RE: Unwelcome coverage?14 Nov 2019 13:28
BlakeneyP, I don’t have access and have only read the opening para. I have though read another board and the views of the alleged shareholder (also alleged recent disposer and 300% profit-taker, but we’ve grown used to such inconsistencies) who is almost certainly ‘Mr C’ the source for the story and purveyor of numerous speculative SGZ-bashing confections over the years.
Note 17 to the accounts is ambiguous in that it is headed ‘Commitments to Expenditure’ but in respect of the new licence agreements says: ‘On making that application, the following programme of exploration costs was proposed’.
Is that expenditure as outlined a proposal or a commitment? That’s the key question.
FWIW, as an actual shareholder it’s been obvious (to me anyway) for years that a full programme of exploration and development across the Grampian licence area would likewise require major new investment on, whether through a sale, JV or strategic investor. I can’t give any comment on the supposed governance issue because a) I can’t read the whole article b) I don’t have that expertise anyway. But it really shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone that, while Cononish Phase 1 might be able to internally finance Cononish Phase 2, it’s not likely to finance a wide ranging exploration and development programme at the same time.