Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

LPI

Click for more information

3.64%

26.5¢ lithium power international limited

I dont have time to read your posts but will respond to the...

First 101 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
TheGekko

1,106 Posts.

432

25/11/18

22:38

Post #: 36634398
Share

Originally posted by help_me: ↑

If you hadn't noticed, calls for the nationalisation of lithium has been on the rise throughout this year due to the uncovering of SQM's extensive resume of dodgy and corrupt practices over multiple decades. I would never put it past politicians to enact illogical and self-harming policy in the name of populism and pettiness, they've certainly done it in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Comparing Chilean and Australian politics is laughable. Chile has a deep rooted history in socialism, which is still well and truly entrenched in large portions of the population to this day. Socialism tends to come with a certain ideology in regards to their natural resources, including not being particularly fond of foreigners reaping the majority of the benefits from their exploitation. Chile has certainly had their fair share of crazies make their way in to the top job in the past, those types struggle to move beyond the fringe in Australia.

I've made it quite clear that I don't believe nationalisation will ever happen, but am open to the possibility that something of similar affect will be potentially be enacted ie. THE REGULATIONS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. Here is a summary of the recommendations that were made by the National Lithium Commission, which was assembled by the Bachelet Government, in regards to the creation of a new regulatory framework for lithium.

http://evworld.com/blogs.cfm?blogid=1307

Note point #2

Given its high potential for use in energy applications, the strategic character of lithium is reaffirmed and it is recommended to maintain its non-concessionable character because the existing mining concessions system is not suited to the particularity and complexity of exploitation of the salt flats. It is also recommended raising non-concessionability of lithium to constitutional status.

Bachelet came out in support of the Lithium Commission's findings, thus showing that the people in power just last year had no intentions of opening up lithium exploitation to the private sector independent of the public sectors involvement.

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/bus...ces-lithium-exploration-plan/50000265-2821602

"One of the first determinations we made was to heed the commission's call to reaffirm the strategic character of lithium, the property of all Chileans, and maintain its condition as a non-concessionable material," Bachelet said.

So you really think it's not at all possible for someone of similar, or even more extreme ilk to take back control in Chile? All these treaties and trade agreements you keep wanting to throw at me as if a free market with no restrictions among all industries is a prerequisite for being included in them, yet somehow these current laws are still in place?

We're basically in agreement on all the positives of LPI. It's just that you refuse to look beyond the current governments position, who again, I've already stated am very comfortable with their stances and the policy they are trying to push, and are a huge reason I am invested in the company. You don't need to keep telling me about their attitude towards lithium exploitation and the private sectors involvement in it, it's the reason why I am excited about our prospects in the very near future. What happens beyond the current governments reign and how management safeguards themselves from any potential sovereign risks may change the length of my investment from 3-5 years to 20+. I'd sure hope that management are looking further down the path than you are, and not just concerning themselves with what is in front of them NOW as you seem to believe they are doing. They're trying to build a business that will last decades, so need to consider how to best grow and protect shareholder capital over decades, and not be shortsighted.

I'll also say that I think its a pretty safe bet to say that neither of us are experts in Chilean law, or any law in that fact, so neither of us can safely say that a future government could not reverse decisions and policies made by the current government, or even go so far as to challenge the grandfathering of our old code tenements, which could at the very least force a halt in operations until a resolution is made after lengthy legal proceedings. And as I stated before, I never put it past politicians to act against their own best interests and the interests of their country for short term gains in popularity.

Expand

Originally posted by help_me: ↑

If you hadn't noticed, calls for the nationalisation of lithium has been on the rise throughout this year due to the uncovering of SQM's extensive resume of dodgy and corrupt practices over multiple decades. I would never put it past politicians to enact illogical and self-harming policy in the name of populism and pettiness, they've certainly done it in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Comparing Chilean and Australian politics is laughable. Chile has a deep rooted history in socialism, which is still well and truly entrenched in large portions of the population to this day. Socialism tends to come with a certain ideology in regards to their natural resources, including not being particularly fond of foreigners reaping the majority of the benefits from their exploitation. Chile has certainly had their fair share of crazies make their way in to the top job in the past, those types struggle to move beyond the fringe in Australia.

I've made it quite clear that I don't believe nationalisation will ever happen, but am open to the possibility that something of similar affect will be potentially be enacted ie. THE REGULATIONS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. Here is a summary of the recommendations that were made by the National Lithium Commission, which was assembled by the Bachelet Government, in regards to the creation of a new regulatory framework for lithium.

http://evworld.com/blogs.cfm?blogid=1307

Note point #2

Given its high potential for use in energy applications, the strategic character of lithium is reaffirmed and it is recommended to maintain its non-concessionable character because the existing mining concessions system is not suited to the particularity and complexity of exploitation of the salt flats. It is also recommended raising non-concessionability of lithium to constitutional status.

Bachelet came out in support of the Lithium Commission's findings, thus showing that the people in power just last year had no intentions of opening up lithium exploitation to the private sector independent of the public sectors involvement.

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/bus...ces-lithium-exploration-plan/50000265-2821602

"One of the first determinations we made was to heed the commission's call to reaffirm the strategic character of lithium, the property of all Chileans, and maintain its condition as a non-concessionable material," Bachelet said.

So you really think it's not at all possible for someone of similar, or even more extreme ilk to take back control in Chile? All these treaties and trade agreements you keep wanting to throw at me as if a free market with no restrictions among all industries is a prerequisite for being included in them, yet somehow these current laws are still in place?

We're basically in agreement on all the positives of LPI. It's just that you refuse to look beyond the current governments position, who again, I've already stated am very comfortable with their stances and the policy they are trying to push, and are a huge reason I am invested in the company. You don't need to keep telling me about their attitude towards lithium exploitation and the private sectors involvement in it, it's the reason why I am excited about our prospects in the very near future. What happens beyond the current governments reign and how management safeguards themselves from any potential sovereign risks may change the length of my investment from 3-5 years to 20+. I'd sure hope that management are looking further down the path than you are, and not just concerning themselves with what is in front of them NOW as you seem to believe they are doing. They're trying to build a business that will last decades, so need to consider how to best grow and protect shareholder capital over decades, and not be shortsighted.

I'll also say that I think its a pretty safe bet to say that neither of us are experts in Chilean law, or any law in that fact, so neither of us can safely say that a future government could not reverse decisions and policies made by the current government, or even go so far as to challenge the grandfathering of our old code tenements, which could at the very least force a halt in operations until a resolution is made after lengthy legal proceedings. And as I stated before, I never put it past politicians to act against their own best interests and the interests of their country for short term gains in popularity.

Expand

I dont have time to read your posts but will respond to the first couple of paragraphs of this one. If socialism is so entrenched in Chile why have two of the last three Federal Governments been pro-business centre-right governments? I think Chileans like many other South American countries realise the socialist experiment has failed them and that is why South America has moved to the right politically in recent years.

You mentioned me comparing Australian and Chilean politics as laughable - you are taking out of context my argument which is that politicians will put forward policy proposals/Bills on behalf of their constituency knowing full well it will be struck down and NEVER get out of the gate. For their own political a and re-election chances, they need to be seen to be representing the special interest groups that got them elected in the first place and they are usually on the fringes.

Your research will have shown you that Chile has been working very hard over the last 10-15 years to attract foreign investment, much of it for its mining and related industries. In terms of the lithium industry, if they were to implement punitive regulations, potential investors will hop over the border to Argentina or up to Bolivia and Chile will be the loser. Argentina is on fire at the moment in attracting lithium hopefuls. The Chilean Government's mining advisors would know this and that the economic multiplier effects of new investment in new resource developments are significant and they will not want to jeopardise investment in what already is a globally competitive industry - hard rock in Australia and brines in Argentina, Bolivia and the US. Losing the chance of one new mining job means losing five overall across all sectors of the economy.

I dont know why you are proferring evidence from a government that was voted out of power a year ago. How about you stick to what the current Government is doing and proposing. It would make more sense. Have to go.

LPI Price at posting: 27.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
2 Upvote

1 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

MIN

MinRes's Ellison knows he screwed up – for that reason, hunt for new Chair to be sped up

WC8

Pan Asia rebranding to 'clear confusion' after bagging $35M for Chile projects

FNX

Aussie Broadband set to kick off share buyback starting Q1 CY2025

History-making uranium sample grades and an imminent drill run. Infini Resources is poised to transform in 2025

ACW

This biotech stock raised $11M in a risk-off environment. Its Alzheimer's drug could change the game

There are more pages in this discussion • 21 more messages in this thread...

First 101 Last

Add LPI (ASX) to my watchlist