Yeh Jake, the more we can work with actual numbers the better.
Some posts are going off on tangents and I think the reality of funding a project this size is often fraught!
There obviously remains considerable distrust in regard our major holder and others, however I always just want to see the numbers behind any proposal and then look at risks etc to get a feel for what it may mean to us (and the market)
Our CEO has made much of protection for minority holders included in any deal!
I am not advocating voting for this deal in any way and don't disagree with much of the sentiment, however it is important to keep an open mind and look very carefully when the detail is released.
I do not like the transfer of our major asset however I also understand there are a couple of issues here. If we were to fund the BFS internally (let's just assume for this exercise the cost of $50m is real!) it would require existing shareholders to stump up or bring in another investor which would dilute us more than the 10% proposed to BBIG in this instance. (Obviously this deal also involves a pre ordained 50% loss of PIOP to the funder
)
With an internally funded BFS we would then be in a strong position to negotiate a deal.
The question of course then is, how much of the Company we have to give away to fund development and what sort of transport agreement can be negotiated?
We would also need a Board who had the appetite to follow this through and turn FMS into a mining Company not a passive shareholder in a mine as proposed. I also have little doubt that PIOP has been a critical part in BBIG's negotiation with their finance partners and why this structure will be pursued strongly!
It seems highly likely that BBIG cannot fund the infrastructure project without it being "whole of project" funding/security.
This is also a real point of contention. The transfer of PIOP to Mineco with BBIG taking a direct stake effectively delivers a similar outcome to the de list as previously mentioned!
It is also apparent under this deal that whether we retained 40% of the mine or went with a royalty we would need some sort of resolution from FMS in regard to distribution of any funds received from the PIOP asset. Further progress with Canegrass may be desireable however somewhere along the line shareholders will need a return.
Further details may provide a guide to shareholder return which I would expect will figure heavily in OCJ considerations and of course we do not know what sort of return they will deem acceptable!?
Obviously a consideration paid to shareholders for the transfer of our major asset would aleviate many issues...........
I would expect there will be some toing and froing yet and we need to hold our position, however I also think some are jumping the gun in the criticism leveled at our new directors. (They certainly wouldn't be looking at this from the prism of the expectations some have here, or the distrust!!)
Going from junior to mine development is never easy and retail shareholders rarely see the full reward based on raw numbers!
In saying all that - I just found some time to watch the video of the AGM and it is very interesting watching the responses during the Q&A in light of the deal released of which our CEO knew all details full well.
Ok, ducking for cover now.....................
