In a landmark move, Anglo American (LON: AAL) and Teck Resources (TSX: TECK.A/TECK.B, NYSE: TECK) announced a $50 billion all-share merger that would reshape the global mining landscape. The combined company, to be named Anglo Teck, is set to become the world’s fifth-largest copper producer if regulators in Canada, the U.S., and China give their nod of approval.
This merger is about positioning both companies at the forefront of the global shift towards electrification and renewable energy, where copper plays a vital role. With global copper demand soaring, Anglo Teck is set to benefit from some of the highest-quality copper assets in the world.
Anglo American–Teck Deal: A Smart Move Balancing Value and Growth
For 2024, Anglo American reported $8.46 billion in underlying EBITDA, while Teck reported CAD$2.93 billion. The merger is expected to enhance margins, scale, and resilience through operational synergies and expanded assets.
The structure of the merger has raised eyebrows and interest alike. The press release highlights that Anglo American will exchange 1.3301 shares for each Teck share, calling it a “zero-premium” deal.
However, analysts have pointed out that this translates to a 17% premium on Teck’s recent share price. Anglo plans to offset this with a $4.5 billion special dividend to its shareholders, lowering the effective premium to just 1%.
Once completed, Anglo shareholders will control 62.4% of the new company, while Teck shareholders will hold 37.6%.
Leadership roles are well-defined: Anglo’s CEO Duncan Wanblad will lead Anglo Teck, with Teck’s Jonathan Price serving as deputy CEO. The global headquarters will be based in Vancouver, with streamlined offices in London, and listings planned in Toronto, Johannesburg, and New York.
At the Core: Copper Fuels Anglo Teck’s Strategy
Copper is the driving force behind the merger. Both Anglo and Teck have been refining their portfolios, moving away from coal and diamonds and focusing on minerals that are key to clean energy. Teck’s prized Quebrada Blanca (QB) mine in Chile is central to the strategy, despite its past challenges with cost overruns and operations.
Anglo’s access to QB’s assets will bolster its copper output at a time when demand from electric vehicles, solar farms, and grid expansion is accelerating.
Franck Bekaert, senior bond analyst at Gimme Credit, pointed out that Anglo Teck will emerge as a leading copper producer with a diversified portfolio that includes iron ore and zinc.”
Unlocking Synergies: QB and Collahuasi
One of the merger’s standout features is the operational synergy between two adjacent copper mines in Chile, Quebrada Blanca and Collahuasi. The latter is co-owned by Anglo and Glencore. Together, the mines are expected to deliver up to $1.4 billion in EBITDA gains through shared procurement and operational efficiencies. The companies estimate $800 million in annual pre-tax recurring synergies by combining resources, infrastructure, and expertise.
Though Glencore wasn’t consulted on the deal, the logic of combining operations has long been recognized as a path to reducing costs.
Building a Premier Critical Minerals Portfolio
Anglo Teck’s portfolio will include six world-class copper assets, along with premium iron ore and zinc businesses. The merger will also strengthen Anglo’s existing partnerships, such as a joint plan with Codelco in Chile and exploration opportunities across Canada, Latin America, the U.S., Europe, and Africa.
Here’s a glimpse of the production assets that will shape Anglo Teck’s future:
Additionally, Anglo Teck will remain a major player in iron ore and zinc markets, including Red Dog (Alaska) and Trail Operations (British Columbia).
Anglo Teck’s Vision to Make Canada a Critical Minerals Powerhouse
With the merger, Canada takes center stage. Anglo Teck’s global headquarters will be located in Vancouver.
The new company has committed to investing CAD$4.5 billion over five years across Canadian projects. It includes extending the life of Highland Valley Copper, expanding processing at Trail Operations, and exploring new copper resources in British Columbia.
The company also plans to work closely with Indigenous communities, labour unions, and local governments, ensuring that growth supports regional development and social inclusion.
As part of this commitment, Anglo Teck will partner with the Government of Canada to establish a Global Institute for Critical Minerals Research and Innovation. It aims to foster advanced exploration techniques, AI-driven geoscience, and sustainable mining practices.
The Canadian Government highlighted that,
- In 2023, Canadian mines produced 508,250 tonnes of copper in concentrate, with nearly half originating from British Columbia.
- Canada’s exports of copper and copper-based products were valued at $9.4 billion in 2023.
Furthermore, industry reports also say that the copper market in the USA and Canada is valued at approximately USD 23.09 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to USD 37.88 billion by 2035, at an annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1%.
With a planned TSX listing and a strong North American presence, Anglo Teck aims to make Canada a critical minerals hub, creating jobs, driving innovation, and supporting clean energy goals.
Duncan Wanblad, Chief Executive Officer of Anglo American, commented:
“We are unlocking outstanding value both in the near and longer term – forming a global critical minerals champion with the focus, agility, capabilities and culture that have characterised both companies for so long. Having made such significant progress with Anglo American’s portfolio transformation, which has already added substantial value for our shareholders over the past year, now is the optimal time to take this next strategic step to accelerate our growth. We have a unique opportunity to bring together two highly regarded mining companies whose portfolios and capabilities are deeply complementary, while also sharing a common set of values. We are all committed to preserving and building on the proud heritage of both companies, both in Canada, as Anglo Teck’s natural headquarters, and in South Africa where our commitment to investment and national priorities endure. Together, we are propelling Anglo Teck to the forefront of our industry in terms of value accretive growth in responsibly produced critical minerals.”
Growth Beyond Copper: Innovation and Exploration
The merger isn’t limited to copper alone. Anglo Teck is poised to grow in other critical minerals, such as germanium, crop nutrients, and premium iron ore. It also plans to invest across Latin America, the U.S., Europe, and Africa, in addition to its exploration projects in Canada.
By backing Galore Creek, Schaft Creek, and Zafranal, the company expands its portfolio and strengthens the supply of critical minerals essential to the global energy transition.
Jonathan Price, Chief Executive Officer of Teck, commented:
“This merger of two highly complementary portfolios will create a leading global critical minerals champion headquartered in Canada – a top five global copper producer with exceptional mining and processing assets located across Canada, the United States, Latin America, and Southern Africa. It is a natural progression of our strategy and portfolio simplification, which created a platform to enable exactly this sort of transformative transaction. Bringing together our world-class copper assets, premium iron ore and zinc operations and an outstanding pipeline of high-quality growth projects provides enormous resiliency and optionality. This transaction will create significant economic opportunity in Canada, while positioning Anglo Teck to deliver sustainable, long-term value for shareholders and all stakeholders.”
Thus, Anglo Teck is all set to play a pivotal role in the energy transition with copper at its core. By blending operational excellence, strategic partnerships, and exploration innovation, the new company can meet rising global demand for minerals sustainably.
The post Anglo American and Teck Create a $50B Copper Giant to Fuel the Clean Energy Revolution appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits