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.
Over the water. If I may copy and paste:
"New mines are needed to save the climate
CHRONICLE We are already many who are convinced that new mines are needed to produce raw materials for electrification to replace dependence on fossil energy sources. Now we get support from unexpected sources, writes Lennart Håkansson in today's column . "
http://www.affarerinorr.se/nyheter/2021/januari/210131-kroenika-lennart-haakansson/
Exactly Suzy, can't forget that the company is progressing on all fronts...Kallak is not the be all! A truly informed and interested investor will appreciate the companies other ventures.
But it isn't going to be a quiet year is it...drilling on all fronts, it's going to really exciting. GLA x
Yes...another quiet period while we wait for the response to come from UNESCO...could take some time but we've got pretty good waiting muscles on here, the LTHs have anyway. What's another year? Only joking...cheer up, spring's on it's way.
Probably not much...the Green Party's secretary Marta Stenevi became the Spokesperson for MP starting today...Isabella Lovin has left politics.
Fortunately I've been following the mayhem with GameStop. What great entertainment!
Time for you to move on then, TSP...next one on the top of the risers list and you could try a bid of research before you jump in...for you know stuff all about this one.
i dont think he has the bxlls for legal and not a good case
Litigation should start at Easter, this has been a farce for far too long.
If no decision has been made by the end of the year I think they are seriously considering legal. We should have the unesco comment within a few months - Then the government have the rest of the year to come up with a decision
Good morning everybody.
As someone pointed out last week, its more than 3 months since the most recent excuse of "see what UNESCO say"
Does anyone have any opinions about how long KB should wait before starting the legal case against the government. My understanding is that this is considered to be the last option as we have a water tight legal case but how long is KB going to wait.
“mine it” for a £1 only. Just one? I certainly hope not! Kallak ore is so pure you can sprinkle it on your breakfast cereal (vitamin D), and don’t need to visit your GP lol. At around 70% ore content, a premium somewhere in between $15-$40 is paid in the market place. Then the huge saving on energy use/cost because of the grade. I’m hoping for more when/if we get over this damn hurdle. atb
l have been saying just that for the last 4year, it is blatant tactics, there is no reason other than that
LKAB can own it, mine it and take the profit from it, they just need to offer all shareholders £1 and it's theirs :-)
The iron ore is Swedish and it will always be Swedish and if whoever operates a mine in the future does something against the environmental code their Exploitation Licence could be revoked.
Whatever the nationality of the company who operates this mine, if it happens, it will operate under Swedish law and pay Swedish taxes.
Yep agree Sweden out to protect their state ;
In my opinion, the reason for the obfuscation is because Sweden would rather have the setup run by a fully state owned operation (LKAB) where profits and taxes remain Swedish.
3CB
I get your point. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.
Typo - first mooted
WIW. Of course you are entitled to your opinion as am I. I wasn't saying your opinion was irrelevant. I was merely stating my own opinion that BEM being 70% owned by Swedes is irrelevant as to why we have not got the green light.
That of course assumes that the 70% are all swedes which we can't be sure of without a forensic examination of the SDR register.
My apologies if I made it unclear.
In my opinion, the reason for the obfuscation is because Sweden would rather have the setup run by a fully state owned operation (LKAB) where profits and taxes remain Swedish.
I believe the Sami are just a handy scapegoat for the government and LKAB to nail to the mast.
Surely pressure from loads of Swedish investors would carry a lot more clout than from British investors.
One could argue Brexit is a factor as a referendum was first moored by Cameron over 6 years ago although I feel this less likely as most didn't believe it would happen.
Please feel free to continue to post your opinions as will I. Good luck. 3CB
You Said
"So the way I see it, a load of British shareholders filling his inbox will be a waste of time. Perhaps you should be addressing the swedish shareholders".
I said "the company owned 70% by Swedes"
You said Irrelevant
As you can see your argument is a little inconsistent. Either its because its a British registered company, in which case it doesn't matter where the shareholders come from, or the fact that its owned 70% by swedes IS relevant.
Sorry to sound pedantic, but this is a public board, all are entitled to opinions. If you wish to state my opinion as irrelevant then have the courtesy of giving a valid reason.
Yep sadly the reality is Sweden does not deem Beowulf a good fit in its steel aspirations.
It's a problem for them they want the resource but not owned by a British firm.
If the names had been right I'm convinced this would have been granted it's a corrupt world
"British registered company owned 70% by Swedes"
Irrelevant
:-)
British registered company owned 70% by Swedes