AVZ Discussion 2022

[RHyNO]

Rhyno,

I am not saying that Elon or Trump would get involved in our Management. My point is blocking the Chinese from stealing Manono is in both our interest and theirs.

Regards,

SilentOne

Yeah good one mate. I tend to agree. Be very interesting to see the impact of this situation. If only we could get our government to pay attention to the 20k Australian investors being ripped off by these jerks

 

[TLH]

We’ll receive Ann after 4:30pm today regarding AGM.
Hopefully we’ll get some positive news disclosed….no idea.

 

[Scoota30]

A good post by Capital King on the LTR thread:

Hi All,

I have pondered the question about how a Trump or Harris presidency would affect lithium stocks and to be honest the pathway forward looks good under both presidencies for different reasons.

There are a few distinct points that need to be considered separately:

• Traditional energy production as a utility to reduce inflation rather than opposition to clean renewables.
• EV Consumer Demand vs EV Mandates.
• EV arms race between America and China.

Traditional Energy Production:

It would be over-simplistic and a mistake to view Trump's preference for traditional energy production as anti-EV.

I view Trump's policies around production of US domestic traditional energy more as two-fold.

1. Trump views traditional energy production primarily as a utility to reduce inflationary pressures in the US economy (which will help cool inflation here too) as expensive energy costs are passed onto the end consumers for all products. This has nothing to do with EVs other than if energy costs drop, it becomes both cheaper to fill up at the pump for ICE and to charge an EV at the wall.
2. Secondly, a boost in US energy exports will help the US capitalise on additional revenue. Absolutely nothing to do with EVs.

I only state the above to clear misconceptions which I think would be easily and naturally concluded.

EV Consumer Demand VS EV Mandates:

Let it be very clear, neither Trump nor Vance have anything against EVs at all. If they did, they wouldn't have tremendous support from Elon Musk.

Their view on the EV market is more driven by consumer choices (opposed to mandates) and wanting to compete globally in the exports market, which I'll cover in the next section.

When Vance had been asked about honouring the $500 million General Motors is receiving from a Biden policy to convert the Lansing Grand River Assembly plant from making internal combustion engine cars (ICE) to producing electric vehicles (EV), JD Vance said:

• The Democratic presidential nominee (Harris), is "offering table scraps" - I believe the Republican's might offer more.
• “So neither me nor President Trump has ever said that we want to take any money that’s going to Michigan auto workers out of the state of Michigan”
• “We certainly want to invest in Michigan auto workers as much as possible."

If you consider that EVs are the future and consumer demand is already increasing GLOBALLY, and the US want to tap into the global export markets too, its a no brainer that Trump will want to see America lead this through natural consumer demand. With Elon Musk to be leading the Department of Government Efficiencies, he is probably going to want to cut red tape to make the production of EVs in America on a much larger scale. This will also extend to the manufacturing of battery cells within America instead of China which is a Republican concern.

You also need to consider that if the US wants to compete in global exports of vehicles, they will need to produce more EVs as this is expectation in other economies such as the growing EU markets. The momentum behind EVs is simply too strong to stop. Globally, automakers and governments are committed to the transition to electric, with investments and policy incentives set years in advance. Major automakers have already shifted their production lines to EVs. Regardless of short-term policy changes, the market demand for EVs will continue to drive lithium demand forward.

Here is a short clip from Vance explaining that they are not against EVs.


The EV arms race between America and China:

As I have previously alluded to, Trump wants America to be at the forefront of vehicle manufacturing including EVs if that is where consumer demand is (which it is). Don't let rhetoric fool you, Trump, Vance, and Elon are well aware that the future is electric and will be doing everything they can to ensure America wins the EV arms race.

There is no way they will allow China to out compete the US in this regard... It's more likely that with the help of Elon, they will seek to produce more EVs than China if thats what it takes to compete globally and protect Detroit / Michigan.

We must also consider the need for maturation of the lithium and EV market. If Trump wants to "bring back manufacturing" to Detroit and Michigan by boosting production in the US, which is driven by consumer trends continually favouring EVs, this will be an important and crucial step in the lithium markets maturing and curbing China's dominance in this space. As much as China has contributed so far to EV production, the market needs increased competition from EV manufacturing in the US to loosen China's grip here. We have seen how China can manipulate the price of lithium if they remain the largest player in the production market.

Under Harris, I'm not sure if EV manufacturing would be the same in the US, it's more likely that American's would be driving more foreign (Chinese) imported EVs as opposed to American made EVs than compared to under Trump. Ultimately, the high consumer demand will set the course and it's clear that lithium demand will also continue to be high, and it's better that lithium is purchased by the US than by China where pricing is not transparent and prone to manipulation.

From a US nationalist perspective, Trump would prefer to source lithium from within the US, but as we know the global demand for lithium is projected to increase drastically and the US will need to continue to source from allied nations such as Australia. Not all lithium is equal, and our lithium will always be in demand. There is a good reason why Liontown Resource has chosen to partner with Ford and Tesla for lithium supply from the beginning.

It's not clear how it exactly plays out, but the overall trajectory is positive in my opinion. I think it's not a straight-forward topic and the markets will take time to realise this.

Kind regards,
CK

Great and accurate take a lot of people are quick to jump on Trump and his team for the supposed bad things but his nationalistic view and vision is quite profound IMO. Having control of the house, senate and winning the popular vote is a clear mandate from the American people to move ahead with all of his plans while allowing the Republican party to make changes with less pushback compared to if it was a neck and neck race.

The Biden-Harris IRS and subsidies is IMO the worse option out of the two and free market capitalism is the better option, consumer demand produces more efficient economies and better products rather than using taxpayer money for subsidies. Think about it, its the government taking your money and making decisions on where to spend it rather than the consumers deciding what is best themselves?

People also are quick to judge Elon as well but he has proven time and time again that nobody should bet against him, the entire team that Trump is currently building could be a once in a generational administration that could completely dismantle corporate & elite power across the entire board putting power back into the hands of the people and having an efficient government spending system...... The rest of the west has a lot to learn with regards to what's about to happen and hopefully follow suit if it is successful, which leads me into the final part....

Wih regards to lithium/AVZ I agree that this will positively impact the entire western critical supply chain as Trump's foreign policy is peace through strength. He will do what he can to maintain the lead against China and Russia by being stronger and keeping them in check diplomatically and that involves being less reliant on China and BUILDING DOMESTICALLY IN AMERICA again.

All IMO and maybe I am too optimistic but I believe this will positively impact the entire west as we enter a more prosperous age, Australia should also re-start domestic production and building instead of primarily being an export country.

 

[Mute22]

911 days since going into suspension

 

[Hudnut]

I've just done my AGM voting online.

 

[ptlas]

I've just done my AGM voting online.

View attachment 72505

Just saw the email.
So this venue is tightening our belt.
I wonder if there will be screaming toddlers in the next room.
I won't be there to find out.

 

[Mute22]

Set and forget ladies and gentlemen.

 

[BRICK]

Question:

Who is besties with Donald Trump (Elon Musk)
Who builds electric cars (Elon Musk)
Who needs lithium (Elon Musk)
Who doesnt want China controlling the Lithium Market (Elon Musk/Donald Trump)

I suspect/guess that Elon is all over Manono (speculation)

SilentOne - Do Your Own Research

Good point better get onto him on X!

 

[Hodlandwin69]

So.... Where's the vote on the remuneration report and all that??

 

[Mr_Tones83]

So.... Where's the vote on the remuneration report and all that??

Remuneration report vote is only required for public LISTED companies

 

[RHyNO]

Announcements page is down, Nigel needed to get himself Uber eats so stopped paying the kid who builds the website

 

[Mr_Tones83]

ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulation 16(2)(b) specifies that, in the event of non-payment by a party in arbitration proceedings, the Secretary-General may request the other party to make an advance payment on behalf of the non-paying party.

ICSID does not typically publicize the identity of a non-paying party in its arbitration proceedings. Payment details and financial responsibilities are treated as confidential under ICSID regulations unless disclosed by the involved parties themselves or released in the award or procedural orders. ICSID maintains confidentiality to protect the privacy of the arbitration process.

Also an update on procedural orders re: production of documents.

If fees remain unpaid after an ICSID case is suspended for non-payment, the proceedings may be permanently discontinued. ICSID allows for temporary suspension initially, giving parties time to fulfill their financial obligations. However, if payments are still not made after this period, the tribunal may issue an order for discontinuance. This effectively ends the arbitration process, and no further rulings or awards are issued on the dispute.
The non-paying party could face reputational damage, as well as limitations in pursuing future ICSID claims.

Cases at ICSID occasionally end due to non-payment, but this is relatively rare.

 

[JohnJoyce]

Mmmmm. Potential end to ICSID, non payment from I'm assuming the dogs?

 

[Flight996]

Re: ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulation 16(2)(b) specifies that, in the event of non-payment by a party in arbitration proceedings, the Secretary-General may request the other party to make an advance payment on behalf of the non-paying party.

Who makes this shit up, and who the actual fuck thinks it will fly?

Honestly, can anyone see Jan and Ben signing a company cheque covering the DRC's arbitral fees, and maybe while in the mood paying the daily penalties too...just another $AU100 million.

I need ice in my scotch.

Cheers
F

 

[KLCC]

Surely that can’t be the system.

If you’re guilty… just don’t pay! Problem solved apparently?

Or am completely misinterpreting?

 

[Dazmac66]

So the whole ICSID glacier can just melt away because of non payment? What's about the millions spent on legal fees to this point? As if the Chinese or DRC crooks give a flying fuck about reputational damage! What now?
Are they thinking arbitration is no longer necessary due to some kind of pending outcome? It's a 1000000:1 shot I know!
Have a good Friday everyone!!

 

[Roon]

Remuneration report vote is only required for public LISTED companies

Really? Well maybe that's one reason management were fine with the de-listing, avoiding the likely board spill that would've occurred after the next renumeration report had 25% or more of a no vote. Sneaky but effective perhaps.

 

[Dazmac66]

Re: ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulation 16(2)(b) specifies that, in the event of non-payment by a party in arbitration proceedings, the Secretary-General may request the other party to make an advance payment on behalf of the non-paying party.

Who makes this shit up, and who the actual fuck thinks it will fly?

Honestly, can anyone see Jan and Ben signing a company cheque covering the DRC's arbitral fees, and maybe while in the mood paying the daily penalties too...just another $AU100 million.

I need ice in my scotch.

Cheers
F

That would allow the secretary general to continue to receive his $1.5 million usd salary.

 

[Mr_Tones83]

I would say it's DRC non-payment rather than from AVZ. Further delay tactics? China/Zijin unable to get funds to DRC to cover their bill? Cominiere and cronies would likely be all over X laughing if it were AVZ non-payment.

I'd assume litigation funding will cover advance payments to keep the case going, as we want a ruling against DRC, not just proof that they're broke (we already know that rampant corruption is the reason the country is broke).

Hopefully further pressure to come to the party and get a deal done.

 

[Schnitzelfresser]

I'm curious whether geo's hint is related to this or whether it is invalid again.

it looks like another stalling tactic of the drc heist crew...incredible.