Member Info for addicknt

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.

SM, don't forget the Prospectus said a finance recommendation related to the SR would be put to the board by end of H1. Of course, Caldwell didn't mention this and ignored my question on the subject. I think we can assume it's disappeared into the long grass.

Hfm, I reckon the IPA is of great value to us, so it has to be our number 1 priority.

Just listened to the presentation again - a worthwhile exercise, and I found his comments about getting the sp up by 'delivering on time and on budget' interesting.

The problem is that none of us know what either 'on-time' or 'on-budget' actually means. In other words, shareholders and the market have no means of judging performance in this respect and therefore I can't see how this would help the sp. In fact, we haven't got a clue about what work he's even referring to, let alone knowing if it's on-time.

I'm still trying to make my mind up about the presentation. What did he actually tell us and was it worth the effort?

Sire, he was taking the pish.

DBW, yes, the shares are counted as existing shares in issue. And yes, they would be cancelled in the event of a takeover.

Q, the 25m are not options, they are existing SOLG shares. As SC said, there's no current need to sell them, although they are available if needs must.

Because they're not worth much and are not strategically important. Cascabel is.

Dbw, that's a truly horrible thought.

Anyway, enough of my pathetic schoolboy humour...

Q , I don't think we could have expected him to say a sale is the preferred route, he needs to maintain some form of pretence.

No one gets to look at my anus, no matter how big the telescope.

Interesting. You say your assumptions are based upon observables but then go on to make numerous assumptions where no such observables exist.

BTW, I agree with your point about the importance of a plan and am disappointed one hasn't yet emerged from the sr, although RK and others argue we'll never need one.

Snowman, you are right to be confused - the comment stuck out like a sore thumb.

As an army engineer who now works in construction and is only just in your 40s, I'll bow to your superior business experience. I'm guessing you've never actually seen an nda relating to a corporate finance transaction, let alone become party to one. But no matter, I'm sure you know best.

Let's put it this way, in 40 years of experience I've never witnessed a company sign an nda and then not access the information. Whether you choose to believe me or not is your prerogative.

The reason you don't simply sign an nda willy-nilly is that it restricts you from more or less any activity related to the target company and any infringement will expose you to legal action. Companies simply don't do it.

Q, SM is correct.

Nal, no company signs an nda to access company information if it doesn't intend to make use of the access. So, unless you think Caldwell is lying, we can safely assume people are indeed looking at the info. In fact, if you think he is lying I suggest you email him and tell him so. Please let us know his response.

And to reverse your logic, there is no evidence to suggest people are not interested. These things take a very long time.

If I were to summarise your position, is it fair to say you don't think anyone is interested in buying Cascabel? How do you square this with your oft stated comment that it will be sold, but just not this year?

Given the company is in a state of suspended animation, what's going to happen next year that would make the company more saleable?

It is not an assumption to say multiple parties are using the data room; nor that our advisors will have approached the most likely candidates. SC confirmed the first point and the second point is simply a statement of how these things are conducted.