Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Wish everyone invested the best of luck but I get the feeling it will be the usual result
Heard it all before. Would not touch this company even if someone gave me £50k and said it can only be invested in RMP
My point is quite simple. Proximity means nothing. If it were the case every drill would be successful, as it's always x miles from a successful drill
20km between cinco and Hawkeye and look how that turned out
Still no numbers on how we'd pay the loan back though
Nomads even
It's probably not THE most likely scenario, however, we were only told about it at seemingly the 11th hour. We'd all seen the stories about them having to merge; what's the plan B? As mentioned, there are plenty of brokers around, are we in talks with them?
It's probably not THE most likely scenario, however, we were only told about it at seemingly the 11th hour. We'd all seen the stories about them having to merge; what's the plan B? As mentioned, there are plenty of brokers around, are we in talks with them?
Actually what he has said makes sense and people who are ACTUALLY invested in here should be concerned about the prospect of the company being forced to delist. If people are concerned about the lack of communication currently, just think how it could be when there's less regulation.
Well, there is a template on one of the sites I found for removal but it's costs (a fairly low amount if you have it) and it's the same price for the template on how to put forward a new director.
At this stage, I'm torn between new management and a motion to hire a COO and relieve Rufus of these duties, with the caveat of a wage reduction
I'd second the motion.
What did you put in to find it? I searched a couple of places but only found non relevant information
That's a quick calculation. About to drive again so not 100% sure
This was the thread
Members' power to require directors to call general meetings (sec303 - sec304)
The directors must call a general meeting if so requested by the holders of 5% of the voting shares (or 5% of the voting rights if there are no shares). (The figure was reduced from 10% to 5% by the Companies (Shareholders' Rights) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/1632), reg. 4(2).
Has anyone been able to look at tabling a resolution at the General meeting? For example, to change the current requirement for a 10% share holding to requisition a meeting to 5%?
Not necessarily removal, maybe a change to the articles of association.
I could be wrong, I don't have the time to research it at this moment. But I think shareholders can table resolutions at AGM's and GM's without requiring a 10% shareholder party.
Anyone able to see if I'm right?
purchase of a second loader to load the pre-screen plant and coal delivery trucks. This has been purchased and is now operating at site. This is allowing feed of the plant and loading of customers trucks to take place in parallel, resulting in a more efficient operation of the plant and stockpile area.
It's not primarily a feeder truck.
The Management estimate that just having this second loader operational will increase production of washed tonnes by approximately 400 tonnes per month without taking the pre-screen unit, currently being installed, into account. When the pre-screen unit is switched on the second loader will also be utilised for loading of Run of Mine ("ROM") coal;
As I said, the screen has a maximum throughput per hour, so when it's not loading sales trucks it will be feeding the stockpiling area.
But I do stand corrected, immediately after this paragraph there was a section on the second pit.
Possibly not, you're talking about finished product and even if they had 10 loaders the screen and wash has a max throughput. They state that is without the second piece of equipment, so once that's installed it the loader will be more efficient.
The RNS was reasonable, I've skim read it so far, I'll look at it more in depth soon, first thought is that it has not included any update on pit 2, doesn't answer how LIND will be repaid and hasn't answered why target production hasn't been met. If I'm wrong that's fair enough, as I said I've skim read it. If it is the case why leave it out from what could have been exactly what shareholders have wanted. I have my reservations as to how long it will be before the next RNS
If someone kicks you, apologises for it but carries on doing it, do you think their apology is sincere?