Member Info for addicknt

Schlemiel, thanks for posting this.

Q, I hope this clarifies the point I made yesterday about the issue of availability of cash for the rest of our activities. The fact is Cascabel will not produce any free cash flow until the mid to late 2030s and therefore cannot be relied upon to provide funds for the rest of the business. The company will need to be completely re-shaped to reflect this fact - an announcement about funding for Cascabel will not be enough.

I'd love to go, but circumstances prevent it. As you say, Jack, it would be amusing to meet some of the people from this board, although I'd anticipate a full-on scrap. It'd be hilarious to watch a bunch of old blokes going at it hammer and tongs.

I wonder why he's doing this? Will it simply be yet another yawn-fest of repetition, or will he be talking about a recently announced transaction?

Orthern, did Hubris say how he reached his 20p figure?

Orthern, we've had to deal with the government, investors, funders of one description or another, potential buyers and a myriad of potential permutations relating to our assets. This is what distinguishes our SR from a normal plc who simply have to decide which subsidiary to sell and how many people to lay-off (I'm being deliberately simplistic here, but there really is a difference) Having said that, two years is more than enough and now is the time to reveal our hand and it had better be transformational.

Q, it will be a very long time before there's any free cash flow from Cascabel. However, I agree with your comment about selling other tenements, but the problem is are they worth much? The market doesn't seem to think so.

Orthern, I agree, although it's fair to say there's a degree of complexity in our situation which most companies going through an SR don't have.

To my mind, if the company simply announces a funding deal for Cascabel many questions will remain unanswered, which will not help improve our standing. In some ways we're a bit like the NHS - a bottomless pit requiring ever increasing amounts of cash - which is not sustainable. At some stage in the very near future there has to be some form of monetizing event and a clear statement of where we're going next.

If we assume the company is actually in the process of raising funds for Cascabel via off-take agreements etc, and the funds are hypothecated for Cascabel only, I wonder how they'll go about raising cash for our numerous other projects/exploration?

It's this question which makes me think we'll see a root and branch transformation of the shape of our company.

Pbow, good point concerning people wanting to live there, particularly when, according to some people on here, you consider Ecuador is in the middle of a civil war!

Pbow, yes, I understand the role of project managers, although given what's gone on at Woodsmith, I'm not sure it's a good example. But one of my points is funding the hugely increased overhead, which is still necessary if we employ a project manager. I assume the Qatari project didn't need external investors? We do and our role in the the development will clearly be seen as a risk factor.

The question isn't whether a civil engineering company could construct the mine, it's whether we could manage the whole process.

Obviously, as it stands, we are in no position to do so, but Q's argument is that we could employ everyone needed to oversee what is a huge project. Would investors/the government risk backing us to do so? I doubt it. There's also the question of us funding a considerable overhead without any revenue stream for many years to come, whilst simultaneously needing considerable funds for exploration. We'd be stuck in the same loop of constant fund raising and uncertainty which we've all 'enjoyed' - cough - so much over the past many years.

If we want to be part of the long term future we'll have to bring in a majority jv partner who is already able to develop such a project, but who wants to be in a position whereby we own say 30% and have no control whatsoever over the jewel in our crown? It's not an appealing prospect.

Perhaps the board should get ChatGPT to produce the next RNS.

SM, yes, but it was interesting that the arbitration venue was mentioned as being part of an agreed IPA. I took that to mean we must be close to finalizing it. In fact why would we sign the Exploitation Agreement if we didn't have the security of the CIPA?

The idea that we'll be in charge of developing the project is, to put it mildly, fanciful.

HFM, I'm not sure the Newmont man said conversations are actually happening. I thought it was more a case of him saying he could see it as a real possibility. I think we can assume he's serious about this, but I've not heard BHP say anything similar.

One thing is certain, Newmont will have had a close look at us and perhaps we are the catalyst of his comment.

Jezoo, well there's plenty to choose from. If you're feeling masochistic Eurasia should fit the bill.

Talatum, that's true. However, things are a bit different this time. That's not to say we'll definitely see a takeover, but by virtue of the recent statements, it's quite obvious something's got to happen in the next month or so.

Talatum, there's no doubt the sp defies logic, but I take it you can see why my speculation may make some sense?

Is it really a dream, Talatum? Or does it have a foundation in logic?

When you consider Newmont's position as the worlds largest gold miner combined with Palmer's latest comment, the logic of their continued interest here seems pretty compelling. The question is, will they team up with BHP and go for it?

Until fairly recently, and certainly whilst Newcrest were holders, I'd have said no, but it appears the whole landscape has now shifted. So, Newmont and BHP versus the Chinese? Should be an interesting battle.

DBW, thanks.