Many thanks for your thoughts, which I value greatly. Accepted Frank Reid did a marvellous job in acquiring Sandpiper. I didn't know it was Ross who brought in JK as a cornerstone investor, and I agree JK's commitment has been very helpful. I also agree Jordinson has done an excellent job in bringing on Sandpiper to where it is today, but there it all ends, IMO.
I disagree the Iranians caused a loss in shareholder value: I think that can be better expressed (if it isn't splitting hairs) as the Iranians caused a temporary transfer of value of some $18m from us to them and Jordinson recognised this by impairing the balance sheet to that effect. However, it is Jordinson who is causing the loss (not the Iranians) in giving away UCL shares to MAK holders that entitle the MAK holders to a share of that transferred value if the value is ever transferred back to us from the Iranian Govt. (and of course I believe it will be transferred back one day). Another analogy is the Iranians put the bullet in the gun and Jordinson fired the gun: Jordinson does not have to fire it, so I entirely blame Jordinson (and Ross, as he is overseeing the whole thing). All we are getting back for Jordinson's "kill" is a stake in a pile of cash, a stake in Wonarah (a project that still has "exploration" risk (there is uncertainty over its profitability: I don't agree with Mr Nanda's sour-grapes sounding statement - I would say it just has profitability risks that Mehdiabad does not have), and a reduction in the number of shareholders in NMP from 3 to 2.
Yes, I do like Iranians and everything about Iran (but not the regime) but in the end the only metric that counts for the rational investor is maximising shareholder value, and on this Jordinson appears to be giving away tens of millions of dollars to MAK shareholders in claims on the Iranian Govt. while in return garnering peanut sized savings on airfares from Australia to Namibia in reducing the number of shareholders in NMP from 3 to 2. It is bad enough to be investment innumerate, but when in addition he has no interest in developments in the Middle East as well (he is a geologist and not a BA in Oriental languages/ Middle Eastern Politics?) and he is making decisions requiring knowledge outside his geological competence, I am simply driven round the bend (We never had this problem with Dr. Reid). (No, I don't have a clue either, but then I am not being paid to do the job Jordinson is doing).
Jordinson just "appeared" after Frank Reid's departure. Jordinson wouldn't admit who appointed him in an email in which he answered everything else (Didn't want to get them into trouble in case he wasn't up to the job?). Not too different from the Supreme Leader being "discovered" rather than elected, so he can't be chucked out? Whatever next?
Anyway, to get back to the point: Jordinson's write-ups on Mehdiabad in the quarterly activity reports are simply terrible. They amount to a string of contradictions repeated relentlessly every quarter (If his name was Drummond, I'd have complained to the ASX long ago). I complained at the time in posts on this forum about the expression "progressing negotiation" the first time I heard it but I couldn't articulate what I disliked about it so much: I just knew I didn't like that phrase. Now I understand why (it has taken a long time to figure it out):
30/4/10 (First report after Jordinson appointed but not signed by either Reid or Jordinson: it was annonymous)
Highlights
...still progressing negotiation...
During the quarter ended 31st March 2010
... However, no substantive progress was made.
30/7/10
Highlights
...still progressing negotiation...
During the quarter ended 30th June 2010
The political situation in Iran continues to be difficult, and there appears little prospect of any improvement in the short term.
29/10/10
Highlights
...still progressing negotiation...
During the quarter
... However, no substantive progress was made.
28/01/11
Highlights
...still progressing negotiation...
During the quarter
... However, no substantive progress was made.
29/04/11
Highlights
...still progressing negotiation...
During the quarter
... However, no substantive progress was made.
29/07/11
Highlights
...still progressing negotiation...
During the quarter
... However, no substantive progress was made.
26/10/11
Highlights
...still progressing negotiation...
During the quarter
...continuing to negotiate an MOU with IMIDRO...
27/01/12
Highlights
...still progressing negotiation...
During the quarter
...The negotiations and discussions are ongoing but no resolution has been reached at the date of this report...
And so it goes on. "Progressing" is completely the wrong word. A more neutral word like "continuing" would have been more correct (if he was doing any negotiating at all). Another of Jordinson's crimes is he has removed Dr Reid's reports and presentations from the web site. Fortunately I kept copies so I can see the difference in quality.
Well that is about it. Giving away tens of millions of dollars of claims on the Iranian Govt. to make peanut sized savings on the Namibian project is a sacking offence as far as I am concerned. Being ignorant about Middle Eastern politics compounds the offence. Contradicting the highlights in the detail is the sort of crap I expect from Drummond. I hope that clarifies things. Regards.
P.S. Not that you need to know this Seals (but maybe some MAK holders and Jordinson need to grasp this): Regime change is inconceivable before the event and was inevitable it was going to happen after the event. Yes, Russia and China are against it in Iran and Syria. Yes, blood will have to be put on the streets in Iran to get it (Reuel Gerecht's wording) and yes, 20% of Iranians are willing to die to defend the current status quo (Karim Sadjadpour's estimate). But I sincerely believe it will happen fairly soon. Iranians want dignity and the regime is not giving them that.
All
Some stuff here on Namibian politics. It is a shame the new lady running Malawi isn't running Namibia.
(20min delay)