Member Info for addicknt

BBG, it's self-evident that you know nothing about either the Takeover Code, Stock Exchange regulations or the dynamics of corporate finance. I'd suggest therefore, that you do some reading before offering your opinions again. As it stands, you're talking yet more drivel.

BBG, wrong. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.

BBG, it wouldn't be unconditional. If it was a hostile bid the bidder would not have had access to any information which was not in the public domain. If it's an agreed bid, it would be conditional on dd for the simple reason that an announcement of a deal would have to be made before dd could be conducted.

andy, dollars.

They also refer to the potential attractiveness of spinning-out Porvenir. They mention that when NGEx spun-out their Filo del Sol concession it quickly achieved the same value as the entire company had before the spin-out. They believe Alpala is masking the true value of Porvenir and a spin-out could make a great deal of sense.

that in their latest report Hannam have increased their estimated NPV at Alpala by 263m to 4.5bn and the predicted IRR has gone up by two percentage points to 25%. They believe this will be a major catalyst for a re-rate.

I'd like to know what his remuneration package is and if he's been offered any bonuses relating to the monetization of assets. I'm assuming he's been given an options package and I'd like to see him dip into his pockets for some shares.

FTJNY, you're right. The article does not contain anything which could be classified as requiring an RNS. The alternative would have been to edit it in such a way that it could have been released as an RNS Reach.

the RNS hasn't exactly created much interest on this board, has it?
I'm not a technical expert, but my take is that this MRE confirms low grades but lots of it. Is that how others are interpreting it?
CGP was up 4% overnight.

Just think, we only need another £100m+ to produce a PFS for Porv.

Bubble, this type of report has to be issued first on the TSX. Nothing unusual about the timing.

Bozi, there are two approaches to potential disposals,advertise you're for sale , or keep it quiet and hold discussions in the background. Both courses of action require the company to have got all their ducks in a row beforehand and to make sure the shop window is looking its best.
It's pretty apparent we are not yet at the stage where we can demonstrate the attractiveness of our wares - that will come post-PFS and this is what I took from Darryl's comments. I also think this fits in with our commitment to CGP.

Bozi, okay, so it wasn't his opening comment but the observation ran from minute 1 for about 30 seconds. To my mind this was the most sensible comment I've heard from the company for at least two years. It also fits rather nicely with the agreement reached with CGP. In other words, we promised to deliver shareholder value and persuaded them the current process of producing the PFS and pushing ahead with work on several other fronts is the most effective way of doing so.
As I said previously, we are all guilty of confirmation bias, but try as I might, I'm struggling to see his comments as anything other than the strongest indication yet that the release of the PFS will start the process of monetising the asset.

Bozi, whilst I agree that we are all guilty of confirmation bias from time-to-time, I have listened to the interview three times now and maintain my stance. Darryl's opening comments and the way in which he expressed them, confirmed my view of the strategy at play, which in many ways is the old strategy of proving-up the resources and selling them as being the best way to achieve shareholder value. In other words, confirming the view we are an explorer with little expectation of becoming a miner. I suspect this is the story most of us bought into.
There appeared to be very little conviction in his voice about production (mind you, he has a very dry presentation style and is probably not the excitable sort). If I were to guess, I'd say he took this job with the ambition of proving up as many projects as is possible and selling them off individually, for which I'm sure his reward will be substantial.
He most certainly is not under any illusions and I for one am delighted that he felt fit to convey that message to shareholders.

As I said in my last post, what I really liked was the honesty. We've had several years of hubristic nonsense, which we all knew was simply guff. Thank heavens we've seem have landed a new CEO with his feet firmly planted on planet earth.

Thanks, DBW.
A very honest appraisal from Darryl with him admitting the company may not be the owner of an operating mine. If he genuinely believed we were going to take it to production he would have said so and would not have introduced the element of doubt. Good man! He's just gone up in my estimation.

Kohaku, yes, he does.

How do you think we can afford to produce three more PFS's without a huge amount of new capital? Alpala has swallowed countless millions and it's not even finished. And this cash requirement ignores the money needed for general expenses and exploration of numerous other prospects. And please don't say we can get it from flogging some of those prospects. The company has been trying to do that for ages and so far has come up with precisely nothing.
We will need a lot of cash this year and it won't be coming from Franco.

Bozi, apologies for the mis-understanding.
As for your question, I think it's already difficult for a third party...BHP are too entrenched.
I find it very difficult to imagine that the status quo will be maintained throughout this year. We know a large funding round will be required and the shape of that will determine a great deal.

orthern, I think the Crux report was far more important than many people assumed at the time. In fact it was almost certainly accurate and led to the complete re-think about the PFS. Their contention was that we were barking up the wrong tree and our board subsequently reacted accordingly. Ultimately, they did us a favour.