Chatham Rock Phosphate - CRP

[Baa_Baa]

.. snip ... the EPA should just blanket decline rather than lead people along, an expensive process for shareholders. .. snip

With respect, the EPA didn't decline, they used a much stronger word "refused". That's a word that shouldn't "lead people along".

[PSE]

With respect, the EPA didn't decline, they used a much stronger word "refused". That's a word that shouldn't "lead people along".

Sorry decline or refused I understood this but obviously didn't make it clear, the project is not a goer but would be nice if finding this out was not so expensive and time consuming?

[Daytr]

No I mean you can't actually short a penny dreadful. I.e they aren't available to short as they are too illiquid etc. Anyway BHP has been smashed since I shorted. ;-)

I think you could short a penny dreadful with a terrible balance sheet that was looking for a place to die but CRP still has a little life in it's balance sheet.
Are the shareholders keen to fund another spin of the roulette wheel?

[Baa_Baa]

Cynical and mean, loan convertible at (a nice discount) 85% of the 20 day vwap to 11 March 2015, which happens to be the day after the share price collapsed.

I see Mr Castle has put in 10k of his own money.....wow that is about $1 for every $200 he has currently bleed the company for.
All part of the game.......looks good when the CEO is putting in his own money.........pity it is a token gesture and not a meaningful amount...... might help convince a few suckers.

[croesus]

Easy for non entity's to make cheap shots, hiding behind your nom de plumes...
you would all be too gutless to say it in person to Chris. if we had got the consent. It would have been a huge benefit to the farming community.
Surprised you havnt been modded, for your derogatory comments, pathetic !

[Bobdn]

Easy for non entity's to make cheap shots, hiding behind your nom de plumes...
you would all be too gutless to say it in person to Chris. if we had got the consent. It would have been a huge benefit to the farming community.
Surprised you havnt been modded, for your derogatory comments, pathetic !

are you using a nom de plume or are you actually THE Croesus? If you are, I hope I become as rich as you, Croesus!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus

[NT001]

I tend to agree that these constant attacks on Chris Castle are rather beside the point. Some contributors say he has a past record of association with unsuccessful ventures. But as far as I know, that doesn't mean he's been associated with fraud or gross negligence. In commerce. things happen. I'm reasonably impressed with Castle's handling of the CRP application. OK, it didn't satisfy the DMC, and some posters criticise him for that, including non-shareholders, but the very fact the government is reviewing the process indicates others also see the hurdles as being set too high. I lost 90%-odd of my investment but it was a small holding that I was prepared to take a gamble on, and I still think the project is basically a good one. If one wants to criticise, let the criticism be aimed at the way the issue was handled (as some critics have done), with some positive suggestions as to what could have been done better and could be done better next time, not this perpetual spleen-venting personal hatred.

[flying]

This company is so interesting. My forebearers came to this country to improve their life. They brought with them energy and hope and good old fashioned common sense. Looking back they made some bad mistakes but also some magnificent triumphs. Foremost achievements is the educational institutions, unshackled thinking from the old country and the classless society. The last generation but one came from a very poor background but used their strengths in common sense to achieve. In this company you just need to look at the idea simply the Japanese made the island of Nauru one of their chief objectives in the Pacfic in WW2. Why, because then they were chiefly a farming country and fertilizer was needed for them and their Asian empire. What are we chiefly... On the other side we have the pointy heads epitomised by the EPA who are arrogent in their extreme behaviour as shown by the pre release of their 176 page document last year despite being told of serious inaccuracies within it and utterly ignorant of the devestating implications on the company share price. Then hurrah ,hurrah their final decision. Well my common sense tells me their minds were made up long ago and the application stood no hope AT all. My hope is that the dangerous fanatics in the EPA and the tree huggers are put to rest and common sense prevails. The company also seems to bring out the worst in human nature naked greed, complete refusal to listen, bloody mindlessness, avarice beyond belief, and raving fanatics hopefully common sense will prevail. I for one will be watching closely the EEZ Act regulations, EPA response to the next hearing and whether the avarice and fanaticism of certain individuals can be moderated.

[Daytr]

Well I have two criticisms & they aren't personal.
But Chris Castle imho put an inadequate case to the EPA that was likely to fail, despite what he says. So this in my view was leading share holders down the garden path. However in saying that, National led them & TTR down the same garden path. Seabed mining is not something that is common around the world, it is not tested & the impact on the environment could not be stated clearly nor that there was any clear understanding of the actual under sea environment that was being affected. Many developed countries & jurisdictions have either banned or moratoriums in place in regards seabed mining & for good reason. I'm sorry for those who have lost money, but it was speculative at best.

[PSE]

....But as far as I know, that doesn't mean he's been associated with fraud or gross negligence. In commerce. things happen. d.

I think you should set the bar a little higher for people who you entrust your hard earned cash with then not being involved in fraud and being only a little negligent.
As Peter Lynch said you should buy a business any idiot can run because at some stage it will be run by an idiot. In this case there is no business only a concept that has cost shareholders 30m so far with another 1.25m being asked for. I would contend you are buying a startup with no proven income or track record so should demand an extremely high level of competence from the people involved and a bulletproof business case for how the new funds are to be spent.
Presumably management could fund the 1.25m between them but are choosing not to. It looks to me like a case of throwing good money after bad, I haven't got any particular barrow to push.