Member Info for addicknt

I did say they exaggerated it. I did not say, as you suggest, that it was a hoax and a figment of the imagination.

Are you bright enough to understand the difference? That was a rhetorical question.

Lying yet again, Nal. Are you capable of ever telling the truth?

That someone was me!

Company law overrides an NDA. The identity of a Chargor has to filed with Companies House, in fact I seem to recall that it's not legally binding unless it is. The only question is whether a request by the lender to remain anonymous is possible.

Pbow, the relevant charge documentation, MR01, requires the identity of the Chargor to be filed. It can be submitted by either the lender or the borrower. It's normally done by the lenders lawyers. I don't know if it's possible to request secrecy, but I can't think why they would.

Franco wouldn't have 'requested' it, it would have been a critical requirement of the facility - they would not have lent on a unsecured basis - unless they were mad, which they are not.

Pbow, I agree. I wonder what SC would say about this? Effectively, this is price sensitive information and whatever NM's motives, perhaps greater care should have been taken over the announcement.

Fort, I agree it is likely that it'll be sorted out. However, if it isn't, the implications for us may have significant short term ramifications.

FYI, the current cash burn is circa 350k per month, which they don't have.

Pbow, completion by the calendar y/e has been mentioned on a couple of occasions by the company, so the fact is the agreement hasn't been 'successfully completed' - or if it has, we haven't been told about it. Personally, I don't think this is the case as SC will be desperate to get some good news out there.

This begs the question as to why DGR said it has. As I said earlier, was it an inadvertent error, or was it a very liberal interpretation for the benefit of DGR's shareholders?

Of course, it's worth repeating that SC told us many of the protections we're likely to see in the CIPA are already contained in the Exploitation Agreement.

Pbow, thanks, but wasn't this just a declaration of intent? As far as I'm aware the final agreement hasn't been 'successfully completed' as DGR have claimed. It's very confusing.

Metoooo, they refer to both the PFS and CIPA.

Ref: my post at 06:58.

1) Have I missed an announcement about the successful completion of a new CIPA? Quite possibly, although I was under the impression it would completed prior to calendar y/e.

2) Has the company failed to notify the market of a new agreement?

3) Has DGR let something inadvertently slip out?

I'm confused.

The report does contain one mysterious reference; " Announcements of the successful completion of the new PFS and Complimentary Investment Protection Agreement were previously made"

Have I missed something?

It's worth having a glance at the latest quarterly report issued by DGR.

As you would anticipate, there's nothing particularly earth shattering about us, although they do make a big play about the upside the DFS will reveal as a result of increased commodity prices.

However, the cash flow report reveals the extent of their problems. In the quarter ended 30th September the cash burn was 1.1m. This left them with a positive cash balance of 235k. (It would have been worse had they not received 600k from a bank guarantee which related to the cancelled office lease) In other, unless they were able to drawdown more of the Choice facility in October, it would appear they're running on fumes.

One way or another, they must be getting close to an announcement about future funding and the interesting bit will be whether there are any implications for us.

Nal, it is from the FoE report, so that's only the third time it's appeared here.

One question: FN/Osisko conducted over six months of dd, did they get it wrong? Or did they realise the project was a turkey and yet still decided to provide a 750m facility?

NMM, the minimum notice period for a public company in the UK is also 21 days. Of course, they can give more notice if they choose.

Of more importance to me is that they do not repeat the farce of last year when the AGM was effectively conducted behind closed doors, which completely defeats the object. They should arrange for it to be viewed online, the Chairman should make statements outlining what's happened in the year and give us view of the next 12 months. They must also allot time for shareholder questions. In other words, they should conform to the norm.

They have constantly told us that shareholder communication and engagement is important and yet last year they ignored the whole purpose of an AGM by denying us the opportunity to hold them to any form of accountability. If they fail to offer proper access this year and you feel the same way as me, we should all make our feelings known to the communications bloke.

As you may have gathered, this is one area of board governance where I feel they let us down badly and it doesn't reflect well.

NMM, 21 days notice required for an AGM, so probably the following week.

Bozi, during the SR process I'm sure the various interested parties, which almost certainly included the obvious majors, sensed our vulnerability - it was hardly a secret - and decided to play hard-ball. They had probably convinced themselves that we had no alternative other than to fall into their hands for a pittance. They may have thought we could raise a few bob in yet another placing, but that was it, and, in due course, we'd crawl back to them on bended knee.

The Board decided to call their bluff and headed down the path we are now on. The 750m package perhaps came as a real surprise to the putative bidders, for the simple reason that so few junior explorers have done something similar.

If this scenario reflects the reality of what went on - and it makes sense - then for those of us who want a decent return, this was a masterstroke by SC and BS and not the dismal failure some like to present it as.

Careful RK, this post is on-topic and doesn't contain any threats of violence, so someone's bound to report it.

As for BHP's statement, it's strange how Henry has put out various seemingly contradictory comments. Is it a ploy to confuse the market?

Nal, I'm so glad your carer has arrived to feed you your supper. Remember, at your age you must chew throughly.

1) You and a few others on here told us we were on the verge of civil collapse and that commercial life would stop. It didn't and inward investment has continued. And yes, the BBC did exaggerate it...they always do.

2) I did not 'forget to mention why he's opening the bases'. When I originally posted this I seem to recall making it perfectly clear and that it seemed to me as being a very good development. You are months behind on this, unsurprisingly, and your desperate attempts to scare shareholders are quite pathetic.

Nal, never once have I said the gangs don't exist. Another one of your endless stream of lies and fabrications. And as an fyi, I posted the news about Nobby opening the country to military bases, specifically the Americans, a few months ago.