We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Hello Painless the mining office is sorting the gold ore tax evasion/avoidance issue in Mali, it is costing millions and making a mockery of feasibility submissions.
The UK or anywhere else would clamp down on that too if they had the same rules.
Leo is a complicated one as they are specific to Leo. Are there time limits on forced suspensions on ASX?
Because this one is not voluntary?
If there is a time limit the mining office may prioritise it.
Hadrian - we used to be the same once, not so vocal and a lot more powerful.
Loads of stuff on it, but this one gives a blanket background
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/30/chinas-belt-road-initiative-invests-african-infrastructure-african-military-police-forces/
Apparently there are many more Chinese security forces in West Africa but they operate through many tiny organisations.
Russia is a bit like Cuba, like to make a splash, a bit of an entrance.
Whilst the real forces and issues are stealth like and Joe public are oblivious.
Like a big gangster, useless if everyone knows who you are.
Makes sense Daz, major mining company.
Kodal can take their cash, have their own (relatively) small income generator, probably gold and a small percentage of West Bougouni and maybe Bougouni too, then source another mine for a major, possibly Hainan again.
If the resource expands enough before October or so, I reckon it could be before DMS.
Surin, I think with the new staff appointments at Bougouni and the Hainan crew out there and more going out that may well happen soon.
We don't have a clue about the Goldfields potential value.
We may all be way underestimating their potential as originally they were thought of as stepping stones to fund Bougouni before Bougouni turned into such a major prospect.
We will see.
Badomen, where is there any concern anywhere from a mining company about change of ownership following a JV?
The concern in the new mining code is for gold mines which over produce over a set margin above what they disclosed in their feasibility study. In 2019 a penalty was imposed for doing so.
To get round it some mines were moving over production gold ore to another mine and avoiding the penalty. In 2023 this loophole has been closed.
However some mines run into the same processing plant, it is these and similar situations that they are ironing out as we speak.
A couple of reasons why this would not impact us, we are not a gold mine, have no intention of moving ore and are not yet mining.
Accion lol, I know what you mean.
The definitions are all pretty much the same.
Compensation for taking a non renewable substance, mineral or whatever.
Take out the basics corporation tax etc which are obvious.
Then look at the size of the remaining taxes. Try and eliminate the largest taxes as not being a royalty and you should have it/them.
No mining company will be allowed to dig up over 100 square kilometres and pay just 7-10m dollars. Not that if it has royalty in the name it is not some form of royalty. It can be a combination (hybrid royalty) alongside another.
Then look at the remaining taxes and see if they fit one of the criteria, rent/profit sharing and the two older versions you previously posted or any others.
Like I said in a previous post only one version of royalty, American I think with some man's name to it, states in that definition it has to have the word royalty in the title and I don't know if he was global just america or state specific.
Other definitions don't necessarily include the word royalty and state this as per an example I posted. It was a cut and paste not my words.
However like I said accountants are starting to refer to them as revenue frameworks and similar titles.
Possibly because of the royalty finance which is currently prominent and potentially confusing, I don't know.
It doesn't help Mali being French and the companies mining there using their country's words for something in Mali.
For a simple example, in the UK we use the term open cast, Australia open pit, Kodal are using the term open pit, but I would be surprised if Mali being French speaking use that term.
That is a simple one - taxes on the other hand..
Sleepy, I wouldn't get dragged into their posts.
They are simply two people trying to disrupt the board and have everyone dancing to their tune.
Fooca as they are calling themselves is neck deep in Leo Lithium, with all of their well covered issues.
Accion, is invested elsewhere.
Don't be a troll puppet, watch them get excited and start posting again.
Accion, it was not a link to a book, if you scroll down it gives all the reference material that you may need to cross reference with another source. Loads of references.
I think the easiest starting point though is what is the payment for and how much it is likely to be.
Then that is a good starting point for asking is it to compensate for taking a non renewable material out of a country's ground.
If it is a small figure it is not going to be the main royalty. No matter if royalty is in the name or not.
Are the taxes listed a direct interpretation of the Mali name for the tax?
Accion to assist you
Mineral royalties are generally viewed as a compensation to the state for the acquisition of its non-renewable resources. Royalties may be applied on different bases, either volume, value at various points along the value chain or profit/rent, in different jurisdictions. While there is no correct or incorrect version of a royalty, each different royalty type will achieve different and at times incompatible government objectives and will have a different impact on both government revenue versus the income of mining companies and consequently influence their willingness to invest and the mode of mining development, operations and financial performance of projects.
They aim to prove 50 million tonnes by the end of this year.
After the government and Hainan share that puts us right back to owning 100% of our original resource.
Before production even starts.
That would be a big celebration.
PS Elcobble, which means if they had used your price per tonne the NPV would be around the same figure with the updated resource tonnage!
Pretty good when you look at the lithium price other projects are projecting.
Elcobble, the thought crossed my mind too, I would rather have seen the resource increase included and a revised price per tonne used.
They did a strange thing in that they give the updated resource figure in tonnes but left the NPV on the old resource figure with the 2,080 dollars per tonne lithium price.
Always something to confuse new investors!
Nice and clear that presentation very good.
Maybe a few interviews following that.
Then hopefully a separate gold presentation, which may or may not include our other lithium site update too.