I think you are missing the point of opportunity costs for vale...

I think you are missing the point of opportunity costs for vale themselves or for potential bidders for the goro project. I agree with you that asking the question of why NCZ and not another entity is an important due diligence question that first comes to mind but this shouldnt cloud our judgement. What works for vale or other potential bidding entities dosent necessarily work for NCZ and vice versa. Each entity has its own opportunity cost considerations and works at different scales and under different incentives and environements.

getting a good deal transaction dosent mecessarily mean that one party was smarter than the other. It just means that the deal provided enough incentives to be closed by both parties given the different oppotunity costs and circumstances of each side at that very particular moment the deal was negotiated and done at.

regarding Vale not a charity. Who said they are a charity? Of course they.are looking for their interests. In this particular case for Goro that is to get rid of this disastrous disappointing capex intensive project (for them) as soon as possible at minimum costs while still being regarded as a socially and environmentally responsible company. Their image is at stake here more than any thing else.

Finally we have a precedent here the previous owners of the zinc tailings literally paid NCZ to take care in an environentally responsible manner of those tailings. NCZ making profits in the process is a consequence of the previous owners looking at their reputation and interests more than anything else. And i see similarities with this potential Vale deal.