Member Info for addicknt

Covgaz, your post is baffling. The first rule of investing is protect your capital, so why are you ignoring it?

Apparently, you're convinced this will fail, so why don't you get out now whist you still have some value?

The second rule of investing is, know when to take your losses. Given your pessimism, perhaps it's time you sold?

Nal, indeed we shall.

I think it' s important not to equate slow progress with no progress and no change. It's taking longer than we'd like, but I don't believe for one moment that nothing's going on.

Sorry, I'm not sure why all of the capital letters have appeared as lower case.

nal, i respect the views of bozi and others who present valid arguments for their opinions, which, as far as i can see, relate to timings and valuations. however, i find it very odd to argue nothing's changed when it so obviously has.

first, the power base of the company rests with caldwell and his fellow canadians. the 'merger' with cgp had all the hallmarks of a reverse takeover, although initially it didn't look like that. second, the sr, regardless of its slow progress, is clearly designed to re-shape the company. how does this imply that nothing's changed? third, the licence renewal and exploitation agreements are important milestones, regardless of what some people say on here. finally, caldwell's relocation to quito is more important than some may think and makes us appear much more like an ecuadorian company, which is very important.

you constantly bang-on about mather and yes, he still has an important shareholding, but he is not an executive director and lives in a different time zone to the centre of activities. my view is that he's completely aligned with what's going on and unless we hear differently, i'm assuming he's happy with life. (please note my use of the word 'assume'. i have no way of knowing if he is and therefore it's just a guess based upon the fact we haven't seen any evidence to the contrary)

a final point: i was never a mather groupie and strongly believed he made a number of critical mistakes. plus, i didn't like his attitude i.e that of a brash, ****y and arrogant australian. similarly, and as i said yesterday, i'm as disappointed with the slow progress of the sr as anyone else on here. however, unlike some of the more strident pessimists, i do believe it will produce something positive.

I think Sangha said fast and smart, not Irwin. And Sangha's the bloke charged with finding an outcome.

Nal, to be honest, I'm not particularly interested in the web site. As for your opinion that nothing's changed, I profoundly disagree. Everything's changed, although it doesn't surprise me that you can't see it.

If you're asking me whether I'm happy with the pace of the SR, the answer's no, as I've said on more than one occasion. But I do not regard this as being indicative of your assertion that nothing's changed. In fact, quite the contrary.

Environmental issues are now way down the list of priorities for the electorate.

Incidentally, I've come across a paper written by two Ecuadorians about Chinese involvement in mining. It was published in 2021 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and can be found on Google. It's well worth a read.

To note the stellar rise in the opinion polls of Jan Topic. Equally interesting is the collapse of Gonzalez's and Perez's support.

Given security is now the number 1 concern for the voters and Topic is an ex-soldier, I suppose this is not unexpected. Looking at his cv, which is 'unusual', I think his background may be more favourable to us.

Burry's position is interesting and far more nuanced than the headlines suggest. His main angst is that tech stocks are wildly overvalued and this is difficult to argue with. His position on the S&P is more complex, as is demonstrated by the fact he's long on a number of stocks.

It should also be borne in mind that since 2008 he's only been right once - when he described bitcoin as being a speculative bubble - and it didn't take a genius to work that one out. Mind you, only a fool would completely discount what he says, particularly as it relates to the money supply.

Q, he wasn't. The terms of reference couldn't be clearer. In fact only one of the four specific options mentions finance, and even then it only talks about financing alternatives 'that enhance project value', which is about as ambiguous as you could get.

Sure, he's subsequently said more about finance - although we've had no concrete news - but if, as you believe, this is the only option being pursued, surely he should say so...but he hasn't. To me it's blatantly obvious they're still looking at a variety of options, but they sure as hell are taking their time over it.

For me, the main part of the problem is that they've failed to provide evidence of any progress on the SR.

There were some very specific possible options outlined, as well as the more general statement that they'd look at anything. Surely after one year they are able to give us a clearer view of what they've been up to? Have they ruled anything out? Are they pursuing one particular option? For example, they were examining the possibility of spinning out everything other than Cascabel. What's happened to that idea? It doesn't take a year to work out whether it's feasible/desirable or not.

Of course I understand they cannot say whether they're in discussions about a sale, but to simply say there's been much 'tyre kicking' was not in the slightest bit helpful. (I wonder if SC understands the meaning of this phrase to the English? i.e time wasting)

Too many companies use the excuse that they cannot break confidentiality and insider rules, when in fact they are using this as an excuse and my fear is that this may be the case here.

I should add that it's quite possible the political situation isn't helping, although I think some people on here are over-stating the gang related stuff. If this is having an impact, shouldn't the company say something about it?

I'm not downbeat about this, but I do feel the board shot itself in the foot by announcing an SR only to then downplay it and waffle on about it being "open-ended". A bad mistake in my view.

Nal, read my post.

An interesting video of an old interview between Crux Investors and Salazar resources on YouTube. Specifically, the section from about minute five is as relevant today as it was when the interview took place in 2020. It's worth listening to another mining company's perspective on the situation in Ecuador.

The Salazar representative states that mining is 'no longer a political issue' as all parties recognise its importance to the economy and the various social programmes. Personally, I think he's over-stating the case somewhat, but from an economic point of view he's right.

Separately, a few days ago Lasso asked the Constitutional Court to overturn its decree relating to mining referenda. A spokesman stated that the country 'cannot stop economic activity'. Of course, Lasso will be out on his ear shortly, so one wonders what impact his request will have. In any event, Cascabel remains unaffected by the decree.

Anyone notice any penalty clauses in either of the mining or exploitation heads of terms?

We know we have a degree of protection via the existing IPA, which we are trying to strengthen, but I was wondering whether we or the government agreed to provide the traditional indemnities which are often contained in HoT in relation to failure to complete.

Copper, who is your source?

DM, yes, you do wonder why they bothered to announce that a new web site was on the way, particularly as nothing appears to have happened. Just yet another example of delivery failure. They should have learnt to keep quiet by now. Having said that, and to repeat my question, why do we need a new web site?

DBW, yes, you'd hope a new web site would reflect some major news, because what would be the point otherwise? Unless it's a job creation scheme for a couple of our local employees - given they've got nothing else to do?

Q, if we end up going down this route I very much hope you're right. Unfortunately, I just can't see it.

If you are a reader of the GGP bb you will note the disquiet some people are expressing with regard to their jv partners, NCM. From an outsiders perspective it does seem that GGP have been jerked around by NCM.

For me, this is an object lesson in why we should not enter into a jv with a mining major.

Despite the good words which would inevitably accompany the announcement of a deal, we would always be on the back foot and subject to the whims of a much larger player. Of course, it would depend upon the structure, but given the relative strengths it's difficult to see how we could negotiate a good deal.

Others will have a different perspective, but from my point of view we should avoid falling into what initially may appear to be an attractive option but which would eventually end in tears.

On a separate note, the only concrete thing SC said at the conference related to ongoing negotiations concerning four tenements. Other than demonstrating we can actually deliver something, I don't think this will be of any real significance to us. I just wish they'd get on with it and get it out of the way, because as it stands, it's merely a distraction.

I thought BP held for Mather?

BBG, where did you see that?

I'm pretty sure BoS is a nominee holder.