Member Info for addicknt

Tesla, the answer is yes, and I imagine over the years most of us have done so. But that's of no relevance here because I'd love to visit Ecuador and I regret not having already done so.

Tesla, who knows? But I think I'm capable of working that out for myself.

As for your observation about being willing to live near somewhere you've invested in, I suggest you sit back and think about that for a moment.

If a mining company has copper and or gold, at the heart of its strategy and has earmarked Ecuador as a destination for investment, are there any better looking prospects than Cascabel? Are any of the current exploration targets as well advanced or as large? Do any have easier access to transport? Are there any of equal size which require less capex? Do any of them enjoy the same degree of local support?

This is an objective question as I don't know the answer, so objective answers would be appreciated. Darren, you may have some local knowledge which may help.

Sorry, obviously I meant Exploitation Agreement.

Snugg, of course you're right, nothing's certain until it appears in an RNS, but it's worth reflecting on the government's role in this. Surely the signing of the Exploration Licence must imply they've done their homework? Mind you, I'd like to see the revised IPA make an appearance.

TI, most of the time I ignore AI (Antipodean Idiot, not Artificial Intelligence...obviously), but occasionally he posts such utter BS about me it needs challenging. As for Eloro, he's a decent bloke, but he fails to understand the scale of the task SC confronted when he took on the job, and nor does he appreciate the progress that's been made. His stuff about 'snouts in the trough' is just nonsense.

Eloro, I've never understood why you think $200k pa represents 'feeding at the trough'. I've pointed out previously that SC must be the lowest paid CEO within the sector.

Similarly, I'm mystified you can't see the progress that's been made. We are miles ahead of where we were before he took over. And before you say it, you can't judge this progress by the share price.

Finally, and I hesitate saying this, but before the '23 AGM, you and one or two others were telling us SC was 'toast' and that he'd soon be out on his ear. It didn't really work out that way, did it? 2bn versus 15m.

Orchard, the management team were all made redundant, although I do wonder if any of them were kept on in the short term in an advisory role to help us understand the Cornerstone assets. As to what's happening to the assets, I haven't got a scooby.

Eloro, I can't actually recall saying we wouldn't have a 2024 AGM, but if you say I did I'll accept it - although perhaps you could point me to the relevant post?

As for the broader point relating to future meetings, I've no idea and neither do you. If we accept SC has been positioning the business so as to present a turnkey project, then the finance package and EL would enhance the attractiveness to potential buyers. This makes sense to me. If someone buys the entire company there'll be no further agms, but if we only sell Cascabel, there will. Take your pick. I am still 100% of the opinion that we will not be taking this to production.

I'll spell it out for you.

On the 24th I checked the Companies House web site and found details of the Charges, which I then posted here. Up until this point none of us knew the identity of the lender and the company was at pains to avoid releasing it. On the 25th I emailed the company and asked them to clarify the position - they did not reply. I'm aware that a number of other shareholders also contacted the company requesting clarification. On the 26th an RNS was issued confirming FN as being the lender. It was quite clear the company had not wished to reveal the identity and the tone of the RNS was terse.

So, you can either believe it was all coincidental and that they'd wanted to tell us all along, or you can accept that they were forced into making an announcement - I honestly don't give a flying feck one way or another.

As for your other BS, I just love the way you presume to know how other people have led their lives and then judge them by your own very low standards. Frankly, it's completely pathetic.

Tesla, I'm not sure it was incompetent, but it was certainly naive. How did they expect to maintain secrecy when they knew the Charge documents would have to be made publicly available at Companies House? Very odd thinking.

SM, I speculated the other day that we may see the following.

A two part loan; the first part to provide sufficient capital until such time as we receive the EV and all other outstanding permits/licences. This would need to be between 50-100m and would be secured against our assets. Interest would be rolled-up and the facility repaid when we receive phase two. The second part will be the royalty/off-take deal for 1/1.5bn, which will be conditional upon receiving the licences.

The financing will have to be split in two as the company has already stated that the lions share of facilities will be conditional upon the licences and in the meantime we have a need for funds to get us to that point.

I would also hope to see some corporate restructuring which would reflect some of the options which were outlined in the SR.

Nal, actually it was the company who felt obliged to release the RNS, not Franco. Perhaps you didn't understand that most basic of facts?

Fees?

I think we can assume the repayment date is more relevant than the RNS comment.

Although I'm not sure how this squares with the repayment date of the 19th.

'84, the relevant RNS dated 14th May said it would last 'for a few months'. End August?

'84, the simple answer is we're spending it!

Tesla, yes I did, but what's your point?

'84, the thing which forced them to clarify the loan was me looking at the Companies House web site and finding the relevant Charges. They were left with no choice.