Member Info for PopeUrbanII

The application of the code has nothing to do with the residency of board members If you look on the website under the rule 26 information it confirms that the code does apply

Trading halt on ASX

Got it, that’s great thank you

Did he definitely say early? I’m not questioning you I just don’t remember the exact words so didn’t know when in the month to expect it Hope you’re right!

To be clear, you find it very hard to believe something therefore it can’t be true and therefore the company is misleading shareholders. You may or not be right but it’s pretty punchy

Would be surprised if it was so soon. In the last interview I saw the CEO said end Q2 maybe slipping into Q3. I can’t remember the exact words but seemed like he was giving himself a degree of margin for error, my guess from that is late June / early July. Can’t wait though!

Aren’t we due one of these soon?

My maths may be rusty but how is 1.15 to 1.95 143.8%?

There will definitely be risk factors covering the permitting there is no way around that. What I’m saying is that if there is an issue they are sitting on then they would be mad to be issuing a prospectus. Therefore whilst they still need the permits, and there is still risk around that, this (to me at least) puts to bed any conspiracy theory that they have been silent over the last few months as there are issues they aren’t telling us about

Whilst this is great in terms of accessing new investors etc, what I find most interesting in the shorter term is the fact that they must issue a prospectus for the new listing. The disclosure requirements under the prospectus directive are very onerous and directors have personal liability under them. If, as some have suggested, they have been a little tight lipped on any permitting issues this will come out as part of this process - knowing that, I suspect that if there were bad news that for some reason they were sitting on they would not be doing this now

Could be Monday

Dammit - he’s seen right through me!

Playboy you completely miss my point. I’m not disputing that continents move which is a premise of both theories I’m asking for evidence of how Salamanca and Saskatchewan were ever close? There’s all sorts of nonsense/ simplifications taught in GCSE science so it’s not a great reference point. The basic premise of continental drift is that all continents started off as a single mass and drifted apart. This has been replaced by plate tectonics which recognises that the earth’s crust is made up of a number of plates - not sure what the basis of me not knowing what I’m talking about from

I assume you’re talked my about me. I didn’t ridicule the concept of continental drift, although you’re letting yourself down by saying it’s proven when plate tectonics is a better developed theory. However, for the purposes of this debate the two concepts are similar enough, i.e. that stuff moves around and I think we all agree on that, I’m certainly with you. What annoyed me is that you offered nothing at all as evidence for Salamanca being anywhere near to Saskatchewan, you just seem to rely on the fact that stuff moves therefore it may have been - that isn’t enough (it would be a stretch to call it circumstantial) - if you have links to any evidence then please post them I would genuinely be pleased to read them and if I’m wrong apologise.

Wow. This has become so f*cking dumb I’m lost for words. I assume you’re just trying to annoy me, I’ll let most of that go but I can’t ignore the fact that all of those latitudes are completely different. Pete if this is you you win

So basically you have nothing. Of course the isotopes are the same, there are only three uranium isotopes that occur naturally. Have you just read a bit of science and are just speculating without understanding? It’s highly likely the uranium in Salamanca and Saskatchewan was created bythe same supernova but that’s probably about it. Anyway your point’s irrelevant, the geology at Salamanca is great which is all we need for BKY, the fact it was never in lumberjack land doesn’t really matter

Yes but South America and Africa were next to each other, just as scott’s first expedition to Antarctica discovered fossils of ferns that showed it was previous attached to Australia but when was Salamanca ever close to Saskatchewan?

Yes I’m well aware that ‘they get around’ I just think you’re making up the idea that a landlocked region of Spain was ever located in very close proximity to a landlocked region of Canada. Do you have any evidence other than thinking it might be possible as stuff moves??

I can’t see any announcement of a board member leaving the board (and here would be one if one had) so not sure what you’re talking about

I’m really struggling to work out how and when an area relatively central within the Iberian peninsula was connected to a region now relatively central (at least from a longitudinal perspective) area of North America I’m not disputing plate techtonics I just don’t think the supercontinental jigsaw was ever cut that way