By Steven Kefas
When Atlantic Mining CEO Colin Ikin walked into a high-profile meeting with the Kaduna State government in May 2025, promising a $300 million investment in the state’s solid minerals industry, officials likely saw dollar signs and job creation opportunities. This wasn’t Ikin’s first foray into Nigerian mining opportunities—in June 2024, he had visited Nasarawa State, meeting with Commissioner of Environment and Natural Resources, Hon. Kwanta Yakubu, to discuss establishing what he described as a “multi-million dollar lithium processing company.” The Australian mining executive painted a picture of economic transformation, positioning his company as a catalyst for diversifying Nigeria’s economy beyond oil dependency. But beneath the polished presentation and impressive financial commitments lies a cautionary tale that should give Nigerian authorities pause—one that underscores the critical importance of thorough background checks before opening the nation’s mineral wealth to foreign investors.
Nigeria stands at a crossroads in its economic development. With abundant mineral resources including gold, tin, lithium, coal, limestone, and rare earth elements scattered across its 36 states, the country possesses the raw materials to become a mining powerhouse. The federal government’s aggressive push to diversify from oil revenues has created unprecedented opportunities in the solid minerals sector. However, this gold rush atmosphere has also attracted a mix of genuine investors and opportunistic operators, making due diligence not just advisable but essential for protecting national interests.
A Multi-State Mining Campaign
Ikin’s Nigerian mining ambitions extend beyond Kaduna State. His June 2024 visit to Nasarawa State reveals a calculated strategy to establish footholds across multiple Nigerian states rich in mineral resources. During his meeting with Commissioner Yakubu, Ikin positioned himself as the managing director of “Atlantic Mining Techniques Ltd,” describing his company as “a Nigerian mining company” focused on the state’s lithium deposits.
Commissioner Yakubu’s Facebook post captured the optimistic tone of the meeting: “I welcomed Mr. Colin Ikin, Managing Director of Atlantic Mining Techniques Ltd, to Nasarawa State. Mr. Ikin’s visit is in connection with the potential establishment of a multi-million dollar lithium processing company in the state. This aligns with the industrialization agenda of His Excellency, Engr. Abdullahi A. Sule, Executive Governor of Nasarawa State.”
Ikin’s own comments during the Nasarawa visit echo the grandiose promises that characterized his Preston Resources era. “So my name is Colin Ikin, I’m the managing director of Atlantic Mining Techniques in Abuja. We are a Nigerian mining company and are here in Nasarawa today to look at this well-administered state that is endowed with some fantastic riches. At the moment we are looking at Lithium outcrops, of which there are many. I think this is a very exciting opportunity for us and for Nasarawa state,” he declared.
The pattern is familiar: identify mineral-rich locations, often discovered or already held by others, meet with government officials, make expansive promises about investment and job creation, and position projects as transformative opportunities. What’s concerning is how closely this mirrors the promotional strategy that preceded the Preston Resources disaster.
A Pattern of Spectacular Failure
Colin Ikin’s mining career in Australia reads like a masterclass in how not to manage large-scale mining operations. As executive chairman of Preston Resources, Ikin presided over what financial columnist Trevor Sykes(has won eight national awards and written eight books in his illustrious 61 years of journalism) described as one of the worst corporate disasters in modern Australian mining history—a spectacular collapse that wiped out nearly $750 million in investor funds and left a trail of financial devastation.
The Preston Resources saga began in the late 1990s when the company, under Ikin’s leadership, owned the Marlborough lateritic nickel deposit in Queensland. With shares trading at $1.90 and a market capitalization of $80 million, Preston appeared positioned for growth. However, Ikin’s decision to acquire the Bulong nickel project from Resolute Resources for $319 million—money the company didn’t have—would prove catastrophic.
The acquisition itself was structured in a way that left shareholders with little choice. Preston committed to a $10 million break fee to Resolute if the deal was rejected, but the company only had $2 million in the bank at the time. Shareholders were effectively held hostage by their own board’s commitments. Ikin’s promotional materials painted Bulong as “an outstanding opportunity,” promising initial output of 9,000 tonnes of nickel annually and describing Preston as “poised to become a significant international nickel producer.”
The reality proved starkly different. The Bulong plant never met production forecasts, cash flow projections failed to materialize, and Preston found itself in default to lenders for more than a year. By 2000, the company had accumulated losses of $497 million, with liabilities exceeding assets by $430 million. The Bulong plant was written down by $224 million, exploration expenditures were completely written off, and shareholders were entirely wiped out.
Perhaps most telling was the aftermath: Preston’s board, including Ikin, proposed handing over 95% of Bulong to note holders in exchange for debt relief, leaving the company with assets worth just $787,000 against liabilities of $5 million. Investors who had paid $1.50 per share to support the Bulong purchase were, in Sykes’ memorable phrase, “financially disembowelled.”
From Collapse to Opportunity
The financial press reported that after Preston’s collapse, Ikin had “quickly fallen on his feet with a new overseas gold project and a fashionable address in the south of France.” This pattern—moving from one jurisdiction to another after corporate failure—raises red flags that Nigerian authorities should carefully consider. The fact that Ikin emerged from a half-billion-dollar corporate disaster to pursue new mining ventures overseas suggests either remarkable resilience or concerning opportunism.
Industry sources who spoke on condition of anonymity have raised troubling questions about Ikin’s current operations. “Colin Ikin’s record of failure in mining is well documented by authorities in Australia,” said one mining title holder familiar with his background. “His pattern is to make grand promises, raise capital, and then struggle to deliver on projections.”
More concerning are allegations from mining sector players who claim Ikin may have used improper means to gain access to Nigerian mining opportunities. While these remain unverified allegations, they highlight the need for robust vetting processes. “There are questions about whether he has the financial backing he claims,” noted another industry source. “Nigeria can’t afford to hand over mineral assets to operators who lack both the capital and competence to develop them properly.”
Nigeria’s Mining Imperative
Nigeria’s push to develop its mining sector represents more than economic diversification—it’s a strategic necessity. With oil revenues volatile and global energy transitions underway, the country needs alternative economic pillars. The solid minerals sector offers immense potential: Nigeria possesses 44 different types of minerals across 500 locations, with estimated reserves worth over $700 billion.
However, transforming this potential into reality requires partners with proven track records of successful project delivery. The mining industry is notoriously capital-intensive and technically complex, demanding expertise in geology, engineering, environmental management, and community relations. Failed mining projects don’t just waste investment capital—they can cause lasting environmental damage, displace communities, and poison relationships between government and investors.
The Kaduna and Nasarawa state governments’ enthusiasm for Ikin’s proposed investments is understandable. The promise of hundreds of millions in investment, lithium processing facilities, and job creation is attractive for states seeking economic development. However, the Preston Resources debacle demonstrates that ambitious promises from mining executives don’t always translate into operational success.
The Due Diligence Imperative
Nigerian authorities at federal and state levels must implement rigorous due diligence processes before approving major mining investments. This should include comprehensive background checks on company executives, verification of claimed financial resources, technical audits of proposed mining methods, and environmental impact assessments.
The Australian Securities Exchange and financial media provide extensive documentation of Preston Resources’ collapse, offering Nigerian authorities a clear picture of Ikin’s previous performance. Australian regulatory bodies and industry associations can provide additional insights into his reputation and capabilities. Such information is publicly available and should be mandatory reading for any Nigerian official considering mining partnerships.
Furthermore, Nigerian authorities should demand proof of funding before approving mining licenses. Letters of intent and preliminary agreements are insufficient—actual capital commitments from verified financial institutions should be required. The Preston Resources case shows how companies can leverage debt and equity markets to fund operations they cannot sustain, leaving investors and host communities to bear the costs when projects fail.
Building Mining Excellence
Nigeria’s mining sector development requires partners who bring not just capital but proven expertise in sustainable mining practices. The country needs investors who understand that successful mining projects require long-term commitment, community engagement, environmental stewardship, and technical excellence.
Countries like Ghana, Botswana, and South Africa have built successful mining industries by carefully selecting international partners and insisting on high operational standards. Nigeria can follow similar models, but only if it maintains rigorous standards for foreign investment approval.
The solid minerals sector represents Nigeria’s best opportunity to create an economy less dependent on oil revenues. However, this transformation requires careful stewardship of mineral resources and partnerships with operators who have demonstrated competence in managing large-scale mining operations.
The Path Forward
As Nigerian authorities evaluate Atlantic Mining’s proposals and other foreign mining investments, they must balance the urgent need for economic diversification against the imperative of protecting national resources. The Colin Ikin story serves as a powerful reminder that impressive presentations and ambitious financial commitments mean little without the track record and resources to deliver results.
Nigeria’s minerals belong to its people and future generations. Handing them over to operators with histories of corporate failure—regardless of their promotional skills or political connections—would represent a betrayal of the national trust. Due diligence isn’t just good governance; it’s essential for ensuring that Nigeria’s mining revolution creates lasting prosperity rather than expensive disappointment.
The choice facing Nigerian authorities is clear: rush into partnerships with questionable operators and risk repeating the Preston Resources disaster on Nigerian soil, or implement rigorous vetting processes that attract genuine investors capable of unlocking the country’s mineral wealth responsibly. The stakes are too high for anything less than excellence in partner selection.
The gold rush mentality that has gripped Nigeria’s mining sector must be tempered with wisdom learned from other countries’ experiences. Australia’s mining industry, despite its overall success, is littered with failed projects and collapsed companies. Nigeria can avoid similar pitfalls by learning from these failures and demanding higher standards from potential partners.
As Colin Ikin and Atlantic Mining await decisions from Nigerian authorities in Kaduna, Nasarawa, and potentially other states, the question isn’t whether Nigeria needs foreign investment in mining—it clearly does. The question is whether the country will settle for any investor willing to make promises, or insist on partners with the competence and resources to keep them. With Ikin’s multi-state campaign already underway, Nigeria’s economic future may well depend on getting this calculation right.
Steven Kefas is mining and mineral resources enthusiast and writes from Kaduna state
