Member Info for addicknt

Great news for the company, which, over time and subject to the full funding package being put in place, will lead to the creation of real shareholder value.
For those of you asking why the market has reacted in a "muted" fashion, the answer has to be that the placing price is 25p. Only very rarely do you see a premium to a placing value and in some ways, it's quite remarkable that there is one here.
Anyway, well done to all those long termers who've stuck this out and I hope you all get the return you deserve.

Monte, absolutely.
I have no doubt they are exaggerating the claims, but the fact remains the company could do so much more to be transparent on this issue. I do not believe they are lying, but I do think they may be guilty of obfuscation.
If the company wanted to be really open and honest it could provide, in tabular form, a list of each concession which would state whether it was in a protected area (I don't think any are) and whether they sit in an area claimed as being "ancestral lands", which some may be. Just be open and honest; after all, the company has set it's stall out by saying how good our relations are with the various communities. Perhaps they should seek similarly good relations with the shareholders?

Indeed, Novice. I rather suspect this action group is exaggerating matters (witness it's latest report of a "blockade" at BHP HQ. There were three people there... and one of those was someone trying to sell timeshares).
But, my original question of this morning remains...is Cascabel in area which the indigenous people regard as "ancestral" land?
The company has said repeatedly that everything is all okay i.e they are complying with all regulations, have the correct permissions, etc, but this is not what I'm referring to. What I'm trying to understand is, are there any pitfalls lurking ahead which are not related to the current unrest, which will pass, but are more specific to the indigenous claims?
We have won the referendum argument, the current situation will, hopefully, be solved, and I'd like to think that we can have a clear run thereafter.

Chalmara, I've looked at this before and haven't been able to reach any conclusions (it's very difficult to decipher).
Equally difficult to understand is the article on the web site dated August of this year, as it relates to New and Solg.

ssmith, I disagree. The definition of "ancestral lands" must be available somewhere, it's just that I haven't been able to find them. I'm 100% certain that the company would know them.
My suspicion is that Cascabel does not lie within them, but some of the others may do. Some time ago I asked Anna to clarify a point relating to something similar. The response I had turned out not to be the case (I reported it here) and was subsequently clarified by a company announcement.
My point is that it would be of enormous benefit to us all if we were made aware of the EXACT situation on all of this. At the moment we are in the dark and it's not helpful.
Novice, I think you're correct and this reinforces my argument.

some of you will have already done it, but it's worth having a look at the web site of Conaie, the organization representing the indigenous people of Equador.
Specifically, read the article which reports upon their annual meeting in August and the resolutions which were passed.
Regardless of what we may think, these people have an important voice and considerable sway in the country.
Inevitably, they are demanding that all mining concessions in their "ancestral lands" are withdrawn. So, the question for me is; does Cascabel sit in one of those self-defined regions? Are what about the others?
If the answer is "no", then a great deal of uncertainty could be removed.
I would very much welcome a comment from the company about this.
Of course, just because they are making these demands doesn't imply that they will ever achieve them, but the fact of their existence creates the uncertainty that we could do without.

Strange wording: "following recent media reports". Seems to imply that this is merely the invention of the media. It goes on to admit that it is actually happening, but I'm mystified as to why they opened the statement with that observation.

ssmith, I'm not really sure what she can add. We know why the sp is in decline and we also know that the company can do nothing about it.

post of the day! The sp has just dropped to 16.20 and apparently politics "is not our issue"!

Colonel, I've yet to read anything posted here that could be described as sensationalist. People are adopting a reasoned and sensible view of what's happening, which, if it has escaped your attention, is actually very serious (two people have been killed already).

I think it would be fair to assume that any discussion about mining licences will have been put on the back-burner.

Monte, my view, for what it's worth, is that if I were a new investor looking at the situation, I'd sit on my hands until such time as the current crisis is resolved. But I'd make sure it never slipped off my radar.
What we are sitting on is of major significance and that fact will never go away, but the politics are killing it.

NM referred to the fact that the sp is "dangerously low", he was right; but not only as it refers to receiving an unwelcome, low-ball offer.
The other significant impact is upon the ability to raise new funds, and I'm not just referring to the development funds. The working capital required will also be tricky, as it's difficult to see anyone being willing to invest new funds against the current political backdrop.
Sure, this unrest will eventually pass, but the key question is; what will it leave behind? What will be the political landscape and what impact will that have on mining?
NM appears to have found himself in a hole (excuse the pun) and it will require an act of corporate genius to find an acceptable solution.
I have no doubt a huge amount of work is going on to address this and I have more faith in NM being able to find a solution than many other CEOs I could think of. But it will not be a stroll in the park.

to note is that the current unrest started over a week ago and yet I don't recall any of us noticing it. The sp was in decline, but appeared to be no more than the recent general trend. Is today's movement part of the ongoing decline, or has it been propelled by the fact that private investors are now aware of what's going on?
If you recall, it was someone on here who posted the news about the referendum way before the market picked up on it.
I suppose what I'm saying is; is the market paying any attention to the political situation, or is it already factored in?

I accept your point about it being difficult to get in once a bid is announced...at least in the first few minutes of trading.
On your second point, I suggest you have a look at the stock exchange rules and guiding principles.
As far as this stock is concerned, if a bid were announced, I can think of no circumstances whereby it will be suspended.

Not sure I understand your point. You said that to qualify for the benefits of a bid you need to have held a share on a specific date...you don't. I think you may be confusing this with the payments of dividends.

As ever, jerry, you and I are on the same page.

earthling, sorry, but you are wrong. The overriding principle of the stock market is to allow people to trade freely. A suspension when a company has received a bid, is as rare as hens teeth and only happens in extreme circumstances (in fact, I can't recall having seen one for years)

I missed out the word "buy".

earthling, it's not the case that you "need to hold shares in the company before a certain point to qualify if the bid went through". You can right up until the very last moment of a bid going unconditional.