Bluejay Mining Share Discussion Threads

[perfect choice] 20/11/2020 10:46

Well that answers that then, thanks luffness. Another side issue to ignore then and we can get onto the real business of getting Dundas underway.

To add, yes Dundas Titanium A/S already owned 100% by JAY right now, it is not a factor for granting exploitation licence and JAY will comply with required regulations on ownership. In fact check past posts about 1:1 share allocation for Dundas Titanium A/S, its not new and been mentioned now and again for several years including interviews. This is a non-discussion!

[kemismelt] 20/11/2020 10:45

luffness@8742:

If we insist that DUNDAS TITANIUM A/S is 100% owned by a foreign entity LON:JAY our MLA can be prima-faci declined by the Greenlandic Government.

[luffness] 20/11/2020 10:10

it says

Dundas Titanium A/S
CVR number12905114
Addressc/o Nuna Advokater ApS
Qullilerfik 2, 6.
Postboks 59
Postal code and city3900 Nuuk
Start date16.02.2017
Business typeAktieselskab
Advertising protectionNo
StatusNormal



Legal owners
Bluejay Mining plc
2nd Floor 7-9 Swallow Street
London, England
W1B 4DE
Storbritannien
Pct. of share capital: 100%
Pct. of voting rights: 100%
Date of change: 08.08.2019

So not much fuzziness or lack of clarity there then.....

[perfect choice] 20/11/2020 10:02

And what does it actually say then, not being specific? Is it just missing the specific statement or actually saying something different? If just missing, then very straight forward to address if required for exploitation licence.

[kemismelt] 20/11/2020 09:57

summerfield1@8739:

It is for the Registrar of Companies in Nuuk/Copenhegen to say that from their records.

[summerfield1] 20/11/2020 09:41

Dundas Titanium A/S is 100% wholly owned by Bluejay Mining plc-see Bluejay annual accounts.

[snowyflake] 20/11/2020 09:04

Well Kemi - as a stoker of some smelter you are now an expert in how the English court and tribunal system works.

[swiftnick] 20/11/2020 08:41

I disagree. He has never made me laugh once.I do roll my eyes quite a lot though.

[longrod] 20/11/2020 08:26

You're a clown Kemi

you truly are just a clown

[kemismelt] 20/11/2020 04:55

luffness@8734:

100% ownership by LON:JAY is not reflected in the statutory filings by DUNDAS TITANIUM A/S with Greenlandic authorities!

[luffness] 19/11/2020 22:18

It really isnt tricky is it. The Group holds 100% of the shares of Dundas Titanium. Can you explain why this is fuzzy or lacks clarity?

[kemismelt] 19/11/2020 20:28

snowyflake@8730:

I dont see any chance of a costs order in anyone's favour at this stage. The clarity in the relationship between LON:JAY (the holding company in the UK) and DUNDAS TITANIUM A/S (a Greenlandic corporate entity) is lacking AND FUZZY which may even hinder the early issue of any Greenlandic mining permit to a 100% owned foreign entity! Its a matter which has to be handled by LON:JAY's board.

[bigboyblue] 19/11/2020 17:29

Yes PC, interesting about the skilled labour. I've read several articles recently about the shortage of skilled labour in Greenland at the moment, although that may apply more in the South. I know Jay have been helping to train people up, but even so I guess some will have to be imported.

[snowyflake] 19/11/2020 17:03

kemi 8722 - depends on whether there was a costs order in Bluejay's favour.

[perfect choice] 19/11/2020 14:34

Well there are a few days to go so lets see what happens, would agree forcemode never good to keep having to extend on extensions and better to be more flexible and plan ahead. But even if informal I do think there is an alignment here with the exploitation licence. I can only guess the company was hoping the authorities would get to a notification point earlier and as the MOU was signed, then then have to operate formal extensions, but that could have been 8 weeks instead of 4 maybe? We are where we are so lets see what comes out at or before next Tuesday.

On the exploitation licence side I am expecting plenty of behind the scenes discussions and ratification of any commitments required. Just to indicate an example (but purely my guess), the authorities may want a minimum percentage of skilled workers to come from local communities (so really Qaanaaq), so that figure has to be agreed and then JAY to decide if it has an impact on operational commencement, versus the number of people already on training degrees or courses they could go on within construction timescales. This is the sort of detail going into right now I expect.

[forcemode] 19/11/2020 14:32

"B cubed"..and that's my point! Have the initial MOU with a year end cut off date (no obvious reason for the other interested party to not agree!) and then no "can kicking" and investor "ticking off"!

[adamstip2] 19/11/2020 14:04

https://youtu.be/cCqsNxYqqJE

[bigboyblue] 19/11/2020 13:58

Agree forcemode, but I think it's quite likely. Like PC I feel it would be beneficial to announce this with the licence and I'm still guessing that will be this year.

[forcemode] 19/11/2020 13:49

For one I'd be disappointed if another extension is indeed the outcome. Would show again JAY's inability to understand and handle correctly the timings of issues outside of their control. They would have been better advised to extend it initially to, say, the year end and, in my view, would now disappoint many with another "can kicking"!

[perfect choice] 19/11/2020 13:16

Yep, the word "final" is clearly hard to understand. RNS didn't say HMRC could not appeal if they decide to, but cannot change the First-Tier Tribunal decision. This is a side issue anyway to the real business of interest right now.

Yes getting closer summerfield1, no real indication but we will know by next Tuesday for sure, either agreed and announced in next few days, another 4 week extension (if want to align to exploitation licence timing), or no agreement (but they could have done that last time so not expecting that). Really hard to decide but my guess is another 4 week extension.

[luffness] 19/11/2020 13:09

Can you actually read?

[kemismelt] 19/11/2020 13:06

PC@8717:

If the findings of facts are in error, the 1st appeal can be sent back to HMRC for correction before it is studied for legal implications by the Tribunal. LON:JAY in any case will have legal expenses to bear!

[monts12] 19/11/2020 12:52

Rod on Finnish assets...