Member Info for addicknt

RK, it was me. I couldn't be bothered to split my order and don't give a toss if I paid a fraction of a penny over the odds.

if Rio also delivers the goods and we end up with three Tier1 resources. The prospects for a really serious and well-managed sale process are salivating, to put it mildly. Is there a major in the world who wouldn't want it?

Don't you just love those words 'potential Tier 1'?

Thanks for posting, Kohku. Fascinating stuff and a compelling argument.

RK, thanks for the reply. I can see the attractiveness to us, but fail to see why BHP would be interested. As it stands, they can get their hands on Cascabel, as well as everything else, for a sum which, in their terms, is relatively insignificant. I just cannot see why they'd wish to share the spoils with us.
The most puzzling question for me is; what are they waiting for? We all understand the macro copper picture and we all know BHP's strategy is to make copper a central plank of that strategy. How many other resources like ours are out there? There must be something which is holding them back.

RK, you mentioned the jv route yesterday and suggested a 35% stake for BHP. I asked the question why you think BHP would accept a minority stake when they can simply buy the lot, but I didn't see your response.

Poulden worked at Samuel Montagu; so did Alex Borrelli, chairman of GGP. I wonder if he'll be able to repeat Borrelli's success?

Precisely, rcgl...economies of scale.

I understand little of the technicalities of mining, but isn't it the case here that in isolation these results would be unremarkable/disappointing, but seen in the broader context of Cascabel they look considerably more interesting?

RK, I simply cannot see BHP being interested in a 35% stake. They can get 100% for relative peanuts and they most certainly ain't in the business of enriching other companies shareholders.

Big rise?!

kat, having had my own treatment for cancer delayed by six months last year, I'm fully aware of the impact of closing hospitals. Thankfully, it's the vaccine which has allowed a semblance of normality to return to the NHS.

Good point Jerry...sorry! BTW you've been a bit quiet recently.

Slug, should you have the misfortune to catch the virus and end up in hospital gasping for breath, it would be interesting to have a chat. Perhaps you, like many others who've adopted your approach, would rather regret your decision? Or perhaps you'd feel proud that as you wheeze and gasp your way to meet your maker, you would at least be able to claim " I took a stand and I'm damn happy I did"?
Personally, I don't give a toss about your health, but I do care that you'd be taking up a much needed bed in an overstretched hospital. So, if it does happen to you, will you promise to stay at home and croak in silence?

Kat, damers has provided two links, but there many more sources of information available. The fact is rising infection numbers are not leading to rising hospitalizations, thank heavens. As for the unvaccinated, I'm afraid I have no sympathy whatsoever.
Changing the subject, great to see us at number two in the hit parade.

kat, yup, you've hit the nail on the head. There are only 7500 people occupying beds in hospital with covid out of a total of nearly 150,000. By the way, 75% of those in hospital are unvaccinated.

"...the NHS is on the brink of being overwhelmed". No it isn't, it's not anywhere close to being overwhelmed.

rcgl, I absolutely agree with your point about it not being a binary choice and particularly your observation about being economic for others. This is what gives me confidence.

rcgl, that wasn't quite what they said. They've spent a year reviewing those options and have reached the point whereby they are now considering whether they should include them or not.
I found this statement to be quite ambiguous. It could mean the options are unworkable and did not deliver what they'd hoped i.e a considerable improvement in the PFS, or it could suggest they are simply reviewing the options and will mix and match those to be included.
This should definitely be a question for the agm, but the long and short of it that market didn't like it and if in fact they were on a fools errand, shareholder discontent will be understandable.
I suspect we're all slightly nervous of stating what may be an obvious truth; the company has so far failed to find an economic way to mine Cascabel and I would have preferred to see a far more robust RNS supporting the argument that it is and is in fact merely a case of which way is best to skin the cat. But as it stands at the moment, we are all in the dark.

rcgl, just one point; you seem to imply the PFS has been delayed in order to include more results from TAM. That's not actually what the board have said. In fact, they've decided to review the revised engineering/mining plans which they've spent all year modelling. So, rather than being a good thing, it could be seen as quite the opposite; indeed, that's how the market has interpreted it.