I've watched three mining mega-mergers collapse before they started.

Rio Tinto and Glencore circled each other in 2014. Nothing happened. They talked again in 2024. Still nothing. Now they're back at the table in 2026, and this time feels different.

The pattern tells you everything you need to know about strategic decision-making under constraint.

When the same two companies return to the same conversation repeatedly, they're not being indecisive. They're waiting for environmental conditions to shift enough that a previously impossible combination becomes inevitable.

That shift is happening now. And it's not about corporate strategy—it's about copper physics.

Copper demand is forecasted to nearly double to 50 million metric tons by 2035. That's more than all the copper consumed globally between 1900 and 2021.

Meanwhile, a new copper mine takes 16 years on average to get off the ground.

This is what I mean by resource physics. You can't manufacture optionality when the timeline won't cooperate. You can't wish away geology or permitting processes or infrastructure requirements.

The decision calculus becomes binary: acquire producing assets now or accept strategic irrelevance later.

Rio Tinto understands this. They've been copper-focused for years, but they're watching demand acceleration outpace their production capacity. Electric vehicles alone tell the story—an EV requires 53 kilograms of copper, about 2.4 times more than a conventional vehicle. In 2015, the global EV sector needed 56,000 tonnes of copper. By 2030, that demand hits 2.5 million tonnes.

That's a 44x increase in 15 years.

You don't solve that with exploration budgets and greenfield projects. You solve it through acquisition of existing production.

Most analysis focuses on copper reserves. That's obvious. What gets overlooked is Glencore's trading arm.

At its peak in 2022, Glencore's trading division earned $6.4 billion from capitalizing on market volatility after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Goldman Sachs estimates that business could be worth $4 billion by 2030.

Sources close to the matter say Rio Tinto wants to keep Glencore's trading division and make it an even more powerful platform to sell commodities.

This is the mechanism that changes the equation.

Pure miners control supply. Trading operations control information flow and pricing dynamics. When you combine production assets with market intelligence infrastructure, you create pricing power that neither can achieve independently.

It's the integration of information asymmetry with supply control.

Rio Tinto sees this. They're not just buying copper in the ground. They're buying the ability to understand and influence how that copper moves through global markets.

When preliminary discussions became public, Rio Tinto's shares on the Australian exchange fell 6.3%. Glencore's shares jumped nearly 10 percent.

The market speaks clearly when it wants to.

Investors doubt Rio Tinto's execution capability based on historical patterns. Hugh Dive from Atlas Funds Management captured it: "The share market tells you what you want to know. I like the concept of going to copper, but the record is dreadful for the big majors making acquisitions or even mergers."

This is conviction colliding with execution risk in real time.

Rio Tinto's strategic clarity is sound—copper demand is real, Glencore's assets are valuable, the trading platform adds asymmetric leverage. But clarity doesn't guarantee execution. The market prices in management's historical pattern of value destruction through major M&A.

You see this dynamic constantly in business. The right strategy implemented poorly produces worse outcomes than a mediocre strategy implemented well.

Rio Tinto has until February 5 to either submit a formal offer or state they're walking away under UK takeover rules.

This deadline isn't bureaucratic theater. It's a designed constraint that eliminates option value and forces binary decision-making.

The deliberation period ends. Action or exit becomes mandatory.

I've seen this pattern across every domain—bounded timeframes where analysis paralysis becomes more expensive than imperfect action. The deadline creates clarity by removing the comfortable middle ground of "we're still evaluating."

You either have conviction or you don't. The deadline reveals which one is true.

Rio Tinto's management now faces the test every operator eventually confronts: can you move from strategic understanding to committed execution when the window is open but the outcome isn't guaranteed?

BHP is watching.

Advisers and investors told Reuters that the world's biggest miner is the likeliest spoiler—positioned to either counter Glencore's move or pursue a separate deal to maintain its edge. Richard Hatch at Berenberg identifies BHP as the most likely interloper, suggesting they could launch a competing acquisition focused on copper assets while divesting non-core operations.

BHP has a stronger balance sheet. They have execution credibility that Rio Tinto currently lacks in the market's eyes.

This is how market mechanisms work. Competitive dynamics force tempo even when individual actors prefer delay. If Rio Tinto hesitates, BHP moves. If both hesitate, another player enters.

The copper constraint is visible to everyone. The strategic logic is obvious. Speed becomes the differentiator.

Three previous attempts failed because the environmental conditions hadn't shifted enough to overcome the structural barriers.

Valuation gaps. Cultural differences. Regulatory concerns. ESG complications around Glencore's coal operations. Different business models that don't naturally integrate.

Those barriers still exist. But the copper physics have changed the equation.

When demand is forecasted to consume more copper in the next 15 years than was used in the previous 120 years combined, and when new supply takes 16 years to develop, the strategic imperative overwhelms the integration challenges.

You see this pattern repeat across industries. When the underlying resource constraint becomes severe enough, previously impossible combinations become necessary. The question shifts from "should we?" to "can we afford not to?"

Anglo American and Teck Resources just merged in a $66 billion deal. EU regulators signaled no competition concerns. That creates regulatory path dependency—once authorities approve one mega-consolidation on copper scarcity grounds, they've established the framework for evaluating subsequent combinations.

The precedent is set. The window is open.

I keep coming back to the same observation: conviction precedes capability.

Rio Tinto has the analytical capability to understand why this merger makes strategic sense. They've understood it for years—that's why they keep returning to the conversation.

What they're testing now is conviction. Can management commit to a path when the market is skeptical, when integration risks are real, when execution history suggests caution?

The February 5 deadline forces that test.

This is the pattern I see repeatedly in every domain. Strategic clarity is necessary but insufficient. You need the conviction to act on that clarity when conditions are favorable but outcomes aren't guaranteed.

The copper constraint creates the favorable conditions. The trading platform adds asymmetric leverage. The competitive dynamic removes the luxury of delay. The regulatory precedent opens the path.

What remains is the decision itself.

You either believe the strategic logic strongly enough to accept the execution risk, or you walk away and watch someone else capture the opportunity.

That's the test Rio Tinto faces. It's the same test every operator faces when the window opens: do you have enough conviction to move when the moment arrives?

We'll know the answer by February 5.