Good Evening
The reason i post to those who profess good news is because the professed good news has not actually happened, i.e., the changes proposed to streamline the ML process haven't yet been specified or implemented. We don't have any idea what these changes will be or if they will actually be implemented or when they might be implemented.the Greenland Goverenemt several years ago, came out twice and said they were going to do exactly what they said now, that they were going to streamline the ML process. to today, they have not done anything to do so, they have not changed a thing.
Also, i wanted to remind everyone this streamlining has absolutely nothing to do with the required Environmental Processes and Standards required in EIA submissions. Which, I would remind you all again, is where GGG has had so much trouble and has failed so miserably, on all of its 4 separate attempts to get an EIA approved. May I also remind you again of GGG's timeline and spending.The company started in 2007 to work on their first EIA. 12 years later, the company has spent 269,000,000 and hasn't been able to get any of its the 4 EIA's it has submitted as of 2019 for approval, approved. All have been rejected. The EIA is the first step in the process of getting aa ming license. GGG has failed to get even this first step done. GGG is still at the very beginning of the ML process. These are the facts, not opinions.
I've tried, on this site, to get a number of questions answered by posters on this site. For example, I asked: What are the recovery rates in the mined Kvanefjeld Ore. The Ore which among other things contains Fluorine, REE's,Thorium, and Uranium and other radioactive minerals.
The only answer to the recovery question, was to say 80%. With no further detail, I can only assume I was being told that the recovery rates are the same for all the contents of the Ore. That just can't be the correct. Beside that,I have also been trying to find data that details what sort of recovery rates have been achieved in the company's supposed processing work. Unfortunately, as with all other information as to the GGG work, none seems to have been released So where do the claimed 80% recovery rates come from, there is nothing offered to prove them.
I have also tried to get information as to the process being used to process the Ore. I have the same questions. Unfortunately, the company has not released any documentation on any process they plan to use to process the Ore. Again, where did the information come from that is put forward on this blog, with No corroboration, as to the supposed 80% recovery rate. The Company has never released it to the ASX or to the public. Why should we believe it.
As to the time to success comparisons between Tanbreez and GGG there are some who suggest the companies are "in a similar condition'. i would suggest that statement is false and mis-leading.
Lets compare the two companies histories and current situations.
First lets look at the EIA processes for the two companies.
Tanbreez started the EIA process in 2012. They hired and used the same consultants as GGG used. They took just less than 2 years to submit and get approval for their EIA. They spent about 1 million dollars and received the approved EIA in 2014.
GGG started to work on their EIA in 2007, they submitted their first EIA attempt in 2008, it was rejected. The company between then and 2019 submitted 3 more EIA's for approval. All have been rejected, the most recent in 2019. In the 12 years the company has spent trying to get an EIA approval, they have spent 269,000,000 dollars which has bought the company only failure. The first step in the mining license process is the EIA. The company can not move forward from this first step in the ML process until they receive an approved EIA from the GOG.The company has also failed top disclose any of the communications from the GOG as to why the EIA's have been rejected, so none of us know what if anything is going on re the GOG's required fixes for the rejected EIA. These communications are material to the share price of GGG and ASX rules require there disclosure to the ASX and shareholders. the company continues to fail also to release these documents.
So comparing the 2 companies in summary:
GGG has spent 12 years and 269,000,000 dollars and has failed to get even the EIA approval after 4 failed submissions. it has not advanced in the Mining License Process at all. They are still at the very beginning.
Tanbreez spent 2 years (2012 to 2014), used the same consultants as GGG, spent 1 million dollars and received their approved EIA in 2014.
Since then Tanbreez has completed the Mining License process and received approval, the GOG announced recently the Tanbreez mining license will be granted either at the end of 2019, or in early 2020.
GGG and Tanbreez are not in similar positions.
GGG has received only failure in terms of the mining license process.
Tanbreez has only received successful submissions including the recent announcement that their ML will be issued within months.
GGG has spent 269,000,000 and failed.
Tanbreez has spent about 50,000,000 and succeeded in getting a mining license approved.
Again, I would challenge anyone on this site to find me a company, where the company, after spending over a quarter of a billion dollars and failed at everything they needed to do to be able to be able to exploit their assets, show me one, where the Management that caused those failures still kept their positions at the company.
I again suggest again, that GGG needs to fire current management and replace them with more qualified people. Mr Maier, the chairman, his board, and the company secretary have had 12 years to prove themselves, and they have. They have shown they are good at spending vast sums of money and buying only failure. We need to replace them with management who have shown that they know how to be successful. Mr. Maier has shown the company more than enough failure, we must change management.
Expand
