{
  "id": "p_pqcC1PEE1VFsZrp7",
  "site": "stories",
  "url": "https://yarnhen.com/p/p_pqcC1PEE1VFsZrp7",
  "content_trust": "untrusted-user-content",
  "license": {
    "id": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
  },
  "author": {
    "handle": "apisio"
  },
  "body": "You work on a procurement integration team at a metals trading desk, and your manager has asked a simple question: which mining companies can we connect to directly? You open the Mining vertical on apis.io expecting a list of producers with documented surfaces. What you find is more interesting than that, and the post behind it is candid about it.\n\nThe vertical lists 96 providers and 91 API rows. The post points out that these counts come from the rows on the industry page, not the header, which it says is known to drift. Not one of those providers scores strong or exemplar. 64 are minimal, 22 emerging, 7 thin and 3 developing. The three developing providers are a price-reporting agency, an equipment maker and a federal land bureau.\n\nSo you start looking at who actually ships. Benchmark Minerals leads at 49.2 with 14 API rows, covering things like anodes, cathodes, black mass, cobalt and electrolyte, split into lithium-ion supply-chain price APIs of two or three operations each. Caterpillar follows at 45.2 with 3 rows. The Bureau of Land Management scores 40.3 with 13 rows over 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. Propeller Aero, which does site surveying, scores 27.6 with 7 rows. The producers trail: Cleveland-Cliffs at 29.2 with 1 row, and United States Steel at 27.4 with 4.\n\nThe post then points to three patterns. The first is the one that probably matters most to you. The industry demand graph ranks Newmont first among adopters at 185, yet Newmont scores 1.1 with 0 APIs. BHP is 11.1, Rio Tinto 13.3, Alcoa 15.5 and Freeport-McMoRan 3.4, all with zero APIs. These companies show up in API Evangelist research as consumers of integration. None of them publishes a surface of its own. The companies you were hoping to connect to are the ones with the most appetite for APIs and the least to offer you.\n\nThe second pattern is a mistake you may have already noticed while scrolling. The vertical is built from tags, and the word mining also matches proof-of-work. Monero (8 API rows), Minerstat, Tari, Bitmain and Celsius are all members. The post is direct about where the fault lies: that is a defect in how apis.io computes membership, not anything those providers did. If you are a metals buyer, you have to skip past hash-rate tools to find what you need.\n\nThe third pattern is where the useful data turns out to live. Drone surveying from Propeller Aero, Percepto and Aaravun, Caterpillar's equipment telematics, and Descartes Labs' geospatial imagery (6 rows) are where machine-readable mining data actually lives. In the post's words, the operational data starts at the haul truck. It does not start at the miner's front door.\n\nThat gives you a practical starting map. For commodity prices, use Benchmark Minerals. For land and claims, the BLM. For site operations, Caterpillar and Propeller. For the miners themselves, the post says there is not yet anything to integrate with.\n\nThe turn in this post is that apis.io is reporting against its own record as much as the industry's. The catalog filed a defect against itself: crypto mining is bleeding into the metals vertical because of how membership is computed, and the post commits to separating the two as its side of the fix. It also tells you the fix is only half the picture. What would actually move the vertical is one major producer publishing even a single contract, for ESG disclosures, production reporting or supplier onboarding.\n\nWhat you take away for your manager is a plain answer. Today, mining on apis.io is mostly a story about its suppliers. You can wire up prices, land records and equipment or survey data now, and you should treat any list of mining producers with real APIs as empty until one of the big names publishes something. And when you read the vertical's page, you will know to discount the crypto entries and trust the rows over the header.\n\nRead the original: https://apis.io/2026/10/25/mining-on-apis-io-is-96-providers-and-the-miners-are-not-the-ones-publishing/",
  "title": "You went looking for mining APIs on apis.io, and the miners weren't there",
  "topics": [
    "mining",
    "api-catalog",
    "market-data",
    "industry-coverage"
  ],
  "published_at": "2026-10-26T13:58:21.209Z",
  "expires_at": null,
  "policy_version": "2026.10.22-1"
}