t-23 months… guaranteed jimb… would that be guaranteed by the lad’s in the epc contract… or similar… they must be well advanced to commit to that… and confident that they can deliver…
267 holes on a 10m x 10m grid covering an area of 28,530sq.m… 168m x 168m… is about the same size as 4 football pitches… (football pitch 105m x 68m = 7,140sq.m)…
0.55sq.m = 550mm x 550mm or 302,500sq.mm… divided by pi and then square rooted = radius x 2 gives a drill diameter of 620mm…
620mm dia drill hole = 0.55sq.m…
seems a bit big to me for a ‘geotechnical survey’ hole… and a bit of a waste if you don’t bother backfilling them with reinforced concrete… especially if you drill all the way down to rock… however deep that might be…
267 holes over and area 28,530sq.m… is about a 10m x 10m grid… seems a bit ott for a soil sampling survey… most likely as jimb touched on… for the pilot plant construction design…
much in the same way as all the previous loan financing has been provided by kdnc… directly to dev… now converted to equity / shares in the jv company…
kdnc loan financing provided to date… 1… dipa $2.5m for 20% (100% $12.5m)… 2… dipb(1) $3.5m for 7% (100% $50m)… 3… dipb(1-2) $3.3m for 3% (100% $110m)…
kdnc 1st right of refusal… 4… dipb(2) $20.7m for 19% (100% $110m)…
section 5 of the jrp… all monies transferred from pba to dev are done via loans… in the form of dipa and dipb loan financing… that’s the normal way for holdings companies to move cash into subsidiaries… the interest rate for this financing is already defined in the above jrp clauses…
that’s not quite right… the loan financing to dev still exists… but instead of it being direct from kdnc to dev… it’s now being provided from pba to dev… and will accrue interest at the rate defined in the jrp for the dipa and dipb financing now being provided to dev by pba… along with the $49.14m dev credit that was also transferred into pba by our jv partner…
maybe… but i’m not that sure mexico are looking for more than what they would normally get through royalties and taxes etc… the motive to me seems more geared towards establishing and keeping a significant lithium value chain within mexico… as a priority to exporting mexican lithium to china and elsewhere… they are achieving that… and will achieve that… but without sonora lithium in production soon… they’ll end up needing to import lithium to all these new ev factories… which kind of defeats the object of the decree…
for the year ended 31dec22… the sonora project companies retain their mining concessions and land holdings despite the events outlined above… this ownership is protected by mexican and international law… the company has taken legal advice and has considered the impact of the mexican government's decree to amend the mining law… at the balance sheet date… and concluded that no impairment charge is required to be recorded against the investment in joint venture in the year… the directors consider it appropriate to continue to record the investment in the sonora project and related party loan balances at historic cost…