Member Info for addicknt

No. It's all about the future of mining in Equador, which is very much in the spotlight.
I suggest you read the many posts on here about this issue.

You obviously haven't been watching closely enough.

smudger, you are correct; a decision in favour of a referendum will open the flood-gates for every local community to challenge the validity of the permitting and mining process.
My fear is that even if the referendum is refused, and let's hope it is, what will be the long-term impact upon investment decision-making? You can picture the scene around various boardroom tables and bank credit committees: the simple question asked will be; "to what extent do we trust Equador not to ban mining in the future?" And this is a very, very difficult question to answer. Billions of dollars will be at stake and I struggle to see too many banks being willing to take the risk. Perhaps the majors will be (they are less risk averse), and if this is indeed the case, I think the chances of SOLG going it alone are very remote.
So, even if a referendum is ruled-out, this issue could have profound effects upon the strategy of the company.

How funny! This site has censored the word F L Y N N.

earthling, good question and I keep changing my mind!
Every part of my rational being says "wait". Sadly, I also have a part of my personality that likes a gamble; therefore, I'm terribly conflicted.
The one thing I can say is that if the decision goes the "right" way, I'll be in like *****.

Baking, alas I don't.
The CC's decision is then passed-on to another court and in turn a referendum will be agreed. As I understood it, the referendum would be held at the same time as other elections, which, given we've only just had a local election could be a long time away.
However, let's say we're talking about 2/3/4 years, I cannot see the government allowing this as the entire mining industry would grind to halt, and I therefore assume they'll make arrangements for a plebiscite at an earlier date.
In any event, if the CC says a referendum is constitutional we are in for a very long wait and the effect on the sp will be utterly disastrous.
We are in a unique situation here: It is the first time I can recall when inside information is not controlled by a company and we will have access to the outcome at more-or-less the same time as the company.

As I said yesterday, this hearing was not about mining per se, it was about the constitutional justification, or otherwise, of holding a referendum on the issue.
Two separate things; although they are easily conflated.

how much people love Mr Tom W, but have any of you seen his article today about the Aviva claim in Canada? I'm afraid it's not good.

Mogg, I may be wrong, but I think this hearing is not about the merits or otherwise of mining, but rather it concerns itself with the constitutional elements of whether a referendum would be legal or not. These arguments are distinct and should not be confused.
If a referendum were granted (and bear in mind this is only stage 1 of that process), then it would be at that point both sides would have the opportunity to argue the toss.
By the way, this is not say that the mining argument hasn't come into proceedings, just that the judge will only concern himself with the constitutional issues.

It's a pity that the local mayor for our area didn't bother to turn up.

Baking, personally, for the reasons you give, I can't see them winning. However, the fear is the issue of delay.
If the CC allows it to pass to the next stage, how long will that take? And then, if they are actually permitted to hold a referendum, which I understand has to be held at the same time as other elections, and as we've only recently had a local election, we could be talking several years.
We know that at the recent local elections a pro-mining mayor won (which gives good indication of public opinion), but any period of lengthy delay will create massive uncertainty. People like BHP may well sit on their hands until it is finally resolved and this will have a massive impact on fund raising and development across the country.
Before anyone accuses me of de-ramping, I'm not. These are the real issues surrounding this debate. The government finds itself in a difficult position; it supports mining, but cannot be seen to be interfering in local democracy. And bear in mind; if their legal system is based upon precedent, as ours is, they've already had referenda in other areas.
Frankly, this is a real bloody mess and I wouldn't want to be in Mather's shoes at the moment.

Thanks to both of you for posting. This is nail biting stuff.

no it doesn't. It hasn't got any earnings; ergo, no PE. Those computer generated things are simply balls and should be ignored.

The best result we could hope for today will be an immediate decision which rules out the petition. However, this is a judicial process and we all know how lawyers, of whatever nationality, love to drag things out. I think they 21 (?) days to adjudicate and my guess is they're likely to take the time available to them.
Anyway, let's all hope they tell the bloke to sod-off and the company can then get on with life.

a very solid RNS. But, as ever, this is all about finance.

unless they were sending a clear message to the CC; "get with the programme!"

It is quite possible that you think you are amusing. May I put your mind at rest; you are not...not even remotely.

The consequences of the Court not recognising the legitimacy of the government in this respect is significant and the Union's support is extremely valuable.
Hopefully, the Court will dismiss this case quickly, although I suspect it may take them longer to change the general principle.
If Equador wants the wealth creation that mining will bring, this issue must be put to bed once and for all.
TheItalian, this is anything but a "storm in a teacup" , as the reaction from the Unions and Government proves. It MUST be resolved.

Good to see this guy has taken note of my comments yesterday !

A very useful reminder, Pad, but I have one observation:
If we put to one side this particular call for a referendum and make the assumption that it will fail, the government of Equador really will have to do something to prevent this sort of thing happening again.
If they are as committed to mining as they say, and there is no reason to doubt them, they simply cannot have a system that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to demand a referendum every other day of the week.
Can you imagine the thought processes around the boardroom tables of the major mining companies? They are being encouraged to invest billions into the mining industry, but they are being asked to do so against the backdrop of complete uncertainty. Obviously, this will make them think more than once about making the commitment.
I'm absolutely sure the mining industry is making representations along these lines and it is to be hoped the government is prepared to take action to prevent similar situations arising again. In other words, they need to ban this constitutional process, which, as it stands, has the capacity to kill the industry in Equador stone dead.