Member Info for Inbrackets

Good to see each area being given the before and aft so the improvements in the revised submission can be easily seen. I note that they have also given an update on the second outstanding case.

Glad to see that the tone remains muted with no sense of expectation or triumphalism. No doubt hopes will be running high but they are all too aware that that is no guarantee.

APA did give reasoning, seemed fair and reasonable:

Dispatch of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Portuguese Environment Agency:

Following the hierarchical appeal filed on the subject referred to above, I determine the extension of the public consultation for an additional period of 10 days.

This is justified by the following reasons:

1. Special complexity and extent of information of the project subject to reformulation under the law;

2. I express interest on the part of the public and interested parties, namely the municipality of Boticas, in making pronunciation, and consequent understanding of this aspect by the APA in the spirit of the Aarhus Convention;

3. However, the stated in the "simple environment" diploma, I consider it possible, exceptionally, to make this decision, to the extent that the final decision deadline is maintained.

Nuno Lacasta

President of the Board of Directors of AP

It’s the 19th April which includes any Bank Holidays and weekends, so it’s not 15 ‘working days’ as such.

As a certain Mr Bowie might have sung, ‘I’ve got 10 days on my mind’. 10/15, doesn’t matter, all within the boundary.

APA have extended the public consultation for a further 10 days but all within the statutory 50 working day limit. A perfect example.

Pity this is behind a paywall for most.

I have kept a relative eye on EMH. Not that long ago SAV x15 would buy an EMH share. Now it’s about SAV x11.

Short week coming up and Tuesday sees the end of the public consultation. Down into single figures of weeks.

Let’s not forget that once again SAV were added for buying the land in good faith, based on what was on the register

I don’t believe that this has been finalised yet but it may be useful to recap the scale of this, as detailed in the RNS from last year:

https://www.savannahresources.com/investors/rns-feed/rns-announcements/?rid=4138616

Hopefully will be resolved in due course as it would seem to be more a dispute like a responsibility for a party wall rather than anything fundamental. Maybe another nugget of good news still to come in the run up to any final decision.

Going back to the original outline of the process all those years ago, I seem to remember the grid saying that in the event of a lack of reply from APA, then the default position was that the application was approved. I would take it that ‘tacit approval’ is this.

This seemed to be waived initially as extension after extension was given due new mining code / government elections / new ministers etc etc but APA is now just pointing out the rules (not their decision obviously) that need to be applied, and that they need to work to them. Previously they were not really engaging in any process.

I know that SAV have detailed the 10 working day window that they have to respond to any conditions that may or may not be attached. I have yet to receive any confirmation regards APA needing to warn their higher authorities should they be minded to refuse the application though it would appear from the self same rules that they would have 10 working days also.

Talking of which. We are therefore two weeks in to a 10 week (or possibly 8 week) process.

CM, they may well be looking for an extension but APA have now pointed out the rules with this response:

"In view of the established deadlines, and the application of the stipulations in Decree-Law n.º 11/2023, of February 10, which reforms and simplifies environmental licensing, it is not at all possible to respond to the requests to extend the deadline for this new consultation public, under penalty of tacit acceptance of the decision."

Hat tip Saloccin for this one.

https://www.savannahresources.com/esg-community/our-community/

They are all on the website. Readable, informative, and reasonable. An excellent distillation of the mass of info in the actual submission, transparent and accountable. It’s going to be interesting to see any counter arguments and the level of petty fogging that may now come to the fore.

Portugal Resident, again. Why does everything that is used as a mascot to gather support always have to have a crest?

Amazingly if birds can’t sleep, nest, feed in any particular spot, they will find another - I watch this basic fact of life every year in the garden. They don’t have an inter- generational successor Life tenancy to pass on and veto future development. The mining at MdB is not a killing field, just displacement for a period. What is difficult to understand.

Wonder what the logo is for the CRested APpreciation Society.

Last year, news of the lawsuit by the Parish Council against the Portuguese Gov, citing SAV as a co-respondent, hit the RNS. At that time the sp was around the 5p level and it started a slide as sentiment accentuated the negative.

Since then much has happened and whilst some parts may have seemed as delaying, overall it has all been positive. With this court case now resolved, I would hope that we could see an agreement with the community regards the sharing structure with the Mayor confirming things. Maybe this will come. Maybe a little after the public consultation due to close 04/04 when people have responded to the revised application.

With all the positives, one might have thought things would recover the ground it lost last year post 14th Feb.

To be fair, it would be wrong to make a presumption that things are matters certain. All they can do, as has been done, is to put as good a case forward as possible and plan any next steps depending on whatever the outcome turns out to be.

Meanwhile I understood that the Article 16 procedure curtails anything other than a binary outcome. Maybe the sp reflects that

https://www.savannahresources.com/media/vizl3f4s/barroso-lithium-project-community-information-sheet-march-2023.pdf

Further links on individual topics available.

Well planned roll out

APA have made the submission public this afternoon so we should expect something from the company giving details soon enough.

They will be looking to consult with the community as they had promised and as had been sought in the research they had had done. It will be interesting to see the differences after 9 months further work.

Can’t see what you are seeing, but it might have been a trade yesterday that has only just been confirmed.

Doesn’t look like he has posted for a while. Do hope that he is alright or had a Damascene conversion.

Yes, I noticed that and maybe a bit optimistically, thought that it might refer to the new auction areas which will be by definition at the start of any process.

I also noted Dale’s comments in the interview when he referred to the position should APA deny the DIA, saying that SAV would re apply, again. Is that just laying down what we will do or hinting that they would doubt the value of rhedb. Let’s see what the revised application looks like when all the details are published.