hypothetical question, page-144

Hi westcott, even if I believe the argument of the article (I don't) they contradict with official Chinese central government strategic policy of 50% ownership of iron ore mines providing all import (it has been suggested to be as low as 6%).

The hanlong fronted deal was a company takeover which (IMO) was terminated due to changing circumstance (loss of exclusivity) and that China's objective hasn't changed in terms of owing the assets. If the hanlong insider trading hadn't taken place, I am pretty sure we would have got the 57c in the mail courtesy of the China development bank (as it was pre-stocking hijack).

IMO, its a case of all roads lead to Rome. If China is building the EPC infrastructure she wouldn't be doing that for someone else. Partial ownership of the asset is also not an option. Ownership determines who get the offtake. For a European commercial consortium, ownership of 800mt of $21/t dso resource is no less a priority than that of China. That in itself forces the Chinese to acquire the assets at 100%.

Whoever that convinced the 2 African governments of open competition rendering the hanlong deal null and void would have done so because they want the assets nit because they were.dying to build the infrastructure.

To cut a long story, if either bloc takes over the asset at 100%, it will invariably end in a full takeover. Because when that happens, we will not own the resource or the infrastructure.

With no ownership China cannot dictate the timetable, volume of production, guarantee of offtake. She may as well.just buy more ore.from the cartel.