The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Been invested in UOG for about 9 months now. Average of 2.15.
I'm just trying to get a picture of things moving forward.
Firstly, I hope we can move on from a lot of the recent unpleasantness on this board. Suffice it to say that certain posters were recently proved correct in their concerns over falling production in Egypt.
As I understand from BL's recent interview, our immediate fortunes are determined by an important exploration well in Abu Sennan and the Maria licence in the North Sea.
Any input over the coming weeks in relation to those two would be most welcome. I'm still a bit concerned that Maria may not be enticing to larger producers - just from it being on a small scale, and from BL's comments that UOG will "walk away" if no satisfactory developments occur next year.
I do not possess anything like the technical knowledge that some posters have, but I'm just trying to steer this board to more concrete focus on the imminent future, and not the acrimony of past debates! Good luck to all invested here.
Ironknut, you are not without justification in that concern. I guess all we can do is follow the events of the next 6 months with our fingers crossed. I wish you good luck - whatever investment decisions you take regarding SAV.
My thanks to those sharing comments and helpful info on here - in particular, Inbrackets for that last link.
I'm encouraged that the Portuguese government is rational enough to understand that the li site auctions really can't occur until either the Romano mine (Lusorecursos) or the Barroso mine (Sav) have had either their confimation or rejection. As I see things, the whole of the Li mining future of Portugal hangs upon the fate of one or both of these - if they are denied, the national Li tender looks dead in the water.
I shall continue to accumulate in the run up to Christmas, for the very simple reason that I do not believe Portugal - despite all it bureaucratic issues and inadequacies - will pass up this multi-billion euro revenue opportunity. I'm also reasoning that EU pressure in favour (see recent comments from von De leyen and Stefcovic etc.) could play a significant part too. I could be totally wrong and misguided, but that is how I currently see things. Good luck to you all.
My view is that the market only really cares about 2 pieces of news - the re-submission of the EIA, and the APA's 60-day-constrained-decision thereafter. Nothing else, no matter how encouraging it might sound, is going to lead to a significant SP increase.
Ineed. I added 1k today, but I'm a little gloomy about the overall SP. The market clearly does not believe in the 30th sept deadline being made. Nonetheless, I continue to think that unless the Portugese authorities are totally incompetent, SAV will have their day. Perhaps I'm mistaken though - lost in my dreams of Li riches! Lol.
I have nothing but contempt for that 'Portugal Resident' rag, and I pray that when SAV are green-lit and underway, I won't have to read another of their terrible, misleading articles . My view is that if one is able to pinpoint, from the article alone, exactly what the author's opionion is on the particular subject is(unless obviously it is an editorial), then the journalist has done a very poor job of proper, aiming-for-objectivity news-reporting. And don't get me started on giving attention to any old nonsense being spouted from 'anti-mining and climate awareness sites'...what kind of sources are they?!
Rant over, but I definitely agree with you Chameleon - SAV must be more proactive in the PR war - there are too many lies and misconceptions out there currently going unchallenged.
Indeed, Chameleon. As I have previously stated, SAV need to fous on a clear, professional presentation of all the benefits to the gov., the APA, and those in the wider national community. The die-hard NIMBYs or eco-activists (busy tweeting from their phones that utilise lithium-ion batteries) are a total waste of time to engage with, since they are never open-minded to any kind of compromise/change of attitude, no matter how complelling the case offered might be.
I didn't know much about former CEO David Archer, but his lack of charisma in the interviews and conferences I saw was always a mild concern. I hope Dale, and whoever the next CEO is, can pursue the PR war with real fervour. After all - we settle most disputes by balancing out pros and cons - and whilst there certainly are 'cons' that come with any large European mining project, the 'pros' have, to my mind, a clear advantage.
Indeed. I'm not worried at all by any plans to source lithium from non-EU countries - internal supply (if they ever get their act together to have an internal supply) was never going to be sufficient for EU needs.
Several persons on here have pointed out the footnote in the Corporate Presentation that alludes to a possible earlier-than-previously-predicted resubmission of the EIA. Clearly, the timeframe comes down to the scale and scope of re-design that has (or will) be proposed by the APA. To know that piece of information would be of huge value - but I'm afraid I have no idea at all. I want to believe the 30th Sept deadline could be a possibility, but I'm also a little wary of false hope. Whatever the case, I continue to be optimistic in the long term, and I wish all SAV holders the best of luck.
Should any of you have any info/suspicions on that key matter, please do share - I'd be interested to hear further thoughts...
Totally agree, Inbrackets. I sympathise with any persons who are hurt by alterations/effects to their beloved landscapes, but there are compelling reasons to get on with this mining - which we all know well.
Wolster, I'm not sure. I thought the Barroso Parish court case was concerned with the 2016 gov extension of the Li prospecting lease, but I'm so confused at this point - lol. We really need to wait for starrfox or innbrackets to clarify this!
I see we now face a second court case:
https://www.reuters.com/article/portugal-lithium-idINL8N2Z33JZ
Details in the article are scant. Looks like another attempt at stonewalling, based on any matter they think they can bring into the courts. I remain a stubborn holder here, nonetheless. However, some good news in the coming months would certainly help!
I agree, Chameleon. The more I think on it the more likely it seems that The Romano mine or the Barroso mine (or both) surely have to have approval before the auctions, otherwise the auction process takes place under huge uncertainty for all parties.