Member Info for addicknt

Nal, as ever you don't answer the question. When did you wake up to the fact NM is no longer running the show? You told us hundreds of times he was still in charge and that nothing had changed. What was it that led you to a different conclusion?

Nal, as ever you don't answer the question. When did you wake up to the fact NM is no longer running the show? You told us hundreds of times he was still in charge and that nothing had changed. What was it that led you to a different conclusion?

BBG, afraid I disagree with you.

1) Why 10m? Was it because it was all we could raise, or is it all we need?

2) If it's similar to an overdraft facility, can we assume it's unsecured? If so, why was a lender happy to stump up 10m on an unsecured basis?

3) It almost certainly has a high interest rate attached, but does not appear to involve warrants/equity, which would have to be declared.

4) Who was the lender and why is the company so shy of revealing the name? This strikes me as being very odd.

5) I think it's safe to assume it will be repaid when the Grand Reveal occurs.

For me, points 1 &2 are the critical questions and had the full detail been revealed we'd have a pretty good idea of what's coming next - for better or worse.

NAL, that's interesting, because it wasn't long ago that you kept telling us Mather was still in charge and was pulling the strings. Good to see you've caught up.

DBW, indeed.

SH, I didn't suggest you did say the loan would be dilutive. What you did say, prior to the event, was that we'd have a car crash dilutive placing. We didn't, so I think we can put that one to bed. And I continue to be of the opinion that your description of the loan and the non-reaction of the market, is wildly inaccurate. We are an explorer, we need cash, we got it and the size of loan indicates that what the company has said about major news in the next few months is true. If it wasn't we'd have raised more and who knows, had that happened you may have been right. But it didn't, much to your chagrin.

Fort, you talk about the going concern issue. It isn't the quarterly figures where that matters, it's the y/e audited accounts.

RK, I think you've been overly optimistic about cash burn for some time now. We will drawdown on the facility, and I imagine we'll do so fairly soon.

SH, I think you'll find that my reaction to the loan is pretty much neutral. It was necessary, didn't involve any dilution, despite the fact you said it would, and the market has reacted with a shrug of the shoulders. That's all there is too it, and no matter how much you claim it's been disastrous, the facts simply don't back you up.

The real question is, why are you trying to make so much out of what has effectively been a non-event? Your two fellow travellers made absolute fools of themselves this morning - again - surely you don't wish to emulate them?

Who are these other shareholders you keep talking about, SH? Have you been paying any attention whatsoever to the volumes since Tuesday? Have you noticed that there hasn't been a sell-off? If you are going to make these statements it would be helpful if they were supported by the facts.

My only other speculative mining stock is KOD and what has gone on there is similar to the situation we find ourselves in.

The company sold 51% of their project to the Chinese, but the deal had a number of critical conditions precedent which involved the government in Mali. After waiting some time for the various steps required to complete the deal, the Chinese waived the conditions precedent and went ahead anyway. Kodal had to provide $100m indemnity to make this happen, which is extremely unusual and demonstrates how certain Chinese entities are prepared to take on significant risk. Gangfeng did something similar with BCN and which ultimately backfired on them.

BBG, I thought there had been mention of next year? Or am I thinking of something else?

Fort, yes, that's an alternative possibility and would make sense, although I'm not sure it's true of the Environmental licence, which we've been told is some way off. You're definitely right about Noboa.

NAL, simple question. Does it not occur to you that any potential funder would most definitely have been in the data room? How else do you think they'd form an opinion as to whether to invest or not? So it's not an assumption, it is a fact.

Tesla, does it not occur to you that those people who had access to the data room are now the people with whom we're in discussions?

As for my post being 'rampers supposition', is it really? Do I not point out the cash issue? In fact the heading of the post is about the conundrum that arises.

What we know/have been told.

1) We have sufficient cash for 4/5 months. 2) The board is in detailed negotiations with potential funders of long term facilities. 3) Those facilities will be subject to various licences/permits which are dependent upon government approval.

So let's assume we agree the funding within the short term, but the licences aren't concluded and require more discussion with the government. Assuming the funding will not be available for drawdown until the licences are agreed, we'll need more working capital.

We know the company, if possible, want to avoid issuing more equity and we really don't want to load up the balance sheet with more debt, so what options exist?

Personally, I think this is where the SR kicks in. We'll sell assets to provide the working capital to take us through until all licences have been signed-off. Of course the other alternative is that Tuesday's announcement was a smoke-screen and we're close to selling either all, or part of Cascabel. Take your pick!

We've waited a long time for this to unfold and we're getting very close to a conclusion.

Well done! You've excelled yourself. One tenth of a penny down and you're telling us this is a sign of shareholders selling up and that the market considers the loan to fit your description of being a car crash. What utter balls. Your posts are getting more ludicrous by the day.

SH, you were kindly prepared to let us know why the price has fallen since the loan announcement on Tuesday. Given the price is more or less identical, perhaps you could tell us why? According to you other more knowledgeable investors were heading for the exit, but again that's not true, is it?

You suggest long term holders on here are 'desperate', are you sure? From where I sit it's you who appears to be getting more desperate by the day.

SH, you say 'the price has dropped since the announcement of the loan', but it hasn't really, has it?

This is all pretty binary now, isn't it? You either believe the management, or you don't.

Apologies, I should have specified financial y/e.

With regard to your post relating to the IPA, given that we've already signed HOTs, Letter of Intent, or whatever it was, and have been in discussions for a long time, my feeling is that the issue has been dealt with.