GAMBIA-L Archives

The Gambia and Related Issues Mailing List

GAMBIA-L@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:09:26 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (162 lines)
 
 
Dear Sir: 
Rip-Off or Not? A Technical View  On Australian Company (Canagie)  
 
Batokungku Drilling Site  The Gambia West Africa 
In respect of the above, please allow me to explain and clarify to your  
readership a matter that might be of interest to them. It is about a recent  
headline (to be specific on the 15th February 2008) in the Daily  Observer and the 
Point Newspapers of The Gambia. The two papers reported on an  extra-ordinary 
press conference convened by the Foreign Affairs Minister (Mr.  Crispon 
Grey-Johnson) to ‘assure  the diplomats, the business community and investors that 
the government of The  Gambia is pro-business and pro-investment’. During the 
press  conference, Mr. Grey Johnson allegedly claimed that a particular 
Australian  company had ‘rip-off’ the Gambian people by not revealing the actual 
minerals  that they have been granted license to mine. According to the two 
newspapers,  the company had been claiming to be mining the minerals ‘ileminite,  
Zircon, rutile and Silicon’. However according to the articles, when  the 
government did its own investigations, it found out that in addition to the  
minerals listed above, the company was also exporting ‘Titanium, iron ore and  
Uranium’.  
This is what the daily Observer quoted Minister Grey Johnson to have  said:  ‘
When we (the Gambia government) sent samples  of the sand for laboratory 
tests abroad, the results came back showing that in  addition to mining Zircon, 
Silicon and Ilmenite, the company was also exporting  Titanium, Iron Ore and 
Uranium".  
When I read these articles, it became evident to me that the foreign  affairs 
minister has a very shallow understanding, of the issue he was dealing  with. 
I will explain why! But first I have to say that his article is not about  
whether the company had ‘rip-off’ the Gambian people or not, instead I want  
explain technical terms and lay bare the misunderstanding demonstrated by the  
Minister. I will first define few terms to bring the readership close to the  
arena of mineral economy.  
What is a mineral? A mineral is any naturally occurring  substance with a 
characteristic chemical composition,  highly ordered atomic structure and 
specific  physical properties formed through _geological_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology)   processes. Common examples of minerals will include ilmenite (as 
named by  Minister), gold, table salt, silica (beach sand), rutile, etc.  
An element is  a type of _atom_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom)  with a 
distinct _atomic  number_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number)  or a 
pure  substance with groups of similar atoms. Minerals and elements can 
sometimes be  confusing because, some elements are also minerals and all minerals 
consist of  either one or more elements. In other words a single element can form 
a mineral,  example of such a mineral is gold (Au), gold is both an element  
and a mineral. A group of elements can combine in a ‘special’ way to form a  
mineral; an example of such minerals will include ilmenite or table salt. The  
elements in table salt are sodium and chlorine (NaCl), meaning  it should be 
theoretically possible to split table salt into its constituent  elements 
namely sodium and chlorine. Elements in ilmenite  (FeTiO3) are Iron (Fe), Titanium  
(Ti) and oxygen (O2), and  hence should be theoretically possible to split 
ilmenite into titanium, iron and  oxygen or some ‘special’ combinations of 
these three elements.  
Now back  to the Minister’s allegation/statement”:   
When we  (the Gambia government) sent samples of the sand for laboratory 
tests abroad,  the results came back showing that in addition to mining Zircon, 
Silicon and  Ilmenite, the company was also exporting Titanium, Iron Ore and  
Uranium". 
What I  want to inform Mr. Minister is the following: 1. Ilmenite is a ‘
brand-name’ of a  mineral in which Tinanium, oxygen and iron combined in a ‘special
’ manner and  therefore from which ‘titanium metal, titanium-dioxide and 
iron-oxide’ can be  extracted. So if the company is allowed to mine ilmenite and 
the Gambia  government discovered that the company is also exporting titanium, 
there is  absolutely no contradiction between the government’s findings and 
the company’s  claim, since titanium is an indispensable constituent of 
ilmenite. If there is  no titanium in ilmenite, then it is NO MORE ilmenite! Ilmenite 
is mined so that  titanium and titanium-dioxide can be extracted from  it. 
The  following will be a more intuitive analogy in every day life. If I buy a 
50kg  bag of groundnut from you, you take a handful sample of the groundnut, 
and send  it to a laboratory, and request that they find out the constituents 
of the  sample for you. This is what the laboratory report may indicate: the 
sample  contains groundnut-oil, groundnut -shells, and soap. if I export the 
groundnut,  I will certainly be exporting the oil,  groundnut-shells and soap. 
Since the oil is a natural ingredient of  groundnut. It will be very unfair for 
you to accuse me of not telling you that I  will be getting oil or I am also 
exporting groundnut-shell/soap from the bag of  groundnut. It should be 
obvious to you that if you sell groundnut to me you are  also selling to me the oil, 
soap and groundnut shells within the  groundnut. 
This is  the scenario in the minister’s statement about the company. Titanium 
is derived  from ilmenite, so if you sell ilmenite to some one, you are as 
well selling  titanium to the person and obviously he or she can extract 
titanium from it. I  repeat Ilmenite is a name of a mineral from which  titanium, 
titanium-dioxide and some iron-oxide can be derived.   
Now lets  look at iron  ore allegedly claimed by Mr. Grey Johnson to be one 
of the  minerals not revealed by the company.  
ORE is a volume of rock  containing components of a valuable mineral/s 
occurring in economically viable  concentrations for mining. In other words, the 
prerequisite for a mineral laden  rock to qualify, as ore is that, the mineral in 
the rock  must be a valuable  mineral, and must be economically viable for  
mining. For example if there is gold which can be extracted at a  cost of $10 
from a rock, but you can only sell the gold at the  market at $5, then the 
source of that gold cannot be called  ore. 
The  above explanation disqualifies the iron constituent of ilmenite as an 
iron ore.  Like I explained earlier, iron is one of the constituent minerals of 
ilmenite,  but is a minor constituent. That is to say ilmenite is an ore for 
titanium but  not an or iron. Nevertheless even if the iron in ilmenite meets 
the criteria to  be called an ore, like the ‘groundnut-oil’ from the 
groundnut, the buyer of the  ilmenite undoubtedly buys all the ingredient minerals of 
ilmenite. Ilmenite  without iron is NO MORE ilmenite! Check the definition of 
minerals above,  ilmenite has to have a ‘characteristic chemical  composition’
. If the chemical composition changes then it is  no more ilmenite. 
The  other mineral allegedly not revealed by the company is silicon. Silicon 
is the second  most abundant elements in the earth’s crust, the first is 
oxygen, unlike  ilmenite or gold etc, it is not a mineral (it is an element). One 
of the main  sources of silicon is silica (a mineral), which is the main 
constituent of beach  sand, meaning, beach sand would normally have a very high 
percentage of  silicon. 
The  fourth mineral claimed to have not been revealed by the company is 
Uranium.  Uranium , like gold, is both an element and a mineral. According to the 
Point  Newspaper, the Minister had indicated that a small amount of this 
mineral was  also reported to have been present in the samples sent to other 
laboratories. I  am therefore not surprised that the company didn’t name it as one of 
the  minerals they are looking after, since the concentration might not be  ‘
economically viable’ for mining, hence they might not  interested in that 
mineral. Every mineral economist will tell you that the mere  presence of a 
mineral at a location is not an issue, the more critical question  is always the ‘
economic viability’ of the concentration of the mineral at any  given location. 
Rutile,  like ilmenite is another mineral from which Titanium-dioxide can be 
extracted  and might also contain some small quantities of iron-oxide. So if 
according to  the point newspaper, the company was allowed to export rutile 
then that is a  further vindication for exporting titanium. Titanium from rutile 
and  ilmenite! 
Unless  the facts given in the point and the Daily observer are totally 
wrong, which I  assume is not the case, then my humble view is that the minister 
needs to make  further consultations and reconsider his decision. I would 
further make the  following conclusions/summary: 
1.         if you export ilmenite/rutile you are certainly exporting 
Titanium, since  titanium is an intrinsic component of ilmenite. 
2.         if you export ilmenite/rutile you are certainly exporting some 
iron,  since ilmenite without iron is no more ilmenite. 
3.            Uranium is a heavy mineral and usually found in environments 
where you  find heavy minerals likes ilmenite and rutile. However the important  
consideration for any mineral economist is: ‘whether the amount of the 
mineral  is economically viable or not’. 
5.         It is highly unlikely that the three laboratory results will all 
be wrong  and even more unlikely that the company is ‘cheating’. From my 
assessment above  the two are not mutually exclusive scenarios.             I 
therefore strongly believe that there was a simple misinterpretation  resulting 
from lack of basic knowledge on the subject matter by the  minister. 
I hope I have  achieved my objective of trying to explain these some what 
confusing  terminologies. Any basic book on mineral economics or any website on 
mineralogy  will do better. I also hope that the Minister reconsiders his  
decision. 
Regards,
Mr. Jammeh. 
**We produce the photo above courtesy of Buwa  Mansa. 
posted @ Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:12 PM by egsankara 



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]


ATOM RSS1 RSS2