Member Info for addicknt

Q, I recall the Earthling moniker but have no memory of what he may have said. The only thing I believe about this bloke is that he isn't invested and if he is, by definition, he's deranged. No one owns a share and then spends as much time as he does rubbishing it.

Copper, of course you're right, and your description of him is completely accurate.

In keeping with your normal pattern of behaviour, I knew you wouldn't provide a proper answer with evidence to back it up. You do this all the time; you accuse people of things and when challenged to provide evidence, you completely fail to do so.

My original post did two things; in relation to Cascabel it pointed out the situation as it stands and I asked if anyone else was confused by the Courts latest move. It was not a 'ramp', nor was it nonsense. As for 'indignation', you're the one on this board who's in a permanent state of anger. If I were you I'd take a long hard look in the mirror.

Nal, do you deny that the article said Cascabel has been excluded? Do you think the two licences are worthless? Do you not believe that we are in advanced talks on the others? Can you name any other developments that have reached similar agreements recently?

Instead of trotting out your normal pap, why don't you make an attempt to answer the question I posed in my initial post?

So, following popular demands, the Lasso decree allowed local referenda on the issue of mining and yet the Constitutional Court has now put them on temporary hold. Why? It's what the activists wanted. Anyone else confused?

In any event, and for your benefit nal, the article states that Cascabel is specifically excluded.

As each day passes it seems Cascabel is becoming pretty much unique, in that it appears to be the only development that's likely to proceed in anything like the short/medium term.

Italian, you may well be right.

DM, given the political climate I think it's wise not to spend any more cash on the regionals. I suspect we'd never get beyond a few drill results. My view is that we're effectively a two trick pony; Cascabel and Porvenir. I accept this may be a simplistic view, but I also suspect we have many concessions in our portfolio that will quietly disappear.

Paul, thanks for posting. This interview probably gave us more detail than we've ever had with regards to what's actually happening on the ground and with governmental discussions/negotiations, so it was helpful.

But, as ever, the real interest lies in what was not said. SC has made some significant steps and has a clear idea of how the resource should be developed and mined, and that's certainly better than anything we've had previously. However, and to employ the over-used phrase, there's a massive elephant in the room - how are we going to achieve this?

As it stands we are still in the situation of having to interpret two completely contradictory statements; 'we are not mine builders' versus 'how we intend to develop Cascabel'.

SC is treading a very careful line and is more comfortable talking about the day-to-day stuff than anything strategic - for obvious reasons. But one will simply not progress without the other and time is of the essence. It's time to put some meat on the bones of the SR.

Z, I was going to ask that question, so thanks for providing the answer.

Q, I very much doubt we'll be using our current reserves to construct the decline.

One minor question; where's the money coming from?

The answer of course, is that it won't be from us. We're currently in the process of ticking every box as we de-risk the project for a third party.

Assuming we get this permit, and since we now have the other two in place it must be a mere formality, we seem to have only three outstanding. The revised IPA and the water and environmental permits. Are there others?

Bozi, dare I say it but that's a very naive understanding of why people voted to leave. It just isn't that simple. Read Goodhart's Road to Somewhere and you'll get a far more complete picture.

You don't even know what she wrote and yet you claim to understand her argument. You really are a total clown.

Ag, the day your intellect approaches that of Janet Daly is the day hell freezes over. You are exactly part of the problem she describes and yet are far too arrogant to realize.

Jezzoo, you are far from being alone. I find it interesting that the climate change activists appear to have learnt nothing from the Remain campaigners who thought they'd win their argument by alienating and insulting millions of people. They lost and the eco nut jobs are similarly doing a damn fine job of turning people against their cause, which is a pity because it's important.

Q, you may find Janet Daly's column in todays Sunday Telegraph interesting.

She is not writing from the position of being a 'denier', as you may call them, but instead is writing from the point of view of the impact on the climate change lobby on democracy.

I won't detail her full argument but will simply quote her concluding paragraph:" If the climate campaigners are anywhere near being right, there are huge questions with profound implications for democratic governments which must - even in the most dangerous circumstances - take people with them in willing consent. This is not the moment for hysteria, or for insulting the intelligence of ordinary people, or alienating them with accusations of selfishness and ignorance. Problem-solving is a function of rational thinking. It's time to get on with it".

Yous should read the article because she is 100% right.

Fair point Q.

I suppose it's possible we're in a chicken and egg situation. Funders/jv partners/buyers wouldn't commit until the licences were agreed and the government wouldn't gives us them until we could demonstrate we had the wherewithal to progress. In order to break this circle I can only guess that we were able to provide evidence of intent from interested parties and the government blinked first. But if that's the case, surely the company has a duty to inform the market?

DM, painful it most certainly is. I've never understood why this company is, and always has been, incapable of providing clear and coherent messaging. Is there something unique about it that makes the task too difficult? I don't think so.

Last week we had two pieces of excellent news, which were milestones in our progress. And yet here we are with more unanswered questions and a government putting out press releases that don't tally with what we've been told. How is that even possible? Don't they coordinate these things? Apparently we've got all necessary permits and licences - but we haven't. We've committed to nearly 5bn of investment and yet we know we don't have it and there's no way on gods earth we can raise that money on our own. The whole thing is totally confusing.

Please don't think I'm giving up on the project because I'm not and I can only assume we're much closer to resolving these issues than some of us may think.

"such technical solvency and prestige as Solgold". Is there another Solgold?

"Currently, the project has the corresponding environmental and water permits". Not according to the company.

"Construction will begin in 2025". Hmm.

Why do we always have so many contradictions and such a lack of clarity? Is it any wonder the share price is so low?

Q, surely we MUST have given them some clue as to where the money's going to come from?

I'm really struggling to believe we signed-up on the basis of a wing and a prayer. It's time for the company to tell shareholders.

Agreed.

Mining Minister: "We're entrusting you with a critical feature of our nations economy, which is going to cost up to 3bn dollars. Currently you only have lights-on money for the next 12 months. What are you doing about it? And sorry, as much as I love your endless presentations about first mover advantage and bakeries, I want some actual detail"