Ian Timis is a leading authority in the global natural resources sector, with over 25 years of executive experience driving strategic value at the intersection of resource development, private equity, and technological innovation. His track record includes leading multi-billion-dollar M&A transactions, scaling early-stage ventures across more than 12 jurisdictions, and advising governments and institutional investors on critical minerals essential for the energy transition, automation and AI.
In this exclusive interview, Ian shares his expert perspective on the future of resource investment, the geopolitical forces shaping supply chains, and why future metals will define the next era of global industrial advancement. With deep operational and board-level experience across Australia, Canada, Europe, and Africa, Ian offers a rare, insider view into one of the world’s most consequential sectors.
Given your experience in future metals and the energy transition, how are you navigating the increasingly politicised environment surrounding critical minerals, particularly amid the strategic tug-of-war between China, the US, and the EU over supply chain control?
The critical minerals sector has evolved far beyond traditional resource extraction. Today, it is shaped by geopolitics, international trade policy, and growing strategic competition between major economies.
I have spent more than 25 years in the mining and energy sectors, overseeing over US$5 billion in cross-border transactions across Africa, Europe, and North America. At African Petroleum, I played a key role in securing ten offshore licences across five West African countries, engaging directly with governments, stakeholders, and local communities. The company later merged with PetroNor E&P to strengthen its technical capabilities and consolidate its regional presence (PetroNor, 2019). I also served as Vice President during the US$2.4 billion acquisition of European Goldfields by Eldorado Gold, which significantly expanded the company’s European footprint and aligned its operations with regulatory frameworks in both the European Union and Canada (Eldorado Gold, 2012).
The key point is this: in today’s environment, where access to resources is increasingly defined by shifting alliances and trade dynamics, success depends on anticipating policy developments, building trusted international partnerships, and maintaining the agility to adapt strategy in real-time.
In a world where resource nationalism is becoming more pronounced, what strategic shifts should investors be making in terms of sourcing, partnerships, or investment regions?
In today’s climate, diversification is not just good practice, it’s essential. Investors need to think beyond geography and consider how they build partnerships. With resource nationalism on the rise, it’s no longer enough to enter a country as a capital provider. You need to be seen as a long-term partner who’s contributing to the broader development of the region.
Africa, Australia, and Latin America remain key areas for growth, and investors should continue to focus on them. At the same time, places like Scandinavia and parts of Eastern Europe offer strong ESG frameworks and more consistent regulatory environments, which are becoming increasingly valuable when making long-term commitments.
In my own career, I’ve applied this thinking across the board and have seen how effective governance, stakeholder engagement, and local partnerships can significantly reduce risk and build trust. These experiences taught me that success often comes down to how well you work with the people on the ground.
Instead of entering a market with a short-term view, investors should look to co-create value with local partners. This approach helps speed up permitting, builds stronger community relationships, and ensures the investment is more resilient in a shifting political landscape. In the current global context, that kind of alignment is absolutely critical.
Do you believe we’re entering an era where critical minerals will be treated like oil used as geopolitical bargaining chips? If so, how should governments and investors prepare?
Yes, and I believe we’re already seeing it unfold. Critical minerals have become central to global trade and political strategy, used in everything from international negotiations and defence planning to industrial policy. Unlike oil, however, their supply chains are far more fragmented and often run through complex, high-risk regions.
I’ve seen this dynamic play out throughout my career. Much of my work has involved operating in jurisdictions where access to resources is shaped by political agendas and shifting regulatory landscapes. From structuring cross-border M&A and negotiating long-term offtake agreements to managing geopolitical risk, I’ve seen first-hand how tightly natural resources are linked to national interest, and rightly so.
Governments must act with urgency. That means investing in midstream infrastructure, streamlining permitting processes, and establishing clear, long-term industrial strategies. Without policy consistency and regulatory clarity, efforts to secure critical mineral supply chains will fall short.
For investors, analysing commodity prices or returns in isolation is no longer enough. Today, we must run stress tests that account for political risks, including sanctions and trade restrictions to unexpected regulatory shifts and global tariffs. This kind of resilience planning is vital in the current climate, and it’s where experience in risk management, capital allocation, and regulatory engagement becomes truly valuable.
With so much emphasis on localisation and reshoring supply chains, do you think the West is realistically positioned to reduce dependence on Chinese processing dominance in rare earths and battery metals?
It’s certainly possible, but it will take focused effort and political commitment. The West has the capital, technology, and skilled workforce. What’s often missing is cohesion across policy, infrastructure, and execution. We’ve seen promising moves, such as the US Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, but these must translate into tangible outcomes, like new processing capacity and reliable funding mechanisms. China has a 20-year lead in this space. Closing that gap will require urgent action, long-term planning, and cross-sector coordination. At Eco Future Metals, we’re involved in discussions around building local processing infrastructure, particularly in Europe, and we see growing momentum, but timing is everything.
Are there any countries or regions you see as emerging critical mineral powerhouses in the next five years and are you actively investing or advising there?
Investors should keep a close eye on Namibia, particularly for its growing role in uranium and battery metals. The country has made strong progress in regulatory alignment and infrastructure development, making it an increasingly attractive destination for strategic investment. Sweden and Finland also stand out for their leadership in ESG standards and policy maturity, while Eastern Europe is gaining importance as the European Union looks to strengthen internal supply chains and reduce reliance on external sources. In my opinion, investors should look beyond short-term opportunities and engage with these regions through meaningful partnerships, long-term investments, and sustainability-focused initiatives. The priority should be building lasting relationships and a credible presence on the ground, not just early access.
How are you preparing Eco Future Metals to operate in a multi-polar world where access, not abundance, might be the biggest challenge?
Access, rather than availability, is the real challenge shaping our strategy. While the world has no shortage of mineral resources, gaining access to them under fair, stable, and commercially viable conditions is far more complex.
At Eco Future Metals, we’re building a well-diversified portfolio that spans asset classes, commodities, regions, and political systems. We carefully balance high-growth, frontier opportunities with more stable, lower-risk markets. Flexibility and robust ESG principles are built into every deal, allowing us to adapt confidently as global conditions evolve.
We’re especially excited about a unique solution we’ll soon be introducing, a proprietary AI-driven approach that’s a first in the industry. This innovation will transform how mining companies and investors analyse data, operate projects, and make decisions in real time. We believe it will quickly become indispensable across the sector, setting a new benchmark for strategic insight, efficiency, and risk management.
Another key strength is the depth and diversity of our leadership team. Together, we bring over 170 years of combined experience across investment banking, mining, engineering, and technology. This broad expertise allows us to structure transactions effectively, navigate complex regulatory environments, and build strong, lasting relationships with stakeholders.
Finally, ESG and stakeholder engagement sit at the heart of everything we do. These aren’t just compliance requirements — they’re critical to building trust, reducing risk, and ensuring long-term alignment with both local communities and global standards. In today’s fast-changing world, technical capability alone isn’t enough. Sustainable success also demands social awareness, political understanding, and strategic agility.
How do you assess the risk of regulatory whiplash where governments make sweeping critical mineral mandates but delay funding or approvals for new mining projects?
This remains one of the most pressing and frustrating challenges facing the critical minerals and mining industry. While governments continue to announce ambitious climate goals — including commitments to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 the infrastructure, permitting frameworks, and regulatory capacity required to support these targets are often well behind the pace.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), it currently takes an average of 15-20 years to develop a mining project from discovery to production. This timeline is fundamentally at odds with the urgency of energy transition goals, which demand a significant new supply of lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and rare earths by early 2030. In the European Union, for example, permitting delays has become a key bottleneck. Despite the Critical Raw Materials Act, which aims to shorten timelines, most projects still face 5 to 10 years of approval processes.
Regulatory uncertainty not only undermines investor confidence but also causes project delays and cost overruns. Governments must also act decisively. This means accelerating permitting processes, offering clear guidance to investors, and ensuring consistency in implementation. Without these steps, we risk falling short of the climate and industrial goals that policymakers themselves have set, not due to a lack of resources or capital, but because of misalignment between ambition and execution, which is the most challenging aspect of any ambitious project.
