AVB - Avanco Resources

Are people still reading this thread?

There is certainly the appearance that Avanco's announcements to the market regarding the Trindade North property, the subject of a potential deal with Vale which the Company states could be worth up to us$10-40m (for a company with a mc of approx $80m), have not told the full story, particularly insofar as information publicly available on Brazilian government websites

At least the following information are known knowns (however not through reading Avanco announcements):

1. on or about 01/08/12 the dnpm issued avb mineracao ltda with a non-approval of the final exploration report for trindade north;
2. on or about 09/08/12 avb mineracao ltda commenced legal proceedings against the dnpm;
3. said legal proceedings were subsequently terminated by the judge;
4. on or about 20/03/13 the dnpm issued avb mineracao ltda with a rejection of the final exploration report for trindade north

the above must have some impact on the Vale deal for the following reasons:

1. avanco ann dated 31/07/12 states vale have invited avanco to discuss the option agreement - note first avanco ann re vale or trindade north in 8 months;
2. vale failed to pay the us$1m option payment due on 12/08/12;
3. language used in avanco anns since refer only to avanco and vale being committed to continuing to negotiate an acceptable outcome;
4. the original us$10-40m deal was premised on the delineation of a resource in the measured and indicated categories yet the rejection of the final exploration report was due to the dnpm determining the lack of exisitence of a deposit being demonstrated (note, a deposit is defined as an individual mass of mineral substance or fossil, either outcropping from the surface or undergoing underground, of economic value)

perhaps the company will provide an update to the market re trindade north this week

cheers

Happytown
Really interesting post thanks for sharing.

IF your information is correct.
The AVB anns re Trindale North temaments would apear to be flaky and misleading.

Looking back over your posts over past few years indicate you have researched AVB thouroughly, and have talked to TP at various times, so i presume you would be reasonably informed with reading between the lines and AVB present position.

Do you mind me asking what is your take on the obvious lack fo clarity here, and what appears to be AVBs stuggling present position, particularly regarding SP and current negative sentiment re AVB generally.

ddcc

MOI signed between AVB and Para state for smelter.


http://noticias.orm.com.br/noticia....ação+do+cobre+no+pará+é+assinado#.UVtkupNmh8E

Google translation below:
Agreement intention of vertical copper in Pará is signed
A copper smelter should be installed in the region of Curionópolis, southeastern state

27/03/2013 - 23:18 - Para
An important step in the development of mineral Pará was given on the afternoon of Wednesday (27), when the Memorandum of Agreement for Technical and Scientific Cooperation for vertical copper in the state was signed by the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Mining (SEICOM) and Avanco mining company, headquartered in Rio de Janeiro.

The document provides for the 'development of studies, projects and activities for technical knowledge on the viability of options for vertical installation to blister copper plant in the state of Para'.



According to the Director of Advancement, Luis Mauricio de Azevedo Ferraiuoli, to date, more than $ 50 million has been invested in research to verify the possibility of creating mines in South and Southeast of Pará Also according to Luis Azevedo, a copper mine should be installed in Curionópolis region, southeast of the state. The contract shall be capable of generating 12 tons of fine copper and approximately 40,000 tonnes of copper concentrate by the year 2015. The production should be started in the next year if all licenses that are in process, such as environmental, are released.

According to the State Secretary of Industry, Commerce and Mining, David Leal, the agreement will add value to the activity to the state. 'No country develops exporting its raw materials, so this project is important to the state as we increase the region's economic flow generating jobs, "he said.



Only the first phase of the project, covering 16 000 hectares of mine, at least 200 direct jobs will be created in 20 years. In the construction of the mine, 600 people will be hired in two years, said Azevedo.

'We expect to begin construction of the mine in the last quarter of 2013 and we should take a year and a half to operation. And if all goes well and we operate in a year. Everything will depend on the supply of equipment, "he said.

Director of Advancement yet complete: "Brazil is a country that imports and exports fine copper concentrate. If we can verticalize in the state, the entire production will be for the domestic market. Of course, everything should be supported by fiscal policy to stay competitive, but the main thing is that a number of industries will benefit from by-products of copper ', he concludes.

here is a screenshot of the dnpm 'file' on the trindade north property that shows the dnpm 'events' from 01/08/12 onwards:



[note - the above has been manipulated insofar as compressing the 2 columns together]

in the above, it is important to note 3 things:

1. the use of 'departmental' phrasing;
2. the use of abbreviations;
3. it is in portuguese

the event description dated 01/08/12 reads:

318 - AUT PESQ/RELATORIO PESQ NAO APV ART 30 II CM PUB

318 refers to the event description code
AUT PESQ refers to the licensing phase of the property at the time of the event, here AUT PESQ means AUTORIZAÇÃO DE PESQUISA, which roughly translates to search authorisation, which actually means exploration authorisation - thus at the time of this event, 01/08/12, the dnpm licensing phase for the trindade north property was exploration authorisation
RELATORIO PESQ NAO APV ART 30 II CM PUB, means the final exploration report was not approved courtesy of article 30 item 2 of the brazilian mining code, which reads as follows:



note article 22 item v reads as follows:



[above information re the dnpm 'file' can be confirmed by accessing the sistemas portal at the dnpm website]

as mentioned in previous post, avb mineracao ltda, titleholder of trindade north, commenced legal proceedings on or about 09/08/12 against the dnpm, in the ninth federal court, as follows:



the attorney mentioned, cabral, works for ffa legal, of which luis azevado is a partner (recently made a director of avanco, see ann dated 17/12/12)

the legal proceedings had several hearing dates including on 27/08/12, where an extract even mentions Vale carrying out the exploration because it was an extension of a mineralised structure on their own property and having the priority to negotiate the reserves, as follows:



the legal proceedings were subsequently terminated by the judge under article 267 item viii of the brazilian civil procedure code, due to avb mineracao ltda withdrawing the action

[the above information re the legal action can be confirmed by accessing the brazilian justice dept/ministry website, 'jusbrasil']

further, on the dnpm 'file' on 20/03/13 the event reads:

319 - AUT PESQ/RELATORIO PESQ ARQ ART 30 II CM PUBL, which refers to the the final exploration report being 'rejected', as follows:



[note, the 'rejection' comes from friere, johnson, friere & martins, brazilian mining code, juridica editora, 2008, (containing portuguese and an english translation of the relevant legislation) as the term arquivamento, by itself, translates to archiving/filing, however, it is clear that the meaning is rejection and the result is that the property becomes free - note rejection is arguably the worst possible outcome of the four decisions the dnpm can issue regarding the final exploration report]

the importance of the final exploration report and its approval or otherwise is not known as to the vale deal

however, an approval of the final exploration report allows the titleholder to proceed to the requerimento de lavra licensing phase, the application for mining concession/lease phase

piecing together the above information, the following has occurred:

03/06/11 - avanco (through its subsidiary) submitted the final exploration report
31/07/11 - avanco first informed the market of its submitting the report
01/08/12 - the dnpm issued a non-approval of the report
09/08/12 - avanco (through its subsidiary) commmenced legal proceedings against the dnpm
27/08/12 - likely next day of hearing legal proceeding - avanco arguing?
05/09/12 - likely next day of hearing legal proceeding - dnpm presenting defence [note dnpm file event 04/09/12 defesa apresentada], here if the first mention of the termination process re art 267
10/09/12 - dnpm event documento diverso protocolizado, basically documents docketed/lodged/submitted/recorded, ie avanco submitting paperwork to the dnpm
12/09/12 - likely next day of hearing legal proceeding, all about article 267 termination
23/01/13 - likely final day of hearing legal proceeding
04/03/13 - dnpm event torna s efeito desp nao apv rel, ie torna sem efeito despacho de nao aprovoao do relatorio de pesquisa - makes no effect no approval of the dispatch survey report
20/03/13 - the dnpm issued a rejection of the report
22/03/13 - dnpm event documents submitted by avanco
25/03/13 - dnpm event documents submitted by avanco
28/03/13 - dnpm event recurso protocolizado - recurso can mean, amongst other meanings, appeal or resource, both somewhat applicabale here

note the 10/09/12 dnpm event was originally recorded as a REQ LAV/ not an AUT/PESQ (see explanation of requerimento de lavra above) indicating avanco were pushing ahead with an application for mining with trindade in spite of the non-approval and over the weekend of 04/03/13, the dnpm websites portals, sistemas and sigmine both reverted to an AUT PESQ for the 10/09/12 entry (retrospectively), as per dnpm 04/03/13 event above

one thing is obvious, avanco have been very active the last week or so with the dnpm

imo avanco have tried several attempts to 'strongarm' the regulatory authority, the dnpm, by taking legal action and then submitting req lav's in the face of a non-approval and have failed

the one plus is that they still appear to have exploration authorisation licence over the property

is the us$10-40m deal still on the table, or is vale now in a stronger position to squeeze avanco

again the question of the importance of the final exploration report to the vale deal

however why they have chosen not to inform the market about the above information which has been publicly available (for those who truly understand the term dyor) is a question for the company to answer, or not

cheers

[thanks mods]

further, as to the licensing phase for trindade north being reversed by the dnpm from REQ LAV/ back to AUT PESQ/ from the 10/09/12 documento diverso protocolizado REQ/LAV to subsequent dnpm decision on 04/03/13, the following illustrate this occurrence:



the above comes from a dnpm list of properties in the parapuaebas region dated dec 2012 and clearly shows the property in REQ LAV/ licensing phase (and cf the 10/09/12 entry from the dnpm file 2 posts back showing it as the reversion back to AUT PESQ/)

further the following 2 images from the sigmine portal show the trindade property - note the sigmnine portal uses a clolour coding to signify the current licensing phase of the property

the first image shows trindade north in the REQ LAV/ phase and is dated approx 02/03/12:



the second image shows trindade north in the AUT PESQ/ phase and is dated approx 04/03/12:



note the red colour coding in the property bottom left indicates the CONC LAV/ phase, ie mining concession granted

it is important to note that the company has made no announcements to the market in general, or to shareholders in particular, regarding either the, what appear to be, negative regulatory decisions regarding the trindade north final exploration report, first issued in aug 2012, or the legal action commenced against the regulatory authority, in sep 2012, even though both of these happened more than six months ago

recognising this and the importance of the vale deal (much-touted by the company), a legitimate question may be to ask what else is the company not announcing to the market in general, or shareholders in particular

cheers

Interesting details hp.
You cant help feel that all this legal stuff was at least part of the reason why AVB didnt recieve the 1 mill in august.

It seems totally amazing though you would think a mention even if only brief via an asx ann as you say, would have been the least they could have reported. Im not a solicitor but makes you wonder are they complying by ASX rules.

Even the article posted by Fred a few days ago about the MOI signed between AVB and Para state for the smelter ,
even though it seems very positive, its still a worry theres no mention by mangt. As you point out what else are they not telling us about.

You cant help feeling were not far from a few anns to cover all this, not to mention the outstanding drilling results, but the most important of all some news of how they are going to finance a mine.

Cheers for all you great info

ddcc

It is probably a very difficult situation for AVB Management.

On one hand this TN problem has caught them off-guard. Sure there is a duty for full disclosure, but then there is a duty to do the best you can for shareholders too.. act in their interests. The two can be opposed at times. Any announcement would only ever be a small part of a very BIG story dealing with the complex inter-relationships between all parties. The ever shifting legal situation. So it is probably not something you could fully explain in a few lines, even with the best of intentions.

The requirement is for FULL disclosure and to do that you would need a book. Full disclosure too can involve sensitivities between the parties. To be open about this hiccup is counter-productive. Much of the situation could be classified as commercial-in-confidence anyway. Private.

So any attempt by AVB at detailed disclosure and explaining would be inadequate, necessarily far from the full story and thus damaging and misleading by nature.

In their situation I would simply lump it all together under "sensitive negotiations" which yes, also broadly encompass the ups and downs of legal dealings. No more.

On public forums you can get idiots and sheep. Some idiot says oh TN has fallen over, and all the sheep take up the cry. The SP tanks, the sheep-shearers move in and fleece them, and then when it all sorts itself out... up the SP goes. And the (somewhat poorer) sheep go back to criticising Management.. their favourite hobby.

Sometimes you need to treat shareholders like mushrooms. In their own interests. Sometimes you just shutup and keep a lid on things... and get on with the job.. heaven knows that job is hard enough.

I agree with that approach. I love knowledge, but a little of it is a dangerous thing.. especially in this case.
At some point you gotta trust management. Mr. Polglase et al. They are working hard, doing their absolute best to get it over the line, worrying, sweating, working, losing sleep.... to get there. They do not need the dimwits you find on some public forums, the dumb and ill-infomed armchair-critics.

I much prefer to be a rich mushroom than a well-informed pauper. I sift through what comes up here, the amazing research done by HT (well done my friend!!!), keep my own counsel, and follow it with great interest.

Very well said Bookworm.

It is complex situation for AVB Management.

AVB has a duty to act in the best interests of shareholders. Any announcement would only ever be a small part of a very BIG story dealing with the complex inter-relationships between Vale, AVB and DNPM. This constantly changing legal situation requiring alot of sensitivity by all parties. Full disclosure too can involve sensitivities between the parties, but in this instance to protect all parties including shareholders TP is wise to consider this classified as commercial-in-confidence. Until such time resolution is completed. To act prematurely here definitely would be deemed inadequate, damaging and misleading from a legal perspective i.e. as you say

"....lump it all together under "sensitive negotiations" which broadly encompasses the ups and downs of legal dealings. No more..."

THese public forums contain individuals with deceptively and speciously hidden agenda...trolling around offshore Dept Minerals websites in foreign websites leaves these individuals open to misinterpretation, miscalculations and incorrect conclusions to say the least...then coming here to feed into shareholders existing anxieties is scurrilous and meddling with this ongoing criticism of AVB Management... thanks for nothing

AVB's decision to shut-up and keep a lid on things...is not only WISE but necessary to protect AVB's future and also in consideration of ongoing discussions re: finance Stage 1 at AN ... I have been involved in Exploration Projects myself and clearly understand this imperative... i.e. stay focused and get on with the job

In this instance a little knowledge, is a dangerous thing...I know TP etal are working VERY hard to get this project over the line... And I also agree they need dimwits, meddlers, muck racking idiots and "ill-informed armchair-nitwits on these public forums like a hole in the head...

I say just let AVB management just do their job...and support the share price to aid the finance package to be approved....others can "bugger off"

Best regards
simonhhh

and another good post. You have to suspect the capability or the motives of some posters.

updating latest information re trinade north from the dnpm (brazilian regulatory mining authority) website

as mentioned previously, the dnpm issued a rejection of the final exploration report on the 20/03/13, the result being that the property becomes available

the property is now in requerimento de pesquisa phase with 3 applicants seeking exploration authorisation licensing over the property as follows (and note the colour-coding change in the property, supra):



in the above screenshot (taken 2 days ago) which can be verified by anyone who simply accesses the dnpm sigmine portal, there are clearly now 3 applications live on trindade north

further:



the above (agin another screenshot from sigmine 2 days ago that can also be verified today) clearly shows the 3 applicants with avanco (note it is avanco resources mineracao ltd subsidiairy this time, as opposed to avb mineracao ltda subsidiairy that held the 850.283/1999 aut pesq licence over the property), with avanco third in line, indeed the sistemas portal shows they missed out by approx 40 mins on being first on the priority list - and note all req pesq's were lodged on the 21/03/13

[note the above image has been manipulated insofar as it is 2 shots 'stitched' together to allow it to be viewed as one]

what the above shows factually, is that as far as the dnpm is concerned the trindade north property is currently available for an aut pesq (exploration authorisation) licence and that avanco appears to be third in line priority-wise

as this all appears to show that avanco is not currently the legal titleholder of the trindade north property, what of the vale-avanco deal over the trindade north property

it is to be understood that avanco appear to have lodged an appeal (see post above), however they were unsuccessful in their attempt at injunctive relief previously

more than happy for anyone, including the company, to present facts to counter anything posted above

and it needs to be understood, all of the above posts re this issue contain publically available information that can be verified by anyone who wants to verify it

cheers

Spoke to Scott Funston seconds ago.

Summary; No dramas, the long and short of it, "all tenements are in good standing" a direct quote from Scott which said he was fine on being quoted on. He also had a few other choice words but I better not repeat those.

Let's move on to the next beat up...hope whoever just sold a parcel was intending to sell before this non-issue arose.

Flurnt

How good is your Brazilian and your understanding of bureaucratic process over there?

I would argue any one reading your posts is relying on those factors very heavily. My information...and translations lead me to a different conclusion to yours.

I am still curious about your motives ...you don't seem to hold stock or post on other stocks.

Kalenn

clearly a non-issue to you

the suggestion that people go and verify for themselves (which would include translating it themselves) is inherent in my posts on this subject

you read my motives, as i explained them, before you tou'd my post linking hc to here

post up your translations

I already have...all tenements in good standing.

PS wasn't me who TOU'd your dodgy post.

Gidday happytown and Fred108 (Best to use ASF nics on this forum dontcha think?))


happytown...I tried to join ASF a couple of years ago when we were discussing AVB regularly,but ASF wouldn't accept my email address....today,lo and behold,no probs...)
I know you have been in and out of AVB often,as have I.

It was interesting reading your last few posts re TN,but it seems that the meaning has been lost in translation?...Although I do remember there was a "discrepancy" in the size of the Serra Verde tenement..(the prospectus and AVB's initial ASX releases showed it as a 10kx10k square tenement when in actual fact Vale owned the southwest quadrangle)


Best to believe Scott Funston's "all tenements are in good standing" I'd say.




Hi Fred......"How good is your Brazilian"?....getting kinda personal there..)



Cheers

Toph

Nothing like a close shave and I didn't start the stripping competition.
Have to confess my personality will step up when challenged though...if u get all the inuuendo

Fred108.....I'm hearin ya...tudo bem,tudo bom...