Member Info for addicknt

Let's make the bold assumption that these indigenous groups are not entirely stupid and that they are are capable of recognizing mining will be of considerable benefit to the economy.

Similarly, let's assume the government recognises the importance of the ecology of the nation.

This being the case, why don't they reach a compromise? No mining in protected areas, but no objections to those which are not, provided they conform to all environmental conditions. Is this a practical solution?

Seems remarkably specific. Mind you, we've been here before once or twice. In any event, I bought another 200k earlier today and I hope I haven't got it wrong...again!

I look forward to the mea culpa.

DM, good to see you posting.

I share your view, although not the bit about using the cash for regionals - shareholders need a return. SC has told us various parties have been given access to the data room. Surely he wasn't lying?

Bozi, indeed, which explains why I would like to see some clarification.

We've had many repetitions of the fact an SR is in progress, and has been for nearly a year. The scope of the study was as wide-ranging as it could be i.e everything was on the table and it seems inconceivable that nothing will emerge. Are the company really saying "steady as she goes"? That would be bonkers and I don't believe it.

Bozi, my understanding is that both advisors were retained to produce the SR as a separate exercise i.e in Citi's case separate from their previous role in preparing a defence, which, in any event, is now redundant.

They will have signed an agreement which would provide, inter alia, a monthly retainer. Surely, it's not asking too much to expect some form of output from the exercise? Indeed, the terms of reference were supposed to deliver a transformative strategy which would set the future direction of the company. Caldwell now appears to be playing this down and I'd like to know why.

As I said yesterday, we will have paid a great deal of money for this work and I believe it's incumbent on them to deliver.

Ship, it won't contain any new price sensitive information. Instead, it will be a re-hash of what we already know.

Bozi, not sure what you're referring to. The position of the advisors?

Bozi, how have I backed myself into a corner?

Well said, rcgl. You have spoken for most of us on here.

Orthern, if this is the case, we've spent millions on fees for Maxit and Citi to produce absolutely feck-all.

SM, I suppose that's possible.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if the company actually explained what's happening, because I don't believe them when they say activity is confined to 'engineering works' and work relating to the licences.

Someone posted the other day that they weren't expecting any announcements until October (I'm not sure why October was chosen) and Caldwell appeared to imply nothing would be announced and the SR is an evolving beast with no end date, which to my mind completely negates the purpose of a strategic review.

Set against this we have a clear statement in the Prospectus telling us financing would be resolved within the next 25 days.

Aside from the seeming contradiction, this begs the question 'finance for what?' At the current run-rate we know we have sufficient cash for the next 12 months, so new monies can't be required for working capital. We can also assume he's not talking about funding for Cascabel because we are nowhere near having a DFS. So, to repeat, what is this finance needed for?

Thanks DBW.

Exactly as I predicted, he says modestly! I must be Nostradamus. Mind you, I was only joking at the time, but nevertheless I'm glad he can find time to read this bb.

I'm fascinated to know how recent events have slowed things down 'with parties privy to the data room'. The whole point of a data room is that it can be accessed remotely and provided it has been furnished with all relevant information, it's difficult to understand why things should have slowed down. Indeed, the same thing applies to site visits - Ecuador is not in a state of civil unrest and I imagine life's carrying on pretty much as usual.

I suspect the real reason is people are taking stock of the current political situation and any other excuses are part of the tried and tested 'French translation' red herring method of obfuscation.

Still, at least we've got people looking carefully.

SM, indeed we did and I only brought it up again because there was another discussion about it yesterday. Ship questioned whether it had been said, and SC suggested it never has, so I was keen to find the reference.

As to your second para, it points out yet another confusion.

If SC really wants to know what he can do to improve communication with retail investors he can start by releasing statements which are crystal clear and unambiguous.

Come to think of it, what's the point of setting a 'funding strategy' if you haven't established the overall strategy? Finance is merely the tool by which you deliver the strategy. The horse very definitely needs to come before the cart.

Re: the discussion about H1.

I knew it had been mentioned somewhere. It appears on page 38 of the Prospectus, first paragraph, final sentence.

"The Board expects to recommend its future funding strategy in H1 2023 in connection with the Company's ongoing strategic review".

However, this is open to interpretation and does not necessarily mean the SR will be completed by then, just the financing options, which I thought were the main components of the work and will reflect the future strategy.

Anyway, I knew H1 had been mentioned somewhere and I'm pleased I'm not going insane - possibly.

Otherness, exactly my point. It's total nonsense.

So, we are 'mine finders, not mine builders' and yet we're working on engineering plans.

We are explorers and yet are not exploring.

Anyone else confused?