Above-ground risks including permitting delays, community conflict and security threats have cost or stalled more than $54 billion in Latin American mining investments since 2018, according to research by Americas Market Intelligence (AMI) presented on September 29, 2026. AMI estimates that approximately $38 billion stems from documented losses including write-offs, legal settlements and fines, while another $16 billion represents capital frozen in delayed or halted projects. The analysis reveals the critical role that regulatory approval processes, community relations and security conditions play in determining whether the region's mineral wealth translates into producing mines.
Peruvian copper projects account for about $7 billion of the stalled capital, while three Mexican projects represent approximately $4 billion in investment held up by permitting issues. These figures highlight how jurisdictional differences in institutional maturity, infrastructure and regulatory frameworks create varying investment challenges across the region. The largest single loss identified in AMI's calculation comes from the 2015 Mariana tailings dam disaster in Brazil.
BHP, Vale and Samarco agreed to a settlement valued by AMI at $31.7 billion to address the disaster's environmental, social and legal consequences. Executive director of Chile-based Plusmining Consulting Juan Carlos Guajardo told MINING.COM that the distinction between losses already incurred and capital tied up in delayed projects is important for understanding regional investment dynamics. Geopolitical mining specialists Eduardo Zamanillo and Marta Rivera cautioned against treating the $54-billion figure as a measure of the region's overall investment appeal, noting that Latin American countries differ substantially in the maturity of their mining industries and regulatory trajectories.
The Mining Conflicts Observatory, a non-profit tracking extractive projects, currently lists 284 conflicts involving 301 projects across Latin America according to AMI data. However, experts emphasize that cumulative losses do not necessarily indicate rising annual risk, but rather reflect changing investor assessment of project viability given regulatory and security uncertainties. Executive certainty emerges as the broadest regional constraint, with permitting predictability and duration being critical factors.
Zamanillo and Rivera noted that projects require institutional and social legitimacy that can be sustained over decades. A technically sound and economically attractive project can remain vulnerable if that legitimacy cannot be built and maintained. Chile's Collahuasi copper expansion illustrates regulatory challenges in established mining jurisdictions.
The country's Second Environmental Court annulled a key permit for the $3.2-billion expansion in May, after finding shortcomings in the treatment of community observations. First Quantum Minerals' Cobre Panamá provides a more extreme example, with the $6.8-billion copper mine ordered closed after Panama's Supreme Court ruled in late 2023 that the law approving its concession was unconstitutional. The operation had represented about 5% of Panama's gross domestic product and 75% of its mineral exports.
Security presents another challenge to mining operations. Zijin Mining reported in 2024 that it had lost control of 60 percent of tunnels at its Buriticá gold mine in Colombia to illegal miners backed by the Gulf Clan. AngloGold Ashanti has written off $98 million on its Quebradona copper-gold project in Colombia, stalled since 2021, with the company targeting 2027 for a new environmental impact assessment.
Community disputes demonstrate how regulatory and social risks become operating costs. Peru's Las Bambas copper mine has faced more than 700 days of blockades along its transport corridor since commercial production began in 2016, costing approximately $9.5 million daily based on estimates from Peru's mining union cited by AMI. John Price, co-director of AMI's mining and risk practice, traced part of the conflict to decisions made after MMG acquired the mine, including abandoning a planned pipeline to Cusco in favor of truck transport through communities.
Experts highlight that delays can matter more than direct legal or security expenses because they push cash flows further into the future and can erode a project's value. Investors increasingly favor expansions around existing operations where infrastructure and community relationships are already established, rather than large greenfield projects with longer and less predictable routes to production. Several countries are attempting to improve their investment positioning.
Argentina has continued integrating mining projects with its RIGI incentive regime designed to provide greater investment certainty, approving the Vicuña copper-gold-silver project this year. Chile is pursuing permitting reform, Brazil has adopted a critical-minerals strategy, and Ecuador has moved to reopen access to mining concessions. While above-ground risk is not necessarily driving miners out of Latin America, the region faces intensifying global competition for mineral investment.
Experts stress that geology alone will not determine which jurisdictions capture the next wave of investment in copper, gold, lithium and other critical minerals. Infrastructure, execution certainty, security, financing and social legitimacy will increasingly determine whether mineral resources become operating mines.
Source: mining.com