AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Frank
Top 20
Direct negotiations between Kinshasa and Kigali: what are the interests of the mediating countries?
While foreign powers are seeking to mediate the crisis in eastern DRC, this assistance is not without its rewards.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, as the AFC-M23 rebels advance in the provinces of South and North Kivu, whose two capitals they already control, foreign powers are attempting to assist in the search for peace through mediation. But their involvement is not without its rewards.
Each of these states is involved for its own specific interests.
The United States, for example, seeks stability in Central Africa to prevent the arrival of additional migrants on its soil and counter the spread of terrorism.
But Washington is also interested in managing the strategic natural resources that the DRC abounds in.
Jacob Kerstan, director of the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Kinshasa, believes that "it is quite clear that the United States hopes to gain access to minerals from both sides.
Mr. Boulos was the first to visit Kinshasa after his appointment. And I believe people in Washington attach great importance to this.
Following the logic of Trump and his administration, Trump acts and reacts in this way."
Investment Protection
As for China, which promotes peace and respect for the sovereignty of countries, it would not want to see the conflict spread to the Katanga region, where it has made significant investments in the mining sector, as explained by Christian Géraud Neema, China-Africa expert and editor of the China Global South Project.
He notes that "its involvement goes beyond a desire for peace in the region, but also reflects a desire to see the country stabilized so that the instability in eastern DRC does not spill over into the Katanga region. This explains Beijing's desire to see a peaceful and rapid solution."
Qatar's participation reinforces its status as an internationally renowned negotiator. But its main interest lies in preserving a security climate conducive to conducting business in the Great Lakes region.
According to researcher Ithiel Batumike of the Ebuteli Institute for Research on Politics, Governance and Violence, "We know that Qatar has interests, particularly in Rwanda, where it is already a shareholder in the Rwandan aviation company and in the construction of the international airport there, which is costing billions of dollars.
Peace in the region would benefit its business. Qatar does not have bad relations with Congo."
Félix Tshisekedi denounces media manipulation
Meanwhile, President Félix Tshisekedi is denouncing what he calls media manipulation surrounding the DRC-US partnership on critical minerals.
On Monday, he ruled out any sell-off of his country's resources.
The president asserts that "these allegations are naturally unfounded, but often stem from orchestrated campaigns to weaken our economic sovereignty and undermine our country's strategic repositioning efforts on the world stage.
I want to solemnly reaffirm before you what I have always stood for. Never, ever, would I sell-off the resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo."
But during the discussions in Washington, many foreign mining giants are already showing interest in the DRC's minerals.
While foreign powers are seeking to mediate the crisis in eastern DRC, this assistance is not without its rewards.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, as the AFC-M23 rebels advance in the provinces of South and North Kivu, whose two capitals they already control, foreign powers are attempting to assist in the search for peace through mediation. But their involvement is not without its rewards.
Each of these states is involved for its own specific interests.
The United States, for example, seeks stability in Central Africa to prevent the arrival of additional migrants on its soil and counter the spread of terrorism.
But Washington is also interested in managing the strategic natural resources that the DRC abounds in.
Jacob Kerstan, director of the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Kinshasa, believes that "it is quite clear that the United States hopes to gain access to minerals from both sides.
Mr. Boulos was the first to visit Kinshasa after his appointment. And I believe people in Washington attach great importance to this.
Following the logic of Trump and his administration, Trump acts and reacts in this way."
Investment Protection
As for China, which promotes peace and respect for the sovereignty of countries, it would not want to see the conflict spread to the Katanga region, where it has made significant investments in the mining sector, as explained by Christian Géraud Neema, China-Africa expert and editor of the China Global South Project.
He notes that "its involvement goes beyond a desire for peace in the region, but also reflects a desire to see the country stabilized so that the instability in eastern DRC does not spill over into the Katanga region. This explains Beijing's desire to see a peaceful and rapid solution."
Qatar's participation reinforces its status as an internationally renowned negotiator. But its main interest lies in preserving a security climate conducive to conducting business in the Great Lakes region.
According to researcher Ithiel Batumike of the Ebuteli Institute for Research on Politics, Governance and Violence, "We know that Qatar has interests, particularly in Rwanda, where it is already a shareholder in the Rwandan aviation company and in the construction of the international airport there, which is costing billions of dollars.
Peace in the region would benefit its business. Qatar does not have bad relations with Congo."
Félix Tshisekedi denounces media manipulation
Meanwhile, President Félix Tshisekedi is denouncing what he calls media manipulation surrounding the DRC-US partnership on critical minerals.
On Monday, he ruled out any sell-off of his country's resources.
The president asserts that "these allegations are naturally unfounded, but often stem from orchestrated campaigns to weaken our economic sovereignty and undermine our country's strategic repositioning efforts on the world stage.
I want to solemnly reaffirm before you what I have always stood for. Never, ever, would I sell-off the resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo."
But during the discussions in Washington, many foreign mining giants are already showing interest in the DRC's minerals.
Last edited:
Frank
Top 20
Loading…
x.com
Loading…
x.com
AVZ vs DRC @ ICSID - Final Countdown
Countdown to the ICSID tribunal of AVZ vs DRC (Congolese).
avz-icsid-final-countdown.netlify.app
cruiser51
Top 20
Why don't you just let the BOD sort things out?
They do have more knowledge about what is going on than you pretend to have.
Where did you derive your fucking knowledge? Reading the toilet paper roll while having a crap?
Sorry to be so cruel, but while you had your ear close to the ground did a steam roller just went over your noggin?
FFS, you blow more smoke out of your arse than Mount Agung on a good day.
Never have seen so much crap, did you eat magic mushrooms?
Azzler
Top 20
Lol, ok rage machine...
But didn't I literally just state that only the BoD will sort out the price and that I trust them to get the best price?
Soooo your post is complete drool then isnt it?
Cruiser why don't you entertain us a more realistic price, (in your no doubt, more educated opinion) and in the end we can come back here to see how we both fared in our estimation.
Azzler
Top 20
I've probably overstepped in my previous response.
Are you an investor who has believed all the posts about $10 and the $12 Zijin tax people?
Your anger at my post might be proving my point.
I hold a similar target of $1-2, regardless of true value. For no other reason than tempering expectations keeps me sane lol.
Also not expecting a sale for AVZ to be announced prior to the DRC/RWANDA security deal being signed and ratified. Be nuts for Kobold or whoever to commit billions without US commitment locked in.
So, for me, it's now a two month minimum wait, at which point our negotiations can be finalised, automatically rendering ICSID redundant and discontinued.
Thus anytime from July onwards for a sale/TO, with money in the bank EOY.
Works for me, happy daze.
Thank god you’re not on Nigel’s negotiation team.
Seriously though, I think there is a lot (and I mean a lot) of fat to trim to get anywhere near the 1 buck mark you’re stating. Looking beyond the actual deposit value, AVZ have the only good legal title to Manono and that will be proven at the ISCID. That alone is worth everything at this stage.
cruiser51
Top 20
I am not angry at your post, but just gobsmacked about the stupidity of uninformed people without any real knowledge, other than feeling their plums, saying what is an acceptable value for AVZ shares.
What are you trying to achieve?
What is the urgency for you to make this sort of statements?
I am with PhatCatz, over the moon, that you are not on the AVZ negotiating team and will never engage you, to sell my house.
I hope you get the drift.
Last edited:
Azzler
Top 20
So lets establish that you and Cruiser believe that those buying Manono, are reading this forum, and we as shareholders, should be bluffing to achieve better payout value?Thank god you’re not on Nigel’s negotiation team.
Seriously though, I think there is a lot (and I mean a lot) of fat to trim to get anywhere near the 1 buck mark you’re stating. Looking beyond the actual deposit value, AVZ have the only good legal title to Manono and that will be proven at the ISCID. That alone is worth everything at this stage.
Because that's exactly what you seem to be saying.
If so I'm saying in response that this is very naive, and are you fucking serious?
Responding that you're glad I'm not on Nigels negotiating team, tells me you think what we say here is a part of the negotiating team.
God damn boi...
God damn...
BLUFFS ON AN OBSCURE FORUM WILL FUCKING NOT CHANGE THE SALE VALUE OF AVZ!!!
holy fuck I can't believe I even have to say this....
This is a forum for investors to discuss and inform and speculate.
Absolutely nothing said here will affect the outcome.
If people are "bluffing" with their "$12 or fuck off, $12 or full ISCID" on this forum, then they're doing a disservice to investors who log in here just to try to get a sense of what's happening and where we're at.
Azzler
Top 20
But what do you think this means if the DRC fluff AVZ for 10 years?AVZ have the only good legal title to Manono and that will be proven at the ISCID. That alone is worth everything at this stage.
Despite good legal title, they've fluffed us for the last 3 years right?
Apologies if my post came across as a dig it was mostly facetious in nature. I agree with you on a lot of your posts and I understand the position you are trying to make with regards to your recent posting.
I think the issue I have (not with you personally) is that with the information we have publicly available some TSE posters and X users have seemed to jump straight to the heavily discounted “returned items bin” pricing for AVZ. We have the only good legal title for the Manono deposit that will be certified at the ISCID, we have funding to see this battle out IF it goes through the courts, we have a fast developing USA public interest in critical minerals WITH some strong anti corruption conditions AND the curveball is the Chinese who I doubt won’t go softly into the night. They will be working hard behind the scenes scheming mostly with the DRC government I’d imagine.
AVZ is positioned smack bang in the middle of this three way tug of war between the DRC, USA and China. If Manono was a minnow we’d be dead and buried years ago without a whimper stolen by the Chinese but fortunately for us shareholders it’s not. It’s the pinnacle in lithium hard rock and everyone wants it.
Nigel and Co. have a few hands they can play to get the best value for shareholders. While it’s not ideal to go through the ISCID it is a huge bargaining chip for AVZ and I’ll back the BOD if this race goes the full Flemington straight.
Again, I can’t stress this enough. AVZ have the only good legal title for Manono in its entirety. This is critically important at the pointy end.
I suspect ISCID outcomes might be a trigger for a TO as well. I don’t necessarily believe that DRC alone will be left to fend for themselves if they owe AVZ $10b plus. I’ll be fairly confident the USA will bail them out with some sort of deal. ISCID provides an approximate value for damages, it settles ownership issues, it will provide an absolutely perfect opportunity for the DRC Government to implement a “corruption into the mining sector” review to “clean up” as per USA request. However, if Felix is to be publicly found guilty of corruption himself then I’m a bit unsure how that can be navigated but I’m sure there’s a few pages out of Trumps book he can take. aka “it wasn’t me” by Shaggy vibes
.We seem to be focusing on the USA and DRC agreement and how much the US will pay for Manono, but what about the Chinese. What happens if we get to the court steps and the Chinese make an offer to good to refuse eg. $10b and AVZ accepts this offer and sells to the Chinese, giving China total control of Manono with no court case but legal ownership, what would happen then? This is a possibility. The US need to come up with a decent offer or China will get it.
Just my thoughts
Just my thoughts
Just to keep things interesting I'm going with a result prior to the ICISD start date . Remembering both sides have already put their cases forward . So we hit the ground running from day one with Lawyers arguments .From day one exposing Corrupt Ministers/Officials .I hold a similar target of $1-2, regardless of true value. For no other reason than tempering expectations keeps me sane lol.
Also not expecting a sale for AVZ to be announced prior to the DRC/RWANDA security deal being signed and ratified. Be nuts for Kobold or whoever to commit billions without US commitment locked in.
So, for me, it's now a two month minimum wait, at which point our negotiations can be finalised, automatically rendering ICSID redundant and discontinued.
Thus anytime from July onwards for a sale/TO, with money in the bank EOY.
Works for me, happy daze.
Though will the start date get pushed back due to the DRC challenge on jurisdiction?
Spikerama
Regular
Yeh you'd have to expect it . Chinese play book .
Obviously looking in from the outside and not knowing what’s actually going on…
I think for this reasons the Chinese might ironically be the reason AVZ shareholders get a decent return given the circumstances. Yes I know those corrupt mutts put us in this situation but I also think they’ll try to make USA pay and not get a freebie. Actually, I’d be absolutely gobsmacked if they (CATH specifically) have not already put in an offer greater than what KoBold have allegedly put forward.
Also I fully suspect that any TO will get huge financial support from respective governments whether Chinese or US. So while $10 billion is a huge amount for a single company to invest in one asset…. A 4 way JV propped up by significant Government seed funding makes things much easier to sell to shareholders but also to financiers and Governments.
Let’s just say I’ve been sleeping comfortably the past few months. 🫡
PutUsernameHere
Regular
I'm of a similar opinion, at the moment the conversation is circulating around being bought out entirely via the ISCID route, which is optimal in my opinion if a fair value or higher offer comes in. Everyone is assuming that going down the ISCID process will take years for the DRC to provide us with any compensation being awarded as DRC will drag their heels or ignore the verdict and stall paying anything, and discount anything they do pay us. But isn't the purpose of ICC & ISCID to confirm our legal title and seek compensation? I may have misunderstood at some point, but if no fair offer is made or verdict acted on, once we have confirmed legal title, what is stopping AVZ from continuing to proceed to mining ourselves?
Before this all got locked up, for years the "we're going mining" was the chant of the threads. A buyout has now become that chant because the preference for holders is to gtfo of the DRC with a profit (or a loss depending what value you're pedaling) and clean our hands of it. But with good legal title, what's stopping us from going back to plan A? Or at least start to develop it until a fair value sale is offered, which one would assume 'fair' would continue to rise the more the project is progressed... Would it just be a lack of DRC awarding an ML in which case the asset remains locked up for years to come? Does ICC/ISCID have the power to rule that DRC must issue an ML or can they only deal with financial compensation alone?
Just musings, I may be completely misunderstanding in the above,
Skar
Regular
Just trying to work back to your price, more learned people can chime in here where I am off.
3.5B shares on issue, so $1-2 is 3.5~7B price for 840 million tones @ 1.6% DSO or around 200 million tones of SC6... measured (plus all the excess projected they didn't drill once they had a commercial plan to enter production beyond 30+ years). So 200M SC6 at a current rate of around $800/t USD (historic peak of around $5000/t, with demand projected to exponentially compound from 2030 and beyond as we electrify the planet and move to solid state battery tech with longer ranges and duty cycles).
Even if we calculate at base rates for the above thats 160B USD rev, so operating costs of what? 1/3? Round down to 100B USD or 150B AUD, then development, financing, Africa, technology and what other risk considerations bring you down to 7B?
Similar threads
