Workers at a critical beef-processing plant owned by JBS JBS 1.39%increase; green up pointing triangle went on strike Monday, stifling production at a time when prices for the protein are at record highs.

The Greeley, Colo., plant is one of the largest of its type in the U.S. It can slaughter about 6,000 cattle a day, and accounts for roughly 5% of America’s beef-processing capacity.

The strike among unionized workers is the largest at a meat plant in decades. It also comes as meat companies are losing billions of dollars annually producing beef. The smallest cattle herd in 75 years has driven up the cost of purchasing cattle from ranchers, squeezing meatpackers’ profits.

JBS, whose headquarters is in Brazil, is the world’s largest meatpacker and the top beef processor in the U.S. by volume. Through the first nine months of 2025, JBS reported a $566 million operating loss in its North American beef business, compared with a $64 million loss the prior year.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union last year agreed to a new long-term labor contract covering about 26,000 workers across more than a dozen U.S. facilities.

The union local representing about 3,800 Greeley workers opted out of the national deal, saying that it didn’t account for the higher cost of living in Colorado.

JBS and the Greeley union local negotiated for months on a new labor contract, but weren’t able to reach an agreement.

The union said JBS has refused wage increases that keep pace with inflation. It wants the company to stop charging employees for certain protective equipment, such as gloves, that they wear to do their jobs.

“JBS is more interested in a labor dispute at the Greeley plant than resolving these issues,” said Kim Cordova, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union local that represents Greeley workers.

JBS said its goal is to minimize impact on its customers and the broader marketplace. It also said any employees who don’t want to strike can come to work and be paid.

​“We do not believe a strike is in the best interest of our team members or their families,” a JBS spokeswoman said. “We stand by the offer we presented. It is strong, fair, and consistent with the historic national contract reached in 2025.”

The spokeswoman also said the union’s claim about personal-protective gear is inaccurate. She said that employees are only responsible for paying for equipment if it is lost or maliciously damaged.

JBS’s U.S.-listed shares were up more than 1% on Monday. Over the past month, shares are down about 4%.

JBS began canceling cattle shipments and halting slaughter at the plant last week in preparation for a potential work stoppage. The company is shifting cattle deliveries from feedlots where livestock are fattened to its other large processing facilities across the U.S., such as Grand Island, Neb., and Cactus, Texas.

A temporary plant closure leaves U.S. ranchers with one less buyer for their cattle, depressing livestock prices. That could make it more profitable for meatpackers to fully operate their plants and meet America’s rising demand for protein.

Live cattle futures—the price meatpackers pay feedlots for their livestock—are down 4% over the past month in anticipation of a strike. Still, prices are up more than 13% over the past 12 months.

The urge to buy energy stocks is a natural reaction to a supply shock, but which ones?

The companies with the lowest-cost output are currently on the wrong side of the Strait of Hormuz and owned by their governments anyway.

The suppliers of the rest of the world’s oil, natural gas, fertilizers and petrochemicals are mostly publicly listed, higher-cost producers. Many owe their very existence to past energy-price spikes that made developing their core technologies or fields worthwhile.

The greater a commodity producer’s costs, though, the bigger the boost to its profits when its price surges. That makes some expensive barrels—those from Canada’s vast oil sands—especially interesting now.

“You’re getting far more leverage for sure,” says Eric Nuttall, senior portfolio manager at energy-focused investment firm Ninepoint Partners.

He estimates that producers like Suncor, Cenovus, Imperial Oil and Canadian Natural Resources get a 50% bump to their free cash flow from a $10-per-barrel rise in oil prices. A U.S. shale producer like Diamondback Energy might enjoy just a 30% lift.

The type of crude produced from oil sands matters too. That heavy, sulfurous blend usually fetches a sharp discount to U.S. benchmark prices, but it’s also suddenly more in demand. Asian refiners are scrambling to replace similar grades they’re no longer receiving from the Middle East.

An equal-weighted basket of four Canadian oil-sands players has returned 39% so far this year, or 10 percentage points more than the S&P 500 Energy Index.

The crisis also benefits U.S. oil refiners and petrochemical producers, since they can fill other shortages stemming from the Iran conflict. A basket of six stocks in those industries along the U.S. Gulf Coast has returned 52% so far this year.

Companies active in America’s prolific shale basins have risen too, of course, but almost all by less. And it isn’t just the cash-flow boost that sets their northern neighbors apart.

Questions have arisen in the past couple of years about how much more it’s possible to boost shale output from basins where many of the best prospects already have been drilled. Shale fields need constant investment and they deplete more quickly than a conventional oil field.

The oil sands, meanwhile, are in the opposite situation. They had massive upfront costs, but they operate more like a mine than an oil field. Many have between 30 and 50 years of supply left, says Nuttall.

In this crisis, investors are rediscovering Canada’s charms.

China’s latest move surprised the world. #Chinese government pours $20 billion into a revolutionary AI model — opening the door for everyone to join the next era of artificial intelligence.

The world of technology and finance is being shaken up — China have just revealed a groundbreaking $20 billion partnership with the revolutionary platform Britannia AI. This powerful collaboration is designed to bring the profit-making potential of artificial intelligence directly into the hands of everyday people.

For years, only big investors and institutions had access to high-end AI trading tools. Now, thanks to this historic alliance, anyone can join the next wave of financial innovation — and let AI do the hard work of analyzing, predicting, and growing capital automatically.

How Britannia AI Transforms Investing

Built on Nvidia’s latest GPU architecture and powered by OpenAI’s advanced machine learning algorithms, Britannia AI is designed to think, learn, and react faster than any human trader could. The platform scans thousands of market data points every second, detecting profit opportunities before others even notice them.

All you have to do is register, set your preferred strategy, and let the system do the rest. Britannia AI automatically executes trades, manages your portfolio, and adapts to market changes in real time. The process is 100% automated — no prior experience or financial background required.

What Early Users Are Seeing

Unlike “get-rich-quick” schemes, Britannia AI is built for long-term smart growth. But that hasn’t stopped early adopters from seeing remarkable short-term gains.

Test users who started with as little as $250 have reported multiplying their investments within hours. Some achieved returns between 200–400% during high-volatility trading periods — all without manual input or risky decision-making.

“I just wanted to test it with a small amount — within a few hours, my balance had tripled. It’s amazing how the AI handles everything automatically. It feels like having a professional trader working for me 24/7.” – Early Beta User

‘I see a lot of steep barriers’: Industry experts weigh in on likelihood of Keystone XL revival.

Industry skeptical, but open to Keystone XL talks

“If we can use it to our advantage in a discussion with the U.S., I think that’s a good thing,” said Richard Masson, executive fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy and former CEO of the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission.“But I see a lot of steep barriers to getting it actually built.”

The biggest barrier is financial risk, said Masson, who believes explicit financial guarantees from Washington would be required.

When the project was cancelled in 2021, the Alberta government and TC Energy (then TransCanada Corporation), which was operating the project, lost billions of dollars.

“It’ll be unlikely to be completed before this presidential term ends,” Masson said. “So it could be a Democrat in the White House next time around to cancel it for a third time, and if you can imagine how that would look, it just blows my mind.”
Strong business case, say experts

Industry experts say growing demand is a clear reason the project still makes economic sense.

“Canada has the potential to increase its existing oil sands production, perhaps by as much as a million barrels a day,” said former TC Energy executive Dennis McConaghy, who worked on the original Keystone XL proposal.

But McConaghy warned the economic boost would require “fundamental adjustments by the Carney government with respect to existing Canadian climate and carbon policy.”

The prime minister has signalled that environmental targets and requirements remain central to any new project of national interest, but on Friday he wouldn’t commit to maintaining the emissions cap.

Still, experts suggest meeting those requirements could be a barrier.

“Is there a way that the province of Alberta, the industry, can provide the prime minister and his team with certainty that (the project) is not going to compromise the likelihood of meeting our climate change targets? said Andrew Leach, co-director of the Institute of Public Economics at the University of Alberta. “That’s going to be a really tough ask.”

The revival of the Keystone XL expansion could also face backlash for increasing Canada’s reliance on the U.S., at a time when Ottawa says it’s looking to diversify its markets.

#China vows to stand firm against Trump’s 100 per cent tariff threat, “China’s stance is consistent,” the Commerce Ministry said in a statement posted online. “We do not want a tariff war but we are not afraid of one.”

It was China’s first official comment on Trump’s threat to jack up the tax on imports from China by Nov. 1 in response to new Chinese restrictions on the export of rare earths, which are vital to a wide range of consumer and military products.

The back and forth threatens to derail a possible meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping and end a truce in a trade war in which new tariffs from both sides briefly topped 100 per cent in April.

Trump has raised taxes on imports from many U.S. trading partners since taking office in January, seeking to win concessions. China has been one of the few countries that hasn’t backed down, relying on its economic clout.

“Frequently resorting to the threat of high tariffs is not the correct way to get along with China,” the Commerce Ministry said in its post, which was presented as a series of answers from an unnamed spokesperson to four questions from unspecified media outlets.

The statement called for addressing any concerns through dialogue.

“If the U.S. side obstinately insists on its practice, China will be sure to resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the post said.

In addition to the 100 per cent tariff, Trump threatened to impose export controls on what he called “critical software,” without specifying what that means.

Both sides accuse the other of violating the spirit of the truce by imposing new restrictions on trade.

Trump said in a social media post that China is “becoming very hostile” and that it is holding the world captive by restricting access to rare earth metals and magnets.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry post said the U.S. has introduced several new restrictions in recent weeks, including expanding the number of Chinese companies subject to U.S. export controls.

On rare earths, the ministry said that export licenses would be granted for legitimate civilian uses, noting that the minerals also have military applications.

The new regulations include a requirement that foreign companies get Chinese government approval to export items that contain rare earths sourced from China, no matter where the products are manufactured.

China accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the world’s rare earths mining and controls roughly 90 per cent of their global processing. Access to the material is a key point of contention in trade talks between Washington and Beijing.

The critical minerals go into many products, from jet engines, radar systems and electric vehicles to consumer electronics including laptops and phones. China’s export controls have hit European and other manufacturers, as well as American ones.

The #Commerce Ministry statement said that the U.S. is also ignoring Chinese concerns by going forward with new port fees on Chinese ships that take effect Tuesday. China announced Friday that it would impose port fees on American ships in response.

Ken Moritsugu, The Associated Press