Try some metal lures in the surf for some salmon. We are lucky to live in tas.
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
MoneyBags1348
Top 20
Fantastic post mate
Manono would not be exploited for its lithium if it falls into rebel control. It’s the tin (which they have been exporting illegally from some DRC mines already) that would be mined and sold. It’s not like tin requires complex machinery to get access to.
Xerof
Have a Cigar 1975
Azzler
Top 20
@Remark Grok is quite amazing, I just realised it's free now so I thought I'd give it a task.
I asked Grok to give me it's best guess on what will be the outcome for AVZ Investors.
Based on the available information, my best guess for the most likely outcome for AVZ Minerals and its investors regarding the Manono lithium project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a negotiated settlement. In this scenario, AVZ would likely retain some value from the project—possibly a reduced stake or financial compensation—but it would be less than what the company and its investors originally anticipated. Below, I’ll explain why this outcome seems most probable and outline the key factors driving this conclusion.
Why a Negotiated Settlement?
The situation is a tangled mess of legal disputes, political instability, and competing interests, making a clear-cut victory or loss for AVZ unlikely. A negotiated settlement balances the DRC’s need to maintain some credibility with foreign investors while addressing pressures from other players, like Zijin Mining, and the country’s own economic priorities. Here’s the reasoning:
1. Legal Leverage, But Uncertain Enforcement
Other Possible Outcomes
While a negotiated settlement feels most likely, other scenarios are worth mentioning:
What Does This Mean for Investors?
If a negotiated settlement happens, AVZ investors might see some return, but it won’t be the jackpot they hoped for when the Manono project—a massive lithium deposit—first caught attention. Think of it as a partial win: maybe a smaller share of the project or a payout to walk away. The exact details would depend on how the talks shake out, but the days of AVZ owning the whole prize seem long gone.
Final Guess
Given the legal back-and-forth, the DRC’s balancing act between investment appeal and local pressures, and the presence of Zijin Mining, a negotiated settlement stands out as the most likely outcome. It’s not a sure thing—nothing is in this mess—but it’s the scenario that best fits the current puzzle pieces. Investors should brace for a compromise that keeps AVZ in the game, just with a smaller slice than they’d planned on.
I asked Grok to give me it's best guess on what will be the outcome for AVZ Investors.
Based on the available information, my best guess for the most likely outcome for AVZ Minerals and its investors regarding the Manono lithium project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a negotiated settlement. In this scenario, AVZ would likely retain some value from the project—possibly a reduced stake or financial compensation—but it would be less than what the company and its investors originally anticipated. Below, I’ll explain why this outcome seems most probable and outline the key factors driving this conclusion.
Why a Negotiated Settlement?
The situation is a tangled mess of legal disputes, political instability, and competing interests, making a clear-cut victory or loss for AVZ unlikely. A negotiated settlement balances the DRC’s need to maintain some credibility with foreign investors while addressing pressures from other players, like Zijin Mining, and the country’s own economic priorities. Here’s the reasoning:
1. Legal Leverage, But Uncertain Enforcement
- AVZ has taken its case to international arbitration through the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). They’ve scored some interim wins, like court orders stopping the DRC’s state-owned company, Cominière, from further actions on the project.
- These legal efforts give AVZ a strong bargaining chip. However, arbitration can drag on for years, and even if AVZ wins, enforcing a ruling in the DRC—where the rule of law is shaky—could be a challenge. This uncertainty makes a settlement more practical than holding out for a total legal victory.
- The DRC is known for corruption and instability, which could sway the government to favor short-term gains or political allies over legal commitments. For instance, the government has already allowed Zijin Mining, a Chinese company, to develop part of the Manono project, hinting at possible geopolitical or economic favoritism.
- At the same time, the DRC wants to attract foreign investment. Completely kicking AVZ out could scare off other companies, damaging the country’s reputation. A compromise where AVZ keeps some skin in the game could be a way to split the difference.
- Zijin Mining’s involvement is a big hurdle. The DRC’s decision to greenlight Zijin suggests they’re a favored partner, possibly due to China’s growing influence in the region. AVZ claims Cominière tried to sell a stake to Zijin without their consent, which is a key issue in the legal fight.
- Rather than picking one winner, the DRC might push for a deal where both AVZ and Zijin end up with pieces of the pie, diluting AVZ’s original expectations.
- AVZ isn’t just fighting the DRC—they’ve got problems at home too. Shareholders have tried to oust the board, which could weaken the company’s ability to stay focused and aggressive in negotiations or court. This internal chaos might make AVZ more willing to settle rather than risk a prolonged battle.
Other Possible Outcomes
While a negotiated settlement feels most likely, other scenarios are worth mentioning:
- Full Legal Win for AVZ: If AVZ sweeps the arbitration cases, they could reclaim control of the project or win hefty compensation. But enforcing that in the DRC could be a nightmare, so this feels less probable.
- Total Loss: The DRC could fully nationalize the project or hand it over to Zijin, leaving AVZ with nothing. This is possible but riskier for the DRC’s image, so it’s not the top bet.
What Does This Mean for Investors?
If a negotiated settlement happens, AVZ investors might see some return, but it won’t be the jackpot they hoped for when the Manono project—a massive lithium deposit—first caught attention. Think of it as a partial win: maybe a smaller share of the project or a payout to walk away. The exact details would depend on how the talks shake out, but the days of AVZ owning the whole prize seem long gone.
Final Guess
Given the legal back-and-forth, the DRC’s balancing act between investment appeal and local pressures, and the presence of Zijin Mining, a negotiated settlement stands out as the most likely outcome. It’s not a sure thing—nothing is in this mess—but it’s the scenario that best fits the current puzzle pieces. Investors should brace for a compromise that keeps AVZ in the game, just with a smaller slice than they’d planned on.
Current tin price US$ 32.75 per kg.
RD average tin content 850 ppm which is .85 kg tin/ 1000 kg of ore, which is less than US$ 28 / ton of ore.
After processing 100 ton of ore and smelting the final product they will have about 85 kg of tin, or about US$ 2,800
When processing lithium ore into SC6 tin is a nice little earner, but I don't think somehow M23 will do a dash to Manono to get their hands at all this tin.
Current gold price US$ 94,500.00 /kg
June can't come quick enough......
Mouthpiecenomnom
Regular
Trump gave DRC to China on a platter. USA lost all soft power and influence in the country this week. Fucking idiot.
yeah I get the feeling trump is ready to partner with putin and xi, and then fuck everyone else over. So not sure how this ends for drc and avz. I suppose my uneducated hope is that trump wants the minerals in the drc, in the same way he wants them in Ukraine. So maybe he says to drc gives us minerals or I'm going to fuck you over. if that happens then maybe there is a way forward for avz to get something out of this.
Bin59
Regular
x.com
x.com
The Fight For Strategic Metals
By
Michael Rubin
Published
January 19, 2025
President of the United States Donald Trump speaking with attendees at the 2019 Student Action Summit hosted by Turning Point USA at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. Image by Gage Skidmore.
Trump Must Back Australian Miners Against Chinese Strategic Metal Predation:
President-elect Donald Trump approaches his second term much differently than his first.
No longer is his goal disruption, both the Republican party and the U.S. bureaucracy more broadly. Whereas Trump achieved victories by getting NATO members to pony up their dues and achieving the Abraham Accords breakthrough, his greatest legacy might have been achieving bipartisan recognition that China was less a peer competitor whose cooperation might moderate and more a threat to the rules-based order.
Whereas the Supreme Court debates TikTok and China’s ambitions to conquer Taiwan if not other Pacific islands, strategic minerals fuels China’s drive. Here, the Democratic Republic of Congo is ground zero. If it were not for Congo’s endemic corruption, it could be the Qatar of Africa: Geologists and economists estimate that Congo’s mineral wealth could top $24 trillion. The country is the world’s leading producer of cobalt, a metal necessary to produce the batteries upon which most 21st century electronic depend and is also one of the world’s leading producers of copper. Add into the mix: uranium, gold, Germanium, lithium, diamonds, nickel, tantalum, and tin, crude oil, and coffee.
While U.S. companies are late to the game in Congo and have missed opportunities through their own passivity to expand their presence in the market, companies from U.S. allies like Australia have been fighting for the 21st century on the frontlines in Africa.
The Australian mining sector is huge. The skyscrapers of Perth shine with mining wealth, and the sector dominates West Australia’s economy and contributes to the country’s broader economy. Because China was one of the Australian mining largest markets, Australian politicians like former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd long frustrated their American counterparts with their permissiveness toward China.
Canberra, like Washington, may have been slow to gauge Beijing’s threat correctly, but many Australians have now learned the lesson. As China seeks to bribe and coerce Congo through illicit means to push Australian firms out of Congo’s mining sector, the Trump administration must defend Australia’s interests both diplomatically and with economic sanctions on Chinese firms. The logic of the Lobito corridor is to direct African trade westward into the Atlantic basin in order to better orient African trade away from China.
China, however, is fighting dirty to hamper Australian mining in Africa. Consider the case of AVZ Minerals, an Australian firm seeking to extract lithium and tin from Manono in southern Congo. Exploratory digging shows the lithium deposits in the region are huge.
Colloquially, AVZ hit the motherlode.
But Congolese corruption, abetted by the People’s Republic of China, seek to deny them their contractual right. AVZ now has International Court of Arbitration cases pending before involving La Congolaise d’Exploitation Minière, Jin Cheng Mining Company, and Dathomir Mining Resources SARLU, and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes against the Democratic Republic of Congo itself.
While AVZ does not seek to marginalize China entirely—economically it makes no sense for them to do so—they seek balance between East and West. China, however, rejects balance in favor of its own maximalist approach. It has corrupted at least 13 Congolese media outlets. Ten of millions of dollars held in escrow disappeared, a theft in which Chinese officials appear complicit. The Congolese government proceeded to arrest journalists pursuing the story. A March 2022 forensic investigation based on AVZ and Congolese documents showed hard evidence of Chinese bribery. Chinese mining interests fund “non-governmental organizations” whose sole purpose appears to be to undermine Australia’s interest. Congolese public companies also sold shares to Chinese firms at fire sale prices in contravention of the law in a scheme to quadruple personal profits for Congolese officials up to and including the prime minister.
Zijin and the Congolese government’s strategy appears to be economic attrition, to steal and filibuster until AVZ has no choice but to suspend operations and give up. Zijin’s latest strategy appears to be to stop paying arbitration costs in the hope the court ceases its work.
AVZ is just one case among many that exposes how Chinese interests leverage Congo’s corruption to try to corner the market in strategic metals. The nature of the U.S. intelligence, national security, and diplomatic bureaucracy is compartmentalized. Analysts spent their careers focused on the weeds, never getting to the trees let alone spotting the forest.
While the National Security Council is supposed to coordinate, it seldom effectively pieces together disparate problems, especially when they span bureaucracies let alone continents.
Rather than just chalk up AVZ’s difficulties extracting lithium and tin from Congo, it is important to understand how Beijing takes a “whole of government” approach to harass and cheat competitors, and the general shenanigans in which they engage.
Americans increasingly throw around the phrase “fake news” to discredit anything with which they disagree, the Congo dispute shows how China wholesale purchases and promotes fake stories in pursuit of its commercial monopolies and strategic interests.
If Trump seeks to counter China, it is essential he recognize the battle will not only be in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, but also in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s forests and mines, international arbitration courts, and the boardrooms of Australia.
Incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio should direct diplomats in Kinshasa to spend more time in southern Congo where the action is. Rather than report on just another lunch with one cabinet minister or another, they should track their incomes and show up in various court proceedings to signal that Congo’s corruption will not proceed in the dark.
Australia might be on the frontline, but both the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce should signal that they see no even playing field; they will support allies and expect allied governments to support their own firms in the battle against Beijing’s interests.
If Beijing operates with such granularity, Trump, Rubio, and every other principal in the incoming U.S. administration must ask why the United States should not do so as well.
About the Author: Dr. Michael Rubin
Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. A former Pentagon official, Dr. Rubin has lived in post-revolution Iran, Yemen, and both pre- and postwar Iraq. He also spent time with the Taliban before 9/11. For more than a decade, he taught classes at sea about the Horn of Africa and Middle East conflicts, culture, and terrorism, to deployed US Navy and Marine units. Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics. The author’s views are his own.
Bin59
Regular
According to Dwayne Sparks’ post on X lithium is predicted to go up exponentially… hopefully we won’t be undersold in any negotiations
x.com
https://x.com/sparkes_dwayne
Dwayne Sparkes
@sparkes_dwayne
Haven’t really seen anyone’s take on CATL’s prospectus recently released (they are listing in Hong Kong), so thought I might give my quick thoughts on it! A lot can be gleamed from CATL’s prospectus.
Firstly, acknowledgement by the company that the profit margins have increased partly thanks to a reduction in LCE price.
Secondly, CATL’s growth estimates are enormous. The ESS estimates in particular are well above most analyst’s expectations. They have it at 300 GWh for 2024, 481GWh for 2025 & 1400 GWh for 2030… Let’s convert these numbers GWh to LCE tonnes to make it easier to understand and compare to demand tables. 1kWh = 0.75~0.8kg of LCE. 0.9kg of LCE per 1kWh used to be the number that analysts adopted, but batteries have become more efficient with time.
I've adopted 0.75kg off my latest data, but if anyone has a better number, please let me know. 1GWh = 1,000,000 kWh. 2025 – (481GWh * 1,000,000) *0.75kg = 360kt of LCE. 2030 - (1400GWh * 1,000,000) * 0.75kg = 1.05Mt of LCE. Compare this to the ESS numbers presented by UBS in 2024 for example (below screenshot). They had for 213kt of LCE 2025 and for 517kt of LCE 2030. So CATL’s numbers are almost double.
That’s a difference of 12~13 x the yearly output from a mine such as Kathleen Valley to put it into perspective. This is just ESS.
Another section of the prospectus that jumped out are the emerging applications. 390 GWh for this section by 2030. 390GWh x 0.75 = 292.5kt of LCE. ~3.5x greater than the 80 kt LCE UBS had listed for their "other Li-Ion demand" section. I’m not even going to bother doing the conversions on the 13 Twh by 2050 as it paints its own picture.
I think the above suggests the growth of lithium is exponential. I couldn’t tell you a commodity that has grown at this rate (and is expected to grow).
Can’t deny CATL is a fantastic company that is leading the way in battery tech. They do want to suppress the lithium price however and that makes sense as they are the world’s largest consumer of the stuff. I just don't see how it doesn't cause more harm than good and will lead to an explosion in lithium price (more detail on this on my other posts).
Thanks for reading.
12:11 PM · Feb 17, 2025
·
45.3K
Views
x.com
x.com
Dwayne Sparkes
@sparkes_dwayne
Haven’t really seen anyone’s take on CATL’s prospectus recently released (they are listing in Hong Kong), so thought I might give my quick thoughts on it! A lot can be gleamed from CATL’s prospectus.
Firstly, acknowledgement by the company that the profit margins have increased partly thanks to a reduction in LCE price.
Secondly, CATL’s growth estimates are enormous. The ESS estimates in particular are well above most analyst’s expectations. They have it at 300 GWh for 2024, 481GWh for 2025 & 1400 GWh for 2030… Let’s convert these numbers GWh to LCE tonnes to make it easier to understand and compare to demand tables. 1kWh = 0.75~0.8kg of LCE. 0.9kg of LCE per 1kWh used to be the number that analysts adopted, but batteries have become more efficient with time.
I've adopted 0.75kg off my latest data, but if anyone has a better number, please let me know. 1GWh = 1,000,000 kWh. 2025 – (481GWh * 1,000,000) *0.75kg = 360kt of LCE. 2030 - (1400GWh * 1,000,000) * 0.75kg = 1.05Mt of LCE. Compare this to the ESS numbers presented by UBS in 2024 for example (below screenshot). They had for 213kt of LCE 2025 and for 517kt of LCE 2030. So CATL’s numbers are almost double.
That’s a difference of 12~13 x the yearly output from a mine such as Kathleen Valley to put it into perspective. This is just ESS.
Another section of the prospectus that jumped out are the emerging applications. 390 GWh for this section by 2030. 390GWh x 0.75 = 292.5kt of LCE. ~3.5x greater than the 80 kt LCE UBS had listed for their "other Li-Ion demand" section. I’m not even going to bother doing the conversions on the 13 Twh by 2050 as it paints its own picture.
I think the above suggests the growth of lithium is exponential. I couldn’t tell you a commodity that has grown at this rate (and is expected to grow).
Can’t deny CATL is a fantastic company that is leading the way in battery tech. They do want to suppress the lithium price however and that makes sense as they are the world’s largest consumer of the stuff. I just don't see how it doesn't cause more harm than good and will lead to an explosion in lithium price (more detail on this on my other posts).
Thanks for reading.
12:11 PM · Feb 17, 2025
·
45.3K
Views
Remark
Top 20
Grok's opinion as to whether Trump will help AVZ's position.
"It’s difficult to predict with certainty whether Donald Trump will directly intervene or influence the AVZ Minerals situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as it depends on his administration’s priorities, foreign policy approach, and the specific circumstances surrounding the issue. However, I can provide some context and reasoning to help frame the possibilities.
AVZ Minerals, an Australian company, has been entangled in a complex dispute over the Manono Lithium Project in the DRC, one of the world’s largest undeveloped lithium deposits. The situation involves legal battles, allegations of corruption, and competing claims from Chinese firms and other stakeholders, all set against the backdrop of the DRC’s mineral-rich but politically unstable eastern region. As of early 2025, the project remains stalled due to these conflicts, with the DRC government and various parties vying for control over this critical resource.
Trump’s approach to such a situation would likely be guided by his broader foreign policy and economic interests. Based on his recent actions and statements, he has shown a keen interest in securing critical minerals—like lithium, which is vital for batteries and renewable energy technologies—to reduce U.S. reliance on China. His negotiations with Ukraine over mineral rights in exchange for aid suggest he views resource access as a transactional opportunity. The DRC, with its vast reserves of cobalt, lithium, and other minerals, could fit into this framework.
However, several factors complicate any potential Trump involvement in the AVZ case:
In summary, while Trump’s resource-driven mindset could lead to actions that indirectly benefit AVZ, don’t expect him to champion their cause outright unless it fits a larger U.S. gain. The situation’s outcome will likely hinge more on DRC internal politics, China’s moves, and Australia’s diplomacy—unless Trump sees a clear win for his agenda. What do you think—do you see him taking a hands-on role here, or staying on the sidelines?"
"It’s difficult to predict with certainty whether Donald Trump will directly intervene or influence the AVZ Minerals situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as it depends on his administration’s priorities, foreign policy approach, and the specific circumstances surrounding the issue. However, I can provide some context and reasoning to help frame the possibilities.
AVZ Minerals, an Australian company, has been entangled in a complex dispute over the Manono Lithium Project in the DRC, one of the world’s largest undeveloped lithium deposits. The situation involves legal battles, allegations of corruption, and competing claims from Chinese firms and other stakeholders, all set against the backdrop of the DRC’s mineral-rich but politically unstable eastern region. As of early 2025, the project remains stalled due to these conflicts, with the DRC government and various parties vying for control over this critical resource.
Trump’s approach to such a situation would likely be guided by his broader foreign policy and economic interests. Based on his recent actions and statements, he has shown a keen interest in securing critical minerals—like lithium, which is vital for batteries and renewable energy technologies—to reduce U.S. reliance on China. His negotiations with Ukraine over mineral rights in exchange for aid suggest he views resource access as a transactional opportunity. The DRC, with its vast reserves of cobalt, lithium, and other minerals, could fit into this framework.
However, several factors complicate any potential Trump involvement in the AVZ case:
- U.S. Strategic Interests: Trump might prioritize securing mineral supply chains for American companies or allies over directly aiding an Australian firm like AVZ. If he sees the DRC’s resources as a way to counter China’s dominance in the region (Chinese firms like Zijin Mining are already involved in the Manono dispute), he could push for broader U.S. influence rather than focusing on AVZ specifically.
- DRC Conflict Dynamics: The ongoing conflict in eastern DRC, particularly with Rwanda-backed M23 rebels seizing key cities like Goma and Bukavu as of February 2025, creates a volatile environment. Trump’s administration might hesitate to dive into a messy regional conflict unless there’s a clear economic or geopolitical win. His comments calling the DRC situation a “very serious problem” without further elaboration suggest awareness but not yet a defined strategy.
- Transactional Approach: Trump’s foreign policy often hinges on “what’s in it for the U.S.” He could pressure the DRC government to resolve the AVZ dispute in favor of Western interests as part of a larger deal—perhaps tied to aid, security support, or sanctions relief—but only if it aligns with his America First agenda.
- Limited Direct Leverage: AVZ is an Australian company, not American, so Trump might leave it to Australia to lead diplomatic efforts unless U.S. firms (or his personal business interests) stand to gain. His administration could, however, use broader tools like trade policies or diplomatic pressure on the DRC to shift the situation indirectly.
In summary, while Trump’s resource-driven mindset could lead to actions that indirectly benefit AVZ, don’t expect him to champion their cause outright unless it fits a larger U.S. gain. The situation’s outcome will likely hinge more on DRC internal politics, China’s moves, and Australia’s diplomacy—unless Trump sees a clear win for his agenda. What do you think—do you see him taking a hands-on role here, or staying on the sidelines?"
Winenut
Go AVZ!
"It’s difficult to predict with certainty"......ANYTHING that fucking Trump will do
Fucking loose cannon....really loose cannon
Isn't AVZ partnering with a Chinese Company ? From memory the only deals AVZ has cut ( investment /off takes / JV) has been with China . If the USA can wrangle something better then great . Otherwise it's always been AVZ/China as far as I can remember . I dare say if we got that ML 3 years ago we most probably would have been taken over by China .
No more playing golf for Trump .
Similar threads
