If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
For me the entire project now rests on whether Emmerson can convince the CRUI as to the viability of the new KMP. In the absence of this they have clearly been unable to get the EIA over the line at either Regional or National level; hence the requirement to update the EIA with this new process.
The question however is can the CRUI reasonably sign off on the permit on the basis of a new revolutionary process not tested in a commercial environment and where the company themselves state that further testing is required to optimise. Will they require further independent analysis and what does this look like.
This still has a long way to play out in my view and the outcome remains very finely balanced. The market is seeing this news as fairly neutral which I think is about right. POS maybe improved marginally.
What happens if CRUI reject (cannot approve !) again on the basis of an unproven process in practice (requires further work); presumably the right to appeal has been used up now leaving the company back in a holding pattern, seeking funds. National can then say we did our best to support you.....
As said the lack of detail from the company make it practically impossible to make an informed decision as to likely outcome.
Give it a few days.
Oh well, at least we had a update.
Yes, might shed light on the age old question of whether they refused the permit or lacked regulatory competence / capacity and were ‘unable’ to award it.
Surely if they lacked the regulatory capacity, they arguably wouldn’t be able to decide now. Perhaps a bit of a porkie being flushed out there? No matter providing they get the paperwork this time!
Let’s not forget, when the CRUI couldn’t grant the ESIA, there was a whole myriad of reasons why they couldn’t do so. It wasn’t just the water usage that GC had led us all to believe. Have those other issues gone away?
Simple for me.
National believe the improvements to the EISA should be enough for it to be granted.
So national are passing this back to local to grant the EISA.
Local then don't get aggrieved by National over ruling their decision not to grant EISA whin they haven't seen the new improvements.
That said I am an amateur at investing so DYOR.
So, the first Manilla envelope had just the right amount of Baksheesh stuffed into it, lets hope they get the right amount stuffed into the next one, otherwise we are stuffed.
chisler
Just say youve bought back in and you'd like us all to take it higher please.
It's more honest.
So the 'buck' has been returned to the original 'buck' passers. At least EML has been pounding doors with new process.
It is now difficult I think for the committee not to award EISA. In their original 'refusal', the committee passed the buck upstairs on the critical issue of water usage. That problem has mainly been overcome. The committee cannot possibly now 'refer' the approval, again. It has to make a decision, Yes, or No. just on the face of it, the answer has to be a Yes. A No , and the reason(s) behind it, would certainly have to be detailed. I am confident EISA will now be awarded, as per my timescale in previous post, before end of April. End of year, as touted by many on here, could not possibly have happened, for reasons previously explained. I am re-filling boots.
Swazers. RNS's drives sp in these AIM cos. Simple. Do not waste our times with your nonsensical , mean nothing, drivel. Go and play in the knife drawer for a few hours, there's a good boy.
Give it up Swazzers, you’re starting to look foolish and not a little bit desperate.
I suspect that the Ministerial group has the power to direct the local committee to issue or to reject, but it is expedient to let the committee consider the new proposal.
I think that’s a good way of thinking about it.
Appeal’s don’t really ‘uphold’ a referal, they uphold the appeal and make a different decision, so I think there is some more PR wordsmithery going on here and what you said is the best interpretation.
FWIW - There seems to be two parts to this decision. 1. Was it a good thing for the local committee to refer the decision? 2. Should it be accepted or rejected?
1. Was clearly a good thing as its forced Emmerson to significantly enhance its proposal. It now uses mainly Grey water, it minimises water use and it results in more value added in Morocco. So the referral is "upheld".
2. In the light of 1. its now asking the local committee to look again (at the new application) with a view to acceptance.
1/2
Jinx, yes I agree that many,n seemingly including Graham were expecting the Ministerial Committee to rule:
"the Company has exercised its right to refer approval to the Ministerial Committee"
Source: RNS, 6 Jul 2023
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EML/q2-update-0hygvaqv11mh42c.html
Although obviously guesswork, a few thoughts on today's decision:
1) Could be helping the EML
Appeals are by nature a second opinion on the same facts; you cannot change the facts you are asking the appeal to rule on or it wouldn't be an appeal but instead a new deliberation.
Morocco is seriously short of water. The Committee might have told EML that, if we rule on the original case we'll have to refuse you. Instead we'll as the CRUI to take another look and please can you amend your application because its better for you if we don't rule on the project with original water demands now you have a new plan.
In this situation, we're effectively being told to make a new application (yes, I accept the point below that its not literally new, but I'm saying it is that in substance).
2) Cross boarder politics
Instead of the above, events may have taken over things.
Perhaps the project was refused / 'unable to be decided' on good grounds but now they want to build next door with OCP notwithstanding.
Refusing EML is one thing but refusing and then building your own national mine doing exactly the same thing next door may not be seen to be politically acceptable.
EML may have been asked to brush up its water proposal and then by magical coincidence it didn't just appeal the decision with confidence it had done all it could but developed a new process (p.s. revealing there was more it could have done all along) and this gave the Committee the grounds to refer it back.
It's worth saying that none of all of this follows the published law governing the approval of ESIA by CRUI authorities (Law 47-18), which still appears to be in force. I looked this up before and have copied my summary from July last year for anyone to check or look up. Idg69, the law says that no one with a conflict can sit on the committee. I don't know how this can work when its a state committee and OCP is state owned, but theoretically(!) there seem to be protections.
The Ministerial Committee is not a technical committee and, therefore, they might be saying they're not equipped to assess our new process. If this is right then being sent for reconsideration would not be the same as being 'blessed' for approval.
Whatever it is, the whole thing continues to be very spooky and the sooner we can get the paper and retake control of our own the better.
However, you'd have to think the chances are at least 51/49 in our favour now and that an approval would be the more likely outcome, especially because of the fall our of appearing to refuse us and build next door themselves, showing it was possible all along. In this respect, OCP's build could be just as much a
First the positive they have not killed the project. This may allay some fears of underhand activity behind the scenes.
The big issue however for me is we continue to be drip fed the absolute bare minimum of detail with increasingly ambiguous wording. This can equally be read as National could not approve the EIA in its current guise so they are giving the company the opportunity of another shot.
In my experience if they are genuinely "pleased" with this news then we get a lot more flesh on the bone as to conversations, the process, next steps, timings etc. If unsure one obfuscates with ambiguous wording.
The other issue it raises for me is we were assured that all the water issues had been resolved and they were confident of permit approval. The inference with this news is that they had clearly not addressed those issues hence the EIA could not be approved as it stands either by Regional or National. Presumably the EIA now needs to incorporate the new KMP to get it over the line which in itself raises further questions. Does Regional accept KMP at face value, does it require further independent opinion/testing etc.
I am also of the opinion that they will need to raise some more cash in Mar/April in order to get the Annual Report signed off as a GC and to provide some further cash runway. The question is how are they going to do this and at what level of discount. Was the recent broker note a prelude to this.
All in all more questions that answers for me so we are left trying to fill in the gaps. The company are not helping themselves with providing the absolute bare minimum of information to SHs. Cynically is there a reason for this ?
Finally if BOD are genuinely "pleased" with this news lets see some deferment of remuneration pending permit. They could even take equity in lieu as presumably they consider this a fantastic entry point given its just a case of rubber stamping by Regional !
2/2
Sources for the above:
"Moroccan Law 47-18 covers ESIA approvals and governs the Regional Investment Centre that EML is currently appealing from.
- the Regional Commission meets weekly (article 34);
- no one with a conflict of interest can be on the panel (art 32);
- members are bound to absolute secrecy about how decisions are made (art 35), so not great for transparency;
- it has to reach a decision within 30 days of a project file being submitted by the Centre Director (art 34), so we might infer that the Centre Director didn't want to submit it or dragged heels until circa 2 months ago (you might imagine why Graham couldn't say the latter and perhaps that explains his RNS saying that he didn't know why it wasn't going in);
- decisions are taking by majority and by the Chairman if there is a tie (art 34), who may be a guy called Rachid El Abdi, who appears to be a significant figure in the Moroccan legislature but I don't know;
You should verify all or any of this yourself and not rely directly on it. My process was to download the statue from https://www.rabatinvest.ma/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Loi47.18-FR.pdf (https://www.rabatinvest.ma/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Loi47.18-FR.pdf)
and copy that into
https://www.deepl.com/translator/files (https://www.deepl.com/translator/files)
Source: post of 28 Jul 2023
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/ideas/?page=8
ARTICLE 37
Any refusal decision issued by the regional commission must be reasoned.
It may be the subject, by the investor concerned, of an appeal before the Ministerial Steering Committee provided for in Title III of this law within 10 days from the date of its notification.
However, the investor may, prior to referral to the Ministerial Commission, file an informal appeal with the regional wali, who presents it to the Regional Commission, which must rule within 10 days of receipt of the appeal.
In the absence of a response within the aforementioned period or when the Regional Commission confirms its previous decision, the investor may lodge an appeal before the Ministerial Commission, which rules within a period not exceeding 30 days.
In four days.
People will be moving their money around now in preparation to buy in
In my opinion. They have basically said that they are ok with it...Now local committee can sign it off with new amendments. Same as this country, if my local council didn't sign a major development they would have to go to the welsh government for guidance to clarify that such a development would be permitted. Moroccan government have basically said ok so now local government can sign it off. All good in my opinion...
This is welcome news, they are not asking for a new ESIA, it isn’t starting from scratch.
Emmerson will now resubmit the ‘EIA’ so that excludes the social side. Most of the data remains the same the major difference is obviously the water & no DWI.
EML don’t need to raise currently they have enough money until the end of the year, hopefully this is now resolved within the next few months.
#EML And still she moves as per the prediction, despite certain "opinions" of bad actors. https://x.com/SwazersC/status/1767117070154506752?s=20 https://www.tradingview.com/x/V9YQbHIP/
And as another posted said, a recommendation for approval Subject to water managment would have been better, why can't the highest committee approve it, I'm assuming they have the ability to do so.
I really hope we get the approval but it just all seems very backwards, first the local committee "unable to approve the application", we was lead to belive that this was because of the size, importance and ecological aspects , now its been referred back and the process needs to start from scratch. Emmerson done a good job with this RNS but you can only imagine the frustration behind the scenes.
Chewise, returned to regional for reconsideration, I would be happier if it said returned with recommendation for approval. They could reconsider and come to the same conclusion. Though the environmental and water consequences are considerably reduced now we have the new KMP and that is a game changer we are told. The market appears to like the news so far this morning.