Running discussion on SP, page-9349

I just want to add a few other points to this post:

1. If the AVZ deposit is viable I doubt it will be left stranded as @qball correctly specifies that the DRCongo government owns 30% of it. Given DRCongo would be seeking to diversify its mineral export base I suspect it will be wanting to export lithium (not leave deposits stranded).

2. As I stipulated in my post, Simandou was Rio's expansion plan of the 2000s, but when the project was halted that increased output was not lost. Infact Rio maintained its market share by going to plan B, been expand its Pilbara operations. Rio's iron ore exports are forecast at around 330 million tonnes in 2018, up from around 150 million tonnes in 2007 so that gives you an idea of what its expansion plans did in the Pilbara and how they dealt with Simandou at a time of rising iron ore demand. Refer: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272489/bauxite-and-iron-ore-production-of-rio-tinto/

3. The interesting thing about Simandou was the initial seizure of half the accreage because of claims of slow progress in development by Rio who owned the exploration rights since the late 1990s. Then the govt gave that right to another company, and the suggestion was dodgy dealings went on there. Then within this mess a large portion was then sold (by non-Rio) to the world's largest iron ore producer, Vale, for development. Here is an article showing what happened and Rio's strategy, which is what happened: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simandou-from-pin-up-let-down-african-mining-dominic-piper/ and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/05/inside-simandou-mining-project-has-cursed-come-near/ and http://www.mining.com/bsg-to-file-multi-billion-lawsuit-against-rio-over-simandou/

4. Corruption is what stopped this project as both Vale and Rio expanded output under their plan Bs, albeit they still hold their interests in Simandou. Simandou is an example of what happens when corrupt government's go overboard and is probably a learning lesson for other African Nation government's on when too far equals no development. Now, what happened here was not about stranding a deposit on purpose - which is what @eshmun is suggesting - what happened was the government's role in this sordid affair with suing and counter suing preventing companies wanting to mine the deposit and therefore looking elsewhere to meet the unmet demand.

5. Both Rio and Vale continue to hold an interest, just like they do with their other tenements holding iron ore in their respective countries, as a chance to develop if things change in that country. When there is a call to increase iron ore production what the companies do is that they will evaluate all options for meeting that increased demand - i.e. demand is always met - albeit in terms of Rio they meet that demand from the Pilbara and Vale from Brazil, which means that the people of Guinea are the ones to rue missed opportunity from government corruption. It is not as if the demand is not met, and that is the point of my post (if lithium deposits in the DRC are not progressed supply will simply come from elsewehere in the next twenty or so years).

How this is relevant to AVZ, I am still scratching my head because if the deposit is viable it will be mined IMO, and the DRCongo govt will want it mined to diverisfy their economy to other minerals IMO IMO IMO. So the question here is simply around transport costs. Can it turn a profit, which I think it can as I posted on the Road to Manono thread.

My final post on the issue - I have a perspective, others may have a different perspective, everyone else needs to dyor and come to your own view

All IMO and VB time IMO IMO