Cork Gully

Go down

Time to bombard CG?

Post by J99 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:50 pm

As posted on LSE BB :
"We must be approaching the stated 8 week admin timeline. So that they are aware of shareholder concerns in good time, perhaps the best course now would be for us to bombard CG individually with our misgivings, giving them time to weigh them up before making any final decision on ANGM's future.

It would offset the need for us to quickly set up a private communications system and would give CG plenty of evidence of individual investor concerns and suspicions. Hopefully, they are already awakening to the fact that perhaps everything was not as straightforward as it at first seemed in the run up to this demise.

I can handle the whole outfit permanently going down the pan with everyone getting their fingers burned in the process, thereafter filing ANGM in the drawer marked "Plucky (if a little incompetent) Losers" but to be wiped out and then have to stand by and watch them continue in another guise after all the apparent 'bad luck' would I'm sure prove too much for me to bear stoically.

I say we all get scribbling and send CG a full account of our misgivings. Note that they did mention it should be in writing, so probably best to do that as it may have more significance than an e-mail.

Thoughts anyone?" (edited for corrections and clarity)

J99

Posts : 9
Join date : 2013-03-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Arctic Mining Ltd

Post by 600 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:35 am

I was tempted to write back and say that we owned 100% of Arctic Mining so do will still own it but I know the reply will be the same as this one - they are only instructed regards Angel Mining. They continue to hide behind this and will for the foreseeable future unless we can find a way to force an answer. I don't know how we can do that or if we are too late. Anybody any ideas - 1) I'm out of my depth & 2) I don't have time to spare for the next 3 weeks - deadlines with work!

600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cork Gully

Post by goooba769 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:15 am

Seems we own 100% of arctic mining I hope they know more than they seem to suggest!!!! I'd love to know what the Nal mine is producing now if anything. Anyone had any news on this recently??

goooba769

Posts : 11
Join date : 2013-03-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Cork Gully

Post by 600 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:13 am

I received this reply to Friday's request. Typical, expected and not helpful at all!

Thank you for your email.

The website is currently down following a change in IT support arrangements and will be back online as soon as possible. A copy of the Joint Administrators’ proposals report will be posted on the website when available. The Joint Administrators are working towards delivery of the report as soon as reasonably practicable.

The Joint Administrators are not appointed over any of the Company’s subsidiaries and thus not in a position to comment on the affairs of Arctic Mining Limited.

Kind regards,

Tim

600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Bob Dowdell eh?

Post by Sorte_Engel on Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:14 am

That is convenient seeing the input and knowledge he has about BAM and the work he has done for Angel in the past.

Looks as if Bob has been a continuing part of this for some time. His persistence and dogged determination may now be about to pay off. Isn't it fortuitous the infrastructure at BAM has been paid for by Angel Mining? So helpful for our main objective. Thanks chaps.

Note well the sentence regarding commissioning the BAM cable car, This phrase has been part of his website for some time.

"The mine will commission the new cable car access in 2013 "

http://www.dowdell.co.uk/bob/cv

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/arctic-mining



Sorte_Engel

Sorte_Engel

Posts : 31
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Slothman 3000's find

Post by 600 on Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:01 am

I sent an e-mail to CG having read Slothman 3000's posts on LSE - great find, well done.

Dear Mr Grimstone,

Both the websites for Angel Mining and Artic Mining have been down for a while and so we have no means of knowing if any announcement has been made. I believe that some new Directors have been appointed. Are you able to confirm that the following appointments in relation to Arctic Mining Ltd have been made and that the Registered Office is now Suite 2 Meadow Drove Business Centre, Meadow Drove, Bourne, Lincolnshire, PE10 0BP?

Nick Hall (Director)
Robert Stewart Dowdell (Director)
Mr Nicholas Charles Dove (Director) w.e.f. 4 April 2013
Mr Kevin Peter Patrick Connery (Director) w.e.f. 4 April 2013
Mrs Joan Maria Plant w.e.f. (Company Secretary) 4 April 2013

Can you further advise if an announcement with regard to the Administrators proposals will be made earlier than the statutory 8 weeks?

Yours truly,



600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Hi all

Post by slothman3000 on Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:04 pm

It is me slothman3000 from LSE just wondering whether it would be possible to get a copy of that document Mimbrit I believe it is you who sent me the other one last time my email is , Infogathering11111(at)gmail.com. would be most gracious if you could send a copy.

slothman3000

Posts : 8
Join date : 2013-03-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

wewillsee - document

Post by mimbrit on Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:44 am

Not happy to publish this information as it could be misused.

Post a throwaway email address, or let Moneypenny have it (she has an email facility on here) so we can share.

mim

mimbrit

Posts : 17
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

between

Post by stuart143 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:30 pm

Confusion, Mimbrit and wewillsee there are certainly some good finds/investigative skills being shown good work guys keep it up

stuart143

Posts : 54
Join date : 2013-03-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Cost per Oz.

Post by wewillsee on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:28 pm




"If I showed you an internal document which detailed all areas/grades and production plans, you would understand it was/is largely hand to mouth and very variable"

Do you have such a document and are you able to post it for all to see?

If no consistency can be achieved, then no viable plan can be put together and the goldmine has neither ongoing income stream potential or much sale value.

If only Moneypenny would ask this question of NH who is presumably still running the goldmine (and to all intents and purposes, "BAM" is dormant at present).

The administration of Angel Mining PLC meanwhile allows the subsidiary breathing space, until the subsidiary runs out of money (or credit)...or the unthinkable happens, they actually make a profit.

Wewillsee


wewillsee

Posts : 4
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

wewillsee & mimbrit

Post by 600 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:50 am

You two guys are working overtime and I for one appreciate everything you are doing. Good solid work!

Many thanks.

600

600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

PS wewillsee - cost per ounce

Post by mimbrit on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:36 am

How long is a piece of string?

If I showed you an internal document which detailed all areas/grades and production plans, you would understand it was/is largely hand to mouth and very variable.

However, we were assured a long time ago of $700/oz which crept up to $800/oz but that would have also depended on how many working days were achieved per month which was infinitely variable....

mim

mimbrit

Posts : 17
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

wewillsee

Post by mimbrit on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:31 am

Thanks for that.

The pledge of assets is shown in Arctic Mining's accounts (only 2011 as 2012 inexplicably not filed yet, about which I have my suspicions).

Could I send you these?

mim

mimbrit

Posts : 17
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The consolidated accounts

Post by wewillsee on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:38 am



"Yet Arctic Mining appears to be the operating company for Nal...

I'm not good on Group accounts, but it reads strangely that the plc (not Arctic Mining) owns all plant and equipment, but the Company (Arctic) hold the investment in subsidiaries (not the plc)."

If it helps,

Group (the left hand columns) are the aggregated figures for all of the companies ...Angel Mining PLC AND the subsidiaries.
Company (the right hand 2012 and 2011 columns) are just Angel Mining PLC...not Arctic etc.

So, the 2012 property plant and equipment is $64802 in the group, but virtually nothing in Angel Mining PLC ie all capital cost incurred in the subsidiaries.
The investment in subsidiary is not shown in the group (as it nets to nil), but in the company, ie Angel Mining PLC, it is shown as $9670.

The Cyrus debt all seems to be in Angel Mining PLC, but most of the other money is owed by the subsidiaries; slightly odd, given the current position?

Cyrus have a fixed and floating charge over Arctic, but also some guarantee seems to be over all assets.

In any event, the subsidiaries are shown as owing $60703 to Angel Mining PLC (which borrowed the money and then lent it to the subsidiaries) and so there are multiple avenues through which the administrators can get to the value in the subsidiaries.

Thanks for digging up that post; the way in which the accounts were presented deprived shareholders of assessing for themselves if the gold mining was economic.

If I was able to ask NH one question that HAD to be answered correctly, it would be what is the production cost per oz. of NAL gold (segregated by area if an average is distorting).

Wewillsee

wewillsee

Posts : 4
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Holding Company and Group Structure

Post by mimbrit on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:27 pm

Good post, wewillsee.

Just on a point of order, I believe Angel Mining (Gold) A/S is a direct subsidiary of the the plc, but Black Angel Mining A/S is a subsidiary of Arctic Mining (registered in UK).

Yet Arctic Mining appears to be the operating company for Nal...

I'm not good on Group accounts, but it reads strangely that the plc (not Arctic Mining) owns all plant and equipment, but the Company (Arctic) hold the investment in subsidiaries (not the plc).

Here is Tera Firma's good earlier post, to bring it to the forefront

"Has anybody managed to get the accounts of Angel Mining (Gold) A/S ? as an aside, Arctic Mining Ltd's accounts are overdue from 30/11/2012, I see.
I think an interesting point to dig around is looking how the accounts of the Danish Public ltd company have been treated in comparison to ANGM PLC. I think that a key point for an action group to investigate is certain accounting treatments used by the BOD.....the operating costs, less revenue were capitalised as 'development costs'....this capitalisation was always strange.....was it legal ? Only for a provision of $10,805,000 for the impairment of the value of assets at Nalunaq Gold Mine, to be entered on last years accounts. This provision was entered by the BOD- why this amount and why at the time of the interims ? Is the provision in the Angel Mining (Gold) A/S accounts ? Was the value of the Nalunaq assett fairly reflected in last year's accounts ? Did they know in February 2012 that either the asset was overvalued, or that there would be another year of capitalisation ?
I am afraid that I think there is little hope for the PLC, without a legal challange to Cyrus taking over the subsidiaries.
It looks to me like a stitch-up.......Cyrus are the largest creditor, but have the charge against all assets. If the PLC can't pay the creditors then Cyrus loose their cash investment, but gain the Arctic Mining Ltd, Black Angel Mining A/S and Angel Mining Gold A/S........and the licences attached to them. This looks somewhat perfect timing for Cyrus- with the pillars at Nalunaq giving them a year of decent revenue."

mim

mimbrit

Posts : 17
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cork Gully

Post by tony727 on Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:03 pm

Cyrus want the mining licences ......... hence the Administration.. they got very spooked by the winding up order... The election in Greenland meant that there was not a Minster for mines ( the only person who can issue/ transfer these licences....... So they are stuck like the rest of us until a new government is formed and a Minister for mines appointed..........

tony727

Posts : 3
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Mimbrit - thank you

Post by 600 on Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:00 pm

Hi,

Thank you.

I would be amazed if the Bureau of Mines pulled the plug if we come out of administration. I really don't think Cryus can ever get their hands on the licences if we do fold, they will, I think be revoked. That said NH has a fair bit of clout I am concerned that if he went to/with Cyrus then we could lose the licences. That is not an option we should allow!

600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Wewillsee

Post by 600 on Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:50 pm

Hi,

An informative and therefore helpful post - sadly refreshing given the increasing volume of utter rubbish we are getting with people's frustration/anger. Many thanks.

600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Holding Company and Group Structure

Post by wewillsee on Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:06 am

The structure is key in anticipating what will happen next.

As I recollect, the PLC in which we invested held 100% of the shares in each of the 2 companies respectively dealing with the gold mine and BAM. The accounts produced were consolidated, so that the activity looked as if it was in "our" company, but in reality, we just hold the shares in the subsidiaries.

These shares are the main asset of the PLC and are likely to be sold on to realise value; the underlying subsidiaries continue as they are, but possibly under new ownership...so no-one should be suprised that the goldmine carries on as normal, throughout this period. As it is company ownership of subsidiaries that is transferred and not the licences, it is difficult to see that the licences will be revoked.

CG will have a duty to try and maximise the value raised from these 2 main assets, shares in the subsidiaries.

It is in our interests for the goldmine to continue, if profitable, as it could either bail the PLC out or the asset (shares in the company) be sold. Likewise BAM.

Obviously, as shareholders, we are last in the pecking order, for any distribution.

It may well be that the administration forestalls Cyrus with just walking off with 75% of BAM for minimal write-down of their debt, as per that RNS. Any action group should major on getting fair value for asset disposal...which the Administrators are obliged to do as Officers of the Court (but being watched always increases diligence).

It is esoteric, but I do wonder if the wrong-doing of the board, including the Cyrus individual, might be used in some form of estopppel to prevent Cyrus from benefitting from their wrong-doing. That would be a non-starter if the gold mine is closed, since the identifyable benefit, built at the expense of new equity holders, would need to be a complete, working and profitable mine.

If I am honest, I am not very hopeful on this, which is why I was casting around for professionals, with deep pockets/professional indemnity to sue.

Short of time, so this is a bit generalised.

The advantage of separate threads is that technical information can be grouped...so a thread for shareholdings, one for anything from CG; Terra Firma, did a great post on the misleading accounts, but it has been buried in the general thread.

Wewillsee


wewillsee

Posts : 4
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Licences

Post by mimbrit on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:40 am

I was referring to our two exploitation licences which are held by our two Greenlandic companies and therefore seemingly not at risk because the administration as it encompasses the plc only (although I don't fully understand how subsidiaries are excluded).

The other two are exploration licences which can be held by foreign companies and may be at risk by dint of the administration.

I don't think the Bureau of Mines would pull the plug if we came satisfactorily out of administration, but I am concerned that the plc could be folded and Cyrus walks off into the sunset with the subsidiaries. That doesn't look correct form to me.

mim

mimbrit

Posts : 17
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Licences

Post by 600 on Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:40 am

Mim,

Thanks for your link on LSE. I had seen the details before but hadn't really paid attention and then lost the link.

We actually have the four licences detailed below:

Licence: No. 2007/06 at Ukkusissat Appaat in West Greenland (Licence period: 2012 - 2016.)
Licence: No. 2010/45 at Qaumarujuup Eqqaa in North West Greenland (Licence period: 2010 - 2014.)
Licence: No. 2003/05 at Napasorsuaq in South West Greenland (Licence period: 2003 - 2033. Expires 24 April 2033.)
Licence: No. 2008/29 at Maarmorilik in West Greenland (Licence period: 2008 - 2037. Expires 21 May 2037.)

I was hoping to draw a bit more information out of Cork Gully but the attempt failed. Odd how they do not treat shareholders interests equally and gave a much better response to J99 but I accept he phrased his questions well - mine were a bit too invasive.

Cheers.

600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Cork Gully J99/600

Post by mimbrit on Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:37 am

600,

Details of exploitation licence holders is here - see page 13

(not allowed to post link here as a newbie, but will put on LSE)

In principle the licencees have to be companies registered in Greenland.

I am more concerned that Cork Gully said that the company is still not covering its costs (NH told me £1.3m/month). It is impossible to decipher what ANGM has actually produced in the last few months because of the obfuscating way in which (minimal) information has been provided. However, the announcement of the pour on 27th Jan stated that, if the recent rate of production were maintained, it would be considered 'commercial'. As no commercial declaration was made subsequently and with ANGM's track record, it would be fairly safe today there were further production problems, or issues with approval of pillar mining procedures.

It's quite clear to me from company documents that, whilst promising an immediate attack on the pillars as far back as August, the company did not have the necessary approvals from the Bureau of Mines.

mim

mimbrit

Posts : 17
Join date : 2013-03-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cork Gully

Post by 600 on Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:49 am

This was the response I received:

Thank you for your email.

The Joint Administrators are not in a position at this stage to enter into correspondence with individual shareholders and creditors. An initial report to creditors incorporating proposals for the achievement of the statutory purpose of the Administration will be released in due course. In the meantime, you may wish to refer to the filed historic financial statements for further clarity on the group structure and operating arrangements.

600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Cork Gully

Post by 600 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:16 am

Following on from J99's email today and the response he got I sent the following enquiry to Cork Gully this evening as I had had a response last week (not very informative but posted on LSE:-

Dear Mr Grimstone,

Re.: Angel Mining Plc (In Administration)

Thank you for your response last week. I have a few questions that I would appreciate your response to:

1. Last week you said, inter alia, "Please note, this does not extend to the mining operations carried out by the Company’s subsidiaries, being Arctic Mining Limited, Angel Mining (Gold) A/S and Black Angel Mining A/S, which are unaffected by the Joint Administrators’ appointment and continue to trade under the control of their directors." If the Administrators have no control over the subsidiaries of Angel Mining Plc but they continue to operate, your previous comment appears to be at loggerheads with this. If this is not so perhaps the following will shed some light on this.
2. What is the significance of having Black Angel Mining and Arctic Mining (Gold) registered in Greenland and being under Greenlandic law?
3. Are the licences registered to these subsidiaries and if so is it purely to ensure that they are protected by Greenlandic law?
4. If that is the case does the Greenlandic Government have more control than Cyrus?

I will try to avoid asking you more questions but as I am sure you can appreciate, I am concerned as a shareholder.

Yours truly,

XXX XXXX

600

Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cork Gully

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum