The Fox
Regular
Hey WhalesIs the ML dependant on the result of this 15%.
I thought that it was as long as a company hold 51% and have proven financial funding for the project then that should be sufficient to issue the ML .
So surface rights still could be paid in full by Dathcom while arbitration proceeds .
It is now fact AVZ / Dathcom hold 60%.
Unless surface rights have to be paid by individual partners ?
A question for Ben at AVZ.
I don’t know of any country where the Government would issue an ML/PE to a private company when the ownership of said company is unclear.
This is to ensure there are no criminal elements, mafia, known money laundering or terrorist groups or sanctioned people or sanctioned companies involved etc.
I fail to see how this could be any different in the DRC or the way the Government there should manage things. However, since half the operators in the DRC are crooks, maybe it doesn’t matter there, who fuck’en knows.
My understanding on the 51% ruling is only to do with one party having 51%, not we don't care who owns the other 49%.
Certainly more disclosure needed from BOD on the outlook re ML/PE and ownership issues. Many shareholders will need to plan around a drawn out (further draw out) suspension if clarity of ownership is one of the reasons for the hold up....... now. Apparently is hasn't been an issue voiced by Nigel thus far for ML/PE delay, only correct surface rights, hope this hasn't changed or been overlooked.
Cheers The Fox