There is a fair bit of meat in your post Columbo - I initially...

There is a fair bit of meat in your post Columbo - I initially ticked it because of the follow up you did and the response you got with the Top20.

But the second part of you post is essentially unrelated to the first part - it goes to the degree of confidence or otherwise "we" ( "we" = retail shareholders I assume) can have about infrastructure being built.

In my opinion you raise a serious issue - I'm not sure that your point 1 "all we know is what the company said in November 20, 2017 ann:" is entirely true - but there is enough truth in it, in my opinion, that I'd also like to see it discussed further - but I'm not sure how to proceed - I think it warrants a thread on its own because its wasted and likely to be lost or trivialised in "running discussion on share price".

The below excerpt is from an announcement of 2nd February 2017 -


The placement of the final paragraph (bold red) is interesting to me because it suggests that the Dathomir-Cominiere agreement is logically or somehow otherwise a part of the "Acquisition Agreement" yet the words themselves say "separate to this agreement".

So on one hand there is a suggestion of quid pro quo - Dathomir is getting a payment from AVZ for something. Yet on the other hand the last paragraph suggests AVZ is not a party to the contract between Dathomir and Cominiere.

What AVZ would be able to do if Dathomir did not deliver for Cominiere? I don't know. That is a research hole.

How likely it is that Dathomir would play delaying games and that Cominiere would allow them to (not enforce any contractual rights) I don't know either. I do agree that there is some risk (because AVZ is not directly a party) but I don't know how much.

I do think AVZ have presented the Dathomir - Cominiere agreement and relationship in such a way as to create an impression that it is more certain (less risky) than it is - and I do think there is a sort of confirmation-bias by holders whereby they accept tweets or phone assurances (neither of which are all that accountable) too readily. But again I'm not sure what I can do about that. I sent an open letter to AVZ about drilling rigs - unlike you I never got a response. Part of the difficulty in getting accountability from management is that, or at least in my opinion it has been that, too many shareholders have been willing to accept phone responses and tweets as assurances - and those are easier to give and to walk away from.

When another poster relates what management has told them on the phone it is hard not to give that poster a tick for sharing, but actually the practice of accepting informal communications is probably ultimately disempowering for retail shareholders overall. A problem in retail shareholding is often retail shareholders don't feel there is a "we". There is no unity in the class.