Mr aug59 what you are trying to say here is incorrect. Firstly, because you are drawing here situation in which the company as well as its investors can nothing to do except submissively to accept any decission coming from Swedish authorities, which is simply not true. Secondly, I have written not about "objections to any application" but about the refusal of granting concession. And lastly I am not about the international equation but about International Business and Commercial Law or global economic governance, and the legal challenges of business operation and foreign investment in a developed or developing countries context and which takes precedence over laws in these countries. Have a look at the Court's web-site and you can find there a lot of different cases showing decisions against the those governments that definitely had the policies which "are always subject to some change (evolution)" but Court have completely ignored their such "polices and evolutions".
Eric – imo the Mineral Policy would have provisions, legal safeguards already written within. Caveats, opt-outs etc to deal with any unforeseens, Court rulings, International Treaty’s etc. However, as said before, it perhaps could be well argued that any delays as a result of such, may allow for some financial redress within the same policy document (sometimes is).
A thought here Eric. If Kallak North wins approval having been considered post Norra Karr ruling, then N. Kallak would set precedence for South Kallak. If it had not, then a future application for S. Kallak would give some further ammunition to the objectors and some concern to potential partners in the short/medium in this very respect. Kurt is hitting this ruling head on. Imo.
Manro – I disagree with your views on this. Firstly, it’s the application (only) for concession that assesses if the exploration area is suitable for mining activities (proposals and objections are registered). Secondly, there are always objections to any application anywhere. The international equation, to which you refer, is wholly irrelevant. Thirdly, all Government Policies are always subject to some change (evolution).
Have a nice rest old buddy. I've been seeing signed of stress in your recent posts so a little break might be a good idea. Don't stay away for too long as I'll have no one to talk to and might be reduced to having conversations with Mrs44.
That petition is definitely worthwhile. It's time the government trimmed the MM's wings. It's the AIM where the majority of abuse takes place as the grown up markets have a lot more controls already in place whereas the AIM has next to none.
They don't actually report buys as sells and vice versa, it's much sneakier than that. It's the trades listed as "OK trades" which allow the MMs to mislead the punters. The OK trades are trades where "delayed reporting of transaction" has been requested.
For example, this can mean that if the market is falling and a large sell takes place and OK status is requested it will appear as a buy when eventually posted as the SP has fallen since the transaction took place as the trading system automatically posts trades as buys or sells based on the SP at the time of posting.
The only purpose that I can see for this type of transaction is to mislead the investors, and it should be banned.
If you hate seeing buys reported as sells etc!!!!!! Has already been sent to Martin Lewis, Daily Mail, Moneyweek & Watchdog. New chancellor, shaddow chancellor, most MP's & the Stock Exchange aim committee. If you follow tweeters etc, send it to them please!
If this petition doesn't reach 10,000; then imo we might as well have not bothered as it will almost certainly be filed B1N; @ 10,000 the government should respond.as well as So , If you haven't yet signed or indeed have but haven't passed it on to others, then now's the time to do so.
Thanks for your comments Sooz. I appreciate your thoughts. Quite honestly you are correct. We could have been faced with the possibility of a Norra Karr style carpet pull, had we been granted the Concession say a year ago, but of course our application is obviously thorough enough, so Kurt believes, more thorough perhaps than that of the application supporting the Norra Karr project. If so, I imagine the new ruling wouldn't have been to our detriment, we'd already have the licence, it would be a case of the authorities simply checking the evidence and confirming we could continue to develop the project.
I'm only surprised that following Norra Karr, the authorities haven't temporarily revoked all mining licences for those companies that aren't yet up and running, and checked each company's supporting environmental information. Now that would be something eh? Lol.
Think I'll have a break from the bb for a while anyway, it'll probably do me good. Will post again when something interesting happens, either when news hits or should someone post something super duper.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.