Its good for GPN as they get to preserve what cash they have as AGU does the exploration for them. They also get to keep 70%. Probably about the best outcome GPN could've hoped for. But then they get 35m AGU as well.
As for AGU, well it's not so clear cut. They appear to have never had any real prospects of their own. They listed on the strength of acquiring 5 unproven tenements from Murraba and we all know where those links lead.
Have a look at this paragraph from yesterday's EGM announcement:
"Moreover the value of the Company’s tenements in that area would have been substantially reduced as on their own they do not offer any viable prospectivity for additional exploration and development."
That paragraph seems to give you a very big clue as to just what the tenements from Haven, Jarra and Amitan as well as the other 3 Murraba leases are probably also worth. There is of course the possibilty of stumbling across something of value.
Extend this across to YRR and the same will apply to the Australian Uranium and Cabe ground. The Apogei leases appear to be the only tenements that offer a real chance of being capable of hosting a resource of any significance imo. GPN gave up 450m shares to get the Peak Hill leases because of the gold potential. Guess what, no gold. Now they hope to get on the iron ore train as a last hope, yet when the old board were alerted to the fe potential 18 months ago they wouldn't even consider it, despite iron ore being the hot commodity at the time.
The previous board had a different agenda, which is why not 1 hole has yet to be drilled in any of the so-called fantastic uranium land in the NT. It was all about dilution.
No escrow period on any of the deals, so the new shareholders were free to sell at any price and still make money, unlike those who bought their shares and were then diluted into near oblivion. No escrow means no need for the new shareholders to hang around to either benefit or perish from the result of these deals, unlike those who previously bought in.
So is this a good deal?
Its good for GPN which no one should begrudge them having a small win as they have been the biggest losers from what's happened since early 2005. No amount of iron ore can ever make up for the loss of most of Gabinintha and Nowthanna, or the dilution from 320m to 990m shares for the Desert and Apogei deals over 2 years. Despite being diluted by 68%, no capital raising took place to allow exploration of any of the new ground.
Its probably not very good for AGU, but then nothing is, which is why they are worth only 1.3c after listing as a 20c share. It at least gives them a small glimmer of hope. It also depends on the board which still has to prove itself. Do they really have the interests of all shareholders at heart or is AGU now just controlled by a different group with similar intentions?. Excuse my scepticism but there isn't exactly many degrees of separation happening here. 2 prime examples: Remta & McInerney were Directors of SBR together for 6 years, now Remta steps into McInerney's shoes in all 3 companies. Quinn (Jamora) and Scook in Cadetta, Desert Resources, Haven, etc together. Throw in other Directors benefitting from free shares through the acquisition of Scook related private companies and it paints a less than rosy picture. Is all this stuff in the past?
Let's see what AGU has achieved so far since listing:
Was diluted by 20m shares for Haven Resources which housed 12 WA tenements, 11 of which were applied for by Scook companies Whitvista and Blazecape, the other by Jamora (T. Quinn)
Was diluted by 60m shares for Jarra Resources which owned 5 NT tenement applications and 1 granted tenement, all applied for by Whitvista.
Was diluted by 19m shares for 32% of Amitan Resources which held 5 NT tenement applications applied for by Whitvista. The sequence of tenement numbers fill in the gap in the Jarra numbers: Jarra 25735, 25736, Gap, 25742, 35743, 25744, 25745. Amitan: 25737 - 25741
All of the Jarra & Amitan tenements were applied for by Whitvista on 27/10/2006
Another small point of interest: Murraba applied for the 2 WA tenements on 23/2/2007 and the 3 NT tenements on 27/2/2007. All were vended into AGU on 9/3/2007. So they held them for about 2 weeks and were given $3.8m worth of AGU scrip (19m x $.20 shares).
AGU may yet be diluted by another 41m shares for the rest of Amitan.
This issue may give genuine shareholders an indication of just who the board works for. Even though I no longer hold AGU I am very interested to see what happens here.
To be diluted by 35m shares as part of the new j/v agreement with GPN.
This appears to be a strategic issue of shares to ensure the current AGU board have the numbers when future resolutions are presented to shareholders.
AGU have so far used $2m of the $5m raised with very little to show for it. Something has to change, so maybe the adjusted j/v will be good for them.
One change they should make is to use a different geologist.
This is my opinion only.
AGU Price at posting:
1.3¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
