Member Info for Inbrackets

300% or 200% compound

I don’t think we should worry about RT’s intentions or potential targets too much at this stage.
Should a lot of ‘ifs’ fall in favour then an eyebrow might be raised but as of now, shorter odds elsewhere.

Reading through that, one can understand that our original submission would need to be updated to make sure that all aspects of the updated laws are met, totally. The original application might have been written with an understanding of the impending legislation but certainty rules.

Having pointed out the last time for a 2022 answer was resubmission prior to SEP 30, we then moved to hearing the last possible was Mid March , I just hope they don’t use this as a smokescreen and commit to an RNS as soon as the revised EiA is submitted.

Can but hope they are right. Didn’t realise that we were Omani owned, in which case the reporting might be questionable.

Resigned inevitability, if only.

Gallows humour by the sound of it would be appropriate.
I’ll hang around for an answer.

No doubt they will have been in contact but as made clear in the RNS, they are not looking to formalise any pointless agreements prior to sorting out any agreements to actually do what is possible.

As was said “ Securing subsequent finance at that point, whether it be from an offtake partner, strategic investor, capital markets, or alternative sources, when the Project is significantly de-risked from a licencing perspective should be readily achievable.” So there is no urgency to sign things up, trying to bounce any decisions. SAV need to, and would certainly seem to be trying to, concentrate on the thing that really matters, a fundamental contract between the local community and SAV as a conduit for a local resource that is much needed by the wider communities across Portugal and Europe.

Unicode and VW may well organise agreements between themselves, which is fine, but they will slot in whatever is available from wherever it can come from. SAV needs to be seen as the local champion for the community rather than as an extraction agent for ever more remote business interests.

It was the fundamental mutual need of both parties in Jerry Maguire that brought the result. SAV is a one horse owner but if it is not successful in coming to agreements, any failure would be far more widespread in its implications to the detriment not only locally but nationally and across the EU. Can but hope that pragmatic sense prevails in the end.

Fairly comprehensive run through of current position covering all areas even the court cases, plus expected timelines, even if further stretched to previous expectations.

Definitely political.
Wasn’t it ever thus but didn’t he current Gov make their position and plans clear prior to the election, and then they got a majority and therefore a mandate?

This line was in the original article posted by mining.com and I wondered about that as it seemed to contradict the +50 days .

It struck me as either a confusion with the initial period before (I think) the Notice of Conformity or that period before the original application could be submitted, when the clock could be stopped until any additional info sought by APA could be added before the clock started to tick again or a bit of sloppy reporting.

I had understood that the Article 16 period was when both APA and SAV would effectively discuss the various elements of the previously submitted application in the light of their review. SAV would need to pull together whatever responses during the period (now March at the latest) to answer the areas of concern as detailed by APA based on their assessment of the initial application. It was not then a licence to continually change the goalposts with additional queries and delays. At the end of this process, APA have their +50 (working) days to throw it open to further public consultation should they decide to or anything else before they give their decision - the extremely squeaky bum stage.

Hospi, suspect that you have managed to put many people’s feelings into words, along with the reasoning.

It might seem like a binary option for us as investors and the immediate future for the company, but it is also a binary option on the other side, in Portugal, and we should not lose sight of this. The government is there to marshal resources for the whole country and to benefit all, or as many as possible. Any short term benefits to a small number of current shareholders that might happen bears absolutely no comparison to the longer term benefit of the Portuguese economy and populace across a wide spectrum of related industry and relatively short term disruption to the life of a relatively small number of local people.

Let# Hope pragmatic agreements between all parties can be reached for the benefit of all.

https://www.mining.com/web/portugal-awaits-assessment-of-two-lithium-mines-before-launching-auction/

Does this mean that the auctions are waiting on the result as well? Wonder what interest there will be if the most comprehensive EIA plus extended resubmission process is declined?

At least we can take it that nothing will happen until we either have one in the bag to build on or a dead duck with a clear path to another at a knock down price.

My god. I didn’t realise that the dark web had so many specialist websites, catering for all.

Starfoxx, being a mining Guinea pig in Portugal is almost as painful as being a Guinea pig in Peru. Should we be rewarded, preferably in this life, for the services we have rendered to Portugal’s administrative mare?

W69, I don’t disagree. Whether worthy of its own RNS is another matter but combined with an update on progress makes sense. The original date was a simple back calculation and became a hoped for target date. The next deadline of year end would have built up its own pressure in the run up, this now bursts that boil before it even develops though it just defers it into January 2023 onwards.
Meanwhile the background continues brightening.

Pointing out in the Co Presentation that Sep 30th was the latest that the paperwork could be resubmitted if a decision was to land before the new year has obviously turned out to be purely an example of mathematical genius rather than a ‘target date’. Pity.

Looking at the retained expert services, it would imply a greater need to re-configure than perhaps was originally expected. A bit more than just a greater explanation of what had already been submitted. Looks like it is boiling down to the key areas - water and spoil.

At least they have pre-empted the 30th Sep expectation bubble, pushing it forward yet again.

So, UvdL, that’s the what and the why. We can guess the where (not that it matters) but the bit that has been missed out, as usual, is the when.
Port Gov have had a similar issue with auctions.

At least it is now on the menu.

Yep, one would have thought so. Just waiting for the EU to confirm their good words and publish the projects of common interest.

We have what looks like the string, does anyone have a tape measure?

Action speaks louder than words but at least the words are being spoken. This needs articulating asap and maybe Teslas effective downgrading today of Giga Berlin will further prompt the EU to finally get a wiggle on.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_22_5484

Is this another twist of the rope pour encourage les autres or a sign from the centre that EU member states need to retro fit some lead in their pencils.

That said, has the EU confirmed that they are not reclassifying Lithium yet.

W69, don’t get me wrong, I like reading, especially positive news and I would hope that any favourable comments are spread as far and wide as possible, and have as much impact as possible. I just don’t think that at this stage SAVs trumpeting to a wide open audience serves much purpose in furthering it’s case with APA.

Man in dock: As God is my judge, I’m not guilty.
Pithy response: He isn’t. I am. You are.

Third party appeals not guaranteed to be accepted.