AVZ Discussion 2022

[Ancient]

So ultimately what you are saying is we need DRC Government support . Wow, absolute genius.

Nah, my point is that maybe the arbitration that I was previously commenting on are less important to the overall scenario than many believe. Just sharing some thoughts on that mate. No need to be so hostile.

@Lucas Don Velor I think they would only want to give AVZ 49% if they had to. I don't think they have to for the right price they could own 100%... I think this TIA and some of the info in it could be necessary at this stage but could easily change in the future. Others have raised good points like CATH having the need for a western partner for commercial reasons and I also acknowledge that's relevant and a good point that counters my thoughts. Other good points do as well. I'm just trying to open up discussion to get various people's input to what might be going on.

 

[cruiser51]

Nah, my point is that maybe the arbitration that I was previously commenting on are less important to the overall scenario than many believe. Just sharing some thoughts on that mate. No need to be so hostile.

@Lucas Don Velor I think they would only want to give AVZ 49% if they had to. I don't think they have to for the right price they could own 100%... I think this TIA and some of the info in it could be necessary at this stage but could easily change in the future. Others have raised good points like CATH having the need for a western partner for commercial reasons and I also acknowledge that's relevant and a good point that counters my thoughts. Other good points do as well. I'm just trying to open up discussion to get various people's input to what might be going on.

One wonders why you have been lurking here and kept all this wisdom for yourself for 2 whole years.

Looks like a very selfish act to me.
We do share info here.

Ever tried to share all your wisdom with Shano, Tasmania's gift to Australia?
He and his maters buy AVZ shares for 1 cent.

Shano is still full of energy about BNB, go and have a chin wag with him.
He would love it.

You two would have a lot to share and never have a dull moment.

Btw, Zijin and anything DRC would hate a continuation of the arbitration cases with AVZ.
They haven't done that well so far through the arbitration courts.
You probably missed that tiny bit while you were only lurking.

 

[Ancient]

One wonders why you have been lurking here and kept all this wisdom for yourself for 2 whole years.

Looks like a very selfish act to me.
We do share info here.

Ever tried to share all your wisdom with Shano, Tasmania's gift to Australia?
He and his maters buy AVZ shares for 1 cent.

Shano is still full of energy about BNB, go and have a chin wag with him.
He would love it.

You two would have a lot to share and never have a dull moment.

Btw, Zijin and anything DRC would hate a continuation of the arbitration cases with AVZ.
They haven't done that well so far through the arbitration courts.
You probably missed that tiny bit while you were only lurking.

It's not wisdom. I just wanted to further add to a discussion and provoke some others to share their thoughts. There's no doubt I have a bunch of things wrong but I'm just doing my best based on what I do know.

Not sure what you are getting at suggesting to talk to that Shane person. If my understanding is right they basically scammed a bunch of people into giving away their shares and I think that's absolutely disgusting.

There's no need to be rude to me about sharing some views on the current situation.

I agree that they probably wouldn't want the arbitration to continue. I didn't mean the arbitration isn't useful. It definitely helps apply pressure to negotiate. I was more commenting on the fact some people think the ICC case will result in some massive and immediate win. My thought is directly (the ruling) maybe not so much important if they're still hostile within the country then the block Is still there.

 

[JNRB]

Thanks for the reply - you make good points.

Re. Zijin I think it's very possible they'll keep the north as part of some kind of compromise/negotiation (Which of course is completely fucked).

You and some others commented that CATH won't want to mine because they would rather focus on their core business. Good point. However, I also think they would consider an unknown mining company from Aus quite a high risk to go through the rest of the process if this project is indeed highly strategic for them. It also might not be and rather just be a supply diversification strategy or contingency.

Another good point re having a 'western' partner owning the mine as some countries/companies requirements around supply chains.

What do you mean limitations on who Cath can sell to sorry? I am a little confused on this.

@TheCount what would you like to know?

@cruiser51 sorry mate I didn't get what you were referring to? Ive read the announcements but maybe I misunderstood something

but don't know if there's any corresponding restrictions for AVZ to sell to a saudi company for example.

Saudi's and CATH would probably be quite happy with a JV. Both own the mine, CATH makes batteries in middle east

 

[cruiser51]

It's not wisdom. I just wanted to further add to a discussion and provoke some others to share their thoughts. There's no doubt I have a bunch of things wrong but I'm just doing my best based on what I do know.

Not sure what you are getting at suggesting to talk to that Shane person. If my understanding is right they basically scammed a bunch of people into giving away their shares and I think that's absolutely disgusting.

There's no need to be rude to me about sharing some views on the current situation.

I agree that they probably wouldn't want the arbitration to continue. I didn't mean the arbitration isn't useful. It definitely helps apply pressure to negotiate. I was more commenting on the fact some people think the ICC case will result in some massive and immediate win. My thought is directly (the ruling) maybe not so much important if they're still hostile within the country then the block Is still there.

I will not comment on your provocation (call it whatever you wish to call it), however I could call you sir in the future, if that makes you sleep better.

There seems to be some lack of understanding from your side after two years of lurking, sir.

Maybe reading and understanding company announcements, without being selectively too one-sided could be helpful before making silly comments, sir.

You ask why CATH would want AVZ in the equation, sir.

Maybe you have noticed, ZIJIN and the DRC are asking exactly the same question.

There are several arbitration cases ongoing about that fact, sir.

How about asking all these parties why there seems to be a slight hold-up in the process, ever considered that thought provoking idea, sir?

 

[BEISHA]

Do you mean this one?

Zijin find out they can't steal Manono

A light-hearted look at the moment Zijin discover their bribes and corruption doesnt work anymore in a more democratic DRC under Mr.Tshisekidi with a certain Mr.Alingete from the IGF hunting down criminal behaviour.

www.captiongenerator.com

Cheers,
Nells x

Aagh Nells, thats comedy GOLD !

 

[BEISHA]

In my opinion CATH are positioning for acquisition. Imo there's on going negotiations between avz and drc re. Mining licence and one of the questions that has come from drc is how on earth are you going to fund and build this? Avz responded by getting clarity on the partnership with CATH to show drc government the means.

However, I also believe that CATH fully intend to gain full control of as much of the project as they can. My rationale here is I don't see them needing avz at all in the picture. The only value we bring is the fact we own the project. The long term value to CATH by owning the additional % in the project even if it is the lower of the theorised %'s significantly outweighs the price that most shareholders would probably accept. If that is the case then the next thing I would ask is, is it possible in terms of capital for CATH and that answer is definitely yes. Tldr; that it makes no sense for avz to retain any % as this is against the desires for all parties involved.

Respectfully, i disagree with your post in its entirety.

In my opinion CATH are positioning for acquisition. Imo there's on going negotiations between avz and drc re. Mining licence and one of the questions that has come from drc is how on earth are you going to fund and build this? Avz responded by getting clarity on the partnership with CATH to show drc government the means

You state its your opinion, but you give off the vibe that you are a fly on the wall......

I also dont appreciate your disparaging comments regards to AVZ.......

The only value we bring is the fact we own the project.

Are you for real ?

Not only do we own the project, we found the project, we found and defined the greatest hard rock lithium project on the planet, produced a mind blowing DFS, received 3 favourable opinions.

Show some respect.

This is not a attack.........just a retort.

capisce ?

 

[BEISHA]

I didn't mean that AVZ were unknown to CATH overall. I meant it in the sense that they were unproven for execution and that if manono was important for them strategically then they might not want the risk of having an unproven company develop it. My perspective at the time of the previous TIA was completely opposite and I believed the intentions (of avz) were to leverage that strategic supply to negotiate a good partnership position. Which I believe was a very good outcome for AVZ. I believed the knowledge that CATH brought to the table was of significant value when it came to chemical production and I believed that was necessary to make this project as profitable as possible considering the transport costs. I believe that a part of the process for CATH to partner in the first place they would be privy to the ins and outs of this project and they know better then anyone.

However, I also believe that over time the importance to CATH has been more solidified and hence not wanting the additional risk of execution out of their control. I think this is also why we're seeing the recent announcement / TIA. Because the game has changed and they are here to win.

Sorry to be a pain in the arse, but i sense a common theme to your posts........

I meant it in the sense that they were unproven for execution and that if manono was important for them strategically then they might not want the risk of having an unproven company develop it.

LTR were unproven .........until they were proven.

Construction / under ground Mining aint rocket science.

Especially DSO.

I think AVZ are very capable, the hards yards were proven up just prior to ML decree ....

Cath need AVZ, but AVZ dont need Cath necessarily...........(except their cash to maintain the heat regards to arbitration, working capital )

AVZ had options outside of Cath, Saudi Arabia is a thing, there has been chinese whispers about them for months, Cath knew that IMO, thats why they offered AVZ the 49% sweetner with the hydroxide plant ( their expertise ) to hopefully seal the deal their way, the other positive with Cath JV from AVZ perspective as i see it IMO, is that they would have alot more clout reputation wise and more capability to achieve what the other fuck knuckle failed to do miserably ........

Dont get me wrong , i am not under estimating Cath worth as opposed to your over estimation, but i dont think they will be taking over AVZ, cause one of the few things i do believe within the DRC govt, is they are finally seeing the light as the rest of the world have recognised for a while , that a over reliance of China is not a good thing and wants to diversify

Time will tell.

 

[BEISHA]

To add to my previous post if CATH fund part of the mine construct and processing why would they want avz involved in construction or operations? They specifically wouldn't want that as they would view us (rightfully) as rookie. Also, do they need help finding the additional capital that they've proposed to loan avz in this last announcement in the scenario where they own fully? Absolutely not it's only an additional few hundred m...

To add to my previous post if CATH fund part of the mine construct and processing why would they want avz involved in construction or operations? They specifically wouldn't want that as they would view us (rightfully) as rookie.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Hi Carlos, appreciate the commentary and sharing to date. Lots of thought provoking posts. Thank you.

Regarding your question on Dathomir's 15%. I think the ICC case will go in AVZs favour as it seems like a classic case of buyers remorse and Id like to think they'll see through that. But there could easily be pieces of information that I simply don't know about that raise issues in the case.

I believe that in every scenario we need to have the blessings of the DRC government whether that is through accommodating some requirements I don't know about (e.g. bringing in a more established partner), or whether through pressure from political or legal means. Regardless i believe we need the DRC government blessings to proceed. I believe this because even if we win ICC they could cause all kinds of issues when going to apply those rulings within the country.

It would be reasonable to think the ICC case could start a chain reaction in favour of AVZ, flowing into ICSID. But to be honest based on this new TIA announcement I think a negotiation which includes the blessing from DRC government is more likely and definitely the way to go at this stage. We need their support.

Well that seems like a reasonable view

I agree that generally speaking it is always wise to realise there may be unknowns in any situation. Just ask anyone claiming as fact that the outstanding fees at the ICSID had been paid with Locke funds lol

However all of the arguments regarding Dathomir's 15% are known

Cong’s own lawyer admitted in court that completion occurs upon payment under Article 2.1 of the SPA’s

Cong’s argument is that he had the right to terminate citing an Article from OHADA but that rule is about negotiations using an expert to value the shares in an absence of agreements not a get out of contracts free card

Cong signed the SPA’s, convened EGM’s to ratify and even got notary deeds to confirm his intention to be bound to the agreements

Tick tock imo

Although as I've stated here previously I do agree it will then depend on whether the DRC Supreme Court does the right thing on this matter which remains to be seen

I mainly asked because our good friend voldergeist does have a problem admitting that his mate Cong made a bad deal and then tried to back out of it like a dirty little rat

Don’t take the hostility personally. I’ve been dropping mountains of facts for years now and I still cop it regularly. If you had been lurking all this time you should understand that is how things are here.

 

[marksmann007]

 

[tolate]

Well that seems like a reasonable view

I agree that generally speaking it is always wise to realise there may be unknowns in any situation. Just ask anyone claiming as fact that the outstanding fees at the ICSID had been paid with Locke funds lol

However all of the arguments regarding Dathomir's 15% are known

Cong’s own lawyer admitted in court that completion occurs upon payment under Article 2.1 of the SPA’s

Cong’s argument is that he had the right to terminate citing an Article from OHADA but that rule is about negotiations using an expert to value the shares in an absence of agreements not a get out of contracts free card

Cong signed the SPA’s, convened EGM’s to ratify and even got notary deeds to confirm his intention to be bound to the agreements

Tick tock imo

Although as I've stated here previously I do agree it will then depend on whether the DRC Supreme Court does the right thing on this matter which remains to be seen

I mainly asked because our good friend voldergeist does have a problem admitting that his mate Cong made a bad deal and then tried to back out of it like a dirty little rat

Don’t take the hostility personally. I’ve been dropping mountains of facts for years now and I still cop it regularly. If you had been lurking all this time you should understand that is how things are here.

Yes your Post has MERIT

AVZ management need to update all their S H in regards to many matters
Not just using smoke and mirrors....just too confusing for S H...imo

 

[TheCount]

Yes your Post has MERIT

AVZ management need to update all their S H in regards to many matters
Not just using smoke and mirrors....just too confusing for S H...imo

 

[tolate]

Respectfully, i disagree with your post in its entirety.

In my opinion CATH are positioning for acquisition. Imo there's on going negotiations between avz and drc re. Mining licence and one of the questions that has come from drc is how on earth are you going to fund and build this? Avz responded by getting clarity on the partnership with CATH to show drc government the means

You state its your opinion, but you give off the vibe that you are a fly on the wall......

I also dont appreciate your disparaging comments regards to AVZ.......

The only value we bring is the fact we own the project.

Are you for real ?

Not only do we own the project, we found the project, we found and defined the greatest hard rock lithium project on the planet, produced a mind blowing DFS, received 3 favourable opinions.

Show some respect.

This is not a attack.........just a retort.

capisce ?

In my opinion CATH are positioning for acquisition. Imo there's on going negotiations between avz and drc re. Mining licence and one of the questions that has come from drc is how on earth are you going to fund and build this? Avz responded by getting clarity on the partnership with CATH to show drc government the means

This was in the latest company ANN

Joint strategy • AVZ and CATH have agreed to work collaboratively to constructively engage with the DRC Government to secure and accelerate the development of the Manono Project. •
AVZ and CATH are committed to resolve the relevant issues in order to see the Manono Project through to production.

 

[Ancient]

Respectfully, i disagree with your post in its entirety.

In my opinion CATH are positioning for acquisition. Imo there's on going negotiations between avz and drc re. Mining licence and one of the questions that has come from drc is how on earth are you going to fund and build this? Avz responded by getting clarity on the partnership with CATH to show drc government the means

You state its your opinion, but you give off the vibe that you are a fly on the wall......

I also dont appreciate your disparaging comments regards to AVZ.......

The only value we bring is the fact we own the project.

Are you for real ?

Not only do we own the project, we found the project, we found and defined the greatest hard rock lithium project on the planet, produced a mind blowing DFS, received 3 favourable opinions.

Show some respect.

This is not a attack.........just a retort.

capisce ?

Thanks for the reply.

I meant no disrespect to AVZ as a company. I mean it through the eyes of CATH. The company (AVZ) has done a great job discovering and defining the project and done there best when trying to navigate the politics of it to get it mining. I believe we should be fairly paid for that work. But I also believe that payment makes sense for CATH. I am not trying to say I definitely think this will happen or anything. I am saying that it's possible that's the mentality that CATH could have.

I'm definitely not a fly on any wall I am just a long term retail holder that probably knows a fraction of what many know here. Just sharing my thoughts to get some good discussion going.

Again I didn't mean to annoy anyone with my comments about avz being an execution rookie or adding any value. Don't take that wrongly. I should have worded it better.

 

[tolate]

Thanks for the reply.

I meant no disrespect to AVZ as a company. I mean it through the eyes of CATH. The company (AVZ) has done a great job discovering and defining the project and done there best when trying to navigate the politics of it to get it mining. I believe we should be fairly paid for that work. But I also believe that payment makes sense for CATH. I am not trying to say I definitely think this will happen or anything. I am saying that it's possible that's the mentality that CATH could have.

I'm definitely not a fly on any wall I am just a long term retail holder that probably knows a fraction of what many know here. Just sharing my thoughts to get some good discussion going.

Again I didn't mean to annoy anyone with my comments about avz being an execution rookie or adding any value. Don't take that wrongly. I should have worded it better.

Again cheers for your outlook..!
We need all, to give their thoughts to find the real TRUTH...!
The TIA was always a trick to the puzzle...imo
No TIA no M L...imo
AVZ need CATH and the Chinese...!!!!!

 

[Retrobyte]

AVZ need CATH and the Chinese...!!!!!

Rio Tinto, Glencore discuss mining’s biggest-ever potential merger

Combining the two businesses would potentially create a behemoth to leapfrog longstanding industry leader BHP Group.

www.mining.com

 

[tolate]

Rio Tinto, Glencore discuss mining’s biggest-ever potential merger

Combining the two businesses would potentially create a behemoth to leapfrog longstanding industry leader BHP Group.

www.mining.com

Yes but the AVZ CATH deal is a bit different..!
AVZ has no money ..!!?????
But i did read the said ARTICLE by you...!!!!

One sided arguement...imo
Rio Tinto is the world’s second-biggest miner, with a market value of about $103 billion at the close of trading in London on Thursday, while Glencore was valued at about $55 billion. Combining the two businesses would potentially create a behemoth to leapfrog longstanding industry leader BHP Group, which is worth about $126 billion....""""""""Now AVZ has no money they are DELISTED""""

 

[TheCount]

 

[Xerof]

I simply report "Troll" and push the send button multiple times, usually about 10, and if the shitstain remains, just repeat another 10 times. "Troll" must be sufficient information to determine that the forum rules have been broken , as I've never had a threatening letter