Member Info for addicknt

Q, they've given themselves four months to complete the SR...let's hope they manage to get it done before then.

Q, the thing is they're not 'random statements' - they've come from perhaps the most influential man currently involved in the process. Surely you can see how this leads to confusion?

Q, I won't deny that one of the publicly stated aims is to"advance Cascabel". But what does that actually mean?
Does it mean advance towards production by completing a BFS and raising funds, or does it mean getting it in good enough shape to make it an attractive proposition? How can we square the production ambition with Sangha's statements? They are directly contradictory.
I've said it on plenty of occasions, but the ambiguity which emerges from the public statements of this company, its shareholders and advisors (Maxit) are thoroughly confusing and need to end now.

BHP are raising $3bn in bonds yielding just under 5% (not a bad return).
That should do nicely. Where do I sign?

From memory, we employ(ed) 2 people in London and 11 in Australia. There can't be huge scope for head office cost savings, can there?
Having said that, we were most definitely over-paying senior staff - DC's $1m being the most egregious example. We know Caldwell is doing the job for $200k, so I'm guessing salary cuts are more likely than redundancies.
We have a company looking to pare things to the bone whilst simultaneously still talking about raising $3bn - doesn't seem likely to me. It's time to drop all pretence of production and focus solely on selling the asset.

Absolutely right there, Fort. I couldn't believe what I was reading when I saw his remuneration. Quite simply astonishing.

That's excellent news, Q! Just what we've all been looking forward to!

SM, as you know, I share your hopes.
As far as the PFS/DFS etc are concerned, I acknowledge it's a complex process, but boy have we made a pig's ear of it. God knows how much money has been pished against the wall.

Bozi, thanks. In other words you think it's a kitchen sink job?

Thanks, RK. In layman's terms?

SM, do you not think that if the project is currently uneconomic the company has an obligation to say so? And are we 'pushing ahead' with the DFS? Bear in mind, we've been told of an indefinite delay.

RK, sure, the Chinese could do it, but we can't.

SM, 21%.
If what you say is true, the company are misleading investors and I do not believe they are.

To put this into some context, we are doing a deal to acquire assets and yet our balance sheet position will worsen to the tune of $19m.
RK, you're an accountant, can you offer an explanation?

Eish, that's the critical question and the company has done little to clarify the situation.
Do we need a DFS?
Why did the company say we have sufficient information? Sufficient for what? Capital raising, or the sale of the asset?
How can we raise cash in the money markets without a DFS/BFS? This seems highly improbable to me.
How much of our recently raised hypothecated cash for Cascabel will be spent on a DFS? All of it? Part of it? None of it? Have we downed tools on the study? If so, why? And why let the Minister get up on his hind legs and boldly announce construction will start in 2024 when we know that it's highly unlikely?
So many questions and absolutely no answers...just more speculation.

SM, me too, in fact my wife has just had to buy more salt. Frankly, 2024 strikes me as being total fantasy.

amongst you will have no doubt spotted that following completion there will be a negative movement of the fair value of our combined financial assets of $92m. The result of this is that total non-current assets decline by $6m, despite the fact that CGP's NFA is 86m.
Can anyone explain this?

covgaz, which is exactly what the Prospectus tells us will happen in January 2024 if we haven't raised any more cash. Btw, I don't envisage that will happen as we have many opportunities available to us.
The point I was trying to make reflects my confusion on this matter. On the one hand we are told that expenditure has been reduced and that we have sufficient information on Cascabel, and on the other hand we are not anywhere near having a DFS/BFS. So how can we raise $3bn? It just doesn't make sense to me.

So, some people are expecting financial institutions to pony-up circa $3bn on the basis of a study which, by its very definition, isn't definitive nor bankable.
Doesn't seem very likely to me. In fact, the proposition is fanciful, to say the least.

Sm, I wish they'd drop the word 'funding'.
DM, yup.

Thinking about this it's difficult to see why BHP would block it.
The consolidation of the asset has made their life easier should they wish to buy the company. They won't be worried about the minor dilution.