Further thoughts If we receive voting instructions for the coming Shareholder Meeting as outlined in the Proxy Statement - Notice of Shareholders Meeting (preliminary) (pre 14a) dated 10/27/2016we should Vote NO on the proposals concerning the reverse splits and increases in the number of options to be issued.
I believe my idea of a JV with Dundee, JP Morgan and VR Capital Group Ltd would have cut dilution and mine development costs for EGZ while the shares surrendered would be held by EGZ for possible future development of the Madagascar properties, but the above Proxy Statement quashed the idea.
Below is my concern about the coming scheduled dates toward production https://www.energizerresources.com/images/stories/pdf/2016-09-01_Molo_Fact_sheet.pdf .
schedule from the above link that should be revised:
Front-End Engineering & Design Study results November 2016
Strategic off take partner announcement expected Dec 2016
Secure CapEx financing (50:50 debt to equity) Q1 2017
Environmental and social impact assessment and permitting expected by Q1 2017
Construction in Q3 2017 with targeted production by Q4 2018
and revised to:
Front End Engineering & Design Study results November 2016
Strategic off take partner announcement in Dec 2016
Environmental and social impact assessment and permitting in Q1 2017
Agreement with a Mining Partner or JV Partner in Q1 2017
Secure CapEx financing (with either a Mining Partner or JV Partner**) in Q1 2017
Construction to begin during Q2 2017 with targeted production by the end of Q4 2017
** the Mining Partner -or a JV Partner- should not have more than a 50% (maximum) interest in the Madagascar property as follows:
If a Mining Partner were selected it would have a (max.) 50% interest in all of the minerals on all of Energizer's properties. If a JV Partner were selected it would have a (max.) 50% interest in the Madagascar vanadium and the graphite minerals.
A Mining Partner -if selected - would finance a (max.) 50% of the Madagascar property and also be responsible for its part of future product development in Madagascar and for Energizers other properties and compensate Energizer for 50% of her past costs to develop both the Madagascar and other holdings.
If a JV Partner were selected it would finance a (max.) 50% of the mine and the costs of future product development plus compensate Energizer for 50% of her past costs to develop it's Madagascar vanadium and the graphite holdings.
Fifty percent (50%) of monies returned to Energizer for her role as initial developer must be used by Energizer for her part of financing to production.
In addition Energizer should not do a reverse split and issue options until doing so is advantageous to the retail shareholders. Finally the Partner, be it the Mining Partner - or the JV Partner - must make every effort to help Energizer receive a low interest loan to eliminate potential share dilution.