Member Info for addicknt

"do", not "to".

Eloro, so how to you answer the point about the dd FN did? You seem to be implying the board lied to them. Can you imagine the repercussions?

DBW, sorry, my comment wasn't aimed at you.

BHP's reaction, or lack of reaction, is indeed interesting and I mused about it a couple of weeks ago. Is it because they are no longer interested? Or is it because in due course they intend to bid but recognise the finance deal is not an obstruction? Or are they really p!ssed-off but are keeping their powder dry for the AGM? Who knows? The only thing that can be said with total conviction is that they have not come to a secret deal with the company.

Let's put this to bed. FN/Osisko spent at least six months doing dd. Do you honestly believe our management would withhold any information which said there was a secret deal lined up with BHP? You do realise what the implications would be? Not least of which would be that we would be breach of our agreement, and that would be the end of the company.

You also need to bear in mind the numerous director share purchases that have occurred, each one of which would be in breach of insider dealing laws and those responsible would be looking at time in the slammer - and for what? A few thousand quid.

There is no secret deal and I'm amazed you've bought into BBG's insane narrative.

I thought you'd say that. I'm pretty sure there's no requirement to disclose them. There's a difference between what we feel should be announced and what they're required to announce by the regulations. If you feel they're guilty of failing to stick to the rules I suggest you ask the company for an explanation.

As for BBG's assertion, failing to disclose such an agreement would incur significant sanctions. In any event, in what world would it make sense for the company not to disclose? The sp would rocket.

When else have the violated the disclosure rules?

Eloro, I'm not quite sure how you make the leap between the two things i.e 4m and concealing a bid, particularly as the management team is completely different.

Incidentally, we don't know that they can't account for the cash, in fact I'm sure they can, but for whatever reason they've chosen not to disclose it, nor to reveal what action is being taken against the guilty party. I find this annoying, in the same way as I believe they should disclose DC's compensation package.

ToS, they don't have to consult with shareholders, but they are required to announce any such agreement to the market. BBG seems to be of the opinion the Board have wilfully broken the rules, which is nonsense.

Pbow, the MRE was issued in Jan 2018. Sure, we'd had many exciting drill results before then, but it's difficult to see how it could be described as being in the top 10 prior to the MRE.

Anyway, this all rather academic because we and the market know what we have. Of far more interest to me were the comments made by Mike Christie and S&P's analysis of the looming copper deficit.

Fort, agreed. We can't just leave it sitting in the in-tray.

My own view is that we'll see something on Porv in the not too distant. Cascabel has been the priority, and given we have a wafer-thin management team, I'm not sure SC would have had the capacity to engage with two major projects simultaneously.

Pbow, it describes the table as being 'as of 11 July 2024'. The reference period spans from 2014 to 2023. The omission of Alpala is a bit of a bloomer.

Why don't you grow up, you bloody moron. If you were actually capable of any form of intellectual rigour you'd make an effort to read the articles, but you won't, because as well as being as thick as mince you're also bone idle.

Have produced their annual report about the major copper discoveries and is worth a read.

The strange thing about it is that it includes Porvenir in its top 10, but not Alpala, and when describing Latin America as replacing Africa as the continent with most new discoveries, it fails to mention Ecuador. Still, this is S&P, one of the companies responsible for the 2008 crash.

Also worth reading is an article on Linkedin by Mike Christie, the Director of Exploration at First Quantum. He describes Alpala as being one the better copper discoveries of the past 20 years, along with Filo and and Wafi-Golpu, but goes on to discuss the difficulties miners encounter with these new finds.

If you read his article you'll find it explains a great deal about what we are trying to do and why the last PFS redefined our approach.

Sorry Tesla, his implication was every bit as daft as I suggested and there's no rose tinted glasses involved.

Pbow, sorry, my final sentence wasn't aimed at you.

Nal, I look forward to your educated observations once you've understood what's actually being talked about. I guess it'll be a very long wait.

Pbow, under UK processes, FN would appoint the Administrator and instruct them to find a buyer for the assets and given they were/are the only secured creditor, they would get first dibs of the proceeds. Their outstanding debt was more than covered by the book value and thus their position was fully secured - as still is. Therefore, to suggest they were forced into the new package is palpable nonsense.

Tesla, FN were fully secured by their charges over the assets, so there was no pressure on them to lend more. Suggest you go back to the drawing board because to argue they were forced to sign the deal is just about the most ridiculous claim I've heard from our resident derampers.

Because financial institutions don't commit to a $750m funding package if they don't have to. In fact your suggestion is just plain nonsense.

Is that a serious question?