A very comprehensive reply to my queries Carlos......many thanks for putting that together.Here is a copy of the mining code:
So another question, was it unrealistic for AVZ to be seeking PE over the entire tenement, given the fact CDL is very much a PR project , with only a few holes poked in the south ?
No. The mining code doesn't specify that work needs to be carried out across the whole tenement to apply for a PE. The applicant holding the PR only needs to prove the resource is economical to mine in regards to drilling requirements. AVZ received the favourable opinions for the full 221 carrés. CAMI's approval was signed off by Mupande.
View attachment 30282
View attachment 30283
View attachment 30284
View attachment 30285
How could the initial ML decree include the south of CDL , but not the north ?
Because that's where the declaration submitted by Dathcom cut it off. From memory it was on the line of our most northern drill holes.
Where in DRC mining law does it state that could happen ?
Article 60. As long as the applicant submits a declaration of partial renunciation.
View attachment 30286
View attachment 30287
Was it due to the fact that no exploration was done there or was it indeed a partial waiver ?
From the AGM:
Q: Issue that a portion of mines directorate said we hadn’t done the work on the northern tenement area, and shouldn’t get the north?
A: That’s not within the mining code. So 13359 should be retained in its entirety – however the northern area may need to come under a separate exploration tenement, even though that’s not the established process. – We know who’s behind this (e.g. DG CAMI)
Docs suggest it was a partial waiver..........why would AVZ do that with no assay evidence that it had high mica content ?
Because management were tricked into believing that's what Felix wanted and were obviously given guarantees that Dathcom would retain the north as a PR in a JV with the DRC government. Hopefully they have something substantial to back up their claims in the May 4th 2022 announcement.
Does AVZ require share holder approval to instigate a partial waiver ?
Not if management understood at the time that Dathcom would still retain the north as a PR. And have evidence to back those claims.
AVZ lawyers are highly paid to navigate thru all this shit, how did they get hood winked to accept the intial ML decree without noticing the north of CDL cut off ?
They obviously also believed Mupande that this is what Felix wanted
Do they have good knowledge of DRC mining law ?
Overall I would say yes. Christian Lukusa is very impressive in that interview in September. At the end of the day it would have been management's decision whether to proceed with submitting the partial renunciation application.
How did FT get the impression from his crooked cabinet ministers that AVZ were not worthy / credible in being awarded a ML ?
Snacks
Why wasnt FT following the docs and progress of Manono in the first place ?
All of the advisors that were implicated by management as being the main detractors to AVZ are now gone. The final proof of how closely Felix has been following the docs and progress of Manono will be in the reshuffle imo
I am sure all of this has been discussed many times before, but sometimes the facts get hazy when corruption shit is the main topic of conversation , day in, day out.
Really hoping that the positive war drums that i am reading of late towards AVZ, results in a positive resolution soon.
I wouldnt want to be in Nigels & the bods position if a ML hasnt come to pass before the next AGM......
I for one will be there again, hounding for " facts " about the PARTIAL WAIVER clause, Nigels shares in AJN and non disclosure regards to " spurious in nature " topics which have led us down the garden path.
imo