Member Info for addicknt

RK, did you actually read the article?

KRSS, from memory, we're at least a year away from environmental approval. God knows why it takes so long, but let's hope they've come up with a plan to shorten the process.

DBW, sadly, that article is nonsense. Apart from saying we're 'nearing environmental approvals' - if only we were!- it goes on to say we're 'valued at an undemanding 5x 2025 consensus ebitda'.

I guess this is simply more AI twaddle.

Q, I believe you're completely mistaken to say an agreed deal won't happen. It is by far the most likely outcome.

Cheltenham, yes, I'm fully aware of the change in ownership, which explains why I drew the distinction between them.

Btw, I should have mentioned China Rail as being potentially interested in a jv with Jiangxi. (Pbow mentioned this first and their name cropped-up in my conversation with PS)

Q, in every situation I've been involved with, at the right price, everyone's a seller, and Solg is no different. A bidder only needs 51% to gain control and I have absolutely no doubt that number could be reached easily, particularly as retail investors represent 45% of the voting rights. And don't forget, there's a huge degree of investor fatigue here, which would make the task even easier.

The nature of this investment has changed over the years. It's gone from having BHP and Newcrest looking like obvious bidders, to a situation where it appears they are no longer potential buyers. Jiangxi have taken up the reins and appear to be very keen buyers - they would like Newmont's stake, but I also believe the SR threw up other parties who will be interested once the ducks are in a row.

I'm afraid the diverse book argument is no longer valid...if it ever was.

Covgaz, by definition, Q will only be proved right when the first ore emerges and we still own the resource.

We now know for a fact the Board were trying to sell Cascabel, but failed to attract a price which reflects its true value.(There were a number of people on here who denied the fact we were for sale at all. They were wrong) The current strategy reflects this failure and the Board has adjusted accordingly. The task is straightforward; make the asset more attractive by clearing the various hurdles, and this can only be done by progressing as if we are heading for production. I don't believe this tactic is being used as a clever ploy to persuade the market we are taking it all the way. It's my belief we've had open conversations with interested parties whereby they've said that are buyers but not until we're further down the track.

Jiangxi want Cascabel and the Board's task is to ensure they're not the only horse in the race. This can only by achieved by making Cascabel a more appealing prospect for those who expressed their interest during the SR.

Nothing about the current Board structure suggests the intention is to become a miner and I maintain my view we'll either sell all or the majority of ENSA and it's to be hoped this can be achieved via a competitive process. It isn't going to happen soon, and it mystifies me as why some people think it will, but it will eventually be sold.

Eloro, we shall see.

As to your last point, I'd argue as far as Cascabel is concerned, we are 'getting a wiggle on'. However, the government's actions have put a spanner in the works of ExCo, so the company is hardly to blame.

Pbow, how attractive would that be for foreign investors? Why would anyone want to give the government a free ride?

Noboa has been shouting from the rooftops about how he wants to make the industry more attractive and yet his actions appear to be designed to do the exact opposite.

We should test the theory by handing back 60 or so of our concessions and then sit back and see how successful they are at attracting investment. We haven't managed it, so why would the government? (I'm referring to those concessions where we haven't done anything, not Porv etc)

Eloro, interesting theory, but where would they get the money from? The government doesn't have it and nor do they have the requisite skills.

Being a firm adherent to Occam's Razor, I believe the tax is being imposed due to political incompetence and ignorance and is not part of some grand conspiracy.

IP, I'm fully aware of that.

Brilliant!! It only took IP an hour to mention the imminent takeover. This has exceeded my expectations.

RT, you're right, it is overdue and perhaps an explanation would be helpful. However, as a central plank of the announcement was ExCo, and given what's happened in the meantime, the delay is understandable.

Separately, I'm sure DV hasn't come to London just for todays announcement.

Fort, the drawdown would have been included as a post-balance sheet event.

CPs, not PCs!

As we know, clarity has never been one of our strengths and this announcement maintains the tradition.

Having said that, I'm guessing there may have been legitimate reasons for not wanting to disclose which PCs have been waived. Anyway, a few weeks ago you and I both said we thought waivers would be necessary, but I take real comfort from this because it means Franco are completely onside with both the plan and our new team.

Pbow, it also says 'subject to the execution of certain waivers'.

Medi, I wondered who'd point that out. Perhaps his thinking is BHP asked us to drawdown the facility in advance of the takeover because they'll need the cash. I give it a couple of hours before we're bombarded with posts telling us this proves a t/o will happen tomorrow.

I wonder which CPs were waived?

In any event this is good news and we now wait for news of how we'll fund our other activities.