AVZ Discussion 2022

[SilentOne]

The whole issue is the difficulty in enforcing the first right of refusal and getting that 15% back off Zijin, whether AVZ purchase it or give it directly to CATH.

This is why I have suggested trying to enforce the terms of the CATH agreement and obtaining the $240 million of funding. Get some of the powerful Chinese on side with skin in the game which may help to move things along and put pressure on DRC to grant the mining licence. It may discourage other Chinese entities from competing against CATH as well.

This would require us to "run the gauntlet" so to speak and risk ending up with 36% if everything went against us. The alternative appears to be that we stay in this gridlock for years on end. When I have mentioned this in the past people don't seem to get it. If we keep continuing down this path of multiple ICC cases with all Zijin's delaying tactics then realistically we may sort out the jurisdictional issues in 2024. Then get into the details of the cases in 2025-26 and then hope for a favourable resolution after that. It is a long time to wait and hope the corrupt DRC Government don't take action against AVZ before then.

Maybe the board of directors have some sort of additional information which makes them think continuing down this path is the right way to go. I hope that is true. Maybe there will be a change in Government at the next election. Who knows how that would affect things.

Under no circumstances would we want to slip under 51% - we want to retain control because that is the only way the DRC and Shareholders are going to receive true value. Otherwise we run the risk of our profits being offshored - in my opinion. In addition, one of the conditions of the issuance of the mining license is that someone holds 51% stake - please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,

Silence

 

[9cardomaha]

Anchoring the 12 for ZJ and with that number they can still get a healthy dose of fuck off and die from me too.

 

[DoubleA]

Under no circumstances would we want to slip under 51% - we want to retain control because that is the only way the DRC and Shareholders are going to receive true value. Otherwise we run the risk of our profits being offshored - in my opinion. In addition, one of the conditions of the issuance of the mining license is that someone holds 51% stake - please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,

Silence

It is Dathcom which needs to hold 51%. Look at Komoa if you want an example where the end shareholders all hold less than 50%.


This just seems to be a never ending stalemate where Adele Kayinda, Antoinette and Cominiere all cooperate with Zijin. I am trying to think what will change.

My hopes are:

- Vital Kamerhe, maybe when he gets some free time away from stuntin' on everyone in the Brabus G wagon he can change things. He is a new person in this situation at least, but his vehicle choice and prior history makes me skeptical of his motivations.

- Martin Fayulu, maybe he gets elected and is less under the control of China. Although when I talk to people in the DRC they say the election process is generally controlled by whoever is currently in power.


What are other people's thoughts on the potential change that will occur that will allow things to progress?

When we first went into suspension I think people were hoping that AVZ were negotiating in the background and then one day we just get notification that there she is boys, the mining licence, we sorted it out! Hopefully there is still a chance of this and the negotiations are progressing.

 

[Mr Inappropriate]

Under no circumstances would we want to slip under 51% - we want to retain control because that is the only way the DRC and Shareholders are going to receive true value. Otherwise we run the risk of our profits being offshored - in my opinion. In addition, one of the conditions of the issuance of the mining license is that someone holds 51% stake - please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,

Silence

Correct

 

[DoubleA]

Correct

Incorrect - ie Kamoa - a joint venture between Ivanhoe Mines (39.6%), Zijin Mining Group (39.6%), Crystal River Global Limited (0.8%) and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (20%)

 

[Samus]

 

[obe wan]

Incorrect - ie Kamoa - a joint venture between Ivanhoe Mines (39.6%), Zijin Mining Group (39.6%), Crystal River Global Limited (0.8%) and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (20%)

That wasn't the case at time of mining application ; percentages can shift there afterwards. I'm pretty sure we had this conversation before, Komoa mine was held under Komoa Holdings a subsidiary of Ivanhoe ; Komoa Holdings ‘ivanhoe’ held ‘80%’ of the Komoa project; Ivanhoe then sold 49.5% of Komoa Holdings off to Zijin for 400/500m.....the percentages after mining application have shifted after a few dealings to what they are now.

 

[Nbaz]

That wasn't the case at time of mining application ; percentages can shift there afterwards. I'm pretty sure we had this conversation before, Komoa mine was held under Komoa Holdings a subsidiary of Ivanhoe ; Komoa Holdings ‘ivanhoe’ held ‘80%’ of the Komoa project; Ivanhoe then sold 49.5% of Komoa Holdings off to Zijin for 400/500m.....the percentages after mining application have shifted after a few dealings to what they are now.

Obe, keen to here your take on today's announcement if you care to share(and haven't already)

 

[BenGriffo]

Incorrect - ie Kamoa - a joint venture between Ivanhoe Mines (39.6%), Zijin Mining Group (39.6%), Crystal River Global Limited (0.8%) and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (20%)

Ivanhoe was definitely a majority holder at some stage. Not sure if before/after the ML was issued. It was certainly split before it hit production though when they sold half their stake to our mates that start with Z. DRC Govt picked up more after that. And of course a snack company gets a little 0.8% for their troubles.
---

https://www.mining.com/ivanhoes-giant-kamoa-kakula-copper-project-in-drc-keeps-getting-bigger/

Summary of DRC Mining Code below (not the most interesting read, prolly 10 minutes of your life you will never get back - fyi no mention of the 51% majority required in here unless I'm blind. I have heard the 51% quite a few times from posters and I thought someone posted a reference link or doc with it showing it was in the mining code but can't find it now Happy to be corrected if someone can point it out. Definitely I can see why AVZI wants to keep it's majority stake in Dathcom though, slips below and it's goodbye control, same as any JV.
---

Spotlight: Mining law in Democratic Republic of the Congo

Mining represents a critical sector for the development of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). According to the World Bank, the mining sector…

www.lexology.com

 

[DoubleA]

That wasn't the case at time of mining application ; percentages can shift there afterwards. I'm pretty sure we had this conversation before, Komoa mine was held under Komoa Holdings a subsidiary of Ivanhoe ; Komoa Holdings ‘ivanhoe’ held ‘80%’ of the Komoa project; Ivanhoe then sold 49.5% of Komoa Holdings off to Zijin for 400/500m.....the percentages after mining application have shifted after a few dealings to what they are now.

Mining application/licence = Dathcom. Not AVZ.


You seem to be making a habit of getting the two confused.

 

[Charbella]

The trolls are having a full moon party tonight! What has changed since yesterday? Nothing!

 

[obe wan]

Mining application/licence = Dathcom. Not AVZ.


You seem to be making a habit of getting the two confused.

View attachment 34119

Ye dathom ; avz @ =>51% of dathcom . Mining application dathcom - jv partners of dathcom AVZ, cominiere etc, needs a majority controlling holding at application stage ; the Ivanhoe held >51% on application through the holding company. The percentages you keep going on about in Komoa are at mining stage ; they can hold what ever percentage arrangement the jv chooses to configure at mining stage

 

[Mr Inappropriate]

Incorrect - ie Kamoa - a joint venture between Ivanhoe Mines (39.6%), Zijin Mining Group (39.6%), Crystal River Global Limited (0.8%) and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (20%)

Nope - it's in the 2018 mining code. 51% minimum.

 

[DoubleA]

Nope - it's in the 2018 mining code. 51% minimum.

The applicant, Dathcom, does have 51% as required. If you don't believe me then all good.



I am more interested in people's thoughts as to what can potentially change in DRC for them to finally issue the licence.


Vital Kamerhe?

Martin Fayulu?

Do people think negotiations will be ongoing in the background? Seemed like AVZ could not get meetings and were no longer in the loop. I hope we are not left waiting for 2-3 years while things play out at the ICC.

 

[Winenut]

Nope - it's in the 2018 mining code. 51% minimum.

It's Dathcom...it's 51%....that's the mining code...... that's what AVZ needs....minimum for the ML

It's also what AVZ has "legally" acquired.....in fact 51% is less than what AVZ has "legally" acquired

The other cunts have "supposedly" acquired a percentage in Dathcom but bottom fucking line NONE of those "alleged" acquisitions are "legal"

Fukkem

Bring on the ICC

 

[BRICK]

Thanks
I needed a laugh!

 

[obe wan]

Obe, keen to here your take on today's announcement if you care to share(and haven't already)

Hi Nbaz, the company id imagine is totally fine with it ; disclosing information was benefiting the distractions more than it was our negotiating. Tommy FT is probably deserves a bit of a thank you too! He seemed to have been able to dig some pretty confidential legal docs etc which showed that distractors were digging. ASX were apparently were getting all sorts of requests for information / suggesting ‘sesrch here’, ‘look at this’ in an attempt to try and force them to make AVZ open up and trade again.

Being able to tint those windows of the negotiations rooms, as they felt that they comply with 3.1 / disclosure seemed to put them on the backfoot every now and again, after they had thought they had taken a few steps forward...personally I'm happy with the move.

ASX also seemed happy enough with their responses to the questions and put them into actually suspension using the answer to question 9 where AVZ stated that they couldn't conform to 3.1 as it was effectively causing issues, basically gave AVZ what they needed. Omni bridgeway if they had anyone on board would have preferred if as had of batted back some of those responses...but that didn't seem to happen and AVZ can be somewhat relieved that their announcements aren't twisted etc by distractors and repeated elsewhere to other parties with apparent triple meanings

 

[Nbaz]

Hi Nbaz, the company id imagine is totally fine with it ; disclosing information was benefiting the distractions more than it was our negotiating. Tommy FT is probably deserves a bit of a thank you too! He seemed to have been able to dig some pretty confidential legal docs etc which showed that distractors were digging. ASX were apparently were getting all sorts of requests for information / suggesting ‘sesrch here’, ‘look at this’ in an attempt to try and force them to make AVZ open up and trade again.

Being able to tint those windows of the negotiations rooms, as they felt that they comply with 3.1 / disclosure seemed to put them on the backfoot every now and again, after they had thought they had taken a few steps forward...personally I'm happy with the move.

ASX also seemed happy enough with their responses to the questions and put them into actually suspension using the answer to question 9 where AVZ stated that they couldn't conform to 3.1 as it was effectively causing issues, basically gave AVZ what they needed. Omni bridgeway if they had anyone on board would have preferred if as had of batted back some of those responses...but that didn't seem to happen and AVZ can be somewhat relieved that their announcements aren't twisted etc by distractors and repeated elsewhere to other parties with apparent triple meanings

Thanks for your insights. It's something I've never gone though as a shareholder and dare say not many have, so it was a bit daunting seeing the announcement drop this morning.
Hopefully it means AVZ can now get everything sorted safely and not have to worry about everything getting out before it's all confirmed.
Appreciate your words.

 

[obe wan]

The applicant, Dathcom, does have 51% as required. If you don't believe me then all good.



I am more interested in people's thoughts as to what can potentially change in DRC for them to finally issue the licence.


Vital Kamerhe?

Martin Fayulu?

Do people think negotiations will be ongoing in the background? Seemed like AVZ could not get meetings and were no longer in the loop. I hope we are not left waiting for 2-3 years while things play out at the ICC.

“The applicant, Dathcom, does have 51% as required. If you don't believe me then all good.”

Ye but thats the jv ; need to have a , majority holder within the jv which in this case is AVZ inside dathcom....one of the tasks is that majority holders is basically the one that prepares the applications as opposed to multiple non controlling administrators within the jv for obvious reasons

 

[Sammy_da_Smile]

We have come so far to lose all hope now. We are so close with the end in sight. Hang in there everyone.

Sons of Nigel!

Of AVZ!

My brothers my sisters!

I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.

A day may come when the courage of AVZ investors fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day.

An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the investment of AVZ comes crashing down, but it is not this day!

This day we fight!

By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Investors of the AVZ!