Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, it certainly appears that way.

Jerry, indeed. I wonder why Rio have gone for lithium rather than copper? I realise they want immediate revenue, but lithium isn't exactly in short supply, and is unlikely to be. Longer term, copper looks a better bet.

I see Rio have splashed out $6.7bn on a lithium producer. Personally, I didn't regard them as a potential interested party, but I assume this will keep them busy for a while. I believe Newmont have also sold a gold mine in Ghana for circa $1bn.

Separately, I wonder if our sp is being held back by the DGR situation? A sizeable chunk of shares are currently in uncertain hands, which may be regarded as being either a negative or a positive. Hopefully, there'll be a resolution to this situation in the not too distant.

NMM, thanks. I assumed TSX must have had something to do with it.

Bozi, my interest lies more in the question of whether we have recovered any of the cash, or whether we are ever likely to.

As far as DC is concerned, and having read the article which contained elements of his case which were part of his deposition to the court, it struck me as a straightforward case of wrongful dismissal and breach of contract. I wonder if this was the reason behind Twigger's departure? After all, he would have signed off on it.

MR, at least he's a shareholder.

DBW, good question, especially as I doubt BHP has changed its stance on him, and we don't know what Newmont think. Having said that, we've been told everyone is now pulling in the same direction, so hopefully we won't see anymore disruption, which we can ill-afford.

Slight change of subject, but I expect NM is feeling a bit happier today. Atlantic Lithium has received the permit allowing them to proceed to mining. Mind you, he only has a relatively small holding and I don't think it will solve his looming problems.

What happens with DGR will be of great relevance to us and could be the most important event between now and the calendar year end.

Pbow, yes, I've pointed that out previously, but that would not prevent them telling us the issue has been resolved. I based my assumption that we've paid him circa 2m upon the release of circa 1.3m from a 3m provision which was sitting in Admin Costs. Of course, it could relate to something else, but the fact we've heard no more of the matter in the press (it was initially reported in one of the Aussie papers), tends to suggest we did settle.

Brisvegas, this is one of life's mysteries. The only conclusion is that they're very odd people.

Q, I disagree, there's plenty to ask, not least of which concerns the regionals and funding/sale/jvs thereof. I would also like to know what happened to the 4m, and did we, as I suspect, end up paying DC 2m? If SC is in the chair at the agm, I'd also like to know why we haven't found a new chairman and what are the intentions.

Given a company is required to only provide 21 days notice of an AGM, I'm not quite sure why we've done so at the beginning of October - which we appear to have done via unusual channels. Surely an RNS is the correct route?

Anyway, my point is this: Last year the board, shamefully in my opinion, did not allow any questions. If, when the formal notice is released, they appear to be pulling the same stunt, we should all let them know that this is totally unsatisfactory. Last year I think our response was rather muted and we just sort of rolled-over, this year they need to know what we think. about it.

RK, I don't know if the rules are still the same as they were in my day, but a sale of Cascabel would be a Class 1 transaction which requires shareholder approval.

'84, a hostile offeror posts a document to shareholders offering to buy the shares, the shareholder has the choice of accepting or not. At the first closing date the offeror will announce the level of acceptances. If it's too low they can walk away or up their offer. As I said, this isn't a vote.

Just to add, if it's a hostile takeover shareholders don't vote.

'84, sorry, I was referring to the thread which was about the AGM, at which shareholders do not vote on takeovers. I should have clarified my comment.

Shareholders vote on takeovers in some but not all circumstances. Under 'normal' circumstances a board would recommend an offer and an offer document is sent to shareholders to buy the shares. So you either agree to sell or not. Technically this is not a vote. I believe if the transaction is being done via a Scheme of Arrangement a vote is required.

Apologies for the confusion.

BBG, shareholders don't vote on a takeover offer.

Nal, ha, ha! So the answer is you simply made it up...again. Who knows, maybe one day you'll say something of interest or relevance to the company, although I'm not holding my breath.

Nal, please refer me to the relevant post because I must have missed it.

Q, I overheard an interview on the radio this morning with that arch eco-zealot George Monbiot. You'd expect him to be in favour of the plans announced today...far from it. He railed that it would never work, was a gargantuan waste of money and would be quietly dropped. In other words, Miliband has made yet another total balls-up.

Incidentally, yesterday you said in one of your posts (at 16:31) that the tax payer was not subsidizing renewables. Were you joking?