Member Info for Gambier14

“We should be willing to pay the price and I think people are”

The U.K. has a gross national debt of £2.2 trillion. Government debt is by definition tax unpaid. Tax unpaid is by definition an unwillingness of the public to pay the cost of their public spending demands.

If the British public were actually taxed according to the money spent, tax rates would be over 65%. Furthermore, in order to stop the debt growing, public spending would have to be simultaneously cut.

Any politician offering this kind of brutal honesty would be finished electorally. The public don’t want to pay for anything - they want something for nothing.

There is a huge cost to environmentalism. Without the continued mass extraction of hard commodities from the ground - prices will have to go up. If you don’t do it at home, it will have to be done abroad. If it is done abroad you by definition lose security of supply. It also means doing business with and accepting the behaviour of despots..

In totality this would mean a massive drop in disposable income (instead people will have to pay tax for things they receive). It would also mean the end to virtue signalling as we all admit that we are quite happy to damage the environment, turn a blind to brutal regimes, buy products made using slave labour etc etc in order to maintain our current lifestyles.

No, what will happen is that we will continue to increase debt and tell everybody how we are against all these global evils whilst privately living off the product of said global evils.

Sweden is against damaging the environment through mining. But it is happy to see foreign countries damage their environment through mining to make up the difference. Sweden is for job creation in higher unemployment areas, but it will make it very difficult for companies to do business in said areas.

We are talking about the gross hypocrisy of Western political economies.

“I genuinely hope that whatever the outcome of Putin's criminal invasion of Ukraine, it along with Belarus remain pariahs in the future”

Not as long as Europe takes his oil and gas. Nor will China be punished for putting millions of people in camps as long as we rely on their productive capacity. Nor will Bush et al be punished for the Middle East as long as they are the worlds super power.

Environmentalism is connected to geopolitics by their mutual hypocrisies. The supposed heartfelt support for Ukraine is virtue signalling - just like environmentalism . The average person is a consumer. They want their sh*t now and they want it cheap. They don’t give a toss about the environmental / political / humanitarian consequences of those low prices / abundant supply.

A genuine reduction in the consumption of hard commodities would result in a spike in prices and reduced growth. As would a move away from the reliance on the supply / productive capacity of despotic states.

We are the online virtue signalling hypocrite generation. We say one thing to our ‘audience’ but live in the total opposite manner.

I’m happy to pay the environmental cost in my own country to further secure our energy / raw material needs. I’m happy to turn a blind eye to China’s governmental policy in order to maintain current supply chains. I accept that the continued use of Russian oil and gas is a current energy necessity in Europe.

April contracts near $150 dollars from supply risk. Demand still looks ok.

Interesting what little Europe has done over the last 20 years in order to secure supply chains and raw materials. Quite the opposite, they actively put themselves at the mercy of predominantly despotic states.

The oil and gas prices are a very fair reflection of supply constraints / risks. Had anybody been a big supporter of oil and gas drilling / the building of nuclear power plants in Europe over the last decade, they would have considered beyond the pale. So NIMBY’S and ignorant consumers deserve every bit of inflation that is coming their way. Would be happy to see crude oil join iron ore at $150.

Iron ore supply cannot be claimed to be anywhere near as critical as oil and gas, but as a demonstration of the importance of securing reliable supplies, maybe current oil and gas prices will make European countries reflect on their one sided environmentalism. My guess is it won’t and politicians will pin it on ‘evil characters’ from the east. Domestic failure a decade ago to plan for now, is closer to the truth. Those politicians do not pay a price for that mistake, they just move on to the next f*ck up.

“Interesting RNS. I suspect there will be a placing soon to cover the costs of surveying/drilling. Hopefully on the positive side this may mean Kurt has had the heads up on an imminent decision on kallak”

To do anything significant they will need to do a large placing. The current cash reserve just allows them to tread water for a little longer. If they get the decision and the SP jumps then I can’t see how they wouldn’t quickly tap investors for a big sum of money (short of a big investor quickly coming in).

If they don’t get the decision they won’t be able to raise much in the ensuing aftermath. That’s why it is all about Kallak. The other parts of the company are interesting and well thought out, but nothing (on their own) that could support this current SP.

Any delay in a decision is just more cash burn and opportunity costs. Anything more than say another 4 to 6 weeks is a p*ss take.

“Politicians are a modern scourge, with all the appeal of inquisition high clergy. Appalling human beings”

Most are not appalling. Self-serving? Yes. Typically they are people trying to manage what are very often contradictory demands of the public who want all the benefits of a given choice but without having to pay any of the costs.

Politicians see that lying that this contradiction is not a contradiction is much better than telling people a truth that they are not willing to accept.

There is the lie that banning mining will stop the ravaging of the environment and that there few geopolitical / economic costs to such a ban. Of course the costs are more substantial than that and environmental damage exaggerated. The public are too interested in social media / celebrities to spend the time looking at the details. They will go with a convenient lie.

“Imo an initial spike will be followed by profit taking then a further climb past said spike followed by another sell off and settle at 35p ish”

Pretty much my best case scenario if I had to take a guess.

People respond emotionally to most things in the political economy and very rarely know the facts of the matter. Daniel Khaneman et al have demonstrated this in decades of research.

Ask the average person in the U.K. to state the most basic elements of the current fiscal or monetary position in the U.K. and they wouldn’t have a clue. Most wouldn’t understand what fiscal or monetary policy is. It would be the same for healthcare, energy policy etc.

So it is with environmental policy. Most people don’t understand the commodities market nor do they understand environmental science. Most wouldn’t have read a IPCC report on climate change.

People operate through explanations on the level painting by numbers. They hold opinions based on whether it benefits them individually in the short term - which often involves totally flawed self-estimates.

Let’s hope somebody with intelligence and technical expertise is looking at the concession

“I love your positive posts Gambier.You must be a real bundle of fun.lol.
Give it a couple of months and let's see who's right”

It is nothing to do with who is right. It is pointing out the utter stupidity of saying a NO wouldn’t be anything other than seriously damaging. It is utter claptrap to say it is irrelevant whether we get a yes or no. Idiotically positive posts are not positive, they are just idiotic.

‘We are in a win win situation.We have been promised a DECISION. Whether it is YES or NO is almost irrelevant.If YES the share price will increase and BEM moves onto the next stage.If NO then we go to court and WIN there- simple.It will of course take longer but we are used to waiting’

We are not in anything like a win-win situation. If it is a NO there is absolutely no guarantee that BEM would win a legal case. A legal case would be drawn out and incredibly expensive. It isn’t even guaranteed that a legal case would be brought - legal advice would have to be sought to determine the likely chance of success and the financial risk it would pose to the company would have to be considered. In the mean time the SP would tank and any tapping of shareholders at such a low SP would be very dilutive.

So a ‘no’ would be a very damaging result. It is nonsense to state otherwise.

“I could be wrong but I think they are just corrections by the MMs for certain transactions”

They can be, as Johnnytaffia has stated, sells by the brokerage platforms. Some people claim that they are orders left to catch people who are testing limit orders. I don’t know how true that is, sound a bit dramatic. In practice they are meaningless.

Completely agree Ibjj. It is a question of the compliance with the law that is BEMs strong hand. Environmental impact, quality of mining products, mine life etc require further development.

BEM have complied with the first stage of permitting. Do the politicians now make a decision according to the legal requirements set out in the permitting system?

“You are an arrogant clown”

You are posting things that are incorrect about trading in a dual listing. That is your problem, not mine.

There are no arbitrage profits between the two markets. The bid / sell would change accordingly and after fees it would be pointless trading. I’m sorry but this is a myth that keeps being repeated.

It would be a complete waste of time trying to arbitrage a profit between the two markets with fees. The spread and transaction costs easily encompass the difference.

“when there is a comprehensive rebuttal of some of the accusations and the sp falls, that doesnt seem reasonable”

In your opinion the rebuttal is so comprehensive that it doesn’t warrant a drop in SP. Right now the market disagrees and there is nothing particularly unusual about that considering the situation. A flirtation by a small number of investors at 17p is a reference to nothing.

The SP isn’t reasonable just because it goes in the direction you want it to or believe it should. Whether it is reasonable is a consideration of the broad range of possibilities and beliefs relating to the share. I believe it will be a yes, but I can completely understand the view that it will be a no. I therefore can see how many people don’t like the risk at this price. Anything from say 10p to 20p could be understandable considering it is a binary result.

“You can say that of a share price statement at any time, sentiment drove it to 17p, i dont think its unreasonable to have expected such a good rns not to push it back to that price point, risk is still on the table but some of the lies in the oppositions propaganda are exposed now, This was down almost 5% on that, is that reasonable probably not”

It was 17p for a short period of time and involved a fraction of the shares in issue. Since then we have heard the opposition to the mine and some people will have been taking profit. Nothing new in the RNS.

Buying in at 15p now knowing it could be a fraction of that following one negative decision is a big risk. There is an obvious upside if it is a yes. The market is happy around this current price range. Nothing unreasonable about that all things considered.

“ Weighing this down, no idea why”

The current price reflects the risk appetite of the market. The SP has already tripled. I wouldn’t add anymore at this price. Nothing new in the update. All seems very reasonable investor behaviour.

“Our case legally meriting a concession, not being given one for almost nine years, with the despicable treatment we've endured, to say no now, would be political suicide”

I don’t think it would be political suicide to say no to any mine in Western Europe. Most governments in Western Europe have a green agenda to which their liberal credentials are tied. It is not so much that they actually care about the environment, but more that they care very much about being seen to care about the environment.

They are happy to see other countries mine voraciously to provide the hard commodities they need and that is regardless of the environmental damage it causes. Environmentalism is merely an image they covet.

The general public are not particularly bothered about the rejection of mining permits, unless a mine will reduce their house price. They don’t have the faintest idea of where the commodities they consume come from. They only care about governments creating more debt to bail them out of their excessive consumerism. A perfect example is gas prices. They don’t care about gas supplies, they just care about gas prices. They don’t care about the connection. They just want a government bailout now.

As a political risk, I believe they would be quite comfortable giving a no. I think they will give a yes because of the geo-strategic importance of Swedens mining industry and because BEM has complied with the law. I certainly don’t think it is in the bag like many people on here think it is. Quite plausibly a 50-50.

“Political suicide if a no is given”

Really? Why is that? If a no was given, what are the chain of events that would follow that would prove to be suicidal?

“Thor knows he can’t say no”

I would say he knows he can say yes or no. There isn’t a consequence that is so grave that he can’t comfortably give either answer. Both answers will have uncomfortable backlash, but nothing critical to their political position.

I think it is quite simply how much do they weight towards compliance with the law and economic benefit (a yes) and how much they weight towards the damage to their green credentials (a no).

I make a point of difference between actual environmental damage and damage to green credentials. It is very often more important to have green credentials than to actually make evidence based environmental decisions. Just saying no to mining regardless of the actual evidence s is becoming very common in Europe.

Amongst the chattering classes of European capital cities being outwardly pro business and pro mining would make you beyond the pale, the height of vulgarity. The gross hypocrisy of those people living the most capitalist / consumerist lives in recorded history doesn’t matter. Credentials and image are absolutely everything.