Monrovia – A recent exchange of letters between ArcelorMittal Liberia (AML) and the Government of Liberia, represented by the National Investment Commission (NIC) and the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) has brought to light a troubling development in the management of Liberia’s mining concessions and legal commitments.
At the heart of the matter is an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) a process intended to evaluate the potential environmental and social consequences of proposed projects requested by the Ministry of Mines and Energy for Ivanhoe Atlantic (formerly HPX) to be conducted within AML’s legally established concession area.
This ESIA request, made in a letter dated March 18, 2025, and signed by Minister Wilmot M. Paye, called on AML to “allow Ivanhoe Atlantic… conduct an ESIA within the area specified as indicated on the attached map”, for March 17-21, 2025. Alarmingly, the letter which was made available by sources in Ivanhoe Atlantic request not only contradicts basic legal principles surrounding concession rights but was also procedurally flawed, arriving after the commencement of the proposed ESIA schedule.
ArcelorMittal Liberia, in a formal response dated March 21, 2025, raised four key objections, rooted in both procedural irregularities and violations of its Mineral Development Agreement (MDA) with the Government of Liberia.
AML’s first point of concern was that the request for the ESIA arrived after the activity was scheduled to begin. In AML’s own words: “The ESIA Request was received on 18 March 2025, after the commencement of the period proposed by Ivanhoe Atlantic to conduct the ESIA… making it impossible for AML to properly consider and respond to this significant request in a timely manner,” Michel van der Merwe, Chief Executive Officer
This demonstrates a clear lapse in administrative due process. Requesting access to a critical mining concession post-facto undermines not only operational planning but also the mutual respect between concessionaires and regulators.
AML’s most powerful and legally grounded objection comes next: “There appears to be no basis under the MDA that would permit such third-party access to our Concession Area.”
The company correctly points out that while the MDA contains provisions for multi-user access, such provisions are narrowly defined “limited to specific circumstances involving excess capacity usage or infrastructure expansion, neither of which applies to an ESIA by an unrelated party.”
In other words, AML’s concession area is not open territory. It is a legally protected zone, established under a binding Mineral Development Agreement ratified by the Liberian Legislature, which grants AML exclusive rights to where it operates, including the mining corridor. And , the company believes that allowing a Guinean mining company to conduct any form of assessment within this zone, particularly under the guise of government facilitation, is legally untenable.
AML further raises the alarm over the context of the ESIA, linking it to “a proposed concession and access agreement currently under negotiation between the Government and Ivanhoe Liberia Ltd,” which AML argues “would fundamentally conflict with AML’s rights under our existing MDA.” The timing is troubling and appears not coincidental.
This maneuver, disguised as a routine ESIA request, many believe could be interpreted as a thinly veiled attempt to lay the groundwork for a rival concessionaire’s access, without first resolving or respecting the existing contractual obligations to AML.
Even more worrying, AML notes that “The timing and nature of the ESIA Request also raises concerns given our ongoing negotiations regarding the Third Amendment to the MDA.”
AML rightly outlines the practical and strategic dangers of such a move. With expansion works ongoing and a growing investment portfolio, AML stresses its obligation to safeguard its personnel, equipment, and infrastructure: “We must refrain from facilitating activities that might infringe upon those rights or conflict with our ongoing negotiations.” Granting unsanctioned third-party access undercuts the security protocols required to maintain a high-value industrial site and jeopardizes decades of foreign direct investment that Liberia can ill afford to lose.
ArcelorMittal Liberia concludes its response with a call for clarity and constructive dialogue: “We reaffirm our commitment to establishing a multi-user framework… Once we have clarity on the important matters listed above, we would be better positioned to consider how to appropriately address the ESIA Request.”
The ESIA is a vital instrument in environmental governance, but when misused, it becomes a dangerous tool of encroachment. In this instance, the Ministry of Mines and Energy’s March 18 request to permit Ivanhoe Atlantic to conduct an ESIA within AML’s sensitive concession area was procedurally flawed, legally baseless, and strategically troubling with the potential of seting a dangerous precedent that undermines investor confidence in Liberia’s extractive sector and raising serious questions about the sanctity of concession agreements.
As of April 2025, the Guinean government has not granted final approval for Société des Mines de Fer de Guinée (SMFG), a subsidiary of High-Power Exploration (HPX), to export iron ore from the Nimba project through Liberia. Although a 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the previous Guinean administration and the Government of Liberia permitted certain mining projects — including Nimba — to use Liberia’s Buchanan Port, that agreement has not been reaffirmed under the current Guinean leadership that assumed power following the 2021 coup.
The administration of interim President Mamady Doumbouya has since prioritized resource sovereignty and the domestic transformation of natural resources, pivoting toward building national infrastructure such as the $15 billion Trans-Guinean Railway to link the resource-rich Simandou mountains to a new port at Moribayah in Forécariah.
This strategic redirection has been emphasized repeatedly by top government officials:
“This mining project must be for Guinea what oil was for the Gulf,” said Minister of Planning Ismaël Nabé in a 2025 interview, referring to the Simandou initiative, underscoring the desire to convert mineral wealth into long-term national prosperity. — The Guardian
Similarly, President Doumbouya declared in 2022:
“Transforming the ore on site is becoming unavoidable; it is a necessity and must be done without delay.” — West African Report
And in a further assertion of control, Government Spokesman Ousmane Gaoual Diallo stated that Guinea would begin to exercise its right to ship up to 50% of mining exports itself:
“The implementation will be done in accordance with international best practices.” — MINING.COM
These statements collectively illustrate the administration’s broader policy goal: to extract greater national value from its resources by avoiding dependency on foreign infrastructure and minimizing the outflow of raw, unprocessed minerals.
Liberia Route: In Doubt, Not Dead?
Against this backdrop, HPX and its subsidiaries — SMFG in Guinea and Ivanhoe Atlantic in Liberia — appear to be moving ahead with preparations to export Guinean iron ore through Liberia, despite the lack of updated bilateral clearance.
The Liberian Government, through the National Investment Commission (NIC), has formally written to the Guinean authorities to seek clarity on whether Guinea would permit the export of ore via Liberia. However, no reply has been received from Conakry.
While there has been no official reversal of the 2019 MOU, the Guinean Ministry of Mines has issued no new public statements reaffirming it either. The last formal pronouncement on the matter dates back to 2019, when then Mines Minister Abdoulaye Magassouba justified the export route through Liberia:
“The mining projects in question are near the border with Liberia and cannot be profitable if they export through Guinea’s coast.” — S&P Global, MINING.COM, FrontPageAfrica
That position now appears inconsistent with the current administration’s hard stance on maximizing domestic economic capture through national routes and infrastructure. The lack of updated communication from Guinea’s Mines Ministry further fuels uncertainty over HPX’s planned operations.
Liberia Seeks Coordination Amid Growing Pressure
Despite the ambiguous stance from Guinea, Liberia has moved cautiously. Just two weeks ago, the Ministry of Mines and Energy of Liberia reportedly approved an initial step related to HPX’s planned operations — though specific details of that approval have not been made public.
Nonetheless, Liberian authorities have emphasized the need for bilateral coordination, reiterating that any use of Liberia’s rail and port infrastructure by Guinean mining companies must be based on proper agreements and clear consent from Conakry. — Liberia News Network, allAfrica.com
In the absence of updated cross-border agreements and a valid Mineral Development Agreement (MDA) or mining license granted to SMFG by Guinea, industry observers note that HPX’s proposal currently lacks the necessary legitimacy and faces both regulatory and political headwinds.
While HPX continues preparations, the prospect of exporting iron ore from Guinea’s Nimba Mountains through Liberia remains shrouded in uncertainty. Without a green light from Guinea’s current administration — and with a growing emphasis on self-reliance and resource nationalism — the cross-border route may ultimately prove incompatible with Conakry’s evolving vision for its mineral sector.
Until the Guinean government publicly restates its position or issues fresh authorizations, the Liberian corridor remains a possibility that is technically alive but politically dormant.
