Member Info for tiger100

Yuri.F, yes a mine is very different to a bank, all mines are non-trading until they are built. However, when built, the already signed take-off agreements should ensure profitabilty once the mine is up and running, so the risk to the Government is not that great. Compare this to the billions of public money poured into IT projects, a large number of which have completely failed, with no apparent comeback on the companies who promised much and delivered nothing.

Yuri.F, as far as I recall, both LLoyds and RBS were about to go belly-up within a day, before the Government stepped in. So they would have ceased to be "functioning banks" within a day without the Goverment bail-out.

It's a pity SXX isn't a bank, if it were, the Government would bail it out by providing the finance to complete the build. With the take-off agreements we have already got in place, and assuming the design of the mine is sound, it seems to me that the Government would eventually get their money back and shareholders would eventually be rewarded for their faith.

Struggling to see why this dropped 4p, mostly sfter 3PM, when results were in line with previously published management guidance. Hey ho !

Well spotted Withoutt ! With delay until December we may see some more upwards movement, at least temporarily.

Interestingly, Brent went from 58.5 to 60.5 between 13.30 and 13.45, that's a big jump in no time at all. GENL now 182, up 6.2. This will probably put the mockers on it !

Who are the nincompoops to whom you allude ?

Cookie, as a holder of 100,000 shares I will be happy to be proved wrong !

I have to say that I agree that the case is not closed. It was rejected because it was poorly presented and did not meet the court's criteria. For that reason the merits of the case were not considered, but there is nothing to stop a better presented case from having to be considered again. Hence the continued doubt and corresponding wobbly SP. Only my opinion.

Can't find anything yet on interweb news feeds or on Solgold's website.

Thanks Grim, puzzling how they would know when they will have decided, given some thinking and discussion would be needed after all evidence is heard-unless of course other factors such as plain brown evelopes have come into play !

zoros, how would Anna, you or anyone else know how long the court's de;liberations may take ? Serious question.

It appears that the control of mining activity is in the hands of the state, not local governments or councils. I can't see how a referendum, even if it is allowed to happen, can change that.
https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/22/jurisdiction/32/mining-2017-ecuador/

Well Pad, it;s now s--t or bust !!

I was really concerned about the drop in SP, So much so that I yesterday sold (another holding !) and bought another 75000 shares at 31 pennies. Good luck all.

xyraytom, I thought I had engaged my brain. Clearly from your comment you disagree. My suggestion was only that I believe the majority of Ecuadoreans would vote for the employment opportunities and prospereity that developing the mineral resources will provide. Presumably you think that a few unemployed folk with a pick and shovel mining illlegally is the likely outcome. Good day.

Ask yourself this question. Even if a court decision is in favour of a referendum on mining, do you think the majority of Ecuadoreans would vote to stifle a huge new source of prosperity and employment for the country ?

xraytom does not start with a capital letter. Plrease carefully read the posters title. Toodle-pip.

xraytom, I don't post much these days, but I find your posts universally derogatory and negative. One has to suspect you are a deramper. Also, whilst most of your posts are quite well written, your understanding of grammar is questionable as "my attitude would of been different" from your recent post indicates. You intended to say " my attitude would HAVE been different". So toodle-pip to you xraytom, please ply you expertise elsewhere. whatever you perceive that expertise to be..

Having read carefully I note one or two others noticed it, apologies for not reading all the posts, I just treplied to Aquinaga's original thread.