Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Your Welcome
agreed, enough said on that matter.
thanks for your intelligent input guys
@Roy didnt you sell up ??
I think you need to read your reply to Aman..
The basis of my view is quite simple, Kinross got an upfront offer because they are a producer and an investor would get his returns quicker than an investor in an exploration company..
Im not sure why you are finding this point of view difficult to understand.. and yes i may be completely wrong but this is a bulletin board where we all make assumptions based on what we read in RNAs and our own research..
I have absolutely not said "we will get an upfront offer"...
I may have suggested the fact Kinross got one increases the prospect that we might....
To which you said "Cash upfront aint gonna happen.." and now we understand the basis of your view... so thanks for that.
Arent we all taking a guess, you are assuming that we will get an upfront offer..
guess work + assumption = low degree of certainty
I think you're taking a guess at what's going on in the mind of the Kinross buyer... and assuming the same will be going on in the mind of our buyer.
guess work + assumption = low degree of certainty
They paid upfront because they know they will get returns quicker, with us they will need to spend shedloads of money before they get a return. Im sorry if you dont understand the logic.
I understand what you're saying... but I'm not sure it necessarily follows that to get an upfront offer you need to be in production. Seems like a leap of logic to me. Or did I miss something?
@MadMat.. simple really mate Kinross was actually a producer in Russia and made money, we are not.
https://thedeepdive.ca/kinross-gold-gets-bent-over-in-sale-of-russian-assets/
JEZZAC
I think you've misunderstood my post. The original offer meant nothing would be paid to investors on a deal being signed. Amur were proposing to use the first payment to fund the purchase of another project, a necessary step since once KM was sold a de-list within 6 months would result without a replacement project.
An arrangement that means nothing gets paid to PI's on signing of the deal is akin to not being kissed. I strongly suspect a payment of some description at the point of signing would have appealed to many. It would have made any arrangement for subsequent payments more palatable knowing that the first was in the bag. Whoever throught this deal up needs to do a course in basic psychology.
TDT
A deal where they get nothing at the outset was never going to fly.
JEZZAC, why do you think a cash up front offer wont happen? It happened for Kinross that we know of and possibly others that we don't.
If they want the assent then a better deal will appear as it seems unlikely the asset will be nationalised...
roger is a muppet, best ignore the muppets..
Roger65 you hypocrite. You are a known, probably paid, de ramper on GDR and yet here you are...singing its praises. Extraordinary.
If you have any belief in AMC and its CEO then you’re going to lose a lot more than me. GDR will have its day with a world leading product co- designed by the NHS that had no competition anywhere in the works. Genomics is the future of individual health care and trust me that’s one I’m excited by, even though the company CEO is rubbish. The products are amazing. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to inform people though. Twat. This share was a bad mistake and will deliver nothing to share holders. It’s as brazen as it gets and yet still some utter thickos will believe Father Christmas really exists. Even if RR don’t spend and lose All your money Putin will do it for him, sooner or later. EUA going the same way.
Hows your Geendrive investment going Roger69 ?
what a tool you are
Youve lost money roger65 through your own investment decisions no one else
now your just bitter and blamming AMC for your faults, seen it all before sado boy
There actually was a deal on the table, not a good deal but nonetheless it was a deal. They arent exactly queueing up round the block to offer us another deal are they !! I dont think you are gonna get kissed but you may get - anyway time for a beer..
Probably not but I'm sure you're familiar with the old saying "if I'm going to be f ucked I want to be kissed first". Something on conclusion of a deal as opposed to nothing, which is what was on the table, might get a more favourable response.
TDT
Cash upfront aint gonna happen..
I think most of us here would agree with that, but the sale terms of the current asset and what to do with the cash we receive are two entirely separate subjects.
One of the things that annoyed me about the failed deal was that RY and Co were expecting the gravy train to continue!
Cash upfront, return all cash as a dividend and wind the company up, and they would have more support.
Aberdeenman
I'm considering the 680M as a fair valuation at the time, in the same way our NPV is also a fair valuation at the current time.
So if they got half their fair value maybe we can get half of ours too.
Personally I see the payment terms as part of the deal. So when the payment terms are improved, massively such that most of the cash is paid up front, then in my view so is the deal.
I think that Sums Up The Situation We are Facing !!!
I take some comfort from the facts that
a) the Kinross deal was improved
b) our TEO based, conservative NPV is know out there... and this must surely be considered a fair valuation
So an offer at 50% NPV with payment upfront would work for me... just...!
Otherwise I'm prepared to wait it out.