AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Longunvest
Member
HC Post ,
ozpolarbear
RIO AGM
I attended the RIO AGM today. Some brief comments below from the AGM pertaining to lithium which may be relevant to AVZ considering the media reports of RIO’s potential interest in Manono.
Please dont rely on these notes in any form whatsoever for your investment decisions as these are just my own personal notes for my own use, which might not be completely accurate.
Please refer to hotcrapper RIO forum, where more relevant and accurate info from other shareholders might be available.
Several comments on lithium made by both Dominic Barton (chairman) and Jakob Stausholm (CEO).
Electricity demand to grow at 6 times pace over coming years (I think 2030 was mentioned)
Much more aluminium, lithium, copper, iron would be needed.
Purchase of Arcadium was a significant moment and we are evolving. Over long term, we find lithium very attractive. Forming a potential world leading business.
Why purchased Arcadium rather than PLS or MIN → We considered demand, asset by asset, etc. and found Arcadium best fit considering assets in Quebec, Argentina, etc. Purchase was small impact on our share price. We want battery grade lithium. Cost curve considered. Argentina – Bolivia-Chile triangle is attractive for lithium. We are looking at it for decades to come and at lower cost curve.
Looking for non CO2 generating energy sources
It is is shareholder long term interest that we decarbonise.
We believe in climate change
Talks already on by car manufacturers of recharging for 500 km in 5 minutes and they are focusing on EVs rather than hydrogen. We are confident about lithium
My comments
RIO in earlier years was a predominantly iron company but also being a lithium shareholder, I was impressed by the fair amount of talk that RIO gave to lithium this year.
Company in my view seems very committed to lithium, not jut for lithium mining but also from the point of view of being one of the major companies committed to decarbonisation.
I got the view that company is looking at lithium from a very long term view and dominating the market – low cost, huge lithium assets (and we all know which asset perfectly fits that description https://hotcrapper.com.au/styles/default/xenforo/clear.pnghttps://hotcrapper.com.au/styles/default/xenforo/clear.png)
I got the view that RIO in coming years aims to be in lithium what it is in iron right now.
B/ Conversation with X
I contemplated bringing up the question of RIO’s potential interest in Manono (media reports) during the AGM but did not out of respect for the proceedings of the RIO AGM, and as a RIO shareholder too.
If negotiations are on, it is very unfair (and naive) to expect any reasonable answer and as a shareholder of RIO, I don’t want to put directors on the spot. Similarly, shareholders of AVZ who expect Nigel to talk about all this and put up announcements would IMO be disappointed for the same reason. You don’t talk much during negotiations – simple!
Nevertheless, I had a brief 1 minute conversation with a very high profile figure of RIO (who I’ll just call “X” for anonymity) and I got a very polite answer but as completely expected, I got nothing conclusive.
ozpolarbear
RIO AGM
I attended the RIO AGM today. Some brief comments below from the AGM pertaining to lithium which may be relevant to AVZ considering the media reports of RIO’s potential interest in Manono.
Please dont rely on these notes in any form whatsoever for your investment decisions as these are just my own personal notes for my own use, which might not be completely accurate.
Please refer to hotcrapper RIO forum, where more relevant and accurate info from other shareholders might be available.
Several comments on lithium made by both Dominic Barton (chairman) and Jakob Stausholm (CEO).
Electricity demand to grow at 6 times pace over coming years (I think 2030 was mentioned)
Much more aluminium, lithium, copper, iron would be needed.
Purchase of Arcadium was a significant moment and we are evolving. Over long term, we find lithium very attractive. Forming a potential world leading business.
Why purchased Arcadium rather than PLS or MIN → We considered demand, asset by asset, etc. and found Arcadium best fit considering assets in Quebec, Argentina, etc. Purchase was small impact on our share price. We want battery grade lithium. Cost curve considered. Argentina – Bolivia-Chile triangle is attractive for lithium. We are looking at it for decades to come and at lower cost curve.
Looking for non CO2 generating energy sources
It is is shareholder long term interest that we decarbonise.
We believe in climate change
Talks already on by car manufacturers of recharging for 500 km in 5 minutes and they are focusing on EVs rather than hydrogen. We are confident about lithium
My comments
RIO in earlier years was a predominantly iron company but also being a lithium shareholder, I was impressed by the fair amount of talk that RIO gave to lithium this year.
Company in my view seems very committed to lithium, not jut for lithium mining but also from the point of view of being one of the major companies committed to decarbonisation.
I got the view that company is looking at lithium from a very long term view and dominating the market – low cost, huge lithium assets (and we all know which asset perfectly fits that description https://hotcrapper.com.au/styles/default/xenforo/clear.pnghttps://hotcrapper.com.au/styles/default/xenforo/clear.png)
I got the view that RIO in coming years aims to be in lithium what it is in iron right now.
B/ Conversation with X
I contemplated bringing up the question of RIO’s potential interest in Manono (media reports) during the AGM but did not out of respect for the proceedings of the RIO AGM, and as a RIO shareholder too.
If negotiations are on, it is very unfair (and naive) to expect any reasonable answer and as a shareholder of RIO, I don’t want to put directors on the spot. Similarly, shareholders of AVZ who expect Nigel to talk about all this and put up announcements would IMO be disappointed for the same reason. You don’t talk much during negotiations – simple!
Nevertheless, I had a brief 1 minute conversation with a very high profile figure of RIO (who I’ll just call “X” for anonymity) and I got a very polite answer but as completely expected, I got nothing conclusive.
Bin59
Regular
Exclusive-US pushes Congo, Rwanda for peace accord and billion-dollar mineral deals
Story by Andrew Mills• 24m
- Summary
- U.S. pushes Congo, Rwanda for peace accord, mineral deals
- Rwanda-backed M23 rebels advance in Congo amid conflict
- U.S. demands Rwanda withdraw troops, end M23 support
"When we sign the peace agreement ... the minerals deal with the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) will be signed on that day, and then a similar package, but of a different size, will be signed on that day with Rwanda," Massad Boulos said in an interview in the Qatari capital, Doha.
A U.S.-backed peace accord would come amid an unprecedented advance by Rwandan-backed M23 rebels in Congo, the latest cycle of violence in a decades-long conflict, in a region rich in minerals including tantalum and gold. Rwanda denies backing the group.
Rwanda and Congo are expected to submit separate drafts of a peace agreement on Friday, according to a peace process agreed in Washington last week as part of diplomatic efforts to end violence in eastern Congo.
The Congolese government did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment.
In mid-May U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet in Washington with the Rwandan and Congolese foreign ministers in an effort to agree on a final draft peace accord, Boulos said.
But before that accord can be signed, Boulos said, Rwanda and Congo must finalise bilateral economic agreements with Washington that will see U.S. and Western companies invest billions of dollars in Congolese mines and infrastructure projects to support mining in both countries including the processing of minerals in Rwanda.
"The (agreement) with the D.R.C. is at a much bigger scale, because it's a much bigger country and it has much more resources, but Rwanda also has a lot of resources and capacities and potential in the area of mining as well ... not just the upstream, but also midstream and downstream to processing and refining and trading," Boulos said.
Boulos said U.S. and Western companies have told Washington they would make multi-billon dollar investments in the region once the bilateral minerals deals are signed.
Boulos also said before the White House signing ceremony can go ahead, Washington expects both countries to address a number of security concerns. For example, Rwanda must pull its troops out of Congo and end its support for M23 rebels. Congo must address Rwanda's security concerns with militias such as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).
Boulos said that on Wednesday a follow-up committee was appointed to monitor both countries' progress towards the peace deal, which includes the U.S., Qatar, France and Togo, which is representing the African Union.
Retrobyte
Hates a beer
Hodlandwin69
Regular
The time frame for those agreements are "2 months" sadly
This article indicates ...
Exclusive-US pushes Congo, Rwanda for peace accord and billion-dollar mineral deals
Story by Andrew Mills
• 24m
DOHA, May 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. is pushing Congo and Rwanda to sign a peace accord at the White House in about two months, accompanied by bilateral mineral deals that would bring billions of dollars of Western investment to the region, President Donald Trump's senior advisor for Africa told Reuters on Thursday.
- Summary
- U.S. pushes Congo, Rwanda for peace accord, mineral deals
- Rwanda-backed M23 rebels advance in Congo amid conflict
- U.S. demands Rwanda withdraw troops, end M23 support
"When we sign the peace agreement ... the minerals deal with the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) will be signed on that day, and then a similar package, but of a different size, will be signed on that day with Rwanda," Massad Boulos said in an interview in the Qatari capital, Doha.
A U.S.-backed peace accord would come amid an unprecedented advance by Rwandan-backed M23 rebels in Congo, the latest cycle of violence in a decades-long conflict, in a region rich in minerals including tantalum and gold. Rwanda denies backing the group.
Rwanda and Congo are expected to submit separate drafts of a peace agreement on Friday, according to a peace process agreed in Washington last week as part of diplomatic efforts to end violence in eastern Congo.
The Congolese government did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment.
In mid-May U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet in Washington with the Rwandan and Congolese foreign ministers in an effort to agree on a final draft peace accord, Boulos said.
But before that accord can be signed, Boulos said, Rwanda and Congo must finalise bilateral economic agreements with Washington that will see U.S. and Western companies invest billions of dollars in Congolese mines and infrastructure projects to support mining in both countries including the processing of minerals in Rwanda.
"The (agreement) with the D.R.C. is at a much bigger scale, because it's a much bigger country and it has much more resources, but Rwanda also has a lot of resources and capacities and potential in the area of mining as well ... not just the upstream, but also midstream and downstream to processing and refining and trading," Boulos said.
Boulos said U.S. and Western companies have told Washington they would make multi-billon dollar investments in the region once the bilateral minerals deals are signed.
Boulos also said before the White House signing ceremony can go ahead, Washington expects both countries to address a number of security concerns. For example, Rwanda must pull its troops out of Congo and end its support for M23 rebels. Congo must address Rwanda's security concerns with militias such as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).
Boulos said that on Wednesday a follow-up committee was appointed to monitor both countries' progress towards the peace deal, which includes the U.S., Qatar, France and Togo, which is representing the African Union.
1. DRC and Rwanda to sign a peace accord in about 2 months.
2. US to sign a bilateral minerals deal with DRC on the same day the peace accord is signed.
3. US to sign a bilateral minerals deal with Rwanda on the same day the peace accord is signed.
4. Subsequently, US and Western companies will invest billions in mines and infrastructure projects.
In summary, probably 2 months for the first stage, then 2 to 3 more months before Kobold and Rio buy AVZ. Hence, if say 6 months in total, then we are looking at the end of October 2025.
But this is far too long for my nerves.
Plus the court case starts on 2-Jun-2025.
I thought that 'they' and 'everybody' would want to tidy everything up by buying AVZ before the court case starts.
Mute22
Regular
Wait, what is happening in Washington today then, with a target date of May 2nd, further talks?
The MoU (lol) has already been signed.
EDIT: It's probably finalising this agreement, rather than the full peace/minerals accord:
But before that accord can be signed, Boulos said, Rwanda and Congo must finalise bilateral economic agreements with Washington that will see U.S. and Western companies invest billions of dollars in Congolese mines and infrastructure projects to support mining in both countries including the processing of minerals in Rwanda.
"The (agreement) with the D.R.C. is at a much bigger scale, because it's a much bigger country and it has much more resources, but Rwanda also has a lot of resources and capacities and potential in the area of mining as well ... not just the upstream, but also midstream and downstream to processing and refining and trading," Boulos said.
Last edited:
Xerof
Flaming 1967
Yes, I'm wondering
Would appreciate an update from anyone who KNOWS what's happening with CATH (other than telling KIM to 'look at me, look at me')
Anyway, changed my Floyd song to reflect my current sentiment, not that that means jackshit
Last edited:
Yep, if no deal finalised before ICSID starts and we have to endure the pain of another few months waiting, then whoever wants to buy it better double their current asking price.
Once the wheels are in motion at ICSID this will ensure either a locked up asset for years or that it’s categorically worth the US$10b being sought there.
Also, if we are forced to start ICSID, then the company should forget about any deal that sees us “give away” the north to the Zijin thieves and instead continue with all legal avenues to rightfully claim the entire tenement back.
A deal before ICSID might have seen some compromise on our behalf. If they choose to stall and make us go to ICSID, then f**k ‘em, we may as well go big and get everything we rightfully should back (including the north) plus expose all the corrupt cockroaches that have stalled this project and should be punished.
JAG
Top 20
Frank
Top 20
Agree 100%.
Why is Westwin Elements looking for its supplies outside the DRC?
Well, here's your answer:
Westwin Elements’ move to look beyond the DRC is directly linked to the array of difficulties in dealing with the country-namely, endemic corruption, neglected infrastructure, an unskilled workforce, security risks, and the need to diversify away from Chinese-dominated supply chains.
These factors collectively drive Western firms to seek more reliable, ethical, and cost-effective sources of critical minerals elsewhere.
Who would have thunk.
Cheers
F
Winenut
GO AVZ!!!!
Ahhh......
It's only the really old, rusted-on crew that get this one!
Love that!
Xerof
Flaming 1967
I’m suggesting “Get your filthy hands off my desert” Floyd 1983 be added to mixtapeAhhh......
It's only the really old, rusted-on crew that get this one!
Love that!
Similar threads
