What's at play here?In in our preoccupation with arbitration, keep in mind that it is a last resort. It should be evident that even with a favourable decision collecting is not as easy as one thinks. Governments throw up all sorts of roadblocks to paying within a reasonable time frame. A negotiated settlement is in everyone's interest. True EOM management met with government representatives and it did not go well. Why, because they were meeting with officials not empowered to make a decision. Santos will make the final decision based on advice from lawyers. They will tell him he cannot win it and development of Angostura would be in limbo for years.
That brings me to the odd release by Minesa. Why would they announce moving ahead with an 18 month time frame. We all know they have no access to EOM property for plant facilities. Either they have assurance from Santos that EOM will be put out if the picture one way or the other, or Santos will compromise and EOM interests will be protected. The latter is the only solution that makes sense.
I posted comment by leftseat a while back dealing with the Minesa property and its viability. Unlike us, leftseat was a well respected expert in the field . He knew what he was talking about. I have pasted a relevant quote from one of his posts. It is worth reading. No doubt the one star wonders will pan it as usual, but that is what losers do. It is wort digesting the quote in light of the Minesa announcement. The Minesa plan is not doable without a quick resolution to the Paramo ruling with respect to EOM.
"
Some shareholders are buoyed by the fact that the former AUX property is now controlled by a large Middle East sovereign fund. Indeed it is good news but I suspect we should also temper our effusiveness by recognizing that the fund did not pursue the AUX property but rather accepted it as a (partial?) offset against a very large loan provided to its former owner. We need to understand that one accepts what one can "salvage" in such circumstances.
To note but one concern (not about the quality of the new owners but more about the value of their new asset), before Batista acquired the former Ventana property, I spent a fair amount of time on analysis of this property. That effort included 3D modeling of reported drill results. As a result of that effort, I came to the conclusion (and wrote) that the outlined deposit did not represent a viable economic situation, primarily because the deposit was/is located at serious depth beneath very significant mountainous terrain and that it would be very difficult to access. I also expressed concern about the modest grades. To give the former Ventana operators their due, they openly published the fact that a two mile tunnel would be required to access the ore. A two mile tunnel requires serious construction equipment (which would not be easily transported to this region) and the suggested $50.0 M price tag appeared "optimistic". Later, a published 43-101 report covered the same concerns and also provided mediocre grade estimates.
Following his purchase and privatization of the property, Batista organized and completed several additional drill programs and commented positively with respect to his expectations. He also commenced construction of the required tunnel but this operation was shut down for lack of cash. Given these circumstances, I am not sure we can count on near term serious enthusiasm on the part of the new owners. That said, I do believe that the new owners need EOM if they are intent on turning their new asset into a viable economic entity."
Read more at https://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/bullboard/t.eom/eco-oro-minerals-corp#U8gpATuE6x8CetgU.99