Member Info for Juicy

Never thought of the Swedes as leading the world in stand up comedy.

Who knows. Perhaps awarding exploration licences doesn’t involve any “complex legal issues”, these only arise when considering applications for mining licences.

The recent question to the Minister from his colleague in Parliament querying the delay in considering mining applications was, perhaps, the wrong question. It would have been more beneficial to ascertain what the “complex legal issues” referred to actually are.

Clearly, these issues are not around the application (which fully satisfies the requirements of the process). If the application were deficient, this would have been identified long before now, and the application denied. Rather, these issues are around the Sami and SDs coalition partners the Greens.

Perhaps the Government should focus more on the real complex legal issues that might arise if they unfairly reject the application, and then face Court action by the Company on this decision.

Of course, the Government has not been asked to decide if the Company's application satisfies the process. It does. The MI confirmed this.

What the Government has been asked to decide is, despite the Company's application satisfying all the requirements of the process, is it their intention to give primacy to Sami rights (real or imagined), and in so doing, ignore their own law, mining process, ANI status and the wider mining industry in Sweden.

And another 3 weeks passes.

Government case is taking time due to "legal complexity". Questionable what. Should be fairly straightforward for anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

Application received. Fully and correctly completed.…Tick
Economically viable proposition….Tick
Approved by MI….Tick
Approved by CAB….Yes and no. But CAB failed to follow correct process so latter opinion should be discounted
ANI status….Tick
Competing interests….Yes. Reindeer husbandry but can co-exist. Alternative ANI not valid.
Adverse environment impact….Outside Laponia. No direct/indirect impact identified

No good reason why a decision has not yet been made.

Historically, there was the Kalmar Union. Possibly, their Constitution goes back to then.

Thank you for posting that. Direct and to the point. Hopefully, it will receive a speedy, positive response.

Swedish appears to be a language in which the meaning of words is open to interpretation.

The Company quotes "concerns a forthcoming Government decision - a dossier that is currently under preparation", the Government is unable to meet or comment with regard to its "ongoing review".

Does this actually say anything meaningful. As we know, prioritised means 6 months or longer, so forthcoming will clearly not mean near or imminent. What is meant by dossier? Normally, this word would refer to a file of information, or the like, but that makes little sense here. And, as lbjj asks, what is the "ongoing review"?

An expert legal review has been obtained, however, clearly, this was not mentioned in the letter to Baylan, nor is any legal action being considered as yet.

In writing to Baylan, the company had wanted to know not only why no decision had been made, but also what was delaying this and when this might be expected. None of this is answered.

The time has come for the company to ignore the government, in the same way they ignore the company, and to set their own timetable for action and stick with this. Perhaps, they could start by making a decision that, if nothing meaningful has been heard from the government by the end of this month, they will instruct their legal expert to commence whatever legal action is available to them under Swedish law, both to force a decision and to seek compensation.

Another 3 weeks gone and, once again, it's fingers crossed for some progress in the coming week.

Letter to Baylan. Very interesting, no doubt. But why has the company not raised all these questions, as a matter of course, during their 'constant communication' with the government.

Indeed, since it is the company position that what they heard from the government led them to believe that a decision would be made 'before the summer', why not just return to the member(s) of government concerned for clarification.

Not only has no decision been made 'before the summer', no decision has now been made before the autumn. What next, Christmas?

The government seems incapable of 'prioritising. The company should not join them in this.

And a further 2 weeks passes. Unless the company receive the decision by this weekend, KB needs to rethink his current waiting strategy. It would be ridiculous if the decision that was expected before summer cannot be delivered before autumn.

At the AGM, I think it was 3 years ago but might be 4, KB said he thought Finland would be more important than Kallak. Given the potential for graphene, he might be right in this view.

https://www.graphene-info.com/graphene-applications

It was suggested at the GM that the differing nominal values of .01 and .0005 could essentially be ignored but, if that were the case, why, in relation to the company wanting authority to allot shares to achieve £1.5M, is the amount of shares needed put at 3 billion (max), which would put the value of each of these share at .0005 only. Or is my maths not what it used to be?

Why would the company want to buy-in to Montezuma, apart from the involvement of one of their directors. The terms of the Letter of Intent recently announced on the BMR Mining website appear ridiculous given BMR's current position.

Check out www.reveloresources.com.

particularly the current capitalisation.

So the PM made a statement that the outstanding applications would be prioritised. Slightly less definitive, in relation to our application specifically, than what the company said in the RNS 15th April.

Answers all of the questions.

"This statement was based on the extensive consultation work undertaken by the Government before the Swedish election process got underway in Spring 2018, and allowed time for the new Government, formed in January this year, to 'get up to speed'.

"Despite the Government's acknowledgment that the Company has been waiting an excessive period of time for a decision, we are still waiting, and with the holidays in Sweden coming to an end the Company will be contacting the Government to understanding the causes of this further delay.

So, basically, the company assumed that the Government wouldn't need too much time to 'get up to speed' and come to a decision, and that because the Government had acknowledged that the company had been waiting an excessive time for this decision, that this acknowledgement somehow represented a commitment to prioritise our application.

The company really do need to push the government for a decision. The end of this week would be ideal, as the market will be closed for three days. If not, we will be into September, with Autumn fast approaching. Now is the time for some 'active communication', and to bring this long running matter to a conclusion.

Reading Avanza, posters on there seem to want more action from the company than many on this board.

Prioritised. Any Swedish speakers, please. Is the Swedish word 'prioriteras' and does this have the same meaning of urgency that it would in English, or might it, depending on how it is used, or the sentence in which it is used, have a slightly lesser meaning, such as, needing consideration or attention, but without immediacy?

And a further 2 weeks of active communication between the company and the government passes without any update. Nailed on for this or next week...

As a further week of active communication between the company and the government passes, in the continued absence of any update we can, again, only hope that there has been some progress.

That's what KB said at the AGM about giving out statements. Perhaps that might not be the case if the language used was more definitive. Not sure who the 'they're' in your post refers to.