Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
One of us will be vindicated Checkmate
Either your character or mine will be exposed as time goes on checkmate. If what I have stated is not true surely you or the company could easily disprove it, but you don’t. You just demonise any fact based opinion that doesn’t align with yours or the company’s official position. As a reminder, the very first Miningwatch article was released on the 12th Sept 2017 and it reported on events that occurred in July 2017. That was prior to the release of the first drill results in fact it was a couple of days after DNI announced a financing agreement. CGM had only been drilling for two and a half months at that point in time and you are suggesting CGM initiated that article? That’s nonsensical. In respect to ‘hurting’ DNI, that is not my intention. Don’t forget, DNI terminated the agreement with CGM and it was that decision that has greatly hurt both companies. In respect to the actions of Randal, I do believe he acted in the best interests of his Shareholders. If unhindered, one drilling rig and one driller were sufficient to complete the job in the given time. Therein lays the issue. They were hindered in their operations, and DNI accepted that to a point by allowing the initial extensions. A CEO can monitor progress remotely and doesn’t need to be onsite to oversee proceedings. Randal has stuck his neck out on Stockhouse to present CGM’s side of the story and when you do that someone is bound to want to chop your head off and that’s exactly what happened every time he posted. That’s fair and to be expected. What’s not fair is precisely what you said I’m doing by “only telling one side of the story”. I’d say it’s your character on the line rather than mine. You’ve changed your stance on the permit from being issued to “it’s in transformation”. You denied, dismissed and even laughed at any suggestion of local disputes yet in total contradiction you now admit you knew of the Court of Appeal process that’s occurring between DNI and the Land holders. I’m very comfortable for this to go to Arbitration. It’s clear to me that CGM has the upper hand with all the necessary supportive evidence. My preference though would be an early settlement as that would allow both companies to move forward. I’ll watch for now for updates on the;
• 2,320 metric ton graphite delivery to the USA that was due in Dec 2017.
• (“EIE” & “CSR”) Environmental impact and social responsibility studies and obligations.
• Commissioning of DNI’s processing plant
• Results from the 28 ton bulk sample delivered to India in January 2018.
It may not be important to you.
But I’m not so sure all DNI investors would feel the same way about non-disclosure. I think the verdict you are referring to would be from the December 2017 Court hearing. The outcome of that hearing in the Court of First Instances was not fully in DNI’s favour and confirmed dysfunction and abuses by DNI toward the Landowners. The case was then referred to the Court of Appeals with the hearing scheduled for the end of February 2018. I could be wrong on this point, but as far as I’m aware that decision is yet to be handed down. I fully agree with you on one point though Checkmate. The company is not required to disclose information relating to local issues that may currently be under negotiation, but this is now well past the negotiation stage. DNI, as part of the CSE listing rules, is required to advise their shareholders of any current legal proceedings which it clearly has failed to do in their answer to question 12 in the last three CSE Monthly Form 7s.
In reference to your comment “Now as always, there might be someone not happy, an opportunist looking for something not deserved, but I believe in this case, the people who are complaining are not the locals who own the land, but rather persons outside the immediate area. Can you confirm different?”
Yes I can. As you would be very aware, Madagascar is rife with corruption at all levels of administration/authority. Taking that into account, the Landowner’s Legal Team put certain high level officials on notice prior to the Court hearing. This letter was sent to the Gendarmerie Nationale Secretary of State, Toamasina Group Commander and Brickaville Company Commander prior to initiating the court action. A similar document was sent to the BCCM. It’s from the miningwatch website but it’s not a miningwatch article. It not only portrays a very different story to yours regarding the locals but it also confirms the Court’s position on the current status of the permit, documenting it as a PRE in the name of Mamy Randrianasolo.
https://miningwatch.ca/sites/default/files/press_release_sif_dni_metals.pdf
The rest of your post relates to matters that will be dealt with in the Arbitration Hearing. They have been thrashed about ad infinitum on forums so there is no point going around in circles with that debate anymore. CGM has maintained the same position from the onset but DNI seems to be telling an evolving story. The Arbitrators will take all of these factors into account when they make their final ruling.
I noticed on stockhouse that floridas2000 wants news. I’m sure investors would value updates on the current status of the following;
• 2,320 metric ton graphite delivery to the USA that was due in Dec 2017.
• DNI’s processing plant proposed to be constructed by Jan 2018
• Results from the 28 ton bulk sample delivered to India in January 2018.
Yes checkmate
I’m referring to the court actions between the Landowners and DNI, however, it’s not quite as simple as you make it sound and it’s not over yet. The case has been ongoing since Dec and is now, I believe, in the Court of Appeals. I would have thought DNI would be required to disclose that information to shareholders in their last three Form 7’s.
I’ll answer your other questions in order;
No
Not with the current uncertainties
Yes
No, just my investment.
The question was related to non-disclosure
No checkmate, that’s not the news. What I’m talking about isn’t new but it’s certainly current. It’s more official in nature than those types of news articles and press releases. If you don’t know what I’m referring to, DNI’s Country Manager in Madagascar should be able to bring you up to speed. When you said “The company position is that there are no disgruntled landowners on the properties that DNI is working on”. Can you qualify that by advising how many properties DNI currently is working on? As I stated earlier, the questions relates to Company non-disclosure.
Yes there is apouse.
It's the issuing of permits that's suspended not specifically the EIS.
It's not the most pressing current issue for DNI though. Here's the link,. It will be in French so the translation is below.
http://www.midi-madagasikara.mg/economie/2018/03/07/bcmm-la-delivrance-de-permis-encore-suspendue/
BCMM: Licensing still suspended The Director General of the Mining Cadastre Office of Madagascar (BCMM), David Ratsimbazafy, raised the issue that the issuance of mining permits is still suspended. " We do not receive any new requests so far. And speaking of the situation in the mining sector, only 10% of license holders apply for a license to operate, "he said. And he goes on to say that any mining operator who wants to be a professional has the obligation to keep a formal operating plan indicating the evaluation of its production in the coming years, the creation of jobs, the materials and equipment used. as well as his investment decision. " This will make it possible to evaluate the receipts that will be collected by the State as well as the profits that the mining operator could draw from them. The evaluation of the contribution of the operator's mining activities to local socio-economic development is not left out. The goal is to clean up the sector in partnership with the mining administration to avoid the speculation of mining permits , "concluded the BCMM Executive Director.
It's not the EIS apouse
The EIS is loosely related but it's not the EIS. The information in respect to what I'm asking checkmate about in Madagascar is readily available on the internet. I'd prefer him to inform the forum of anything he may be aware of that hasn't been announced by the company.
Has anything changed checkmate?
Traderfan mentioned a miningwatch article on this thread nearly six months ago in Oct last year. The article was dismissed, even laugh at, by checkmate at that time with these comments;
“Trader what bad news? If your talking about the article still, thats a non issue. Im laughing that one off since I know the writer is clueless through personal conversation with him. I dont think thats having an influence on nearly anyone”. “Also dont think the company is worried either.Sept 12 and Sept 27 Bogus Mining watch smear piece put out. Fact DNI has the correct permits! The rest was bogus as well”.
And this comment about DNI's response;
“I dont think DNI would put this out unless they were thoroughly sure. Miningwatch and Beaverhead can try as they may posting drivalous words”
Do you still stand behind those comments checkmate or is there something currently happening in Madagascar that investors should have been informed about?
Is rrten checkmate?
If not, who rattled your bucket rrten? The question was addressed to checkmate. I've stated before, and once should be enough, I'm not Randal and he has stated he's not me. You can believe what you want rrten. Maybe you'd like to answer my question on behalf of checkmate then rrten or are you being kept in the dark too.
Question for checkmate
Hi checkmate. You have a very good understanding of DNI’s operations in general and keep up to date with what’s happening on the ground in Madagascar. Bearing that in mind, did you notice anything missing from DNI’s Dec 17, Jan 18 and Feb 18 Form 7 in the answer to question 12? Is there anything happening in Madagascar that wasn’t mentioned in DNI’s response that should have been?
Who’s correct?
rrtenn says, DNI have the permits and can mine now
Checkmate says, DNI have the permit but need further approvals to mine
Floridas says, DNI’s permit is in a ‘transfer process’ awaiting final approvals
The Official position of DNI in relation to the Permits and Licenses is this;
"The operations of the Company require licenses and permits from various governmental authorities. The Company will use its best efforts to obtain all necessary licenses and permits to carry on the activities which it intends to conduct, and it intends to comply in all material respects with the terms of such licenses and permits. However, there can be no guarantee that the Company will be able to obtain and maintain, at all times, all necessary licenses and permits required to undertake its proposed exploration and development, or to place its property into commercial production and to operate mining facilities thereon".
Checkmate’s and Florida’s comments fit within the Company’s statement albeit with a different interpretation on what having a permit actually means. It’s always the official company position that matters and I would fully agree with DNI’s stated position.
Risk Factors on pages 8 to 11
https://webfiles.thecse.com/DNI_-_Q3_MDA_period_ending_Dec._312017_Final.pdf?jjDtp46Q306kDt83rr4AMnPGKLdgrkKi=
Thanks for the reply Checkmate
I agree with you checkmate, an early settlement is the wisest option for both companies. Dragging this out for another six months would be to the detriment of shareholders. Both Companies share prices are slowly being eroded. In respect to investor sentiment, we’ll need to watch the trading this week to see what the investor sentiment currently is. Arguing the point as to if Friday was one investor or four brokers, there is no need. The trades are all noted on the CSE.
In answer to your comment “You have to wonder, where would DNI be if they had a different drilling partner?” I’d say this. Providing the other partner had completed the drilling etc on time …. DNI would be exactly where they are now minus the arbitration and the sp would probably be at least twice the price it currently is. I do wonder what the urgency was to cancel CGM’s agreement in the first place though. Dan must have had compelling reasons to do so, knowing the negative effect it may have on shareholder wealth. One possibility is that he may have expected CGM to just go away and not fight as they have chosen to do.
What's now best for all shareholders?
While ‘the voice of DNI’ is busy playing “who’s who” on the forums he’s lost sight of what DNI’s investors are doing. They are voting with their feet and selling out, some having to take a financial hit in doing so. DNI sold down 1.5c today on quite large volumes. It’s now trading below the recent Ascenta issue price. That is the indicator of DNI shareholder’s sentiment. Your not so savvy assumptions about certain poster’s identities, in spite of their denials, are an irrelevant distraction to what really is important to DNI shareholders. Statements you have made such as “DNI can mine anytime they want in Madagascar” will not change investor sentiment. They know that’s not true.
One comment to BryanC. You are correct in saying the Marofody project has a PE but as checkmate previously stated it does not have an approved EIS. Until that happens, Marofody cannot be mined either.
Back to the shareholders. What will turn their sentiment around is some hope that they will not have to endure further losses to their company’s wealth over the next six months. As I stated earlier, an early settlement is the only way that that will happen. Both companies need to come to the negotiation table and sort out an amicable solution now, not in six months’ time.
What's now best for shareholders
Irrespective of what type of permit DNI currently has, the one thing acknowledged by all posters is that DNI do not currently have the necessary permits to start mining. If CGM were given the extension they requested late last year, and completed the drilling, the project would still have the same status it has now, minus the looming Arbitration. However, DNI would then have a JV partner on a project that can’t be mined. While DNI waits for the necessary approvals, maybe the two parties could negotiate, outside of the Arbitration process, and reach an agreement, amicable for both companies. It seems to me like a sensible way forward. It would be a cheaper and quicker process that could be finalised within a few weeks.
I'm doing the same thing you do on Hot Copper
I'm voicing my opinion. One major difference though, your posts are repetitive abusive rubbish and my posts are a civil opposing opinion. rrten, one of us will be proven incorrect in the arbitration process. The big question is 'which one?'
Where have I said I was a DNI shareholder?
What gave you that idea in the first place?
Something must have put that idea into your head.
Understanding the English language.
Granted, English can be a difficult language for some people to comprehend rrten. You appear to be one of those people. To allow you to understand what some of English's bigger words mean I've provided you with the definition of the word 'if'. Hope that clears up your misunderstanding of what I stated.
My comment " IF " CGM were made aware of the permit status and it wasn't misrepresented to them at the time of the agreement being undertaken then you are absolutely correct Bryan
The meaning of the word "if"
1.in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that:
'Dictionary.com' has other big words in it too like "ignorant, stupid, thick and rectum". You may find it helpful in the future to look up words you don't understand.
ps re your StockHouse post. I think you'll find a "dung heap and a cow manure pile" is the same thing. You could check that in a thing called a 'Thesaurus' and no, that's not the name of a dinosaur, it's a book.
You are correct BryanC
If CGM were made aware of the permit status and it wasn't misrepresented to them at the time of the agreement being undertaken then you are absolutely correct Bryan, DNI will have no case to answer. I suppose that's what will be sorted out in the Arbitration process.
It's all the interpretation
The differing stances on the permit are simply a matter of interpretation. We can continue to debate that interpretation but there is no more I can add so it's probably time move on to a more pressing issue for both companies shareholders. I will make one more comment on the matter first though and once again it's all in the interpretation. Referring to your post I see a contradiction that you obviously don't. You said "Companies that have the full PE Licence can Explore, Mine and sell product." Absolutely true and agreed. You then quote "The obtaining of a full PE marks a significant milestone for DNI in Madagascar" but then go on to say there are still conditions to be met .... that, to me, doesn't equate to DNI having a PE over the property rather a PE in transformation and I've always claimed that to be the case. The more important issue is the current destruction of Shareholder wealth from both companies. Legal issues cause uncertainty with investors and that's what we are seeing with the erosion of both companies share prices. How can that be turned around? Certainly not by letting this drag out for another six months. What would install confidence back to the shareholders would be a quick resolution through negotiation. I doubt the companies could ever work together again so the only way forward IMO is to agree on a settlement. What that would look like I don't know, but at least both companies could move on from there to the benefit of their shareholders. I think that you would agree the sooner this can be resolved the better. Your thoughts on that would be appreciated.
One more quick point I'd like to clarify. I'm not Randal, never have been and never will be. I wouldn't know Randal if I fell over him on the street. I think it's important to make that point very clear. I'll look forward to any input you may have in regards to getting things sorted sooner rather than later.
Clever wording or just the truth.
Re your comment; My thought? you and your gang probably made a tos report against my posts since they showed your errors
That's possible but I'm not with any 'gang' and I didn't have your post removed. If I did wouldn't it show as a moderated post? and you have none. I'd prefer your post were still there for all to see. Bit of a mystery there but sorry, I cant help you on that one.
I've presented the facts as I have found them regarding the Permit. You see it differently and that's OK, maybe it's all in the interpretation of evidence. How do you interpret the table on this DNI news release? In particular the environmental requirement for a PE?
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/dni-metals-receives-full-mining-permits-for-its-graphite-project-in-madagascar-518104031.html
As I said previously all my comments have been backed up by references to other articles. Information given to me in confidence will remain that way. I won't disclose that information to you or anyone else. That applies to two things. The recent BCMM correspondence and the details given to me by Jamie at Mining watch. I would be unethical for me disclose that information which is a pity as the BCMM correspondence would confirm the Permit status is a PRE. No need to argue the point with you though. Time will show where the truth lies. Have you been in touch with Steven Goertz recently to see how the landowners dispute is progressing? He's DNI's man on the ground in Madagascar. He's the man who made promises to the landowners in June last year. He is responsible for DNI's day to day operations on the big island he'd be able to give you an update. While all the focus has been on the permit it is only a technical part of CGM's claim. The claim is more in relation to DNI seemingly working against their JV partner which hindered their ability to complete the drilling. The permit status is purely the motive for DNI's hindering actions. That will be made very clear in the arbitration. That's is the legal action your are suggesting CGM take. The DNI directors will be defending the civil action being taken against them by CGM soon. It will be very interesting to see the outcome of that adjudication. I'll make a deal with you. Ask Dan to make a public announcement saying DNI has a PE38642 over Vohitsara. His Fully permitted comment isn't good enough and by his own admission is not true anyhow as he states he is still waiting on licenses. Do that and you will receive no more comment from me. If you keep trying to discredit me I will respond in my defense.
Checkmate retracts his comments??
Can we take your removal of three of your recent posts here as a retraction of the comments you made? Probably not a bad idea to have done so. Time will be the test of your credibility. I'll give you a quick example of what I mean. In Dec you posted this in relation to the Mining Watch article. "Trader what bad news? If your talking about the article still, thats a non issue. Im laughing that one off since I know the writer is clueless through personal conversation with him. I dont think thats having an influence on nearly anyone. Also dont think the company is worried either.
That claim from the "clueless" writer that you are laughing at was indeed accurate and substantiated by clear evidence. I have also spoken with Jamie from Mining Watch and he did mention his conversation with you and provided with the name the person he spoke with. That will be our secret though ... quite damaging for DNI if that was to get out. Everyone who posts must be accountable for every claim they make. I hold myself accountable for every claim I have made and have backed up my claims with clear references. Do you hold yourself accountable for every claim you have made? If you do then it may be best for you to remove other posts you have put up that were in hindsight clearly inaccurate and deceptive.
DNI’s Permit over Vohitsara is currently PRE 38642-2
You are in big time damage control Checkmate. You can shoot my comments down and dispute them. You can bring other posters to task with passive ‘bullying’ tactics but you can’t deny the facts. I’m not going to enter into a slanging match with you but I will address some of the accusations you have made against me. It’s a lengthy post but you asked the questions.
Firstly the permit. It is currently a PRE not a PE and very recent documentation from BCMM shows the transfer and transformation process to a PE status is ongoing. That doesn’t make it a PE it makes it a PRE in transformation.
Quote; “If you make a statement I trust you can back that up. You said Dan verbally acknowledged the project doesn't have a PE. Thats news to me. Can you elaborate here for all your friends. More I here you talk the worse things look for you. Please bail yourself out!”
Yes I can elaborate. At 12min 55sec on this Ascenta Cocktail Party video from Jan 22nd 2018 Dan states “In the coming weeks we will have all our permits in place”. Still waiting on that one from six weeks ago.
Correct. The Permits will matter to DNI shareholders
Why? No Permit = No mining = further erosion of Shareholder’s investment $’s.
But you are not correct to say “it does not matter CGM”. The existence of the permit forms part of CGM’s claim against DNI. Dan has changed tact along the way too. In the Jan Form 7 he stated;
As per an option agreement with Cougar Metals, they were to complete 3,000 m of drilling and complete a resource report. This was not completed. As per Press Release, dated Dec. 08, 2017, DNI has terminated the option agreement
A month later in the Feb Form 7 he stated;
As reported in DNI’s press release of December 8, 2017, DNI has terminated the Option Agreement with Cougar as a result of Cougar’s failure to pay certain payments under Option Agreement ….
Maybe he knew the termination reason given in January would bring events to light that wouldn’t be favourable to DNI. The litmus test could well be the result of the current civil action being taken against the DNI Directors. A ruling against them there will certainly add weight to CGM’s arbitration claims.
There are good reasons why the drilling wasn’t completed. It wasn’t due to CGM’s incompetence but other external factors and that’s what will be presented to the Arbitrator.
Dan also stated; The defaults of Cougar which were not remedied are not subject to arbitration under the Option Agreement ….
Dan got that one wrong.
The JV agreement was based on the fact that the Project had a PE permit. It clearly doesn’t as acknowledged by Dan verbally but not as yet officially. So the permit status does matter to CGM and DNI and it will matter a lot to the Arbitrator too. The best outcome for both companies would be for Dan to come to the negotiating table and formalise an early settlement with CGM. If Dan allows the arbitration to go full term (another six months) he will run the risk of seeing the value of his Company’s shareholder’s investments being slowly eroded. In the last six weeks the sp has gone from a high of 14.5c to a low of 7c. I could only imagine where the sp will be in six months’ time if Dan elects to allow the arbitration to run full course.
The case is not closed, it’s very much open.
Investorhub, the pleasing civil forum
Unlike stockhouse, Investorhub has not been reduced to a slanging field. I hope it remains that way. When investors go on a rant they not only infect the debate but they can also expose their stupidity. One recent example is the latest post from rktenn aka rtenn. He was so focussed on abusing another poster he said this "DOES IT MATTER WHAT PERMITS DNI HAS ON THEIR PROPERTIES?" Well yes rtenn it does matter, it matters a lot to DNI investors. It matters to the ivestors who participated in the last capital raise through Ascenta on the basis DNI's Vohitsara Project had a PE permit. It matters to all investors who bought DNI shares with the understanding the project was PE permitted. It matters when it comes to the upcoming arbitration.
So "DOES IT MATTER WHAT PERMITS DNI HAS ON THEIR PROPERTIES?", yes, yes and yes, it does matter rktenn, it matters a lot.
I've been in situations previously where two companies have entered the arbitration process. I've found it best to not take each company's statements on face value but to do my own research on statements that have been made. Dan has been very quiet on the DNI side of things with the only public comment he has made on the situation being in the CSE Form 7. CGM has made several claims so it's those claims That I've looked in to. There are three claims that can be supported by documents I have received. Firstly, CGM driller was jailed for the period CGM claimed he was .... documented by the local police Secondly, the Permit status. I am in receipt of a document sent to me from BCMM just over a moth ago which clearly states the Permit is a PRE but in the process of being converted .... a lengthy process particular with no new licenses currently being issued by BCMM. Thirdly the disputes with locals, denied by DNI at the time are documented. This document signed by Seven Goertz is a record of a meeting between DNI and the locals. It's on the internet in French but this is the English translation,
Minutes 10/07/2017
Meeting at La City Antananarivo
Purpose: Meeting about the graphite project in Ambatolampy Vohitsara
Participants:- DNI METALS Company - some Ambatolampy representatives
Resolutions:
1. DNI will better explain the Master plan during the meeting that is going to be hold on Friday
2. The liaison officers and the villagers victims of damages are going to evaluate the damages on Sunday
3. The compensations will be paid starting from Tuesday
4. DNI has to talk with the landowners before working on the field
5. DNI will start rehabilitating the damaged lands
Signature of each participant
Info I have from Madagascar suggests nothing was resolved at that time a the matter is currently being heard in the local court.
My research has shown Cougars claims to be true. It is difficult to look into the DNI statements as they haven't given their shareholders any information on their position. My money is with CGM on this one unless Dan can provide substantive evidence to the contrary.
The Vohitsara license is currently a PRE. That cleverly worded news release relates to the PRE being submitted to the BCMM for conversion to a PE. That's NOT a PE that's an application only. The PE is fully reliant on the EIE and CSR and with the reported disputes DNI has had with the locals, that will be the biggest hurdle facing them. Although DNI does not have a PE licence over its Vohitsara graphite Project it's a different story with Marofody. It has a PE8904 licence. From the news release you quoted :
it allows DNI to move to commercial production at its option, subject to completion / fulfillment of the requisite environmental impact and social responsibility ("EIE" & "CSR") studies and obligations.
The latest news out of the BCMM is that the issuance of mining permits is still suspended. That's not going to work well in DNI's favor either. IMO, the arbitration will be well over before DNI see a PE for Vohitsara.
Thanks Bob but I'm from North York Ontario. I'm a 64 year old Male. I am an easy going good natured person, who has a good sense of humour. I enjoy all types of music especially music you can dance to. I like running outside, and try to stay fit. I enjoy going out to dinner, movies, and spending time with good friends. What part of Mars are you from?
There is a BIG problem. DNI is waiting for approvals before it will receive it's PE licence and the environmental permit is one of them. The big issue facing DNI now, apart from the arbitration which will probably put a halt to any further development of the project until it is settled, is that BCMM is not issuing mining licenses A quote from the press in Madagascar today "The Director General of the Mining Cadastre Office of Madagascar (BCMM), David Ratsimbazafy, raised the issue that the issuance of mining permits is still suspended. It could be a long wait yet gemstar66
I don't think we will see that until August or Sept. It was submitted in Dec and can take up to 9 months. Dan is saying that's about the time the arbitration should be over too so the two things might go together nicely. It's a 6 month waiting game till then.