Member Info for addicknt

zoros, there were not 3000 Omicron patients admitted to hospital yesterday - unless you're assuming a global number, which you can't have because it's not available.

Chile has elected the left wing candidate as their new president. He has vowed to make life difficult for miners and is opposing new development.
Aside from the damage this will do to the economy, it undoubtedly makes Ecuador more attractive.

Crewtime, you say you haven't posted for a while, but your profile suggests you only joined today.
In any event, Bozi gave the correct response and I'd suggest if you don't like what people have to say perhaps you'd be better off not reading this page.

Bacanora. You were sold down the river by a hopeless CEO. RIP.

Bozi, I guess the thinking is that they see the PFS as the key value driver and wish to ensure it's as good as it can be, which of course, has its own logic. If I were BHP I wouldn't wait, but as I've said before, I'm convinced something else is holding them back, but I've no idea what it is.

Bozi, it's difficult to fault your logic, but what would you do if you were in the board's shoes?

rcgl, spot on.

LM, that's an interesting question.
My view is that if the company does anything which BHP disapproves of they will react. I don't know what form it would take - a call for an EGM, a hostile bid etc, but I don't see them simply lying down and taking it. Of course, this presupposes they remain interested in us.
The board attempted a rapprochement, but for whatever reason it failed. Surely this will necessitate a re-think?

By the way, it didn't escape my attention yesterday just how damn miserable the board looked. When they were being introduced only one of them attempted a smile and even that looked like one of those false smiles Gordon Brown used to make. They are not a happy bunch.

AROK, your mention of CGP has reminded me that the board made a public promise to them that they would explore all routes to providing a shareholder return. Well, it's been six or seven months since that statement was issued and nothing has happened, so what are we to conclude?
The voting pattern yesterday seemed to imply CGP voted against the company, although we can't be certain about that, but the Moller vote suggests they did. If we assume they did, it can only mean they consider the board is not in the process of delivering what they promised. Will we see another bout of activism from them in the New Year? I know many people think CGP are the spawn of the devil, but the way I now see it is that they are pivotal in terms of preventing BHP stuffing us. They may only have 8%, but that's a very important number.

Quady, at this stage they can do nothing other than repeat the independent production mantra, but they're perfectly well aware it's no more than a pipe dream.
The specials most certainly did matter, they would have potentially allowed to us to dilute BHP, which explains why we've now tried it twice. Any form of corporate action which requires a special resolution i.e anything of a significant nature, can be defeated if it's not to the liking of our main shareholders...this is a very uncomfortable position to be in.
None of this will have escaped our board, and the fact is they have a significant task on their hands next year. I wish they had more freedom, but as I've said many times before, we're paying the price for taking money from trade investors.

what are we to conclude?
First of all, I think it's pretty clear that if NM had been up for re-election he would have failed. Compared with last year there are far more disgruntled shareholders out there who would have added their votes to those of our main investors and which would have swung the outcome. This explains Twigger's refusal to put him up for re-election. The problem with this is that the board knows it has gone against shareholder wishes and the issue will continue to be a running sore. (bear in mind the board was also split on this question)
Second, the failure of the specials, for the second time, places severe limitations on the company and exposes us to the whims of BHP/NCM. In turn, we know they will use this to their own benefit and there's absolutely nothing the board can do about it.
Third, the board has be forced, yet again, to embark on another round of shareholder engagement. They had to do it last year and more recently concerning governance issues. This is not good and makes them look weak and impotent.
The truth is we are now in a position of open warfare and the board's hands are tied behind their backs. So what can they do?
The dream of independent production has finally been put to bed and it's my belief the board needs to move rapidly towards some form of either partial or total monetization. We have a limited window on this as we need a lot more money within a relatively short time horizon at which stage we will be at our most exposed.
In order to avoid being rogered backwards by BHP we need to find other third parties who can force an auction and therein lies another problem: Who would want to be used as a stalking horse?
Our board tried to build bridges after last years debacle and it's patently obvious they failed. Yesterday was a watershed moment and we need our board to come up with something which will ensure a maximum shareholder return; simply stating "we're going to production" isn't it.

happyharry (there's a misnomer if ever there was one), you clearly haven't read what I've said. Specifically, I poured scorn on the idea that we're capable of developing and running three Tier1 projects, which is the company's stated strategy. A PFS isn't a strategy, it's merely a milestone and I'm right to say a delay in order to maximise the result is a good thing. And the idea I'm a Mather fan is simply laughable. If you'd been around a bit longer you'd know that.
Suggest you engage your brain from time to time, although it could be you simply haven't got one to engage.

brickroad, I asked that question in order to tease out some form of response and yes, I did pick up his comment. It's patently obvious life has become difficult again between both parties (the votes against testify to that), so it'll be interesting the hear the outcome of these 'negotiations'.

Well, at least he answered my question...sort of!
Conclusions? It's obvious that one or more of our main shareholders was voting against and I guess it would be fair to assume BHP was one of them. So the question remains; why? Dazza? Hmm. Twigger was better this year than last. I'm please the are seemingly making some progress on the farm-outs. I whole heartedly agree with the PFS delay and the reasons for it...a good move.
Overall? at least they made an effort this year.

LM, Mather's reading the posts on this site. Good evening, Nick!

You're being daft. He will have no influence one way or another.

How on earth does Moller offer us protection? I fear it's your contention which is ridiculous.

Bozi, Moller's position is irrelevant.

1.2bn abstained re our new CEOs appointment. What a silly approach.