Member Info for addicknt

I'm scan reading the thing and I can say one thing, it certainly contains an awful lot of interesting info, much of which answers many of the questions people have been asking.

A few examples: As we know, there are no clauses prohibiting a sale, but there are 'penalty payments'. If we sell within 1 year we pay $18.75m; if we sell between 1 and 2 years the payment is 23.75m and if we sell between 2 and 3 years the payment is 28.75m.

85% of ENSA is held by Solgold Finance AG, it also owns 100% of Landco (Solgold Ecuador)

FN/Osisko will contribute 250k pa towards ESG initiatives.

Various timeline deadlines are included in the document.

This has piqued my interest and I'm going to spend a bit more time reading it in as much detail as my waning intellectual powers will allow.

Pbow, I'm not sure it's worth your while wading through the whole thing, but I'd appreciate your interpretation of that particular clause.

Pbow, I've just had a quick look and it is indeed 'substantial'. It seems to suggest further security can be offered but that it would be subordinate to the existing security, which makes sense. Is that your understanding? If I have the inclination I'll try to read the document, although my days of having to do this sort of thing for a living are long gone.

Pbow, thanks.

You needed to read it in conjunction with the next paragraph. I'm not even sure they have FROR, although it seems likely.

Just to reiterate, my point concerned the power of their position. I take it you can see how they will be central to any future debt/royalty funding? In fact, as it stands, if they didn't like a proposed future funding deal that required the release of security, they could simply block it. However that does not imply they have an exclusivity agreement.

But, and it's a big but, we very obviously have a strong relationship with them and will be working together to achieve whatever it is that comes next.

Agreed.

I also agree they are unlikely to have an exclusivity arrangement, but I didn't suggest they did.

Pbow, I can't see any reference to that type of arrangement, although it doesn't mean it's not the case. But, as you say, it's the way a syndicated loan works - but is this a syndicated loan? Not in the traditional sense it isn't. My main point stands, FN are in a very strong position and this would explain the comment made by us relating to how closely we'll be working with them over the coming period.

Yes, we have other security relating to the regionals, but they're not worth much at this stage. As far as ENSA is concerned, I'm not sure you're right.

BBG, that's not strictly true. They voted against the authority to allot shares, the Special Resolutions and, by the looks of it, the re-election of Mather. As far as SC is concerned, it's quite possible they abstained.

However, you're right to suggest SC has said we are now on good terms, although there's no other evidence to either support or deny that claim. I guess we'll find out at the next AGM.

In the past BHP were not the ones who publicly expressed their dissatisfaction with the company - that was Newcrest - but you do have to wonder what they think of the funding package. Do they simply not care anymore, or do they have other plans?

Being a nerd who keeps his eye on Companies House filings, I was interested to note that Osisko were not granted any security for their 30% contribution to the recent funding package - FN have the lot. In fact, it seems they gave up their pre-existing charge in favour of FN. This means they appear to be lending on an unsecured basis, which would seem to imply a great deal of faith in the project.

As I said, this is not really that interesting, but the overall picture is.

As it stands, FN are secured by having a charge over 100% of the assets (I think this is limited to ENSA), so the question arises, how do we raise more debt/royalty funding from other third parties if we don't have the ability to offer any security? How likely is it that FN would be happy to cede security in favour of others? Have FN agreed in principle to provide the funds? What will Osisko's role in the future be? Or are we not envisaging the need to raise more funds?

By virtue of the various charges, and as matters relate to ENSA (note: I'm not sure the regionals are included), FN are in a very powerful position to affect the shape of future funding packages. If I'm right about this, and there's no guarantee I am, the relevance of these Charges is highly significant.

Eloro, how many CEOs do you know?! I've yet to meet one who conforms to your characterization.

Our directors have huge sums at stake and I'm 100% convinced they'll want to monetize their holdings before they they're too old to enjoy it.

Eloro, it's also worth bearing in mind the ambitions of those who run this company and the age profile of both SC and NM.

Eloro, keep the phrase 'turnkey project' in your mind. At this stage there are no 'winners', as you describe them.

Quady will be proved right on the day the first ore emerges from the mine and we still own it.

Posted by Dunk-Biscuit at 8:25 this morning on the GGP board.

It refers to an article written by Kitco about Samsung's development of a new solid state battery which uses a lot of silver and may be transformational. Definitely worth a read.

Pbow, I'm with you on that one. It's a guaranteed route to being absolutely screwed.

RK, thanks for the further background. I shared your antipathy towards LT and felt his behaviour at the fateful AGM, which was his first, was absolutely shameful.

SM, thanks.

Although this was all in the dim and distant, it explains what happened and critically it gives an unambiguous view of NM's and Sangha's ambition, which I do not believe has changed. It also shows what an absolute s**t show the board was at that time. It would be fascinating to see the full text of DC's court submission, which I'm sure would contain many fascinating nuggets of information.

Bozi, you've hit the nail on the head - it is extremely difficult to reconcile the chain of events. If you read the article I referred to you'll get some idea of just how chaotic and confused things were. None of it makes sense.

TI, thanks for a sensible reply, which, if I've understood you correctly, implies we've historically had a management team bereft of a clear strategy and very prone to the shifting sands of external forces.

If this is the case, it would seem everything SC is doing is designed to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Yet again you pretend to know what other people's holdings and averages are, when in fact you haven't got a bloody clue. You simply make up total BS to suit your own warped agenda.