I presume this is old information:"The 1,900Mt phosphate...

I presume this is old information:

"The 1,900Mt phosphate resource will be mined using trailing suction hopper dredging technologyto extract marine sediments from the seabed.

The project has now received a final approval following the Namibian government’s acceptance of a marine environmental impact assessment that claimed mining could be undertaken without causing serious ecological damage."

The above is from the document below dated 1st March 2013:

http://www.mining-journal.com/reports/marine-mining-phosphates-could-find-market-in-farm-boom?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print_friendly


_________________________________

I think our CEO is wasting our money trying to get our share price up making infomercials of himself talking about Sandpiper to drop-dead blondes a third of his age. A much better way to get the share price up would be to realise value from Mehdiabad by going to arbitration and demanding $1bn off the Iranians. There are plenty of companies out there going to arbitration over asset theft. Jordinson does not appear to know what asset theft is. We were entitled to convert our Mehdiabad expenditure into 48% ownership and had a perfectly satisfactory profit sharing agreement before he made a production agreement he hasn't been able to talk about for many months. There are even organisations like Calunius who will fund an arbitration for you. They have stringent due diligence criteria before taking on a case: the potential winnings for a start have to be many many multiples of the costs. In one such case I know of, the potential winnings are about 70 times the current share price. The target Government of the arbitration concerned used Plan A (vexatious litigation in London to derail the case right at the start by demanding a bankruptcy sized payment so that arbitration could not occur - and that failed), Plan B (a jurisdiction challenge which they lost) and now Plan C, which I assume will be the next cheapest option, which will probably be to make a cheap offer for the company if they look like loosing the case at, say, 3 x the current share price as an alternative to losing the case at say 70 times the share price and having to use impecuniousness as a way to bargain down a much lower payment. There are some important differences: our case would not be an Investment Treaty arbitration whereas the other one is.

Anyway it just seems an obvious way to create value, but Jordinson seems obsessed with giving away as much of our company as possible to Mawarid. Recall how he has tried everything to dilute us out of it, including giving it way to MAK, while denying the dilution in an infomercial that had disarming background music. I have said he is worse than a brain dead chimpanzee from Rasht, and I completely stand by that unless he stops this nonsense and takes an interest in Mehdiabad and writes proper informative reports to shareholders explaining his inexplicable behaviour.

14 minute video below explains all about arbitration. Calunius don't take on cases unless there is 70% chance of winning, and the due diligence sounds onerous. They look to 3 times their money on the cases they win. The share price of the company above I referred to has already risen 150% since the case started more than a year ago (it has no other business except the arbitration case), but the claim I mentioned is for 70 times the CURRENT share price i.e. after the 150% rise. And yes, it is a case involving hostage taking and every scam imaginable.

http://www.legalpd.com/viewContent.php?semid=169


And if you think $1bn is a lot to ask for in an arbitration, check out Occidental Petroleum against Ecuador. Occi won an award for $1.7bn, but Ecuador has gone for an annulment, so that case is far from over. Winning an award is usually only the first part - after that you have to enforce it, which can be a problem, and it can take years, against an impecunious state.