Member Info for addicknt

Careful, you don't want to upset our resident doomsters with all this good news...they are quite fragile, after all. Who can forget their reaction when the government 'invaded' the Mexican embassy? As far as they were concerned, this was the end of Ecuador. No one would ever invest again and the country would become international pariahs. Didn't quite work out like that, did it?

Anyway, thanks for posting, Adieu.

I agree, and I suspect you may be right about your second point.

Fort, in the past the company has stated categorically that we are unaffected by the Chinese issue.

Is this a blueprint for us? Obviously, we don't have the same jurisdictional problems, but the spin-out appears to be what we were told was being considered.

Once Solaris have completed their own reorganization, perhaps we could sell them some of our exploration targets for a paper consideration in their Newco? Porvenir may be of interest to them. It would save us the bother of going through the process and would come with a ready made management team.

In essence, it would be an interesting consolidation of exploration targets which may have many benefits; one management team, funding, and would mean the government only has to deal with one entity, which may speed up the permitting process.

I wonder if our lads have had any discussions with Solaris?

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

Bbg, your conspiracy theories get more extreme and more amusing every day. As for your comment asking where Scott has been for the past 14 months, try reading the last RNS.

The strategy couldn't be clearer and if you think a new CEO would do anything different I'm afraid you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Eloro, do you really want us to answer that?

Eloro, I think there is one reason which explain the sp - risk, which is why the company is pursuing the current strategy. De-risk the project and we'll see a share price which reflects its true value. His strategy is the right one and there quite clearly isn't an alternative.

Eloro, I think you're in denial. The latest RNS outlined very clearly what progress has been made over the past 12 months and it's not insubstantial. To dismiss it as such strikes me as rather odd.

If you haven't voted yet and want your company to avoid massive disruption, vote for Scott.

The share price dropped by almost 16% today. I assume news must be due fairly soon.

Q, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Q, rather than just looking at definitions found on Google, look at the context of our situation and how the company has employed the word. It's meaning is crystal clear.

Q, that is not what the company means by turn-key. It does not mean sub-contractors delivering their work to us, instead it's us delivering a turn-key project to the market once the sub-contractors have completed their work.

Q, my inference is that we've put ourselves in the position of being the 'contractor'. Not in the formal sense, but de facto.

Yet again we see the word "turn-key" being emphasised. Here's a definition of the word:

"A turn-key project is a type of project that is constructed so that it can be sold to any buyer as a completed product."

Further description goes on to explain that the entity delivering the turn-key solution is essentially a contractor for the end buyer. Is this how the Board now sees us?

During the data room process did any of the interested parties actually say they wanted us to go down this route on their behalf? Or was it just a gradual realisation that we wouldn't achieve anything like fair value without delivering a turn-key solution?

To my way of thinking, the continued repetition of the word sends a crystal clear message.

It's pretty much a repeat of what was in the MD&A and is obviously an aide memoire to remind people of the progress this year in an attempt to persuade us to vote for the AGM Resolutions.

Damers, there's a bit of confusion surrounding the CIPA. DGR stated it had been successfully completed, but the company has not , and so far has not responded to requests to clarify the situation.

Nal, sorry, I wasn't aware you'd said anything worth replying to.

Nal, it's entirely unsurprising that you aren't able to see why this is important and it's equally unsurprising that you're incapable of contributing anything useful. You never have and never will.

Pbow, I think that relates to the AGM, but is nevertheless very shoddy behaviour. I'd be interested to know why they've gone down this route for AGMs - it seems to fly directly in the face of their claims of greater shareholder communication.