RE:RE:Corporate culture based on transparencyTheturk12 wrote: Paul Vollant wrote: “Yes. Thanks, Andrew. As I mentioned before, since the first iron ore sales in March, we have concluded a couple more with local customers in Brazil. And today, we're in advanced discussions with several domestic and international buyers.
So what did these other customers say about the inclusion of sodium in the iron ore? If they said too much sodium then that would substanitiate the Chinese claim wouldn't it? Could it be that the sample lot sent to China was "salted", no pun intented.
I also found it funny that Paulo said that Largo would not try to sell anymore iron ore and yet Paul Vallant said that they would continue to try to sell more of the by product. Which is it?? Someone is lying!
I
Imo they were not able to sell any iron ore in Brazil at all even though they tried very hard. I know that it is difficult to follow Palo Misk’s explanation but this sentence is quite revealing: “Paul, myself, have been reaching many companies in Brazil and firstly, initially, we thought that our high-grade of titanium and so do iron ore, it will be just a matter of diluting them. If we plan, let's say, 10% of our material all the containments we adjust to the specification and that's it, it can be accepted in any place, especially in China”. The key words are “initially”and “especially China”. So if even the Chinese rejected our iron ore due to the unnatural presence of sodium then how could the more selective Brazilians accept it?
Having said the above regarding what Paolo Misk said in the Q2-21CC (Aug 11 2021), I must add this statement given by Paul Vollant in Q1-21 (may 13 2921): “As I mentioned before, since the first iron ore sales in March, we have concluded a couple more with local customers in Brazil”. Not only Vollant has never provided any tiny details regarding the Brazilian sales but he has never talked about the sodium problem relating to the first sale either (although the sodium problem raised by the Chinese was known back in April 2021). Mr Vollant was not really straightforward in his statement, was he? Mr Vollant got away with that Q1-21 statement because the Q&A was not interactive thus asking follow-up questions were not possible back then.