OPINION | ECONOMICS &
STRATEGY
Whale and Simandou: The two
lungs of an Africa that no longer just wants to "look"
By Oudi the Neophyte
On either side of the border that
separates Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea, two names resonate like the new
commandments of West African economic sovereignty: Whale and Simandou.
If one lies at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and the other is buried in the
bowels of the mountains of the Guinean ridge, they share the same promise: that
of radically changing the destiny of two nations.
But beyond the splendour of the
figures, are these two projects really twins of the same ambition?
Two giants, one alarm clock
Baleine (Ivory Coast) and
Simandou (Guinea) are what geologists call "Elephant" projects. On
the one hand, the largest oil and gas deposit ever discovered in the Ivorian
sedimentary basin. On the other, the largest unexploited high-grade iron deposit
in the world.
The first similarity, and
undoubtedly the most striking, is the resumption of power by states. In
Abidjan as in Conakry, the era of "laissez-faire" seems to be over.
In Côte d'Ivoire, the state has deployed unprecedented financial mastery — a
sovereign guarantee of 10 billion euros — to increase PETROCI's shares to more
than 22%. In Guinea, the regime has forced the giants Rio Tinto and the Winning
Consortium to join forces to finance the Trans-Guinean Railway, a $20 billion
infrastructure infrastructure for which the state is the central arbiter.
Infrastructure Shock: Pipe vs.
Rail
The fundamental difference
between these two ambitions lies in the transport infrastructure. For Baleine,
the challenge is that of the gas pipeline. It is an invisible but vital
cord that must transport natural gas from the depths of the sea to Abidjan's
thermal power plants. The challenge here is the stability of the flow:
transforming a raw resource into constant electricity to light homes and run
cocoa processing plants. The pipeline is the infrastructure of energy
performance.
For Simandou, the
challenge is on a completely different scale: it is the Transguinean.
This 670 km railway is not just a simple railway for rail; It is designed as a
multi-use development corridor. Unlike the gas pipeline, which is specialized,
Guinean rail is intended to transport goods, agricultural products and
passengers. It is an infrastructure of space sovereignty that aims to
break the isolation of inland regions. Where the Ivorian pipe seeks invisible
efficiency, the Guinean rail seeks the visible transformation of the national
economic landscape.
Funding strategy
Two giants, two methods of
sovereignty: Banker vs Grantor
Beyond geology, it is in the
field of financial engineering that the real game is being played. While
Abidjan and Conakry are both aiming for sovereignty, their paths diverge
radically.
The Ivorian model: The State
as a co-investor
Côte d'Ivoire has chosen to be an
offensive player. By committing a sovereign guarantee of 10 billion euros,
it enabled PETROCI to increase its stake to 22.75% of Baleine's capital. This
is the gamble of strategic debt: the state takes on debt in order to own a
larger share of the deposit and receive dividends earlier. It is a bet on
direct and immediate profitability.
The Guinean model: the State
Concession
Conversely, Guinea has manoeuvred
without committing its signature on bank loans of 20 billion dollars. His
"mastery" is based on three pillars:
- "Free Carry": Unlike Abidjan,
Conakry has negotiated free and non-contributory shares. The state owns
15% of the mining project and 15% of the Compagnie du Transguinéen (CTG)
without disbursing a cent or guaranteeing a loan.
- Off-balance sheet commitments: Instead of
cash, Guinea guarantees legal certainty, fiscal stability and the release
of land for the 670 km of rail.
- The return of assets: This is the heart of
the CTG set-up. The private partners (Rio Tinto and WCS) are financing all
the infrastructure. In exchange, they exploit the iron, but at the end of
the concession (30 to 35 years), the rail and the port return to
the Guinean state's heritage free of charge.
Risk in the service of social
issues?
This comparison raises a
fundamental question for our economies. If Côte d'Ivoire is able to commit a
guarantee of 10 billion to be a "co-investor" in oil, why can't it
use this same "mastery" to guarantee loans for social housing or local
industrialization?
On the one hand, we have a state
that behaves like a banker of its own subsoil (Côte d'Ivoire), and on the
other, a state that behaves like a demanding landowner (Guinea). In both cases,
success will not be financial, but social.
The Common Challenge: Avoiding
the Glamour
The real question, the one that
burns the lips of citizens in Conakry as in Abidjan, remains that of the real
impact on daily life.
The Ivorian paradox is striking:
despite the barrels of whale, the price of a kWh has increased. The Guinean
risk is similar: that the Simandou iron ore will only be a transit corridor to
China, without the railway being used to transport agricultural products or
Guinean travellers.
In both cases, the
"mastery" shown by states in the face of multinationals (Eni for one,
Rio Tinto for the other) will only be validated by a single metric: runoff.
Conclusion
Is Simandou the "Whale"
of Guinea? Yes, by its ability to make the State a respected and feared
partner. But while Côte d'Ivoire is playing its place as a regional energy hub,
Guinea is playing its national unity through rail. For the "neophyte"
that I am, the conclusion is simple: these two projects are not only resource
exploitations, they are maturity tests for our governance. It is not enough to
possess wealth, it is necessary to have the courage to bring it into every
home.
Signed: OUDI the Neophyte
.jpeg)
.png)
