10.01.2013 Views

The_Open_Door_deel1

The_Open_Door_deel1

The_Open_Door_deel1

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

-176-<br />

<strong>The</strong> ore which Republic Steel had been allowed to buy at reduced<br />

prices had been understood to be "lump ore containing 65% or more<br />

iron in the natural state and generally accepted Ly steel<br />

companies in the United States for open hearth use " (37).<br />

<strong>The</strong> discontinuation of the production of lump ore for open hearth<br />

prompted L.M.C and Republic Steel to adopt a new definition for<br />

the ore , which Republic Steel would be allowed to buy at<br />

privileged prices, "sized Llast furnace ore". This was, however,<br />

- by definition - neither ore containing 65? or more iron in the<br />

natural state nor lump ore for open hearth use (38). As the<br />

market value of blast ore compared unfavourably with the value of<br />

lump ore for open hearth use,and as the previous arrangement had<br />

been based upon the quantity of the latter produced each year by<br />

L.M.C the substitution of "lump ore for open hearth use" by<br />

"sized blast furnace ore" necessitated other changes in respect<br />

of the maximum quantity of blast ore which Republic Steel would<br />

be allowed to buy, and the price to be paid for it. As L.M.C.<br />

and Republic Steel had excluded the Liberian Government from the<br />

new arrangement the Government may have been justified in<br />

accusing the companies of unilaterally changing the 1952<br />

collateral agreement and therefore demanding its cancellation<br />

and the elimination of the new arrangement, replacing it by an<br />

agreement which would have been more beneficial to the Liberian<br />

Treasury. While it is not certain that the Government had<br />

sufficient information to ensure timely action (these and other<br />

practices of L.M.C were not revealed until 1970) it is a fact<br />

that this chance was missed. To avoid misunderstanding it should<br />

be observed that the new arrangement did not work against the<br />

interest of the Republic of Liberia more than the 1952<br />

collateral agreement had done (39).<br />

L.M.C.'s accounting practices and computation of costs<br />

L.M.C.'s accounting practices, which in 1961 - 62 were still<br />

inaccessible for researchers, even when on Government assignment<br />

(40), were investigated for the first time by a Government<br />

contracted firm in 1963 and 1964 when the British firm of<br />

Whinnay, Murray & Company examined the basis of calculation<br />

which was made each year by L.M.C. to arrive at its "net<br />

profits". For a proper understanding of this investigation and<br />

its results it is useful to turn one's attention first to the<br />

1952 collateral agreement which provided, more or less, a<br />

definition of net profits.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Collateral Agreement (41) to the 1945 Liberia Mining<br />

Concession Agreement (a) gave the Liberian Government<br />

representation on the L.M.C. Board of Directors by granting the<br />

right to appoint two of its five members; (b) entitled the<br />

Government to an interim royalty of (i) $ 1.50 on each ton of<br />

high grade open hearth lump ore exported, and (ii) 10? of the<br />

f.o.b. Monrovia sales price actually received in respect of<br />

secondary ores such as fines; (c) revised the 1949 Iron Ore

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!