looking forward to the next oneFor the record I am back on my meds and have resumed normal transmissions
Also for the record it felt fantastic and cathartic to get that out of the system
Each to their own hey pones...
The suspension is not about the arbitration, its about the surface rights and calculation.....here we go, from German newspaper View attachment 13373
For the record I am back on my meds and have resumed normal transmissions
Also for the record it felt fantastic and cathartic to get that out of the system
Each to their own hey pones...
Looks too big to be taken orally Frank
Remember......So Nigel and the board can employ lawyers to hold press conferences in Kinshasa where they outline AVZ's position in detail. As well as tweet about journalists visiting the Manono site, but they can't update ASX shareholders of these events through official announcements or do an interview (through lawyers if necessary) in English?
Pardon my French but that is merde de taureau
RDC/Mines: "AVZ n'a pas bradé ni pris en otage le projet d'étain et de lithium de Manono", Me Christian Lukusa (Droit de réponse).
À Election-net, nous sommes fiers de fournir des informations précises, opportunes et impartiales sur tous les événements en RDC et au-delàwww.election-net.com
View attachment 13358
The hold is up with CAMI not issuing the license according to AVZ's lawyers. They called for the personal involvement of President Tshisekedi three weeks ago at the press conference. It seems nothing will happen until he gets involved. We will be in suspension until he or someone else in the government decides to act. Hopefully they do so in our favour. Meanwhile we are very likely to be removed from the ASX200 and possibly the ASX300 for low liquidity over the last six months unless we trade again soon.
View attachment 13359
If this occurs then we could get every announcement we are waiting for with the BFS saying we will make billions a year and when we open the share price will likely go lower in the short term because funds are forced to sell.
I trust Nigel and the board will make the best decision for long term shareholder value. They have an obligation to and always have so far, but considering this suspension is taking far longer than they anticipated and the risk of being removed from the indices, they should be more transparent with shareholders imo
fuck well that's no good, if we end up losing to Zijin and Dathomir then its gonna slip right out as soon as its put in.L
Looks too big to be taken orally Frank
We should be ok ...you know what they say about Asian dicksfuck well that's no good, if we end up losing to Zijin and Dathomir then its gonna slip right out as soon as its put in.
Wino said he's on the mushies, so I can see why he's upset. He'll have realised the meaning of life and the secrets of the universe but still have no fucking idea what's going on at Manono!
" I never believed AVZ is staffed, experienced or capable to design , procure, construct and run the largest lithium mine and transport its product "I do believe a TO will eventually materialise, I never believed AVZ is staffed, experienced or capable to design, procure, construct and run the largest hard rock lithium mine and transport its product. But IMO the company will never be allowed to be sold wholly to a Chinese entity, it would not get through FIRB. One of large Australian miners or international consortium is more realistic. The Chinese challenges IMO all revolve around % ownership of Dathcom and the ML tenement split, not AVZ TO.
However TO will not happen until a number of things fall into place to have clarity on the value of AVZ:
1) Clarity on the ML - what is covered, is CDL included or not - how much of the asset is covered for exploitation and how much under exploration, and with who
2) Ownership - does AVZ own 51%, 66%, 75% of Dathcom or something else
3) BFS on 4.5 and 10MTpa - put it out there how much AVZ thinks the asset is worth
4) MEZ - commercial / Tax regime
5) Further Off-takes?
6) Further drilling to increase resource base?
IMO we definitely need items 1, 2 and 3 to negotiate a TO.
I have no idea which way this will go, but in your scenario Zinjin would also need to compensate AVZ for the opportunity cost of losing the 15% of project and its future income stream. That would be a sizable amount." I never believed AVZ is staffed, experienced or capable to design , procure, construct and run the largest lithium mine and transport its product "
Cant say i agree with you there, Nigel and staff have got us to the ML decree stage rather nicely despite many obstacles i am sure and have brought CATH / CATL on board to utilise their vast experience in developing mines......so bases covered as far as i am concerned.
Now i may get scorched with what i am about to say next, but if i took the emotion out and just looked at the business at hand here, if Zijin does have a claim on the snack 15%, they have a good track record of developing mines too, now obviously no one knows what goes on in the inner sanctum of AVZ / DRC negotiations, but could there be a possibility that AVZ retains 51% control, CATH 24 % , Zijin 15%, DRC 10%, with Zijin paying DRC the balance of what is owed plus a pro rata sum of money to AVZ for the development / expense already under taken ?
Dont get me wrong, i dont trust Zijin as far as i can kick the bastards and my preference is to seek the 66% if it can be achieved, but if its going to settle relations on both sides and progress construction / production , whilst foregoing the long tedious ICC route, then maybe thats an option.
IMO of course.
Correct me if i am wrong, but that extra 15% was never a given, it was to be negotiated.I have no idea which way this will go, but in your scenario Zinjin would also need to compensate AVZ for the opportunity cost of losing the 15% of project and its future income stream. That would be a sizable amount.
Cheers
F
Agree - You paint a totally feasible and practical way out of this mess and probably preferred over a TO to maximise value in the long run through to production. It also covers the required mine building and operating skills in remote areas which I do insists AVZ does not have." I never believed AVZ is staffed, experienced or capable to design , procure, construct and run the largest lithium mine and transport its product "
Cant say i agree with you there, Nigel and staff have got us to the ML decree stage rather nicely despite many obstacles i am sure and have brought CATH / CATL on board to utilise their vast experience in developing mines......so bases covered as far as i am concerned.
Now i may get scorched with what i am about to say next, but if i took the emotion out and just looked at the business at hand here, if Zijin does have a claim on the snack 15%, they have a good track record of developing mines too, now obviously no one knows what goes on in the inner sanctum of AVZ / DRC negotiations, but could there be a possibility that AVZ retains 51% control, CATH 24 % , Zijin 15%, DRC 10%, with Zijin paying DRC the balance of what is owed plus a pro rata sum of money to AVZ for the development / expense already under taken ?
Dont get me wrong, i dont trust Zijin as far as i can kick the bastards and my preference is to seek the 66% if it can be achieved, but if its going to settle relations on both sides and progress construction / production , whilst foregoing the long tedious ICC route, then maybe thats an option.
IMO of course.
" I never believed AVZ is staffed, experienced or capable to design , procure, construct and run the largest lithium mine and transport its product "
Cant say i agree with you there, Nigel and staff have got us to the ML decree stage rather nicely despite many obstacles i am sure and have brought CATH / CATL on board to utilise their vast experience in developing mines......so bases covered as far as i am concerned.
Now i may get scorched with what i am about to say next, but if i took the emotion out and just looked at the business at hand here, if Zijin does have a claim on the snack 15%, they have a good track record of developing mines too, now obviously no one knows what goes on in the inner sanctum of AVZ / DRC negotiations, but could there be a possibility that AVZ retains 51% control, CATH 24 % , Zijin 15%, DRC 10%, with Zijin paying DRC the balance of what is owed plus a pro rata sum of money to AVZ for the development / expense already under taken ?
Dont get me wrong, i dont trust Zijin as far as i can kick the bastards and my preference is to seek the 66% if it can be achieved, but if its going to settle relations on both sides and progress construction / production , whilst foregoing the long tedious ICC route, then maybe thats an option.
IMO of course
They're rare but they're not badlooking forward to the next one
Sure, but my understanding is that AVZ had first call on this 15%, and proposed US$100m against Zijin's US$33m (of which only the deposit was paid in June 2021 anyway). Based on my limited understanding of this complex issue it follows that AVZ should therefore be compensated for the opportunity cost of lost value and income.Re Correct me if i am wrong, but that extra 15% was never a given, it was to be negotiated.