AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
antimatter
Regular
Jens on X saying MB/the large shareholder sharing of info is dumb. 
BRICK
Where’s Zeebot 😶🌫️
Im..?. almost feeling sorry for him?Tolate is a complete tool isn't he?
It's almost unbelievable the drivel he recycles
Dont do it. It hurt my arsehole and I regretted.
MoneyBags1348
Top 20
Mate, don’t worry about Jens, hope he reads this…. He doesn’t have any idea of what he’s talking about. I’m am in constant communication with the large shareholder and other shareholders
Jens did not take part in the event, does not know the facts and spreading nonsense since. You can take that from me as fact
LOCKY82
Regular
I know he has avz interest at heart but he has messaged me saying to remove leos (leonards) name as now they know we know, along with some other request on my Twitter activity.
Sorry but if anyone thinks this absolute fucking losers aren't watching this thread like a hawk then you're only fooling yourself.
cruiser51
Top 20
You gotta use lube ffs!
Retrobyte
Hates a beer
That's rich coming from Jens, given some of the stuff he's posted this year
LOCKY82
Regular
Now hes posted a screenshot of mb's post (showing his username) on it it having a go at him on X!
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
Is that even English?
These fuckwits can barely write a syntactically correct sentence, yet they claim to be our saviours? The flyer is meant as a show of their acumen, but all they've done is show us they could barely tie their own shoe-laces.
Fucking numpties.
Last edited:
I thought it was cute how they got their kids to do the flyer....
"The Sole Arbitrator will determine a procedural timeline in the coming weeks at which time the Company will provide an update."
I have been trying to decipher this statement. To me it states that it will take a couple of weeks for the ICC to come up with a date a for another hearing at some point in the future? My head hurts to think it takes a few weeks to just come up with a future date.
I have been trying to decipher this statement. To me it states that it will take a couple of weeks for the ICC to come up with a date a for another hearing at some point in the future? My head hurts to think it takes a few weeks to just come up with a future date.
Pot calling the kettle……?
Hi all, just wanted to share some thoughts on the recent info regarding the MoU
Firstly - FFS BoD, did we really need this bullshit from Fat tail for you to give us that update? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was necessary or useful to keep us in the dark on this, but that benefit has been stretched pretty far over the past 2 years.
Ok whinge aside, why an MoU for a "pathway to the granting of the mining license" and not just a mining license?
IMO - They are discussing a bigger framework than just the mine. Few reasons I think this.
1. What other terms would they be negotiating on that would lead them to end arbitrations? They sure as hell aren't going to settle for making the project/ownership smaller after all of this.
2. Mining license is ultimately a rubber stamp. If it was just that, don't need an MoU to create a new 'pathway'. But if mining license becomes part of a bigger picture, then a statement to guide that process makes sense.
3. "The main purpose of the ICSID Arbitration Request is to seek various remedies for the failure of the DRC and its administrative departments, to comply with obligations under the DRC Mining Code" - So mining license is just getting us back to where we should have been 2 years ago. Then there is still the matter of "various remedies" for the damage we have suffered by having the DRC screw around for so long. That IMO is what is covered by the MoU. And I don't think it's going to end up being a financial remedy, I think there will be some sort of special arrangement for the bigger picture development of lithium in DRC. One that allows us to not have to fuk about with Cominiere.
So basically - how to get past issues with the mining license? Make it a smaller part of a much bigger picture.
Just my speculating. It could also just be the MoU sets out a pathway for "if we do x, you cancel arbitration y" - a formal statement from the parties involved that if DRC grants license, AVZ will withdraw ICSID arbitration. But again, that would basically be them blackmailing us to just do what they were supposed to do anyway, so IMO there's gotta be more to it than that.
Firstly - FFS BoD, did we really need this bullshit from Fat tail for you to give us that update? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was necessary or useful to keep us in the dark on this, but that benefit has been stretched pretty far over the past 2 years.
Ok whinge aside, why an MoU for a "pathway to the granting of the mining license" and not just a mining license?
IMO - They are discussing a bigger framework than just the mine. Few reasons I think this.
1. What other terms would they be negotiating on that would lead them to end arbitrations? They sure as hell aren't going to settle for making the project/ownership smaller after all of this.
2. Mining license is ultimately a rubber stamp. If it was just that, don't need an MoU to create a new 'pathway'. But if mining license becomes part of a bigger picture, then a statement to guide that process makes sense.
3. "The main purpose of the ICSID Arbitration Request is to seek various remedies for the failure of the DRC and its administrative departments, to comply with obligations under the DRC Mining Code" - So mining license is just getting us back to where we should have been 2 years ago. Then there is still the matter of "various remedies" for the damage we have suffered by having the DRC screw around for so long. That IMO is what is covered by the MoU. And I don't think it's going to end up being a financial remedy, I think there will be some sort of special arrangement for the bigger picture development of lithium in DRC. One that allows us to not have to fuk about with Cominiere.
So basically - how to get past issues with the mining license? Make it a smaller part of a much bigger picture.
Just my speculating. It could also just be the MoU sets out a pathway for "if we do x, you cancel arbitration y" - a formal statement from the parties involved that if DRC grants license, AVZ will withdraw ICSID arbitration. But again, that would basically be them blackmailing us to just do what they were supposed to do anyway, so IMO there's gotta be more to it than that.
Azzler
Top 20
The way I see it, the partners and arrangements that was Dathcom is unworkable with Cominiere. A ML can't be issued with the current arrangements.
So a new deal has had to be brokered for everyone to move forward, and this is basically this MoU.
Rumors and whispered of new partners months ago like CMOC, and even that other state mining org I cant think of right now.
New percentages, new handshakes and new alliances have had to be brokered and agreed upon, as well as all the fine details before something solid can be put forward to the DRC MoM and CAMI.
Once this is all agreed upon and signed, the ML should follow very swiftly.
But it does need a new framework, which is the MoU.
Dathcom JV is a thing of the past. IMHO (Until something new is signed in)
MoneyBags1348
Top 20
Now hes posted a screenshot of mb's post (showing his username) on it it having a go at him on X!
And now he’s posting this…. Can’t seem to make up his mind, the main thing is we are all fighting on the same side against the clandestine corruption and disinformation
Last edited:
MoneyBags1348
Top 20
Jens also didn’t mind using this information I posted 7 months ago and giving the credit to someone else
The thing is…. The most important thing to me is supporting Nigel and the current BOD because I’ve been invested in stocks for long enough to know what’s important for my investment
The thing is…. The most important thing to me is supporting Nigel and the current BOD because I’ve been invested in stocks for long enough to know what’s important for my investment
Last edited:
Otherwise we're going backwards. Oimo
Similar threads
