Member Info for addicknt

RT, the base salary is low and I guess his bonus this year will be based upon delivering the key milestones of the funding agreement. If he delivers those on time I'll be happy with the bonus. I have no problem with the living allowance or pension contributions, which any senior executive director would expect to receive.

However, I have no wish to see anymore options. If he wants more shares he'll have to buy in the market.

Aquinaga, I'd missed that announcement. Thanks.

Anything which draws us closer to FN is, in my books, a good thing and it would be excellent if FN are able to put pressure on them to deliver the study asap. I guess it will also help that they've had extensive experience in Ecuador and will be known to the government.

I think it's owned, or controlled, by the Gignac family and is a subsidiary of G Mining Ventures. It's a Canadian business.

We've awarded G Mining Services the contract to deliver the FS.

Not the world's most exciting news, but someone needed to do it.

Fort, are you familiar with the definition of a Shadow Director? If BS is controlling the company in the way you suggest, he's breaking the law. I don't buy your hypothesis for one moment.

Fort, I'm in complete agreement - next year's AGM will be the critical one. He has very clear KPIs over the next 13 months and he must not fail. If he does, and we haven't gone bust as a result, I too would vote against him.

Eloro,

1) My belief is that the original statement about moving towards turnkey status was a tacit admission that this was the main conclusion of the SR. Sure, they didn't admit it, but it makes sense.

2) I think they've either tried and failed to do something with the regionals, or they're still working on it.

3) I have no doubt we've covered the ground with regard to the potential buyer market. What you describe as 'shaking the tree' would make us appear desperate, which is the very worse thing a company can do.

There seems to be an assumption that the board have been doing bugger all for the past 18 months. My own view is they've probably examined all options and have decided the way forward is to advance towards turnkey status. I simply cannot see what a new CEO could do to change reality.

Separately, earlier BBG made the claim that most people on here want SC gone. I'd be interested to to see if this is true. If readers are prepared to say, will you be voting for or against SC.

Eloro, I'm sorry to keep asking, but what exactly do you think a new face should/could do?

Your response to this bloke who seems to think he's posting on the Communist Weekly web site is spot on.

Eloro, I'd be amazed if they had a succession plan, but you never know. I agree that no one is irreplaceable, but that's not really the point.

We've been rightly criticized for the apparent chaos at board level and I'm sure this has delayed our progress. At long last we seem to have reached a point of stability and it would be mad to disrupt it. As for KPIs, Caldwell's are now clearly defined and he'd better deliver them.

Eloro, I think we can assume the company tried to sell Cascabel and despite having interest, no one was prepared to pay a fair price whilst we did not have the relevant licences etc. Therefore, the board has had to have a complete re-think which involves gaining those licences and moving the project to turnkey status. This is being pursued in order to achieve a good return for all shareholders. A new CEO, if we could find one, would have to follow exactly the same path.

We are at a critical stage in our negotiations with the government and it would be hugely disruptive to that process if we got rid of SC, who seems to have built a good relationship with them, only to spend ages trying to find a new person who wouldn't have developed that same level of trust. And that's before we consider our relationship with FN, who, in all likelihood would not be willing to advance the next tranche of the facility whilst we scrambled around trying to steady the ship.

So, to repeat the question, what would a change of leadership actually achieve? What could a new CEO do differently? Until someone can produce a coherent and viable alternative, change for change's sake would be utterly disastrous.

The fact is, we've all had to adjust our expectations and whether we like it or not, we are where we are. In the meantime SC is getting on with the job and is hopefully making good progress towards delivering the milestones which will unlock

the next phase of funding.

NAL, great post. Keep it up.

Eloro, they say you can know a man by the company he keeps. Are you comfortable being in the same boat as BBG?

By the way, you've not answered the question of what you think will be achieved by replacing him.

Bozi, agreed.

I didn't want to let you down.

By the way, it's 'right on CUE', not 'queue'.

Incidentally CMG, following the report issued a few years back, the company addressed the issue and I suspect they don't feel the need to do so again.

Fort, the report was actually produced for Friends of the Earth and someone posted it here a week or so ago, but if you look back at Rain Forest Action Group's output, they do seem to have a bit of a grudge. In fact, I recall something they produced along similar lines appeared on here several years ago, and the message was the same; "We hate mining wherever it may be".

Anyway, it's wonderfully ironic that FotE oppose the mining of commodities which will help deliver the Green Nirvana they dream of and even better, they think they can tell elected governments what to do. It's yet another form of western imperialism; "you lot can continue to live in poverty whilst we lecture you about the rights and wrongs of your policies". It's totally vomit-inducing.

But...and there is a but; all mining companies must clean-up their acts and produce plans which minimize the impact of their activities, which of course is exactly what we are trying to do.

David, NM was effectively deposed by our major shareholders as a result of ignoring their wishes relating to funding. There were almost certainly personality clashes and it became clear his relationship with them had deteriorated very badly to the point of being unworkable.

DC was sacked under mysterious circumstances, but following the revelation of details which emerged in Court documents, it appeared he too was ejected due to disagreements over funding and preferred lenders. The truth was probably that the new CGP shareholders wanted to gain control and used the funding issue as an excuse. His sacking cost us a fair bit of cash and, in my opinion, Twigger lost his job as chairman for the mishandling of the situation.

In my opinion, DC did not come across as an effective and dynamic leader and Twigger seemed to be pretty ineffective as Chairman. But that's just an opinion without knowing how they actually operated around the boardroom table.

Obviously, SC is still in situ and has delivered a degree of stability which has been missing for some time. The voices on here wanting to boot him out at the AGM have singularly failed to explain what would be achieved by so doing and they also admit it would lead to more chaos, which, at a critical time in our history, would be hugely damaging.

I see DGR have issued their AGM Notice which includes only one Special Resolution, which is to seek approval for the issuance of a further 10% of the issued share capital. This would raise circa A$1.5m before costs.

Clearly, this amount doesn't cover the debt repayment and would barely cover their OPEX for the next 12 months. Does this imply they're close to finalising a new debt package, or have they got plans for asset disposals? How else are they going to raise cash?

Pbow, but if we sold Cascabel to a major, it's highly unlikely they'd want or need the FN deal and the cost of unwinding the agreement is relatively trivial. Therefore, to the right buyer, there would be a substantial uplift in value.

As to '84's broader point of undervaluation, can anyone think of any company on the market which is sitting on such enormous assets and yet is only valued at 270m? Of course, the asset's still in the ground, but surely a resource of this size won't stay that way forever.

Wow! 200k!! That's huge and has probably never happened before. I know there have been 4.1m buys today and only 2.8m sells, but 200k! out of a 3.1bn issued shares! OMG!! Man the lifeboats!!

You really can't bear the fact that some people have more experience of business and life than you do, can you? The moment anyone shows some form of knowledge which doesn't accord with your dismal views, you launch into a personal attack. You've done it so many times, the most recent being your diatribes against Darren and Pbow, the latter having been completely open about his identity and with a cv on Linkedin which, if you'd bothered to look, confirms his experience. But you couldn't be ar5ed, could you? He hasn't posted for a week or so, and that's to all of our detriment, because he has a very thorough understanding of contracts and has done extensive dd. I only hope he hasn't been deterred from posting here again because of your uniformed and ignorant personal attacks.