I just want out now for a reasonable price. And let the scum writhe around in the gutter with each other. But I'll be out. Selfish? Most probably.
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Then the gov should solve the problem by the right way
Oh I agree. We need top level government to step in and resolve this. But what does that look like for us? It's a gamble. But it's what we need. The alternatives may be so unpalatable for our management that they go unaccepted and we get to force majeur point when it stays deadlocked. We need FT and his government to follow through on all the anti corruption palaver. But that might be naive
mouseflying
Regular
some actions been taken by gov, let’s wait for the results?
Samus
Top 20
See I'm reading that to mean Cominiere were against the partial waiver of the tenement meaning the 82 blocks that were to become the Northern tenement (in other words against splitting the tenement) . And that this constitutes part of the decision to revoke that decree.
In context of below that isn't making a lot of sense. However it stands to reason since the decree is revoked that we're back to the post application status.
This is where we need more clarity from management as to where we actually stand.
Sooner or later, DRC will need to do the right thing. They have to. The odd is on AVZ side
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
So, assuming that we still hold a valid exploration permit for the entirety of 13359, then Dathcom is the only company (at present) that can receive an exploitation permit, per the Mining Regs below (note: this is regulation, not legislation).the application hasn’t been withdrawn ; it’s a partial waiver whereby yes the decrees have been scratched out ; if it was a waiver as opposed to partial waiver then we’d have a problem, as our exploration rights would be gone ; so we’re still in the game with an application whereby environmental , social impact assessment and technical approvals have all been approved which is what is required for approval and from there you wait for the decree to be issued .
Appears MoM is providing some time for Dathcom shareholders legal or notto work things out ; so yes there may well be a timeline they wish to impose on that considering the wording ‘urgent’ and ‘paralysis of project’ , but your guess is as good as mine
Title V: Exploitation Permit
Chapter I: Granting of the Exploitation Permit
Section I: General Provisions
Article 142: Limitations on the Scope of the Exploitation Permit
The scope requested for the Exploitation Permit must be part of the scope of the valid Exploration Permit and cannot exceed four hundred seventy-one (471) squares.
Article 143: Conditions for Granting the Exploitation Permit
In addition to the conditions for granting the Exploitation Permit listed in Article 71 of the Mining Code, the applicant must fulfill the following conditions:
• be the holder of one or more valid Exploration Permits, whose exploration scope or all exploration scopes include the scope requested for the Exploitation Permit;
• be eligible for the Exploitation Permit;
• not exceed the limits regarding the area or number of authorized Exploitation Permits.
———
Am I interpreting this correctly?
Oh my god, what the fark does that last sentence mean? One minute I have enough coin to retire, next minute I am going insane trying to read gibberish! Anyway, thanks for posting mouse. I am thinking this is good news as the locals are reportedly backing AVZ and denouncing the Chinese.
Samus
Top 20
mouseflying
Regular
I’m not good at French, but from my understanding, it means AVZ is supported by locals.
We’re all on this emotional roller coaster, sometimes I feel it worth $5 per share, sometimes 20c. Anyway, we can’t do anything during the suspension.
@
Just wondering if you have access to the RCCM? Zijin seems to think they are listed as a shareholder of Dathcom.
Franck seems to disagree.
Back in June 2022, they were on the RCCM.
Thanks mate for sourcing all the docs.
Just wondering if you have access to the RCCM? Zijin seems to think they are listed as a shareholder of Dathcom.
Franck seems to disagree.
Back in June 2022, they were on the RCCM.
Attachments
Last edited:
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
@
Thanks mate for sourcing all the docs.
Just wondering if you have access to the RCCM? Zijin seems to think they are listed as a shareholder of Dathcom.
Franck seems to disagree.
Back in June 2022, they were on the RCCM.
Just checked. Its the same shareholders listed today.
|
Thanks! Any chance you can share the link?
Last edited:
All true mate but sometimes it just does my head in. I think we fall in to the trap of judging others by our standards, morals and world view. This complete headf#ck is just the way it is and always has been in this primitive excuse for a civilized society. They really don't give a rat's arse about their own laws or mining code if they did the President would have intervened many moons ago. The moron flies around the world dressed in 1 undersize suits on his full sized jet telling everyone they should come and waste their fucking time and money exploring for resources in the very bowels of Africa and applying for mythical mining licences only to be analy raped by corrupt ministers partial to wads of Chinese cash. All this only when all the spadework has been completed and billions assured for 40 years. Add to this an information vacuum from our own company and an impossible blend of African style French to English translation to any news we do receive and you have what is a perfect recipe for making a grown man develop uncontrollable full body nervous twitches. Such is life!I’m not good at French, but from my understanding, it means AVZ is supported by locals.
We’re all on this emotional roller coaster, sometimes I feel it worth $5 per share, sometimes 20c. Anyway, we can’t do anything during the suspension.
Frank
Top 20
And what had to happen happened: China calls into question the credibility of the IGF Report on Sicomines!
Will Jules Alingete burn his wings?
It is not impossible after its own rant, namely the Final Report of the Sicomines Investigation started with a 60-day fact-finding mission ordered on June 24, 2022, but ended on August 24 of the same year.
Indeed, this mission did not approach the General Management of the Sino-Congolese joint venture until August 29, 2022, that is to say out of time.
More seriously, without the knowledge of the Directorate General of the Dgda and the Minister of Finance - yet the competent authority to issue, suspend or abolish this type of duty - it ordered the suspension of customs exemption duties.
Thus, at the start already, the IGF purposely put itself at fault; which does not look like Jules Alingete, reputed to be prudent...
Has the boss of the IGF been under internal or external pressure to obtain the dissolution of Sicomines at all costs, failing the suspension of the activities of this company which has never been 100% Chinese as the opinion think so, but rather Congolese and Chinese? We wouldn't like to know.
Still, once the wine was drawn, all that remained for the IGF was to drink it.
Presumably, this is what happened between September 2022 and February 2023, a period during which Jules Alingete gave Sicomines a hard time.
First by telling her that she had no legal existence; then by imposing demands on it, the first of which concerns the renegotiation of the Sino-Congolese contract.
However, the thesis of the non-existence of Sicomines with regard to the Congolese legal arsenal has turned against the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Indeed, how a legally non-existent entity had to associate Gecamines, a legally constituted company!
And how, for years, Gecamines continued to receive dividends from a non-existent company!
And how, this non-existent company has it financed infrastructures that the Government of the Republic puts to its credit!
Realizing the nonsense of this requirement, which is likely to cover the country with ridicule, the IGF renounced it to impose the renegotiation of the Sino-Congolese contract on the basis of about fifteen requirements, however, falling within the competence of the Government.
No one is supposed to ignore that the Grouping of Chinese Companies (GEC) is against not with a service or a public establishment, but the Congolese Government represented by the Ministry of Itpr.
The following is the really muscular reaction of the spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in the DRC and the General Management of Sicomines on the same day: February 17, 2023.
In his comment, the spokesperson states that the embassy “learned with amazement of the publication of the report on the Chinese Contract by the General Inspectorate of Finance (IGF) of the Democratic Republic of Congo”.
The Embassy, he continues, "regrets to note that the report, whose content is full of prejudice, does not correspond to reality, cannot be considered credible and has no constructive value".
Affirming that "The Chinese Contract is a fine example of a win-win partnership" and that this is "an undeniable fact", all the more so since "Many tangible achievements prove that the Congolese side has effectively benefited from this cooperation", the embassy notes the position of the Chinese government in two sentences:
First, China "encourages Chinese companies to work with their Congolese partner to improve cooperation by making it more beneficial to the Congolese side, and to resolve disagreements through friendly and reasonable dialogue".
Secondly, China says it "will firmly defend the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises and resolutely retaliate against any violation of the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises."
However, we should never come to that since the Sino-Congolese contract provides in its article 20 the mechanism for the settlement of any dispute: either amicably, or, in the event of persistent disagreement, arbitration by the ICSID ( International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes).
As for Sicomines, it promises to assess "the follow-up that should be given in order to defend its rights" and recalls that "The DRC is a state of law where the right of defense is enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution".
It considers that "In particular, the security of private investments, national or foreign, is guaranteed in the DRC and the commitments made to investors cannot be flouted".
It is almost, in duet, the answer of the shepherd to the shepherdess.
Controversial, the IGF Report could make some leave their feathers, others their skin, which amounts to the same thing.
Once again, the advisers - who are rarely good payers - engage the DRC in an arm wrestling which we should have avoided.
For John Omombo, former communication officer of the Sino-Congolese Program Coordination Office, “Congo has no better friend than the Chinese”.
mediacongo
Here's a thought Old China,
Last edited:
Samus
Top 20
Carlos Danger
Top 20
Any chance of sourcing the document from when Dathcom brought CAMI to court about the surface rights payment @9cardomaha ?
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
The site is insecure (browser warning), and you need to register. I used a disposable email from here https://temp-mail.org/en/
Franck kept on referring to active RCCM. Is it different from the RCCM site provided?
Similar threads
