Member Info for addicknt

You'd hope they did offer the shares to others, if only to comply with their fiduciary duties. However, my view is that the sale was strategic and points the way to what comes next.

SH, I was initially referring to the comment made by nal that the project is 'uneconomical at this time to extract'. This is not true, as the most recent PFS proved. And that's before any uplift in commodity prices is factored into the equation.

As it happens, I don't disagree with you about the risks associated with this project, although I'm not as hawkish as you and believe those risks can be successfully surmounted. However, as I said in an earlier post, I do not believe we can do it on our own (I've been saying this for years) and that's one of the reasons I think we are likely to do something with Jiangxi, and or others.

SH, the structure of the FN facility is a sensible mitigation of the risk, and they have additional protection in the form of the full charge over our assets. Notwithstanding the above, no lending organization would enter into any form of agreement if they felt it was a dud and it represented an unacceptable risk, no matter how much they advanced.

As for your last paragraph, is there anyone on here who doesn't understand its nature?

My own view is that we are not capable of taking this through the next few years and this is one of the reasons why I believe we won't.

Orthern, it's my view that the reason we haven't heard anything about his plans is that he doesn't have any. Or to be more specific, he doesn't have any plans to speed up the process. I think he's plotting something with Jiangxi.

Orthern, I don't think the new boss is anything like the old boss and neither do I believe he has any intention of waiting another 2/3 years. He's been elevated for a reason, and it isn't to take this through the development process. Whether this is a good or bad thing remains to be seen.

Do you honestly believe that successful companies simply throw money around willy nilly? I suppose you must, and this speaks volumes about your lack of experience and understanding. Small companies don't become big companies by wasting money, so I'm afraid this argument is total BS.

Of course you're totally wrong about me not understanding the FN deal and I've referred to the staged nature of it on many occasions.

Btw, I've never said people should filter you - I think you're mistaking me for Novice.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

This can't pass without comment: "Unfortunately, they only fooled one or two clowns on here. Not those who matter" Brilliant!

I assume that means Jiangxi, FN and Osisko are, according to the world renowned mining expert in Perth, "clowns"?

And by the way, show me one post in which I've either said or intimated that I'm a Tory voter. What I am is someone who can see through socialist claptrap and realizes just how damaging they are. We are in deep s**t and it's going to get worse.

If I were you I'd concentrate on your own election where hopefully the good people of Australia will dump the woke idiot who's currently in charge.

'So many people wanted a Labour government' Classic!

For once in your life check the figures.

Their majority in the HoC is simply a function of the first past the post electoral system and in no way does it reflect what the majority of the population think or voted for. Check the bloody figures!

Which loser did I back? Or are you making another one of your uninformed guesses again? Just as an fyi I think there aren't any political parties worth voting for at the moment and, like huge swathes of people in this country, I feel disenfranchised by our current system.

Now some figures for you to digest: You state state I'm part of a minority. This is not true. The Labour party won 33.7% of the votes cast. The three main opposition parties achieved four million more votes than Labour. The turnout was only 59.7% The Reform party won nearly 700k more votes than the utterly useless LibDems and got five seats. The LDs won 72 seats.

Our voting system often gives us a minority government and this one is a particularly egregious example. If an election were held now they'd be looking at a very different landscape, particularly as they have proved themselves to be utterly incompetent, which is hardly surprising given the cvs of the Cabinet and their woke socialist dogma.

The rest of your post is the usual total drivel we've come to expect.

Nal, I hadn't realised you were an expert on British politics.

To answer your question; there are 409 thick-as-mince socialist MPs in the HoC. (They're 1 down because an MP somewhere in the North had to resign after being convicted of assaulting a constituent and being given a 10 week jail sentence. The only intelligent member is Wes Streeting, and frankly the jury's still out on him) Hope this helps.

A slightly confusing article, but if I've read it correctly her statements were focussed on specific amazonian regions where illegal mining is an issue. If her comments about consultations are related to the whole country, this is not new news.

Regardless of what empty promises she makes in the run-up to the election, we most certainly do not want her to win. Like all mince-thick socialists around the world, she doesn't know what's necessary to create growth and prosperity for the people. I wonder where I got that idea from?

NAL, if you read my post more carefully I provide a scenario which would imply Caldwell was at fault, and if this is indeed the case he deserved to be relegated.

On the broader point, my historic support for SC was based on one thing; that he represented stability and was following a strategy which, given we hadn't been able to the sell Cascabel for an acceptable price, made sense. I was very clear that I was giving him one year to deliver the milestones and if he didn't achieve them he wouldn't have got my vote in December. So I'm afraid your characterisation of my support for him as being the 'messiah' is wrong.

Q, In your response to Covgaz you said the company will progress as planned for the next couple of years.

Until a few weeks ago I too subscribed to that view, albeit reluctantly. I felt that in the circumstances it made sense. However, the management changes and placing with Jiangxi have made me re-think.

I don't feel there's anything in either Vujcic or Smith's background which suggests they are mine developers. They are deal makers and I find it difficult to believe they'll be happy to do the heavy lifting required to develop Cascabel. This leads me to think we're heading for a jv with Jianxi whereby we are effectively passive minority shareholders, something which I've feared for years.

My view is reinforced by the fact they seemingly have no plan to speed up the process and have no intention of providing one. That part of the RNS was a deflection. Of course, I may be completely wrong and a plan will emerge in the next few weeks, but how likely is this? Vujcic's been on the board for some time, so why hasn't an alternative approach already been announced?

In the history of this company we've become inured to sudden lurches in direction, but somehow this one feels different. Something went wrong, either a significant error was made in cash forecasting or, we are indeed running behind schedule. In the first case Scott would bear responsibility, but it may be the case that if we're running behind schedule it's a result of something the government has failed to do, which wouldn't be Scott's fault.

We will see announcements soon, but whether they'll be to our liking remains to be seen.

Who's actually running the company on a day-to-day basis in Quito?

Has Vujcic temporarily relocated? Or is he trying to manage it via zoom?

We need someone based there who, at this critical phase, is capable of dealing with the government and will keep a grip on our finances - don't forget the $4m.

Did they relegate SC so quickly that they hadn't got someone in mind for the COO job? Given the fact they quite clearly haven't got a plan to speed up the process, I wouldn't be remotely surprised.

In my opinion, our track record proves an absentee CEO is not a good thing for us.

Pbow, precisely.

Bozi, how many times have you seen a placing being done at such a premium when a company has its back against the wall?

We can all feel aggrieved that we found ourselves in this position, but DV was facing the reality of the market and, in the circumstances, he did a good job. Of far greater importance is making sure we hit the milestones to get phase 2 funding and hopefully we'll utilise Jiangxi's technical experience to help us do so.

I think you're being unrealistic about the placing. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes. Selling shares at a 45% premium when your backs are against the wall is most definitely an achievement. I think one needs to judge it on prevailing conditions, not what happened some time ago.

Do you accept the point I made in my final paragraph of the post at 08:08?

Bozi, that's a fair point, but we know very little about the guy and it's a bit early to pass judgement. I know people think he gave away the shares, but in the circumstances I reckon achieving the premium he did was quite a coup.

However, I do agree with your final paragraph and have said so on a number of occasions. Until we see it, I remain as sceptical as you that a plan to speed up the process currently exists - one assumes if it did they'd have told us. As I said yesterday, I think the announcement was window dressing to soften the change of management issue.

SH, I seem to recall it was about this time last year that you said we'd be having a 'car-crash' bail-out placing at 5p in July. Can we expect a repeat next year? Make sure you put a reminder in your diary.