We NEED a new Chairman., page-35

JB, your post here is very fine in its observations, I too have done some tracking since your post.

 

Where my data/information diverts from yours is that, Nigel Ferguson has indicated over a period of time first at the AGM, as Deboss notes and thereafter to different shareholders the need for a Chairman and that it’s a going priority, but it would seem not just from the semi-closed circle (no circle is ever closed imo) you state.

 

This is apparent with descriptions like “world class”, ‘top mining executive known in Australia’,. AVZ’s erstwhile Steinpreis-Eckhof Perth boy’s club circle does not know such a giant, correct me if wrong?

 

Also, looking at Nigel’s background via google searches I could see no highlights for a world class/top mining executive. But I can see that Nigel has more network than the Eckhof boys club. So it’s not justifiable to say Nigel is not open to new ‘blood’.

 

The ‘data’, points away from that circle as AVZ moves from exploration to a development phase.

 

I do think Nigel needs to be brave and realize like a good director that new ‘actors’ bring in new dimensions to a company and that a top mining executive could easily attract a willing team and with that confidence more opportunity to hasten the development of the manono project.

 

Does Nigel feel like he will lose control if a top mining executive becomes chairman?

 

As for suspicions why no Chairman yet? My research tells me filling this role, depending on if full time or part time with a ‘big gun’, takes time either way, due to being very busy. But for a full-time role, it takes more time.

 

That’s if we don’t get a hostile take over this week coming, which I don’t think he sees as likely coming based on his acceptance of the Patterson’s formula.

 

infrastructure:

 

As for infrastructure, dependant on Chinese and Congolese, well it is a JV? And the road south is expected to be complete this year. Nigel was saying casually, bituminized in two years, back in 2018 February. So we could see this done well before mining commences.

 

As for East, we await clarity on that, but bear in mind, the ASX allowed that route for the initial scoping study, so there is more information not yet formalized that must be backing that confidence. We saw a Northern route as well, but nothing on it, which tells me that route might have been dependant on an external party and hence your concern. The same is the case for all routes leading out of DRC except for its port, they are dependant on the wrong nationalities for you.

 

But that doesn’t stop Robert Friedland from going ahead nor Glasenberg.

 

As for offtake agreement, I note Dossantd state there have been offers but at the wrong price.

 

All this tells me that the way forward for AVZ, as has been said by Scarpa and Wombat2 etc over a long period of time, is that the way to value for shareholders is mining.

 

I also see that the DFS would trigger different entities to the Chinese (Chinese were happy back in 2017 with first drill results). Chinese in this scenario will have to either cough up a fair price (unless hostile take over) or see themselves competing with other entities.

 

If the second scenarios play out, JB, it may be reasonable to expect considering also the unprecedented Anti/China rhetoric that funding for infrastructure East may find sources other than Chinese?

 

All sovereign nations want diversity even the Saudis are talking it up