We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
MrT
Mitch does seem to be quite... emmm... inconsistent with his description of his portfolio or strategy but I, for one, feel like we might actually benefit from his contrarian point of view. Without him this place would be a bullish echo-chamber and that's hardly ever good.
Cryptomaniacs coined a term "FUD" to shut down anyone who wouldn't repeat their mantra religiously (IOTA in every device in 2020! XRP becoming a global currency this June! Jesus used Bitcoin!) but think it's usually worth it to endure the annoyance of having our presumptions challenged. It's not like his (or ours) ramblings can affect the stock price anyway, it's just an exachange of opinions.
Probably a noob question, but why is Mitch being deleted? In his recent posts he did not insult anybody as far as I could tell, his perma-bearism and gloating on SP decline isn't any more useless then posting "I've bought 10mil more, hoping for 3p by end of May hoot hoot!" or "Mitch needs to get laid" and, quite frankly, his 0.72p call was bang on target, regardless of the logic behind it.
Thanks spud, interesting stuff.
I found this document on DAERA page, a Q&A pdf which has been recently updated (April the 17th).
https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/daera/QUESTIONS%20%26%20ANSWERS%20%20version%202%2C%20April%202019%20%20ML%2028_12%20applic....pdf
"The total Environmental Statement, which will include updated
documents from the original have been requested. Once the Company has submitted these,
DAERA will review and instruct the Company to make the documents available for public
consultation in due course. "
If I understand it correctly, they are still waiting for some paperwork to be delivered by Infa which will be then assessed and only then public consultations will start. Which makes me think that the consultations and workshops that occured in March were not part of the process.
I'm also trying to draw parallels to the mining industry, explorers in particular, where it's quite common to complete all the permitting work without money in sight. It actually makes a lot of sense - building an underground mine costs some serious dough, which explorecos, being small as they are, simply don't have. Their game plan is to raise money via new share placings after all the paperwork is cleared (which usually boosts share price).
Sometimes, however, market conditions drag the entire sector down and our exploreco is unable to rise enough cash through placing, so they sit iddly on the fully permitted project until conditions improve or sell it to someone who's in better financial position.
In mining it's not the company that receives a mining permit, it's the project itself that gets permitted. It means that the project is green to go regardless of who owns it or runs it, and can be sold without losing its permit. But that also means that financial backing of the project is a non-factor in the permitting process, because:
a) a project is not a legal entity and has no finances of its own
b) a project can be easily sold between companies in completely different financial positions
MrT
I agree it would be pointless to apply without having a follow-up plan, but that's a separate issue. Once you've applied, I don't see why the regulator should care whether you have money to complete (or even start) your project. It's job is to determine whether your project, as described in the documentation provided, meets certain environmental standards and requirements prescribed by law.
Preparing and submitting your application takes time and money so, again, I agree it would be unwise to do so only to sit on a licence afterwards, with no money to actually kick things off. That's, however, none of DAERA's concern. Spud said quite clearly that "one of the conditions to convert draft to full licence is finance in place" so I'm curious where it's coming from as I couldn't find any mention of that in available guidance materials.
"One of the conditions to convert draft to full licence is finance in place."
Are you sure about it? I went through some of the docs available here
https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/marine-licensing
but there's no mention of financing being secured as a pre-requisite. In fact, I don't see why a regulating body would be interested in finances at all. It would be like passing your driving test but only getting your driving licence after you prove that you can afford a car.
I though about it for a bit and I'm not sure if that's the case.
Remember that there were parties back in 2018 interested in proceeding with funding deal, despite marine licence process being less advanced back then. For me it shows that negotiations can be successfuly concluded on the provision that licence will be granted and a letter of intent or an agreement in principle can be signed. I'm not quite convinced that the licencing process is holding funding or offtake decision back.
Given that we only recently got a project update/refresher RNS I wouldn't expect any significant news to be announced this week or the next. You don't need to issue a "everything is fine" release if a major update is just around the corner. Personally, I'm bracing for late May though I'd love to be proven wrong.
Nice link, thanks bruh
It's a rather low-key RNS, with the most interesting bit being the possibility of a single provider for equity and finance funding.It would mean there's a single entity willing to carry 100% of the financial risk which indicates high level of confidence in the project. I presume the offer came from the provider who had already concluded it's DD.
What's missing is any sort of update on the marine licence front. Surely, public consultations should have finished by now? It would be good to know how they went and if there are any actionable items.
Guys, where are you seeing that new RNS? The last one I can see listed on the website is from the 5th.
Help a brother out with a link.
I have to say the fact that CEO's twitter account is "protected" (not public) makes me feel uneasy. What was the reason behind that move?
@Radders99 I think you're right. Mass events provide great platform for those who are primarly interested in stirring up trouble. By having meetings in small groups you're more likely to meet people who're actually keen on discussing things through, have a better chance of addressing their individual concerns and getting your point across.
@Humpalupms There are two separate issues here. One is obtaining the licence, which should be a purely administrative decision based on provided evidence and I don't expect any negative surprises on this front. Local unrest is another one and I think it's overly optimistic to expect that it will dissipate once the licence is granted. Those people are not protesting against what they thing is illegal but against what they think is wrong, therefore legal proceedings are unlikely to influece their point of view to any significant degree. Ideally the company would find a way to ease their concerns, though I appreciate that people have learned to take any corporate communication with a bucket of salt, and some will never be convinced.
As much as I like that response, I can't help but notice that a little proofreading wouldn't go amiss.
Thanks @Si_Derman, great stuff. Always good to try and give back to the community.
Hi everyone, my first post here
I've seen some posters here dismissing protestors out of hand. I'm heavily invested in the mining sector and one of the very first things I learned (the hard way) is that operating without social licence inevitably ends badly, with locals disrupting operations at best, and mining licences being suspended or revoked at worst. Finding an amicable solution is always in your best interest, even if you find protestors' claims unreasonable. I'd say dealing with unreasonable should be considered an unavoidable cost of running a large infrastructural project.
I wonder if there are any plans for prioritizing local workforce and suppliers for construction works - that always helps getting locals on your side.