Member Info for addicknt

Medi, 'majors' may be the key word. They have the capability and financial resources, junior explorers don't.

Smick, we don't know who or what the company are blaming, although they gave us a clue in the document.

I think you could be right. More bureaucracy, more cost and more uncertainty.

Pete, what does it say?

Arok, good letter. It'll be interesting to hear if you get a response - so far, no one else has had anything back from them.

Nal, wrong, but good effort.

Rodney, in a sense that's what I'm saying. It's not about what is said here, but you have a private group and , with their permission, are fully entitled to talk to the TP on their behalf.

You have one opportunity to make your voice heard and, if you have serious concerns, you shouldn't waste it.

But surely this is exactly the type of situation you envisaged for which your group would be useful?

Rodney, indeed it is reasonable, but what are you going to do about it?

I've suggested one route, so why not give it a go? Contact the Market Surveillance Unit at the TP. Time is running out.

RT, a further thought. An approach to the Panel by a small private shareholder is unlikely to be taken seriously, so perhaps this is the time for you to deploy your shareholder group?

RT, yes, I get that and share the concerns about lack of information, but as I've previously said, this suggests one of two possibilities; a) there isn't any news or b) the directors are acting illegally.

If people believe the latter, I'd suggest the only recourse is to approach the TP and request a review. As for your point about a judge preventing the SoA from advancing, unless there's concrete proof of dodgy activity, a judge will not halt proceedings. I suppose there may be another option and that may be issuing the company with a FOI request, but I'm not sure if our situation is covered by the Act.

Interesting post, RT, but the fact is very few SoAs are rejected by the court and those that have been tend to have exceptional circumstances. Do you believe any such circumstances pertain here?

Nal, your lack of self-awareness and inability to understand what people actually say is quite astonishing.

Read what I said, you idiot.

Pad, one of those conditions is that if a competing offer is tabled which is 5% over the current deal, the IU can be revoked by New and BHP.

Q, indeed, which was the point I was making.

I suppose it's possible things have changed since JCC made their move, but is that likely? My guess is that this report is inaccurate, because I'm sure someone would have picked it up.

As I've mentioned before, in the document every reason given by the company for recommending the offer was a negative one. The relevant section was all about the risks, financing and cost. The message was clear: accept this deal, or else...It read like a threat. The only group highlighted who will benefit from the deal were the employees.

Incidentally, overnight I saw a post from the company on social media which was warning people to be aware of scams relating to folk in Ecuador who are pretending to be officers of the company, or were offering bogus job opportunities. Maybe the offer is also a scam? ( for the simple minded on here, and we know who they are, that was a joke)

CGS Intelligence reports that only $3.2m had been raised by the levy at the end of Nov versus the target of $220m (we already knew this). The strange thing is only $14.1m has been included in the budget for 2026.

This is either inaccurate reporting, or there has been a significant row-back by the government.

PS, you can include me in your list of idiots because I've sold 60% of my holding. It's called risk management.

Q, in my opinion something has gone wrong which cannot be solved by the company e.g the levy.

If they were wholly confident about our prospects and managed to persuade either BHP (unlikely) or New that it was worth holding, they should have tested JCC's resolve. They quite clearly failed to entice either of them.

IP, you say Perry left the company when the board accepted JCC's formal approach, which you go on to say happened in April 2025.

According to the RNS, JCC's first approach was in November, not April.

Perry's departure had nothing to with JCC and was part of a plan to reduce the number of people on the Board.

RT, I and few others have made this point over the past couple of weeks, and I know emails have been sent to DV and PS.

The document is very clear on this issue, which leaves us with two possibilities: There has been no progress on the various workflows or, they're breaking the rules and the 2006 Companies Act.

I suppose there's a third possibility; they're of the opinion none of the outstanding milestones are price sensitive, which must be balls.

DK, another SOLG exile! If needalife, Quady, InvestmentPanda, Stackhigher or any of the other weirdos turn up, please don't hold me responsible!