Member Info for addicknt

I see our resident Eeyore community is growing ever more pessimistic. I can't help but wonder what sort of lunacy is at play when an investor gives compelling reasons - to their eyes- not to remain invested and yet claims still to be holding?

To read some of the stuff these blokes post you'd believe the company has nothing going for it, is in the hands of someone who's totally clueless and will be bust in a few months times. Set against this backdrop, who on earth in their right mind would retain their shareholding?

There are two options: they've either completely lost the plot ,or, they are lying. Of course, a combination of both is quite probable.

Just having a look at the candidates for the upcoming election and was heartened to see the most anti-mining of them, Perez the indigenous leader, state that he will honour existing mining and oil licences, provided they adhere to strict environmental rules.

Of the others, it's a mixed bag, but it appears a majority may be in favour.

Our boys really need to get this in the bag asap.

BP, thanks. I'd be happier if Lasso just got on with it!

DBW, as I'm not a subscriber I can't see the bit about us, which is at the bottom of the article. Do you know what it says?

Can we all join in?

Who said he'd managed to manipulate the market which had allowed him to buy for a client?

Who made up some total nonsense about some kind of put option, or whatever it was, which was hanging over the market and was an indicator of a coming armageddon?

Who felt it necessary to use a different moniker when making these ludicrous claims?

Q, you can look at various permutations and in terms of shareholder returns none of them look good.

I know you're putting your faith in a jv, but I fear it won't deliver what you'd like.

Q, I don't recall you ever producing an analysis of what a jv might look like. I can assure you it isn't pretty.

You also talk about more royalty funding - have you considered the government's requirement? If we give away any more of the top line this project won't be worth pursuing.

Roxi, that's precisely the point. It's ridiculous to assume SC is relying on engineering studies etc to deliver shareholder value and there's no way the company will continue with its current level of activity until the money runs out. Fundamental change is on the way and that last presentation was notable only for what it didn't, or couldn't, say.

With such limited cash, what exactly?

Eloro, as far as your point about deliverables etc is concerned, I agree with you. In fact, I pointed this out yesterday. I also said that if he's relying on engineering studies and various scoping exercises to increase the sp, he's p issing in the wind. But the fact is, he isn't.

They are fully focussed on the SR and yes, it's frustrating having to wait, but I'm certain he's aiming to deliver a good outcome.

Eloro, I disagree. He has 19m shares in the company, so I think he's completely aligned with us. And bear in mind he isn't taking a DC level salary.

DBW, a while back I posted what a jv may look like and the implications for us - it was horrible.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Q has previously based his thinking on us maintaining a majority holding and being able to fund the whole thing with debt/royalty deals. My view is that this is wishful thinking at best.

Q, I hope for all our sakes a jv doesn't happen - I fear you would be very disappointed.

Q, how does the 'evidence favour production' when the CEO keeps telling us we are not mine builders?

Orthern, do you imagine our directors are not aware of this?

The scenario you describe is precisely why the SR is taking place and is the reason something has to happen fairly sharpish.

Caldwell was holding his cards very tightly to his chest, but one things for sure, he isn't relying on internal 'engineering studies' to provide the solution.

I suppose the interesting part about the presentation was the number of times he said he couldn't comment. In other words, what he didn't say was far more interesting than what he did say.

I'm not sure of the relevant Stock Exchange rules, but it's normal for a company which has publicly stated it's undergoing a strategic review to announce if that review has drawn a blank. In fact, I think they are obliged to do so.

What can we infer from this?

Thanks, Q. So what happens if we're not in a position to move to the exploitation phase?

As you say; something's got to happen this year.

Q, I think you're right. I would also assume the subject of ownership and ability to deliver are very much on the agenda of the discussions with officials. I'm equally certain those officials aren't dumb enough not to be fully aware of our situation.

It's interesting that various Ecuadorians keep mentioning us breaking ground next year. It simply ain't gonna happen. Who gave them this impression and why, given the circumstances, do they persist with it?

Good question and I'm of two minds.