Spikerama
Regular
Happy to hold a PARTY at the Shack!!!
View attachment 30063
Oh yeah! I'd be up for that!
Happy to hold a PARTY at the Shack!!!
View attachment 30063
So, it was renounced. Seems like Nigel likes to BS and claimed that we haven't handed the Northern section back....@Sammy_da_Smile @Charbella 8196 - not the bombshell i was hoping for, but the timeline currently:
Dathcom submits application to CAMI to relinquish North on April 1.
Ministerial decree 'expedited' and awareded April 22.
Looking for correspondence around March/April where there is direct request to relinquish the north for awarding the ML on the south.
View attachment 30072 View attachment 30073
Thanks @9cardomaha@Sammy_da_Smile @Charbella 8196 - not the bombshell i was hoping for, but the timeline currently:
Dathcom submits application to CAMI to relinquish North on April 1.
Ministerial decree 'expedited' and awareded April 22.
Looking for correspondence around March/April where there is direct request to relinquish the north for awarding the ML on the south.
View attachment 30072 View attachment 30073
Thanks for the explanation. I haven't thought that far. So they partially renounced it to keep the north section as exploration and hoping to obtain the exploitation licence for the south?Thanks @9cardomaha
The point of interest is marked below i.e. Partielle ...English Partial ; so, it was only Partial Waiver so yes, AVZ should still be holding the Exploration rights for the North and DG of CAMI shouldn't have been taking new applications the filthy dog
View attachment 30081
Could not this also be interpreted as partial waiver of tenement 13359?Thanks @9cardomaha
The point of interest is marked below i.e. Partielle ...English Partial ; so, it was only Partial Waiver so yes, AVZ should still be holding the Exploration rights for the North and DG of CAMI shouldn't have been taking new applications the filthy dog
View attachment 30081
Yes you are probably right based on the second sheet, partial renounce / waiver of 13359 ...82 Carries.Could not this also be interpreted as partial waiver of tenement 13359?
Meaning the Northern section.
Awesome thanks mate!@Sammy_da_Smile @Charbella 8196 - not the bombshell i was hoping for, but the timeline currently:
Dathcom submits application to CAMI to relinquish North on April 1.
Ministerial decree 'expedited' and awareded April 22.
Looking for correspondence around March/April where there is direct request to relinquish the north for awarding the ML on the south.
View attachment 30072 View attachment 30073
We really need to see the application document that management filled out and signed. Stating what they actually agreed to.Yes you are probably right based on the second sheet, partial renounce / waiver of 13359 ...82 Carries.
@9cardomaha do you know if there's any more sheets to this document?
View attachment 30083
Not sure if there are meant to be more pages, only have the two here i was hoping it'd be the smoking gun implicating the MOM/MOP requesting for the trade...Yes you are probably right based on the second sheet, partial renounce / waiver of 13359 ...82 Carries.
@9cardomaha do you know if there's any more sheets to this document?
View attachment 30083
Someone put up a couple of pages out of the DRC mining code a few days ago, I can't remember who, but waivering was basically stripping of all rights, Partial waiver was pulling back of in our case the decree / Mining license but retention of exploration rights.Yes you are probably right based on the second sheet, partial renounce / waiver of 13359 ...82 Carries.
@9cardomaha do you know if there's any more sheets to this document?
View attachment 30083
The application from Dathcom requestin the Ministerial decrees right? Those cogs are turning.We really need to see the application document that management filled out and signed.
With AJN involved and Nigel's holding it all smells a bit fishy.
Surely AVZ would have checked this before signing. Looking at the document then considering what was at stake it seems highly improbable that Nigel would have signed off on this before checking it out to the nth degreeSomeone put up a couple of pages out of the DRC mining code a few days ago, I can't remember who, but waivering was basically stripping of all rights, Partial waiver was pulling back of in our case the decree / Mining license but retention of exploration rights.
maybe this was the angle DG Cami took, I.e. ye big fella , partial waiver means a part of the tenement gets renounced ; where as Nigel and co may have being thinking ( you'd of hoped they'd checked ) partial just means as per the code that the ML rights come off , but Exploration rights are retained i.e as explained within the announcement when the decree popped out.
You would think that there would be another term sheet for actually fully renouncing as section of a tenement, as opposed to just calling it partial renounce and avoiding such confusion.
Yes apparently Dathcom reqested and submitted an application for the split. Buggered if I can remember where this was stated, maybe someone else can? I think it was recent.The application from Dathcom requestin the Ministerial decrees right? Those cogs are turning.
Also following a line on AJN's applications for northern tenement at this time.
It might be my post you’re referring to - it included extracts from both the mining code and the mining regs in relation to relinquishment.Someone put up a couple of pages out of the DRC mining code a few days ago, I can't remember who, but waivering was basically stripping of all rights, Partial waiver was pulling back of in our case the decree / Mining license but retention of exploration rights.
maybe this was the angle DG Cami took, I.e. ye big fella , partial waiver means a part of the tenement gets renounced ; where as Nigel and co may have being thinking ( you'd of hoped they'd checked ) partial just means as per the code that the ML rights come off , but Exploration rights are retained i.e as explained within the announcement when the decree popped out.
You would think that there would be another term sheet for actually fully renouncing as section of a tenement, as opposed to just calling it partial renounce and avoiding such confusion.
This is 'astute'.My understanding is that they required document 8196 to renounce the northern section so that they could have a PE southern and PR northern.
Unfortunately, it is my guess they were told they would have first right to reapply for it as a PR. Obviously that didn't happen.