The_Open_Door_deel1

-159-
The excessively liberal terms of the concession agreement with
Columbia contrast sharply with the terms which foreign investors
were and are offered under the Administration of President
I William Tolbert. The two concession agreements for heavy
I minerals are compared in Annex 10. The development which has
1 taken place in the Liberian mining concession policy speaks
I for itself. The incentives and opportunities which are offered
|j to foreign investors in the 1970's still appear to be attractive
Si enough for foreign owners of capital and technical know-how
: ; to invest part of their capital in a mining venture in Liberia.
':'! The main question after a look at the concession agreement
j concluded with the Liberian Beach Sands Exploitation Company,
; in combination with the data of Annex 9 is: what justifications
•:; are there for differences between the concession agreements
I with the Liberian Beach Sands Exploitation Company, the African
i Mining Partners, and the Liberian Gold and Diamond Corporation,
j except for those differences following from the different nature
j and scope of their respective activities? Though basically the
i same, there are some remarkable differences, the American
i investors e.g. accepted more obligations than the Dutch investors.
i As the three agreements have many Articles and provisions in
I common, they warrant the same observations, which will not be
; repeated here. There are, however, some differences which seem to
i be caused by a careless drafting of the agreement with the
.! Liberian Beach Sands Exploitation Company. In respect of minimum
I expenditures e.g. the agreement states that
I
\ "During the two-year period commencing with the Effective
j Date, the Operator shall expend (...) not less than
) $7 00,000 per square mile of Exploration Area (,,) Of
•J such amount, (a) not less than 501 shall be expended
j during the first year of Such two-year period, and (L)
; not less than 90% shall Le expended during the two-year
•I period" (67).
1 i Another example of two contradictory statements is included
J with respect to the so-called "most favoured company"-clause.
> At one place it is stated that
I
•j "Any other company interested, in exploiting the heavy
I minerals of the category covered by this Agreement shall
] not be treated on more favourable terms then laid down in
j this Agreement" (68)
: whereas before it was stated that
"7he gross income of the Operator shall include (.,,),
I and without regard to any exemption provided in any
I contractual agreement with third parties to which the
\ Government is now or may hereafter become a party," (69)
| A last example is found in the two errors in the clause stipu-