PS a lot of posts have been made since I began this but might as...

PS a lot of posts have been made since I began this but might as well put it up for consideration and comment.

Could you be a bit more specific about what won't be good? Any link to the details of the tax etc changes would be welcome. All I have seen so far is this Reuter's article which is light on detail


The DRC needed to upgrade their 2002 mining "friendly" laws and associated taxes etc. The result was never going to be popular but some changes were going to happen.

I hadn't registered the 'super profits tax' aspect that HAC30 mentioned. Any detail?

This type of tax is brought into play occasionally (BC in 1970s, Mongolia, Australia MRRT, WA Au royalty and probably others) particularly when there is a commodity price spike and governments try to improve their bottom line. The result tends to be negative for both government and the mining industry but some tax/royalty should be paid to the host 'country'. Getting it reasonable with BIG $s at stake is never going to be easy.

The 1970s Cu price spike ended ?by the time legislation made it through the BC legislature and, IMO from an industry perspective, destroyed BCs exploration climate for quite a few years and didn't add anything significant to the government coffers. Co in the DRC may be a different story though if the supply demand ratio goes as Bulls predict.

Munchy360 if you are referring to the US strategic Co position it will IMO take some pretty impressive Presidential decrees to get the major source of US Co heading to production: Minnesota by-product Co.

I was with INCO in the 1970s and, while I didn't work there, watched the process as their Duluth Ni/Cu project was shut down by environmentalists. There is a huge resource in the Duluth Gabbro complex and the current major mining proponent is, I believe, Twin Metals. This web site doesn't mention Co but I would be very surprised if there is another large by product source of Co in Minnesota other than this complex intrusive.
[I haven't researched this area very much but it is likely there are other companies in the same area that could develop mines, in time, if permits are available.]

Twin Metals have a large well defined, lowish grade Ni/Cu/Pgm resource but some 50 years on environmental/political issues have prevented mining.

The Trump administration has shown a willingness to overturn previous decisions for Oil exploration access/?exploitation... Using the strategic minerals aspect would be a justification to push changes through.

Twin Metals' project would probably be an UG project with a relatively long (2-4? years) time frame to production... after legislation. OK for longer term strategic purposes but not short term requirements.

Then there is the rest of the US and exploration upside that would benefit from strategic mineral preference. How this would affect the world Co market remains to be seen.
These USGS figures don't obviously show US data unless the grey refers to them rather than "rest of the world".

To me the significant part of these two pie diagrams is the relatively low level of Chinese reserves and production. Their presence in the DRC is significant so while not a totally secure strategic source of Co it is likely to have a major impact on the Co market.

The 14.6% of world Co resource in Oz surprised me a bit but a large part is probably in "laterite" style mineralisation which, at present, requires AFAIK is less favourable for battery usage.

Such studies as the USGS one on strategic minerals are interesting to look at in hindsight as many seem to get it so wrong. INCO used to predict Ni markets and have now been swallowed by VALE after making a few too many miscalculations.