Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, you're being deliberately obtuse. He was the founder of the firm and is a recognised and successful dealmaker in the sector. Do you somehow imagine that those multi-billion dollar deals were done by a junior in the firm?

Sorry old boy, but on this occasion you're talking through your hat.

You're looking in the wrong place. Look under the heading 'Firm'. You'll see billions of dollars of transactions.

So yes, your cynicism is totally unjustified. Apologies accepted.

Bozi, look at their web site. Your cynicism is not justified.

Fort, QED.

TI, I think the problem is people's nerves are jangling at the moment and patience is wearing thin - understandably so - and the posts reflect it.

For example, last week I asked if anyone knew of any Tier 1 prospects being abandoned. This was in response to a vague suggestion that it may happen here. The purpose of my question was rhetorical...I couldn't think of one instance, and I hoped that this may allay any fears. Sadly, this was interpreted as me suggesting Cascabel was at risk of being shelved, when in fact I meant no such thing.

Positions have become very polarized - how many times have we seen this happen when things appear not to be progressing as we'd all hoped? This occurs across LSE and we are all prone to varying degrees of confirmation bias and misinterpretation.

Let's hope something positive emerges from this week's MD&A and y/e statement.

You sound just like that Aussie poster - completely incapable of actually reading and understanding what other people say.

Do you honestly think I'd still be invested if I I thought it will be abandoned? My question was a general one i.e it related to the whole industry. And please don't ask why I want to know - it's called an enquiring mind.

Stop leaping to conclusions based upon your own confirmation bias and nervousness.

DM/Bozi, thanks. As ever, sensible responses.

Can't you read? I want to know if it's ever happened in recent times. Full stop.

Are you so insecure in your position that you can't even bear someone raising the question? Talk about ostrich investing.

Incidentally, you've been involved in this board long enough to know various people's stance. Surely you've worked out that I'm one of the more optimistic posters?

Yet again you are missing the point.

Over recent years the question has been raised many times, however, that wasn't really my point and I have no wish to engage in finger pointing.

I was asking if anyone knew of any examples in recent years when this has happened, because I don't know the answer. Has mining technology advanced so much that virtually anything can be mined? Again, I've no idea what the answer is.

Fort, I wasn't suggesting it would be abandoned, but one or two people on here have raised this issue.

Good post, rcgl. I've been saying for years that we had bitten off more than we could chew - I think when we looked at the available concessions we must have been like kids in a sweet shop.

Question: Is anyone aware of a Tier 1 prospect that has been abandoned in recent years because it was too complex to mine?

If you were the government which would you prefer; a much smaller scale and less ambitious programme which would, for the sake of argument, produce half the tax and royalty revenues in the hands of a small time explorer with no experience? Or a full-scale project designed to exploit the deposit's real potential which would deliver the much needed tax revenues in a much shorter timeframe, in the hands of a global mining major?

Clearly, the government has no role in deciding which way this goes...or do they? Is there a tacit agreement with them that says; "grant us the permits, protections etc, and we'll sell to x,y or z mega corp inc.

DM, credibility?

I think all this stuff on mining plans is a complete red herring. Whoever we sell to will develop their own plans, which will be on a far greater scale and aiming for much higher levels of extraction from an earlier stage.

I see what we're doing as a distraction whilst the real work is to get the licences, permits and IPA.

I'm not sure I see your point.

Sure, all permits etc would be included in a DFS, but we aren't working on ours at the moment and haven't been for a long time.

Let's just be thankful we've got two of the hurdles dealt with and pray we get the others, particularly the IPA, in short order. I believe we'll see a positive impact on the sp once we get them.

Very sensible, Bozi, although I think your valuation is way off. Your point about disruption is spot on...it would be disastrous.

I've come to the view that following the 'merger' and SC taking up the reins, he found the situation was far more complex than either he or the other Canadian detractors imagined. There was no easy solution and he's had to unpick the mess left by previous CEOs and almost start from scratch - hence the delays.

I know I'm becoming a bit of a lone voice, but I maintain my view he represents our best chance of achieving value.

Really? SC has said nothing is happening on the DFS and we need those permits DFS, or no DFS.

I think we can anticipate a much higher operating loss in the y/e accounts as the figure will take into account the fees associated with the CGP transaction and redundancy costs (although these may fall into this year). It will look messy. Not that this matters - the important bits are cash balances and burn rate, which is where the supposed efficiencies should be reflected.

Btw, we picked up CGP's fees - does anyone recall this being mentioned at the time? Or did it only appear in the last MD&A?