• Arrow Minerals opts for negotiation with Guinea after permit revocations halted its Niagara and Simandou Nord projects.
• Other firms have launched arbitration claims worth up to $28.9 billion against the Guinean state.
• The outcome will test Guinea’s ability to restore legal certainty in its mining sector.

About one year after the unilateral withdrawal of permits, affected companies are continuing efforts to obtain clarification from the state. While some companies have escalated disputes to arbitration, others are maintaining dialogue. Arrow Minerals is among those prioritizing an amicable resolution with Conakry.

Arrow Minerals reaffirmed its position through a memorandum of understanding announced on April 28 with Société Guinéenne du Patrimoine Minier (Soguipami). The parties are discussing the Niagara and Simandou Nord projects, which represent the company’s main assets in Guinea and remain suspended following the permit revocations.

This situation has led the company to suspend planned investments, including a preliminary economic assessment for Niagara. The Niagara project hosts a bauxite deposit with an estimated resource of 185 million tonnes grading 42.3% alumina, an intermediate product used in aluminum production. Simandou Nord remains an early-stage iron ore exploration project that shares the same geological formation as the Simandou complex.

Push for clarity on permits

As part of its engagement with Soguipami, Arrow Minerals plans to collaborate to “bring clarity and certainty regarding permits related to the exploration and potential development of the Niagara bauxite and Simandou Nord iron ore projects.” The company aims to resume field activities and associated investments over time.

However, the agreement is not legally binding at this stage, and its outcome remains uncertain. Moreover, Guinean authorities have not issued an official statement on the permits despite ongoing discussions with the mining minister, the presidential office, and the prime minister. Arrow Minerals stated that it understands the government is conducting a case-by-case review of concessions and the capabilities of affected companies.

Arrow Minerals’ approach aligns partly with that of Emirates Global Aluminium. Although the company has considered legal action after losing rights to its bauxite mine and facing nationalization, it has continued to explore an amicable solution with Conakry, according to Reuters.

In contrast, companies such as Falcon Energy Materials and Axis Minerals have already initiated international arbitration proceedings against the Guinean state. They are seeking damages of $100 million and $28.9 billion, respectively, in relation to revoked permits for graphite and bauxite projects. These cases remain at pre-trial stages.

Against this backdrop, Arrow Minerals illustrates a cautious strategy that prioritizes negotiation over litigation. However, the approach depends on the evolution of discussions with Guinean authorities.

The outcome of this case will serve as a key test of Guinea’s ability to restore legal visibility and investor confidence in its mining ecosystem.

Aurel Sèdjro Houenou