Member Info for Inbrackets

Two for the price of one currently even if the value underground x10.

From ECO,

“The decree-law aimed at simplifying the environmental licensing process has already been approved in the Council of Ministers. Although it is not yet in public consultation - it should be released for the week, and will be available until September 15 - the Government has already lifted its veil on some of the main measures……. Apart from the area of renewable energy, there are also novelties for the industry. In "certain situations", the need for EIA for changes or expansions of metal production and processing projects, mineral, chemical, food, textile, tanneries, wood and paper and rubber industry is eliminated…… Environmental impact assessments are also waived in the case of railway modernisation and allotment projects.”

I don’t think allotment projects refer to veggie plots but might impact any upcoming auction areas. Not sure if any of this will be of use to SAV as they were ‘excluded’ or whether current process would be subject to new legislation once effective, presumably post mid Sep after the consultation period.

Whatever, we are now one month on from the news in July that APA had started to engage with SAV and assess the EIA application. According to the recent presentation, any resubmission would need to be done by late September if the result is to be known this year. September? Again.

W69, little nuggets hidden in plain sight perhaps.
Would have thought that this is an initial target if possible, but that would just be a calendar calculation based on the 50 working days to Dec 31st.

The updates that they have already done can be added into the mix and will hopefully bolster the application. Not sure whether they will lay out the areas of most concern and that need addressing at this stage but we can perhaps surmise from the areas that have been brought up publicly.

….the ‘evidence’ given regards the scale of the Hoover Dam unstable tailings wall.
….water usage, sourcing, poisoning and pollution for future millennia.
…..other areas no doubt eg UNECE, court cases

Not sure whether more information is/will be required or whether it will be a better explanation / impact understanding of existing plans plus tweaks. Let’s just hope that both parties, SAV and APA, can make sure their diaries are clear of anything other than getting this sorted out.

CM, agree. That said, old deal was 10% when sp was about 6p now for the same outlay, Galp would presumably get about 20%.

We have funds to see the EIA process through, so would like to wait especially now that we have a timetable for the decision.

Port Gov are committed to making sure that Port benefits from its natural resources.
EC unlikely to want to see its support benefitting elsewhere.

Are they looking to co-ordinate any production to the processing timeline to avoid any need to ship product to Chinese refineries.

Needed an update to include the moves on the EIA progress.

Timeline page includes a v small print footnote. “ 1. DIA decision could be received in 2022 if SAV resubmits relevant EIA elements by 30 September 2022”

Might be tight but suspect this would be the real target if possible. I presume they will inform the market once completed.

As far as the ‘quality’ of the land that is being disputed, I noted in the Portugal Resident deep assessment from their ground breaking investigative reporter that “ In some of the cases, for instance, “the new areas registered (to Savannah) include tanks, walls and paths that are fundamental to the public management of the common land to which they belong…”

In my albeit limited experience, I have yet to meet a local farmer that is not delighted to rid themselves of the responsibility to maintain walls and I doubt that many will want to walk along paths across areas to be blasted.

I doubt that SAV will take until the end of Sep to give their response and can but hope the courts gives its views on this promptly.

Just seen this.
https://twitter.com/thisiswow_/status/1550793828013326336?s=21&t=pef9kNw5e-NNKZIU2qze3g

It is sometimes said that the anti mining contingent looks at this board and then no doubt keep in touch with each other with battery enabled hardware/devices.
I thought this clip was wonderful but it shows the breadth of backyards that this lady relies on for the unknown, remote raw materials to manufacture the needed products and the ingenuity of unknown, remote people to develop helpful products.
<1.5%. Fine, make the case for Shylock’s pound of flesh, but 1.5% should not be able to rule the wider community and prevent helpful advances that ultimately benefit all in one way or another, even those that are lucky enough to own a backyard.
Soapbox now back in the cellar.

Good to see such a response, quantifying the potential problem and confirming initial timeline.
It would be interesting to see a map of where the disputed areas lie - are they key to the current plans or peripheral?

<2%

Not sure I can be of much help as yet and await the company response with interest.
The first case was effectively swatted off as the company pointed out that it was the parish council versus the national government and not SAV directly. If this is a new case as stated, and SAV is the ‘guilty party’ then they will need to say something in response.

It would seem to me that the antis have looked to refine their approach in looking to wrap SAV in legal tape, perhaps realising that the David might not beat the Goliath in their first shot at the Gov. We have not heard anything as to how that case is progressing and can but hope that it doesn’t take as long, and that arguments can be transferable if needed.

I will certainly be looking for regular updates and a timetable that can be relied on.

https://ominho.pt/litio-ministro-diz-que-pedido-de-reformulacao-do-estudo-de-impacte-ambiental-e-normal/Thought this would have been posted here already.‘Nothing to see here. Move along’. All part of the process but now with a timeline.

Anything before Mar 23 is a bonus, as would be any shortening of the 1yr DFS window.

As far as stalling for time, you might have thought it would be trying to speed things up. Tthe EIA process is now on a defined time pathway and as yet, I am not sure that there is any timeline for the auctions. They have managed to kick them down the road for the past 4-5 years? And on current record, not sure that they would be able to get things organised in just 8 months

Tracked back the link but it wouldn’t open,

https://www.time24.news/b/2020/02/montalegre-and-boticas-out-of-the-lithium-research-contest-news.html

16/2/20 I mailed
“It sounds as if the areas to be auctioned will benefit from a Government trump over local municipal opposition should the new mining code be reached. Meanwhile Boticas has been left exposed even if the EIA is accepted and exceeds any new mining code.
Whilst excluded during the ongoing EIA process (convoluted argument but perhaps understandable) do you know whether this anomaly changes once EIA is out and agreed?”

Reply 17/2
We are currently assessing what has been announced but from what we can see the announcement does not change the process that we already have underway for the development of Mina do Barroso.

I am sure there was a formal response at the time.
Not sure if it is of help.

Starrfox, that’s a bit of a grey cell dredging area.
Seem to remember that there was a great deal of consternation at the time when the government first announced the areas potentially for auction, and the ‘reserved’ powers that the gov were keeping, essentially to curtail local vetoes. MdB was not included specifically in these reserved powers and that sent electric shocks at the time, not just through shareholders but also prompted quick clarification from the Gov.

I might trawl through old mails to remind myself of the published outcome at the time but it may be that any comfort given at that time might not have been honoured (new mining code/new government/new ministers etc etc).

Today reclaimed the overblown immediate (and misplace) pessimism of last week. Sure a decision may be up to 9 months away but having a timetable at last and with APA finally being engaged to process the EIA that seems to have been gathering dust, is a huge plus.

The DIA/EIA has been the keystone forever and nothing has changed on that front even if so many other factors have become more positive. When cooler heads reflect on last week’s news, regaining the missing 25% shouldn’t be n issue.

‘Not all directors….’ But some do and are putting in accordingly, adding to their holding with immaculate timing.

Not all directors have a vast pool of capital to invest and it’s not as if they have been lavished with performance bonuses recently, if ever.
They have their work cut out over the next few months as they work with an engaged APA (that for the past two years has been barely registered any sign of life) as they hammer out any solutions, adding any upgraded information to the original application and dealing with any concerns raised.

Importantly, we now have a confirmed timescale so if we are to have a binary solution, the coin has now been tossed and it will land between now and March 23. Maybe we should cut the management some slack and let them concentrate on dealing with APAs queries and find a suitable CEO. One would have thought there would be quite some interest in the role despite the extremely tough day today.

Is that not the PFS / DFS? This would be due following the DIA /EIA etc. Scoping is more an outline.

https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3422R_1-2018-6-13.pdf

https://www.savannahresources.com/investors/rns-feed/rns-announcements/?rid=4019283

SAV website, Investors / RNS Feeds / put Scoping Study into the search box and Hey Presto! First result.