The November 14, 2025, publication by the Daily Observer claiming that Liberia has forfeited between $14 and $18 billion in potential revenue due to the railway monopoly held by ArcelorMittal Liberia (AML) is more than just a miscalculation; it is a staggering departure from the tenets of rigorous investigative journalism. For a publication founded by Kenneth Y. Best—a man whose career was defined by an uncompromising commitment to truth, accuracy, and the defense of democratic ideals—this article represents a profound degradation of a storied legacy. By disseminating economic figures that collapse under the slightest technical scrutiny, the Observer has traded its role as a watchdog for the public interest for a role as a mouthpiece for corporate maneuvering.
This analysis aims to dismantle the myths propagated in that article, contextualizing the realities of Liberian infrastructure and the geopolitical shifts that render the newspaper's claims entirely hollow. The stakes for Liberia are high; our national discourse must be anchored in reality, not the creative arithmetic of special interest groups. The core of the Observer’s argument rests on a projection of $14–18 billion in lost revenue, derived from an assumed throughput of 9 billion tons of ore over 25 years. This implies an annual movement of 360 million tons of iron ore.
When evaluated against the physical reality of the Yekepa–Buchanan corridor, this figure is a mathematical impossibility. The current railway system, even with the most aggressive engineering upgrades, possesses a functional maximum capacity of roughly 40 to 50 million tons per annum. To reach the Observer’s touted figure, the railway would need to operate at seven to twelve times its maximum physical limit, a feat that would require building a new railway parallel to the existing one every few miles. In the world of logistics and infrastructure engineering, there is a fundamental difference between an aspiration and a physical limit.
By ignoring this, the Observer has presented fiction as economic analysis. Furthermore, the geographical fallacy underpinning the article is equally disqualifying. The claim suggests that Liberia’s vast deposits, including those at Putu, could be routed through the Yekepa–Buchanan corridor. Anyone with a basic grasp of Liberian geography understands that the Putu Iron Ore project is located over 320 kilometers away from the Yekepa line.
Connecting these two points would require the construction of an entirely new, multi-billion dollar railway system through some of the most challenging terrain in West Africa. To suggest that existing rail capacity can magically absorb these mines is to ignore the fundamental costs of logistics. The Bong Mines, similarly, exist within an entirely different geological and infrastructural corridor. Only the northern deposits in Nimba County are physically situated to utilize the existing Yekepa–Buchanan rail link.
By conflating these disconnected deposits, the Observer has engaged in a dangerous oversimplification that misleads the public about how mining economics actually work. Perhaps the most glaring omission in the Observer’s reporting is the complete disregard for the shifting regional landscape, specifically regarding Guinea. The Observer’s business model assumes that Guinea’s massive iron ore reserves would be exported via Liberia. This premise is now entirely moot.
On November 11, 2025—just three days before the Observer’s publication—Guinea officially inaugurated its own Trans-Guinean Railway, a $20 billion project designed to keep Guinea’s resources within its own borders. Guinea has invested in its sovereignty and its own infrastructure, a clear signal that they have no intention of relying on Liberian rail to move their cargo. Since 2021, there has been no substantive diplomatic or commercial contact regarding a cross-border rail agreement, yet the Observer persists in building a fantasy narrative where Guinea ignores its $20 billion investment to utilize a smaller, foreign-controlled line in Liberia. This is not just poor analysis; it is a fundamental ignorance of contemporary regional politics.
The broader context of ArcelorMittal’s presence in Liberia must also be addressed. When AML entered Liberia, it was not inheriting a functioning industrial system; it was inheriting the remnants of a railway network destroyed by decades of civil war and total systemic collapse. The company invested over $800 million to rehabilitate these assets from the ground up, turning a non-existent revenue stream into a cornerstone of the national economy. Before this investment, the revenue from this rail line was effectively zero.
For two decades, Liberia has battled with post-conflict instability, fluctuating global commodity prices, and the immense difficulty of operational maintenance. During these lean years, it was private investment—not public subsidies—that kept the lights on, provided thousands of jobs, and maintained the infrastructure that serves as the backbone of our mining sector. To characterize this relationship as a 'loss' to the state is to ignore the reality that, without this specific private investment, the railway would likely remain a scrap-metal graveyard rather than an economic artery. Behind the curtain of these inflated numbers lies the clear agenda of HPX and Ivanhoe Atlantic.
These entities are aggressively seeking access to rail capacity for 20 to 30 million tons per annum—a volume that would effectively cannibalize ArcelorMittal’s own operational needs. The Observer’s advocacy for HPX is starkly visible, particularly in how it omits the fact that the completion of the Guinean railway has rendered the HPX business model in Liberia obsolete. By championing a company that seeks to capitalize on infrastructure it did not build, the Observer is essentially campaigning for the redistribution of established private assets, a move that would jeopardize future foreign direct investment in Liberia. Real, third-party rail revenue is not measured in the billions; it is realistically capped at $10 to $30 million per year.
Even this figure is contingent upon the development of new mines that currently do not exist. To promise the Liberian public billions is to engage in a populist bait-and-switch that threatens to undermine our national credibility with international partners. Kenneth Y. Best founded the Daily Observer to serve as a beacon of integrity, often at great personal and professional risk during the darkest chapters of our history.
He demonstrated that the press must serve as a guardian of the truth, regardless of how inconvenient that truth may be. When the Observer prints mathematical impossibilities and ignores the very inauguration of a major regional competitor to push a specific corporate narrative, it betrays that sacred mission. The newspaper has replaced investigative rigor with advocacy, and technical analysis with propaganda. The people of Liberia deserve better.
We deserve a policy debate based on the hard, engineering-backed realities of what our infrastructure can actually sustain. We must protect existing investments to ensure they remain viable, and we must demand clear, evidence-based governance for future multi-user frameworks. Most importantly, we must abandon the fantasies sold to us by corporate entities that seek to inflate their own stock value at the expense of our national economic discourse. The questions remain: Why did the Observer ignore the inauguration of the Guinean railway?
Who exactly funded the research behind this 'lost revenue' claim? And, most poignantly, would the founder of this paper recognize the work appearing on its pages today? The path forward for Liberia requires honest, transparent, and factual engagement. It is time for the media to return to the founding principles of our democracy: truth, accountability, and the refusal to be captured by the interests of those who seek to profit from our collective ignorance.
