Member Info for TheFarEnd

Told you months ago Falkland, there are better equities to day trade than Lloyds. Can't vouch if they are as safe though.
GL.

Don't start that again Azzurri, you know what will happen, you'll have to explain to all these dumbbells how you could possibly have a 20p average.
They will probably try and smudge the issue by introducing tax accounting to the argument.
I just despair.

Do I detect a little bit more interest here these last couple of days?
Could it be that lbjj has had an epiphany and started investing, lol.

The tax issue is just a red herring in this debate, this started off about reducing averages.
For all the bravado and supposed expertise on here some people just don't have a clue.

If you bother to track your trades on specific shares, that is costs of buying, deducting capital from sales then check your average on the remaining shares, that is your true average.

I have a considerable number of shares in an AIM stock which over the years of buying and selling has ended up costing me nothing.

"Yes disinformed your average can never be lower than the lowest price you have paid"Have another think about that.

Azzurri, yes dyor, It maybe there to find but when contributors extract small portions or a portion of an article and just copy and paste, I guess it makes them feel knowledgeable.
If you wait long enough they will try and compose something off their own back, then you'll get the measure of them.
Every ones an expert or thinks they are.

Hi aug, the government can try and mitigate anything, but they can only try, and they are not even trying to bring this debacle to a close. The whole process is a complete farce and shows the failure of the PR system of government. This concession is obviously not even near the top of it's 'to do' list.
If the decision goes against us would you be happy for BEM to simply walk away?
I'm sure the Sami would appeal no matter what the reasons given.

Significant ifs indeed lbjj, and so far the position with the greens seems to have been the stumbling block. However with elections looming in 12 months and the recent no confidence farce I just get the feeling that the cracks are starting to appear.
I'm under no illusions, and I'm sure there are many more delaying tactics that can be employed.
Whatever the outcome, and there has to be a decision some time, whether it's this government or the next, there will be an appeal by the losing side.

It may have been 'old stuff' as you say, but I detect a differing response from BEM this time, you can almost sense the frustration in that statement, it was direct with no new reasons thrown in.
The content included hard to ignore fact's such as.

"do not have knowledge of how the Swedish environmental assessment system is structured."

"They also seem to ignore the fact that reindeer and mining industries already coexist in several places in Sweden."

"If a mining operation in Sweden is to be stopped on the basis of hypothetical reasoning and on vague grounds, even before a proper environmental assessment has been carried out."

"It is completely out of the question, and an unreasonable view, that the mine itself can have any direct effect on the world heritage."

"It cannot be considered reasonable that the examination of socially important activities should take more than 10 years."

Now I know you would argue that this will be absorbed like 'water off a duck's back' and you may be right but I don't see any other course of action for BEM. We are completely at the mercy of this shambolic processing system. The so-called legal route is something that the government would welcome, it could be costly for us and add further delays. The time for that is if the decision goes against us but I can't see that happening on the evidence so far, but as a shareholder I'm biased.
We've come this far and we'll see it through.

On a lighter note and let's face it, it's why we are here (we'll most of us) at today's price, I'm still in profit lol.

With regard to the balance between different national interests, this issue has already been addressed in the letter prepared by Fröberg & Lundholm law firm and Mannheimer & Swartling law firm on 8 November 2019.

The case was initiated through the company's application for a processing concession, which was submitted to Bergsstaten on April 25, 2013, and the case has still not been decided. In October 2015, Bergsstaten recommended that the Government announce a concession. The company has no guilt for the length of time that has arisen (see the Company's letter to the Government 2018-01-31 where the handling of the case is described). Relevant authorities have considered that the environmental impact statement is complete. In addition, a future environmental code review can be expected to take at least 2-3 years.

It cannot be considered reasonable that the examination of socially important activities should take more than 10 years for a project that is important in order to be able to meet society's need for high-quality iron ore.

The Government must now make a decision on the question of whether the Company can be granted a processing concession. JIMAB has met the requirements of the Minerals Act to be granted a processing concession.

JIMAB has undertaken to limit the possible impact on the reindeer herding industry as far as possible and to fully compensate the affected Sami villages. In this work, JIMAB will further strive to reach a dialogue with the Sami villages concerned in order to ensure, together with them, that the possible impact of the mining operations on the reindeer industry is limited as far as possible. In its decision with the support of ch. Section 5 of the Minerals Act (1991: 45) also prescribes that the Sami villages concerned in the environmental code review shall be fully compensated for the lost values ??that arise through the mining operations.

JIMAB has also committed itself to ensuring that it becomes an environmentally sustainable mine that is developed in collaboration with the residents of Jokkmokk municipality and with other relevant stakeholders. This presupposes that the government provides an opportunity for such a development.

Stockholm, August 27, 2021

and precautionary measures.

According to point 99 of UNESCO's own guidelines, the boundaries of the World Heritage Site must include all areas that constitute or contribute to ensuring effective protection of "outstanding universal values" and that are otherwise needed to maintain the area's function / integrity. It has never been claimed by Unesco that Laponia would need to be larger to secure World Heritage sites, or that a special buffer zone would be needed around the area. The technical statement from ICOMOS and the IUCN, which has now been issued, thus runs counter to UNESCO's previous assessments of the need to protect areas outside Laponia in order to protect the world heritage itself.

Given the large distance between the planned mine and Laponia, as well as the fact that the mine occupies an area equivalent to one thousandth of Laponia, it must be obvious that there are conditions for designing and conducting the mining business without causing damage. of importance to the world heritage.

The planned mine is Sweden's largest known deposit of iron ore where mining has not begun. The deposit has a purity that, in comparison with other iron ore, provides conditions for low environmental impact and low climate footprint in the entire production chain up to finished steel. In the decision on the designation of national interest, SGU has stated that the deposit is important from a material supply point of view and important for the mining industry from a national perspective. The mine provides the conditions to supply the Swedish steel industry with iron raw materials from Sweden prior to the planned Swedish transition to fossil-free steel production (through HYBRIT and H2GS).

It is important, in view of the unacceptable delays in the handling of the case, that conditions are now given for JIMAB to be able to plan for the further trial and complete its project to establish a mine for the extraction of iron, as large investments in fossil-free steel production account for the door. JIMAB began work on the establishment of a mine in Kallak 15 years ago when the initial exploration work began.

In the forthcoming permit examination, it will be ensured that relevant and necessary environmental requirements are set for the mining. The planned mine will also have major benefits from both an investment and employment point of view locally and regionally.

If a mining operation in Sweden is to be stopped on the basis of hypothetical reasoning and on vague grounds, even before a proper environmental assessment has been carried out, it will have very significant societal consequences. Not only for the planned mine, but for all activities located within several miles of Laponia which in itself constitutes a very significant area. It also creates uncertainty about what conditions there are for developing socially necessary activities in Sweden in general.

I'm surprised nobody has translated this submission, for info -

Government Ministry of Trade and Industry

Opinion in case no. N2017 / 04553 / FÖF, Jokkmokk Iron Mines AB regarding the application for a processing concession for area Kallak no. 1 in Jokkmokk municipality, Norrbotten county

Jokkmokk Iron Mines (hereinafter JIMAB or the company) has been given the opportunity to submit any comments to the Ministry of Trade and Industry due to the technical assessment provided by ICOMOS and IUCN. As a representative of JIMAB, I may state the following.

As can be seen from the documents in the case, the closest distance from the planned mine to Laponia is 34 km by bird. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish National Heritage Board have also stated that the mining operations in Kallak will not have any direct impact on Laponia.

It is completely out of the question, and an unreasonable view, that the mine itself can have any direct effect on the world heritage. Mining operations will not be possible to perceive within Laponia.

The potential increase in traffic on existing roads or railways will also not be of such a magnitude as a result of the mining activity that it may lead to an indirect impact of significance for Laponia, which in itself are issues that will be examined in another context.

In their technical assessment, ICOMOS and the IUCN point out that the impact from the mine could still have effects on the reindeer husbandry locally, which could indirectly affect the values ??in Laponia in a more significant way.

However, the prepared environmental impact assessment and in-depth impact assessment regarding the impact on Laponia show that the mine, with the protection measures and compensatory measures planned, will have a limited impact on the reindeer husbandry. In this context, it should be taken into account that the planned mine with operating facilities will use 0.5 percent of Jåhkågaska Tjellde's 2,640 km2 winter grazing area. The investigation describes the potential impact in a complete and correct way. The basis is sufficient to now decide on a processing concession.

The fact that there are two existing mines that are significantly closer to Laponia than the current mine also confirms that it is possible to conduct mining operations outside Laponia without harming the world heritage sites. It is clear, and to some extent understandable, that ICOMOS and IUCN do not have knowledge of how the Swedish environmental assessment system is structured and the fact that conditions on precautionary measures, protective measures and compensatory measures to protect the reindeer industry are issues addressed at a later stage of the environmental assessment process. They also seem to ignore the fact that reindeer and mining industries already coexist in several places in Sweden and that there are good conditions for such coexistence, not least through well-balanced protection measures

I just wonder, how many peeps on here have a bank stock of messages that they copy and paste with regularity, sometimes several times a day?
Some make subtle changes but the message is the same, I bet you're a bundle of laughs when socialising, boring or what!
Mind you a few on here have no time for socialising.

Meanwhile, Geronimo's number has come up he's a gonna, saying that, wouldn't miss a few on here.
Just saying.

"LLOYDS will not get full value......…....."
Yes yes, scb, so you keep saying.

£45k for a little over£200 profit and you're nervous, perhaps this share trading lark is not for you.
Just saying.

"Every Success Model Falls."
DT, a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Australia and New Zealand's Covid policy and how it was all doom in Europe and the market here was going to plummet
You took great delight in explaining that the UK and Europe got it so wrong and the antipodean model was the right approach.
At last It seems you may have come to your senses.

Falkland.
When I saw your original post I thought either it was a misprint/mistake or you've totally lost it.
At least you've come to your senses, imo it was a mistake, but I'm already invested so somewhat biased.
Although the recent rally is slowing I don't believe its the time to bet on a reversal, bwtfdik.
Just saying.

Nearly back up to the RI price.

"Could the lack of buyback be design to keep share price low for re investment of dividend?? Keep shareholders happy reinvesting at low rates?"

NO.

If it was worthy of an RNS we would probably have had one already, this appointment hasn't made any substantial difference to the SP. In fact it hasn't made any difference, and why would it, it's moribund.
Just saying.