of its range, underscoring a tighter grip on spending amid uncertain market conditions.

BP shares fell more than 5% in early trade, sliding toward the bottom of the Stoxx 600 index. The sell-off reflects investor unease not only about buyback suspension but also about BP’s relative positioning versus peers. In recent years, buybacks have become a key yardstick for comparing oil majors, particularly as companies compete to demonstrate capital discipline after years of shareholder skepticism.

Across the sector, retrenchment is becoming more visible. Oil prices recorded their steepest annual drop since the pandemic last year, driven by oversupply concerns and uneven global demand. That pressure is already reshaping capital allocation. Equinor has slashed its planned buybacks for the year and trimmed spending on renewables, while Shell has chosen to hold the line on shareholder returns, maintaining $3.5 billion in quarterly buybacks for a 17th consecutive quarter. BP’s move places it closer to the more cautious end of that spectrum.

The timing is also significant given the looming change at the top. Woodside Energy’s Meg O’Neill is set to take over as BP’s chief executive on April 1, following Murray Auchincloss’ departure. O’Neill inherits a company at a strategic crossroads: one that has moderated some of its earlier climate ambitions, faces investor scrutiny over returns, and now confronts a less forgiving oil price environment. The suspension of buybacks could give the incoming CEO greater financial flexibility, but it also raises expectations that a clearer strategic direction will soon follow.

BP’s challenge is compounded by broader questions hanging over the European energy sector. Policymakers continue to push decarbonization, while investors increasingly demand proof that low-carbon investments can compete with traditional oil and gas on returns. At the same time, geopolitical risks and supply dynamics keep fossil fuels firmly in demand, creating tension between long-term transition goals and near-term cash generation.

Currently, BP appears to be choosing prudence over placation. The company is betting that investors will accept near-term restraint in exchange for longer-term stability by prioritizing balance-sheet strength.