Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
The Telegraph business section has a very good analysis of the BHP/AAL bid and the perceived coming boom for copper. It argues, convincingly, that the growing M&A activity is being driven entirely by copper and the rush for miners to get their hands on more of the stuff.
If you're in need of cheering up, and one or two people on here most certainly are, this article should do the trick.
NMM, that wasn't my point, although you're right to raise the question.
My point was that we were told the government wouldn't agree to arbitration outside of the country when they appear to already have done so. Mind you, that's not to say they will agree this time, but at least it's negotiable.
I could have sworn we were told this morning that this was bad news for us. A bit like the referendum result which didn't change anything. On that point I notice none of the doomsters who told us arbitration would be non-negotiable and adjudicated under Ecuadorean law, have said anything about the revelation that the current IPA specifies Chile as the destination for arbitration.
Tesla, do you think I'm wrong? Over the years people have talked endlessly about the blocking power of BHP and how their holding may deter a bidder/jv partner, and the argument had some merit. Are you incapable of seeing how their lack of interest may assist our board, or are you blinded by your own bias?
My eyes are fully open to all options/possible outcomes, yours are not.
'Hmm...who said that before?' Just about every market commentator, analyst and journalist I've read, and they've been saying it for at least 18 months.
Why are Newmont 'definitely out'? As far as I'm aware they've not said anything about their holding, apart from it not appearing on their list of asset disposals.
If BHP do indeed intend to bid for Anglo there's another way of looking at this. To any other interested party/parties in Solg it sends a clear message to the market that BHP are unlikely to pursue their interest, thus removing a potential obstruction should they wish to bid. My guess is that our board would regard this as being a positive development. In my opinion bringing BHP onboard was a fundamental error (I understand the initial benefit) and NM spent years regretting it.
Anyway, you've sold, although you haven't revealed when, so I assume this would make no difference to you?
RK, as you suggested earlier, it's either because they've got nothing to say, or they're getting closer to announcing something. Given the imperative of new funds, you'd assume it's the second of the two options.
What 'effort' is involved in selling? It only takes the push of a button. I'm sure you can manage it.
As for arbitration, the answer is probably no, but I only said I'm sure SC is trying to negotiate it - every single company involved in similar discussions would try the same thing. In any event, as SM pointed out - which you immediately tried to rubbish - this arbitration issue relates primarily to international trade deals between sovereign nations. Single commercial transactions are not the same thing.