Nemaska Lithium Inc NMKEF

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:What is the total cost to undo the capital structure?

[Takeactionnow]

You make great points, Mick. Engineering plans cost out all elements in advance and should not be off by too much. That is why the fees are high (the work involved and professional responsibility) and a contingency fund is in place (since there is always some variance). The existing building was easy to evaluate, so what was the problem??

mick1888 wrote: TaN, I am not convinced we should be encouraging the phrase 'cost overruns'.

I have worked as Lead Procurement person on many large projects in the Gas, Oil and Water sectors, and for the life of me I have never seen anything like this. It is incomprehensible to me that it would be possible for a project to discover additional costs in this scale 12 months into construction. It is virtually impossible for this to happen without the highest level  people in an organisation being aware of this from the outset. So 'cost overruns' no!

Anyone buying shares after the financing was 'complete', I assume would have a strong claim that they were misled if there shares were lost in NEW financing. Any new purchaser now (through the CCAA process) should look at this very carefully if it is their intention to discard existing shareholders.

GLTA longs

Takeactionnow wrote: I've mentioned it before, but nobody commented (that I saw). Any thoughts on why (and let's try to be serious rather than just say "because management was stupid"), with a detailed, costed engineering report in hand, the cost overruns were so extensive? I know that the building renovation in Shawinigan was way more expensive than foreseen, by why was this (and any other cost overruns) the case?

Takeactionnow wrote: What Pallinghurst (and a lot of others) didn't like is the way the debt was structured (the restrictions were way too tight and posed a serious risk, as we have seen). The rate was high too, but people tend to forget that the original idea was to get into production and start paying back as soon as possible. Then came the cost overruns ...

mick1888 wrote: TtT, this is a competition with 8 bidders. While no doubt there will be some vultures in there hoping to achieve the steal of the century, there will also be some very keen industry players ready to pay for a potentially great project. And Pallinghurst / Traxys may be one of the latter? Remember this JV has 2b USD burning a hole in their pocket, and at present nowhere else to put it besides NMX. With the inclusion of IQ's 2-300m, it adds up to not far off what they originally intended to invest (PL-600m + IQ - 300m = 900m). This leaves a shortfall of around 200m which is approx what scissors alludes to. By my reckoning this would equate to around 0.20 new offer, but it's very doubtful they would include this in their first proposal (need some negotiation room). The best I think they'll come up with is 0.17. For us, a lot will also depend on what IQ does (equity / debt). My tuppence worth... ;-) GLTA longs

TicTacTo wrote: Doubtful, last year deal is dead, all new offer