Originally posted by whyyyyyyyy
Your only looking at one side of the coin here. In the email they don't state Kamaras former association with KIN on the Sprott finance deal. In an announcement they thanked Kamara group as they were legal advisors in gaining the finance so it's a known fact they know each other. This is strange. Its worth kamaras time having a crack at a takeover over. All these slippery pricks are the same they do these things to benefit themselves whether it's Dixon or Kamara. There not doing it for your benefit.
I understand the initial plan was going to be using cash flow to cover certain aspects but you need to have cash flow to do that. An unfinished project doesn't produce cash. This only works if you can stick to the budget otherwise you have to raise more funds just to get it to the cash flow stage and we're only talking about the mill here and no other issues. From looking at other recent start ups significant funds are required at that stage and yes they may be slightly different operations but not to a huge extent. The project had significant risks all outlined by the Don, but consultants concerned with the project deemed estimates to be within the acceptable ±15%. It really doesn't take much of a problem to arise before it's a blowout and they are required to do exactly what they've done and de-risk the project. Could they have told us more...... Ofcourse! But do you tell anyone if you sheet the bed...
The Como review doesnt just compare apples to oranges. If the cost overruns are more than the savings from the owner built method that means the DFS is actually flawed and it's not just a ruse by current management. We don't know the Como numbers so we can't tell but this is why I mentioned checking out the PFS vs DFS comparison again as that gives us a margin that they need to beat. A rough one I realise but then it becomes more believable that they have blown the budget and royally stuffed up the whole project by switching to the DFS build methodology.
As far as selling components of Lawlers, yes they did and this crossed my mind as to the figure they published. I'm not sure they got $1.3mill for it but I haven't checked so feel free to correct me. They did also initially state they would be utilising those components in the build but things change I guess.
Sproule can easily say it's all good and get back in using the original plan with the same Sprott credit limit since they already dropped around $10mill on the project which will be paid off and with the fluctuations in currency between then and now creep back abit more value to get his build done and no one will bother reading the next annual report where the figures show his build cost him more than they budgeted. Most people will just look at the Sprott credit limit as a gauge to the build costs and say he was right.
Originally posted by Scobbydo
Thanks Why for consoling Coalboy today. Obvious he still grieving from his investment and needs some one to reason with and someone to vent his frustration to.
Looks like hes keen to buy some more shares if the numbers come good.
Im still concerned and would be asking not only for the Como report, but metallurgical report, hydrology report, digital terrain model engineering plan of mill, tailings, waste dumps, creek diversion, haul roads etc, water diversions plan flash flooding before I do mill build calculations. Can U say Hi to him from me.
"Im still concerned and would be asking not only for the Como report, but metallurgical report, hydrology report, digital terrain model engineering plan of mill, tailings, waste dumps, creek diversion, haul roads etc, water diversions plan flash flooding before I do mill build calculations."
I gather from your comments above and those items noted in the Annual Report re: TSF , etc., that some of these big ticket items are "not" included in the original budget nor covered by the Sprott loan facility.......is that correct ?
