Member Info for addicknt

NMM, that wasn't my point, although you're right to raise the question.

My point was that we were told the government wouldn't agree to arbitration outside of the country when they appear to already have done so. Mind you, that's not to say they will agree this time, but at least it's negotiable.

I could have sworn we were told this morning that this was bad news for us. A bit like the referendum result which didn't change anything. On that point I notice none of the doomsters who told us arbitration would be non-negotiable and adjudicated under Ecuadorean law, have said anything about the revelation that the current IPA specifies Chile as the destination for arbitration.

SH, you told us the other day that you'd sold your shares before the current downturn. Presumably you sold in the Spring/Summer of last year?

Tesla, do you think I'm wrong? Over the years people have talked endlessly about the blocking power of BHP and how their holding may deter a bidder/jv partner, and the argument had some merit. Are you incapable of seeing how their lack of interest may assist our board, or are you blinded by your own bias?

My eyes are fully open to all options/possible outcomes, yours are not.

'Hmm...who said that before?' Just about every market commentator, analyst and journalist I've read, and they've been saying it for at least 18 months.

Why are Newmont 'definitely out'? As far as I'm aware they've not said anything about their holding, apart from it not appearing on their list of asset disposals.

If BHP do indeed intend to bid for Anglo there's another way of looking at this. To any other interested party/parties in Solg it sends a clear message to the market that BHP are unlikely to pursue their interest, thus removing a potential obstruction should they wish to bid. My guess is that our board would regard this as being a positive development. In my opinion bringing BHP onboard was a fundamental error (I understand the initial benefit) and NM spent years regretting it.

Anyway, you've sold, although you haven't revealed when, so I assume this would make no difference to you?

'84, apparently he sold before the fall, although he hasn't revealed when.

Incidentally, I had to google what an anechoic chamber is and was interested to note it can cause hallucinations. This would explain a great deal.

Eloro, not giving you advice, merely trying to understand your logic, or lack thereof.

SH, just out of interest, when did you sell your shares?

RK, as you suggested earlier, it's either because they've got nothing to say, or they're getting closer to announcing something. Given the imperative of new funds, you'd assume it's the second of the two options.

What 'effort' is involved in selling? It only takes the push of a button. I'm sure you can manage it.

As for arbitration, the answer is probably no, but I only said I'm sure SC is trying to negotiate it - every single company involved in similar discussions would try the same thing. In any event, as SM pointed out - which you immediately tried to rubbish - this arbitration issue relates primarily to international trade deals between sovereign nations. Single commercial transactions are not the same thing.

SM, quite right. Commercial contracts will designate where arbitration would take place and London is one of the global centres for such events. If I were SC, I would be trying to get that included in the IPA.

Eloro, why am I being difficult? Simply because I disagree with you? Does it not occur to you the same accusation could be levelled against you?

Honestly, for your own peace of mind and given you see negatives everywhere you look, why not sell up? Take your losses - which is not a bad thing- and invest in something else.

How do you know it was linked to that? Surely it's more likely to relate to the lack of news on funding?

On that issue, has anyone received any form of reply to their emails or phone calls to the company?

Eloro, yes, it would have been preferable, but the point is the situation hasn't changed. Did you worry about it before, because I don't recall either you or anyone else mentioning it previously? All inward investment into the country has been subject to this for a long time and has it deterred them? The facts appear to suggest not. As for corruption, can you name a developing country where it isn't an issue? Has it deterred people from investing in the dodgiest nations in Africa? No, it has not.

Rinehart's invested $300m recently, which I believe equates to 'hundreds of millions'.

As for Nobby, are you really sure you'd welcome a radical left-wing President? Do you think he's wrong to want to crush the cartels? Clearly, the people of Ecuador don't share your opinion. The parallels with Duerte are very apparent and he managed to turn the Philippines into the fastest growing economy in SE Asia with considerable levels of inward investment.

SH, so you accept the fact nothing has changed? Just to reiterate, the 'companies with deep pockets' have invested multiple millions under the prevailing arbitration environment, so how exactly does Sunday's vote change things? Answer: it doesn't.

I do agree that we need Nobby to be re-elected and it's good to see he received a high level of public support for his crackdown on the drugs cartels (I note they've re-captured the bloke who kicked this whole thing off by escaping from jail).

Perhaps the clever people on here can explain what has changed as far as arbitration is concerned? The referendum voted to maintain the status quo, which didn't deter BHP, Rinehart, the Chinese and many others from investing, did it?

Sure, it would have been better if Nobby had got his way, but he didn't, so the country carries on as normal and we carry on with the process of finalising the amended IPA.

SH, at last we agree upon something!

Up until SC was appointed and power was wrested away from NM and his band of merry hangers-on, the management and strategy were dreadful. At long last we have a team with a realistic and deliverable plan.(you may not agree with that bit)

SH, I love it when you make your definitive statements - they're nothing more than speculation and you know it. The ONLY guidance we have on this matter has come from the company itself, and no disrespect, but I think they may be closer to affairs than a lad running a small building firm in the North of England.

As for your point 2, I believe you're wrong and the numerous articles which have appeared today suggest the latest deal was signed in recent days. She's committed $300m to Ecuador in recent weeks and even if they've been in discussions for some time, which they will have been, she could have pulled out if she was concerned about the impact of the Mexican situation. She quite clearly isn't.

You are desperate to find a justification for your gloomy prognosis, sadly for you Rinehart isn't delivering on your agenda - quite the opposite. You'll feel better if you accept the fact and find something else to moan about. Suggestion: keep banging on about the "car crash" funding right up to the moment of the announcement. But make sure you've got your reverse ferret boots on and have a ready supply of "I didn't say that" posts to hand.