Ann: Half Year Financial Report 31 March 2019, page-20

First 20 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
geo_au

5,854 Posts.

862

16/06/19

13:03

Post #: 39080254
Share

Originally posted by mboose: ↑

I perused another Aust Mining forum site and post by a 666.
666 posted to that site very informative official letters issued by 2 x SI law firms on behalf of their clients and served on Axiom KB. The contents and intent of these letters was to advise Axiom KB and their nominees that their Ni prospecting applications over the SI tenements known as D18, D19 & D22 contained the true names of the customary owners of those lands. However the writer of the legal notice to AXIOM states that the writer represents those landowners and that they (the customary landowners) had not given their consent to Axiom KB to include either them or their names in Axiom’s Surface Access Agreement & prospecting application over their land & tenements. The legal firm on behalf of their clients, instructed Axiom to immediately excise D18, D19 & D22 from Axiom’s prospecting application or face the legal consequences. This was notice was dated 5th December 2018.
Another seperate notice from a seperate SI legal firm made similar claims on behalf of their clients. The legal firm claimed that their clients names were included in an offical prospecting application’s SAA lodges by Axiom Nickel Mining over tenements D21 & D22. The legal firm claims their clients neither gave their permission to Axiom Nickel Mining to use their names in the SAA document nor signed alongside their names, even though someone had signed their! This letter was dated 7th December 2018 and issued on or about that date to AXIOM KB and included Axiom Nickel Mining within the notice.
This was back in December 2018.
Clearly AVQ’s SI PL applications over tenements D18, D19, D21 & D22 are at worst invalid as the law firms claim. If not then they are in dispute and there can not be any progress by the SI Govt favourable to AVQ in securing those PL’s.
Why has there has been no official notice or update from AVQ to the shareholders re this situation. The various AVQ reports released in 2019 by RM suggest these applications are proceeding to approval !
Or did I miss the AVQ notices that these applications are under contention and legal challenge by the SI customary landowners? If that is the case then this information is not new to the HC readers.

Expand

That was posted last year mboose so don't why you're bringing it up now. Fact is they have San Jorge and South San Jorge landowners on side while the two tribes in Kolosori are at each others throats battling it out in the courts. As RM said they missed out.
My advice to you is keep away from the gossip mongers especially that guy who is masquerading as an Islander.

AVQ Price at posting: 2.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
8 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

What each US election outcome would mean for Australian companies & investors

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

Aussie inflation seemingly hit a 3 year low. So why's the ASX200 red?

The Altcoin Landscape (Part 1): Key alternative cryptocurrencies to watch

Bitcoin hits fresh record as instos pile into BTC ETFs – and Trump helps, too

Palladium's the newest geopolitical hot commodity. But ASX exposure is limited

MIN

Movers and Shakers: Zip Co, MinRes, Kuniko, more – The week's top ASX gainers

'We're looking': Nickel-rich Indonesia sounds graphite warning to Aus producers

Making money: How many microcaps should be in an investor's portfolio?

Week 44 Wrap: Relatively boring week ahead of US election; HotCopper's most watched; Oz inflation at 3.5%