Member Info for Juicy

He won't be the only one who has been wrong.
Having bought and sold this share for coming up 10 years, both at well above and below the two figures you give, I no longer know what my average is, nor do I worry except only that it is above the current value. All I wish for now is an end to waiting and that we get a positive decision on Kallak, because then, whether or not I re-coup all of my investment, I will get enough of a return to compensate for time spent.
I'd laugh, if it wasn't so sad.

So, say KU find that the process has taken longer than might reasonably be expected and that the Government should now use all best efforts to finalise matters, but without specifying exactly how or when, or raising any sanction against the Government or Baylan. Might this not then simply allow Baylan to re-iterate that the matter is complex, with two opposing sides, and that the Government is preparing the case as quickly as they can, but is unable to say when this might be complete. And around we go again.

Suzy2 - Not if he sold at 70p and bought back in at 3p. If so, he would have been correct twice. :-)

So, Baylan has delayed his response until the day after the KU report is scheduled for. Presumably, if the KU report doesn't require anything specific from him, or set a time-frame, he will feel safe to prevaricate further.

Whilst the Government might be delayed by dealing with the pandemic, what about the KU Constitution Committee? Will they still finish their investigations and report in June?

The Company's first priority remains the award of the Exploitation Concession for Kallak North, and thereafter completing the Scoping Study. The introduction of a strategic partner/investor who understands the value of Kallak as a high-quality asset, which could be in production within four to five years, is an ongoing consideration, but does not preclude the Company from continuing to add value to Kallak in the meantime.

"The introduction of a strategic partner/investor who understands the value of Kallak". Anyone in mind?

..that the Swedish Government has been able to show some priority in dealing with Covid-19. Hopefully, they can retain some of this urgency when they eventually return to normal business.

It's an article around the recent Supreme Court judgement for the Girjes Sami. Sorry, too long to copy (and text is broken by photographs).

And this, posted by icemorf today.

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/vald-och-splittring-efter-samedomen-laglost/

Sorry, failed to press to post.

And this - the link.

https://www.riksdagen.se/en/dokument-lagar/dokument/motion/hanteringen-av-infected-malkon conflicts_H7021222

"The Riksdag supports what is stated in the motion to review the possibility that responsible authorities should take greater responsibility to deal with infected land conflicts and announce this to the government. "

Read more on the link

Suzy2 - Nalfaren posted 4 items, of which that you copied was the last. It was the first, see below, that most interested me.

Today, the Nutrition Committee had a meeting, business policy was discussed, part 3. The
next meeting is on the 10th of March.
And on March 11, it is Mineral Policy, 16 motions that will be put forward as proposals and decided on.

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/arende/betankande/mineralpolitik_H701NU11

Decided for example The permit process - one-stop shop:
Some companies also believe that the permit process is arbitrary and that it is not possible to predict or influence the result, regardless of how much documentation they produce. This, in turn, risks eroding Sweden's attractiveness in the global mining market. Therefore, we propose that the government establish a so-called one-stop shop, which means that an authority is given the task of coordinating the permit process and is the only party that asks questions to permit-seeking mining companies.

Thanks, but unable to view as protected.

Same. I don't do twitter but did enjoy FOTH's tweets and photos. Shame they're now protected.

resources for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their related targets. Its mining policies reflect this recognition, for example in its development of a “best practice” training on environment and mining, including planning for mine closure and post-mining transition.

https://www.igfmining.org/announcement/sweden-joins-igf-as-76th-member-commits-to-demonstrating-and-supporting-responsible-mining/

https://twitter.com/IGFMining

https://twitter.com/msunerfleming

Posted on Avanza by BrainTec

Another puzzle piece that falls into place. The government signs under membership.
We are slowly but surely moving towards an approval regarding Kallak. Undoubtedly! :-)
This may well have been the last piece of the puzzle for approval ...

March 02, 2020

Sweden Joins IGF as 76th Member, Commits to Demonstrating and Supporting Responsible Mining.

The Government of Sweden expressed its commitment to responsible governance of the mining sector by joining the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF). The IGF is a voluntary partnership that welcomes member states of the United Nations.

"We are pleased to welcome Sweden as the IGF's 76th member state," IGF Director Greg Radford said in a statement.
“IGF is pleased with the recent growth of its membership in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and now in Europe,” added Radford. “We look forward to the Kingdom of Sweden’s contribution in our global dialogue about leveraging mining for poverty reduction, inclusive growth, social development and environmental stewardship.”

Ibrahim Baylan, Sweden’s Minister for Business, Industry and Innovation, Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, and Greg Radford, Director, IGF, during the membership signing ceremony at PDAC 2020 alongside Rokhaya Samba, Chair, IGF Executive Committee.

“Sweden is delighted to become a member of the IGF,” said Ibrahim Baylan, Sweden’s Minister for Business, Industry and Innovation, of the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation. “This unique forum provides a very valuable opportunity to engage with our 75 fellow member countries on a broad range of important policy issues such as development, environment, gender equality, mine closure and responsible supply chains.”

Sweden has a rich geology and a long history of mining with a proven track record in copper, lead, zinc, gold and iron production. It is also a significant producer of development minerals, till, and peat. Its history in mining and metal refining stretches back more than a thousand years, and today Sweden is one of the EU’s leading ore and metal producers. Sweden is by far the largest iron ore producer in the EU and is also among the foremost producers of base and precious metals.
Many Swedish engineering companies have their origins in the mining industry and are today world leaders in mining equipment and mining technology. Besides metal mines, the country is a major producer of industrial minerals, part of which is directly linked to the production of metals.

“Through its IGF membership, Sweden hopes to be able to share its own best practice policies and learn from the experience of others as we work together on ensuring that mining contributes fully in the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals,” Minister Baylan said during the signing ceremony, held on the sidelines of this year’s PDAC event.

Sweden recognizes the challenges and contributions of sustainable management of metal and mineral

Interesting read. MP's mineral policy spokesperson is against mining. Couldn't make it up.

So the company are once again prepared to wait for a decision. Obviously, since the Government has previously accepted that the delay has been unreasonable, and they have prioritised the matter, we can rest easy in the knowledge that the decision will be made before summer, as was correctly announced last year.

Either that or the decision is imminent but the Government want to make it clear to everyone that they are in control and can't or won't be bullied into making/announcing that decision until they decide to do so...No, really.

The State Secretary to the Minister writes:

Further to previous, regrettably, despite our, last April, having prioritised beginning to think about whether to start considering your application, and also despite our, in early October, thinking that our reaching a decision as to whether we could indeed begin to think about starting that process was forthcoming, as you will by now have realised, this was not so, and we have found that we are simply not able to come to any decision, about anything.

The application remains on the spare desk in the corner of our office, which is where it has been since it was first received, and I am afraid that we are not able to comment on when a decision is expected to be taken, because we simply do not know how long it will take until we are forced to address this.

However, I would like to emphasise that we have taken careful note of your information and we would wish to thank you for your continuing patience.

It is good to hear that the company might eventually be moving towards calling a spade a spade.
The Government's handling of the Kallak application has been inept. Personally, I think that is an extremely generous interpretation. Just poorly handled, nothing deliberate, no malice. Given the time which has passed and the recent complaints, unlikely.
Clearly, for all the talk of Baylan and his predecessor, their words have shown to mean very little. But, again, this has been obvious for some time now. When, within the time-frame that might reasonably be applied to either word, priority was not delivered, then forthcoming turned out not to be so, why did the company not immediately address this.
The Government's first step, once all the paperwork was assembled, would have been to review this, to ensure this met all requirements in terms of the application process and did not impinge in any other areas. Had there been an issue, the company would have been notified by now. Obviously, the Government's review would not be done by the politicians involved. They would receive reports/advice and this would include legal advice.
If it transpires that the Government has not reviewed the application, or that they had delayed doing so, then they will have breached their duty to deal with this matter promptly.
Given the time which they have had, the Government have finished their review and have their legal advice. They know that the application satisfies the requirements for a Concession and that there are no other areas or issues on which it would fail. If this were the case, the Government would have given their decision, or requested further participation with the parties involved. There is no 'legal complexity' here. The failure to reach a decision is solely political; therefore, since the company appears to have no political sway, the threat of legal action, and from this a claim for compensation, might be the only way to progress matters.