Could people please stop using this ridiculous argument: "if "something" (insert anything owned by entity "X") is so good then why "X" would sell it ?"
1- According to this argument, there will never be any market, including a stock market, no one would ever sell his shares in any company (especially blue-chip companies like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft...). selling something doesn't necessarily mean that this "something" is considered bad by the seller, it just means that the seller considers that he will be in a better situation (get more utility) after the sell VS before the sell. its a subjective judgement thanks to human beings different preferences/priorities/goals. Both the seller and the buyer are winners at the time of the transaction, each of them is a priori (by definition) better off after the transaction than before the transaction, its a win-win situation, otherwise no one would sell or buy anything. This is economics 101.
2- In this specific case, it is obvious that Vale prefers to get rid of Goro not because Goro is bad but because they failed at making it work profitably at a large scale / complex process of high-value product, they were obliged to simplify the project to make it work, and at its simplified form the project simply doesn't move the needle for them. It is too small for them and they prefer to focus their time and money on larger scale projects.
