Member Info for addicknt

RK, of course I'm not trying to 'unsettle the board', as if I could, and I hope I am maintaining objectivity. Where I do agree with you is that the sp will need to be much higher, and that's exactly what the Board hope the release of Tranche 2 and the re-set plan will achieve.

Smick, neither do I, and I don't envisage one in the short term, but over the longer term I think it may be inevitable.

If we continue down our current path a placing is quite likely. The question will be where to source the funds? Current trade investors? New trade investors, or financial institutions? It's my belief it will be the latter - if they can persuade anyone of the case - and they should be able to do so.

The last thing we want is more money from our current trade investors and new ones may complicate matters even further. A significant investment from financial institutions should alleviate the fears some people have about 'creeping control'. Of course, this may sour our relationship with Jiangxi, but ultimately financial investors will always be sellers, so if the Chinese really want the asset, provided they offer a decent price, they won't have a problem persuading them sell.

Obviously there's only one "Credit" in the name of the company!

I've only just seen an announcement from early June which provides details of a new jv between Vitol and Breakwell Capital called Mining Credit Credit Partners.

The intention is to invest in the Americas, and they will be looking at providing capital for M&A, debt re-financing and development capital for oil and mining projects across the region.

Obviously, they believe there are many available opportunities and have confidence in South America, and it's good to see another entrant into the space.

Given his background at Glencore, I guess it's highly likely PS will know the people at Vitol, but if not, he can find the telephone number on their web site.

Hopefully, they will provide us with the promised webinar in the not too distant. Provided they allow a proper Q&A session, you'll be able to put your concerns to the team. It will also allow you the chance to judge whether you trust them or not, particularly on the question of the threat posed by Jiangxi. So far, most people are basing their judgements without actually having heard the Chairman and CEO talk. In my opinion, the opportunity may provide you with some comfort - it certainly has to the various shareholders who have actually spoken to them. I've not communicated with DV, but I feel confident you'll feel reassured by PS.

Fort, gosh! did they?! My word, I had no idea.

RT, my observation about a bidder having to disclose share purchases surely proves my point?

In the dim and distant I've seen this happen and it scuppered the takeover. Mind you, I seem to recall an example in the '80s whereby the bidder got round the revelation by claiming it had been a mistake! Regulators are now somewhat more rigorous than they were in those halcyon post-Big Bang days!

I tend to agree with you.

RT, yes, that's my understanding.

Going by the messages I've seen to other shareholders from DV, we can expect something "soon". I don't know if this is a Solg "soon", or if it's soon in the sense by which most of us understand the word. Btw, it's quite clear he's got mightily fed up with people asking him.

I agree with your comment about the current price offering an opportunity to 'hoover up' shares, but as I mentioned yesterday, not via nominee accounts. It may be worth repeating that the Board are very well aware of the Jiangxi position and want to do as much as possible to avoid having them in the driving seat.

What a misleading headline.

RT, I'm afraid I beg to differ. I'd wager no one is doing this, or at least no one who has a notifiable interest. And I'll tell you why.

If it were happening and they eventually launched a bid, they will have to reveal the details of their holding, including when they bought the shares. If it became clear they had be doing what you suggest, their bid will immediately fail and Mr Plod will get his magnifying glass out.

Somehow a stray zero made its way into the figure. It should of course be, £1,175,000.

RT, you make an interesting allegation that nominee accounts are gaining 'creeping control'. Do you have any evidence for this? Of course, you already know if those attempting to gain control in this way have notifiable holdings, they are breaking the law.

Have published an article about the levy. It doesn't say anything new, but it does have a calculator which works out how much the charge will be for each mine/concession etc.

The charge for Cascabel is reckoned to be $1, 1750,000.

Pbow, thanks. As you know, my technical abilities are limited!

It appears the issue is heading for a real standoff. Surely, ExCo will now be firmly on the backburner.

Pbow, this seems to need subscription.

DBW, are you on Telegram? If so, what name do you use?

RK, I agree with much of that, although I'm not convinced by your point 1. Of course there are other reasons for the dismal performance; lurching from one cash crisis to another, lack of focus and delivery, and, critically, political risk. Noboa offered real hope and in some ways is still banging the drum, but his failure to intervene (as far as we know) in the levy issue is a disaster. This is one of the most significant challenges the industry has faced in Ecuador, but all we've had from the Government so far are confusing messages and an apparent wish to strangle the goose before it's had a chance to lay even one egg.

Fort, why don't you put your point 5 to the chairman? Whilst you're at it you can also ask him about the Chinese.