AVZ Discussion 2022

[Cumquat Cap]

So still no idea as to when we will get a verdict from ICSID from our emergency hearing?

9cardomaha have you heard anything?

New information in the CDL JORC compliant drilling info would have been supplied to ICSID, no doubt going against what Cominiere has been pushing (no drilling in CDL worthy of ownership) - I'm sure ICSID want to validate the drill results before calling Cominiere and DRC liars (which they are).

 

[Carlos Danger]

New information in the CDL JORC compliant drilling info would have been supplied to ICSID, no doubt going against what Cominiere has been pushing (no drilling in CDL worthy of ownership) - I'm sure ICSID want to validate the drill results before calling Cominiere and DRC liars (which they are).

There is nothing in the mining code that says you need to drill all sections of the tenement to retain the whole thing

That's why Dathcom got all of the favourable opinions for the full 221 carres

The only way you can lose part of the tenement is if you submit a waiver

None of the drilling results in the CDL resource estimate are new. All of them had been previously released to market. And Dathcom's drilling stopped at the old split line.

The ICSID won't give a single fuck about the CDL resource estimate. It is a starting point for negotiations on a deal for the north as it's pretty fucking clear that Simba doesn't want us to control it imo

 

[Dave Evans]

Still jumping at shadows I see. Thanx for da lolz in 23. Happy New Year, bro.

Ah yes, kool-aid, the other troll who lurks here when he’s not in the Middle East with his homies. Nice try using aljazeera to post your negative comments on Tshisekedi

How are your other mates tommy and modo going, no doubt you’re all still upset by the failed Omni Bridgeway, Deeland and Fat Tail (MMGA) scams

 

[Carlos Danger]

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/latest-results-congos-disputed-election-2023-12-29/

The latest results in Congo’s disputed election

Dec 29 (Reuters) - Democratic Republic of Congo is gradually releasing preliminary results from the Dec. 20 presidential election following a chaotic vote and an unscheduled ballot extension that have led the opposition to demand a re-run.

Below are the latest figures from the election commission, known as the CENI, along with details about how the commission is counting votes and releasing its tally, and why critics are disputing the results.

The latest CENI update on Friday showed President Tshisekedi well ahead of his 18 challengers, with over 72% of around 15.9 million votes counted so far.

Businessman Moise Katumbi and former energy executive Martin Fayulu stand in second and third place respectively with over 18% and over 5% of the vote.

The provisional tally so far is based on results from 52,173 out of almost 76,000 polling stations, according to the CENI.

 

[Winenut]

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/latest-results-congos-disputed-election-2023-12-29/

The latest results in Congo’s disputed election

Dec 29 (Reuters) - Democratic Republic of Congo is gradually releasing preliminary results from the Dec. 20 presidential election following a chaotic vote and an unscheduled ballot extension that have led the opposition to demand a re-run.

Below are the latest figures from the election commission, known as the CENI, along with details about how the commission is counting votes and releasing its tally, and why critics are disputing the results.

The latest CENI update on Friday showed President Tshisekedi well ahead of his 18 challengers, with over 72% of around 15.9 million votes counted so far.

Businessman Moise Katumbi and former energy executive Martin Fayulu stand in second and third place respectively with over 18% and over 5% of the vote.

The provisional tally so far is based on results from 52,173 out of almost 76,000 polling stations, according to the CENI.

View attachment 53018

Fuck I though it was a new episode of the Addams family....

They're creepy and they're kooky
Mysterious and spooky.....

 

[Doc]

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/latest-results-congos-disputed-election-2023-12-29/

The latest results in Congo’s disputed election

Dec 29 (Reuters) - Democratic Republic of Congo is gradually releasing preliminary results from the Dec. 20 presidential election following a chaotic vote and an unscheduled ballot extension that have led the opposition to demand a re-run.

Below are the latest figures from the election commission, known as the CENI, along with details about how the commission is counting votes and releasing its tally, and why critics are disputing the results.

The latest CENI update on Friday showed President Tshisekedi well ahead of his 18 challengers, with over 72% of around 15.9 million votes counted so far.

Businessman Moise Katumbi and former energy executive Martin Fayulu stand in second and third place respectively with over 18% and over 5% of the vote.

The provisional tally so far is based on results from 52,173 out of almost 76,000 polling stations, according to the CENI.

View attachment 53018

72% wow, Anyone would think he did a good job in his first term

 

[obe wan]

There is nothing in the mining code that says you need to drill all sections of the tenement to retain the whole thing

That's why Dathcom got all of the favourable opinions for the full 221 carres

The only way you can lose part of the tenement is if you submit a waiver

None of the drilling results in the CDL resource estimate are new. All of them had been previously released to market. And Dathcom's drilling stopped at the old split line.

The ICSID won't give a single fuck about the CDL resource estimate. It is a starting point for negotiations on a deal for the north as it's pretty fucking clear that Simba doesn't want us to control it imo

‘ICSID won't give a single fuck about the CDL resource estimate’ , not quite , apparently the resource update does have legal implications in the ICSID process and it’s the reason it was released.

Cominiere were barking on about there being no jorc compliant work carried out in the north ; nothing had been released to the market ; none of the bores had been included within a jorc measure ; so cominiere , just like they still do ; claimed AVZ were just telling porkies on works carried out in the North ; it was a reoccurring statement by cominiere which also had tag along comments ‘ Lies , carried out nothing , Lies , funding lies too , no proof ‘

AVZ obviously had carried out works as far as we’re concerned ….. but where were the numbers … why not included within measured numbers …. Question asked from Cominiere’s side … ; question relayed on ; response to the never ending question was eventually cannon balled right back with 173mt

Cominiere were trying to play their bluff ; ye last collar hole shown to cami etc ; but no measured data ; so we’ll pull back to where it’s proven, to have occurred .

Obviously it’s arbitration and agreements can occur at any stage as opposed to running this thing right to ground I.e 221 carre only as per mining code .

Apparently proposed MoU has North / South mentioned in it . First point of call is where the actual split firmly is and push cominieres line of the sand right back to where there is actually some truth in their arguement I.e last drill collar and where the original North / South line was drawn by MoM / CAMI .

They will care about the resource upgrade , as it will lead to determine if the Southern section of CDL is actually included in the ‘South’ ; from there they can go on to negotiate the real ‘North / South’ ( even though it shouldn’t be questioned , as you say there’s no requirement to drill the full extent of the tenement or else chunks get taken away )

 

[Carlos Danger]

nothing had been released to the market

Wrong

 

[Carlos Danger]

‘ICSID won't give a single fuck about the CDL resource estimate’ , not quite , apparently the resource update does have legal implications in the ICSID process and it’s the reason it was released.

Cominiere were barking on about there being no jorc compliant work carried out in the north ; nothing had been released to the market ; none of the bores had been included within a jorc measure ; so cominiere , just like they still do ; claimed AVZ were just telling porkies on works carried out in the North ; it was a reoccurring statement by cominiere which also had tag along comments ‘ Lies , carried out nothing , Lies , funding lies too , no proof ‘

AVZ obviously had carried out works as far as we’re concerned ….. but where were the numbers … why not included within measured numbers …. Question asked from Cominiere’s side … ; question relayed on ; response to the never ending question was eventually cannon balled right back with 173mt

Cominiere were trying to play their bluff ; ye last collar hole shown to cami etc ; but no measured data ; so we’ll pull back to where it’s proven, to have occurred .

Obviously it’s arbitration and agreements can occur at any stage as opposed to running this thing right to ground I.e 221 carre only as per mining code .

Apparently proposed MoU has North / South mentioned in it . First point of call is where the actual split firmly is and push cominieres line of the sand right back to where there is actually some truth in their arguement I.e last drill collar and where the original North / South line was drawn by MoM / CAMI .

They will care about the resource upgrade , as it will lead to determine if the Southern section of CDL is actually included in the ‘South’ ; from there they can go on to negotiate the real ‘North / South’ ( even though it shouldn’t be questioned , as you say there’s no requirement to drill the full extent of the tenement or else chunks get taken away )

Wrong
View attachment 53032
View attachment 53033
View attachment 53034
View attachment 53035
View attachment 53036
View attachment 53037
View attachment 53038
View attachment 53039
View attachment 53040
View attachment 53041

There's a lot of people running around claiming that the resource estimate is new information that somehow proves we drilled all of CDL

This is completely incorrect and those saying that should stop

The ICSID will be looking at whether the waiver is legally enforceable or if there is some loophole that Dathcom can claim to prove we didn't give the north away imo

 

[robface]

There's a lot of people running around claiming that the resource estimate is new information that somehow proves we drilled all of CDL

This is completely incorrect and those saying that should stop

The ICSID will be looking at whether the waiver is legally enforceable or if there is some loophole that Dathcom can claim to prove we didn't give the north away imo

I thought the defence was both that avz did drill and whatever waiver was signed or forged under duress.

 

[cruiser51]

There's a lot of people running around claiming that the resource estimate is new information that somehow proves we drilled all of CDL

This is completely incorrect and those saying that should stop

The ICSID will be looking at whether the waiver is legally enforceable or if there is some loophole that Dathcom can claim to prove we didn't give the north away imo

Where duress is established the common law permits the victim to escape their contractual obligations by rendering the contract voidable. To be established one of the contracting parties must exert 'illegitimate' pressure on the weaker party which induces the weaker party to enter into the contract.

The duress was: 'If you don't wave the northern section, you will not get your ML.'

I can clearly remember that to be mentioned by Nigel.

I would not be surprised that will be argued before ICSID and, if that can be proven the waiver is absolute meaningless.

In other words: 'Stick your waiver very far up your arse.'

 

[Carlos Danger]

I thought the defence was both that avz did drill and whatever waiver was signed or forged under duress.

Where duress is established the common law permits the victim to escape their contractual obligations by rendering the contract voidable. To be established one of the contracting parties must exert 'illegitimate' pressure on the weaker party which induces the weaker party to enter into the contract.

The duress was: 'If you don't wave the northern section, you will not get your ML.'

I can clearly remember that to be mentioned by Nigel.

I would not be surprised that will be argued before ICSID and, if that can be proven the waiver is absolute meaningless.

In other words: 'Stick your waiver very far up your arse.'

Being tricked isn't duress lmao

The idea that AVZ management were forced to give away the north under duress and then just went along with it releasing official announcements confirming them agreeing with it is batshit insane

This letter from Nigel to the MoM is the basis for our case at the ICSID. Everyone should read it again and again until what we are asking for sinks in.

 

[cruiser51]

Being tricked isn't duress lmao

The idea that AVZ management were forced to give away the north under duress and then just went along with it releasing official announcements confirming them agreeing with it is batshit insane

This letter from Nigel to the MoM is the basis for our case at the ICSID. Everyone should read it again and again until what we are asking for sinks in.

View attachment 53042
View attachment 53043
View attachment 53044
View attachment 53045

It was not a case of being tricked, it was: if you wish to have your ML and start mining RD, you gotta do something with the northern section.

You seem to find this very funny and call it tricking people. The legal term could be scamming people.
I wonder, if a court would find this issue as funny as you do and laugh their ass off the same way as you say you do.

Just an observation.

 

[BEISHA]

Being tricked isn't duress lmao

The idea that AVZ management were forced to give away the north under duress and then just went along with it releasing official announcements confirming them agreeing with it is batshit insane

This letter from Nigel to the MoM is the basis for our case at the ICSID. Everyone should read it again and again until what we are asking for sinks in.

View attachment 53042
View attachment 53043
View attachment 53044
View attachment 53045

A pretty scathing response from AVZ BOD

I aint a lawyers butt crack, but in my mind, ICSID are going to look for the contractual agreement as to what works / expenditure was required to be satisfied by AVZ on CDL to renew that part of the lease

In Australian mining code, its common requirement for a coy to exercise a certain amount of expenditure within a specified time frame to satisfy renewal, it doesnt matter where, its all about the spend.

Is the contract agreement AVZ / CDL similar ?

Just to confirm, do you believe AVZ were " tricked " to waive the north of CDL ?

Cause i am sure ICSID will want to scrutinise that paper work and see if it applies to DRC mining law.

On top of all that, AVZ achieved 3 favourable opinions, DRC mining law requires ML to be awarded within a certain time frame once that is achieved regardless if i recall, so no doubt ICSID will be looking at that clause too.

DRC govt are going to get panted, best solution..........formulate a win , win binding MOU

imo

 

[cruiser51]

A pretty scathing response from AVZ BOD

I aint a lawyers butt crack, but in my mind, ICSID are going to look for the contractual agreement as to what works / expenditure was required to be satisfied by AVZ on CDL to renew that part of the lease

In Australian mining code, its common requirement for a coy to exercise a certain amount of expenditure within a specified time frame to satisfy renewal, it doesnt matter where, its all about the spend.

Is the contract agreement AVZ / CDL similar ?

Just to confirm, do you believe AVZ were " tricked " to waive the north of CDL ?

Cause i am sure ICSID will want to scrutinise that paper work and see if it applies to DRC mining law.

imo

I wouldn't buy a roll of toilet paper from certain people, they could have used it and try to trick me.
It apparently is the norm for those people to conduct business.

 

[BEISHA]

I wouldn't buy a roll of toilet paper from certain people, they could have used it and try to trick me.
It apparently is the norm for those people to conduct business.

 

[aon]

Where duress is established the common law permits the victim to escape their contractual obligations by rendering the contract voidable. To be established one of the contracting parties must exert 'illegitimate' pressure on the weaker party which induces the weaker party to enter into the contract.

The duress was: 'If you don't wave the northern section, you will not get your ML.'

I can clearly remember that to be mentioned by Nigel.

I would not be surprised that will be argued before ICSID and, if that can be proven the waiver is absolute meaningless.

In other words: 'Stick your waiver very far up your arse.'

Where duress is established the common law permits the victim to escape their contractual obligations by rendering the contract voidable. To be established one of the contracting parties must exert 'illegitimate' pressure on the weaker party which induces the weaker party to enter into the contract.

The duress was: 'If you don't wave the northern section, you will not get your ML.'

I can clearly remember that to be mentioned by Nigel.

I would not be surprised that will be argued before ICSID and, if that can be proven the waiver is absolute meaningless.

In other words: 'Stick your waiver very far up your arse.'

Yes, cruiser agree 100%, that's exactly how I recalled it as well at the time.
Although sometime later the commentary on the issue seemed to become somewhat confused was my opinion when Nigel was asked for more details on the issue, that is admittedly my vague memory of the event.

 

[Doc]

Yes, cruiser agree 100%, that's exactly how I recalled it as well at the time.
Although sometime later the commentary on the issue seemed to become somewhat confused was my opinion when Nigel was asked for more details on the issue, that is admittedly my vague memory of the event.

Nigel stated the ML must be given in 30 days otherwise he can go to court to get. Was in a recorded interview ( that has since vanished from online ). When questioned months later he stated people misunderstood what he said.

 

[Carlos Danger]

It was not a case of being tricked, it was: if you wish to have your ML and start mining RD, you gotta do something with the northern section.

You seem to find this very funny and call it tricking people. The legal term could be scamming people.
I wonder, if a court would find this issue as funny as you do and laugh their ass off the same way as you say you do.

Just an observation.

A pretty scathing response from AVZ BOD

I aint a lawyers butt crack, but in my mind, ICSID are going to look for the contractual agreement as to what works / expenditure was required to be satisfied by AVZ on CDL to renew that part of the lease

In Australian mining code, its common requirement for a coy to exercise a certain amount of expenditure within a specified time frame to satisfy renewal, it doesnt matter where, its all about the spend.

Is the contract agreement AVZ / CDL similar ?

Just to confirm, do you believe AVZ were " tricked " to waive the north of CDL ?

Cause i am sure ICSID will want to scrutinise that paper work and see if it applies to DRC mining law.

On top of all that, AVZ achieved 3 favourable opinions, DRC mining law requires ML to be awarded within a certain time frame once that is achieved regardless if i recall, so no doubt ICSID will be looking at that clause too.

DRC govt are going to get panted, best solution..........formulate a win , win binding MOU

imo

I find nothing of this funny at all

We only need to do something different with the north IF WE AGREE TO IT according to the mining code

My entire purpose of spending time figuring this shit out is to find out the truth and to inform those that may no longer have the time to research as I do due to their funds being locked down because of no fault of their own

If our claim is that we were asked to form a JV for the north in order to progress the south then I think AVZ management made the right call. They obviously wanted to deliver an outcome that would lead to lithium being processed in the quickest way possible. But what they wanted and what they agreed to are potentially two entirely different things imo

Personally I think that Nigel willing to sit down to work out an outcome for the north is not only based in pragmatism but also reality

 

[Carlos Danger]

Nigel stated the ML must be given in 30 days otherwise he can go to court to get. Was in a recorded interview ( that has since vanished from online ). When questioned months later he stated people misunderstood what he said.

People completely misunderstood what he said me included at the time

He was talking about the process for the decree. Which we received. Never forget we got the ML according to the mining code. It's the entire basis for our claims at the ICSID.