Tuesday, October 9th, 2007

Choose Your Language Of Preference Below

French Version German Version Russian Version Spanish Version

Portuguese Version Chinese Version Arabic Version

Zambian cobalt miner Chambishi is aiming to raise output to 5,000 tonnes in 2010, but says there is not enough ore left in the Mulyashi copper mine to reach full production capacity of 7,000 tonnes of cobalt a year.

Author: Shapi Shacinda

LUANSHYA, Zambia (Reuters) – 

Zambia’s largest cobalt producer, Chambishi Metals Plc, expects to raise output to 5,000 tonnes in 2010 from 3,000 tonnes per year now by buying extra raw material, a senior company official said on Friday.

Derek Webbstock, the chief executive officer of Chambishi Metals Plc, said the mining firm did not now have enough raw material to reach its full production capacity of 7,000 tonnes a year of cobalt.

But he said the company would raise cobalt output to 4,000 tonnes per year after Zambia’s new Mulyashi copper mine comes on stream in the first quarter of 2008.

Output would rise to 5,000 tonnes in 2010 and the company hoped eventually to increase output to 7,000 tonnes, but that would depend on the acquisition of additional ore, he said.

“We have the capacity to produce 7,000 tonnes of cobalt, but we do not have the ore,” Webbstock told Reuters in an interview.

“We will only reach 5,000 in 2010 after the Mulyashi mine comes on stream,” he said. “We can only go up to 7,000 if we get ore from the Congo or anywhere else.”

Chambishi Metals, which has in recent years ventured into copper production, also intends to raise its annual finished copper output to 40,000 tonnes from the current 27,000 tonnes, under upgrade plans which will cost $55 million.

Webbstock was speaking to Reuters in Luanshya, 330 km (206 miles) north of Lusaka, where he is also the chief operating officer for the Luanshya Copper Mines (LCM).

LCM and Chambishi Metals Plc are both joint ventures of the International Mineral Resources (IRM) and Bein Stein Group Resources (BSGR).

Chambishi Metals purchases raw materials from the Nkana mine, a unit of Canada’s First Quantum Minerals <FM.TO> and Swiss trader Glencore International AG, to produce cobalt, in addition to raw materials from the LCM’s Baluba copper mine.

The Mulyashi mine will initially produce 60,000 tonnes of finished copper starting in 2009 and will provide raw materials for production of an additional 1,000 tonnes of cobalt at Chambishi.

Webbstock said Chambishi’s capacity gap would probably have to be filled by imports of raw materials from the Democratic Republic of Congo and other Zambian mines.


“We don’t have resources in the pipeline to fill that gap and that is a challenge that we face, and we are looking at opportunities within Zambia and over the border in the (Democratic Republic of) Congo to get concentrates to fill that gap,” Webbstock said.

“We are limited to the cobalt we can extract from the Nkana slag dump,” he added.

A shareholders’ decision would be made in October for the expansion of copper production at Chambishi.

“The most important project on the Chambishi operation, (on) which we are close to finalising a decision, is the installation of a Copper Essex Circuit. What that will do is to increase the production capacity at Chambishi from 27,000 tonnes of copper per year to 40,000 tonnes,” Webbstock said.

Chambishi does not produce London Metals Exchange (LME) A grade copper but the Copper Essex will allow it to increase capacity of A grade copper, he added.

“That project is in the final stages of consideration and is indicated to cost in the region of $55 million and will take about 20 months once we take a decision to proceed on the project. A decision should be made by the end of October,” Webbstock said of Mulyashi mine.

Source: Mineweb

Choose Your Language Of Preference Below

French Version German Version Russian Version Spanish Version

Portuguese Version Chinese Version Arabic Version

Original article in Ukrainian by Tetyana Nikolayenko, UP

Translated by Eugene Ivantsov

The Party of Regions (PRU) has been persuading everyone that it won the election thus having the right to form a coalition. At that, the PRU MPs keep repeating that they received 2% more at this election.

However, the election results declared by the Central Election Commission (CEC) give cause for reflection: was it maybe Pyrrhic victory?

The Party of Regions

Considering the election outcome for the PRU percentagewise, the Donetsk-based party has indeed improved its result by 2%. But absolute figures are not so attractive.

If at last year’s election 8 148 745 voters supported the PRU, in 2007 the party received 8 013 918 votes.

Thus, the PRU has lost 135 000 votes. In fact, these losses could be even greater.

Nestor Shufrych and Inna Bohoslovska received positions in the top 5 of the party list not simply for their public speaking skills. Theoretically, they had to contribute to the election result of the PRU with the votes of their followers. Last year Viche and Ne Tak received almost 700 000 votes altogether.

Of course, all those 700 000 did not vote for the PRU at this election, but supporters of Mrs. Bohoslovska and SDPU are closer to the PRU than to the BYuT and Our Ukraine –People’s Self-Defense.

But PRU did not receive additional votes. Or maybe it did but these votes ‘mended’ holes in the PRU electoral support.

As compared with 2006, the PRU preserved its influence in western and southern regions. Moreover, Yanukovych and Co. managed to increase their popularity in the so-called ‘expansion zones’ covering central and western Ukraine.

Of course, they did not receive desirable surplus of 5-10%, but they coped with the task in Khmelnytsk and Cherkasy regions, and even in Zakarpattya where the PRU is traditionally unpopular.

The PRU received 4% more in Zaporizhya region. Most probably, these are the votes of Natalia Vitrenko who received 6.54% in Zaporizhya last year, having got only 1.71% this time.

At the same time, the PRU lost votes in its small Motherland – Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv regions. Mr. Yanukovych lost there130 600, 70 600 and 106 500 votes respectively.

The PRU may boast of its phenomenal election results (34%) but one cannot run away from figures. The number of supporters has reduced, and so has the number of seats in parliament (175 against 185).

Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc

In spite of Gallup Polls the BYuT receives more votes at the second election in a row. This time Yulia Tymoshenko received 30.7% having increased the number of her supporters by 1.5 million (5 652 876 in 2006 against 7 162 174 in 2007).

This year the BYuT won election in 16 regions while last year it was only 14.

This year the BYuT received the first position in Ivano-Frankivsk and Lviv regions that used to contribute much to Our Ukraine last year’s victory in these regions.

In general, the BYuT increased its popularity in all regions. There is not a single region where the BYuT results got worse at least percentagewise. The BYuT scored the best results in Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne and Ternopil regions, receiving 15-20%.

The Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk remain problem regions for Yulia Tymoshenko.

Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense

Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense received 4 million votes less than the BYuT. But more importantly, this time 3 301 012 Ukraine’s citizens voted for the president’s party. It means that the united democratic forces received 238 000 votes less than Our Ukraine alone at the last year’s election (3 539 140).

NU-NS received less votes even despite personal popularity of Yuriy Lutsenko and despite the comeback of Ukrainian People’s Party and Mr. Karmazin who received about half million votes at the last parliamentary election.

If last year Our Ukraine celebrated victory in Zakarpattya, Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions, this time only Zakarpattya favored NU-NS.

NU-NS improved its results in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Cherkasy and Zakarpattya regions by 3-5%. At the same time, the bloc received 7-9% less in Ivano-Frankivsk and Chernivtsi regions.

NU-NS received the third position in Zhytomyr region run by NU-NS member Yuriy Pavlenko. The president’s bloc was fifth in Zaporizhya region headed by Yevhen Chervonenko who was not included on the party list at this election.

In general, the results of NU-NS became worse in 12 regions.

The Communist Party of Ukraine

At the last election it seemed that Lenin’s followers were almost dead. But the Communists did not only manage to improve their last year’s results but they appeared the only left-wing force in parliament.

Calling to vote for the only left-wing political force with real chances of entering parliament, Petro Symonenko and Co. improved election results by 327 000 votes.

The Communist Party entered parliament due to traditional support of western regions, having received the second place in Luhansk and Sevastopol and the third position in the Crimea, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhya, Mykolayiv, Kharkiv and Kherson regions.

Lytvyn Bloc

The lucky beggar of this election Volodymyr Lytvyn received 304 000 votes more than last year. 924 568 Ukrainian citizens chose to vote for his bloc.

Volodymyr Lytvyn’s best results were in Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Zhytomyr regions.

The Socialist Party of Ukraine

SPU that failed the election this year had lost 776 000 voters during one year of Mr. Moroz’s speakership and participation in the Anticrisis Coalition. This year 668 185 Ukraine’s citizens voted for Mr. Moroz’s party.

SPU appears outside the Verkhovna Rada. The party declares it will not dispute the election outcome in courts. However, Oleksandr Moroz warns of his soon comeback to the big-time politics.

Does he maybe hope that the Party of Regions will help him by refusing to take the oath of office, thus making parliament incompetent?

Comparison table of the election results:


Traditionally, the PRU’s results in the western regions are very low, while the BYuT and Our Ukraine are unpopular in the eastern regions. Politicians take advantage of it speculating on the issue of split in Ukraine and demanding to form a broad coalition.

The PRU is expected to receive 175 seats in parliament while the BYuT will have 156.

That means that although both political forces failed to receive majority at this election, they received enough seats to bloc the work of a new parliament or even destroy it in the event they do not agree with the share of positions in authority.

Choose Your Language Of Preference Below

French Version German Version Russian Version Spanish Version

Portuguese Version Chinese Version Arabic Version

President Mwanawasa says Portugal which holds the rotating presidency of the European Union (EU), has assured him that all African leaders are invited to the EU-African Union (AU) summit.

Dr. Mwanawasa who is also SADC Chairman, has appealed to British Prime Minister, Golden Brown to attend the summit if Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe is invited.

He said as a former colonising empire of most African countries, Britain must reconsider its stance to boycott the summit if Mr. Mugabe attends.

The President said all SADC heads of state and government are happy that Mr. Mugabe has been invited and are all willing to attend as long as Mr. Mugabe will be in Lisbon.

Dr. Mwanawasa was speaking at Lusaka International Airport, Tuesday upon arrival from New York where he had gone to attend the UN General Assembly.

Many African leaders, who want President Mugabe to attend the summit to help tackle his country’s problem, say they will boycott the summit if he is barred.

Mr. Brown said neither he nor any senior member of his government would attend the summit alongside, Mr. Mugabe.

At a news conference in London, Mr. Brown reiterated his determination to boycott the first European Union Africa Union summit in seven years, on account of Mr. Mugabe.

This is on account of accusations among them, Mr. Mugabe’s poor, human rights record, election rigging and the Land issue..

Mr. Mugabe blames Western powers for the economic crisis and accuses them – and former colonial ruler Britain in particular – of plotting with the opposition to oust him.

Currently he is subject to a European Union travel ban but that could be suspended to allow him to attend the December meeting.

Meanwhile, President Mwanawasa arrived home, Monday from a successful visit to the U.S and Britain.

The President arrived aboard a British Airways plane at Lusaka International Airport.

He was met on arrival by Vice President, Rupiah Banda, Cabinet Ministers, Senior government officials and Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) party members.

The President was in New York to attend the 62nd
session of the United Nations General Assembly.

While there, he participated in high level meetings on climate change and called on developed countries to do more about their industrial emissions.

President Mwanawasa who also attended the General Assembly as SADC Chairman, was the First among African Presidents to address the Assembly.

While in the US, President Mwanawasa also received an Honorary Doctorate Degree in Law at the Harding University in Arkansa, Little Rock.

He was honoured for his exemplary contributions to the development of Laws in Zambia as well as in the areas of democracy.

In London, President Mwanawasa addressed a business meeting organized by the Duetche Bank, where he encouraged potential investors to invest in Zambia.

Source: ZNBC