Member Info for JimBL

I think your position is entirely relevant to the posts you make and have made. You continued to buy no matter the circumstances or failures - and it was all downhill until Warawoona/CAI. 4 years ago you suggested you had 26 million shares, costing £102k.

No wonder you always sound rampy.

Let's just agree to ignore each other from now on.

Yet you remain permanently hopeful and always blue-sky minded. Why is that? Could it be anything to do with the size of your investment you've pumped into here since the float 10 years ago, hence you won't have a bad word said by anyone, anywhere?

I shudder to think what you've pumped into here to average down and be in a position to be in profit from the CAI disposal.

It's a calculator, so the inputs are variable. I doubt very much this would take hundreds of hours or more of legal time as the case -as we know it - is as clear cut as can be.

That said and as I mentioned, we raised £1 million, 6 months ago. Ample funds to secure arbitration and the best use of it I can see in the short term.

So why was close to £1 million raised if you think we have short-term profit potential, particularly as Utah already had a prestripped area with production drilling information representing 2 ½ years of planned production? That raising, 6 months ago, resulted in another 1.3 billion shares worth of dilution. Neither of those outcomes collaborate your comments here.

60 + years? " Keras deems the deposit to have considerable upside potential and states that the potential open pit resource (non code-compliant) could support a mine life in excess of 60 years. " Potential. Could. Non-code compliant.
You once again take these potentialities and present them as proven.

We don't know what the unit opex actually will be or is, nor do we know the unit selling price for this years hoped for 10,000t in sales. We don't even yet know how much the previous Yr 1 7.500t brought in. Indeed, the sales plan and margin/revenues remain notably absent from company releases.

Excuse me if I remain unimpressed.

The Govt is not the problem. The President is. Minister's can be as nice as they wish and promise anything, but when we are reliant on the President and the President only to approve the license, then the rest of Togo's governance is redundant. Minster's obtain and retain their positions by appeasing the President, not by ruffling his feathers. That's how Dictatorship's work.
What 'statement of fact' do you ever therefore expect to see?

As for 'difficulty' of arbitration, I'll refer you to actual legal opinion on the matter, not BB one's.

https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/mining-arbitrations/

And potential costs

https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/icsid-arbitration-cost-calculator-2/

Considering Shard allocates a sp value of only 0.21 for Utah, when do you propose we'd be 'self-sufficient' enough for that then?
The BOD paid for specialised legal advice previously on the Nayega tenure. I'd suggest the recent £1 million raised would be best spent on going toward arbitration (what else are they doing with it?) as there's literally no complexity now to such a claim and it's the best investment that could be made for a return. The Govt had intimated approval for 7 years. We've jumped through every hoop requested. They approved bulk sampling and issued a decree on the licensing award coming up to 3 years ago. The Pres continues to withhold his approval. Nothing legally difficult in arguing or proving that.

If there's some other legal reason why this isn't going forward then as I and others have asked for - we should be told what it is.

Sp to go North? If you are basing your investment decision on just Utah then the Shard research note from last year only attributed a price of 0.21(or 0.0021 in reality) if all went as planned over 5 years at Diamond Creek. That's a long-haul and lots of faith to not quite (maybe) double your money from the current position.

Eye's wide open then. Was just wondering, so thanks for your answer.

It wasn't an open question to all.

Interested to hear why you bought in?

*** Note, £300k of the December raising went on the final payment to Falcon Isle ***

They raised £440,000 in December and £1 million in January with placings, diluting by some 1.3 billion shares - and we're yet to hear what the money has gone towards, or is going on.

"To further bolster our cash reserves at this time will also provide us with significant leverage as we look to expand our project portfolio targeting additional low-capex and near-term production projects."

I sincerely doubt, as things stand (1/10th of a penny), there's any room left for more dilution!

A sh@t storm perhaps - as there's nothing at all to suggest any other type is heading our way any time soon!

Glad to hear it. Getting by, myself, thanks. Not sure all in all who may be left in here, but I'm suspecting the grim reaper is more likely to visit some of us before Togo ever approves!

Indeed! My youngest has relocated to another hemisphere, obtained a Masters, got married, had a kid, and had 3 jobs since I bought in here.

Hope you are keeping well, Oily.

I don't see why making use of Togo's own commercial dispute / judicial investigation process would involve antagonising or naming someone as being personally responsible? Such a process would hold the Governmental 'licensing process' to account, rather than an individual. We have after all, for some considerable time passed, met every procedural requirement made on the company.

If it can't be used then what's the point of it? It makes a mockery of everything the donors are saying they have achieved and what the President says he wants to happen.

All we keep hearing is of more excuses. Oh, the elections. Oh, the new Cabinet. Oh, let's not rock the boat as it'll be counter-productive. If our tenure on Nayega is only at the whim of the President then the whole show is a joke - and that would also be contrary to the specialised Francophone legal opinion the company previously sought.

As to if it's necessary or not, why shouldn't it be? We are being held to ransom - apparently - by the whim, greed, or corruption of one man. Why is he delaying or refusing to grant this approval? That question seems to go totally unasked and unanswered year after year.

If they maliciously strip us of the tenure, then we can take them to the International Centre for Settlement Disputes. That's exactly what Togo Electricite and GDF-Suez Energie Services did when the Govt tried to annul their contract. They ended up with costs and reparations amounting to Euro 324 million (2010).

Well, considering that we know the company previously sought expert legal opinion on our Togo tenure, then I'd suggest it has to be time we considered implementing a commercial dispute with the Togo Govt? I cannot see anything else putting a rocket under the President to make him grant the license which his Ministers Decree formally approved (after the approved bulk sample) almost 2 years ago.

Togo First: "In Togo, judicial investigations are now compulsory for commercial cases brought to court from now. The procedure, which used to only concern criminal cases, was extended to commercial disputes as well, after a law was adopted in this framework last January 7." (2020).

After all, the President has just publicly stated in Paris at the African Finance Summit “Sustainable financing of economies is an important issue and the issue of supporting the African private sector is even more important,”.

Surely it's time to put this all to the test while major donors (World Bank, African Development Bank) are involved in the country and looking on?

Well, there are certain caveats to your examples.

if Togo fails, along with the long-term investment we - as well as the BOD - have put in, it'll be because of blatant (Presidential) corruption and nothing else. The license is now, quite literally, a license to print money and that is most likely the very problem we have. Each passing month and year makes the approval less likely, not more, in my opinion. It's far beyond the point where thinking commercial or internal investment embarrassment has any impact on Gnassingbe.

AA/Kumba deal failed due to the collapse in IO prices. No one's fault. Tributes failed because they were uneconomical - somewhat the BOD's fault. Not comparable at all to Togo therefore.

As for risk profile - when the market is told 7 years prior that a license is imminent, who is to 'blame' if investors act on that - when the sp was 1.88p? It's (FRX/KRS) been a falling sp ever since but that carrot has continued to be dangled.

Countering criticism by blaming investors risk appetite or 'research' is a bit of a stretch in this case, particularly when it comes to remaining LTH's. Bluntly, I don't think the company can be beyond criticism, as that's just not realistic overall.

Well, let's face it, unless we all accept that we are going to get ripped off as a result of Gnass' corruption, then any day could be the 'imminent' day. There is no rhyme nor reason as to why we do not have the license other than the whim (or wants) of the President.