When I read between the lines of the article below, which I believe we've all seen, I catch this underlying message from the CEO of BHP...They would much rather deal with jurisdictions they like where Costs are High, but Risks are Low. Then to gamble in unstable countries where the Costs are Low, but the unpredictable nature of the government, and its people, are High. Makes sense....No one wants to open a mine one day, just to have it closed the next. Canada appears to be good choice, for the right price, but again the Indigenous factor has to be settled, or we are no different than the gamble BHP faces in the third world...Just possibly closer and better connected to the  market, and in most cases more ESG friendly. Time to weigh your options my Australian friends...But choose wisely.

Think hard though...Because with one you pay now....The other... You will pay later. If you know what I mean .... ;)

TM.

https://www.mining-technology.com/news/company-news/bhp-ceo-tougher-jurisdictions/

While BHP is prepared to look at tougher jurisdictions, Henry told the FT summit that he also believed copper and other “future-facing” commodities could be found in “areas we like”, although at a higher cost....

......Operating in these “tougher jurisdictions” holds real and present risks. Where the political and economic stability of the host country is questionable, abrupt changes in the business environment can adversely affect profits or the value of the company’s assets.

Additionally, there is an increased risk of resource nationalism especially if power changes hands abruptly. Recent examples include changes to the mining and tax codes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tanzania and the changes proposed to Mexico and Peru’s mining laws.

BHP must be acutely aware of these risks and not fall into the same trap of Glencore, after their deals in the Congo came under investigation in at least three western jurisdictions for potential financial misconduct....