The decision of the Jordanian government to sign an agreement to explore for copper and related minerals such as cobalt in the Al-Khashabia area of Tafilah Governorate is not a mere technical procedure, but a sovereign decision that affects a non-renewable national wealth. Yet, the decision is shrouded in unjustified ambiguity, whether concerning the identity of the contracted company or the mechanism of granting the licensing rights or the content of mutual commitments.
An unknown company... and legitimate questions
So far, sufficient information about the origin of the company, its actual experience in copper mining, its financial solvency, its administrative and technical structure, or its position in the global market has not been provided to the public.
The absence of this data is not an accusation, but it does raise an obvious question:
How can a national treasure be granted to a company without a clear and comprehensive picture in front of the public?
Direct awarding: Higher commitment to disclosure
If the government has resorted to direct awarding, then this imposes an increased transparency, not an exemption from oversight.
The minimum required includes disclosure of:
- The decision to form the technical and financial committee, its members, and their independence,
- The technical and financial evaluation criteria and their weights,
- Detailed evaluation results that led to the selection of this company.
Without this, the awarding remains a closed decision that is hard to defend politically and institutionally.
Disclosure requirements of the company:
Granting a mining concession requires a clear disclosure of:
- Financial solvency and guarantees provided to the state,
- Technical and administrative expertise and previous projects,
- Presence in the global market and key partners or international references.
And here a legitimate question arises:
Are we facing a real operational mining company or a special-purpose entity created to acquire the concession?
Sharing of benefits and risks:
The essence of any mining contract lies in its content, not in its title.
And the Jordanians have the right to know:
The mechanism for sharing returns (shares, taxes, profits),
Who bears the risks of exploration failure,
- The costs of closure and environmental rehabilitation,
- And mechanisms for dispute resolution.
Local development, employment, and the environment:
Any mining project in Tafilah must be measured by its local impact.
Therefore, it is necessary to disclose:
Employment opportunities for local residents and training programs,
A plan to spend part of the surpluses on local development,
Occupational health and safety policies,
And the environmental impact assessment and management and rehabilitation plans.
I do not accuse anyone, and no one is being judged:
But managing a sovereign portfolio of this magnitude with the minimum level of disclosure opens the door to legitimate doubt and weakens public trust.
Direct awarding is not the problem,
but the lack of transparency around it is the crux of the crisis.
And the lingering, legitimate question remains:
Why this company? And why by this mechanism? And under what clear guarantees?
((And if you speak aloud, then He knows the secret and what is even more hidden))
