Member Info for addicknt

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.

RK, do you honestly believe BHP/NCM are going to let that happen? Not a chance.
They've made their intentions perfectly clear, which is, "use our money".
And please! My opinions make no difference whatsoever, so less of the "unhelpful" and "loose opinions" comments. This is what these boards exist for.

CD, I sincerely hope this is the case.
To my mind the likelihood of a bid from a third party rests upon whether or not BHP and NCM work together; if they do, a bid from an 'outsider' is unlikely, simply because they would know they would be unlikely to win and will not want to be used as a stalking horse (this is a common tactic employed by corporate financiers - tell someone their bid will be taken seriously when in fact you know you'll never sell the business to them) . However, if NCM are simply here because they see this as an interesting 'punt', and given their other commitments this isn't beyond the realms of possibility, then an outside bid has more chance.
So, will they work together or not?

Covgaz, the problem with that line of thinking is when it comes to financing Alpala. Unless the company can fund the whole thing with debt, which is not feasible, a significant amount of equity will be required. Assuming BHP/NCM want to pursue the project, and this is not a given, they will block any such move which doesn't involve them, just as they did at the AGM by making sure the special resolution was removed from the agenda. Their participation in the recent placing was, in part, to make sure they still have control over the voting process of any future special resolutions and explains why 'the Chinese' (whoever they are) will not be involved.
NM and his various interests simply do not have the where with all to stand their corner in a very large equity raise and, just like the rest of us, will be diluted. This is why the whole 'diverse book' thing falls on its face.
For those who wish to see us being involved in the company as it moves towards production, the only possibility is via a jv which would see us ending up with a minority holding (see GGP). The management will know this and I'm sure they'll be weighing up which makes more sense for them and us - continuing as minority holders with no control and no dividends for many years , or selling the project in its entirety.
These are the two options: take your pick as to which you think makes most sense. Independent production is simply pie-in-the-sky stuff.
What we are witnessing is the classic problem of inviting trade investors onto your share register. It's great to get their money, expertise and the credibility they lend to a company, but the downside is that there's a price to pay - and that price is freedom of choice. This happened at BCN and is happening here as well.
However, none of this is to say there's nothing in it for us. I believe there's significant value creation to come and I'm sure our board will focus on delivering it.

1john, technically speaking this isn't price sensitive news.

Orthern, may be I'm misunderstanding but the RNS says mineralization from the surface and that it appears to lend itself to bulk surface mining. The fact it extends so deep sounds like good news.

bigger!

RK, both of those sources are notoriously unreliable.
To my way of thinking the original RNS was wrong. The company attempted to untangle the mess with the 5.03% and BR have now given the definitive position.
No shenanigans, just c**k up.

Turbo, thanks for posting. An exciting six months lies ahead.

I remain mystified by his comment that the MRE would be available in 2/3 months - it just doesn't seem feasible. Hannam have suggested "later in the year", which seems more likely. But who knows? Much more drilling could have been completed than we are aware of and the results are being held back. We could do with a shot in the arm...excuse the topical pun.

covgaz, if he is I'm selling my shares tomorrow.

BBG a broker did charge that - so we're paying twice.
Personally, I'm all in favour of the guy being rewarded for long term performance, but I have a problem when the finance team of a company is rewarded for simply doing its job - and making sure the company has sufficient funds is part of the job description.
However, there's no suggestion these options are either a) destined for him or b) that it was as a reward for raising the cash.

BBG, you say it's horrible news for CGP but don't forget we've just given them another $1m and our percentage shareholding will have no impact on their decision making process. Personally, I'd have preferred we kept the cash for useful purposes.

RK, so you're saying it has been shifted from short term to long term liabilities? That's not what the MD&A says, nor does it seem to tally with the reported movement in long term liabilities.

On page 10 of the MD&A it specifically says the Bridging Loan was repaid from the new monies from Franco.

RK, worth noting the $10m bridging loan from Franco has been re-paid.

Interesting to note a $2m increase in admin and consulting costs over the nine months compared to the previous year.
This reflects how much the abortive CGP bid cost and the shareholder engagement prior to the AGM. Hope they think it was worth it.
We have also exercised our warrants in CGP at a cost of $1m.

Lots of good stuff. I particularly like the reference to one of the priorities of Alpala being an investment agreement. Looks like a jv's being worked on.