Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

AVQ

0.00%

2.5¢ axiom mining limited

mboose, you're seem to be misleading the truth.Landownership in...

First 114 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Deet

1,891 Posts.

934

16/05/19

13:00

Post #: 38594713
Share

Originally posted by mboose: ↑

Geo I would expect a more rational comment from you on the true facts, and not denial.
Any current court proceedings have no interest in or relationship to the ‘HOW, WHEN and WHY’ RM lost the very fragile tenure AVQ held over the Takarta / Kolosori lands.
Any approach here to claim otherwise would be a TOTAL MISREPRESENTATION of CURRENT EVENTS and a MISLEADING FABRICATION of the past high court proceedings and the reasons for and the determinations of those proceedings.
SMM, throughout the high court proceedings, in their evidence and witness statements given in evidence, made many claims against AVQ. In particular SMM claimed that the people AVQ had engaged with when AVQ was granted the 50 year land lease and registration, and then the PL and the ML, that those customary people were NOT the true landowners to those TAKARTA / KOLOSORI lands. The end result of SMM’s claim, which was SUPPORTED by the BUGOTU LANDOWNERS GROUP CROSS CLAIM, resulted in AVQ’s registered 50 year land title lease being cancelled, along with the AVQ’s PL/ ML over the TAKARTA /KOLOSORI lands. Out the door also went tens millions $$$$$ of shareholders funds wasted on litigation fees and worthless exploration expenditure.
They are the facts and why AVQ shareholders are where we are today.
Begs the question, “Is this why AVQ are so desperate in trying to make a commercially viable operation out of the San Jorge deposit. Even with the full knowledge that the really commercial (high grade) Ni resource numbers (historical fact from the Kaiser BFS data) are located in the KOLOSORI tenements lands.”?
Begs 2nd question, “ Why has AVQ not produced a JORC statement or a 3D resource model over San Jorge”?
Either and or both would SUPPORT San Jorge’s commercial viability or alternatively DESTROY any sensible commercial operation on San Jorge !!!
And we don’t need need to hear, yet again, RM’s reasons for having NOT produced a JORC.
Why not, because the finance and mining sectors find laughable the reasons RM puts out there as evidenced by AVQ share price and financing woes.
THAT IS THE REALITY OF RM’s STEWARDSHIP of AVQ imo and clearly the markets too.

Expand

mboose, you're seem to be misleading the truth.
Landownership in the SI is complex, not even the Mines Department knows all the Landowners.
Try and find one document that has all Landowners of Isabel ??
The outcome of the court case has proven nothing of the facts you have claimed.
The current situation has not proven that RM has the wrong Landowners, rather that RM may not have all of the Landowners or Landowners with an interest in that Land.
There is a big difference.

AVQ Price at posting: 3.9¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
8 Upvote

4 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

GRE

Greentech finds lithium trend across 5.5 km at WA's Kobe South

LGM

Legacy shares jump on discovery of multiple epithermal veins at Bauloora JV

PYC

PYC commences new study on drug for eye condition Retinitis Pigmentosa type 11

AW1

American West does it again at Storm with visually identified thick copper hits at Cyclone, Lightning Ridge

I88

Infini soars 50% as company reveals it could’ve just made uranium history – redefining what it means to be “high grade”