Member Info for addicknt

My take.

We will create a publicly quoted vehicle for the other assets and we will be given pro-rata free shares. Sound Energy and BCN did the same thing and I made money on both. The IPO will be accompanied by an equity fund raise.

The work currently underway with regard to Cascabel, such as it is, will continue until the licence issues have been put to bed, at which point the asset will be marketed. These must be completed by year end, so we have a timetable, albeit an uncomfortable one. There will not be any financing package.

So, we have longer to wait for a Cascabel realisation, but it has to happen this year.

Q, in my opinion Ingo was being economical with the truth. As I've said before, he may have have had expressions of interest, but no more than that. We are not in a position to get commitments now, let alone three years ago.

TI, I'd love to know how financing can be organised without a DFS.

There's a lot to read and it's far more detailed than we've been used to, but the overwhelming impression is of a company which has hunkered-down and is concentrating on the SR. The good news is that the cost saving initiatives mean that we have have sufficient liquidity until June 2024.

Has appeared.

I suspect Newmont will be willing sellers.

Bozi, my point was that in order to deliver shareholder value they are considering all options. Some of us may not like whichever route they pursue, whereas others may. Ultimately, if the chosen path gives us what we all want I guess they'll have done their job.

They must believe there's more than one way to skin the cat and it'll be interesting to see which way they go.

I should add that I too am experiencing shareholder fatigue, but I won't be following Bubble's route by selling before the outcome is revealed - that strikes me as being perverse. However, if a GGP-style jv emerges, I'm done - there's too high an opportunity cost involved.

DG1, not sure about the 'binary scenario'. I think I'd suggest the parameters of the SR were specifically set to avoid it being described as binary.

Bit happier now, Bozi?

SM, thanks.

Sorry Bozi, I can't remember where it appeared, but I know for a fact it did - somewhere.

Q, in my opinion Rule was wrong about that particular point. There are other outstanding issues which will have far greater weight than a financing package, which in any event can't be delivered without a BFS, and that's not even on the horizon.

Bozi, in answer to your question about the SR delivery, yes, they will. They committed themselves to delivering an SR by end of H1 and creating shareholder value. If they don't, they will have failed.

I fear you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. It was a total red herring - note how there was no similar delay with producing the merger document. Anyway, it's ancient history and so is our old mis-management team.

Q, it wasn't a particularly technical document - in fact it's all pretty standard. The translation excuse was total nonsense and I suspect some people within the company were embarrassed that it was ever put out there. It made the company look foolish.

Orthern, no. Once Fawzi had been given the heave-ho, that was it - no more communication. The next time they come begging for shareholder votes I'll be sure to make the point.

Bozi, only pulling your leg...it's Friday!

And the sun finally breaks through the clouds in the form of another uplifting post!

Exciting, isn't it?

Bonkers, for whomever takes this on (it won't be us), this is such a long term project that short, or even medium term macro conditions are irrelevant. The key determinant is; "do we believe the copper story?" - clearly, BHP and many others do.