Member Info for Juicy

A further clarification...

Whilst it is correct that the BOD were challenged not congratulated, a point was put to them that, to the average person, the phrase 'regular communication' would be taken to be weekly. That was not denied, and, to be fair, nor was it agreed, which, perhaps, in symptomatic of the issue here. Clarity. Regular could be daily, weekly, monthly, even annually.

It should not be too much to expect regular updates from the BOD, giving precise details. In the absence of that, it is not surprising that questions will be asked.

Given that the company is now 63% owned by Swedish investors, perhaps, if, en masse, they all emailed the appropriate Ministers, that might assist. It would at least give them something to do while they wait to decide on what to do with our application.

Eric - Not my opinion.

Eric - Most of the points that you have raised were put but were not answered in the detail you seek.

No specifics were given as to from who/where any indication that a decision would be taken before summer had come.

The delays to date have come from our application being passed around government. The ball, and more importantly control of the ball, rests with them.

In relation to when alternative options might be considered. Pencil in Autumn.

KB did say he was open to any shareholder emailing him.

Nothing to report really, but in brief.

All resolutions were passed.

Questions were asked.

An outline was provided as to where the company is currently, in relation to Kallak, including some background to our application and the issues around Norra Karr and Laponia, Finland and Kosovo.

The company has been engaging widely in relation to Kallak, although the local Sami will not engage with them, seemingly, until a decision is reached.

The company is in contact with the government; however, it seems various persons/departments are involved. There has been no indication when the decision will be taken or delivered.

Essentially, the government might have taken the decision on Thursday, and communicated this to the company on Friday, and it will be announced tomorrow, or, it could be further days, weeks, or months, before this is forthcoming.

The company intends to wait on the decision. Legal action is not being considered at this present time, not least due to the time this would take and cost, but the company will hold all options on the table.

In relation to the statement in April, the company believed, based on the indications that had been received, that there was a reasonable expectation the decision would be taken before summer.

In relation to criticism that has come from the decision to provide this statement, given that there has been similar criticism from shareholders of the failure to provide news, the company consider they are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

No doubt Kurt will provide a full explanation on Thursday, if the decision hasn't arrived by then.

Perhaps I'm more straightforward than most.

In previous posts on this same point, I did ask, why does the company expect, and why is it reasonable to do so, but without answer.

Without an explanation as to why KB holds this belief, his statement is meaningless. Arguably, we might end up in a situation where, as the company expects, the government take a decision, but then fail to communicate this for a further few years. If so, I can console myself with knowing that KB didn't over-stretch the facts.

So where are we now. Either KB is trying to cut off any complaint about his saying we would have a decision before summer or the decision is imminent.

Although there is still no definitive timescale, being kind to KB, his impression that a decision would come before summer must have come from somewhere, one would like to think from someone in government. It matters not today, but if not proved correct before the AGM, then, there will be questions to answer.

As for the company being notified of any decision when the market is closed, given the importance of the decision, that should have always been the case. Co-incidentally, we have an extended market closure coming at the end of this week. Fingers crossed, but I won't be holding my breath.

It is KB who said we should expect a decision before summer. He needs to ensure that the government deliver this, or, if not, that they provide the reason why and a definite date when. Otherwise he should take action to force the issue. If there is no decision before the AGM, he should be able to explain, in detail, why not and what he intends to do about it. Continuing to sit on his hands waiting for the government to oblige is not a realistic strategy since, as history demonstrates, it does not work.

So, where are we now with our 'active communication'. Another 7 weeks have now gone by and still no decision. Please, KB, get on the 'phone.

Does anyone know who had asked for this meeting and/or for what purpose?

It would seem reasonable to conclude that our application satisfies the mining process, since, if not, the MI would have come down against. This leaves two issues only for the Government to consider. Should our proposal be refused due to an adverse impact on environmental, e.g. Laponia, or cultural, e.g. Sami, issues, as protected in law. Again, it would seem reasonable to conclude this is not so, since, if it was, given the numbers of different interests against our mine, this would have been identified.

The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that our application does satisfy the mining process and should be allowed, and that the Government has already reached this conclusion; however, this decision does not suit their agenda; therefore, quite simply, despite stating they are actively reviewing our case, actually, they are deliberately avoiding doing so.

We need this decision before the end of June, or, failing this, an alternative to our current 'sit and wait' strategy. Otherwise, lbjj might be correct about KB looking foolish at the AGM.

Wording is always important.

"The Company is actively communicating with the Government with regards to the Exploitation Concession for Kallak North". It might be argued that the letter to the Minister two weeks earlier of itself represents active communication in terms of this statement, although, clearly, it might conversely be argued not. However, what of the Government. Is the Government communicating with the Company?

"It has been confirmed that the Kallak application is being prioritised, an acknowledgement by the Government that the Company has been waiting an excessive period of time for a decision." Prioritisation of our application (and some others) might have been confirmed (although, arguably, the Government's interpretation of what prioritisation means is not necessarily that of the average person); however, not sure this has been linked to our waiting time, or, even if it has, that this acceptance by the Government of their delay will speed resolution.

"The Company expects, and it is reasonable to do so, that a decision will be taken, by the Government, before the summer." The Company might expect the Government to make the decision before summer but why is it reasonable to do so. Has the Government stated that they will give a decision before then?

Kurt Budge, Chief Executive Officer of Beowulf, commented: "As we seem to be approaching a final decision on Kallak". The use of 'seem to be' rather than 'are' is less than definitive.

Can't believe how tedious this has become. Only meaningful action this year appears to be a letter to the Minister then an update, the substance of which might be questionable.

Our application is, we are told, entirely in order. It will, by now, have been read many times, by civil servants if not Ministers, and if it was not, the company would have been told. Therefore, one must question what the issue is in approving this.

KB should be actively chasing this, weekly, for a decision. A vague, by the summer, just isn't good enough. This is a simple yes or no.

"Mining should be balanced against environmental testing". Surely this is done via the requirement for an EIA, etc., within the licensing process!

Unknown Soldier - surely 77p not £1. I would happily take 77p.

But still included in the number of shares sold.

Mist rising off a barrel in the early morning sun. Wait, we have so much oil now we're stacking it in barrels?

Yes Pocko, that is correct.

John, always respect other's right to an opinion. Been in myself since '10 but apologies to any lths I might have upset.

And that is why KB should have left this with the government when it was first referred to them.

That referral was not, and is still is not, about whether our application was correct, but whether, for the government, Sami rights trump all others.