NTL - New Talisman Mine - New board & Directors

[Antipodean]

Emailed the district council the other week asking what the delay in processing the TMP, wasn't really expecting anything but received a response today:

"Hello, your query has been passed to me for a reply. Council is awaiting information, from New Talisman Gold Mines LTD, which is required to allow this matter to be progressed."

Not sure how to take that, is the council being picky and making more requests to NTL, or are NTL taking their time with the application?

With the lack of detail provided by council, no way to be sure if NTL or the council is behind the overall delay. To be fair, the council probably don’t have to disclose anything further and if they did it could be material to the outcome.

They may be waiting on information from NTL – but could be a hypothetical case of
1. Standard request for A, B and C from council for TMP
2. A, B and C provided by NTL
3. Subsequent request for D from council
4. D provided by NTL
5. Subsequent request for E from council
6. E provided by NTL
etc.

Which means the council statement could be correct after step 1. (which would be NTL delay). Equally possible is they are at step .3., 5. etc. which wouldn’t really be NTL’s fault, but still technically correct that they are “awaiting formation, from New Talisman Gold Mines LTD…”

Alternatively, we don’t have much more information from NTL themselves in the last quarter announcement. So we are almost equally in the dark here. Though the wording in the last quarter around “a continuous review process” would seem to me to infer that we are currently in one of the hypothetical step 3. or .5 scenarios above.

All speculation, can’t wait to put this (accepted) TMP behind us.

[Stumpynuts]

They may be waiting on information from NTL – but could be a hypothetical case of
1. Standard request for A, B and C from council for TMP
2. A, B and C provided by NTL
3. Subsequent request for D from council
4. D provided by NTL
5. Subsequent request for E from council
6. E provided by NTL
etc.

^ This - It sounds remarkably similar what I posted up the other week

'Council inspector comes to your site to view progress, note down what you need to do, you pay to get necessary works done, resubmit to council, new council inspector comes to your site and finds a flaw with your earlier progress that previous inspector had no qualms with, you pay to get additional things sorted, lather, rinse, repeat. '

[Yoda]

Good one Bucko , well done

Emailed the district council the other week asking what the delay in processing the TMP, wasn't really expecting anything but received a response today:

"Hello, your query has been passed to me for a reply. Council is awaiting information, from New Talisman Gold Mines LTD, which is required to allow this matter to be progressed."

Not sure how to take that, is the council being picky and making more requests to NTL, or are NTL taking their time with the application?

[gmatt]

New Talisman Gold Mines focused on New Zealand gold mine in 2017

The immediate focus remains on the final road design.


Full article here

[gmatt]

1 cent by Dec 2017, provided an actual TMP gets formalised and announced.
I'd actually be happy with that.


With regards to TMP, I wonder if the continuous review of roadway design implies the need for a separate roadway each for the entry and exit of mine?

This coming back to my post yesterday about the potential for bottlenecking?
Having one way in and also one way out of the mine would be safer should unexpected events occur?

Well, another month gone and still no TMP ....... must be close.

I'm picking 1 cent on that announcement

[Antipodean]

Well, another month gone and still no TMP ....... must be close.

I'm picking 1 cent on that announcement

I sincerely hope this announcement (or at least an update with some details) is out before 13/04/2017. This would be the dubious anniversary of the "Traffic Management Plan Approved" announcement.

[bucko]

I find their lack of communication disturbing *Best Darth Vader impression*

[gmatt]

I find their lack of communication disturbing *Best Darth Vader impression*

This from the December Quarterly Report .....

"Having received approval in principle for the company’s proposals for managing traffic safety on the mine road, and having completed the preliminary roadway design, the focus remains on agreeing the final road design parameters with local council."

We're now a couple months on so surely it is close.

[Stock Rooster]

Why can't Mr HILL tell shareholders (owners of the company) the specifics of why the TMP has been held up?

Is it because the changes demanded by the council are going to eat up so much of the CR cash that he has to continue to negotiate rather than keep shareholders fully informed?

Tell shareholders what the council position is and what NTL position is... Simple

[Stock Rooster]

NZX Guidance Note on Continuous Disclosure from December 2014 states:

3.1 The material information test
The most important consideration in relation to continuous disclosure compliance is whether information is “material”, and is therefore required to be disclosed immediately.
“Material information” means information in relation to an issuer that:

• a reasonable person would expect, if it were generally available to the market, to have a
  material effect on the price of the issuer’s quoted securities (A price movement of 10% or more in a quoted security will generally be treated by NZXR as evidence that information has had a material effect on the price of those quoted securities)

I believe the 12 month delay for the TMP and reasons for it constitute material information as if there are major issues the price would move more than 10%... Next step is there an exception

7 Exceptions to the Rules
There are a number of exceptions to the continuous disclosure rules, which are known as the “safe harbour” provisions. The “safe harbour” provisions permit material information to be withheld from immediate disclosure if certain criteria are met. Material information will not need to be released under rule 10.1.1 when:

1. (i) a reasonable person would not expect the information to be disclosed; and
2. (ii) the information is confidential and its confidentiality is maintained; and
3. (iii) one or more of the following applies:
   
   1. (A) the release of information would be a breach of law; or
   2. (B) the information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation; or
   3. (C) the information comprises matters of supposition or is insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure or;
   4. (D) the information is generated for the internal management purposes of the Issuer; or
   5. (E) the information is a trade secret.

I believe NTL fails on point 1 as the delay is now of sufficient length that a reasonable person now expects disclosure as shown by recent posts.

On point 2 is the TMP with the Hauraki Council confidential and has it been maintained. NZ Resource consent applications are by default not confidential. Applicants can apply for all or some of the application to be made confidential so this need further investigation.

Point 3 is irrelevant until point 2 determined.

Conclusion

I believe NTL should release an update on the TMP as the information is "material" and NTL is not exempted as a reasonable person would expect the information to be disclosed due to the 12 month time delay.

Thoughts??