Member Info for addicknt

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if they come sniffing around us we should avoid them at all costs. They are not people I'd want to be in bed with.

TI, you're right. At the time they were looking at investments in shipping, a sector I knew well. Their interest was twofold: investment behind already successful owners and also in distressed assets. We got close on one deal, but ultimately their hardball act backfired and they were told to p1ss off.

Pinot, at least Biswas knows all about us!

I spent 18 months as a retained consultant to this lot. I've never come across a more revolting group of individuals. Rude, arrogant and absolutely convinced of their own brilliance. Mind you, they did pay well.

Q, indeed. In the latest figures the company referred to a release of contingent liabilities of $1.2m, the original total having been just over $3m. This implies $2m was paid for something and I suppose it's possible it was the settlement with DC, although there has been no announcement from the company relating to the situation.

Q, DC stated this was the reason, or one of them, in his submission to the court.

Whatever their decision it'll have consequences for us. A sale to the Chinese would ginger things up a bit.

They talk about focussing on emerging Tier 1 assets. I wonder if we fall into that category?

Have released their asset strategy. I can't see any reference to us, although it looks as if they're getting rid of GGP.

SH, that's a reasonable question and perhaps is best answered by pointing out we've been in the same position on numerous occasions and have always found the cash. Of course, the past is no guarantee of future events, but the precedents exist.

You have also proved my point; despite your protestations, you have no more idea of what will unfold than anyone else and it's a bit silly to pretend otherwise.

Q, a question: We know DC was given the boot for pursuing a board policy which was to take this to production. We know the board changed its mind. We know the people behind this are those now running the show. How likely is it that they too have now changed their minds?

And before anyone leaps up and down saying that the reason they've had to alter the strategy is because no one's interested, how does that account for the Chinese investment? How does that account for every market commentator I've ever read or heard stating Cascabel is a fantastic discovery?

Of course, lack of progress may be price related and perhaps our Board's view is too bullish, but we don't know that. The truth is we are all in the dark and everything we write on here - from both sides - is nothing more than speculation.

DBW, I was simply referring to the need for cash, not the method of getting our hands on it.

I'm not sure why this issue is so controversial because the position is crystal clear.

If there isn't a transaction which releases cash we will need to raise funds. If there is one, we won't. (I'm not referring to funds required for development, but merely working capital. If the team lose their marbles and decide to attempt the production route, it goes without saying we'll need an awful lot of cash)

Just like any junior explorer we have a continuous requirement for cash, as our history so ably demonstrates. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Adieu, I admire your enthusiasm, but I take it you realize that you're addressing people who've been it this share for years?

We are all familiar with the story and I can assure you very little has avoided people's attention.

In any event, let's hope news arrives soon which justifies our very long wait, and good luck with your investment.

Q, yes, an update and some clarity would be helpful, but would it make tactical sense?

They may have put certain options on the back-burner, but perhaps they don't want to rule them out in case something interesting comes out of the blue? Additionally, they may be in quite detailed negotiations which are at too early a stage to disclose, and they must not mislead the market.

It seems to me that there is one of the options that is in their own control and they could have completed by now; the spin-out into Newco of the regionals. Does failure to do so imply it is no longer being considered?

The MD&A lays out very clearly what's still required before Cascabel can be described as being de-risked, and the fact is there's still a lot of work to do, especially as the company only has six full time employees. (Anyone still thinking SC is twiddling his thumbs is mistaken)

It's possible we could enter a conditional agreement with an interested party, with subject conditions related to the work-flow, but is that likely? Or will will wait until we've ticked the boxes?

It it's decided that waiting would put us in a stronger negotiating position, then it would seem likely that we'll see some action on the regionals (Porvenir?) before anything happens at Cascabel.

We were blind-sided by Friday's announcement so let's hope SC can repeat the trick with some of the other requirements, particularly the IPA.

'84, really? I never knew that. The point is you simply repeat yourself endlessly and you will never change the minds of those who disagree with you. So perhaps it's not me being thick.

By far the most interesting and relevant post today was hfm's. It received two comments.

By contrast, the tedious and repetitious climate balls receives multiple posts, just as it does every weekend.

Thanks, hfm. Really interesting interview with people who know what they're talking about.

Conclusions? The governments and world bodies telling us that we'll be de-carbonised in no time at all are talking through their collective hats. Second, there's no way on god's earth that we'll take this to production.

Orthern, 'strange' doesn't cover it. Downright weird is closer to the mark. It's as if these non-holders regard themselves as caped crusaders whose mission in life is to save others from their own ignorance and stupidity. The political equivalent is the LibDems. Sanctimonious, hectoring, interfering and full of moral rectitude.

For those interested, SpadesAspade posted a link to a report from Sprott outlining the case for investment in gold miners/developers/explorers. It can be found on the GGP page and was posted at 19:22 yesterday.

If you still read this page Spade, thanks for the link.