Member Info for addicknt

MF, good post. Orthern's post seems to make the assumption that the government signed the EA without seeking any comfort that we're able to fund the project. This seems to make no sense whatsoever.

The government have invested some serious political capital in us and to do so on no more than a vague assurance strikes me as being most unlikely.

Orthern, is it your opinion that the government didn't bother doing any dd prior to signing the EA?

Q, I'm pretty sure he was joking.

Affrm, the mistake you made is posting something which is self-evidently true. By virtue of imperative, news of some description - good, bad or indifferent - is on its way.

As for the Aussie bloke, bear in mind you're conversing with someone who makes Joe Biden look coherent and intelligent. And just like Biden, it's time his family started looking at care homes.

Q, I agree, it's very confusing. I wonder if there's been some mis-communication going on? Let's say it's FN who provide the finance; would they not want the EL to be a condition precedent? Or will they get sufficient satisfaction from the CIPA?

I must admit, I have no idea what goes into an EL, but it seems an awful long time to get one. Haven't we done any work on it so far?

Orthern, we won't be the owners by the time the EL is issued.

Assuming there is at least one mining company out there which can see just how important Cascabel is, and for the reasons I outlined below, they will not want to wait until we saddle ourselves with 1.5bn of debt/royalty deals, which they would then have to deal with.

Q, the timeline of the EL has now been reiterated by the company on several occasions and I see no reason to doubt them. As far as your final question is concerned, I think i've outlined a possible way which finance could be put together.

One further point/question. Why would FN do this?

Unlike a trade buyer, waiting for us to go bust doesn't work for them. Sure, in an administration they've got first call on our assets, but since they're not miners it's not much use to them. The asset would be sold to a major.

They want a very long term deal with the stream of royalties acting almost like an annuity. A major mining company doesn't need, nor would it want, FN in the picture, so although FN get their money back, they lose out on one of the biggest deals they'll ever see.

At least with us still in charge they have a chance to make a huge return; with BHP, or anyone else running the show, they won't.

Of course, this is all idle speculation, but we are in a period of febrile anticipation and that's my excuse. I also fail to see why the government would sign the EA without having done plenty of dd on our current discussions. In fact, you'd assume they'd want to eyeball whoever it is we're talking to in order to establish how likely a positive outcome is. If they haven't, they could end up looking pretty stupid.

Elor, why would the share be suspended? Just because a company is in discussions does not mean it can either apply for a suspension or have one forced upon us. The golden rule of the stock exchange is to allow shareholders to trade.

I think the answer to my question could be as follows.

FN advance us $50-100m either in the form of another royalty deal or term loan with accrued interest, and also offer us the full package of 1.5bn on a conditional basis until such time as all licences are signed. This would mean we are fully funded.

The first part would be secured by another Charge, which is still covered by our net asset position. In other words, they would have enough security. Given the second part of the facility won't be drawn down, it also means we can sell the company in the meantime without having 1.5bn tied round our necks. Is this the type of package we are negotiating? It makes sense to me.

Thanks for this DBW.

The final paragraph confirms the point I made the other day and how this impacts our need for working capital until such time as we commence the development of the mine. We can't start construction work until we have the EL, and that's going to take 18/24 months. So, what do we do in the meantime? How do we fund ourselves during that period?

In my book, this is why we need to sell.

One thing I can tell you is that he wasn't in the office when I called. Probably gone out to buy a guinea pig on mayo sandwich and a packet of Quavers for his lunch.

I suppose it's also possible that he has a sore throat, or is worried about civil unrest on the streets of London.

Reasons for cancelling:

1) He's too heavily engaged in final stage negotiations of the finance package.

2) He's received one or more approaches from potential bidders.

3) The wheels have fallen off the finance negotiations.

4) He lost his passport.

Good heavens Mike, are you suggesting this post may be a little misleading?

Eloro, not sure he read my post on here, but he would have been told about the email I sent revealing what I'd found at Companies House and requesting they confirm or deny FN as being lenders.

And as much as I'd love to believe he cancelled today because he read your post, I'm not convinced by the suggestion!

Good stuff Rodney and affrm and thanks for reporting. This was crossing my mind as I posted my first comment this morning.

If it was last minute, which is what it sounds like, I assume SC is already in London, otherwise wouldn't he have given more notice? Either way, he's too busy and let's hope he's being busy in a productive way.

I really don't know what to make of this, although I come back to the question that if there were fundamental problems why did FN advance the 10M? God this is painful!

NMM, neither do I.

Eloro, where have I said he would be announcing anything today? Answer: nowhere, and certainly not during a presentation. It appears you have completely missed the point I was making.

Eloro, in which case there's very little that can be done to help you.

Eloro, do you honestly believe that with 16 days to go and negotiations at a critical point, he would come to London for the sole purpose of a 'jolly'?