Member Info for addicknt

Have a look on the company's web site, there was an update on Wednesday. Can't say it was particularly exciting, but at least it shows they're doing something.

Bob, that's no actually true. The two announcements about our relationship with our major shareholders and specifically the one relating to CGP, are probably the most important to have emerged for a very long time. They changed everything.

Yes.

Shipright, if it's of a price sensitive nature the answer is yes. However, in the real world it's often the case that a major shareholder will be given information, either on an informal basis (it shouldn't happen, but does) or under a formal basis when the shareholder agrees to sign an nda and to become an insider. Institutions rarely wish to be put in this situation as it ties their hands.

RK, I was interested in your comment about NM.
The complete one eighty we've seen in strategy lends weight to this argument, but have your contacts given you any indication as to how he's fitting-in to his new role? Is it more akin to a traditional NED, or is he taking a more active role? Albeit one limited to exploration.

RK, I'm absolutely clear as to my opinion of what BHP want - total ownership. I've yet to see any convincing argument as to why they wouldn't. Putting it bluntly, they don't need us.

RK, if BHP get involved in a jv they'll end up with far more than 50%. Why else would they bother?

Durham, no it hasn't been spelt out, but I take it you understand what a company means when it says it's exploring "all strategic options"? It's not as if it's a comment made only rarely and it has an accepted meaning.

DBW, as I said the other day, the latest RNS obviously arose after very detailed conversations with CGP and was reflection of a negotiated position in which we agreed, for the first time, to consider all options. In return, I suspect they agreed, for the time being, not to make a nuisance of themselves and undertook not to flog their shares.
It couldn't have been made any clearer and despite being relatively minor shareholders ,it's obvious that they have the ability to disrupt matters.

Durham, I agree, it was the ambition of the previous regime, but life has changed fundamentally - as the last two announcements most clearly demonstrate. New team, new strategy.

1. The latest RNS changed the picture completely. Hitherto the company had never (at least to my knowledge) referred to exploring the "strategic options". Most of us understand full well what those two words mean; in this case, financing, a jv or full sale. They could not have been clearer. At no point did the RNS refer to production...not once.

2. The removal of the two special resolutions altered the way in which cash was raised and it was quite plainly done with the full support and participation of our two largest shareholders. In other words, it paved the way to co-operation as opposed to the conflict which would ensued had the motions been passed (not that they had even the remotest chance of so doing) The initial inclusion of the motions was yet another miscalculation, and we know the consequences.

3. The statement that the company will act in the best interests of shareholders in no way whatsoever implies we will be going to production and the comment should be read in conjunction with the overall statement about maximising shareholder value and the very obvious implications.

Fabulous how the old loon managed to completely ignore what was said in this week's landmark RNS.
He either has a blindness for certain words, such as "strategic", or he simply doesn't understand what it means in this context. I'll plump for the latter. According to his life view the RNS was of no significance and simply pointed the way to production, which of course it didn't.
Oh well, we all all harbour delusions, such as the one I had last night in which I won the euro lottery; which would have been tricky because I didn't enter it.

BM, that's the price the market bid them up to - the issue price was 1.7.

RK, I agree that flexibility is critical and I too bought/sold/bought during the course of last year, although I'm now holding for the duration as I have no wish to get caught our when the Porvenir results hit the screen. My comment was simply an observation based upon the opinion I formed that your comment about 55p was cast in stone.

RK, I thought the other day you said you'd sell half when we reached 55p?

it's 23p. I'm happy with that and will buy more this morning.

Other than announcements on jvs for the tenements already identified, I'm not anticipating any corporate action until Q1 next year.
It seems to me the discussion with CGP would have focussed on persuading them to desist from any more shareholder activism and to persuade them that in order to maximise value they should come onboard with the process of completing the PFS, which is both logical and value enhancing. This was the quid pro quo for us being prepared to consider 'all strategic options'. Absent this understanding I do not see that either our board and NM in particular, would have agreed to the contents of the RNS. By implication i.e their participation in the fund raise, we know BHP and NCM have also agreed to this.

In my opinion the Peace Treaty came about because we were aware that CGP were still prepared to make a nuisance of themselves and that our new board, quite rightly, didn't want any more of that stuff going on in the background, particularly as they'd managed to get our main shareholders on-side. I also wonder if, as part of the deal, an unofficial agreement has been reached whereby CGP have been persuaded not to discuss selling their shares to anyone else until such time as the PFS is completed.

I do not anticipate our board doing anything antagonistic, such as a jv on Porvenir with the Chinese, nor do I see any other bidder emerging who is willing to take on BHP.

CGP extracted an absolutely critical concession from us, but we also got something from them and to my mind, this announcement was one of the most important we've seen.

Yes BNC, I think it was a disatrous mistake for us to bid...as I said on many occasions at the time. And the fact is I've been vindicated. CGP are not crooks, they were simply protecting their own shareholders.
You are wrong about NM and our prospects are now immeasurably better now that he's no longer running the show.

BNC, your animus towards CGP is interesting. I'm sure you don't need reminding it was us who went hostile on them, not the other way round. Their shareholder activism has done us an enormous favour.

Kluck, thank you. The last 18 months have been pretty extraordinary - in a good way!