Member Info for zumore

Https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GLEN/katanga-announces-agreement-to-acquire-land-rights-fv11cerfyb01a1p.html

GROK AI 's SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION:

"The RNS announcement from Glencore on 20 December 2019 is about a land rights sale, not a mining licence sale, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Here's the simplified breakdown:

What’s Happening: Katanga Mining’s subsidiary, Kamoto Copper Company (KCC), agreed to buy land rights from Gécamines, its joint venture partner, for areas next to KCC’s existing mining concessions.

Purpose: The land will be used for:

Building a new tailings facility (for storing mining waste).

Improving KCC’s mining operations by providing space for infrastructure.

Cost: KCC will pay up to USD 250 million, with:

An initial payment of USD 150 million (offset against the total price or other obligations).

Possible additional payments (e.g., “pas de porte” fees) if KCC mines resources on the land.

Other Terms:

KCC must relocate existing tailings (15 million dry metric tonnes) from part of the land.

Gécamines provides warranties for the land titles.

A 2.5% royalty on net sales if KCC mines the land.

Why It’s Land Rights: The agreement involves acquiring surface land rights for operational purposes (e.g., tailings storage and infrastructure), not mineral exploration or exploitation rights, which would require a separate mining licence under the DRC Mining Code.

KEY DIFFERENCE RECAP

Mining Licence Sale: Transfers rights to explore or extract minerals (subsoil rights), governed by the DRC Mining Code. Not mentioned in this RNS.

Land Rights Sale: Transfers surface usage rights for activities like building facilities, governed by the DRC Land Code. This RNS is about KCC acquiring such surface rights from Gécamines.

CONFIRMATION

Yes, the RNS is about a land rights sale, as it describes KCC purchasing a “comprehensive land package” for surface use, not mineral rights. If you need further analysis or details, let me know!'

"In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a mining licence sale and a land rights sale are distinct transactions governed by different legal frameworks and involving separate rights.

1. NATURE OF RIGHTS INVOLVED

MINING LICENCE SALE

A mining licence grants the holder the right to explore or exploit mineral resources in the soil or subsoil of a specific area (perimeter). These rights are distinct from surface land ownership and are exclusively owned by the state.

Types of mining licences include:

Research (Exploration) Permit: Allows exploration for minerals, valid for 5 years, renewable once.

Exploitation (Mining) Permit: Permits extraction of minerals, valid for up to 25 years with renewals.

The sale of a mining licence involves transferring these mineral exploration or exploitation rights to another party, subject to approval by the Minister of Mines and payment of fixed duties.

Mining rights do not automatically include surface rights; the holder must negotiate with surface rights holders for land access, often paying rent or compensation.

LAND RIGHTS SALE:

Land rights refer to surface rights, which grant the holder the ability to use, occupy, or develop the land’s surface (e.g., for agriculture, housing, or construction). In the DRC, the state owns all land, and private parties can acquire usage rights through concessions under the Land Code.

Types of land concessions include:

Concessions in Perpetuity: Granted only to Congolese nationals, providing eternal usage rights as long as conditions are met.

Ordinary Concessions: Available to both Congolese and foreign individuals or companies, taking forms like land leases, building leases, or usufruct.

A land rights sale involves transferring these surface usage rights (e.g., a concession) to another party, which may include ownership of buildings or structures on the land for the duration of the concession.

Land rights do not confer any rights to minerals in the subsoil, which remain under state control.

2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

MINING LICENCE SALE:

Governed by the Mining Code (Law No. 007/2002, amended by Law No. 18/001 of 2018) and Mining Regulations (Decree No. 038/2003, amended 2018).

Administered by the Ministry of Mines, Mining Cadastre (CAMI), and other bodies like the Directorate of Mines.

Transfers require state approval, and the process is subject to strict conditions, such as proving financial capacity and compliance with environmental regulations.

LAND RIGHTS SALE:

Governed by the Land Code, which regulates land tenure and concessions.

Managed through the Ministry of Land’s Office of the Mortgage Registrar, though land registration can be risky due to incomplete records and frequent disputes.

Sales of concessions (e.g., transferring a lease or perpetual concession) are subject to conditions outlined in the Land Code, such as indemnification for expropriation or termination"

Aimdogs, below is an extract from Red Rocks 6th January 2022 RNS when the Glencore subsidiary Kamato copper were named. Because it was later established that Gecamines were the one's (not Kamato copper) who would be paying the $15 million.

So it makes me wonder if VUP + Andrew Bell jumped to the wrong conclusion with that 20 December 2019 Glencore RNS all because VUP relinquished the JV licenses to Gecamines on 4th December 2019?

From 6th January 2022 RNS:

"It recently came to the attention of the Company that its local partner VUP on 20 October 2021 served a Procès-Verbal de Saisie-Attribution de Créances (similar to a garnishee order in our system)(the "Order") on parties including Kamoto Copper Company SA, a subsidiary of Glencore PLC, claiming a principal sum of $15,000,000 in respect of a purported surrender by VUP of the JV Assets and some others, for $20,000,000 compensation, to La Générale des Carrières et Mines ("Gécamines"), a state-owned company in the Democratic Republic of Congo, under the terms of a purported Amicable Termination Transaction Protocol ("Protocol"). The Protocol was stated to have been signed on 4 December 2019, notarized on 29 September 2021, and come into enforceable form on 5 October 2021, and to have been entered into in the framework of discussions by Gécamines with a third party."

Banbury although he said it years ago, he did repeat that in last Octobers Stockbox interview. At around 10 min 30 in Stockbox interview Andrew Bell said of DRC licence "that it change hands for $20 million and then immediately for $250 million that became $420 million".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M4ogI4MooME&pp=ygUcUmVkIHJvY2sgcmVzb3VyY2VzIFN0b2NrYm94IA%3D%3D

I'll admit I've probably been one of Andrew Bell's "useful idiots" this past year. ☹️ Because some may remember me posting this 2019 Glencore RNS a number of times: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GLEN/katanga-announces-agreement-to-acquire-land-rights-fv11cerfyb01a1p.html

I posted it because early on Bell was saying that the DRC licences sale from Gecamines to the Glencore subsidiary happened almost immediately after VUP relinquished the JV licenses. VUP apparently relinquished the JV licenses 4th December 2019, that Glencore RNS is 20th December 2019. Back then Andrew Bell used to say that Gecamines quickly sold the licenses on for $250 million. So I guess we can see why I put two and two together when I found that old 2019 Glencore RNS?

The other day me and twitter's GROK AI were discussing Andrew Bell and I again showed it that old Glencore RNS and observant GROK said if Andrew Bell also thought that Glencore RNS was about Red Rocks former licenses then he would be wrong. The reason is that RNS is about "land rights" not "mining licences": land rights are usually above surface land for building infrastructure.

I'm guessing Bell realised this and that is why he later switched it to a secret $420 million sale.

But as others have said if Andrew Bell truly had any real evidence of a $420 million secret illegal sale of RRR former JV licenses from Gecamines to the Glencore subsidiary that were never officially disclosed to the world, then he would have revealed it years ago. After all it would be blockbuster news in the mining world.

He clearly hasn't. As Helpful said "so the story was". Which is true, it is just a conspiracy and story by Andrew.

Is Nikeair a RRR bot? 🤓

N = Nitpicker

I = Interrogate

k = Knowing

E = Earthlings

A = Artificial

I = Intelligence

R = RedRock

180 = RRR U-TURN model

Maidit, I'm sure you don't have me on filter. So why don't you take them off filter? I've checked their posts and they are only stating facts. 👍

Now Maidit tell me which is worse, posters on this thread stating facts, or you thinking you are being funny on this thread when you keep saying the late William Black is still alive?

I'm sure if Mr Black's family read your posts, the word "sick" enters their minds. 👍

Thanks Andrew. I got tricked into watching that. ☹️

In that video it looked like Andrew was at home. Probably at home on holiday. 🤠

Have you noticed we never know when Andrew is on holiday. I suspect he takes many weeks holiday a year but he just keeps quiet about it.

He should look on his trips to the DRC as his holidays. 😎Though I l suspect he doesn't. ☹️

I took a leaf out of Specinvestors book with my harshness..😂👍

As Specinvestor says, take responsibility for your own decisions and don't blame others. 👍

Andrew certainly can't blame others, afterall it was his decision to do business in a corrupt country. 👍

Also the sold DRC licenses only came to Red Rocks attention because DRC state owned company 'Gecamines' had Reneged on paying VUP the $15 million.

So how idiotic of Andrew Bell to get Red Rock in a disastrous financial mess by then taking out numerous loans and splashing out on numerous new projects, with the deluded assumption that he would then be able to pay the loans back and advance the new RRR projects when the often corrupt DRC government owned 'Gecamines' paid RRR a share of any $15 million. 🤪

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY ANDREW! Your decisions created the dire financial mess Red Rock are in today. 👍

From the below extract take on board what Andrew Bell says here:

"What we have at times to remind ourselves is that we are cracking the code of operating successfully in mineral rich but historically troubled countries. The game is worth the candle, but it is sometimes a long game. When a gap appears in the clouds, the sun can suddenly shine, and then the opportunities are realised"

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/RRR/final-results-zl53blxjlzrzjkm.html

OUTLOOK

"In 2022, the Company saw a falling share price, as did its peer group; this was disappointing in a year in which, operationally, a lot of progress was made, and this price weakness prevented us from taking advantage of all our opportunities to work on the existing project portfolio. The delays in announcing the arbitration result in Congo were a particularly frustrating, and unnecessary, impediment, and sometimes a distraction. We will vigorously pursue our claims in DRC and, on the basis of a successful realisation, we will deploy the funds into our projects and working capital as well as reducing our creditor balances. What we have at times to remind ourselves is that we are cracking the code of operating successfully in mineral rich but historically troubled countries. The game is worth the candle, but it is sometimes a long game. When a gap appears in the clouds, the sun can suddenly shine, and then the opportunities are realised.

In our budgeting for 2023, we have placed considerable reliance on the receipt of judgement and arbitration proceeds from the DRC. Funds from the realisation of our shares in Elephant Oil, and funds generated from mining operations, are expected to make an important contribution from mid-year or earlier, but significant delay in receipt of DRC monies will require a reassessment of priorities by the Board and either additional funding or the sale of non-core assets in order to meet loan and deferred consideration obligations.

Red Rock is in the right places for a world which should begin to value gold more highly and has an increasing need for battery metals. We have teams that can take projects through to production in several of the countries in which we operate, and are starting to do this. A year ago we would never have supposed that our first new production project of the 2020s might be in Zimbabwe, but we are delighted that it is so, and that a country with a long and continuous mining history is coming back into favour and we are helping that process."

Andrew Bell

Chairman and CEO"

....

Lat post too long. It missed out the important last sentence.

It should have said:

"Take responsibility Andrew"

My below post is a post I made the other week but now with a couple of extra additions.

I urge you to watch both Stockbox interviews and you will realise that the RRR chairman Andrew Bell is both clueless and a complete fantasist regarding any DRC money.

My repost with updates and extras:

In this 15 Jan Stockbox interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XKwM7nbJeII&pp=ygUScmVkIHJvY2sgcmVzb3VyY2Vz Andrew Bell was absolutely convinced that the upcoming 22 Jan DRC meeting was the final arbitration meeting where all the arbitration money would be awarded and divvied out.

..

However in Bell's next 31 Jan Stockbox interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VWPceByoPGA&pp=ygUScmVkIHJvY2sgcmVzb3VyY2Vz the cold hard reality had hit Andrew. All his numerous prior meetings with DRC Pastors who now worked in DRC government had been for nothing.

Around 2 minutes 50 seconds Andrew Bell talked about the 22 Jan meeting:

"So we had the meeting but that just means that after a 29 months intermission, the arbitrators have taken up the matter again in order to finish it. And that is the clear objective is to finish it. So I'm staying out here to make sure that happens"

...

Andrew Bell eventually returned home to London empty handed. Now over 12 weeks have passed since the 22 January DRC meeting.

...

Yes the recent Red Rock half yearly did say: "We are now at the point where the judgement is near the point of publication"

However to me "near the point" is just a new way to say "imminent".

To me it's very clear Andrew Bell and his DRC legal team are all pretty clueless in regards to whether or not the DRC governmental officials are ACTUALLY at present working on Red Rock's arbitration case. We know this because Andrew Bell and his DRC legal team had wrongly thought that the arbitration award would be given at the 22 January meeting. Then at the 22 January meeting reality hit them when they all found out that in the previous 29 months nobody had actually been working on their arbitration case.

....

Do we seriously believe this 22 January 2025 meeting will now spur on the arbitrators to make a judgement on any DRC money? when in 2022 Andrew Bell and his legal team were out in the DRC for over 6 weeks attending the arbitration and various other meetings.

That over 12 weeks have now passed since the 22 January meeting tells me the arbitrators are not interested. Bear in mind in the 31 January Stockbox interview when Bell was making excuses, Bell thought the arbitrators would come to a decision in days. But here we are 12 weeks later..

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/RRR/asset-review-and-current-developments-1mhfvvmhi08g38y.html

This will annoy some but Red Rock's DRC situation is not an hard luck story. Afterall Bell ignored the facts that the DRC government have a reputation for being corrupt.

Do business in a by and large corrupt country then don't expect a pity party when corrupt things happen.

Take responsibilit

Sorry, a correction to my last post:

(9) The non humble egomaniac would never admit defeat, he just wouldn't give up that two star luxury in the Jungle.

(7) The Fungal in the Jungle.

(8) The Fumble in the Jungle.

(9) The non humble egomaniac won't admit defeat, just won't give up that two star luxury in the Jungle.

Boxing match between George Foreman and Muhammad Ali apparently happened where Andrew Bell presently is, in the DRC (formerly Zaire) capital of 'Kinshasa'.

What will Andrew's venture into the DRC eventually be known as?

Here are some possibilities:

(1) The Stumble in the Jungle

(2) The Tumble in the Jungle

(3) The Bungle in the Jungle

Nikeair, let me be even more nitpicky.

Banbury at 10:15 today began a thread titled "LAC minerals limited".

In his post he talks about the lack of expenditure spent on the Ivory coast licenses. He then says RRR seems not have met their minimum expenditure commitments on those IC licenses.

.....

Then in Banbury's follow up 10:31 post he links the Red Rock Ivory coast RNS, which shows that Red Rock's Ivory coast minimal commitment was $280k per year over 4 years.

Then taking both of his thread posts into account he then says Red Rock's lack of minimum spend on these licenses could jeopardize any possible future sale.

...

Yet you Nikeair say nonsense because in his 10:31 post he accidentally put "FASO" instead of "Ivory coast"

Nikeair, are you really telling us that confused you? 🥴

I'm sure if Bell were asked what RRR assets could be sold? I suspect he would say he would be open to offers on everything.

So when I read Banbury's 10:31 post, any minor mistakes were corrected as I read along. So I thought he made a great points with his post. 👍

By the way Nikeair, if somebody were on the spectrum then they may read the post as written and may be unable to adapt the post. 👍

This is how I read Banbury's 10:31 post:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/RRR/west-african-gold-licences-update-67pclmbf3w9mm1v.html

"From a precise and informed RRR RNS.

Ivory coast minimal commitment $280k a year average over 4 years.

Might be wrong but seems to me to impact saleability.

Over to Helpful ! No doubt to be told I'm an idiot and thick !! Bless him."

.....

Like I say, nothing wrong with that post. 👍

Wow Nikeair that really is nitpicky.

Banbury linked the RNS and you could see it was a slight mistake and that the RNS said Ivory coast required a 4 year spend of $280,000 per annum.

.....

Nikeair, did you really make 5 additional posts the other night trying to correct your original post? 😆

Like I've said to you on the past, if you make a slight mistake, just stop there. Posters can work out what you meant. 👍

Yes. I sometimes think people think I'm an African prince. 😂

Banbury, what's particular interesting is that even after 140 years after my distant grandmother got killed, her maiden surname is even today the dominant relative surname. On the other hand I know none of my relatives these days with the surname of my disgraced distant grandfather.

So that event 140 years ago completely changed the family name.