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.
