Mr Inappropriate
Regular
Yes, he did say that, mentioned 85% to 90%, i.e. pre-CATH, and then 10% to 15% to the DRC later on in the conversation. I think this may be part of the overall deal, and I had already posed the question: do they get free carried for the 15% if thats where this is going?
Pleased to see you all now hate Z as much as I do, lol
This project only needs one chinese partner, and it must be CATH(L)
I’ve been suspicious about this 15% from the get-go (the pre-confusion times). It was clear in my mind’s eye that this was open to malign influence from PRC, either directly or indirectly. So much so that I reached out to AVZ to try and get an understanding of this risk. AVZ stressed the strength of the relationship with CATH and their commitment (and also that the they would pay the 240m before the end of April…). They also said that the relationship with the DRC government was is very good shape (my words), and that they were not concerned about geo-political risks - a response which was probably in the context of the ML grant rather than the 15% now in dispute. With the current uncertainty I now wish I had gone harder at those geo-political questions.
So with all the above being a true-enough representation of the risks and relationship standing, I can only conclude that there has been a bunch of bad-faith / improper transactions beyond this group, with Z seemingly at the centre.
Let’s hope that our long and positive relationship with the DRC leads to a speedy clarification / resolution.
PS - wasn’t the Australian ambassador in the DRC recently meeting with senior officials (maybe even FT)? I wonder if they were there at the request of AVZ to remind them what a good honest strategic partner AVZ and Australia are? **
**Federal ICAC now please - you can’t negotiate on the basis of integrity with our own levels of political corruption spiralling.
TLDR - Fuck Z.
Last edited: