Member Info for SharketMare

I doubt it tbh given the levy Noboa is looking to impose. Majors are not in the business of throwing money at exploratory drilling, and Cascabel is complex enough. They'd probably be farmed out or given up..

Rcgl2, agree with all of that. Nice to see you back posting and comfortably in the green.

Dbw, if that were the case why would the company choose to release it? They were not obliged to put the RNS out stating they had received a preliminary and non binding offer.

If we follow that / Fort's logic Dan and Paul have just fallen into a Chinese trap to suppress the SP. I don't buy it

Fort, I'm fully aware of our progress, and think it had been quite clearly signposted to the market that TAM was a go-er and feasible for us to build alone.

Where we differ is me believing a takeover offer and arguably the starting gun for a bidding war is bullish for our share price whereas, inexplicably, you seem to think it is holding us back.

Fort, the CIPA and updated PFS have been in the pipline for some time. The former is months if not a year+ overdue and is not in our gift timing wise.

Clearly some in the market got wind of the offer. It was probably the bankers advising us who leaked it - (in the 3 deals I have worked on in the last 18 months it is always the bankers who leak to the press). The subsequent share price action has given us ample foil to turn to JCC and say our hand was forced to release the news. Otherwise the regulator comes knocking and asks why we've added several hundred mill to our MCAP on no published information.

Needalife, sweetness and light? You must have me confused you daft old man.

I see someone has taught you how to use AI - perhaps you can ask it how you can seduce those sisters of yours you've been pining after for so long?

Big love from the beach in Langkawi.

"It's the jiagnxi bid that's actaully holding us back right now"

Fort, do you actually believe this? We have sailed through 20p to 30p in a fortnight. That doesn't happen without the bid, which is the best thing to happen to both the company and the SP in years.

The mental gymnastics are off the scale here.

Every project is built in stages you numpty.

Did you not manage to squeeze in an apprenticeship in project management before failing to become an electrical engineer and an actuary?

Eloro, if you were taking the mickey I apologise for my earlier post.

F*ck me Eloro you must be as thick as the rest of the fantasists. Are we discounting the 99 other things Jack said would happen (and did not) and clinging on to the one he (allegedly) said that has come to pass?

Moron

Sorry Fort but that is garbage. If an L&G fund manager is buying in now and is offered 40p tomorrow they will be taking it as they will have made 33% profit in 72 hours. Neither was the previous price of 16p you quote 'manipulated'. Why 16p, why not 7p?

We seem to be sorting ourselves into two groups: the 'fantasists' - those who keep banging on about NAV and think this BB is full of paid shills/multiple aliases and the 'realists' - those who understand that the only thing we actually KNOW is that JCC are willing to pay 26p for Solgold.

The future is brighter than it has been for a long time and I am hopeful of a positive outcome sooner rather than later!

Rodney - since when did SOLG own two Tier 1 assets?

Q, if you are taking that article - from 'Think In Leverage' remotely seriously your judgement is even worse than I had imagined. The piece implies Cascabel is a sovereign asset and that it is Ecuador itself that made the decision to reject the bid.

Honestly, you have the comprehension skills of an 8 year old.

"MathersFinger posted an article yesterday stating that the reason the 26 pence bid was rejected is because we are going to production."

No, he didn't.

I think you'd find that a large proportion of shareholders would disagree that their best interests lie in production.

A bird in hand, and all.

Q, I know Dan would be well within his rights to outright reject 45p. But the BoD has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of shareholders, and given the first approach came in a few weeks ago and below 26p, we would be looking at a 100% premium from that level.

Combined with the belief that Vujcic and Smith have no desire to be around while this is built, and would make a few quid at 45p, I think Dan would put that to his shareholders.

If I am JCC and I have a price I am willing to pay for the asset in mind - say 45p - what is the downside of putting in a bid at this price before Dec 26?

I'm of the view that at this price Dan's hand would be forced and it would have to be put to shareholders, at which point things become very interesting.

JCC will have been given an indication what price the BoD are willing to accept - or at least recommend to shareholders. If they want the asset then they will make a renewed offer. If it is countered then they either make a reasonable return on a short term investment (pocket change, for them) or they roll up their sleeves and have it out.

I'd be surprised if they didn't make a formal and better offer.

Nothing of the sort, actually. In fact this is a listed entity (LSE) and the regulator indicating they are going to start enforcing existing laws.

Conservative folk like law and order, PS. Maybe ultranationalists such as yourself do not?

While I know we're not AIM listed, it's interesting to read the London Stock Exchange finally recognising the problems that these forums (and social media) can bring to a market. I've always found this to be true of highly illiquid and low cap stocks where you'll see coordinated ramping or deramping to manufacture an exit / a buy in opportunity.

Of course, anyone making serious investment decisions solely on the basis of anonymous internet sentiment deserves to get burnt. But hopefully one or two posters on here who like to claim deals have been done and Directors/mgmt are breaking the law will think twice before sharing their fantasies as we head into silly season.

SM

https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/london-stock-exchange-abuse-aim-companies-zjwpkt3st