I read this article a while ago - I tend to give reuters a bit...

I read this article a while ago - I tend to give reuters a bit more credit than much of the commentary on the net.

https://www.reuters.com/article/africa-mining-ahome/column-congo-and-zambia-win-fight-with-copper-miners-but-at-a-cost-andy-home-idUSL5N20L66V

If the link gets hit - google - congo and zambia win fight .

The most interesting bit to me was this statement - because I have heard from AVZ about the possibility of a five year tax holiday. And wondered why five years in particular.

"Another key proviso of last year’s new mining code was a reduction in operating contract stability from 10 to 5 years, meaning more frequent potential shifts of the goal-posts by the government. "

@Scarpa - I've a lot of respect for your analysis usually, and accept that sovereign risk might usually be accounted for by changes to the NPV calcs - 13% instead of 10% - but respectfully that approach doesn't seem satisfactory to me (even if it is how it is usually done) because if any government (of any country) changes there mining code to a large extent - or shows a pattern of reneging on previous commitments (eg - no changes for 10 years) then that would seem to be a far greater risk to anyone considering stumping up investment capital in the first place than a mere few percent change in the NPVs reflects.

I'm not trying to fear monger - I'm trying to be realistic and to assess risk. I don't know yet if the statement from this reuters article I've quoted is accurate.

It is perhaps worth considering if the possible 5 year tax holiday is 5 years only because the mining code only allows for 5 years though. It is perhaps worth considering if lithium might be deemed a strategic resource by a future government after 5 years. Though compared to the news flow coming in the next month or so on transport studies etc these considerations are minor ones in my opinion.