Perhaps I have been unclear in my previous posts xFire, what I...

Perhaps I have been unclear in my previous posts xFire, what I mean by their service being inelastic is that miners dealing with water issues (whilst mining) is not discretionary. It has to be done. If it is not done they cannot mine productively and the whole process is made more difficult and expensive. This is a truism so I don't understand the ongoing debate. Of course if mines shut down their services will no longer be required although as long as the mines are producing and they have water issues RQL's services will be required.

As to their competitive advantages, I see 4. The first mover advantage which you mentioned. Their second is their expertise and experience, as Relaxan mentioned. Their third is an exclusivity arrangement they have for their assisted evaporation units as according to their website "REL has pioneered the provision of automated accelerated evaporation systems to the mining industry and we have the rights to three of the world’s leading products, both land based and floating." Their fourth is that whilst miners can purchase of the shelf equipment to dewater mines themselves RQL will conduct an entire process to design, build, install and maintain the best system for each mine. This distinguishes them from traditional rental companies which only supply the equipment.

Forge is a great company and one which was very profitable to me and I would probably still be holding now however I sold out my holdings to invest in RQL which is a far superior company in my opinion. Do I think Forge's services are inelastic because they grew their earnings during the GFC? No, although I never drew a direct link, I said 'indicated by' in my previous post. Forge's services are far more elastic than RQL's dewatering subsidiary and during a prolonged downturn in commodity prices I believe you'd see a much higher demand for RQL's services than FGE's.