Member Info for SharketMare

Well Sean Tufford on Telegram has stated the company has asked him to "lay low for a while" and that he's confirmed with them he'll still be employed in August. Senior mgmt are apparently in a "great mood".

So I think it's fair to say something is going on, and it's more likely to be positive rather than negative. I saw HH speculate on Twitter that we may well have a consortium of financers in place. Maybe we have multiple interested parties and have the luxury of picking the most attractive package / are playing them off against each other.

Trading this week will be worth watching. I'm expecting news the week after.

Thanks for sharing. Good post.

Thanks add. Nice work.

Stopped reading the original post half way through as there was so much wrong with it. Jack, most of your "facts" are not facts at all.

But that is very different to what you originally suggested. If we sign a royalty agreement and then use the cash for an acquisition, we are simply acquiring the target with cash. It would be an insane tactic for a company like ours to take given we're not creating any revenue.

Speedy, are you suggesting that we can fund an acquisition with gold in the ground?

Eloro - the Chinese have had their fingers burned elsewhere in Ecuador. They won't want that to happen again.

This is what I would call the 'bear case' for keeping the lender's identity secret.

Sean Tufford has said that the entity that has given us the loan facility has asked the company to withhold its name and our legal counsel agreed that it was mutually beneficial to adhere to this request.

You can't expect me to cater for your inability to read plain English.

Quady, as stated below, Sean Tufford has confirmed this directly to investors on the Telegram group. Another investor was informed on a call with Scott and Christine. Ask the company directly and they will confirm this to you too. Why would I or anyone else make this up?

Quady - they did. Ask the company yourself.

Alright mate believe what you want. There's a decent group of people invested in this share who don't bother posting info here any more because of the daily children who bicker and posts like yours who shoot down people trying to be helpful. Email Stackhouse and ask the question and you'll get the answer from the horse's mouth.

Orthern - has been confirmed by Sean Tufford in the Telegram group. Another investor had an insightful call with Scott and Christine which had some other useful nuggets of info that I won't share here as it's not mine to pass on. But the creditor request was confirmed there too.

Q - why would a regular bank request to have their name withheld from the release?

There are bullish and bearish speculative answers to that question. We shouldn't be having to guess.

It used to be non-compliant if commercially sensitive or material? I'll be amazed if our arrangement doesn't fall into that category. As shareholders we really ought to be told.

Addicknt, under main market rules is it permitted for our creditor to remain anonymous and for us to respect and abide by those terms when notifying the market of our £10m loan facility? I'd expect this behaviour from an AIM listed business but frankly think it's not on that this lack of transparency is permitted. Can't imagine the likes of Norges who are big on corporate transparency are happy with this development.

Wants assurances*

Most likely add. Alternatively, SOLG want the finance package done so that they can be announced simultaneously?

Wording from March 6 CIPA RNS below:

"In addition to the US$311 million investment addressed by the current IPA, under the Complementary IPA, there is a commitment to invest a total of US $3.2 billion over the subsequent years in activities related to the Cascabel mining concession."

"Subsequent years" is very loose wording but essentially we are going to be on the hook for a large investment in the area, and we didn't meet the commitments we made with the first IPA. Perhaps the government was assurances that we have some proper backing behind us before signing the revised doc? Similarly a partner/buyer would probably want to know what they're signing up to specifically. It's a bit chicken and egg but I think it'll come good.

It's with the government for approval so I imagine the terms have been agreed in principle. They might have asked for the arbitration clause to be included in the EA as this was never going to change from the original IPA. What we are waiting on are the other details, e.g. how much investment are we committing to developing and building the mine.