Worked demonstrations of Afrimintel's decision-aid utility on real, current institutional investment decisions in African mining. Each case study is a self-produced screening artefact built from public primary sources and the platform's published data layer. No institutional partner has commissioned, reviewed, or endorsed any case study; the Counterparty Extension discipline is published at /quality-standard.
Three structurally different decision shapes, demonstrating that Afrimintel produces decision-aid utility across decision-type, not only across asset-type. The test that institutional uptake is driven by investment-decision value rather than asset coverage.
Worked screening (9 May 2026) of a FID decision — then targeted mid-2026, since restated to Q1 2027 — in front of the U.S. DFC, JOGMEC, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and a commercial syndicate being assembled by Société Générale. Walks through the seven questions a DFI credit committee will ask, what Afrimintel surfaces in 30 minutes (with primary-source provenance), what Afrimintel does NOT do, a worked DCF price-stress scenario, and the defensible time/cost saving versus building the brief from scratch.
Worked institutional analysis of a 842 Mt @ 1.61% Li₂O deposit with multi-party claim structure (Zijin/Cominière NE construction, Dathcom-AVZ South arbitration, KoBold framework conditional, CATH conditional funding) and US–China critical-minerals overlay. Walks through the eight questions a capital committee will ask on a disputed-tenure asset, surfaces the conditional-pathway trigger framework (five pathways), and shows how the platform handles a fundamentally different decision shape from greenfield screening.
Worked institutional analysis of a Tier-1 operating gold complex post-settlement: ~$430M cash + 10-year permit extension + return of 3 metric tons of gold + ICSID withdrawal + 2023 Mining Code acceptance + 80/20 ownership preserved + revised 9-12% blended royalty. Walks through the seven questions a capital committee will ask on post-settlement re-entry, surfaces the durability-trigger framework (six conditions whose materialisation would invalidate the settlement framework), and shows the third structurally distinct decision shape.
Worked institutional screening of the Lobito Corridor as a system-level critical-minerals exposure decision spanning four structurally different exposure levels (direct infrastructure, operator-consortium, off-take/trader, asset-level). US$753M rail financing closed (DFC, DBSA); a ~US$6bn announced-support total is not a binding committed figure. Walks through the nine questions a capital committee will ask, surfaces the trilateral political-coordination framework (Angola/DRC/Zambia through 2030), the geopolitical-shift framework (US-anchor → EU-led under Trump policy shift), the asset-level economic delta for Cu-Co assets within corridor catchment, and the eight-archetype institutional-allocation matrix. The fourth structurally distinct decision shape — system-level rather than asset-level.
Worked institutional analysis of how a capital allocator re-prices an operating Tier-1 copper asset following the 31 March 2026 NI 43-101 reserve compression: 466 Mt @ 2.82% Cu (13.1 Mt contained, ~30% reduction from December 2022) and an approximately 25-year life of mine (Ivanhoe). Walks through the seven questions an institutional reader will ask, applies the new reserve baseline to the platform DCF tool, surfaces the structural distinction between operator annual-guidance figures (290-310 kt 2026, tightened 29 Jul 2026; 380-420 kt 2027; >500 kt 2028+) and the compressed DCF horizon implication, and names the trigger conditions for re-rating in either direction. The fifth structurally distinct decision shape — operating-supermajor re-rating, not pre-FID screening; the only case study where the platform has a verified prediction-resolution Track Record entry pre-dating the dossier publication.
The platform is structured so an institutional analyst can walk a real decision through it in 30–90 minutes depending on asset complexity. The pattern is:
Does: Consolidated primary-source provenance on African mining assets. Country-risk screening composites. Province-level geological context. DCF price-stress scenarios anchored to Tier-1 reconciliation suites. Cross-asset comparable surfacing. Daily commodity and project-signal watchlist. Audit log of every correction, fix, and version bump. Three-state Quality Standard (Sourced / Derived / Absent — no fourth state).
Does NOT: Independent Engineer commissions. Project finance term-sheet drafting. Counterparty credit memos. ESG / IFC PS compliance audits. Legal opinions. Sovereign credit analysis. Real-time tradable price feeds. Direct counterparty engagement or brokerage. Endorsement or substitute for any specific institution's internal investment process.
The triptych above (Kabanga pre-FID, Manono disputed-tenure, Loulo-Gounkoto post-settlement) is the first cohort of an intended ongoing case study series spanning operating Tier-1 assets, restructuring/refinancing scenarios, off-take negotiations, royalty/streaming decisions, and cross-border province-level theses across multiple geological terranes. The roadmap is published in the platform's deferred-roadmap document; case study additions are recorded in the public Audit Log.
Two cross-asset comparison surfaces are published; they serve different purposes.
1. The decision-shape matrix at /case-studies/comparison/ — a side-by-side record of all five published case studies on ten dimensions (commodity, stage, operator, country, resource baseline, FS economics, capex, operator cost, mine life, most recent material disclosure), each as the operator or named document states it. Its grades were withdrawn on 12 October 2026.
2. The portfolio comparison at /case-studies/comparison/portfolio.html — a deeper analyst working surface across the same five dossiers organised by analytical layer: asset profile, bankability decomposition per Methodology §10, downstream-risk substrate, multilateral safeguards framework integration (Component E v1.2), counterparty eligibility, portfolio observations, and methodology cross-links. Designed for the DFI investment-officer / portfolio-manager workflow of comparing pipeline assets against a shared analytical frame rather than reading five separate dossiers sequentially.
The matrix is the entry point; the portfolio comparison is where institutional analysts spend time.
If you would like the platform shaped against a real deal scenario rather than a published case study, the structured intake page at /intake/ is the on-ramp. Submission is by structured form. Until Edition 1 of the Guidance Scorecard is published, enquiries join a queue (working press excepted, answered within 48 hours); the reply is an Afrimintel-shaped screening framework calibrated to your institution-type, jurisdiction, commodity, deal stage, and decision type.
For DFIs, multilaterals, sovereign-investment vehicles, pension and infrastructure funds, and comparable institutional capital allocators with a real African mining or critical-minerals-corridor deal in screening, Afrimintel publishes a standing offer at /engagement-protocol/: a 30-day no-fee shadow-screen pilot on one real deal at the institutional partner's choice, producing a parallel diligence artefact for direct comparison against the institution's internal screening output. Terms are published; bandwidth is the binding constraint; pilots are accepted in request-arrival order.