Member Info for Gino73

Agreed Slug!

Now will somebody buy this pile of minerals so that I can live the rest of my life in a more affluent manner!

In mining, not I mining!
Doh!!

If Fortescue were to try diversifying in the direction of Ecuador, I doubt if the local tree-huggers would take it lying down. Fortescue have history when it comes to dealing with the natives down under!
https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/abr-online/current-issue/969-november-2021-no-437/8491-stephen-bennetts-reviews-title-fight-how-the-yindjibarndi-battled-and-defeated-a-mining-giant-by-paul-cleary
https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/high-court-dismisses-fmgs-special-leave-application-in-yindjibarndi-proceedings
Those two links courtesy of goldgnome on CEY bb, based in Oz, always worth a read for info and humour!
PS - look at the size of that train at the top of the second article. I mining, size often does matter!

Well done guys. Good to have a few minutes of giggles on here!

mog999 - 'Darryl on a visit to Cascabel'. Looks more like me and my mate on a visit to Kew Gardens last year!
If it really is them, I wonder if they're sending a message that they're being prevented from saying anything whatsoever!

Sorry Motbuck - you posted yours while I was writing mine!

This argument concerning buybacks has been running on here for many years with LTI stonewalling it all along. I view the issue as one of LBG having a series of mini 'rights issues' and then using the cash to buy back the shares issued. So rather than objectors to said scheme going round in circles, isn't it LBG who are doing so and incurring unnecessary applicable overhead costs all the while!
LBG obviously see some PR benefit in this as they dress it up as 'returning cash to investors' (a philosophical point) but as any reader of this BB can see, many investors don't feel they enjoy any benefit whatsoever. Perhaps LBG should bring the farce to an end and for the sake of transparency, stop issuing additional shares to staff and pay them any bonuses etc. out of cash and then return cash to investors by way of dividend. LBG may take a PR hit when journalists pick up on such bonuses being paid (they most certainly would if mortgage costs increase again - what comes round goes round!) but wouldn't that help concentrate the minds of LBG's Board and eradicate this contentious issue for PIs?

PP - M&G increased their holdings in Reach PLC to 12.065%. These RNSs aren't the easiest to read unfortunately.

Aoc71 - Gino and vino - you're a poet and I'm sure you know it!

I'm up to speed on your lagers mate - one of the best jokes of all time was to invent Fosters, get the world to drink it, making zillions for yourselves, while you lot wouldn't go near it coz you know it's VB that's already been drunk once!!! Good to see you have that Oz sense of humour - bonzer!

Aoc71 - If your preferred response to a perceived Oz bashing - it wasn't, CD referred to Oz's Government - was some pom bashing, I would have thought you would have picked up on the misspelling of your country, or are you as illiterate as Aussies are often perceived to be? Maybe you really just couldn't give a xxxx? (that's a Four X for those who can't remember the 80s!)

Oz have won the series but you can be assured they were after the whitewash. We only just made a draw but I bet Oz are hurting! Beers for the lads!!!!

DaKat 01:52 -'Alright new CEO let some of the drill results be released or perhaps announcement of JV partner'
I note that Google Finance show the SOLG CEO as being Nicholas Mather!
The truth is out there somewhere!

Stukey - 08:36. The $500m is an estimate of CGP's 15% total share of development costs of Cascabel post PFS which are to be paid as and when incurred and if not paid, SOLG recoup the money through dilution of CGP's 15% interest down to 10% at which point it will be converted to a 0.5% NSR which SOLG can purchase for $3.5m.
CGP's share of the costs up to PFS are rolled up including interest at LIBOR plus 2% and are repayable from earnings or dividends from ENSA. Such costs are only repayable if there is a DFS and development at Cascabel and as such CGP do not have a provision for such costs in their accounts, reasoning that the PFS and development is still 'uncertain.' (CGP's accounts only refer to PFS not DFS)

happyharry:- I've been itching to say this for some time, so while I'm waiting for noon to arrive and I can go to the pub and back before darkness descends and the undead walk the streets -
'would have' - you remember some of your lessons from school.
'would of' - you spend too much time on social media.

Can't be done with this faux bonhomie to all 'persons' myself!
At a pub near me, the last landlady had a string of humbugs around the bar throughout December, no xmas music and anyone wearing a xmas jumper or the like had to buy whoever served them a drink! Used to be a proper pub, but she retired to Portugal.
Back under the parapet for me until the yuck that is new year (I'm a yule man myself - Pagan don't you know!) is over.
Do have hopes for January though! (J'ai quand meme des espoirs pour Janvier!)

In an important lecture at the Institute for Fiscal Studies earlier last year, the former cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell made this crucial point: ‘All the attention was focussed on Sage as a group of scientists providing expert advice to allow ministers to say they were ‘‘following the science’’... I hope we discover that there was a higher committee that gratefully received Sage’s work and then brought it together with the economic and social estimates to allow for sensible decision-making.’
Then just last week - ‘Presumably others are modelling the harms caused by restrictions, including economic harms,’ said Professor Graham Medley, chairman of the Sage modelling committee.
This is why today’s cabinet meeting matters. If there is no such committee, then the cabinet is the only forum to sense-check the Sage estimates and to demand a wider impact assessment. Or point out that, until a full impact report is commissioned, ‘sensible decision-making’ will not be possible.
All the above from today's Spectator.
Looks like we're rogered (for want of a more suitable expletive) then!

Regarding the previous posts expressing concern over the content of TR1s.
Take todays, concerning Morgan Advanced Materials plc. Admittedly it is unclear as to who is notifying about whom, but generally when you have a company such as M&g, LGEN, Aviva etc. which holds investments in many other companies, you will see a number of these TR1s as and when the investing company (eg M&g) aggregated through their various funds, pass through a notifiable level of shareholding in the relevant company, eg 5%, 10% etc.
Todays, concerning Morgan (MGAM) is a notification that M&g's aggregate holding in MGAM fell below the notifiable level of 5%. This TR1 has also been posted on the MGAM bb. If you scroll down the TR1 you can see that it lists the wholly owned investment funds of M&g which hold these shares in MGAM, indicating that it is M&g buying or selling shares in MGAM and not the other way round. Also the TR1 says the resulting holding is approx. 14m - 5% of the target company's shares making the target company's issued shares approx 280m. Looking up MGAM on their LSE bb under their 'Share Price' button, you will see the number of MGAM shares in issue is 285m. QED.
Sorry I've been so long winded - just one of those days! Hope it's helped though.

Crappyharry - I read your 16:24 with interest but didn't spot any reasoning in it. Pray tell why construction couldn't start next year?
Also please confirm the conditions under which you will leave this bb (your post didn't make sense on that point) as some people may be interested.
Just out of interest, aren't they teaching punctuation in your class at the moment?

It seems possible that a PFS followed quickly by a DFS/BFS could be agreed with construction commencing mid 2022. At this point aren't CGP liable to cough up for their share of costs to date and their share of the build costs as it progresses?
Big Dude seems mighty relaxed about this oncoming iceberg! Wonder why?

There are millions wearing masks, mostly incorrectly (it doesn't matter anyway), purely because they're told to, without understanding how, where or why.