@Waterblunt1. I was happy for PLS holders. They need some luck and the world needs a number of lithium mines to meet EV demand, full stop. You are also going to need a number of new greenfields development if the 2000GWh LCE demand in 2030 is correct btw, with a number of thes eprobably required before 2025 (hence the importance of lithium forecasts eventuating, obviously). The issue with PLS is to increase their recovery rate to DFS assumptions and that I think will reduce their cost structures, and hopefully it can survive. I also hope in the Australian context more value adding is done in Australia, like producing lithium chemicals here (i.e. we have the gas for a start and energy costs are the largest cost in teh lithium chemical process IMO).
2. No, but that is a question the ASX may want to ask. You would have to accept that AVZ were informed of the decision after trading Friday by the lawyers of Tianyi. Noting the AVZ decision came after NTU, with NTU been in FIRB for quite a long time too. If they were informed (much) earlier that FIRB had said a no go they would have needed to go into a TH, IMO. So I'll leave that at that.
3. I prefer they do not move exchanges as per my earlier post. I feel the better option is to use Dathcom instead since it is Dathcom that has the rights over Manono. Now with the decision, and for yourself since you are questioning the decision but for now put your mind into the assumption that what was said by AVZ was correct, you would think the use of Dathcom itself for equity for Offtakes is a better strategyfrom now on. And I suspect that won't be contrary to FIRB because the DRC government can say well this is the way it is going to be now given you, been AVZ, can't raise the funds because of your government, if FIRB thinks it can but into that 'new' arrangement. Mining tenements would have 'goals' attached is my point. I would prefer they doing business through the JV itself - just like Mt Marion is a JV itself - as against relisting on another stock exchange, given I think in the relisting exercise there may be a CGT liability associated with moving assets owned by an Australian entity to an offshore jurisdiction as well (were AVZ to delist from the ASX to say Singapore), but that is a guess btw and maybe others can comment on this point. For retail SHs, who don't hold a lot of shares, moving to another 'listing' jurisdiction can be problematic IMO given different fee structures associated with non-residents to residents IMO.
Anyway, this debate has become circular, so time will tell. Ultimately, i agree Manono will be developed, and will be expanded as well over time given the resource size, so it becomes a question of whether AVZ remains involved or not (and ultimately that becomes a question for the DRC government who wants the project devlopmed and not left stalled etc etc). How AVZ navigates from now on will define what happens, an obvious point, and whether us SHs benefit etc etc.
I have answere dyour three questions, so I think you should do the courteous thing and limit your postings here as wenow your views, and the debate is getting very circular now.
All IMO
