We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
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. 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.
Hi All,
Don't want to dwell on this for too long but for those interested, I think the applications have been updated now (both of them) under the MAPS and DUE DATES tab. Linked to the initial SRES denied application number 88477. Maps added to below links which confirm they are both related to SR Minerals. Don't recall them being there before.
http://water.nv.gov/permitinformation.aspx?app=89453
http://water.nv.gov/permitinformation.aspx?app=89452T
GLA
Thanks @Dubliner. I guess I should know bearing in mind my previous role for many years was a Corporate Actions Manager lol. Yeah, sounds about right. Its more of a reactive rather than a proactive service for this particular corporate action when it comes to meetings.
Hi Bplan think subject change a good idea on balance!!!
Racking my old brain, last year I contacted my broker (Hargreaves) and told them I wanted to go to the AGM and they go off and do something and then send some sort of confirmation that all is set and I am ok to attend.
Then just turn up!
Waiting for Company to confirm date right now as per prior RNS...
Just to change the subject slightly, is anyone going to attend the AGM? Do we normally receive any correspondence to guide us through the process on how we can attend should we wish to as shareholders?
GLA
I tend to agree with Sam, there's no harm in purely informational enquiries - the BLM people might be quite pleased that someone's taking an interest in what they do. Also, if one person makes an enquiry then shares the response here, then it's _less_ hassle than lots of people asking individually. (But people won't share if they get name-called as a result.)
Anyway, my understanding is that the TYM loss of appeal was down to reindeer - less likely to be a problem in Nevada.
And just for the record.. I have learnt more off Volley and Bp in last couple of days than i have in months off PC. So much for keeping investors informed! (As he stared he would in a RNS) No wonder folk are doing their own research! I for one, say more of it please!
Thanks Min. Respect. But I think a mountain is being made of a molehill here. My question was about timescales. I have not will not and am not bombarding the department with questions. Over and out but still in here since 6p days.
Well I for one see nothing wrong with enquiring. Its not as though Volley is hassling them endlessly.
Min, TYM is a total different ball game. If you are talking about the fluorspa project in Sweden then I can guarantee you that investors enquiries had nothing to do with them losing the appeal. If its not the Sweden project, could you enlighten me on which project they lost an appeal?
Good Morning volley.
Our Sister company Tertiary Minerals Received Planning Consent, but for only a few objections it had to go To Appeal .
I know for a fact that the planners where bamboozled with questions from shareholders in TYM, and we lost The Appeal .
I can tell you that Lots and Lots are going on behind the scenes but I’m not allowed to enlarge on that.
P.C and ALL his hand picked team are doing a sterling job which probably we shall learn about at the A.J.M. Or before.
I resent being called a clown. My request for information is not interference. I was being inquisitive and as a long term investor I am perfectly entitled to request information. Show me proof that my action or similar ones in the past are counter productive and I will cease. Not that I was going to pursue further information anyway. You are all entitled to your view and your own plan of action as I am.
Of course pi's, and very recent ones too, should stay right out of this. Interference with regulatory procedure is bound to be counter productive. PC spotted the potential of this and has rigourously followed the rules to bring about, to the best of his ability, a successful outcome. What do these clowns who seem to think that rules are for other people, expect to gain? Many have been here for a very long time. We are patient and they have to be too. If they don't like it they can sell out . There are plenty more shares out there.
PLEASE, PLEASE, the one thing that really chucks the spanner in the works is contacting agents or Planing Dept of any kind.
I am all for researching info but worry whether contacting agencies directly for info is a step beyond what we should do and might even be counter productive?
Chaps it is up to you but felt I should mention it. All the best to you
Thank you again @volley.
I have asked which application specifically refers to sres.
Thank you @volley for that information. Appreciate it. Saw this contact info on application but didn't think they would reply to a third party. Gives us some idea with regards to timeframe.
Probably a very silly question but I was just wondering if anyone knows why there are two applications (anything to do with the two parties involved?) and whether the application 89452T (currently under review) will allow SRES to utilise the water required for production or whether they will need outcome of application 89453 too. Seems a quite a wait for the start and review of application 89453.
Just thinking that by the time BLM go through the public comment period and decision process, if successful and we receive permit to commence production, it may coincide with the water permit application 894522T.
I guess the key thing here is to be granted the production permit required. I read below from @comeonsres about SP being stagnant at the moment. Yes, I expected a rise but not much (0.14 to 0.15p) but I think this lack of RNS information hasn't helped. However, if and when we receive the permit, this should move the SP but I believe offtakes etc will follow quite swiftly thereafter which is where we will see a bigger rise in SP. AIMHO.
GLA
I emailed Jake Echeverria, Water Resource Specialist, Nevada Division of Water Resources who is handling both these applications. My information is that application 89453 is still in application status, and the office will not be able to begin review of that application until approximately the end of April.
Application 89452T is currently under review and should proceed more quickly than 89453. But no time scale given.
Bp, Well spotted! Great homework!
Many thanks.
Yes @Dubliner, can't be long now. Not making excuses for the delay but from my understanding, it seems PC and SRES have not stalled the process in any way and we are in the hands of BLM/ NEPA with regards to timeliness and outcome of permit. Even with the water permit which PC applied for (the one that was denied), it seems like it was applied for well in advance (my personal view off course).
Anyway, been monitoring the water permit situation and I think the base rights permit application may have been applied for now (info limited, so could be wrong). Application contains same details as the permit applied for by PC but I guess has to be done by Liberty Moly LLC with some form of signiture by both parties. Don't personally understand these permits so I am guessing a bit here. Perhaps someone can take a look at the two applications below to see whether one or both apply to our water permit request.
Both have a filing date of 24/01/20. The second link makes reference to well #2 (project name Cyprus Tonopah). Not sure if its the well PC refers to in the RNS (18 miles west of same Basin). The reason I think this is the application is because this project appears to mine Molybdenum and the RNS dated 16th Dec makes reference to this (As per RNS - The leased water rights are currently attached to the past-producing Liberty molybdenum mine some 18 miles west of, and in the same water basin as, the Project. Liberty Moly is a subsidiary of General Moly, Inc.).
GLA
http://water.nv.gov/permitinformation.aspx?app=89453
http://water.nv.gov/permitinformation.aspx?app=89452T
I note another Project up on the NEPA site so there is at least movement there.
Toiyabe Fingers Mule Deer Habitat Treatment Project, Open (01/27/2020 - 02/28/2020 )
Hoping we will not be far behind this one...