Member Info for Pecten11

So using simplistic figures, BP at 13000 tonnes per month would create over $55M revenue per year. (Cost of production per tonne currently unknown)

13000 tonnes x 6% Cu equivalent x $5912 spot price x 12 months.

Anyone care to verify that?

Apologies- old Cu spot price - using current price still equates to over $1m extra revenue per month

ORT, very good point re the increase, not the old base case for production at BP

Using a very simplistic calculation at today's spot price of Cu - extra 3000 tonnes at 6% equivalent at $6700 per tonne equals $1.2M extra revenue per month on top of the base case

As fair and respected as anyone could hope for. Liberal record, a moderniser and has done financial cases before.

Chief Justice Ian Kawaley.
http://mobile.royalgazette.com/news/article/20171219/chief-justice-poised-to-step-down-next-year&template=mobileart

2p, we're all still digesting one if Ian's breakfast !

Sorry Ian lol

Is it just bottom feeders taking a punt that an alternative offer might come in?

HamiltonsA 'patronising me isn’t really helping the situation' - not quite true, it puts a smile on some of our faces lol

Ian -trying to hook some wide mouthed guppies?? They normally shoal in large numbers

Ian?? Was that aimed for me??

Don't think my pitiful investing portfolio value would cause an market movement, still holding and cursing the opportunity some now have to buy at this price - good luck to them but arghhhh.
Just got annoyed by the sentiment changers and how vulnerable the board was to it, so stopped posting, which, I suppose, makes me equally guilty.

If the Bergen deal actually is just bridging finance, then fine, it makes a lot of sense to get the Baita ball rolling so we see the benefits sooner rather than later- if it turns out to be something else, I'll be gone with painful wounds to lick

Christmas was short, as had some work on between then and new year, but was good to catch up with family face to face.
Guess you were back open and feeding the masses straight away??

Ian- Kwai do you think you can get away with puns like that. Lol

Fantasy 'insiders knew this all well....'

Can you prove this fact, or make it clear that this is just your opinion as an outsider?

Sarah, you talk a lot of sense.

As far as AP is concerned, from my perspective, I haven't come across an AIM CEO who has actually answered all the questions put to him in Q&A's (a lot are selectively edited).
Now if the right questions haven't been asked or people don't like that answers , that's another matter

Hi Tiger - couldn't agree more with your 12.15

In a bizarre way, I truly hope that circumstances indicated it was absolutely necessary, rather than something else

Apple, tbf, as much as I think something has been going on in the background ( yes, we failed to break a technical indicator and have declined since - which can happen to a lot of shares in that circumstance, which has been exacerbated by the general market pullback in the last couple of months), I personally do not subscribe to the whole market maker conspiracy theories - they make a market, simple as that, the volume has been very low, so they have kept moving the price to try and find volume

TBTT I agree too.
My frustration particularly about your opinion in the final paragraph is that it would potentially imply that Bergen had been a possible for longer than we know of

1onic, that doesn't answer the question, the restructure might have had terms to include the veto, the issue being that Hope is one trying to use it - if he hadn't taken a seat on the BOD, then yes, he would have the right

Does anyone know how common it is that one director has more power than another- (in this case the veto) or do the other BOD members have the same veto option - otherwise this exception should have been RNS'd at the time of Hope's appointment?

Ivy, for those who believe this has been a trap set to get rid of Hope then yes, but am struggling to believe he is that stupid to fall for it

Hi Ivy, as a matter of principle, one directorship can't be of higher precedence than another- imo that's the basis for FRR's position that in the conflict of interest around funding Hope should have either recused himself or abstained in any vote (remove power of veto in such circumstances)
Whether that turns out to be the case is now upto the judge

Neil - 'Concerned small holder'. Well that's no surprise

Why not paste it yourself if you're so concerned, nobody new is going to pay to subscribe and support your pay