"I beg to disagree entirely. It doesnt change the play- it does change the end game.
If the farms go- whether a real issue to X or not, I bet they would argue that it is, and therfore ruins their long term plans, goals, and overall commitment to NKP.
If the farms go they have an option to bluff and see where it gets them.
Just wait- do you have somewhere to be?"
So leaving aside one having a grasp of X's corporate culture (thanks Stagman) what are you choosing to disagree with? (serious question)
Finally, what leverage do you think X has in this equation? (personally I don't see it)
The project(s) aren't theirs, the BFS certainly isn't theirs, the capital required isn't huge (in the scheme of things) and the assets are world class (meaning every man and dog would be sniffing around).
Remember that the BFS is a due diligence 'Bible' unto itself.
It may be being made 'ironclad' for X (if you believe that line) but it's (at the same time) being made ironclad foir every other suitor too.....
X is a big boy on the block granted - but (for example) put next to a sovereign entity (Russia, China or India) thewy are little more than a pesky rodent.
@ Sprogman (related to Stagman?)
"Debt: If NKWE does not have debt on its books it will reduce the project efficiencies in that both the tax base and return on equity will be lower."
The existing deal is that X fully fund Garatau (and latyer, potentially Tubatse) through to full production....or the like..... where is the need for this Nkwe debt?!
Sounds rather like a line from a Finance 101 text.
NKP Price at posting:
57.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
