Surges,
You are putting a ton of supposition forward in your post with no facts to back it up.
You say "the 52 week high of 16.5 cents should be tested within two weeks." Why would you say that? What has changed, our what do you say will change the stock price by 40%. You haven't given us a reason why the price would move. It is highly unsubstantiated information. It your simply your guess.
Next you are saying "As we are nearing the end of a 3 month delay to work through the step 1 adjustments to the EIA with consultants, one would expect this stock to anticipate a positive outcome as these adjustments are done in close conjunction with the government (under the new guidelines), exchanging details on a regular basis and would suspect that final presentation of the document will already contain all elements of concern from the government side. Hense, the EIA is becoming a foregone conclusion."
What an amazing statement that is, lets take it apart.
First you speak of a 3 month delay ending to work through step one adjustments. What are the step 1 adjustments? They have not been released by the company or to the public by the government or the company, in spite of a lot of us demanding they are released. How do you know about these, are you a part of GGG? Again, how did you get this information? The new guidelines we have all seen have nothing to do with the Environmental processes. The Government has made it very clear that the new guidelines will have nothing to do with Environmental Issues including EIA's
You further talk of the government working in close conjunction with the company "under the new government guidelines ". Again, we don't even know if these guidelines have gotten passed through Parliament yet , but we do know that these guidelines have not been put into effect yet, and won't be until January. And again, we know that the new guidelines will not have any effect on the handling of Environmental matters including EIA's. The government has made it clear that the new guidelines will not apply at all to any Environmental Issues. So again, your information and your suppositions from your wrong information are wrong too. Again, where did you get this information?
You also claim the collaboration with the company, by the Government, will cause all its concerns to have been addressed in the work being done now that you expect to see soon. Again, the Government has said expressly that the new guidelines will have nothing to do with Environmental issues including EIA's So again, you can't make that supposition, as it is expressly refuted in government statements. Obviously based on your statements having been refuted by the Government, you can't possibly know or even responsibly infer that. Again, none of we shareholder know what the governments's concerns are, and what they have told the company as to what they require them to do, or fix, to satisfy the EIA requirements Again, the company has not released the documents from the government that contains the reasons for the latest rejection. You are suggesting that you know what these these problems are in terms of your talking of stage 1 and consultants, none of which have been made public by the company. Again, I have to ask, how do you know this if you are not a part of the company?
Next, I take issue as to your conclusion that Greenland is desperate for anything regarding mining. The Government has certainly not said anything to support that view, actually the Government has said they will not sacrifice any standards, especially Environmental standards, as they bring mining along in Greenland. Also, unfortunately for GML, after Mr Maier's last trip to Greenland, when his lobbying scheme was compromised and exposed and severely criticized by the Government, including specifically criticized both the Prime Minister and the vice chairman of the Opposition party as well, GGG severely damaged their credibility and trust. I wouldn't expect, due to Mr. Maier's fumblings, and the company's illegal lobbying scheme, that angered the Environmental Department and many politicians and will not be forgotten anytime soon. It has not and will not will be forgotten which may well make the Company's job considerably harder as to getting to the EIA done . Again, the new guidelines don't apply and Maier Angered everyone with his foolish lobbying scheme.
You also claim because of this supposed collaboration because of the new guidelines that the GGG EIA is becoming a forgone conclusion. Unfortunately I am afraid you are wrong again. The new guidelines do not apply to Environmental issues, and even if they did, they are not going to be in effect until January and are not a factor in the GGG Environmental work being done now. But I'm amazed that you purport to have information that is not public.
Expand
