Notes/thoughts ... ... Essar/Algoma needs to be flexible on their royalty ... meaning discount the perceived value of it in order for it to be priced for reduction in todays circumstance ... and it seems they are not prepared at all to do that.
Joe needs to be flexible on the GOR ... discount the perceived value in order to be priced for reduction in todays circumstance ... meaning being attractive enough that some entity would be willing to buy it out and also fund the bulk sample ... same rationale as the Essar/Algoma case ... and Joe is clearly not willing to do so when looking at the surface rights affair as it has progressed over the years.
Two players that weigh heavy on the story ... Reguly had it right way back when ... and in the euphoria of the prospect of many ... many large sparklies ... we discounted Reguly wholeheartedly ... all of us ... including the company who did fire back at the article ... but ... they argued against Reguly's characterization of Dianors disclosure ... and not the meat of the article which was based on impacts of very high GOR's applied to mining projects.
Then there is Ryder and Duvals employment contract ... any prospect of the kind of change that it appears is needed puts that contract to test ... on top of Joe and TEC ... so it could be taken that this employment contract is a hindrance to progress as well if these two are not felxible on the matter. This employment contract has been discussed on a few other occasions ... and it appears today ... that the concerns back then have been put to test as reality. If these two believe it is their baby ... and don't want to alter the contract whatsoever ... and that stance is weighing heavily in addition to Essar and Joe's royalties ... well ... you can see how investors fit into the consideration in todays circumstance. TEC didn't come into the fold on the basis of being a partner ... they came in with a heavily secured loan product ... a can't lose proposition ... no need for any alteration in their ultimate arrangement ... they will get theirs back with interest. The forebearance agreement ... it doesn't mean TEC has any more confidence in the situation as before ... it simply means ... they had nothing to lose before ... and granting the forebearance doesn't change a thing for them ... they have nothing to lose ... everything is still secured ... everything is still acrruing interest and other fees ... a win for them ... can't lose situation. If the company is successful ... a bigger win.
The current sought loan is to be a secured bridge loan ... the operative word ... secured. Considering the security TEC demanded and the security Joe retains ... onerous comes to mind and you have to wonder if the very fact that TEC and Joe's security would be in essence paid out by this bridge loan ... would this entity be OK with the same prospect ... to hopefully have there security fulfilled through some other secured loan rather than outright disposition of assets ... it's pretty twisted when you think about it. I would think this party would have to see proof of additional finance or partnership before committing the funds ... or stick to the asset disposition for sure .. if no progress came after they put in place the bridge loan.
The bridge loan is for 5 ... TEC and Joe eat up most of that if not all depending on how much all the fees and interest amount to.
With regards to Bishops summary ... I would simply ask ... has anybody looked at the closure plans recently ... do you remember the dates involved for the closure plans. Q1/09 to Q3/12.
I think the question of other entities having to do all the work over again is secondary to Dianors own duplication possibility ... a re-certification of the plan in part or in whole. Certainly one would also have to consider air and water licences and so on ... all had defined 'good standing' dates ... ones that may well have to be resubmitted to reflect the closure plan from the point of which work would even commence as a result of finance progress.
It is a 4 year rollout ... and even if you started today ... the mine closure plans as originally submitted do not reflect a possibility of meeting the certification ... at least ... it's a big open question.
Now maybe the company can simply get dates extended in a very simple filing of a request ... but history suggests that the Ontario ministry doesn't know the meaning of simple or expedient.
So the question is ... does the company have to re-submit the closure plans and other licenses in part or whole to keep them in good standing for eventual commissioning?
Finally ... who the heck is behing Desjardins and National who have been walking this like a hog-tied pooch all over a 1 cent spread at this ridiculous level ... and National periodically being marked by the TSX?
TSX maker apply to the standard insiders or institutions ... and in this case the marker is for 'sells'.
These are all my opinions ... notes ... thoughts ... open to be challenged if anything expressed rings 'false'
As for PJ's spinout suggestion ... man that's funny considering his post from March 23rd and my response. The strategy is sound ... Dianor knew it and knows it ... and considering his critique of my posting on Stockhouse ... 6 companies in total for the price of 1 looks like a very good situation for investors. Own 1 ... get 5 more for free and see the parent company assign value to them and the market apply its gauge from there. Needless to say ... any premium to free is a beautiful situation ... and if you can see 5 low float spinouts express over time at the same level as the parent at the time of spinout ... that's a good situation. I think back to the Threegold spinout ... I sold pretty quickly ... it was free money ... however ... it didn't take too long for the opportunity to bag another 200% from the already premium to free at time of spinout ... dang ... missed out on that ride ... but it certainly showed me how the spinout could have been very profitable rather than just profitable ... but then ... what kind of investor would complain about that ... lol .