RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Q3 Financials out on SEDARmdjbrown wrote: No worries pp, and thank you very much for taking the time to respond to this head scratcher.
The most confusing part of this unexpected decommissioning liability increase is 8 months earlier the company reported that "Karnalyte largely decommissioned the test cavern site in accordance with the operating permit from the Government of Saskatchewan."
From an accounting perspective could the Rights Offering reported in the same quarter as the increased decommissiong liabilities for very similiar amounts be related on the books, and now something needs to be settled under that same decommissiong liability flag?
Something is just not making sense
There is nothing related to the rights offering that could trigger a decommissioning liability. The only two possible scenarios that I can see are that
1. Both items are similar in amount by mere coincidence, and KRN reviewed and updated the support for the provision in the same period by mere happenstance (entirely plausible, HOWEVER there would be no cash outflow for decades by the very nature of what a decommissioning provision is).
or
2. GSFC goons are trying to recoup the cost of the offering and ordered to hide a liability to themselves on the books. Normally I would think that's tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff, but unfortunately, in this case it'd be consistent with GSFC's "character" as depicted by the CSG affidavits. It is also consistent with the apparent fact that the provision needs to be funded soon - which is the real alarm bell here as that is just not how decommissioning provisions work. Though as I mentioned before, it could simply be some kind of misunderstanding from the language in the MD&A (I hope so).