Member Info for addicknt

His point about everyone being onside and pulling in the same direction is a revealing. We know what he, SC and Irwin want, so it seems pretty clear what they're aiming for.

Indeed they are, and SC is working on them. Which was my original point.

BTW, you're wrong about the exploitation agreement.

Because it signals government support for the project.

This will tip our Australian friend over the edge. Should be amusing.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Both agreements are highly significant.

Bozi, I would say the mining and exploitation agreements are signs of considerable progress. Or do you think not?

I'm also hopeful the ongoing IPA will be produced soon.

Bozi, I accept opacity has been a big problem, but I remain optimistic SC will eventually improve the situation.

I flatly refuse to accept the argument nothing is going on. I don't for one moment believe Caldwell is sitting at his desk twiddling his thumbs and wondering when it would be possible to relocate back to Canada without upsetting everyone.

Bozi, it tells 'A' story, not necessarily 'The' story. We have been starved of news flow, which has led to increased speculation from a small section of private investors of a negative outcome. But the fact is it's speculation and only speculation. We have no way of knowing what's going on and no news doesn't imply bad news.

We have mining companies, financial investors, mining analysts, market commentators, government ministers and market pundits expressing their views that Cascabel will be a Tier1 mine, and yet we have a few stock punters on a financial bb speculating the asset is not viable.

Take your pick.

Putting the issue of Cascabel to one side, I wonder why there hasn't been any progress of any of the other options which were to be examined by the SR?

If you haven't already done so, click on the highlighted link to the various changes in institutional holdings. One departure and several buyers.

Nal, your absence over the past couple of days made me wonder whether you'd been bitten by a particularly venomous snake, but then I realised no snake would take the risk of being poisoned.

Am I correct in thinking DC was claiming $1m compensation for unfair dismissal?

DM, you're spot-on about the web site.

Positive write-up in the Telegraph's Questor column today.

Thanks, Shippy.

SM, had we still been labouring under the previous regimes I would have agreed with them, but life has moved on.

The funding comment is interesting and if indeed their intention is as you suggest, I agree with them.

I was also interested in the observations about political risk which are contained in the section on Lundin.

I wonder what SC makes of the governance comment? They may be straying into libel territory.

Ignore that, I've now found it.

You will note they've made a factual error when they suggest we don't have the mining licence. As for the broader comment about corporate governance, I'd say this is highly unusual. Other companies don't often make such subjective observations in documents of this type, particularly without providing evidence to back-up the claim.

SM, where did you see this?