Member Info for addicknt

Pinot, you're correct. They are also DGR's largest shareholder.

Fort, isn't Tenstar controlled by Mather?

SM, you're right, the management of the company was a total s**t show for a long time. It was directionless and had no idea how to progress beyond the discovery stage. The board was fractious and governance was totally ignored. What we're seeing now is a recognition of reality, but we do need a chairman asap. Hopefully, last week's trip to London has resolved the issue and we get an announcement soon.

Darren, afraid not.

I'm with you on that one - de-risking is critical to improving value. We tried to sell it with the risk still attached and failed - although I expect we had a few low-ball offers. But how far down the de-risking path do we have to go before it becomes attractive?

The company have made their views on production clear and it's obvious they really don't want to go down that path. As for construction; is that really a value-add proposition?

As Jerry and I were chewing the cud at the weekend, we discussed who would be an ideal Chairman. My dream choice would be Mick Davis.

His would be a huge and transformational appointment for us. Even better, he has his own $600m fund. Does anyone have his phone number?

Q, every takeover of a plc requires a group of disparate shareholders to reach the same conclusion, and we are no different. The concept of "full value" is too nebulous to have any real meaning and shareholders react very differently once they're presented with a firm offer.

NM has said he believes Cascabel is worth 50p - how many shareholders would turn that down? Newmont? Unlikely. Norges? Ditto. The non-BHP Aussie bloc are sellers at that level as are the Canadians. A bidder could get 51% with ease and the rest would follow, particularly if this is accompanied by a Board recommendation, which it would be.

The conclusion is clear; either as a result of investor fatigue or lack of interest in holding for another five or six years, a bid would succeed. The question is, are there people willing to pay £1.5bn for the asset?

Q, I'm sure you're right about sub-contractors, although I don't know how many more people we would have to employ to oversee the project. However, what did you make of SC's comment that we would take this to production "if we have to"?

He said this in the context of the discussion about presenting Cascabel as a turnkey project. He left little room for misunderstanding the definition of turnkey.

Do you not agree that the Board sees production as being the last resort in the event they can't sell it?

Apparently the issue of Caldwell's domicile was raised. The answer is that he spends the working week in Quito and, for tax reasons, leaves the country at weekends.

He also said there's a lively mining community in Quito who meet weekly for a few beers. Most of the major miners are represented and Caldwell gets on particularly well with the Lundin folk.

Eish, I've recently joined the telegram group and this morning HH posted some really useful stuff about this issue. I'd recommend joining.

Red, funnily enough I was just talking to Jerry about this very issue and we wondered if the MD&A was the explanation. But has anything of a price sensitive nature ever accompanied the quarterly reports?

Fort, no it won't, although I have no idea where it will come from.

The directors are in a closed period for reasons unknown. Some sort of fund raise?

Orthern, SC gave Jerry a specific example although I can't recall who it was.

As for not being able to sell, I believe we could have, but only at a bargain basement price, which, quite rightly, our Board has no intention of doing. We have an important asset, we mustn't give it away.

Orthern, Jerry covered quite a bit of ground including the asset. Apparently, SC was quite clear on this-there's nothing wrong with the asset, although it's possible that some people don't understand block cave mining and this puts them off. Obviously that's not the case for many others.

For me it's all about risk, both at the political level and the need to have won the relevant permits etc.

Eloro, absolutely. It couldn't have been clearer.

Eloro, he gained the impression from Scott that everything was on track and the company has sufficient funds to achieve what is necessary to obtain the phase two funding. Apparently, he was completely relaxed about the question, as he was about the 4.3m fee for renewing our various licenses at the end of March.

Nal, for your benefit the person I spoke to was JerrySpaniel, who used to be a regular on here until he got fed up with people like you posting their bile and bilge day-in-day-out. He spent a couple of hours talking to Caldwell et al and I found his insight to be most useful. Jerry and I have been in touch for four or five years and he speaks more sense in 30 seconds than you would in a lifetime. Hope this helps.

Eloro, I had a very long and detailed conversation with one of the shareholders who was there last night and from what he was saying, your claim that management isn't interested in shareholder value is, to put it politely, twaddle.

RodneyT, why do you need shareholder details at the moment? You seemed to imply there's something afoot which may require a united action from private investors. Sorry if I've misinterpreted - this is a genuine question.

Rodney, you misinterpreted my post. I wasn't questioning the validity of your comment, rather I was hoping you could reveal the details. Hope that's clearer.