Member Info for addicknt

JS, he's previously told us he doesn't hold any shares and never has.

Add it to the very long list of unanswered questions.

The company has always been happy to disclose the identity of previous lenders, but not this time. Doesn't that tell us something?

Commercial sensitivity, and I'm pretty sure the 10m would be described as falling into that category.

SM, it certainly used to be.

The argument being one of potential commercial sensitivity.

To quote Jane Austen - never a good thing - this is "A truth universally acknowledged" (apart from by 1984). The question is; when is the Board going to tell us who wants OUR copper?

Nal, oh, but I did check them out...in some detail, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. Incidentally, you're right about one thing - I hadn't heard of them - and there's a good reason for that.

Anyway, that's more than enough interaction with you for one day.

Nice find, Lancs. Thanks. Clearly, we're being used as a blueprint for the future, which is great, but can the government speed things up a bit, please?

84 and Q, can you please keep your posts about evs etc to the relevant thread. They're boring enough on the correct thread, let alone when you stick them on a thread which is trying to discuss something else. Thank you.

SM, I'm sure that's right, but Scott must be frustrated that the government clearly wants to progress matters quickly and yet their own bureaucrats are slowing things down. I suppose it was ever thus and this isn't a problem unique to Ecuador.

The Exploitation Agreement specifically refers to the fact that it contains various investor protection clauses, including the arbitration venue. The question is where does that leave us with regard to a revised IPA? Are they still working on one, or does the EA cover it? If it's still being negotiated, it seems odd that we've signed the EA without knowing how we'll be protected. Thoughts?

Some reason, just as I was dropping off to sleep last night a thought occurred - we still haven't appointed a chairman. ( I don't normally go to sleep thinking about such things) It's been six months.

Are we looking? Or don't we need one? (I think company law dictates one is required, so I guess one of the NEDs has been chairing board meetings)

Steve? I think you mean Scott.

Talatum, if you want a sensible answer, it's a result of a few very small private investors who are getting impatient for news, which, as we know, is on its way over the next couple of months.

Ha! 'Brainless speculation' Does it never occur to you that you're as guilty as anyone else? It should do because you've been doing it all day.

Ha! Fortunately, Scott has already provided the reasons and there are plenty more to come.

DBW, indeed he does! Great man, delivering what he promised ! (that should wake Eloro up) Pity I can't find the translate button.

Orthern, according to the company the 10m will only last for a 'few months'. End July or August? It was quite clearly designed only to see us through until an announcement is made.

Q, that wasn't my point. You've always maintained that early production at Cascabel would provide free cash flow, a point I've disagreed with. This article confirms the position - there will be no free cash flow for at least 10 years, and it could be a great deal longer.

To take my point further, lets assume our non-Cascabel activities require 25m per year (that's very conservative), we'll need a minimum of 250m before cash emerges from Cascabel. This is why I say our current structure is unsustainable. Some form of corporate action is an absolutely nailed-on certainty.

SH, I take it you accept the fact the status quo is not sustainable? If you do, and logic dictates you should, there will have to be 'action', as you describe it, and as it stands not one of us knows what form that 'action' will take.