Member Info for addicknt

I thought we already had two companies working for us on these issues?

schlem, that's exactly what we've been promised, isn't it?

I quite agree, Smickster. We've wasted more than enough time and money and have much bigger fish to fry. From where I sit, we've had a lucky escape.

Certainly not from me.

Yup, they live to that height. I'm nearly 6ft 5 and they always manage to get to my ears.

How tall are you?

Quite right, bankrupt. I'll be in the boardroom eating lobster and drinking fine claret, whilst Q will be up to his neck in dung and being consumed by mosquitos.
Actually, the idea of Q solving the technical issues has just given me the willies. We'd still be waiting for production just as the sun decides it's time to put the lights out.

Q, absolutely these resources will get the green light, and they will certainly become a major player in the market. Just not under our ownership. And yes, the technical people will solve the problems - BHP have hundreds of them.

You can have a guess at the revenues, but they are not guaranteed. However, the costs are. Mining companies, until they reach maturity, are cash-guzzlers on a monumental scale. The other thing you can guarantee is that it will not go to plan or budget - things never do. And as for timelines - let's face it, our track record isn't sparkling, is it?
Let someone else take the pain.

Not a chance.

Actually, I'm going to amend my last statement. The free cash will be used to develop our other projects and will not be coming out in the form of dividends.
The fact is, for this company to reach your mythical "full value", it will take 20 years or so. And that's why it will be in the hands of one of the mining majors. Most of us will be pushing up daisies by then and NM will almost certainly be sitting in the saloon bar of the Angels Wings telling everyone who cares to listen that this is going to production.

Q, it will take at least six years for the mine to be operational and another three/four years for the company to be generating real post-tax profits and net cash to be available for distribution. Ten years in total. No thanks.

Q, six years.

Q, any offer of funding will be conditional only. Specifically, it will conditional of the DFS which, as we know, is a long way off.
However, I do agree it would be great to have a conditional offer on the table as it would strengthen our negotiating position., and I'm all for that. What it most certainly would not do, is deter a bidder.

"if someone wanted to buy your house and you didn't want to sell it, you don't have to..." True. But you have 100% ownership of your house. NM does not have anything like the same thing of SOLG.
Very poor analogy, Quady.

durham, and how many times does it have to be said that NM will have no control over whether there is a takeover attempt?
He can say it until he's blue in the face and it will make not one jot of difference.

optimus, the board of CGP didn't "let the offer lapse". It was a deadline imposed by us and it was up to their shareholders to accept or not. All their board did was to recommend that they didn't accept - which they didn't.
I agree with your point about BHP. Their latest annual report made no mention of us, which I thought was odd.

Fascinating response. Their second point is as I understood it, but point 1 is most definitely not. However, I'm assuming they are faithfully reproducing the agreement, it would be madness not to. So, who is telling the truth?

Colonel, if a BHP or someone similar buys them, the points you raise will be irrelevant. They won't need to use ENSA as security for anything. And given that ownership of CGP would be a springboard for a bid for us, the whole thing falls away.

There would be no compelling reason for an acquiror to change the name. It would simply become a subsidiary company.