The only reasons to be in those countries to begin with are:
1. underexploited ore undercapitalized opportunity. this presents itself largely because the grass is always greener, and we think there are many more geologically inviting areas there that have not yet been explored by our modern methods.
2. lower taxation
3. less hassle with environmental issues. A smoother path to development.
4. less hassle with locals over development.
5. cheaper and fairly trained labour force.
6. simpler land tenure and mining regs to simplify acquisition lower costs, and heighten investor expectations of return.
What do you get often?
1. more picked over areas and lots of competition.. still need land and to get in early.. risky if rules change
2. iffier tax regimes, taxes being jacked, or 'reviewed'.. gov't silent partner for 10% with no investment. russia, bolivia, east africa, peru?
3. just as much envi review or more.. prohibition of mining, nevada, montana, honduras, venezuela, panama, costa rica etc..
4. more hassles with locals, argentina/chubut, peru, native stand offs, revolutions, bandits.. columbia, etc..
5. still good with labour, but training and language issues cost significantly more, need expat division which is tres cher.
6. complex mine regs, uncertain tenure, hard to figure, incidents while not across the board chase investors away.. venezuela, argentina, ...
7. higher cost of operating overseas. Add 500K per year to cost of acquiring land to operate in SA or Africa. need local help with locals, gov't. etc..
8. differing corruption, need translater and slush fund. bullet proof vests.
9. problems with getting money out, africa, brazil, etc.. repatriation of capital often a significant issue, selling minerals needs to be gov't at their rates. or export licences refining an issue.
Still there are areas with good mineral, and are mine friendly. I am keeping those areas to myself. Why tell you about them.. you will just beat me to the claim post.. |
