TLG Ann: Talga battery anode project receives EIB finance approval - 20th Jun 2023, 8:23am

[Monkeymandan]

Anyone with theories for why we haven't heard a verdict on the appeals?

A suggestion by Oldmate over at HC.

HI Gang,
I wouldn't mind betting that the Sami ppl are talking to talga hoping for a cash sweetener to drop there case & the court is holding the decision until an agreement has been brokered by authorities & interested parties

Obviously just speculation, but the EIB appraisal letter does make reference to compensating the Samebys, so this theory is about as good as any I can think of right now.

We’re now two weeks past a one week target - a 200% delay. To me this is beyond the possible effect of the court wanting to be ultra diligent in its judgement, and perhaps something like this is at play behind the scenes.

 

[Tim]

A suggestion by Oldmate over at HC.

HI Gang,
I wouldn't mind betting that the Sami ppl are talking to talga hoping for a cash sweetener to drop there case & the court is holding the decision until an agreement has been brokered by authorities & interested parties

Obviously just speculation, but the EIB appraisal letter does make reference to compensating the Samebys, so this theory is about as good as any I can think of right now.

We’re now two weeks past a one week target - a 200% delay. To me this is beyond the possible effect of the court wanting to be ultra diligent in its judgement, and perhaps something like this is at play behind the scenes.

Thanks mate. Very interesting to see it spelled out like that. The speculation certainly seems plausible.

 

[cosors]

A suggestion by Oldmate over at HC.

HI Gang,
I wouldn't mind betting that the Sami ppl are talking to talga hoping for a cash sweetener to drop there case & the court is holding the decision until an agreement has been brokered by authorities & interested parties

Obviously just speculation, but the EIB appraisal letter does make reference to compensating the Samebys, so this theory is about as good as any I can think of right now.

We’re now two weeks past a one week target - a 200% delay. To me this is beyond the possible effect of the court wanting to be ultra diligent in its judgement, and perhaps something like this is at play behind the scenes.

A 'long' time ago I read something about compensation payments due to them and the numbers were absurdly low. It was one of their arguments from the beginning and it was/is understandable from my point of view. The landowners are forced to sell in the national interest and the regulation provides that the Sami get only peanuts. I understand if Talga would like to pay more than legally obliged was also my proposal at the time.

The verdict deals with compensation payments at the very end. I could not see anything there in this case. Perhaps because voluntary performance of Talga.

The taxes are also quite low if I remember correctly. So why not be generous as a foreign company and set a good example.

However, I don't think that these negotiations will have any influence on the time or delay of the court.

I think more and more that the approval process in Sweden is in adjustment right now and there is a discrepancy between the regulations of the EU and those of the Swedes. Therefore, I think that our case is submitted to the highest possible authorities judges or ministers (?) and our case is like a precedent. There are still many projects to come in connection with CRMA. So take the time to make everything correct and unassailable for upcoming projects of which we also have some. If this were the case patience now would certainly pay off later.

Of course I can be wrong like everyone else.

 

[cosors]

A suggestion by Oldmate over at HC.

HI Gang,
I wouldn't mind betting that the Sami ppl are talking to talga hoping for a cash sweetener to drop there case & the court is holding the decision until an agreement has been brokered by authorities & interested parties

Obviously just speculation, but the EIB appraisal letter does make reference to compensating the Samebys, so this theory is about as good as any I can think of right now.

We’re now two weeks past a one week target - a 200% delay. To me this is beyond the possible effect of the court wanting to be ultra diligent in its judgement, and perhaps something like this is at play behind the scenes.

I have moved the topic over to the other thread.
There you can find my simple calculation of how much we are talking about.
https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/permits.4987/post-319672

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

I'm not usually into conspiracies but I did like the one over at HC that the Mining Decision is being held up deliberately until the Refinery appeal period 21 June plus 21 days (12 July) is over to starve the Antis of any new possible angle to appeal the Refinery permit.

But that involves internal judicial collusion at a minimum so I doubt it

I’m starting to believe this but I know I shouldn’t

I’ll leave it at that….. “collusion “ ?

The week after next ?

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

I'm not usually into conspiracies but I did like the one over at HC that the Mining Decision is being held up deliberately until the Refinery appeal period 21 June plus 21 days (12 July) is over to starve the Antis of any new possible angle to appeal the Refinery permit.

But that involves internal judicial collusion at a minimum so I doubt it

With this never ending delay I’m starting to believe

 

[cosors]

With this never ending delay I’m starting to believe

Nearly every theory is justified at this point incl. that the deciding judge is on holiday with the Minister of Justice.
I no longer care. It seems to me that the EIB's decision is more decisive. They will certainly have knocked on the court's door. The EIB has kept to the timetable.
I myself tend to think that our case will be decided/bespoken at the 'highest level'. And that's the reason for some delay.
What speaks for your theory is that the lawyer of the opponents argued that the two projects should not be treated separately. For whatever reason.
We will see.
The thing with the Chinese makes me rather uncomfortable. The fact that the Chinese have effectively banned graphite deliveries to Sweden since 2020.
If we get caught up in their show of force then it looks difficult for us I think. I'm reassured that it's Sweden and not Germany. The Germans would also sell their mother if they could get along with the Chinese.
Well, I hope this won't affect us with the China graphite and we won't become a political dispute. If you Talga then we this or that....

 

[Semmel]

For the record, my mother is not for sale

 

[Pharvest]

A 'long' time ago I read something about compensation payments due to them and the numbers were absurdly low. It was one of their arguments from the beginning and it was/is understandable from my point of view. The landowners are forced to sell in the national interest and the regulation provides that the Sami get only peanuts. I understand if Talga would like to pay more than legally obliged was also my proposal at the time.

The verdict deals with compensation payments at the very end. I could not see anything there in this case. Perhaps because voluntary performance of Talga.

The taxes are also quite low if I remember correctly. So why not be generous as a foreign company and set a good example.

However, I don't think that these negotiations will have any influence on the time or delay of the court.

I think more and more that the approval process in Sweden is in adjustment right now and there is a discrepancy between the regulations of the EU and those of the Swedes. Therefore, I think that our case is submitted to the highest possible authorities judges or ministers (?) and our case is like a precedent. There are still many projects to come in connection with CRMA. So take the time to make everything correct and unassailable for upcoming projects of which we also have some. If this were the case patience now would certainly pay off later.

Of course I can be wrong like everyone else.

I reckon your absolutely bang on the money mate.

 

[cosors]

For the files.

https://investeu.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/IEU%20IC%20No.16%20-%20EU%20Guarantee%20Approvals%20Decisions%20-%208-9%20June%202023.pdf


EIB page:
TALGA ANODE PRODUCTION SE

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

Surely next week once the Refinery appeal process has closed we will get an answer ??????????????????????????????????????????

Compensation ?...............................perhaps once all legal avenues at this stage have run their course

And if there is compensation I'm with @cosors thinking let's give them more than the bare minimum over the course of the current mine (not upfront) and get them so hooked on the money (like a junkie on ice) they'll just wave through our expansion plans

 

[cosors]

Surely next week once the Refinery appeal process has closed we will get an answer ??????????????????????????????????????????

Compensation ?...............................perhaps once all legal avenues at this stage have run their course

And if there is compensation I'm with @cosors thinking let's give them more than the bare minimum over the course of the current mine (not upfront) and get them so hooked on the money (like a junkie on ice) they'll just wave through our expansion plans

Percentage wise as much more as we block their total grazing land, so maybe 0.000146%

 

[WheresTheMonkey]

Percentage wise as much more as we block their total grazing land, so maybe 0.000146%


View attachment 39413
View attachment 39414

So what does that mean ?

$8 a year ?

@cosors did you sell Alaska to the USA in a previous life ?

 

[cosors]

So what does that mean ?

$8 a year ?

@cosors did you sell Alaska to the USA in a previous life ?

No, other side. In my previous life I negotiated this deal for the U.S. and asked for only 0.1% of the land mass. I mean the area is called Klondike. I was actually satisfied.

 

[cosors]

I'm actually just glad because of the national interest. Once the matter is through any action that obstructs is illegal.

 

[Proga]

Nearly every theory is justified at this point incl. that the deciding judge is on holiday with the Minister of Justice.
I no longer care. It seems to me that the EIB's decision is more decisive. They will certainly have knocked on the court's door. The EIB has kept to the timetable.
I myself tend to think that our case will be decided/bespoken at the 'highest level'. And that's the reason for some delay.
What speaks for your theory is that the lawyer of the opponents argued that the two projects should not be treated separately. For whatever reason.
We will see.
The thing with the Chinese makes me rather uncomfortable. The fact that the Chinese have effectively banned graphite deliveries to Sweden since 2020.
If we get caught up in their show of force then it looks difficult for us I think. I'm reassured that it's Sweden and not Germany. The Germans would also sell their mother if they could get along with the Chinese.
Well, I hope this won't affect us with the China graphite and we won't become a political dispute. If you Talga then we this or that....

"They will certainly have knocked on the court's door. The EIB has kept to the timetable"

I very much doubt that mate. The EIB follow their own policy and procedures and based their decision on the merits of the project only. What else is going on is just noise to them.

"The thing with the Chinese makes me rather uncomfortable. The fact that the Chinese have effectively banned graphite deliveries to Sweden since 2020. If we get caught up in their show of force then it looks difficult for us I think"

I just happen to know of a company which has a smallish deposit who would gladly sell graphite to Sweden if they can fit you into their busy schedule . Just let me run some numbers. 19.5ktpa AAM plant would require about ........ 3 weeks of mining and processing to fill the order. And it's already battery grade qualified.

 

[cosors]

"They will certainly have knocked on the court's door. The EIB has kept to the timetable"

I very much doubt that mate. The EIB follow their own policy and procedures and based their decision on the merits of the project only. What else is going on is just noise to them.

"The thing with the Chinese makes me rather uncomfortable. The fact that the Chinese have effectively banned graphite deliveries to Sweden since 2020. If we get caught up in their show of force then it looks difficult for us I think"

I just happen to know of a company which has a smallish deposit who would gladly sell graphite to Sweden if they can fit you into their busy schedule . Just let me run some numbers. 19.5ktpa AAM plant would require about ........ 3 weeks of mining and processing to fill the order. And it's already battery grade qualified.

I just mean that the EIB rules are clear. The rules how EIB must work are on their page. Does the project comply with the specifications in the different points? And this information can only collect the Court and not investigative determine from the EIB itself. That's what the neutral court and the legal decision in the first instance is for. This is the correct body for this information. I think the EIB is not allowed to decide on its own investigations and must take into account the judicial process and must refer to the national jurisdiction, which is the environmental court from Umea. And the proceedings are ongoing. So I think that the EIB must never decide on its own authority prematurely because otherwise they make themselves vulnerable because legally not covered. Imagine the EIB says yes, here is the money and this would not be compliant with EU rules. And then it comes out retroactively that this was not legally covered at all. That would bang. So I assume that the EIB is clearly in close coordination with the Swedish national jurisdiction. I can hardly imagine it any other way. The deadline was the 14th, and the EIB's decision came on the 15th. And I think that based on the outlook of the court. I can imagine that the EIB has asked the court whether the project complies with EU rules on environmental impact and human rights. The verdict alone is not a basis here as the appeal process is still ongoing. So I think as a layman in my naivety that there was asked whether there are gross violations that show the objections or not. Is there a showstopper or not. What Sweden decides politically regarding the trade policy with China the EIB has no influence because the national states in the EU have common rules but in essence they are sovereign. But it is not a problem for me that we both have an other opinion. We can all just speculate. In summary, for the EIB, from my point of view, the decisive factor for their decision is whether the court evaluates the project in such a way that it complies with EU rules. And it is not decisive for the approval of the loan what kind of trade policy Sweden has with China. Of course IMO

 

[Proga]

I just mean that the EIB rules are clear. The rules how EIB must work are on their page. Does the project comply with the specifications in the different points? And this information can only collect the Court and not investigative determine from the EIB itself. That's what the neutral court and the legal decision in the first instance is for. This is the correct body for this information. The EIB is not allowed to decide on its own investigations and must take into account the judicial process and must refer to the national jurisdiction, which is the environmental court from Umea. And the proceedings are ongoing. So I think that the EIB must never decide on its own authority prematurely because otherwise they make themselves vulnerable because legally not covered. Imagine the EIB says yes, here is the money and this would not be compliant with EU rules. And then it comes out retroactively that this was not legally covered at all. That would bang. So I assume that the EIB is clearly in close coordination with the Swedish national jurisdiction. I can hardly imagine it any other way. The deadline was the 14th, and the EIB's decision came on the 15th. And I think that based on the outlook of the court. I can imagine that the EIB has asked the court whether the project complies with EU rules on environmental impact and human rights. The verdict alone is not a basis here as the appeal process is still ongoing. So I think as a layman in my naivety that there was asked whether there are gross violations that show the objections or not. Is there a showstopper or not. What Sweden decides politically regarding the trade policy with China the EIB has no influence because the national states in the EU have common rules but in essence they are sovereign. But it is not a problem for me that we both have an other opinion. We can all just speculate. In summary, for the EIB, from my point of view, the decisive factor for their decision is whether the court evaluates the project in such a way that it complies with EU rules. And it is not decisive for the approval of the loan what kind of trade policy Sweden has with China. Of course IMO

The loan approval is only provisional. The way it works is the EIB loan won't become final until TLG submit all the required paperwork including the appropriate permits/approvals from local authorities. It's standard procedure by all Western Govt agencies for this type of loan.

It's not incumbent upon the EIB to keep track of every court proceeding. The EIB processes thousands of these loans applications and you can't expect them to ring every Federal, State, local court seeking clarification of the approval/permit status. Just to make sure all the required paperwork has been submitted before final approval is granted and any money is issued.

Jigar Shah who runs the US DOE Loans Program Office has repeatedly mentioned on many pods and interviews say the hardest part of his job is guiding companies applying for loans through all the paper work which must be submitted. For example, SYR had to submit their off-take agreement with Tesla. They required it to help calculate how secure the loan will be to determine what interest rates to apply. No different from any loan from a commercial bank.