Normally don't bother when non-holders post stuff that rankles a tad. But as a half excited holder about the release, feel like addressing the credibility issues raised:
They lost credibility when the dates (last year, or was it the year before) that they said mining work would commence had passed. - Grant you this one, prhb My understanding is they decided to save money to reduce future capital raisings but still not great..
They lost credibility when they went to war with their supposedly closest partner (Glencore), the Partner who is their contracted sales channel for ALL IBG output from ANY mine that they may develop in the future. Btw prhb, not ALL output, do you own research on this, otherwise
- I think JD did a pretty good job of explaining why they took that course of action. Don't see this as a credibility issue at all. Judgement, and I agree with their rationale, especially if interested parties made a point of it. What would you have done?
They lost more credibility announcing the SPP without underwriting, and without explanation.- Not sure why this is a credibility issue. Maybe they couldn't find anyone to underwrite lol. I'm kinda glad the brokers ain't got their snouts in the trough in this instance.
They have provided no update on the arbitration process - no time frame for when it will complete.
I see that some posters here are suggesting that they have inside knowledge on the arbitration - but we have been hearing inside knowledge stuff on this forum for years (things JD is supposed to have intimated, imminent financing announcements, what Glencore and Nyrstar are doing...) - and most of it has not been in any way validated.- Did you read the update prhb?
"Ironbark and Glencore have concluded delivering their respective arguments and the result of the arbitration is expected to be handed down in the near future." The judge will hand down his verdict when he's ready, they don't give time frames. JD could perhaps guess, then lose cred if the judge goes on vacation. You don't need inside stuff, as JD outlined the issues succinctly and you can make up your own mind who you think has the better case.
My current mindset says that they lose yet more credibility by belatedly announcing a revised mining approach just before closing the SPP. - Can understand your feelings here. As another poster said, if this is just a pump and dump, it will be the last one. Though the revised mining approach wasn't generated in just the past few weeks, they are well into the study it would seem. So when would you have liked that announcement? After the SPP closes?
Fact is they needed some more loose change to chug along while they undertake this revised path, while still open to bids for the bigger plan A. I believe this para is telling:
"As previously announced Ironbark has been given strong expressions of support by leading international commercial banks and indicated that the project is likely to support US$300M in debt to partly fund the currently planned mine development. Nevertheless, the challenge lies in solving the equity component of the project while facing relatively challenging market conditions. While Ironbark is in encouraging confidential discussions on joint venture opportunities, we have been looking at financing solutions that better suit the broader current market."One could ask why they didn't look at this scaled down approach earlier. Maybe they thought the project metrics and with financiers seemingly identified from the Cutfield Freeman search - that they would attract a few committed j/v bidders. Perhaps they had long discussions with a few, and decided to introduce Plan B, as everyone, including JD are losing or have lost patience with this funding cycle.
I'm buoyed by the announcement, and not just Plan B. I'm optimistic on the arbitration outcome as well, and just hope it is delivered in the next week or so. Glad to be BIGger on IBG