Member Info for addicknt

DBW, indeed we do have some interesting ones, but we have 70 (is that figure right?) or so and it seems pretty unlikely we'll ever do anything with them.

Of course, if we flog Cascabel as a single entity and we end up with plenty of cash, we may return to our original purpose of being an explorer, which is something we're pretty good at. Bristow referred to how junior explorers got diverted from their primary function and ended up being neither fish nor fowl, something I believe SC is anxious to avoid.

Q, exactly the point I made earlier. To my way of thinking, it would be no bad thing if we lost a few. Although I suppose it could be argued that a potential buyer may have a longer term interest in having so many concessions, but they are of little to no value to us at the moment.

So, he's invited 'creep ownership' has he? Where's the evidence to support that, and why do you think it would be in his interests to do so? How exactly do you think he's able to control the share price?

Q, in his previous comments about us he said we don't fit their criteria, which, given we meet many of his requirements, may well relate to grades, although I suppose the previous capex may also have deterred him. Obviously the new PFS changed the capex, but I got no sense of him being interested in us.

Does anyone know who the people in the photos are?

This BBG character believes I'm a deramper and has me on filter, however his observation is somewhat at odds with my reading of the interview. I suggest you listen to it to make up your own minds.

I'd love to be wrong, but I just didn't get the sense we are on their radar, particularly as Bristow has said as much in the past and he doesn't strike me as a person who changes his mind easily.

The strange thing is that when Bristow describes his plans for Barrick and what it looks for in terms of investment, we fit the bill to a tee. However, it's equally clear his priorities lie elsewhere and although they have a small interest in Equador, it doesn't seem as if they're really giving it much attention. I think we can ignore them as potential acquirers/partners.

Very interesting interview.

It hasn't appeared on this web site yet, but shareholders are in for a nice surprise.

If you haven't done it already, it's worth googling Noboa/PDAC. There are a number of articles referring to his speech as well as some identifying the problems which still exist for a number of projects.

These articles demonstrate the more or less unique position Cascabel occupies, in as much as it doesn't face the same opposition from environmental and indigenous groups and is clearly being given a degree of priority by the government.

If one of the majors is looking for entry into Ecuador, we are incredibly well positioned - but we all knew that.

However, despite assurances from the company over the years, it does make you wonder how many of our concessions will ever see the light of day and in some senses this is probably a good thing. To my mind, it's always been the case that we got greedy and bit off far more than we could feasibly chew.

Anyway, let's get this bloody IPA signed and then we can all breath more comfortably.

All the discussions about whether this means we're taking to this to production or not, the fact is today's news is excellent and for me, is confirmation of the fact SC is gradually ticking the right boxes. He has changed this company fundamentally and is clearly intent on delivering. Thank god shareholders had the sense to re-elect him.

It's equally clear that the mining question is very much a priority for this government and they seem to be making all the right noises, especially when it comes to Cascabel.

Perhaps, at long last, things are beginning to look more rosy?

Q, so the bloke lied in a court submission? His statement is directly relevant, the fact you don't wish to believe it is more a question of you clutching at straws, not me.

By the way, if I'm right we have settled his claim for circa £2m and I'm not sure we'd have done that if he was telling porkies.

The one thing we do agree upon is that Cascabel is going into production...but we won't own it.

Q, their confidence is based upon the understanding that by the time it comes to construction they'll be working with either the Chinese or a mining major.

What about DC's statements? Any thoughts?

Incidentally, you've never been able to offer an explanation of DC's court submission. It was laid out in black and white and was totally unequivocal. Surely that must make you think twice?

Q, you ask what would give Semaiac the confidence to construct and the answer's obvious. Ownership of the asset by a mining major with deep pockets, not a small exploration firm with six full time employees.

Good spin! My guess is you're the only person who interpreted it that way.

Now that we know that the strategy changed fundamentally when DC was unceremoniously dumped, surely that tells you all you need to know? It was laid out in plain English in DC's court submission. We know Mather wants out, we know our Canadian masters want out, are you of the view they've changed their minds?

Q, I know you're very particular about listening to what the company says - and I agree with you- but how do you square your belief with SC's comment a while back that we are not producers?

Nope!

Orthern, amen to that!

Another brick in the wall...or dam.

I admit to being confused. We're told on a regular basis that Caldwell's sitting around twiddling his thumbs and is a total waste of space. Or maybe he's getting on with his job and is gradually putting together the elements which will deliver the neatly packaged turnkey project he promised us?