Member Info for addicknt

RK.
1) How does it act as a defence mechanism?
2) How does it provide an 'extra layer' between shareholders?
3) I'm not sure it implies this at all, although it probably makes the task simpler.
4) I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one.

DBW, technically you are correct. The problem is that when it comes to raising cash, the entities you mention don't have any. In other words, whilst they have an important voice now, it will be very different in the future.

Q, as I'm sure you're aware, the board has limited scope for raising additional equity, therefore I can only assume you still believe that we can raise the full amount without recourse to dilution - or rather, only minimal dilution.
As I'm sure you can also recall, both NCM and BHP made their feelings about debt funding abundantly clear and I don't imagine they've changed their minds. In other words, a funding package will require a significant proportion of equity, which in turn will require shareholder approval.
Which would you prefer: to be massively diluted or, to sell the business?

Q, sorry, but I'm most certainly not getting closer to your argument. I said they 'believe' they can - there's a difference. And even if they do, they'll never need it.
Unless a finance deal fully involves BHP i.e they become majority owners, they'll stop us from entering into a finance deal which in any way jeopardises the effective 'option' they currently have.
If you were to say the $400m the bloke in Ecuador mentioned the other day is for our share of the funding package and BHP have agreed to divi up the rest in return for majority ownership, I'd be more inclined to accept the argument. But even then, I simply cannot see why they'd let us have any percentage when they don't need to.

rcgl, and btw, I agree with you that they genuinely believe they will take it to production and are pressing ahead accordingly. The problem is, it's not what they believe which matters.

Great work, rcgl.

Q, I'm wholly consistent; this will never get to production under our 100% ownership.
As for my 'ludicrous' assertion that past history is not indicative of future events, I'm afraid it's you who fails to understand matters. Indeed, I've seen you admit on here that a takeover is possible which, according to your logic, won't happen because it hasn't so far. Can you see the problem with your stance?

Perhaps Lasso has been reading Q's posts and got the date from him.

Q, he mentioned the French reactor but suggested the UK and Germany are ahead of them in terms of technology. And no disrespect to your knowledge, but when he says it will take 35 to 50 years I'm sure he wasn't talking out of his hat.

I had lunch last week with our new neighbour, a professor of nuclear physics who has spent a lifetime developing the nuclear fusion research and development at Culham. Gosh it was interesting.
I asked him to explain fusion in laymans terms and how it works, which he did, although I was bamboozled after the first sentence. His conclusion; it will happen, but is at least 35 to 50 years from offering a workable solution.
The Holy Grail will be found - but not in our lifetime.

RK, the expensive nature of the Franco deal was precisely why BHP/NCM objected. In my opinion the whole thing should have been equity funded.

apro, agreed, it does look odd.

I took the previous announcement about the assays to mean the company would receive them this week, not that they would be ready for publication. I assumed it implied they would then spend some time assessing them before making the results available.
Today's announcement raises one question: It says 'following a strategic review it was felt prudent...' etc. Was anyone aware of the 'strategic review'? And I'm slightly concerned as to why the company feels it necessary to diversify. What are your thoughts?

Well, I know for a fact that's what he's been pushing for the past few years. He's always on here arguing the case.

sean, the answer to your question concerning his first action is; sell the company.

I've just heard they've closed the office for the Christmas break and will be back on 1st April.
Will we notice the difference?

Eish, I would agree with Bozi but would add the following; any sign of corporate activity and or, CGP doing something with their holding. As far as the latter is concerned we know we are now working with them - provided we haven't fallen out again, and we know the ambition was to allow them to monetise their holding. Having said that, I'm not expecting anything until the PFS appears.

When your source told you the appointment of a CEO was 'imminent', do you now get the feeling they were being economical with the truth?

Q, you really make me laugh. You accuse me of perpetuating a 'conspiracy theory' (it's no such thing - it's speculation) and yet your post on this particular thread states that the build cost is known and there must be a huge reduction in costs. You have no way of knowing that any more than I know the structure of a deal. Who knows, you may be right (I should jolly well hope so); equally, so may I.
What's good for the goose...

rcgl, perhaps we've sold a majority holding of Cascabel and will use the proceeds for our share of the development costs? Similarly, in order to allow CGP to monetise their position, they have sold their 15% as well, whilst retaining the holding in the plc.
Interesting that a government minister should let something like this slip - clearly, he should not have done so.