acif presentation 28 sept - 6bn coldry plant, page-9

Don't get me wrong,,,, this aint a spit,,, I'm still chewing like crazy.....with a mouth over full...( as ever )

The real and ''actual Company Corner-Stone-Investor ( CSI ) has always been CAPEX Backer and product distributor

...................... TINCOM...........................

( please review the Tincom website to re-confirm )

ie,,Tincom via VCR and their Chinese financial co-backers.


As I was stating here on Hot Copper back when posters were saying;

'' Tincom is dead,, the Co doesn't need Tincom,,, they messed ESI around etc etc etc,,, Rupe you are on the wrong track,,, the new China off take agreement is all the go now,,, forget Tincom etc etc''


RE; the elusive shortfall......


Posters continue to speculate regarding the facilitator's.. ( esi's ) OPEX ,,, that is to say,,, the ''shortfall ''

( That is to say,,, the public listed Co that is the custodian of the IP....ECT's shortfall )

Does a shortfall still exsist ?

Has it all but been spoken for,,, but not released as public information in the form of an announcemeNt ?

Remember,,, ASX compliancy acts that regulate public announcements, allow for information to be withheld if the company deems such ( partial ) information to be only forming part of an even more substantial ( and complete ) announcemet or in someway is seen to compromise a more ''complete'' announcement.

Or on an even more technical tangent,,,, 99.99% CR could theoretically be raised,,, but no anns required upon the status of such shortfall until,,, the obligatory 90 days have lapsed...

e.g. what is the date of the prospectus,,, what is the date of the AGM,,,,

On a BIG BUX PERSPECTIVE........

Investors in the Coy ( esi public share holders ) will make nowhere NEAR the money that TINCOM WILL make exploiting COLDRY sales UNDER LICENCE after CAPEX, both within VCR and PRC ( Vietnam China and most probably Inner Mongolia )

For Tincom to be a significant,,, or even a substantial shareholders in ESI,, may be deemed or interpreted / challenged as contrary to Australian ownership laws,,, and as such,,,, complex ''paper shuffling'' or ''not at arms length'' co- facilitating of such,, may have been required.

For these reasons, I would suspect that ANY single entity or persons coming on board as a shortfall based CSI,,,, would quite probably be entities or persons of either VCR or PRC nationality , but under complex and perhaps sophisticated relationships to the CAPEX backer and product distributor..

What ever is, or may be the case,,, the company would by now,,, have a very good idea regarding just where the company stands on the shortfall, but would also have shareholder value in mind with regards to the most effective way to release information to reflect the least amount of fluff ( to a suspicious semi burnt and fence sitting public),,as opposed to,, ''actual'' and solid, real bang for your bux... ( share holder value )

Just my thoughts based on all the info other posters are posting,,,

RD