re: Ann: Repositioning Mungana - Heads of Agr... FYICopy of my...

re: Ann: Repositioning Mungana - Heads of Agr... FYI

Copy of my post on KZL site on the same matter


the nature of the relationship between two companies sharing leases, infrastructure and liabilities, not limited to environmental bonds, as per Kagara and Mungana is dangerous ground.
Even when Company A is a major shareholder of Company B.
When Company A sells the interest in the mine to Company C but retains an equity interest in Company B it becomes even more so.
In reality, the deal between Mungana and Kagara was the only possible way to get any value out of the deal.
The receivers can now dispose of the old Red Dome assets to whoever will buy them unencumbered, at a value they place on it. Without this deal the value of the asset was zero, or even worse a liability.
It should not be construed as an indication that Kagara is going gold mining.
The initial deal attached of the spin off of Mungana, and all it's attached "sharing" both of accesses and resources was viewed, by most of the cognoscenti in the industry, as foolish and fraught. It would always be heading for eventual litigation, if the show ever got off the ground.
In reference to this type of relationship, always bear this in mind:
"The difference between symbiosis and parasitism is dependant on your viewpoint"

Pro Bono Publico