trindale north part 1

As this is quite long, I will post in two sections. The first section deals with a bit of background to refresh your memories and some key dates leading up to a court case where AVB commenced legal proceedings against the DNPM. The second section will deal with events post that court decision and sentence.

In the 2013 annual directors report it was stated:

“Irregularities in the licensing process were brought to Avanco’s attention by Mine Department DNPM –the Company is considering options to address these regulatory issues. Avanco has offered additional time to Vale to consider its position on its Iron Ore Option Agreement. The company has recently sought further clarification without success.”
The following details are drawn from publically available documents or records and are listed here without opinion so that you may draw your own conclusions on that statement.

BACKGROUND
The March 2011 activities report stated;

” Vale are obliged to drill at least 2,500m before end August 2011 and pay the Company $600,000 to maintain the “Option Agreement” for a second year. Avanco retains responsibility for access and regulatory approvals.”

The 2011 annual report stated: “Vale completed a maiden drill programme at the Trindale North Iron Ore Project. 15 diamond drill holes for 2,600m have been concluded, exceeding the minimum drilling obligations. Significant widths of highly magnetic, magnetite rich Banded Iron Formation (“BIF”) were intersected, from which Vale has prepared a resource estimate. This is currently being validated by the Company. The BIF situated within Avanco’s tenement makes up the southern portion of a much larger mineralised structure which straddles the common Vale-Avanco tenement boundary. …….. Avanco has submitted the “Final Exploration Report” to the regulatory authorities and approval is pending.”

I believe the drilling programme of this southern portion was carried out over an area of approximately 2 kilometres of a mineralised strike length of approximately 7 kilometres.
When a final exploration report is submitted to the DNPM they despatch a technical team to independently verify the results of the report. On 3 June 2011 a positive technical report was lodged which had recommended a reduction in area, similar to the technical report that was recently done on the Rio Verde tenement.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On 1 August 2012 the DNPM recorded that the exploration report was not approved under Article 30 Part II of the mining code.
On 9 August 2012 AVB commenced legal proceedings against the DNPM in the federal court over the rejection of that report.
On 23 August the court provided the following decision. (Translation not the best in places)

“It order to anticipate the effects of protection formulated in ordinary share dispensed by AVB Mining Ltda against DNPM aspirating the suspension of the administrative procedure DNPM 850.283/1999, in order to remain in the ownership of the research area of ore, located in municipality of Paraupebas this state.
Narrates that would have prompted the agency to renew authorization to search for ore and gold on 03/06/2011, presented the final report of the research says that the Superintendent of the Board did not approve the report even before the favourable opinion of Technical survey, which only would have suggested the reduction of area.
PRINCIPLES sustains the violation of trust, and the motive for transparency, and legal defence. Claims periculum in the presence of the live view of the financial and economic losses arising from investments already incurred, as well as the prima facie case because the technical report has recommended the approval of the final report (pages 3/22).
Instructs with documents (pages 23/172).
Amendment to the initial (pages 175/176).
Manifestation of DNPM arguing that the non-existent periculum in arrears given that the procedure of availability area research in question cannot be initiated until there is a final and unappealable decision that did not approve the final report and, as in the case under consideration, was this decision, the administrative process is suspended (pages 180/184)
It is the brief report.
Foundation and decide.
The anticipation of protection provided for in art. 273 C {C, "requires unequivocal evidence to convince the judge about the credibility of the plaintiff's allegations, to which should be added, cumulatively, the triad of items l and ll of that article - danger of damage, misuse defence or postponing purpose all in order to anticipate the result that most likely, the subsequent sentence will serve: as it dims the evidence of law because the evidence loses its essence to generate irrefutable conclusion looms the risk of contradiction, thus invalidating the immediate guidance cognitive "(AGTAG n.2006.01.00.047407-5/PA-TRF1).
It is inferred from reading the file that the author presented the Final Report of the research DNPM date 03.06.2011 (pages 64), which has not been approved by the Superintendent to the Board in compliance with the provisions of art. 30, section 11 of the Mining Code, according to the publication in the official journal (page.59) and dispatch (page 60).
Indeed, section V of article 22 of Decree-Law n. 227/67 requires the consent holder obligation to "conduct their respective research papers, must submit to the DNPM, within the term of the license, or its renewal, a detailed report of the work, containing geological and technological quantification of deposit and demonstration of the techno-economic feasibility of mining, prepared under the responsibility of presenting the report, in the event of withdrawal of the authorization referred to in item 11 of this Article, in accordance with criteria established by decree of the Director General of DNPM event that results do not apply the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article. "
In turn, Article 30 of the Mining Code provides the following orders to the report referred to in item V of article 22:

1 Approval of the report when it can be demonstrated the existence of the deposit;

2 non-approval of the report, if evidenced when insufficiency of research papers or technical deficiency in their preparation

3 - filing the report, where it can be demonstrated that there is no deposit, passing will be free for future application, including person concerned to report that concluded that the absence of deposit;

4 - decision on dismissal of the report, be characterized as a temporary impossibility of technical and economic feasibility of mining as provided for in section 111 of the art.23
In this context, at least in the perfunctory, characteristic of a preliminary injunction, I see no evidence of irregularity in the procedure adopted by the judging authority to disapprove the report said, because he acted in accordance with the provisions contained in the legal text.
Nevertheless, the author claims that the likelihood of their claims is embodied in the recommendation of expert opinion approving the final research report, to which the authority should stick prolatora the order, I have, in the mold of the chapter of article 30 (1) final part of the Decree-Law n.227/67, the order approving or not the report has as its north conclusive, which, in the case under consideration was observed (see fls.60)

The conclusive opinion, the mining of the Head of DFISC / DNPM / PA (pages 55/57), reveals that the total area available - 4,996.75 ha, only 6.4% of it has been the object of research, and also that the said work were not performed by the author, but the company VALE S/A.
Alongside such findings, the possibility of this Court abiding place of the public administration and rule on the merits of the application. After all, besides the application is pending review by the competent administrative body, there is, as yet, insufficient evidence in the record to allow a debate on the merits of the author for approval of its final report.
Is that in the absence of the copy of the administrative procedure, justified by the author in the face of federal workers' strike, which is based on the order that did not approve the report discussed is the lack of research on the major part of the area required by the author . Ie, that finding himself held the Final Research Report.
Because of these reasons, there is no indication of any wrongdoing allegedly committed by DNPM to the detriment of the plaintiff company. Short of concrete demonstration of the right claimed, it is concluded that there was no likelihood of the author's argument.
However, I add that as well highlighted by DNPM, even though the placement area availability, a natural consequence of the non-approval of the Final Report in view of an appeal to a higher court, the defendant himself suspended this measure of availability, so that there remains interest in the injunctive author intended. Moreover, as stated in the manifestation of DNPM, the author anticipated the administrative procedure, without giving the defendant an opportunity to apply the provisions of Ministerial Order. 268/08 provides that the administrative suspension of the proceedings until a final decision on any appeal by any suitors.

So any extra judicial providence that causes suspension of availability discussed appears unnecessary since the required suspension of availability would already be a consequence of the admission of the administrative appeal brought against the decision not to approve the Final Research Report, the content of the provisions of article 9 of Ordinance no. 268/2008- DNPM: "The procedure availability of area will be established following a decision of exemption from the area which has not been filed or will not fit over administrative appeal by notice containing: (...)"
Based on the foregoing, the application INDEFIRO anticipating the effects of protection.
Intime is the author to amend the initial, within ten (10) days, providing the quote VALE S / A, acting as passive joint party needed, given the mention made in the opinion docked on pages. 55/57, in the sense "(...) the works were executed by Vale S/A, because it is an extension of a mineralized structure detected by the company in the process of its ownership DNPM No. 850.118/1985 the execution of the work under an agreement to give VALE S/A, the priority negotiating evaluated against the reserves. "
Fulfilled the above determination, cite yourself. If no compliance deadline, return completed for the extinction of the resolution made no merit.”
On 31 August the Judge passed sentence.
“AVB Mining Ltda., THE COMPANY qualified in the initial filed presents common share with a request for interim relief in the face of the NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL PRODUCTION - DNPM intending to obtain the immediate suspension of the progress of the lawsuit DNPM 850.283/1999.
Asked to express themselves on the preliminary injunction, DNPM expounded his reasons the pages. 180/184.
The request was rejected tutelage of urgency the pages. 188/192
Continuous act, the author attended the pages. 195 postulating Forfeiting done.
Given the above, considering that there was no citation to the defendant's counterpart the waiver request formulated and judge terminated the proceedings in accordance with article 267, VIII, CPC”

Tomorrow I will post on the events that have occurred after this case where it makes for more interesting reading.