RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:MACUSANI CLAIMS LOSTThe PR was good as a starting point but at this moment I'd have though we would have a more detailed explanation. I guess we'll have to wait until Monday.
In fact, I find this PR somewhat contradictory. They say "the Company regularly confirms concessions are in good standing via the regulatory body’s online database" but at the same time they say "(we're) in the process of determining the source of the misinformation". Really? So they are regularly monitoring INGEMMET database (I guess through its website) but at the same time they dont know what is the "source" of the information according to wish they are about to lose some of their concessions. So yes, these concessions are valid (active) and 100% controlled now but investors want to know what will happen tomorrow.
As Otto highlighted a few hours ago, according to the information published by INGEMMET Macusani Yellowcake has until March 31st to appeal the Presidential Resolution that expires Ocacasa 4 and Colibri III, so I assume the company must have been notified recently.
In fact, as I "dive" into the INGEMMET website I have found more information seeing to which any investor who hasn't read (or doesn't trust) this morning's PR could think (like Otto) that PLU would be about to lose all of its concessions:
https://www.ingemmet.gob.pe/listado-de-no-pago-de-vigencia-y-penalidad The above link points to the list of concessions for which its owner hasn't complied with the corresponding penalty payment ("NO PAGO DE PENALIDAD") or validity payment ("NO PAGO DE VIGENCIA"). As anyone can confirm seeing the latter list (validity payments missed) for years 2017 and 2018, according to INGEMMET (or at least to its "database"), PLU hasn't complied with these payments in neither of the two years and for any of its concessions. And that raises the question, if the Company didn't comply with the "validity payments" for two consecutive years, why wasn't it included in the list of expired concessions published by INGEMMET Presidential Resolution (11/07/2018)?:
https://www.ingemmet.gob.pe/documents/73138/857590/RP_133_2018_PE.pdf/f70c66cd-62ac-4ad2-bb25-4e459979de69 I guess because the demand with wish the Company requestted the nullity of INGEMMET previous Resolution (declaring inadmissible the company payments) was still in course at the Ministery of Energy and Mines (MEM). But after this demand was rejected by the MEM on January the INGEMMET was able to declare the expiration of Ocacasa 4 and Colibri II.
Instead of that "we're in the process of determining the source of misinformation" I'd have preferred something like "we know about that erros on INGEMMET website and last month we submitted a correction request", "last week we appealed INGEMMET Resolution and we are pretty sure we are going to win" or "last years incident has been overcome and now we're in conversations with INGEMMET to regularize everything".