Up to a point, investigating the credibility of an author is fine. But I think effort would be perhaps better invested here looking at the credibility of the report itself. It is not very well written (grammatically), so I found parts of it hard to follow what was even being alleged. But IMO, at the crux of it there seem to be only a couple of claims in the report that bear investigation:
- does a license for tailings in the same geographical area (existence of this is fact) prevent AVZ from doing what it has informed the market it will do (this part is unsubstantiated)?
- has AVZ misrepresented to the market the legal challenge to the validity of its license?
- what were the circumstances that led to the DRC cancelling the previous license in the same area?
Would that I had the time to do the research myself right now ... but I'm pretty sure the above three questions could be definitively answered with some perusal of public records. Unfortunately I believe some of those records will not be in English.
As a general observation, leaving aside possible motives of the authors (which I personally doubt is to manipulate markets), I felt like the EE guys drew some long bows in their reasoning. I'd want some firmer evidence before publishing stuff like what they did.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
