All points you have raised have merit but until further being advised by the Company;
Leo Lithium was granted its mining licence prior to the newer 2019 and 2023 Mining Codes, and as such and IMO, we are currently operating under the 2012 code, what version I don't know......
~ at no point has LLL indicated we have been transferred to a different / newer code, and thus far all the company has indicated was commencing a review of the new code and will advise if there is any impact on the Company, as per announcement 4 September 2023, furthermore at no point has the Company indicated the Mining Code is part of any ongoing discussions, but;
~ there will be articles in the 2023 Mining Code that will be applicable to LLL by way of the introduction of the new "Local Content Law"
The Local Content Law is applicable to all activities in the mining sector of Mali, including both the established gold miners, artisan miners and explorers regardless of what mining code you entered into. With being more self sufficient and not reliant on money from the Government coffers, the objectives of the Local Content Law is for the articles covered in the law generates revenue of will go directly to the local communities surrounding the mines.
With a lot of posters assuming the Government is forcing LLL onto the newer code is pure supposition, furthermore there is no indication that the government is trying to apply the new mining code to any other mining company/developer that is currently operating in Mali that have establishment agreements in place.
We all know that Mali has had 3 coup d'etats since 2012, and neither a democratic elected government nor a junta government has made any attempts to revoke and/or change any agreements (Establishment / Convention) or Mining Licences under which they were decreed.
I agree that the import duties and taxes (fuel and project equipment) applied to LLL are inconsistent with LLL's "establishment agreement" that was concluded 27 October 2016 and aligned to the 2012 Mining Code. These taxes and duties are part of the ongoing discussions and it is all fair and well to suggest not paying them, but as previously posted (IMO) these would have been paid to release goods and equipment from port?
The Economic Minister and the Taxation department of the government have always and continue to try and apply additional taxes to mining companies as per the long running disputes that the large gold miners have re: tax assessments, etc.
~ Resolute currently have 3 (memory) disputes with the government relating to taxes, indirect taxes and tax assessments on gold sales.
~ Barrick have contested revised tax assessment notices since 2012
At a higher level, the Canadian Government to further help Canadian companies succeed and compete have previously negotiated foreign investment and protection agreements (FIPA's) with Mali and most other African countries.
~ These additional / revised assessment notices have been issued irrelevant of how the ruling government was inserted to power, either democratic election or military coup.
We do know what items the Company were / are in discussion with the government are;
Outstanding permits:~ Power
~ Airstrip
~ Density Gauges, but with any new mine construction there will be a plethora of approvals, permits, sign offs etc that would be consistent as part of pre start up commissioning, as an example a permit to store and use dangerous goods, etc.
++ In September 2023 the company entered a trading halt and subsequent suspension, one item of discussion was the power permit (critical for full scale operations) but it wasn't until the company released an announcement on the 22nd March 2024 indicating that the Malian authorities had re-commenced assessing the power permit!
^ 9 months after negotiations commenced and they are now only opening dialogue for re-assessing it? Unless they want some changes made, like adding a 30 klm extension cord to run power to the local village?
++ Permit/Licence issues are not isolated to LLL, as previously posted any Company in Mali waiting on permit/licence approvals is in the same position.
Governments free carry stake; documentation has been presented to the Government.
We are all being critical of the time frames the negotiations are taking to complete, and shareholder frustration was heightened when the Company released an announcement on the 19th January 2024 that in part indicated an agreement being reached in the coming weeks. It included the "sale" of a further 5% of the project to possibly cover any payment for a settlement.
+ I spoke with Simon and Len post this announcement and there was an air of confidence of the announced timelines being close to the mark, but here we are with (IMO) additional (?) items included in discussions.
This was the first instance the Company advised any possible settlement payment was being included in the discussion which leads me to opine there was something added (more demands? more correspondence? change of goal post?) and not in the original items when the negotiations commenced?
The need to sell the 5% to cover any quick settlement payment is solely a LLL liability which (opinion) is a tax or levies attributed to the change of control on transfer of the Goulamina licence, of which LLL indemnified Ganfeng for any tax / CGT as noted in the Prospectus.
** It also aligns with the delay of the financials as there is a possibility of a payment for a debt accumulated in a previous year, I still vehemently disagree with this practice as there are provisions in all the regulatory bodies rules that cover these sort of occurrences ie: contingent liabilities.
As per this post, some detail of the CGT and levies for the change of control, without knowing what version of the 2012 Mining Code LLL operates under, the information is from the later version (29 June) and FYI it is the only version of the 2, that has this information.
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-us-65m-for-5-sale-of-goulamina-and-continued-suspension.7808110/page-376?post_id=72095299I understand the angst of shareholders, and can at times agree with we should not be in a suspension but (IMO) it is the most logical and my preferred course of action. If LLL was trading, every announcement made (ie: sale of another 5%) would see a continuous path of share price decimation.
My understanding of trading halts:
~ The original Trading Halt (18/7) was for communication received by the Mali Government in relation to DSO.
~ The Company re-admitted to quotation (4/9) after a definitive outcome on the DSO (DSO operations suspended)
+ but it also included other discussion points (bullet points)
(i) Government Free Carry Stake
(ii) Goulamina Overall Project progress; and
It isn't clear if any of the below were original correspondence items or came from further correspondence
~ presentations to the Government of no connection between LLL/Ganfeng to Firefinch/Morila SA
(iii) Government Import Duties and Taxes - ongoing
(iv) Company reviewing the New Mining Code - no feedback on what parts affect LMSA
**All the above items would be what I would consider, and what a lot of posters have suggested, continue trading whilst the above discussions were in progress, something changed ??? on 15th September LLL enters into a Trading Halt after further correspondence? from the Government and here we are ..
Sort the whole lot out, and get re-admitted to quotation and i'll take my lumps in one hit.
I also don't agree a course of action that LLL could have taken was to suspend the project, to what end?
We have invested a lot of money into the project and to suspend and stand down workers would not benefit anyone, least of all LLL as IMO the Government would simply view it as abandonment and revoke the Exploitation Licence.
The only item we can ascertain is the Government has not been consistent with the Establishment Agreement (2016) re: Import Duties and Taxes.
Announcement today or tomorrow -- Quarterly Reports, we must be getting close to beginning commissioning activities.
cheers
(20min delay)