Member Info for Suzy2

Politicians don't have a clue about reality...they couldn't manage a booze up in a brewery.

We know that mines are proved up as they go...once a viable resource is found, more exploration can be done in due course (directly as they say in Cornwall). Hindsight is no good to anyone, you can't keep saying, why did they or why didn't they...we know why...money.

I'm wondering now, again, how the appeal is progressing on the licence south of the river that the MI declined to renew?

How they made that mistake, especially when they made plans to move the town. We know it had become absolutely necessary to move the town but even so:

"No, I avoid looking back. We note that we have a rather large exploration need and we have taken it on, ”says LKAB manager Jan Moström."

Again. .Geovanni, well done, my last buy was the same. We didn't get to snap up the 2p Christmas ones promised by ibjj but one shouldn't speak too soon, there's always time. Let's be merry...still Christmas period till the 2 February.

Its just another month. Lol Pocko, that's priceless. Would you prefer it if someone said....maybe next Christmas? Last but one and then one Christmas ago it would have been unimaginable.

I'd have to to be pissed to choose that one. Lol

NN x

XXX

2019 will be our year in the sun, take my word for it, I'm not just Suzy2, I'm ramper No 2 and not exactly sober. Let:s have a song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4F5dbiaITw

Well said. :-)

I was groping for yesterday was indirect effects, the reason given by the CAB for not supporting the application as they had supported it (admittedly when called to heel) in 2015. A spokesperson from the MI is reported as having said they did not have the authority to judge such matters....mines were their business. And I kid you not...the number of words there are for snow was cited as a potential cultural effect in one of the documents presented.

The Mining Inspectorate of Sweden recommended to the government that our application should be granted and two further obstacles thrown into our path, the NK judgement and the Laponia boundary have been dealt with. In the first case we were judged to be compliant and in the second the Minister has declared that the law is sufficient, Laponia incorporates its own buffer zone. Now we wait on a government who can deal with it....any one will do except one dependant on the MP.

ADF you are the one trying to mislead this board, not me. The MI cannot grant the concession without the support of the CAB but they can reject it. The situation is not a common one, that they refer it to the government and it has been much debated on this bb whether or not they had the authority to grant the concession having received it back from the government for a second examination consequent upon the NK judgement, which they found in our favour. Your motive in posting here is questionable whereas mine is not...I am a long term investor with confidence that the concession will be granted, in which I may be rightly or wrong.. But one thing I have been correct about so far is that this company has survived the onslaught of ill wishers and has increased in substance and authority.

A proposed change:

1.3 Proposal for a law on amendments to the Mining Act (1991: 45) This prescribes, in the case of the Mineral Act, Chapter 4 of the Act on the Mining Act. Section 6 shall read as follows:

"Current wording Proposed wording
Chapter 4 Section 6 The concessionaire shall be required to provide security in order for his obligations under Chapter 13. Section 4 must be fulfilled if there are no special reasons for anything else. If the security is insufficient, the County Administrative Board may decide that additional collateral shall be provided. "

" The concessionaire shall be required to provide security in order for his obligations under Chapter 13. Section 4 must be fulfilled if there are no special reasons for anything else. If the security is insufficient, the County Administrative Board may decide that additional security shall be provided. Security according to the first paragraph need not be made by the person who is obliged to provide security under the Act (0000: 00) on financial collateral for mining operations. "

With thanks to Brain Tec on Avanza.

Yes. :-) )

Nighty night X

Hello Eric. Yes, he is wrong and he knows he is...whatever his motives are your guess is as good as mine.

If the MI had not backed our application on two separate occasions it would not have been referred to the government; if the MI had agreed with the CAB then they would have turned it down, that is their job, they have full powers to turn it down and they have not.

How wrong can you get that poster on Lloyds.

And Aug, actually I agree with you.

ADF....Wrong again, for the umpteenth time, the MI, Bergestatten, Mountain State or whatever you want to call them, have backed our application on two occasions as far as they are able. They have stated that they are not allowed to comment on the further issues because it isn't in their remit. The issue remains unknown cultural effects...the specific jargon for which escapes me. If the decision rested with the MI alone it would be Yes...as you very well know.

Has got nothing to do with our application so there's no point getting disheartened about it. Our prospects are good whatever government Sweden gets and the situation will be much improved soon because the administration will be a decision making one...not the transitional one we've had for a long time. Of course all that could be completely wrong if the new government is an MP government, but what are the chances of that...no chance?

Goodwill to All Men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n036kBC1HEw

Happy Christmas X