In today’s digital age, the power and influence wielded by social media influencers have grown exponentially. However, the impact of their reach becomes contentious when misinformation is propagated on topics that demand expertise and nuanced understanding.
A recent example involving Albert Nat Hyde, widely known as Bongo Ideas, highlights how such influencers, albeit unintentionally, can disseminate false information, echoing misconceptions peddled by others in the past.
In a social media post, Bongo Ideas purported that Ghana relinquished Lithium reserves valued at over $100 billion to an Australian company for a 13-year mining period, insinuating that the nation could make over $1 trillion within the same timeframe if invested differently. This post echoed previous contentions by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Professor Gyampo, and Madam Sophia Akuffo. However, an article published on Graphic Online by Kofi Ansah & Fui Tsikata sought to clarify these misconceptions and ground the discussion in reality.
The article meticulously dissects the flawed methods used by the IEA and Professor Gyampo in computing revenues and potential benefits from the project. Contrary to the exaggerated claims, the actual calculations based on lithium’s estimated value through spodumene concentrate production revealed a vast disparity between the projected revenues of billions and the actual anticipated earnings.
The analysis detailed that the process of pricing lithium compounds, especially lithium carbonate, directly influences revenue computation. Despite earlier claims, the estimated gross revenue, considering the quantity and quality of lithium oxide in the spodumene concentrate, amounted to significantly lower figures compared to the exaggerated projections by Hyde and others.
Furthermore, the article challenged the assertion that Ghana would only receive a meager 13% of the lithium proceeds, debunking this as a gross error. It offered a simplified hypothetical model demonstrating how various taxes, royalties, and dividends would proportionally distribute the benefits between the government and investors. This model clearly illustrated that the division of direct monetary benefits from the project isn’t as skewed as earlier claimed.
The article’s analysis brings to light fundamental flaws in the understanding and communication of the facts related to Ghana’s purported lithium discovery.
The disparities between exaggerated claims made by influencers and the empirical evidence presented in the Graphic Online article underscore the necessity of accurate information dissemination. This discourse should prompt a more informed dialogue, emphasizing the importance of factual accuracy in discussions concerning the country’s natural resources and economic prospects.
