RE:No soup for youLooks like another installment of "Lost In Translation". After three years shouldn't the GOM have some specific examples of why any of the cost overruns were unreasonable or excessive? It's still not clear to me if the GOM had to put up any money for the cost overruns.
Is it reasonable to expect RIO to get a better financing rate than a 5% Chinggis bond given the inherent political risk from the GOM itself? However, one can understand their concern that RIO might milk the project with excessive management fees or other maneuvers, like the potential dilution from bridge financing we shareholders are now facing.
Why doesn't the GOM participate in the Phase II financing itself then if they're so concerned about others getting too much interest? By dragging their feet the GOM is contributing to higher costs.
Time is money.