DRC MINING LEGISLATION

Carlos Posted
Can't get the ML without funding being sorted under Article 71 (b) of the mining code


20230602_110020.jpg
 
11/07/2023
Misfits Posted


1689030940363.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
11/07/2023
Cruiser Posted

Interesting answer on twitter from:

August V
https://twitter.com/AugustCohen4
NYC | Dad | Jew | Investor | Former Prosecutor | Lifter | #DRC | Anti-Racist | #Africa | He/Him | #Bitcoin

That's not realistic, Mrs. Cybelle.
This postponement request will be refused because no extenuating circumstances authorize a new postponement.

The referees will see this as a delaying tactic and will dismiss the request.

Zijin then risks losing and Cominière will receive a very large fine.

Once this is done, AVZ will file a lawsuit in federal court in Washington DC against Cominiere.

The Paris court allows the plaintiffs to sue in US courts to demand payment of the fine.

Given the evidence, he'll likely lose the case in America as well.

US federal court judges don't care about the Congo, China or Australia - they care about the law.

The American judge will then order the government of the DRC - as owner of Cominière - to pay a very heavy fine.
As long as this fine is not paid, no one will touch Manono because this heavy debt weighs on her.

It is in the interest of the DRC government to avoid losing in Paris and then in DC.
It is time for the DRC government to reach an agreement with the Chinese and the Austrians to solve this problem because AVZ is now on the warpath and will not give up.

9:07 AM · Jul 11, 2023
780
Views
 
14/08/2024
Carlos Posted


Dathcom need to cede 10% to the DRC government under Article 71 (d) of the mining code

1691972134256.jpeg


Cominiere are committed to being the party within Dathcom to cede the 10% to the DRC government under Article 5.1 (i) of the Dathcom JVA

1691972185666.png


1691972272687.png
 

Attachments

  • DRC Mining Code (English) 2.pdf
    672.4 KB · Views: 107
22/08/2023
Cruiser Posted


Mining Cadastre DR Congo
@CadastreMinier

Did you know? The Exploration Permit (PR) gives its holder the exclusive right to carry out exploration work for mineral substances within the perimeter on which it is established. Discover the conditions for obtaining it https :// cami.cd/conditions-de-demand/



CONDITIONS FOR REQUEST FOR MINING OR QUARRY RIGHTS
  • FORM AND COMPOSITION OF ANY REQUEST
Any request for mining or quarry rights is written on a form to be obtained from the Mining Registry for the right concerned and includes:
  1. the articles of association, registration with the RCCM, and proof of publication in the Official Journal;
  2. tax ID information;
  3. the quality and power of the person authorized to bind the legal person and the identity of his representative if the request is submitted by the latter;
  4. the address of the registered office of the legal person, as well as any subsequent changes;
  5. the type of mining or quarry right requested;
  6. the indication of the mineral substances for which the mining and/or quarry right is requested;
  7. the geographical location of the scope requested;
  8. the number of squares making up the required perimeter area;
  9. the identity of the applicant's affiliates;
  10. the nature, number and area of the mining or quarry right perimeters already held by the applicant and its affiliated companies;
  11. proof of the applicant's financial capacity.
The application file includes the application form duly completed and signed, the identity documents of the applicant and the other documents required according to the type of right applied for. The applicant submits the application file to the Mining Registry.
  • CONDITIONS OF GRANT SPECIFIC TO EACH TYPE OF RIGHT

  • Mining Rights
    • Research permit (PR)
In accordance with article 56 of the Mining Code, the applicant must provide proof:
  • financial capacity;
  • technical competence;
  • the existence of all the information required by article 35 of the Code;
  • the production of proof of payment of filing fees as well as that of the tax number, national identification and RCCM;
  • compliance of the shape and location of the perimeter with the provisions of Articles 28 and 29 of the Code.
If it is a company governed by foreign law, provide proof:
  • the valid tax certificate or equivalent issued by the competent institution of the applicant's country of origin;
  • the certificate of good character and the extract from the current criminal record for the partners of the legal person, issued by the competent authorities of the country of origin;
  • the written commitment to declare in the DRC the profits and income made.

  • Exploitation Permit (PE)
In accordance with articles 71 and 71 bis of the Mining Code, the applicant must:
  • demonstrate the existence of an economically exploitable deposit by presenting a feasibility study, accompanied by a technical framework plan for the development, construction and exploitation of the mine;
  • demonstrate the existence of the financial resources necessary to carry out his project according to a plan for financing the development, construction and operation of the mine as well as the rehabilitation plan for the site upon its closure;
  • Specify, in this plan, each type of financing, the sources of financing targeted and the justifications for their probable availability;
  • Have a share capital greater than or equal to 40% of said resources;
  • Obtain prior approval of the project ESIA and ESMP;
  • transfer to the State 10% of the shares or shares of the share capital, free of all charges and non-dilutable;
  • create, at each transformation, within the framework of a separate mine or a separate mining project, an affiliated company in which the applicant company holds at least 51% of the shares or shares;
  • submit a deed of commitment to comply with the specifications defining social responsibility vis-à-vis the local communities affected by the project's activities;
  • have complied with the obligations to maintain the validity of the license provided for in articles 196, 197, 198 and 199 of this Code, by presenting:
  • proof of the certification of commencement of work duly issued by the Mining Cadastre;
  • proof of payment of the annual surface area rights per square and of the tax on the area of the mining concessions;
  • demonstrate the ability to process and transform mineral substances in the DRC;
  • submit an act of commitment to process and transform these substances on Congolese territory;
  • provide for Congolese participation of at least 10% of the share capital.

  • Tailings Exploitation License (PER)
In accordance with article 92 of the Mining Code, the applicant complies with the same conditions provided for the granting of the PE to obtain a PER.
  • Small Mining Exploitation License (PEPM)
In accordance with article 104 of the Mining Code, in addition to the conditions provided for in letters b to g of article 71 of the said Code, the applicant for a PEPM must:
  • demonstrate the existence of a deposit whose technical factors do not allow profitable industrial exploitation by presenting a feasibility study accompanied by a technical framework plan for the development, construction and exploitation of the mine;
  • provide for Congolese participation of at least 25% of the share capital.

  • Quarry rights

  • Quarry Products Research Authorization (ARPC)
In accordance with article 141 of the Mining Code, the applicant must, without prejudice to articles 23 to 25 and 27, provide proof of his minimum financial capacity.
  • Authorization for Permanent Quarry Exploitation (AECP)
In accordance with article 154 of the Mining Code, and without prejudice to articles 34 to 42, the applicant must:
  • demonstrate the existence of a deposit by presenting a feasibility study accompanied by a technical plan for the development, construction and operation of the quarry;
  • prove the existence of the financial resources necessary to carry out the project according to the financing plan for the development, construction and operation of the quarry as well as the rehabilitation of the site upon its closure;
  • specify, in this plan, each type of financing, the sources of financing targeted and the justifications for their probable availability;
  • Obtain prior approval of the project ESIA and ESMP;
  • bring a declaration of vacancy of land drawn up by the Registrar of real estate titles in the jurisdiction or proof of the consent of the land concessionaire, if the area which is the subject of the application for the authorization to operate the quarry is located in the Land perimeter of the latter;
  • provide, if the scope requested is included in that of a valid PE, PER or PEPM, proof of the consent of the holder of this right or establish that his consent was refused in bad faith;
  • submit a deed of commitment to comply with the specifications defining social responsibility vis-à-vis the local communities affected by the project's activities.

  • Authorization for Temporary Quarry Exploitation (AECT)
In accordance with article 159 of the Mining Code, the AECT is granted to the applicant who submits his application in accordance with the provisions of articles 34 to 40 of the Code, and who:
  • demonstrates the existence of an economically exploitable deposit by presenting a technical framework plan for the quarry exploitation works and a related Mitigation and Rehabilitation Plan (RAP);
  • present, if the quarry is located on a perimeter subject to a land title held by a third party, the latter's written consent to the opening of the quarry;
present, if the quarry is located on the perimeter of a PE held by a third party, the latter's written consent to the opening of the quarry, or proof that the consent was refused in bad faith.

Cruiser Added

The Exploitation License was waiting for Surface Rights to be calculated

Share capital is not money in the bank.
Market Capitalisation AUS$ 2.75 Billion before going into suspension.
DFS was based on then known resource and market price.

So going into suspension was also to maintain market cap. It is obvious Zijin has been trying to erode that and attempting to continue with that with the help of CKK and JFM.

One of the clowns has been removed, hopefully next one will jump from the top of Cong's hotel.
 
Last edited:
22/08/2023
Carlos Posted


The applicant is Dathcom. Dathcom own 100% of the resource. This isn't difficult.
20230822_135153.jpg


20230822_135411.jpg


Dathcom is worth 1b USD which is how much is shown in the DFS. This has nothing to do with AVZ's market capitalisation on the ASX.
20230822_142230.jpg
 
Last edited:
22/08/2023
Cruiser Posted

And AVZ owns 75% of Dathcom of which 15% is under dispute.

However taking the damages claim of Zijin and Cominiere in consideration, for their so-called 25%, of US$1.3 billion, it would make AVZ's 75% share of Dathcom worth US$5.2 Billion.

But the original DFS was based on a net SC6 price of US$673.70/t and AVZ owning 60% of Dathcom (which was true at the time of DFS publication), but those prices and that situation can not be compared with today's prices and situation.

You have to compare apples with apples.
AIMO


Carlos Replied
AVZ market capitalisation has nothing to do with anything in the DRC mining code. The applicant is Dathcom and the line in the mining code about ownership of 'said resources' refers to ownership rights of the tenement being applied for. We already got CAMI approval and a ministerial decree confirming that we passed every requirement.

Yeah obviously I agree it's worth a fuck tonne more or I would have sold around 0.35 but the question was in relation to the valuation in the DFS. I'm looking forward to the highly anticipated updated DFS or BFS being released with a current valuation but understand the reasons for it being delayed.
 
22/08/2023
Winenuts Posted

I think everyone is reading that 40% of resources incorrectly

It states prior you must identify the “Financial Resources” to undertake and complete the project.

The entity undertaking the project must then have a share capital of more than 40% of the indicated "financial" resource required .

Have a re-read of those first four dot points under the heading Exploitation Permit

1692681947404.png



Carlos Replied
Yeah you're right. It is a requirement under 71 (b). But it is for the applicant so the valuation is of Dathcom not AVZ. So 40% of 1b USD is 400m USD which is what we are getting from CATH (240m equity and 160m in development costs).

20230822_152924.jpg


I was thinking of section 71 (e) because it was separated into two dot points on the original post but that requirement is for 51% ownership for the applicant. Here's the relevant section of the mining code:

20230822_153251.jpg
 
22/08/2023
Winenuts Posted

As identified in the DFS the Capex for the project (read financial resources required) is US$545.5 million

From what I understand from the clause Dathcom therefore simply requires a share capital greater than 40% of the indicated financial resources to meet the criteria to satisy the clause and undertake the project

Therefore share capital of Dathcom to meet the requirement must be more than 40% x US$545.5 million or US$218.2 million

Dathcom easily met that share capital requirement hence it satisfied all the criteria for the decree to be signed

Just waiting for those surface rights to be calculated now......

Carlos Posted
40% of the resource value is 400m USD

https://avzminerals.com.au/s/20200421-DFS-Manono-Lithium-and-Tin-Project-Announcement-f8bl.pdf

1692689915712.png
 
24/08/2023



Translated Version

On August 1st, appointed by His Excellency Mr. the President of the Republic, @fatshi13, the new management committee of @CadastreMinier, led by its President of the Board of Directors, @MbinduleC, was received yesterday, Tuesday, August 22nd, by Her Excellency Madam the Minister of Mines, @anskalambayi, in her office at Gombe.

Life is a spinning wheel, It takes a lot of time, patience because in the end everyone will get what they deserve. We say! 18 years later, finally a new wind has ended up blowing within the Public Establishment, Mining Cadastre, marked by the advent of Mr. Paul MABOLIA YENGA as new General Manager of CAMI.

Apart from the civilities presented to the boss of the Mines during this audience, this meeting also served as a working framework at the end of which, some operational orientations, among others those of applying rigor in the work, recovering mining law and to avoid corruption, were given to the new authorities of the CAMI by Mrs. Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, who invited her hosts to do things well, that is to say, in accordance with the vision of the President of the Republic, Head of State.

It should be noted that the notification without delay of the presidential ordinance made by Mrs. Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi for the new animators of CAMI, is a sign which shows the determination and the will of the supervisory authority which wants to see this establishment public of high strategic importance for our country, to distribute on new bases for its final radiation.

As a reminder, it was on August 09 that the MABOLIA YENGA team had to proceed with the handover and recovery with the committee already out of Mr. Jean-Félix MUPANDE.... to be continued!

Alternate Translated Version

Life is a wheel that turns. It takes a lot of time and patience because in the end, everyone will get what they deserve. So they say! 18 years later, a new wind has finally blown within the Public Establishment, Cadastre Minier, marked by the arrival of Mr. Paul MABOLIA YENGA as the new Director General of CAMI.

Aside from the formalities extended to the Mines' leader during this audience, this meeting also served as a working session in which several operational directions, such as applying rigor in work, recovering mining rights, and avoiding corruption, were given to the new authorities of CAMI by Madam Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi. She invited her guests to do things right, in line with the vision of the President of the Republic, the Head of State.

It's worth noting that the prompt notification of the presidential ordinance by Madam Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi to the new leaders of CAMI is a sign of the determination and will of the supervisory authority, who wishes to see this strategically important public institution for our country succeed based on new foundations.

As a reminder, on August 9th, the MABOLIA YENGA team proceeded with the handover from the committee previously led by Mr. Jean-Félix MUPANDE... to be continued!
 
Last edited:
17/09/2023
Bin59 Posted

REUTERS/Nick Oxford

CHALLENGES

“Violation of the Mining Code in the DRC: LICOCO calls for the withdrawal of mining titles from offending companies!”​

17 September 2023

fatshimetrie

Title: LICOCO requests the withdrawal of mining titles due to non-compliance with the Mining Code by mining companies

Introduction :

The Congolese Anti-Corruption League (LICOCO) recently denounced the non-compliance with the provisions of the Mining Code by certain mining companies in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). These companies, including Stone Mining Compagny Sarl, CDMC Sarl, AMUR Sarl and DF SA Mining Congo, entered into agreements with the mining company SAKIMA, but did not respect the obligations stipulated in these contracts. Consequently, LICOCO requests the pure and simple withdrawal of the mining titles granted to these companies.

Failure to comply with the obligations of the Mining Code:

According to LICOCO, these four mining companies failed to respect several obligations set out in the Mining Code and the mining regulations of the DRC. Among other things, they did not enter into negotiations with local communities, did not sign the social responsibility specifications, and did not carry out the necessary technical and financial feasibility studies. In addition, the operating areas that had been transferred to them by SAKIMA are inactive or occupied by artisanal mining operators, thus having serious consequences for the sustainable development of the region.

LICOCO’s recommendations:

Faced with this situation, LICOCO supports the government’s initiative to withdraw the mining titles allocated to these four companies. However, it recommends that this decision be taken through a commission set up by the Ministry of Mines, in order to evaluate the contracts of each company and officially inform them of the withdrawal of their mining titles. In addition, LICOCO encourages the government to grant these mining titles to other companies that demonstrate the technical and financial capacity necessary to develop industrial mines, thus contributing to the sustainable development of the Kivu region.

The call to civil society:

LICOCO also calls on civil society organizations to support this government initiative to request the revocation of the mining titles of companies that have not respected their environmental and social obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Code.

Conclusion :

The request for withdrawal of mining titles made by LICOCO highlights the non-compliance with the obligations of the Mining Code by certain mining companies in the DRC. This situation highlights the importance of ensuring compliance with mining regulations, in order to preserve the interests of local communities and promote sustainable development in the Congolese mining sector. It is therefore crucial that the government takes measures to rectify this situation and ensure that the country’s mineral resources are exploited responsibly and equitably.

 
17/09/2023
Bin59 Posted

The IGF report found Cominiere in violation of the Mining Code with respect to Transfer of mining licences (amongst other things) as opposed to environmental and social breaches mentioned in the article above, so hopefully Licoco addressed these when reviewing Cominiere.

1694905845543.jpeg
 
23/09/2023
Carlos Posted

The mining licence was cancelled without any legal basis in an act of the prince. Conflicts between shareholders of a JV as a reason for cancellation of a granted PE is not listed in the DRC Mining Code. The reasons allowed for forfeiture are the 'non- payment of surface rights' and 'the non-start of the works' which is not the case for Dathcom.

Article 48 of the DRC mining code states 'The mining and/or quarry rights may be withdrawn or brought back, without retroactive effect, by the granting authority in the event of illegality during the granting, in three months following the publication of the award decision in the Official Journal or, failing that, within three months following the date of becoming aware of its existence, either at the request of an injured third party, or at the granting authority initiative.' None of these apply either.

The cadastral, environmental, technical and compliance favourable opinions remain valid to this day and have never been declared illegal and no reason or illegality in the granting procedure has emerged. This is completely abnormal and legally untenable.

Not sure what else you want AVZ management to do other than seek a remedy through international arbitration unless you want to give control of Manono to China. Maybe I answered my own question just now as well as yours.
 
23/09/2023
Carlos Reply To Dijon


You'd say that logically a minority partner has zero authority both logically and legally to dissolve a JV and take 100% ownership of the project like Cominiere are claiming.
They do under Article 18.3 of the Dathcom JVA but it can only be done through the ICC under Article 11. Not through back alley courts within the DRC. The fact that AVZ are the ones initiating ICC proceedings regarding this matter speaks volumes to the confidence of both parties in their legal standing.

20230716_101759.jpg


20230716_101827.jpg


20230716_105049.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
28/09/2023
Carlos Posted

The money was wired to Cong and then he wired it back. No documents needed. SPA's usually contain payment instructions and that was almost certainly followed exactly by AVZ's lawyers.

Pretty sure Graeme Johnston was convicted for allegedly illegally registering the 15% into AVZ's name upon completion of the payment for both SPA's. But that makes no legal sense as you can't just rip up contracts because the value of the asset went up. If the lithium price had of crashed as all the experts were predicting at the time Cong would have gladly taken the money and run. As frequent visitor to Epstein island Prince Andrew once said about contracts 'you have to take the rough with the smooth'.

20230316_232958.jpg

20230316_233020.jpg

20230318_093300.jpg

20230318_092237.jpg

20230318_092248.jpg

20230318_092322.jpg

20230318_092345.jpg

20230318_092356.jpg

20230318_085749.jpg

20230318_085803.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
29/09/2023
Bin59 Posted


Hello investors.

About the announcement:

For some investors, the sheer number of lawsuits and parties in this story may be a bit confusing.
Don't be fooled because the law acts correctly and processes everything in order.

- The Dathcom JV was incorporated on December 28, 2016 (signature) with AVZ 60%, Cominiere 30% and Dathomir 10% as of January 27, 2017, which became effective by all registrations on March 25, 2017.

- Cominiere has ceded 5% to Dathomir, so AVZ 60%, Cominiere 25%, Dathomir 15%
- Dathomir sold 5% in 2019 and 10% in 2020 to AVZ. Dathomir therefore left the JV and the shares were redistributed.AVZ 75% and Cominiere 25%.
- AVZ has agreed a right of first refusal for a further 15% with Cominiere.

In the JV contract it was agreed that disagreements would be resolved exclusively between the partners of the JV before an international arbitration tribunal. (Arbitration clause)Parties outside the JV have no rights!

Here are the facts in order and some opinions from me

1. First, it is determined whether Jin Cheng is allowed to initiate proceedings at all since they are not partners in the JV.- You are/were not a partner in the JV!- If this is decided, which I believe will be the case since the ICC has refused to merge the cases, Jin Cheng will leave the court and all further proceedings will be ineffective.The sale of 15% to Jin Cheng also becomes invalid

2. Injunction against Cominiere dated April 11, 2023 with a fine of 50,000 per day.Since Cominiere attempted to transfer PR 13359 and also publicly insisted on the dissolution of the JV, in my opinion the condition was violated. By October 5, 2023, a fine of $7.9 million would be due for 158 daily rates.

With points 1 and 2 it would be clear that AVZ owns 75% (60% + 15% Dathomir point 3) and has 15% right of first refusal from Cominiere.
The joint venture consists of AVZ and Cominiere!

3. Dathomir is contesting the purchase agreement from 2019 (5%) and 2020 (10%). We are all curious to hear the reasoning as the sale was completed with full payment and experienced business people were involved on both sides.
In my opinion, AVZ will win these cases.

When point 1 is completed, I also think that the ML will be granted and the state will then intervene regarding Cominiere, as there will then be legal certainty. If the investigation is correct, it is unlikely that the proceedings against DRC will continue before the ICSID.

Combaste
 
03/10/2023
Carlos Posted

If we win our cases at the ICC then the MoM's reasoning in the new decrees will be laughed out of the ICSID especially given the IGF report and the fact that conflicts between shareholders is unknown as a reason for cancellation of a PE in the DRC mining code. Let them eat pineapples just won't cut it anymore imo. Given the need and urgency.

20231003_124506.jpg
 
Top Bottom