Member Info for addicknt

Qalibashi, not sure I'm with. The announcement has been made...or have I misunderstood you?

Ehseem, I think this is a very valid point.
NM will wish to keep dilution to a minimum and if he has it in mind that bids will emerge post-PFS, then this strategy makes sense.

Ferdinand? Or de Janeiro?

Indeed, and that's the exciting bit! Additionally, I rather suspect there will be other players out there who won't let BHP have it all their own way.
I mentioned that I regard the PFS as being a potential catalyst. The reason for saying this is that BHP don't need to see this being taken to BFS. Post-PFS, they will be fully aware of the economics and won't need any further persuading. They will do their own modelling (interesting to note the company have invited them to assign people to assist in the preparation of the BFS, but haven't yet committed) and don't need external funding...so why wait?

Quady, I don't disagree that BHP are committed to seeing this project become a major producer, it's simply that I'm 100% convinced it won't be under the current ownership.
They don't "do" minority shareholdings. They are here to see the project de-risked, and then they'll launch a bid.
I couldn't be more convinced that this is their strategy.

appears to fit precisely with BHP's stated policy with regard to supporting it's exploration partners.
They are content to let the investee companies pursue the exploration and project development, with their support, in order to de-risk things as much as is possible. Once they are as near to 100% certain of success as they can be, they'll launch a bid for total control. I think the PFS may be the catalyst.

The bit that confused me was the comment it's been released to the market on 28th Nov. That's not really possible, is it?

L2, have you not read the RNS?

The announcement refers to "further metallurgical date released to the market on 29th November 2019".
Eh?

My apologies TC, somehow I missed that sentence.

Understood. Of course your point assumes they'll follow the money, which they may well do. My point is that it isn't nailed on and in the bank. I'm sure it will be, but I've grown to be deeply cynical about all of this, particularly bearing in mind previous statements from the company.
As I said earlier, I think this is overwhelmingly good news and I'm delighted one of the major shareholders has, at long last, decided to support the project.

I managed to get a quote for 100k at 20.5 first thing and hesitated. Idiot!

TC, yes, I got that bit, but not sure you understood what I was asking.

TC, I'm not sure I follow your logic. How has 70% of the equity funding been secured? Current holdings don't necessarily imply future holdings. And before someone castigates me, I'm sure they will follow the money, but it isn't nailed on...yet.
Mike, I have long argued that the Ganfeng deal was at a poor price, but it's now a matter of fact and therefore isn't worth fretting over. As I've said repeatedly (much to the annoyance of some) 25p is the value placed upon the company at this stage and it was inconceivable to me that anyone would pay more than Ganfeng.
What this placing does, and as far as I can recall is a first, is to demonstrate the faith an existing shareholder has in the project.
To my way of thinking, this omission has been one of the biggest drags on the share price and this investment goes a long way to removing that concern.

This is very good news and long overdue.

Cookie, certainly looks like it!

This is excellent news and very exciting.

I suspect some of you need to read the Takeover Code and AIM rules. Many of you are very wide of the mark with regard to what happens in a takeover, or asset sale, and the rules which are in place to drive the process and protect shareholders.

Thanks, Zarro.

The assumption is that Hanwa will take part in any equity raise; is that a valid assumption?
Clearly, they didn't wish to participate last time , so would they next time?
They invested in order to get the off-take agreement and they don't appear to have any ambitions beyond that; so why would they risk more capital, given they've achieved what they wanted? Does it really matter to them if they are diluted?
By the way, there was an interesting article about Tesla today in the Telegraph and their plans for expansion in Australia. It's not of any direct relevance to BCN, but is a clear indication of the direction of travel.