Member Info for Inbrackets

Pity. Yes I was..almost hoping

Is that the very same FMG lurking in the background again?

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aj9GP1JfVKzhgaIetgYAkb5JdsY4lw

Frightening to think that this is almost year old. Some things have changed, eg. spod prices that much higher, and project further derisked with process flow confirmations etc. along with the prospect of 2/3 refineries.

Meanwhile, snap elections added delays but that delivered a majority and EU funds have been confirmed and are in place.

It may be a year old but is still relevant, if not more so. The absent friend chairs at the table remains but hopefully APA will turn up with the DIA/EIA quickly followed by the launch of the auctions.

T hen again, in the scheme of things, potentially a cheap bet should it turn up trumps. Certainly cheaper than a few months ago even with the premium over spot.

Lest we forget, Galp were prepared to pay $6.5m for 10% of SAV 18 months ago, and yet even though Li price up x9, our mcap and sp has gone down. Not saying that maths was my subject but that doesn’t seem quite right

Do they not need to:
Confirm the commercial viability of the process.
Get through all the licensing process, with all that entails.

Could be sometime yet

Surprised ? Really.
Over the past, what, 9years, when have you ever seen a preemptive comment?

All the pointers are now al but in place and this is coming from major international companies (not little ol’ SAV), the Portuguese Gov and Europe. Are they to be accused of ramping. Sure, there may still be some additional rabbits to pop out, but there would seem to be little that hasn’t been pieced together so far, but yet to be formally announced (+ structure).
All else will develop over the coming months with the auctions, but they look like they could be further positive developments.

Salve, I cannot take credit for Starfoxx’s ability to find truffles.

Timely.
Hat tip…..Saloccin

https://eco.sapo.pt/2022/06/19/galp-prio-efacec-e-mais-48-consorcios-veja-as-empresas-escolhidas-nas-agendas-mobilizadoras/

SAV are in there

Starfoxx, your record keeping is immaculate. Everything at your fingertips.
Many thanks.

CM, hi. Was just wondering how old the article is. It details Nemaska but they went bust end 2020 I think, though it seems to be used to refer to the asset sometimes.

I’ve been scouting as well. I’m am sure I saw a list a few months back of businesses that had applied / been accepted without the details of how much had been awarded as yet. Much like specs or car keys, not sure where it is now, but maybe Costa was simply summing up the position and the details still need to follow.

https://twitter.com/lossadjusted/status/1539543715148365825?s=21&t=s2VdfkmvrDHteqCG1XjAbQ

Plus ca change.
But it has to.

Blyth Gigafactory, indeed any UK gigafactories and many, if not all European gigafactories, all have a refined and/or raw material supply issue. GB will need to import either for years, if not indefinitely, beyond Blyth’s hoped for start date in 2024, quite aside from the other outlined sites.

Does, or will, the EU or the member states have the resolve to cut through what is perhaps a preferred liberal self determination mindset to develop its own raw material supplies, or are they going to join the UK in forever importing basic raw materials that they could supply for themselves.

If they ever do, and if charity begins at home, then I for one would be quite surprised if much of MdB’s production found it’s way to Blyth. Will be quite happy to stand a supper at the Fish Shack or Potted Lobster if the blockchain technology proves otherwise.

Not that it has been noticeable or noticed to date. But then again, you don’t see a duck paddle, so maybe we shall see any impact in the future should expected approvals land.

Somewhere there will be a comment regards this bit of the jigsaw, good, bad or indifferent.
All hidden way above my techie pay grade. Someone will know where to look.

I don’t think that these meetings have huge discussions on topics at this stage, but are more to stamp/ confirm the decisions that have been worked up in preparation, prior to the meeting. Or am I being overly optimistic. It would seem logical looking at the number of topics that they have penciled n for 30mins.

May I refer back to Bakers message.
Recommendations may be just recommendations with no binding force but take a step back and think of the implications.
Whilst the Government has an outright majority and could simply push it through and impose, I can understand they would rather wait a few weeks/months for a positive decision which they can then refer back to. If it goes against, they will have to workout a way through things, but why escalate a problem that might not actually exist.

From SAVs point of view, they have to develop the relationships within the local community and I can’t see any advantage in having anything other than a clean licence / authority to develop the mine. Why would they look to pump vast funds in,only for it to be brought back to some sort of court for the legitimacy to be queried.

As far as the relative worthiness of UNECE, is that not the whole purpose of inter / supra national agreements to provide pre agreed norms to enable developments and avoid local disputes, this time to help avoid border frictions. Oil in the engine, greases the wheels. Certainly an irritant when a contra NGO looks to use the rules to stymie and delay things, but from my reading up, they may have also needed to play by the rules in their various (lack of) responses. No doubt we shall see how this is viewed.

Thanks for that. I had it in mind that it was the week after the AGM. Thought I was going potty

As I understand, One of SAVs detractors is a Spanish group that put a claim in to UNECE. a UN body, to say that procedures were not followed, I think this one was something to do with provision of information to cross border bodies but can’t swear to this.

Unsurprisingly, as a UN body, it would probably be a litigation minefield if licences were released / awarded prior to their decision, in case they ruled against. The body only meets a few times a year but their decision was pencilled in for this meeting. Hopefully it will be made, one way or another as a deferment would extend the current torture. Either way, it will potentially unblock the current bottleneck, with only the Boticas Parish Council v Portuguese Gov court case lurking in the background.

Hope this helps to explain why the UNECE meeting on the ESPOO Convention is something to be following.

Portugal has been promising to put a number of areas up for a public tender for the past 3/4/5 years. They then had to get a new mining code into play. The promise was that the permitting process would be quicker as the earmarked areas had been identified for special treatment, though still would need to go though EIA etc. this has been postponed endlessly and then again with elections and again just a couple of weeks ago.

SAV have stated publicly for over a year that they would be looking to take part in the auctions and felt well placed having a good understanding of the necessary procedures and a template to work on with MdB. Not only in Portugal but they have also identified other potential targets in Spain.

They still need to get MdB over the line, but once done, the possible Addison’s would catapult SAV into a different league.

Just reflects the long winded permitting process, pushing the date ever outwards.