Member Info for addicknt

Brilliant, Q spectacularly misunderstands what was said and seeks to twist it to suit his argument. His inability to grasp the correct end of the stick must make life very difficult for him.

andywest, quite right. This fact eludes our learned friend.

computer generated tosh and wildly inaccurate.

I'm not sure "pleased" is the right word.

Monte, no. The sums involved for full exploitation of our assets are vast and way beyond the scope of a small exploration company with no track record of development.

newtoit, to save money, the company has asked Q to design the mine - apparently, it's quite simple and, as we all know, his talents know no bounds.

If I may, I'll answer on his behalf.
It's a triumph, a clear vindication of our strategy and proof of the fact we're going to production.

DrQu, I agree with your comments. The only problem with the jv route is that it wouldn't solve our funding issue. Even if we were able to fund Alpala, there won't be any significant free cash flow for ten years and in the meantime the company would bleed to death. The capital markets simply wouldn't be remotely interested in the story.
If we wish to become a major there's only one way - sell Alpala.
By the way, unless it gets taken private (unlikely), I can't see any route back for Mather in an executive capacity.

Whilst the Crux report was flawed in so many respects, and makes me wonder about their motivation, it does draw attention to a major issue; the scale and overall cost of our ambitions.
I admit I struggle to see how we can carry on raising money in the markets to fund this programme without offering any form of nearer term monetization. The jam tomorrow argument only goes so far with financial investors and the alternative is more money from trade investors, who will simply seek to exert their authority, as has already been demonstrably proven.
This does not strike me as a workable business plan and I suspect the comment in the RNS which says we'll be looking at "all forms of financing" actually implies the penny has dropped.
We cannot succeed with the current strategy and I'm sure we'll soon see recognition of this shortly.

It took the company nearly a year of badgering from me and others before they finally released details of the fact that none of our concessions were in protected areas, so I'm pleased they've reacted far quicker in respect of todays announcement.

amy, I assume the purpose is exactly as they described it; to dispel the suggestions from Crux. And we should be grateful they've done so.

DBW, I've been wondering about the recommendation question since they first announced the establishment of the committee.
I'm sure it's not a "go, no go" issue (at least I hope not), but assume it's about design and strategic approach. Is that what others are thinking?

sjn, well remembered.

rcgl, no, me neither.

And very interesting it is.
I don't think a single one of us predicted this as being a possible reason for the recent decline of the sp, but it looks as if it may have been. Good to see the company offering a full explanation.

DBW, they were only interested in small shareholders in the run-up to the agm. We've now been put firmly back in the box marked "only open in the event of begging for support".

RK, I'm not going anywhere. It will happen - as soon as the Board wake up.
DBW, you're right...I've never heard him say anything of the sort...apart from in 46785 of his previous posts.

RK, I didn't want to point that out yesterday - it didn't seem necessary. He seems to be of the opinion the rest of us can't read or have the memory of a goldfish.

who isn't concerned about the current sp, BHP and NCM.
The current inertia is playing right into their hands. The company needs to issue a strategic review statement...asap.

Perhaps we may not have been in this position had the company been less ambiguous in the RNS.
If it had something like "we're examining all options", which they almost certainly are, the market would have been more interested.