Member Info for elir71

Seems to have gone dormant, - resubmission with additional data requested by nrw has been done. Their response is awaited, however they said at the time of submission that they would not be tied to any published service response times.

The previously submitted water analyses were commented on by nrw as benign. Both a discharge and abstraction permit will be needed. I expect however that they will request more recent samples.

Can I ask where you are getting the info on 'under survey' from

Company are only complying with the law

with respect to why the law is this way ...

I'm not against protecting the species, however I question the reason for all the attendant bureaucracy. Could the same protective actions in the field be arrived at by a simpler process ? .... Probably.

That is probably true of many situations. I had a friend who worked for a well known port company. A massive expenditure was made before a spade was put in the ground for a port development on wholly made ground. The built environment is not necessarily inhibitive to wildlife.

@Robbie, I doubt you are far off the mark. Wouldn't be surprised that there a few "goodluck rent a clapping crowd" out there too !

I'd imagine that the timing of this (which is a placing in all but name, now the loan has been converted) is prior to "good news" to give the loan provider good timing to sell on the shares quite quickly. How long sentiment can be upheld after those shares are churned is another matter.

@sharegnomie ... with respect to whether GROC will sell some of the new Greenlandic company's shares. No I don't think they will, however I think that it may be possible that in a Joint Venture situation then a JV partner may receive new issue shares in the new company in return for investment. The reason I think that, is because the new company would be specific to the Graphite assets. On the other end of the scale then it could be a GROC mega placing to fund it all, and there are solutions on a sliding scale anywhere inbetween. Nevertheless I would imagine that someone down the supply chain would be a likely JV partner, in order to protect their flow of critical raw materials. The scramble for this has not as yet materialised, although I would anticipate it.

@allankukeli "Can we at least agree that its not all NRW doing" .... no I can't agree with that sentiment. The ecological study that you refer to is the HRA study that has been submitted. As NRW requested that *after* the submission of other documents. Such submissions are not done without some dialogue, so it is a case of moving goalposts. NRW could have asked for this at the outset.

Having in the past worked as a civil engineer , for a consultancy that had an environmental department, then it was common practice at the time (admittedly a long time ago) to avoid sending superfluous information as it tended to stretch out response times. I would agree with you that perhaps some more detail on ALBA's proposed mitigation measures would help the cause of transparency and investor confidence, although that level of operational detail is not mandatory with respect to financial regulation.

Nevertheless, moving forward, I hope it does transpire that future activities permits are handled in a more streamlined fashion. Personally I think that GF has shown a great deal of tact in trying to maintain a cordial working relationship with NRW.

Looking forward to exploitation phase, (which has even more layers of authority to satisfy) then I would expect there to be conditions that materially affect the value of the investment.

1. continuous monitoring of i) discharge ii) dust iii) noise iv) protected species

2. limitation of traffic movements

3. limitation on surfaced materials

4. plan for the disposal of spoil (possibly offsite, naturally tested for contaminants e.g. heavy metals)

Siting the processing plant underground may mitigate in part much of the above. I also wonder if there is any known technology that could be implemented that can remotely excavate narrow veins, to minimise the amount of barren rock extracted to access fairly narrow veins.

I can't help but notice the huge machine that Scotgold are using. They spent a considerable effort in making the mine entrance bigger to accommodate it. Ive not studied their mine plan in any detail having divested of them when their SP hit my target, however it is clear that things have not transpired as they would have hoped. If anyone has any information on some sort of narrow vein extraction techniques then I would be most interested to learn more.

Look like some 'negotiated transaction' of about 20k went through this afternoon

Of course, that said, they haven't necessarily had a great deal to do in the past year, though I would like to have thought that there's some forward provisional planning that could be done, even if some of the effort is wasted. Good question for nibbles at the AGM

@trap, the directors have basic salaries , then there is an incentive of share options which give them the right but not the obligation to buy a certain number of shares by a certain date. If the sp is lower than the exercise price throughout the period then they won't be exercised and will expire worthless. By exercising and selling the same day they don't need to find the capital either.

The scheme is detailed in the annual accounts. I don't think any of the director's basic pay is excessive, given their qualifications and experience.

1637 delayed chunky trade

@Trapp789

When a company is heavily invested in another company, as ALBA is in GROC then yes, it is appropriate to issue an RNS.

I think the purpose of the new company is to have it domiciled in Greenland, which

1. satisfies Greenland's regulatory requirement (exploration may be done by non Greenland entity, exploitation may not)

2. opens the possibility of EU funding for critical minerals

I must say I am very pleased with the pace and focus that Steffan has demonstrated

@Lee, I disagree with you on "someone is making a killing". For what you said to be true, then a considerable volume of trade would be necessary, from which , you will see there isn't. Furthermore, I can't see any posts that could be construed as "pumping". The prevalence of micro trades does remain a bit of a mystery. Why bother buying £2 worth of shares ? Is it even worth the time of logging in and clicking the mouse ? Given that its a fairly illiquid share with a wide spread, I can't see that anything other than significant news can change the SP, other than the slow decay curve resulting from long delays.

Nevertheless , at the risk of sounding "rampy", the conclusion of the habitat assessment is anticipated by many in the near future. I would refer you to scotalba's most informative posts on the matter as he has researched NRW's processes in some detail.

This morning's flight at full capacity.

@scotalba thank you for your most informative post

Ive been out of SGZ for a few years

If anyone has the time and inclination to give me a short roundup of where they are now and what's lead to the situation I'd be most interested to hear

I'd add that I'd like to see a disposal of our interests in HH. However a minority interest in a private limited company is quite possibly not the easiest thing to dispose of, especially given UKOG's dominant interest in it. I'd certainly want to see the proceeds of any such sale in cash not UKOG shares.

With respect to the authority to allot new shares

Placing Price (p) Proceeds before broker costs (£M)

0.1p £4.41 M

0.2p £8.81 M

0.3p £13.22 M

0.4p £17.62 M

0.5p £22.03 M

So as you can see there's ample room to manoeuvre for the BOD here to bring Clogau to a successful conclusion even if sentiment is low.

What I wouldn't want to see :-

Aquisition of new far to fruition projects (Jam tomorrow)

Significant further exposure to Horse Hill without a detailed costed plan and renegotiation

New aquisitions I would be happy to see :-

Surface access to Gwynfynydd (but only after a successful programof bulk exploration at Clogau)

With respect to the resolutions being proposed :-

1. Receive and adopt accounts

I see no issues with this, I will be voting for it

2. Reappointment of Elizabeth Henson

As far as I can see there has been little for her to do since her appointment. Her particular and indisputable skill set is the access she has to high net worth clients. However , with the stalling of progress then there has been little call to raise much new capital at ALBA to date. She was however successful in attracting High net worth private investors upon GROC's flotation at a level of 2.5x the current open market price of those shares. From an ALBA point of view then she achieved considerable value on that spin off. Moving forward and looking ahead to the next three years, is there need for her skills at ALBA during that time and at what cost does that come ? I am expecting a substantial cap raise in the autumn and expect that capraise to be in the form of a placing, possibly with some mechanism for existing shareholders to participate at the discounted level. However, could such a placing be done substituting at least in part new HNW PIs for brokerages ? It could at least bring some post placing SP stability. Furthermore, with only 3 directors then it would not be prudent to reduce that number for a meagre cost saving.

As such I support her re-election to the board

3. Reappointment of Michael Nott

Again, with a small BOD then I would be reticent to reduce numbers. He is familiar with the operation and as such I support his reelection to the board. I would point out however that it is likely given his age that Mr Nott would quite possibly wish to retire at the next rotation. The obvious candidate to replace him would be Mark Austin. It could be argued that now would be better time for that, nevertheless with the crucial make or break 3 years ahead of us, I think it prudent to retain Michael Nott if only as a sounding board for Mark.

4. Reappointment of auditors - nothing contentious here

5. The BOD seeks authority to issue new shares numbering 61.8% of the current shares in issue. Over the past year the BOD have exercised some restraint, using less than 20% of their authority. Nevertheless, little progress has been possible anyway, and regardless of the stated partial aim to be to accelerate progress, in retrospect it achieved little other than to meet overheads and provide a cash buffer. (aka keeping the lights on). As such it was wholly dilutive and as such the SP was so low (in historic terms) then I question if even that amount was a little excessive but not reckless.

Entrusting the BOD with this level of authority to allot shares presents a considerable risk and to approve this resolution would be an act of immense trust in the BOD. Nevertheless, a capital raise is inevitably necessary to bring the N Wales to a successful conclusion and to participate in GROC future fundraises.

It is with some trepidation I support this and