Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, good to see you're starting the week with an optimistic spring in your step!

We know the government wants Cascabel to proceed, and we also know that our chances of doing this on our own are non-existent. Therefore it's in the interests of the government to award us the various licences and revised IPA as soon as possible. Only that way can we attract the majors to buy the asset and get on with building the mine the country needs.

The longer we fanny around, the longer it will be before the government gets the revenue its future depends upon.

Lindy, over the past few weeks this has been discussed at some length.

The situation is, we don't have a clue and there have been indications suggesting both a sale and retention. Hopefully, Caldwell got a steer when he met Newmont at Denver.

TI, good post. The only quibble is that we are not being passive at the moment and are trying to cover all options in a proactive manner. Surely that's what the SR is all about?

TI, as I said the other day, let's hope SC has got a potential buyer for the stake already lined-up.

Clearly it would be very difficult and costly if they attempt to sell in the market, and I'm sure they aren't that stupid. In the meantime the future of their holding will cast a degree of uncertainty, both positive and negative, over our share.

Wildtiger, we have no urgent need of working capital - read the last MD&A.

However, if we end up going down the demented JV route, we will need to raise huge amounts to stand our corner, and of that there will be a significant level of dilutive equity.

DBW, you can access it via a link on the GGP page. It's also on NCM's web site.

DM, I most certainly haven't. So much for the protestations of improving shareholder communication!

Actually, I suspect what they meant by that was improved communications with BHP, which is all fine and dandy until SC needs the support of us minnows in two months time.

'western countries antagonizing China' hmm... It isn't the West provoking both regional and global tension by threatening Taiwan and the Philippines. Nor can I think of a western nation engaging in ethnic cleansing of its own people. Please don't think of China as a victim - it isn't. It's an aggressor.

As to your main point, you may well be right.

RK, you may well be right, but as I've mentioned before, if this is indeed the case I'm really not sure why they announced it and described it thus.

His observation about the SR "being out of our control" supports my previous comment. Setting a strategy should be something a company determines and then puts in place the tactics to deliver it. It isn't about looking at the assets and praying someone steps in to resolve the issue. To me, this is the impression he's giving.

My finger's been hovering over the buy button for the past few weeks. Should I declare this to the stock exchange?

I subscribe to the "every little bit helps" argument. At least he's not selling.

This SR thing is interesting, mainly because it doesn't appear to conform to the usual definition and purpose. It's as if they don't understand the meaning of the word strategic.

As a fellow poster said to me last night, it's odd that the directors were given the go-ahead to buy shares when we know various non-disclosure agreements are in place and people are accessing the data room.

It used to be the case that the Stock Exchange would, in very special circumstances, allow director purchases in a closed period, but it wasn't easy to get them to do so. I don't know if this dispensation option is still available.

Fort, why start your post with a veiled insult? It does you no favours.

My initial post was simply posing a few questions and was inviting people's opinions.

Q, one other point. You say we are in charge of our own destiny - we most certainly are not.

The only way we could fit that description is if we currently had several billions of dollars in our bank account and all of the required approvals. Sadly, we do not.

That wasn't the point I was making. I was suggesting that it may have an effect on our future direction, which seems pretty obvious to me.

For example, a sale to BHP would signal BHP's intentions, likewise the Chinese. Short of buying the shares ourselves, there's nothing our management can do to determine what happens with the shares.

Sorry Q, not sure I understand your point. What has the fabled 'diverse book' got to do with the future of Newmont's stake? The answer is 'nothing'. They'll make their own minds up about what they want to do with it.

Tom Palmer has said Newmont intend to concentrate on mining in less risky jurisdictions. Although all the right noises have been made, Ecuador must still count as being risky. They are also committed to expanding their copper footprint. So:

1) Will they sell?

2) Will they hold as passive investors?

3) Will they actively support the company?

We've been told there are buyers out there for the old CGP stake, so one can assume these same buyers would be interested in Newcrest's. Will SC seek to find a friendly buyer for the holding? Is the market currently discounting us because it regards the Newmont's position as an over-hang? In other words, is it contributing to the uncertainty rather than as a catalyst?

To my way of thinking the future of the ownership of these shares is of great significance to us, although I'm not sure we'll be getting an answer any time soon.