RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Latest Monitor ReportMick, your concerns are very valid. My preference is for both, since I feel there is value in a multi-pronged approach, and, in any event, the amount of capital required is too great for there to be only one source. For example, having an experienced mine operator, who might acquire half of the mine project as part of the deal, would eliminate the need to focus so much attention on what is really a pretty straightforward operation, particularly when in the hands of an experienced operator. The real value of Nemaska is the Shawinigan plant, which is much more complex, requires much more capital, but ultimately yields much more profit. Management's focus is best focussed here, hence the need for significant capital to complete development. On the topic of management, an M&A specialist is, with respect,
not the way to go. What is needed is a motivated entrepreneur who will pitch the story effectively to secure the required support and get this great project off the ground again.
mick1888 wrote: TaN you give the impression you would be happy with someone like Pallinghurst as a Strategic partner, would you also be looking for an additional Financial institution to join this partnership or would you be comfortable just with the Pallinghurst / Traxys JV? After looking into Pallinghursts takeover of Gemfields and their treatment of the original investors of the latter, this single source of investment makes me nervous.
Multiple sources of investment would possibly be better, but extremely complicated and difficult to pull off. Both scenarios are fraught with danger in trying to keep Nemaska public, and I genuinely worry for the future of retail investors. In particular since I am not convinced some Quebec politicians have the conviction they once had for the project?
GLTA longs
Takeactionnow wrote: Both. They can benefit from an experienced operator and require capital to complete the project. Having a business partner will bring additional skills to the table and spread the risk.
phantom666 wrote:
What would be better for NMX, a strategic or a financial partner?