London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
It's all a nightmare.
Looks like a landslide result for the conservatives and BEM unlikely to benefit from the probable boost to the stock market.
For a normal person, yes, but these are politicians. Perhaps, Baylan thinks he can get to a decision before KU, or that before them something will come up to delay the need, such as election. Or, perhaps, KU finding against him would not be a major issue for him.
A member from the Environment Party recently said that the Social Democrats, their partners in Government, were aware of their position, namely, that they don't want a mine/there should not be a mine, but that the decision should follow the law. Given this, surely a decision could have been made. Perhaps, KU is less of a concern to the Social Democrats than their Coalition partners.
Would not doing anything until then, in a matter they describe as forthcoming and prioritiised, add weight if any more could be added to the complaint.
What I write is intended to convey only where I think things are/are going. Personally, I would prefer an RNS tomorrow confirming a yes decision.
In the link from Avanza that you posted, all items were 'tabled'. I think this refers only to an agreement to the action outlined. The item above ours (also requiring a controversial decision) required similar questions.
My understanding of this referral to questions, or investigation, is that the matter will be passed to a person/or persons to review, and who will report back following this, and nothing will happen until then.
Whilst KU are considering a complaint, they will not conclude their report until Spring, so, essentially, I see nothing to push the government until then, unless the company changes from it's current strategy.
Whatever meaning tabled has.....
Juicy...Wheather meaning tabled has in the committee's process of investigation, I can't see why it would have any influence on the prioritising and forthcomingness of the decision... why would you say, so nothing will happen until then, you can't know that.
Also remember this..reindeer have got legs and minerals are where they are.
One could ask, what law, what book...whose law, whose book?
Remember the ANI from the SGU for mining was in place well before the map was changed.
The letter with questions relates to the 'investigation' that the government now considers is needed. Essentially an internal government investigation to consider why they have been unable to reach a decision. The case is 'tabled' until this is done, so nothing will happen until then.
The reindeer map has been changed to now place areas essential to reindeer herding within the area of the mine. In simple terms, mining can't be allowed in these areas because they are essential to reindeer herding.
Hi Ed...You were right to ask....didn't express it very clearly, "to suit" meant made to conflict with. Here it is, thanks tomas92:
A little strange that the maps change the nature of the reindeer herding for JÅHKÅGASSKA TJIELLDE SAMEBY.
If you look at the map for (Reindeer's important areas in the pasture country) from April 27, 2010. There is nothing of interest to the reindeer herding in the mining area itself, there is only one NOT RED LED south and one north of the mining area.
If you look at the same map from 12/12/2016, it has come to pass that in the middle of the mining area, it is now a TRIVSELLAND for the reindeer.
If you look at the map for (Strategic Areas) from April 27, 2010. So there are two smaller areas for RASTBETE. These are located in the southern non-cleared path.
The same map from 2016-12-05, a COLLECTION AREA has been added. This also in the mining area.
These maps that I have looked at are published by the Sami Parliament. Little wonder that the area between Björkholmen and Randijaur suddenly became so important in recent years.
Now, it may actually be that the new generation is suddenly discovering how pleasant it is in this area, but it is more strange that the reindeer owners in Jåhkågasska Tjiellde Sameby did not know this before and used this divine area earlier as the Collection Area.
I see this as a parody, both from the Sami and the authorities. Frightening how it really works (4 - 5 years now) it has aged back and forth where one could normally sit down and discuss eye to eye about sensible solutions over a cup of salty coffee.
I read all of the posts don't post these days as I think I've said every thing I can about BEM.
I 'm a bit confused about the Avanza post. It looks me me like the idea that reindeer maps will be adapted to "suit the mining areas" is a great idea. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it what's happening.
All the best.
Eric. They can't set up an investigation into why they don't know the answer to the question, they're the Ministry responsible.
Some other not so nice information about reindeer maps being adapted to suit the mining area, on Avanza this morning.
Thanks Sooz. Not sure if that helps us in terms of time. If the Government now has to answer those questions, then we don't know how long it will have been given to respond. I would have preferred the Committee to have just examined the case and pushed the Government to get on with giving us a decision, pointing to any wrongdoing or shortcomings. Why more questions and not simply observations and recommendations is beyond me, considering the stage we are at. Questions posed may extend our waiting time further.
Thanks for sharing though. x
Useful information lets see some share price uptrend soon , as of yet been on downtrend for years . G.L.A. included 3card dog brag .
The Greenland ice sheets are moving faster than the decision on Kallak, nevertheless I think there is incremental movement. If the sp goes down further I'll be tempted to buy back some of the shares I sold a while ago!
The above is from Avanza thanks to Clef.
Did you see this:
"The Government's handling of the application for a mining license for ore mining in Kallak - G11
The committee dealt with the investigation.
The committee decided that a letter with certain questions should be sent to the Government Offices.
The case was tabled."
In the United States, to "table" usually means to postpone or suspend consideration of a pending motion. In the rest of the English-speaking world, to "table" means to begin consideration (or reconsideration) of a proposal.
Aug, surely a processing time would never be included in any mineral policy anyway. The point being, the authorites must adhere to the policy, but I would say they each have their own processing timescale targets.. MI, Civil Service etc.
In April, we had the acknowledgement of our case being prioritised, due to the excessive amount of time we had already waited for a decision since lodging our application, . Some eight months later, and we are still waiting, so clearly priority hasn't meant that at all. Kurt can use this, in my opinion only, along with the deviation in process by the CAB, regardless of whether a processing timescale for applications is mentioned in the mineral policy. It is a fact, that our application has been held up, and certain people in power have sat idle and allowed this to happen, if not been complicit in preventing our business in Sweden from progressing. The Government, coalition or not, is accountable for our continuing grief, financial and operational.
I feel Kurt can make a case now, if he chooses.
But that's only my opinion, as I say.
Quite right, I'll second that Aug.
Of course they were serious questions. To which you had no answer. Seriously now, the mineral policy, as I/we understand it, has no time limit written in, in respect of submitted application(s) regarding concession. That means, if BEM were to challenge the Government through the courts in respect of the Government having to make a decision, the Government would have no option but, to defend its position as matter of duty – the mineral policy is a Government adopted legal document – it’s the law. When KB asserted that the CAB didn’t keep within prescribed measures and accused them of some bias, other options were then open to BEM, however, KB has chosen his approach, we can only assume therefore, it is in the best interest of BEM/shareholders. Imo only. atb
Moribund, I think not...Ibjj's eager as ever to poke fun at us and we are currently reflecting the state of the nation. Elections used to be about policies ; now it's just slogans. 1. For All Our People! 2. Let's get Brexit Done! And both are deceptions.
Are those serious questions?
Come on aug59, over six and a half years and still no hint of a timescale. It’s not a claim. It is a fact.
The swedes are paralysed by fear. Doing nothing suits them just fine. Let’s meet up again in 12 months and enjoy an identical exchange, because there will still be no decision.
Morning. Why, can’t they say no? … Why, won’t they say yes? I don’t recall any other investor making that claim on here. atb