Member Info for addicknt

arrangement with CGP is a very neat way of raising some working capital. Obviously, we don't know if there will be any further requirement for funds i.e the amount needed to get us to DFS, or whether this exercise is simply a precursor to a disposal.
Of course the really interesting bit will be to see the destination of the CGP shares. Who will buy them? They cannot be sold into the open market without completely tanking our sp, so I think it's fair to assume a placing with a single purchaser has been lined-up. But who and at what price? Let's hope it's not BHP/NCM.
I also wonder if we've halted our efforts to raise more funds. I would guess not, because even though the CGP deal looks pretty certain, there's many a slip between cup and lip and we can't run the risk of it not working.
Many of us have already said it, but it's worth repeating - Sangha et al would not have signed up to this unless it was aimed at delivering their ambitions...and we all know what those ambitions are.

"quite choiceful"!! The word doesn't exist! Why are business people incapable nowadays of speaking English?
I love his strategy: We won't bid for anything...despite having done so twice in recent months. We want more copper, but aren't going to pay for it, and he thinks productivity gains are going to solve the global copper shortage. The bloke's away with the fairies.

It seems to me the only logical approach is to see what emerges between now and the agm.
The merger is good news, but only if it leads to the realization of shareholder value. As far as I'm concerned, until they deliver this, the jury's still out.

Q, ha, ha! Excellent, it looks like we've got something else to argue about.

issued an announcement yesterday which contained some pretty respectable drilling results on the Bramaderos prospect.
An MRE is due before year end and although they only own 12.5% the stake may be worth something. Let's hope our boys don't start wittering on about taking it to production.

Her support went...if you'll forgive the pun.

zoros, I did so immediately.

Novice/Fort, I agree with your general sentiment but I would point out that the article made a specific statement about work at Cascabel having been halted. This, it turns out, is untrue.
It may just be me, but if someone makes a statement like that, I want to know the truth.

I should add that he said we are not required to consult with indigenous communities...mainly I guess, because there are none.

Gentlemen,
I have received a lengthy and detailed reply from Fawzi. In essence it says we are not impacted by this at the moment as we will not be filing the relevant environmental stuff until the end of next year and that by that time the whole framework will have been agreed.
He confirmed that the press article was wrong in as much as work has not stopped at Cascabel. He also confirmed Cascabel is not in an indigenous area.
So I guess the conclusion is we'll have to comply with whatever's in place at the time, but we are not subject to the same indigenous pressures as many other concessions are.
I very much appreciated his timely and thorough response.

LM, and therein lies the issue; "indigenous areas". How many times have we been told Cascabel isn't within one?

Sean, I agree with all of that. It's just that with the various announcements over the past couple of years and the signing of the IPA, I'd kinda thought this stuff was behind us. It's just bleedin' boring it doesn't appear to be.

I have to say zoros, you're a beaming ray of sunshine!
Btw, arbitration would be in London.

Q, we also have the Investor Protection Agreement in place.

Q, it's as clear as mud, isn't it?

copper, I've asked the question.

SM, I'm confused. We have been consistently told Cascabel isn't within an indigenous area, so how is this relevant to us? And what does "stopped" mean?

Q, I understand all of that, but the fact is you're not achieving anything. We know what this bloke's like and you engaging with him doesn't reinforce our opinion. Every time you reply he simply posts more of his stuff - thus you are giving him the oxygen of publicity.
You won't win an argument with him and as I've already said, most people probably agree with you. Your repetition of the same points doesn't strengthen your argument at all - it just gets lost in the blizzard of nonsense which follows. So please, give it up.

Q, as you know, most of his actions are directed at you. If you didn't respond it's unlikely he'd be as disruptive...surely you can see that?
You argue that "he mustn't be allowed to get away with it", but he does and there's nothing you can do to stop him. In fact your engagement with him allows him an even greater platform.
Most people on here are on your side, but the most effective way of dealing with him is to ignore him. I know your natural inclination is to bite back, but please, for the sake of this board, don't.

This character is not going to disappear and there is only one way to deal with him; rise above it all and ignore him.
If you can't help yourself and feel compelled to reply, exercise some self-control and don't - it really isn't worth it.