Member Info for Professor1

Certain things ARE / HAVE NOW become very clear to me now after listening carefully to the presentation several times and reading previous material and we have to start with the type / types of system we hold:

1) It seems that the type of deposit we have at La Cejita, a porphyry, will contain a huge resource but of LOW grade and this large area will require significant shifting of the ground over may be a period of 15/20 years or so.

2) The other 4 targets are thought to be a very high grade but unlike La Cejita, these are of the epithermal type (and AGEOS will be able to please confirm) and these will be accelerated very rapidly to establish a resource base and a real VALUE of the company. I believe there will be work done in tandum on La Cejita to establish value here too.

3) NEWMONT - We all know that the fact that Newmont have done the deal with Omi is indicative of the SIGNIFICANT potential OMI has and by the way NEWMONT ARE AWARE OF THIS.

4) However, Newmont I believe will want to realise value on their investment here much more earlier - certainly prior to the formation of the joint venture with us at year 4.

Certain research needs to be done on Buritica and I suspect they also had a large La Cejita type deposit in addition to the epithermal type (Help from AGEOS please). Newmont did not hang around once the resource base was established. Is this the new Newmont policy ? Why? - because Newmont are under pressure I believe from their shareholder base to increase the Return to the shareholders sooner rather than later.

4) This is where they brought in Agnico with us to accelerate the project and my feeling is that we will have the resource established in the next couple of years before Newmont takes 51% stake.

5) What will happen if, Newmont do at the point of JV formation with us at year 4, what they did with Buritica?

6) We have 3 possible options:

A) Agnico steps in and we have some sort of structure established with them. I personally believe they are less aggressive than Newmont.
B) We continue to mine ourselves - in which case have to raise huge sums of money OR
C) We lay a red carpet for our new neighbour, ZIJIN.

I am strongly of the view, and I may be completely wrong, that we might end up with the option 3.

GLA

Zijin acquired Buritica. There is no doubt this opens new opportunities.  Zijin is one of the biggest mining companies in the world, a very motivated neighbour, able to move forward in Colombia.

It is clear that the situation is a lot more dynamic now, which helps.

Thanks Ageos, much appreciated. Hoping for a positive outcome on those and a good rerate here.

Many thanks DrRemington.

I believe this will really gather momentum. Buy and hold.

Hi Ageos

Appreciate reading your posts here which are very informative.

Please correct me if I am wrong but did Brad say in the interview that they will work this year towards getting those permits for La Cejita and Jesuitas with a view to working on them early in the new year?

McGoogle

Great post

2. Date of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Issuer: 09/12/2020.
3. Agenda of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Issuer:
1. Member of the Management Board holding a position in a governing body of a different entity
================= ============

Governing body of an entity = A group of people who authorise governance over an organisation

GLA

Good morning Caterham and all

Great RNS and look at some of those amazing grades.

Based on your calculations, massive value to be gained here no doubt. Based on the legal angle, the Rajasthan govt has everything to lose. So my gut feel here is that they will agree to us having more than 51%. I always suspected that they might be wanting to participate in a consortium and thought they could get away by demanding an upper hand but did not anticipate that the High Court would rule against them.

One thing is now very clear and that is we ARE getting an agreement on Bhukia which will be transformational for PAT.

Caterham

Found it.

ROYALTIES
19.Gold :
(a)Primary
(b)By-product
gold
Two per cent of London Bullion
Market Association Price (commonly
referred to as “London Price” )
chargeable on the contained gold metal
in ore produced.
Three point three per cent of London
Bullion Market Association Price
(commonly referred to as “ London
Price” ) chargeable on the by-product
gold metal actually produced.
20. Graphite :
(a) with 40 per cent or more fixed

RATES OF DEAD RENT

1. Rates of dead rent applicable to the leases granted for low value minerals are as under:
Rates of Dead Rent in Rupees Per Hectare Per Annum
From second year of lease Third year and fourth year Fifth year onwards
200 500 1000
2. Two times the rate specified in paragraph 1 in case of lease granted for medium value mineral(s).
3. Three times the rates specified in paragraph 1 in case of lease granted for high value mineral(s).
4. Four times the rates specified in paragraph 1 in case of lease granted for precious metals and stones.
Note:
1. For the purpose of this notification-
(a) “precious metals and stones” means gold, silver, diamond, ruby, sapphire and emerald ;
(b) “high value minerals” means semi-precious stones (agate, gem, garnet), corundum, copper, lead, zinc,
asbestos (chrysotile variety) and mica ;
(c) “medium value minerals” means chromite, manganese ore, kyanite, sillimanite, vermiculite,
magnesite, wollastonite, perlite, diaspore, apatite and rock phosphate, fluorite (fluorspar) and barytes ;
(d) “low value minerals” means minerals other than precious metals and stones, high value minerals an

Hi Caterham

Please see attached. Although it covers it, no amounts are specified. The article on the whole is very informative on the rules governing the mining industry.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6e1b8cb8-f7bd-4905-9d0e-13a304d9cb4d

Hi MEM / Caterham

No probs. at all.

What is great to know now is what the Rajasthan govt always wanted and naturally our previous Board who were dealing with them at the time never disclosed such intentions of that govt to the shareholders (certainly I cannot see anywhere). This is what Mr Bolton and his team are trying to agree and I firmly believe they will come out with some sort of agreement which is conducive to both parties. Naturally, we would bargain hard to retain at least 51% since the state govt know they have no basis for a case in law.

Agree, even with the conservative numbers you quote, we are on to a massive win here.

(CONTINUED)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Mines & Geology, Through its
Director, Revision Cell, 3rd Floor, A wing, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. The State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., C-89-90, Janpath,
Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur - 302004.

----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia & Mr. Dinesh Pal Singh
Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG with
Mr. Rizvan & Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Order
22/01/2018

All the above writ petitions shall stand decided by this

common order.
(3 of 3)
[ CW-1864/2008]

The petitioners have filed the additional affidavit today in the

registry which is taken on record. Along with the said additional

affidavit, certain documents have also been filed. Document

Annexure-1 is the letter dated 29/04/2015 addressed by

Superintending Mining Engineer proposing that in case, the

petitioners want to prospecting licence for 25 sq. km in Rajasthan

as per the application No. PL 64/2008 dated 16/04/2008, they

should withdraw all the legal cases pending before the High Court.

The petitioners subsequently vide letter dated 30/04/2015, which

is placed on record as Annexure-2, gave an undertaking that they

shall withdraw all the pending cases in case the authority grants

the prospecting licence for 25 sq. km in Rajasthan in pursuance to

the letter dated 29/04/2015.

It is not disputed that the same is still pending consideration

before the concerned Authority.

Taking in account that much water has flown since the filing

of the present writ petitions, the same are disposed of with a

direction to the respondents State to take a final decision in terms

of the letter dated 29th April, 2015 - Annex.1 as expeditiously as

possible preferably within three months from today. In case, the

petitioners are aggrieved in any manner with the final decision,

they are at liberty to challenge the same afresh, in accordance

with law.

(NIRMALJIT KAUR),J.
Sanjaysoanki,pa

Mickey / Hinkais

No worries at all.

For completeness, copy and paste of the final stay order from the Rajasthan High Court on 22 January 2018

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Metal Mining India Pvt. Ltd vs State & Ors on 22 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1864 / 2008
Metal Mining India Pvt. Ltd. (A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956) C 111, Prestige Elgin, Hosur Road,
Bangalore- 560025 Karnataka through its Managing Director Mr.
Surendra K. Chaku.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Department of Mines Through its
Secretary, Jaipur.
2. Shri N.P. Sharma, Deputy Secretary, Mines Department,
Group-2, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1481 / 2008
Metal Mining India Pvt. Ltd. (A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956) C 111, Prestige Elgin, Hosur Road,
Bangalore- 560025 Karnataka through its Managing Director Mr.
Surendra K. Chaku.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Department of Mines Through its
Secretary, Jaipur.
2. Director, Directorate of Mines & Geology, Government of
Rajasthan, Khanij Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Secretary of Mines, Department of Mines, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9174 / 2012
Metal Mining India Pvt. Ltd. A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, 42, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Lane-3,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110095 Through its Director C.V. Seshadri, Son
of C.N. Vedanthachar, Age-66 years, R/o 64, 2-H-Main 11 th Block,
Nagar Bhavi, 2nd Stage, Banglore-560072.
----Petitioner
Versus
(2 of 3)
[ CW-1864/2008]

1. Union of India, Ministry of Mines & Geology, Through its
Director, Revision Cell, 3rd Floor, A wing, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. The State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., C-89-90, Janpath,
Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur - 302004.
----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9175 / 2012
Metal Mining India Pvt. Ltd. A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, 42, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Lane-3,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110095 Through its Director C.V. Seshadri, Son
of C.N. Vedanthachar, Age-

I have no doubt that an agreement will be reached here with the Rajasthan government. It just depend on what type of agreement. We certainly do not want to lose 51% control but could meet other criterial for the tribal area people/ infrastructure contribution etc.

AND THIS 51% STAKE WITH THE RAJASTHAN GOVT IS WHAT MR BOLTON AND TONY MUST BE NEGOTIATING - BRING IT DOWN SO THAT WE HAVE 51% CONTROL

INTERESTING BIT

THE RAJASTHAN GOVT MAY ENTER INTO A JOINT VENTURE WITH A 51% STAKE

THATS WHAT THEY WANT

(CONTINUED)
As regards the effect of the order dated 10.03.2010 was concerned, his submission was that this could only be determined in a final proceedings and not at an interim stage. 19.1 Apart from the above, Dr Singhvi had also raised a preliminary issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this court in view of the judgment delivered by five Judges of this court, in the case of M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs UOI & Ors., passed in WP(C) No. 6570/2010, dated 01.08.2011.

20. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I had put to Dr Singhvi that in the captioned cases it may be perhaps appropriate that the objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction be kept open, in view of the admitted position that the impugned order did not reflect the correct position in so far as it observes that respondent no. 2 had filed a reply. Having regard to the above, it is, therefore, felt appropriate that the impugned order dated 15.09.2011 be set aside and respondent no. 1 be directed to pass a detailed order with respect to the contentions raised by the petitioner. This is more so, in view of the fact that, the person who passed the impugned order is the same person, who had passed the order dated 29.03.2011, in an earlier revision petition, wherein, he has taken a diametrically opposite view. Therefore, in my opinion respondent no.1 would have to reconsider the matter and pass an appropriate order delineating therein, how in the given facts it came to a completely contrary conclusion.

21. At this stage, Dr Singhvi says that instead of direction respondent no. 1 to decide the interim application afresh, a direction be issued to respondent no. 1, to dispose of the revision petition finally. Mr Dave says that this suggestion is fair and merits acceptance.

22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.09.2011 is set aside. Respondent no. 1 is directed to hear the revision petition finally. Respondent no. 1 is also directed to dispose of the revision petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three weeks from today. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions and the applications are disposed of.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J AUGUST 16, 2012 kk

.........END........

(CONTINUED)
17. It appears that in the meanwhile respondent no. 2 had also rejected the petitioner's application dated 17.04.2008, to which I have made a reference above, for grant of PL, vide order dated 03.03.2011 ostensibly based on the policy which respondent no. 2 had adopted vide its order dated 10.03.2010. Against the order dated 03.03.2011, the petitioner filed a revision petition on 11.05.2011 alongwith an application for stay under Rule 55(5) of the MCR. 17.1 It is this petition, which evidently came up for hearing before respondent no. 1, on 14.09.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that on that date, counsels for respondent no. 2 had entered appearance and as a matter of fact sought time to file a reply. It is not disputed that a week's time was granted to respondent no. 2 to file a reply. The petitioner states that on 19.09.2011 it received the impugned order dated 15.09.2011, rejecting its application for grant of interim stay.

17.2 What according to the petitioner is curious, is that in the impugned order dated 15.09.2011, there is a reference to the fact that a reply had been furnished by respondents, based on which, on hearing arguments of both sides, respondent no. 1 evidently came to the conclusion that petitioner was unable to make out a prima facie case and/or had failed to furnish evidence of having suffered irreparable loss, and hence, stay could not be granted.

18. Mr Dave, who appears for the petitioner, says that at the stage of hearing of the interim application various arguments were raised including the fact that the order dated 10.03.2010, based on which respondent no. 2 had rejected its application for PL, would not apply to the petitioner, as the order itself said that, it would not be applicable in those cases in which, courts had granted a stay. That apart, Mr Dave says that arguments had been raised qua breach of principles of natural justice, in as much as, there was no adherence to Rule 12(1) of the MCR. Mr Dave submits that, as a matter of fact, it is not disputed by respondent no. 1 that no notice was issued prior to issuance of order dated 03.03.2011 by respondent no. 2. For this purpose he has referred to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2 filed in this court.

19. Faced with the aforesaid, Dr Singhvi, who appears for respondent no. 2, candidly, and I must say most fairly, admitted that even though respondent no. 2, had been accorded time on 14.09.2011, for filing a reply to the interim application moved by the petitioner, it had not filed a reply and, therefore, that observation in the impugned order was factually incorrect. In so far as, Mr Dave's submission with regard to breach of principle of natural justice was concerned, Dr Singhvi submitted that he would like to rely upon the principle of "empty formality" to contest that point. As regards the effect of the order dated 10.03.2010 was concerned, his submission was that this could only be determined in a final proceedings and not a

(CONTINUED)

The application of the revisionist could not have been put in the category of deemed rejection cases on the ground that same had been filed before the date of lifting of ban on grant of ML/PLs in scheduled area. Further, no notice under rule 12(1) of MCR, 1960 had been given to the revisionist which is clear violation of the provisions of the rules and principles of natural justice. Other grounds and contentions taken by the State Government in their reply are of no consequence and cannot be taken into consideration as they occurred after the issue of impugned order. A decision to reserve the entire land in the tribal area of the State for State PSU taken vide circular dated 10-3-2010cannot have any bearing, whatsoever, on the outcome of application dated 16- 1-2008 which was rejected by the State Government vide impugned order dated 09-04-2008. Similarly, the fresh argument in the sur-rejoinder, which has been objected by the revisionist, pertaining to part of the area falling under forest and in Aravali hill range cannot be taken as ground for issue of impugned order which was supposed to be issued by the State Government keeping in view the conditions/ circumstances/ orders in force at that point of time. Further if there was any deficiency in the RP data generated by the revisionist or the same was not received by the State Government, they should have issued notice to the revisionist before rejecting its application. It is thus held that of the grounds relied upon by the State Government for rejection of the application of the revisionist for grant of PL are legally not tenable and the impugned order has been issued in clear violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957, MCR, 1960 and principles of natural justice. The case is accordingly remanded back to the State Government with the direction that a speaking order be passed in the matter by taking into account only such of the instructions/ orders which were existing on the date of issue of impugned order after issuing a show cause notice pointing out the deficiencies, if any, in the application and also providing an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. The impugned order dated 09-04- 2008 is accordingly set aside."
(emphasis supplied) 16.2. A reading of the aforesaid observations of respondent no. 1 would show that it set aside the impugned order and remanded the case, on the ground that there had been failure on the part of respondent no. 2 to comply with the principles of natural justice, in as much as, no notice under Rule 12(1) of the MCR had been given to the petitioner, which according to respondent no. 1, violated the provisions of principles of natural justice. Observation is also made to the effect the preferential right of petitioner under section 11(1) of the MMDR Act could not be whittled down by notification dated 05.02.2008, which was termed as, an executive act.
17. It appears that in the meanwhile respondent no. 2 had also rejected the petitioner

(CONTINUED)
13.1 The effect of the aforesaid order was that no third party interest could be created by respondent no. 2 vis-à-vis the area in respect of which RP had been granted to the petitioner, i.e., area admeasuring 207 sq. kms., in District Bhanwara.

14. Respondent no. 2, apparently issued an order on 03.07.2009, wherein it stated that the ban on grant of ML/PL in the scheduled tribal areas would continue till further orders and that no action could be taken for the time being on the applications received. The order, in sum and substance, superseded the notification dated 05.02.2008, whereby the ban was lifted. In other words, the ban on mining was re-imposed.

15. Respondent no. 2, followed the order dated 03.07.2009, with yet another order dated 10.03.2010, whereby it declared that in the scheduled tribal areas, RP/PL/ML for major minerals, would be granted only to an enterprise of the State, i.e., the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (in short RSMML). The said order went on to state that, RSMML could, however, enter into a joint venture with a private investor, subject to RSMML having a minimum of 51% share in such a joint venture. A further condition was put that, at least 20% of the profits from the mining in the notified scheduled tribal areas would be spent for welfare of the local tribals, and that, the said amount would be in addition to dead rent and royalty. Conditions pertaining to engagement of persons from the area to the extent of 50%, was also inserted in the said order. More significantly, the order indicated that, all pending applications for major minerals in the notified scheduled areas were liable to be rejected leaving out those in respect of which the court stay orders were in operation.

16. In the meanwhile, it appears that respondent no. 1 had the occasion to deal with an order dated 09.04.2008, passed by respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner's application dated 16.01.2008, for grant of PL for minerals such as led, zinc, gold, copper, over an area admeasuring 1.5 sq. kms., in the village Bharkundi, Tehsil Aaspur, Distt. Dungarpur, Rajasthan. By a detailed order the respondent no. 1 set aside the impugned order dated 09.04.2008. 16.1 What is important for our purposes, and on which, great reliance has been placed by the petitioner are, the observations in paragraph 14 of the order of respondent no. 1. For the sake of convenience the same are extracted hereinbelow:

".....14. The submissions made in the RA, comments of the State Government thereon, rejoinder and other documents filed by the revisionist and submissions made at the time of hearing have been gone through and it is held that the ground of rejection given in the impugned order is not tenable as the preferential right occurring to the revisionist under Section 11(1) of the Act could not be taken away by an executive order of the State Government dated 5-2-2008. The application of the revisionist could not have been put in the catego