Member Info for Bannor

@Obs... yes going round & over the same thing, I've said it was a niggle .. that means I'm not massively concerned either, I'm not panicking or overly concerned & certainly not waving or hoisting red flags..... I would just like that itch to be scratched one way or another .... I would very much prefer our 20% (then 27%) secured sooner rather than later, just my opinion because, unlike you, I don't feel actually physically shipping the ore is a big deal or proves anything, the physical ability or capability of doing so is the easy part in my opinion & doesn't require proving, other than hopefully to drag the banks into signing an agreement (for me preferably before it physically occurs, for you not apparently) once it's on the water any buyer will have the evidence required by default.

Anyway enough for me too - as I'm hoping that we'll know within days or even sooner, being 'imminently' within the meaning that most others might consider imminently means, what's happening next will be announced LoL & yes I am aware that Kirans imminently might have been in reference to some approvals being issued to facilitate shipment .... months ago!!

.....you know very well it was me who raised the spectre of a 'potential' (not confirmed or definite) risk & niggle for me, there is nothing I'd prefer more than to see formal confirmation that our interests are protected if shipments commence - then like you I wouldn't be concerned in the slightest & might agree that making shipments ahead of our formal 20% ownership is not a bad thing.

The JRP has been touted as our protection if followed however the way I'm seeing it is that if shipments commence without bank agreement triggering the DIPA finance for settlement of the labor creditors amongst others & the creditors are paid from sales revenues instead that in & of itself creates a variation, so whose to say there couldn't be more eventually - or have I read too much into the JRP texts.... whilst this loophole remains unaddressed in my opinion though I will retain that 'slight' niggle I've said I have.

I've said numerous times that I am wholly behind Amapa & believe the potential here is massive, I've also said it doesn't change anything that's previously occurred & my thoughts on that, I really don't want to revisit what I've stated repeatedly about what I consider are failed projects, failed investments, poor decisions & damaging statements over the last 5 years .... I would just like confirmation that our AMAPA interests are entirely protected in any eventuality, including shipments commencing & potentially continuing without ever obtaining bank agreement & the creditors that were planned to be settled from our $2.5M within the JRP & are settled from revenues instead - whether or not it's controlled by the court.

If shipment comes with such clarification fine & I'm happy with my concern unfounded .... without that I'd like to see bank agreement & our 20% first or at the same time we've been led up too many blind alleys only to find locked gates here already

.....maybe it's all signed, sealed & delivered & the bank have withdrawn their crack ninja squad

...... to be honest Obs those concerns are so not of any concern to me & not sure it's worth discussing further neither of us will change our thoughts & opinions & indeed why we....

Regardless & anyway .... the naval guard seems to have been cancelled

& you might well be right ... but likewise I don't understand how you refuse to see or accept that there isn't the potential of a risk..... & you won't be surprised to know that nothing you say will change my view that I'd prefer signed agreement, escrowed money released & our 20% at the same time or prior to first shipment..... there won't be any need to prove shipments can be made ..... which to be fair I don't understand why on earth you think needs proving, why on earth do you think something so obvious capable of being done needs proving.....

....and I'll take bank agreement & our 20% over shipments commencing & the banks demoted to unsecured creditors with us sitting on the sidelines any day.... Bird the hand & all that....

...... all well & good but your view's just about as much hope & hypothesis as mine might be unwarranted concern.... fact is the $2.5M we placed in escrow for the payment of smaller labour & business creditors once a bank agreement had been reached might not be required for that purpose any longer once shipments commence & $2.5M from sales is used instead .... this had been stipulated within the court sanctioned JRP & would therefore create deviations ..... if that change is permitted under court approval whose to say there couldn't be more?

I'm not denying you might be right & our interests are protected but I do not see anything confirming or legally stipulating that to be the case so to alleviate my own concerns I would prefer to see our interests secured by, bank agreement the release our escrowed funds & our 20% at the same time or prior to shipments commencing..... I don't see how shipments commencing before our 20% ownership would serve our interests better than first securing our interests.... but accept you feel otherwise & our views differ ... not for the first time eh!!

@MLQ 12:12

Indeed the court directed that $2.5M of revenue from up to $10M of court sanctioned shipment of stockpiled ore would be secured to settle the creditors that our $2.5M of escrowed funds were originally earmarked for....... hence the niggle in my mind that if shipments proceed & ergo the JRP plans changed ... what's to stop indo &/or DEV &/or A.N OTHER coming to the conclusion sooner or later that other than for the loaned monies we've already provided they don't actually need the support & input of an AIM minnow with (In my opinion) a less than illustrious & overly successful history over the last 4-5 years ...... all of which is well known & documented in my view & clear to see.

We may be protected against this eventuality & we may not be , which for me is why I would much prefer shipment news to come with or after signed & formalised bank agreements & our 20% ownership.

If someone can prove we can't be dumped if it becomes evident our association & funds is less of a necessity for the project to progress, following the commencement of shipments without bank agreement, & our 20% would still be secure then I might stop thinking it's a concerning possibility.

Okaying not playing !! grrr

..... it could also be that the banks rushed to sign the negotiated agreement the day after the upper/senior court handed down their ruling re playing shipments going ahead & we could be in for a very good RNS next week.....

Time will tell I've got plans for the eventuality that we just get news of shipment(s) occurring or something more....

Obs .....as I think I've already said, if I was the bank I'd use everything in my power to retain/regain the upper hand .... by indicating their 'agreement' to settlement may have paved the way in my opinion for potentially delaying shipments of what they consider to be ore they should have control over or own whilst contracts are finalised & if I was in the banks position I still wouldn't agree to shipments until contracts had been signed & legally recognised in any event...

Maybe that's what's been going on & the banks have continued to 'play' us within whatever legal boundaries they could ... i.e. indicating on the face of it that agreement had been reached for contracts they never had any intention of signing.... maybe not who will ever know.

So if the upper/senior courts have now supported shipments may commence as directed by the lower court against protestations by the banks maybe that will finally force the signing of contracts by the banks.

I could be miles off ... but then again I could also be spot on - we'll probably never know for sure :-)

Oh & until it's formally & legally announced we have our 20% I still maintain there's a risk we could still &/or eventually get shafted on the deal.

.....morning MB (& FH in absentia)

Your hospital story made me remember that during many hospital visits over a shortish period of time a few years back the one thing that always made me laugh & chuckle as we walked past was a secured door with a sign above it announcing it was for 'AUDIOLOGY' .....

...beside the door on the wall was buzzer, microphone & speaker system with a sign saying 'RING FOR ASSISTANCE' ..... first time I saw it I nearly wet myself laughing, took a picture & shared it with friends.

Still can't get the mental image out of my head of someone standing there for an eternity repeatedly ringing the bell oblivious to any responses.

Makes me chuckle to this day...... :-))

I really hope these delays are down to the port &/or the vessel/operator & not because someone booked it before certainty or guarantee all the requirements & hurdles were cleared to load it they did it in the hope it might accelerate someone/anything - that in my view would be mind numbingly dumb .... paying for a parked up ship & crew because you jumped the gun or tried to force/second guess someone or thing would be unforgivable in my opinion - especially after lessons should've been learnt from the previous cancelled booking.

Doesn't matter who said/requested/petitioned what of who .... what matters is whether it's been legally & formally done & ruled on - if we're still waiting for anything or it wasn't guaranteed it shouldn't have been booked ...simple as.

@Obs your 08:45 .... I'm very much on a different page to you .... unusual huh!!

We have not been informed yet that any 'agreed' deal has been signed by the banks or anyone else, nor have we confirmation of any court confirmations other than a request for clarification of what the labor creditors would be paid from & whether it was still required for them to be paid under the protection of the JRP & escrowed funds....

We do know that the court had 'authorised' shipments up to $10M in the absence of bank agreement & I haven't seen anything that (IMO) has negated that formally.

If DEV start shipping ore , settle creditors & get things moving without us ... what's to stop them continuing without us until we're not needed at all & then everything's changed until all we have is the return of $2.5M & an outstanding loan to them that needs repaying to us...... how many failures does it take not to recognise warning/alert flags.

The ore being shipped on the XIN is Dev's, in that I am confident personally, but for me I would very much prefer for it to occur after or at the same time as we announce & confirm that all the requirements for release of our escrowed funds gave been met, funds released & we own 20% if the JV co which owns 99.9% if DEV.

Jeez .... maybe I should change that question to 'what planet' LoL .... we've been discussing that since yesterday evening !!

LoL ... you do make me chuckle yap yap .... out of interest what time zone are you in?

......there is no doubt or question for me that it is possible to ship 45kt shipments of Ore from Santana .... the biggest derisk for me by far & a way over proving & making shipment(s) is of our taking 20% .... in fact making shipment(s) prior to our getting our 20% foot in does cause me some shivers .... not many but some...

Xin is for ........ not ..... con is .... think I might turn autocorrect off!!

BTW .... thanks MrsB ... whether you'd got a response or not I'm kinda happy nothings confirmed yet .... Ideally I'd like to hear that we have our 20% first or at the same time as shipment news, rather than just shipment ..... no idea whether that'll happen or not but now happy to wait ..... still think the con is "DEV' s" ore & have done since I noticed it on the schedule last week....

..... or maybe Tesla girls ...LoL