Further to my previous post, I've been doing some thinking and it strikes me that there some aspects of all of this that are a bit presumptuous on MAK's behalf and could become a problem for them:
i. The Sandpiper lease is UCL's asset. They are due to settle the acquisition of this near the end of the month and will presumably do so since they've already been using Sandpiper to raise capital this year. Meob is a good asset but Sandpiper is the really valuable ground. It's Sandpiper that has allowed UCL to bring Jan de Nul and Coromandel into the picture
ii. The status of the JV. Don't quote me on this but I've been thinking this through and I don't recall anything that says that the JV has been formalised yet. Perhaps MAK is not concerned about this? BON valuation is on basis of known Meob data anyway excluding Sandpiper although MAK's recent presentation were based on the JV.
iii. The relationship with UCL and current key third parties. There must be concern in UCL and the 3rd parties about the potential for Sandpiper to languish if MAK take over BON. Certainly as a UCL holder it concerns me. In the takeover statement MAK support for progress in Namibia is conditional upon outcomes at Wonarah/Arruwurra. If these relationships breakdown or UCL confidence in BON/MAK fails then that might undermine the JV and BON would lose the interest in Sandpiper that is the strongest underwriter for success in the area for them.
I've emailed UCL to see if they have an official response to the takeover. Also asked if they might be looking at making alternative offers in conjunction with their parties. Certainly I would welcome any external pressure for a better offer as I daresay would most other BON holders.
BON
bonaparte diamond mines nl
independent review says accept, page-19
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?