Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
No he's not. There have been multiple finds on the TG group that have not been RNSed, and even a couple that have forced an RNS. If you don't want proven, "from the horse's mouth" facts to inform your investment decisions then fine - just ignore them - but don't conflate such genuine research with the market's lack of positive response to it.
Note that Egrul does not appear to have updated the license list on KK's own entry yet. That doesn't surprise me - they usually take a week or two. I'll keep it monitored and will report back (if others don't spot it before me).
I assume RD took it as a given that Mark's original tweet had already confirmed that the license had now been issued, so RD just completed the context by posting the original application to which Mark's tweet referred.
The license was applied for years ago. Today's update is the issuing of the license. On TG there is a grab from the Russian site linked to in the original tweet, that has been translated into English. It says:
Subsoil plot status: Subsoil plot not related to subsoil plots of federal or local significance
Information about the subsoil user: Closed joint stock company "Kosvinsky Stone" (TIN: 6614005227)
Name of the authority that issued the Sevzapnedra licenses: * blank *
Details of the document on the basis of whcih the subsoil use license was isued: Minutes of the commission No. SZN-2/15/2023 dated 10/23/2023
"What are you on about stonk? "
I'll make it very clear what I'm on about. Either the debt is disputed or it isn't. You say it isn't. The RNS says it is. Is this RNS a lie? Yes or no?
I really cannot make the question any simpler for you, I'm afraid.
So this is a straight out lie then (endorsed by the Nomad)?
"The Company confirms that it received the winding up petition today. The matter relates to unpaid invoices, amounting to approximately £108,000 that are in dispute"
Gowlings may very well say it is not in dispute - it's very much in their interest to avoid admitting there is a dispute. That's not the same as EUA saying they dispute the bill. Of course, neither of us know who is correct here, but my point stands that this is more a case of "won't pay" rather than "can't pay", as you portrayed it.
You lost me at "What is disingenous stonk, they can't pay Gowlings, that has been evidenced by the winding up petition being presented. "
They can pay. They just won't. Because it is in dispute (read the RNS).
Toffers: Excuse me if I don't take your legal "expertise" seriously when you can't even spell Simmons & Simmons correctly (see Caseboard for evidence).
But more importantly, you disingenuously (and I'm sure intentionally) confuse the "can't pay" of EUA potentially not being able to afford Simmons & Simmons' fees, with the RNS'ed "won't pay" of the Gowling's invoice being in dispute.
All in all, you've messed your pants a bit with that post.
"Jesus H Christ man! The BOD would snap their hands off and throw in their spare kidney to get 1/3 of that price."
What evidence do you have to back that statement up?
"Those areas were the ones that made up the Rosgeo JV of which nothing has so far been secured as sanctions don't allow EUA to buy Russian assets."
On this point, EUA have already secured the rights to acquire Nyud via the Rosgeo JV. Or more specifically, the right to acquire 75% of Monchegorskoe LLC, which wholly owns the Nyud license; EUA just need to exercise that right whenever they want to.
"Without a SALE of assets and/or a definitive closure of the informal sale process, the BoD, staff members, management and anyone connected to the company CANNOT exercise these options as it amounts to a purchase of shares by a PDMR during a closed period. "
I'd be interested to be pointed to the AIM rule that stops a PDMR from exercising options during a sale process. Thanks for any help with this.