Carlos Danger
Top 20
AVZI holds 75% of Dathcom. 60% of which is irrevocable as confirmed by the IGF report.
Last edited:
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Lol, this shit show is fucking my mind, i was writing those previous posts with the assumption that AVZ / DATHCOM had inked a deal with CATH, but of course they havnt, so AVZ DATHCOM at this stage has 60%...... control not a issue for ML as you rightly state.
So just a matter of Cath happy to come to terms for 9% in the interim............or we find a alternative JV ( possibly US.....my preference all along )
Sorry, my bad.................
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
Perhaps it was my use of the word “we” that caused the confusion. It‘s all good - we are in violent agreement.
Carlos Danger
Top 20
Yeah it is confusing. I studied accounting and finance so have a bit of an advantage with this stuff.
You keep referring to AVZ / Dathcom which is where you may be getting mixed up
Just in case anyone isn't clear about the ownership structure it currently stands at:
AVZ shareholders own AVZ
AVZ owns 100% of a subsidiary called AVZI
AVZI owns 75% of a joint venture called Dathcom
Dathcom is the applicant for the mining licence
Hi Beisha
The only issue I see in the 9% scenario is that of sufficient funding to build the mine and its infrastructure. The ML is dependent on a number of pre-conditions, including evidence of sufficient operating funds.
If CATH agreed to 9%, rather than 24% CAPEX funding then AVZ receives 15% less cash for CAPEX. There needs to be a top-up from somewhere.
I can only guess that AVZ could get another equity funder, or maybe consider another bargain basement CR (and again leave its retail shareholders with little but dilution). That would be as welcome as Mr Putin at a Ukranian wedding.
Cheers
F
Yes , agree.
If i remember , other posters mentioned CATH could possibly pay a "pre - payment " for goods rendered ?
CR is definitely another option as you mentioned, but more dilution.
What about bank finance ?
imo
Carlos Danger
Top 20
Finance in Dathcom's name most likely. With whoever ends up with the 'disputed' percentage obligated to assume the debt / pay it off. AVZ can act as the guarantor as we control Dathcom and are most likely to end up with the 15% from Dathomir before then selling it to CATL.
I assume something like this is already in place for the 15% from Cominiere which AVZ has so far never owned. Doing it this way would come with a premium but the project's numbers make it easily doable imo
Last edited:
Hi Carlos
I am unsure about Dathcon or AVZ getting debt financing over a tenement that remains in dispute, despite its compelling economics and quality of its resource base. You know what international bankers are like. They need you to prove your project don't need finance in order to get finance...and then they screw you over.
I still think a CR remains a viable option, providing there is a SPP attached. If the board thinks it can screw over its retail shareholders yet again, it will have significantly underestimated the level of disquiet over its performance.
Cheers
F
Carlos Danger
Top 20
I'm sure management will pick the best funding option available to them
John25
Regular
The Fox
Regular
Bar one occasion when an actual date was provided (many here will remember Bill Murray), the feedback has always been the same when stating a timeline to ML/PE, and includes the words....."It should be X" or "we expect X" and in this case we expect to get the ML/PE in the first two weeks etc.
Appreciate having a crack at management disappoints some, obviously I can see the battles they have to fight. However, like many I've been trying to plan my finances and commitments around a big chunk of change being taken out of my control. If the messaging around the timeline to ML was provided differently rather than statements made like "it should be through in the next week", "or two weeks" or "even providing a date" I could have navigated last year a little better.
Maybe it's not necessarily different messaging, it's probably the same messaging that's provided to the market, and better to not provide any specific dates or anticipated timelines for ML to be fully granted to certain connections. The old one or two weeks away, (which has happened a dozen times) has been so fuck'en annoying.
With the benefit of hindsight, I would have preferred AVZ tell us all the shit they have to sort through, (we'll as much info as possible without compromising the position of AVZ) and we will decide for ourselves how long it will likely take to sort out, rather then being given false hope almost every bloody month almost and trying to plan around timelines that never come to fruition.
I'm not spitting the dummy, it is what it is, however having connections and getting so called intel has been of no help in the case of AVZ, in fact one could argue it has made matters considerable worse for me and no doubt others. @BEISHA That is the target and point behind aiming my arrow at management. Whether management have done a good job navigating the DRC environment and fighting the battles is yet to unfold of course.
Apologies @Stockinvesting I am unable to provide or weigh the level of confidence mate, as I said somewhere, surly he has got to get the timeline right once out of so many attempts thus far. I just gotsta know as well !!!
Cheers The Fox
Carlos Danger
Top 20
I'm low key worried that we will end up with Hunter Biden on the AVZ board to pay the yanks back for sorting out the jackals. He does have experience with brokering mining deals in the DRC. At least the AGM after parties will be lit as fuck.
How Hunter Biden’s Firm Helped Secure Cobalt for the Chinese (Published 2021)
The president’s son was part owner of a venture involved in the $3.8 billion purchase by a Chinese conglomerate of one of the world’s largest cobalt deposits. The metal is a key ingredient in batteries for electric vehicles.
An investment firm where Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was a founding board member helped facilitate a Chinese company’s purchase from an American company of one of the world’s richest cobalt mines, located in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Mr. Biden and two other Americans joined Chinese partners in establishing the firm in 2013, known as BHR and formally named Bohai Harvest RST (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company.
The three Americans, all of whom served on the board, controlled 30 percent of BHR, a private equity firm registered in Shanghai that makes investments and then flips them for a profit. The rest of the company is owned or controlled by Chinese investors that include the Bank of China, according to records filed with Chinese regulators.
One of BHR’s early deals was to help finance an Australian coal-mining company controlled by a Chinese state-owned firm. It also assisted a subsidiary of a Chinese defense conglomerate in buying a Michigan auto parts maker.
The firm made one of its most successful investments in 2016, when it bought and later sold a stake in CATL, a fast-growing Chinese company that is now the world’s biggest maker of batteries for electric vehicles.
The mining deal in Congo also came in 2016, when the Chinese mining outfit China Molybdenum announced that it was paying $2.65 billion to buy Tenke Fungurume, a cobalt and copper mine, from the American company Freeport-McMoRan.
As part of that deal, China Molybdenum sought a partner to buy out a minority stakeholder in the mine, Lundin Mining of Canada. That is when BHR became involved.
Records in Hong Kong show that the $1.14 billion BHR, through subsidiaries, paid to buy out Lundin came entirely from Chinese state-backed companies.
China Molybdenum lined up about $700 million of that total as loans from Chinese state-backed banks, including China Construction Bank. BHR raised the remaining amount from obscure entities with names like Design Time Limited, an offshore company controlled by China Construction’s investment bank, according to the Hong Kong filings.
Before the deal was done, BHR also signed an agreement that allowed China Molybdenum to buy BHR’s share of the mine, which the company did two years later, the filings show. That purchase gave China Molybdenum 80 percent ownership of the mine. (Congo’s state mining enterprise kept a stake for itself.)
By the time BHR sold its share in 2019, Mr. Biden controlled 10 percent of the firm through Skaneateles L.L.C., a company based in Washington. While Chinese corporate records show Skaneateles remains a part owner of BHR, Chris Clark, a lawyer for Mr. Biden, said that he “no longer holds any interest, directly or indirectly, in either BHR or Skaneateles.” The Chinese records show that Mr. Biden was no longer on BHR’s board as of April 2020. Mr. Biden did not respond to requests for comment.
Mate any Intel is much appreciated. CheersBar one occasion when an actual date was provided (many here will remember Bill Murray), the feedback has always been the same when stating a timeline to ML/PE, and includes the words....."It should be X" or "we expect X" and in this case we expect to get the ML/PE in the first two weeks etc.
Appreciate having a crack at management disappoints some, obviously I can see the battles they have to fight. However, like many I've been trying to plan my finances and commitments around a big chunk of change being taken out of my control. If the messaging around the timeline to ML was provided differently rather than statements made like "it should be through in the next week", "or two weeks" or "even providing a date" I could have navigated last year a little better.
Maybe it's not necessarily different messaging, it's probably the same messaging that's provided to the market, and better to not provide any specific dates or anticipated timelines for ML to be fully granted to certain connections. The old one or two weeks away, (which has happened a dozen times) has been so fuck'en annoying.
With the benefit of hindsight, I would have preferred AVZ tell us all the shit they have to sort through, (we'll as much info as possible without compromising the position of AVZ) and we will decide for ourselves how long it will likely take to sort out, rather then being given false hope almost every bloody month almost and trying to plan around timelines that never come to fruition.
I'm not spitting the dummy, it is what it is, however having connections and getting so called intel has been of no help in the case of AVZ, in fact one could argue it has made matters considerable worse for me and no doubt others. @BEISHA That is the target and point behind aiming my arrow at management. Whether management have done a good job navigating the DRC environment and fighting the battles is yet to unfold of course.
Apologies @Stockinvesting I am unable to provide or weigh the level of confidence mate, as I said somewhere, surly he has got to get the timeline right once out of so many attempts thus far. I just gotsta know as well !!!
Cheers The Fox
Absolutely fair call mate..........Bar one occasion when an actual date was provided (many here will remember Bill Murray), the feedback has always been the same when stating a timeline to ML/PE, and includes the words....."It should be X" or "we expect X" and in this case we expect to get the ML/PE in the first two weeks etc.
Appreciate having a crack at management disappoints some, obviously I can see the battles they have to fight. However, like many I've been trying to plan my finances and commitments around a big chunk of change being taken out of my control. If the messaging around the timeline to ML was provided differently rather than statements made like "it should be through in the next week", "or two weeks" or "even providing a date" I could have navigated last year a little better.
Maybe it's not necessarily different messaging, it's probably the same messaging that's provided to the market, and better to not provide any specific dates or anticipated timelines for ML to be fully granted to certain connections. The old one or two weeks away, (which has happened a dozen times) has been so fuck'en annoying.
With the benefit of hindsight, I would have preferred AVZ tell us all the shit they have to sort through, (we'll as much info as possible without compromising the position of AVZ) and we will decide for ourselves how long it will likely take to sort out, rather then being given false hope almost every bloody month almost and trying to plan around timelines that never come to fruition.
I'm not spitting the dummy, it is what it is, however having connections and getting so called intel has been of no help in the case of AVZ, in fact one could argue it has made matters considerable worse for me and no doubt others. @BEISHA That is the target and point behind aiming my arrow at management. Whether management have done a good job navigating the DRC environment and fighting the battles is yet to unfold of course.
Apologies @Stockinvesting I am unable to provide or weigh the level of confidence mate, as I said somewhere, surly he has got to get the timeline right once out of so many attempts thus far. I just gotsta know as well !!!
Cheers The Fox
Stockinvesting
Regular
Bar one occasion when an actual date was provided (many here will remember Bill Murray), the feedback has always been the same when stating a timeline to ML/PE, and includes the words....."It should be X" or "we expect X" and in this case we expect to get the ML/PE in the first two weeks etc.
Appreciate having a crack at management disappoints some, obviously I can see the battles they have to fight. However, like many I've been trying to plan my finances and commitments around a big chunk of change being taken out of my control. If the messaging around the timeline to ML was provided differently rather than statements made like "it should be through in the next week", "or two weeks" or "even providing a date" I could have navigated last year a little better.
Maybe it's not necessarily different messaging, it's probably the same messaging that's provided to the market, and better to not provide any specific dates or anticipated timelines for ML to be fully granted to certain connections. The old one or two weeks away, (which has happened a dozen times) has been so fuck'en annoying.
With the benefit of hindsight, I would have preferred AVZ tell us all the shit they have to sort through, (we'll as much info as possible without compromising the position of AVZ) and we will decide for ourselves how long it will likely take to sort out, rather then being given false hope almost every bloody month almost and trying to plan around timelines that never come to fruition.
I'm not spitting the dummy, it is what it is, however having connections and getting so called intel has been of no help in the case of AVZ, in fact one could argue it has made matters considerable worse for me and no doubt others. @BEISHA That is the target and point behind aiming my arrow at management. Whether management have done a good job navigating the DRC environment and fighting the battles is yet to unfold of course.
Apologies @Stockinvesting I am unable to provide or weigh the level of confidence mate, as I said somewhere, surly he has got to get the timeline right once out of so many attempts thus far. I just gotsta know as well !!!
Cheers The Fox
Stockinvesting
Regular
Thanks so much for taking the time to get back to me Fox.Absolutely fair call mate..........
Very much appreciated.
Similar threads
