Having worked for one of the largest Oil&Gas companies and also...

Having worked for one of the largest Oil&Gas companies and also for a small size company I like to contribute to the discussion with the following observations.

Of the many reasons possible why a deal between Talga and LKAB did not realise, the statement from LKAB about 'not our priority' & 'we are too busy with other things' and 'it is a great project, but not for us right now', are in my eyes the best reasons for the break up.

My main hesitation for an efficient and effective working relationship between the two parties is that LKAB, by culture and size, has a completely different way of operating than Talga. One can expect that LKAB is more political, bureaucratic, meeting oriented, has many different departments (rd kingdoms) who all have to lay their egg about the new venture, while Talga is super flexible and opportunistic to get their strategic goals realised. The lines of command are much shorter in Talga than in LKAB, for sure. Don't get me wrong. LKAB has also many positives to bring to the table, but that does not automatically include working efficiently for/with a much smaller partner.

Secondly, LKAB has a much higher overhead than Talga, which may have been killing for the project economics. I am sure MT can do a better job with another, smaller, partner.

Another reason why I like that LKAB has walked away instead of Talga breaking it up is that their is no, at least publicly, animosity between the parties. Talga still may use part of LKAB's infrastructure in the future. As LKAB has walked out, the Swedish government won't feel snubbed by Talga, but maybe by LKAB.

Maybe the JV did not realise because of difference about price and priority. That may well be the case, but I never felt comfortable about the different cultures between the two companies. Just my thought.

So, overall I am not too bothered with current developments and I am eagerly awaiting Talga's next move. For sure, we have an impatient MT on our side.