Dewe, hi It has done nothing. I don't know if Mr Jordinson has done a reasonable job on Sandpiper, but at the corporate level and at demonstrating an understanding our Iranian asset he has been a disaster, IMO.
I've been surprised to find "no win no fees" arbitration funders, and really if you are legally entitled to owning 48% of a mine that has $19bn of recoverable metal in the ground and the project is technically and economically viable then I fail to see why Mr Jordinson has issued new shares to our new cornerstone investor at below restitution value (just return of the money invested in Mehdiabad?).
Jordinson has trumpeted selling new shares in our company at a premium, but that is meaningless when it is below restitution value. On a DCF basis, a decent firm of accountants could easily figure out an arbitral claim against Iran for at least $1bn, I am sure. The legal fees for the arbitration might be $2.5m (including management time), so paying $7.5m if we win big against Iran sounds great. It looks like Iran has been very clever in not stealing our assets but in maybe impairing them instead. I wonder if that is the reason the insurance would not cover us for expropriation? The loss we have suffered through not receiving the mining license on Mehdiabad in a timely manner in a accordance with the original agreements must be enormous on a DCF basis. Also we've never received our share of the proceeds of the mining that has gone on since the agreements were purportedly cancelled.
I hope people will wake up and give Mr Jordinson an earful: it is not right he should refuse to talk about Mehdiabad and yet at the same time feel able to dilute us out of it (as he tried to through the MAK offer, while denying it against disarming background music) and sign a sham production agreement he still can’t disclose or talk about even 4 months after the event. There seems to be a hidden agenda here, and by shutting up he is getting away with something, I feel.
On the other off-topic arbitration case I mentioned (for illustration purposes only), I don’t think anyone should be impressed by the possible return of 70 times the current share price of the company, because one of the assets stolen is valued at about $450m on a DCF basis but only at about $9m on a restitution basis – so a lot depends on which valuation basis the arbitral panel adopts. There is also the prospect of further dilution as the company even had a $2.5m brand new drill rig stolen and was left with no cash and no revenue to pay monthly leasing payments on an asset it could not even enter the host country to retrieve, and which the host country has refused to return! Have to leave it there. Hope the info helps provoke some thought about our Board’s strategy (or lack of it).
UCL Price at posting:
12.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
