It would be nice to see the company address the article and provide factual information. As we know, they are not great with communication, but to their defence they can't really start addressing all the articles that come out.
I see 2 key pieces of info here (whether true or not, clearly the article is biased...):
1/ This is the audit of the work carried out by a firm approved by the State, the signing of a binding agreement with the Chinese MCC-CIE which would include in particular the acquisition of shares by MCC-CIE in the capital of Camalco with a view to justifying the technical and financial capacities...
That part worries me a little. Is that why MCC is not releasing the BFS? Planning on a low ball TO offer? Or is it because key information is still missing or not official (e.g. any financial conditions of the MC, port agreement, etc...). The BFS is almost 6 months late, can't put that on rail improvements anymore.
2/ Request naturally rejected by the member of the government because of the non-renewable nature of this permit, but who is ready to make an exception for the company on one condition: "the extension may be granted, on an exceptional basis
The article is dated March 1st, and it seems the writer doesn't know the permits were renewed and granted to cay. So clearly all this could be yet another bluff from Sonamines / Crec 5?
It's great to see so much interest on the project, but would be nicer to hear it from the board, maybe even JSB?!
CAY Price at posting:
8.8¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
