Member Info for addicknt

Good to see Quady has lost none of his unerring ability to misunderstand things.
p.s did anyone see the word "production" mentioned in the RNS? By the way, it's also worth noting that this is focussed on Cascabel.
As I said earlier, this is an incredibly carefully worded announcement and is full of implications, arrived at after detailed negotiations and which virtually all of us appear to recognize.

Woody, poor bloke must be choking on his cornflakes.

TBTT, yes, it can't have been easy, particularly after the mud-slinging which went on during the hostile bid. It's also unusual to see an NED being quoted in an RNS. The intention of this announcement is crystal clear: "everyone, including NM, is now onside and we are open to all suggestions". What's not to like?

This is actually quite funny.

CD, agreed - a move like that would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, but I do wonder how interested BHP are in the less advanced assets. My guess is that they'd like to keep the 'option', but given that they're not really explorers nowadays, they may be happy to let others do the leg work...just like they're doing at the moment.
The other thing to bear in mind is that if something is tabled they don't like they have the option of calling an egm with the aim of stopping any such move. Of course, they may not win, but it would introduce an element of risk for the Board and given the new spirit of cooperation and dialogue which now exists, I wonder if the Board would risk it. Mind you, if it led to a bidding war I'd be delighted.

BNC, indeed. We have the size, some people are concerned about grade and although the recent election should have eased the fears about jurisdiction, again, some people are worried.
I'm happy and given comfort by the involvement of our two main shareholders, but I wasn't sure of your implication?

The discussion about grades is an interesting one. The fact is, BHP and NCM are quite obviously happy with what they've seen so far, otherwise they would not have stumped up more cash. It's also a fact that they know more about mining than anyone and will have had access to all of the information; no one else outside of the company has such knowledge.
If anyone has any concerns, this one fact should calm your nerves.

"when are we gonna start drilling?". We've just been given the answer. Exciting stuff!

Show me the evidence and I'll believe you.
As for being Quady, it's not me who has veered towards his way of thinking. In fact, the one thing he was consistently right about was the low volume of trading.

In my opinion the roadshow was a precursor to the placing and it was undoubtedly successful. But there is no evidence of institutional buying before the placing and the idea that an institution would buy 400k is not credible...it being far less than many of us on here own. And my point about not upsetting institutions by persuading them to invest before a placing is completely valid.
I suspect you've been involved in roadshows, as have I on countless occasions, and the latest one has all the hallmarks of gathering support for the fund raise, and it was spectacularly successful.
Hope this explains.

RK, I may have be wrong to say you said that 45 institutions had bought, but I maintain my view that hardly any did - if any at all.
As I've said before, I kept a very close eye on the trades during that period and the largest I saw over a two/three week period was 400k (shares, not value). And there have been precious few significant trades since then. If institutions had been persuaded by the argument, they would have waited until the placing and bought at that time, which some obviously did. (as you know full well, institutions get very peed off if they buy in the open market only for there to be a discounted placing a few weeks later) So, sorry, but I maintain my opinion.

I think the RNS last week had far greater significance than the wording suggested. It was clear evidence that we are now fully engaged with our two main shareholders and it's not feasible to suggest the conversations were limited to the question of support for the placing. I'm sure they would have been wide-ranging and, if I were KM/LT, I'd have asked BHP and NCM about their longer term ambitions and support for the company. Whether they revealed their hand is another matter.
What we do know is that it's far better to have them on-side rather than carping from the sidelines, which is disruptive and distracting. Twigger and Marshall have clearly taken on board the lessons of the AGM and are determined not to make the same rookie errors.

CD, why do you think it's been held down?
As far as BHP are concerned, I believe their participation in the placing and today's announcement means we will not see them moving before the PFS. As I said at the time, any corporate action has got Q1 2022 written all over it.

odd that a seemingly innocuous announcement has had more impact on the sp than most in recent times. Not that I'm complaining.

web site is fecked - again, but the live price at 32.20p is showing an encouraging move north. Maybe today's statement really has impressed upon people that life has changed. I don't why, but it feels as if there's a direction and purpose to the company now which had been missing previously.

Jerry, yes, that was part of my take as well. I also think is was the final mea culpa; in other words it's saying: "Look, we know we made mistakes and we shouldn't have ignored our main shareholders. We also know full well what the consequences were. Anyway, we've now moved on and let's put this all behind us" Amen to that.

I wonder why it was felt necessary to spell-out what we already knew with regards to corporate governance?
It seems to be a clear message that we are now very much in dialogue with our main shareholders. Beyond that I can't see why else it needed reiterating.
Any thoughts?
And goodbye, Karl - enjoy your retirement.

both Franco and us extending our community engagement. This is absolutely vital.

RK, I apologise if I misconstrued your various posts on the question of institutional buying, but you most certainly made numerous references to the fact they were, despite the fact the market purchases at the time did not support your hypothesis.
But what interests me more is your volte face on the issue of both a jv and the need for significant dilution. Your were highly critical of Q for suggesting that only minimal dilution would be necessary and challenged him to prove it could be done on a debt only basis - you were right to do so. Similarly you've regularly expressed your opinion that a jv would be the "optimal endgame"; what has happened to lead you to change your opinion so dramatically?
One final point: I've consistently maintained that BHP's corporate strategy is not to be minority shareholders in mining companies, particularly not of one like us. I take the view that they would have no interest in a 13% stake in what could be one of the most significant copper producers - why would they? I've yet to see an anything which provides a satisfactory answer to this absolutely fundamental question. So, why do you think they will?
Zoros, thank you for your comment, but don't worry, this is not personal from my point of view; it's merely a healthy debate about what's going on here and, as ever, I very much welcome reasoned opinions which disagree with my own. If it seems a bit tetchy from time to time, that's to be expected...we all have strongly held views.

RK.
1) Their current holding allows them to block any special resolution and since any financing package is going to require a large dollop of equity, regardless of your faith in the debt markets, an SR will be required.
2) And this is the absolutely fundamental point to every thing: you ask why are they are opposed to debt funding? The answer is very straightforward; there's no way on this earth they are in this to be content with a small minority holding. That is simply not why they exist.
4) I fear you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think my statements have the slightest impact on anyone.
4) love your last statement! I know you claim to have inside contacts and therefore you must be telling the "truth", but since your man told you 45 institutions had invested when quite obviously they had not, please excuse my cynicism. By the way, I think what your man probably said was they presented to 45 institutions, not that they'd invested.