obe wan
Regular
“One side point - i wonder if Locke will push back at all, given that an agreement with a minimum repayment spend of 10m was agreed. Will see i guess.”Despite some reservations about this situation and parts of the announcement, i think that, on the whole, this is a positive development.
Having a big player like CATH/CATL backing our play and agreeing to leverage their influence on the DRC government could be the game changer we need. I was growing concerned that DRC were willing to go through the full ICSID process and then delay and obfuscate for many years after an award, tiring us and our funding out until we eventually accepted a Lowball settlement. However, this seems like it could present a way out in which all involved could get a slice of the pie. This may result in a negotiated outcome.
Glencore has operated effectively in DRC in part due to its involvement with its partner Zijin, perhaps a similar relationship with CATH/CATL is what we need to progress the Project forward.
I mean it's a good deal for CATH, but they've got the leverage, not us. It's also probably a bit of a master-stroke by the Chinese in that they'll likely control the output of Manono's entirety despite who succeeds. Bets are hedged. But they're no slouches in business and resource control! And hell, nobody has stepped up to resolve this to suit their own interests, like Aus/US, so this may well be in our own current best interests - certainly in comparison to the existential risk of being frozen out entirely.
This is as hopeful as I've been in the last two years.
One side point - i wonder if Locke will push back at all, given that an agreement with a minimum repayment spend of 10m was agreed. Will see i guess.
INTERESTING TIMES
The announcement with Locke • AVZ expects to drawdown a first tranche of funds during December 2024 •
Litigation funds typically have a bag load of ‘if this happens then this , if this happens then this etc etc etc Locke no doubt would have a ream term ‘if’ terms gears towards opportunity and as much risk adversity as possible . Their payback multipliers of funding are generally X5++ of the load amount plus some beefy cherries suck as ability to buy up 10% of shares in the company , as well as the heavy security terms we’d be open to I.e security was the project
Ironically the clowns who caused this AFP stink may well have caused Locke to stall and ask questions giving CAT enough time to slide in and steal the show … imo the terms of security / loss of project ; potential another 10% holder coming on board may well have kicked CAT into gear.
I wonder who called the AFP