Shaft Sink Share Discussion Threads

[muckshifter] 30/6/2013 15:51

No, Hedgehog, I didn't say they got the figure from a passing bus, I said that you inferred that. I've consistently explained where I think it came from, probably a liquidated damages clause. You'll say anything to try to confuse people won't you.

[hedgehog 100] 30/6/2013 15:45

muckshifter 30 Jun'13 - 14:05 - 54 of 57 0 0
" ... Firstly, after a very quick look back at the article, I'll identify a few of the glaring errors in it to show the quality of the journalism.
Helmer: "Eurochem told Shaft Sinkers it was terminating their contract at Gremyachinskoye on April 20, 2012." In fact shft terminated the contract. ... "


muckshifter 21 Jun'13 - 16:28 - 2090 of 2124
" ...Further to the arbitration for $900m, which is based upon non performance imho, Eurochem are suing IMR, the bunch of dubious Russians who effectively floated shft, also for $900m, but this case is, (imho) on the completely different basis of alleged corrupt actions by IMR in obtaining the contract.
Hedgehog can't get it out of his head that these numbers are the same and therefore Eurochem can't go after both, and the number must have been taken from a passing bus and used twice. ... "


Muckshifter,

Your figures of $900M. are wrong in your second post extract I've quoted above: the correct figures are of course $800M.

And IMR aren't Russians, they're Kazakhstanis!

Does making minor factual errors invalidate an underlying thesis per se? No, of course not.

And while we're looking at that post extract above, interesting that you think that EuroChem got the number from a passing bus ... that really instils confidence in their claim doesn't it!!


P.S. SHFT cancelled the contract in April 2012, but after EuroChem suspended operations in December 2011: legally this may constitute a de facto contract cancellation by EuroChem.

[hedgehog 100] 30/6/2013 15:39

muckshifter 30 Jun'13 - 15:19 - 55 of 55
"...But those thoughts did not represent Sigala's final opinion on shft..."
"...I don't visit the other threads that he mentions, but I would bet he's done the same there with Citymohawk's position...."


Muckshifter,

The EuroChem dispute is only one part of the SHFT story. I repeat that I was simply quoting in post 50 Sigala's and Citymohawk's views on the Eurochem dispute, verbatim, NOT on SHFT as a whole. You are, as usual, the one being misleading, by trying to conflate the two into being one and the same.

And what makes you think that is Sigala's final decision on SHFT? An intelligent investor will re-evaluate his position as prices change and more news becomes available.

[hedgehog 100] 30/6/2013 15:22

Were either of you two at the SHFT AGM? No.


And the average value of SHFT's last two big contacts has been £93.7M. at current exchange rates:

12/11/2012 07:05 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc New Kibali Gold Mine Contract
"... The combined mobilisation and vertical shaft contracts have an estimated total value of GBP82.3 million...."


08/05/2012 07:01 UKREG Re Contract
"...The US Dollar based contract, which commences immediately, is scheduled to be completed in 2017. The contract is in line with management expectations for new works to be secured during the year.
After taking into consideration the total revenue from this contract award the Company's order book now stands at GBP401 million...."


That contract with Hindustan Zinc was worth $160m.: that's £105.2M. at current exchange rates.


Big SHFT contract news is coming, believe me, then we'll see who is delusional!!



P.S. From Buywell2's CRX thread:

p1nkfish 30 Jun'13 - 18:45 - 1694 of 1695 0 0
"deluded, take a break."

buywell2 30 Jun'13 - 21:04 - 1695 of 1695 0 0
"Will do"

[muckshifter] 30/6/2013 15:19

Ref HH's post 50 & 53.
Post 50.
And some informed and unbiased views on the SHFT-EuroChem dispute:
"from Sigala on his "ValueGrowth Investing (VLG)" thread,

He then posts Sigala's early thoughts on the Eurochem dispute (posts 263, 266 & 268), which were vaguely positive, after which Sigala bought a few shares, iirc.

But those thoughts did not represent Sigala's final opinion on shft, and he posted why he had sold out on 29th January, after holding for a week or so, because he had been thinking a bit more about the Eurochem situation and other problems.

So, effectively, as always, Hedgehog is being economic with the truth. He posts what, to all intents and purposes looks like someone's current positive opinion, ignoring the fact that that opinion changed within a few days, after further research.

I don't visit the other threads that he mentions, but I would bet he's done the same there with Citymohawk's position.

[muckshifter] 30/6/2013 14:05

With reference to Hedgehog's post 52 defending Helmer's article.

I note that as usual Hedgehog, you are happy to believe in the third hand opinion of a journalist with an agenda (imho), without engaging your brain and questioning that opinion – probably because the opinion suits your purpose. On the other hand, anything written by a journalist is regarded with extreme scepticism by me, until shown to be accurate, and as usual I make my own mind up about matters, rather than take a journalists ill thought out opinion as worthwhile.

Firstly, after a very quick look back at the article, I'll identify a few of the glaring errors in it to show the quality of the journalism.
Helmer: "Eurochem told Shaft Sinkers it was terminating their contract at Gremyachinskoye on April 20, 2012." In fact shft terminated the contract.

From Helmer's fairy tale: "During the five years in which Shaft Sinkers has been excavating at Gremyachinskoye, potash has failed to reach Eurochem's breakeven point."
This comment illustrates two more glaring errors. It is based firstly on his changing of the comment by Eurochem that the mine would be profitable at $500/tonne – note profitable without saying how profitable or giving any hint of a breakeven figure although Eurochem's average Ebitda during the last three "tough" years was 34%, but the $500 / tonne suddenly becomes "breakeven" in our idiot journalist's article.
Then he shows the graph of prices over that five years showing very clearly that potash has been well above his $500 /tonne "breakeven" for approximately a third of that period and above the more realistic $300 / tonne for the whole of the time where he says "failed to reach – his – breakeven of $500/tonne".

But if you start with an answer and then make the "facts" fit it, that's just the sort of "facts" you have to make up. A bit like his "fact" that everything was going well up to suspension, when the work was, in fact, miles behind programme.

The other main Potash suppliers are making profits at less than $300/tonne, I believe.

If you take the project figure of $2.2 billion for phase 1 with a production of 2.3 million tonnes/year and depreciate it over twenty years (and many of UKC's shafts were used for 40 - 50 years), in round figures that represents $50 / tonne to which we need to add the mining cost.

UKCoal, the biggest UK coal miner had in its last published accounts for 2011 a cost / tonne of mined and processed (washed, graded, crushed and loaded into trains) coal from its deep mines of $70/tonne. As a matter of interest the cost / tonne of coal mined by UKC had increased from 2010 by 0.9%. So much for mining costs going up as per Hedgehogs comment "And mining COSTS have been increasing greatly."

The main differences as I see them between Eurochem's potash mine and UKC's coal mines are:-

1. Seams in UKC mines are inferior and more expensive to mine – constant expensive problems with faults, partings, thin seams, etc, have closed hundreds of mines in the UK over the last twenty years or so, and have been threatening the final three for the last few years.

2. The wage cost of UK miners would be several times that of Russian miners. I believe that UKC's average wage cost / man last time I saw it was, from memory, £1400 / week.

3. Eurochem would start mining from the bottom of the shaft ie. travel distance at first – vitually zero. Back in about 2003 a consultant's report showed that miners in one of UKC's mines were taking 3.5 hours/day travelling to/from the workface, ie. actual working time was only 56% of the time miners were paid for. At Daw Mill, for example, the work face was more than 10km from the shaft, so that length of water and methane drainage, as well as transport for men had to be installed and maintained (don't think there is methane in potash – an expensive and dangerous problem to deal with in coal).

Oh, and UK generators consistently burn more Siberian coal than UKC supply to them. The Russian coal is mined and processed then put on trains through several countries over a distance of thousands of miles, unloaded and loaded onto ships from Antwerp to the UK, unloaded and loaded onto trains to UK power stations, and still beats ours in terms of cost.

Haulage to port would probably be $15 / tonne for Eurochem.

So I'll stick with my contention that Eurochem's mine would be profitable @ $300/tonne.

Now, you comment on my points as follows:-
Your quoted extract from my post ""Firstly, ... you don't spend huge amounts of money then sit and wait a couple of years for first income because a critical component is way behind everything else in the programme if you can help it, you keep construction progress / spend in keeping with a realistic programme if you can...."

Your comment "H.H. comment: Unless you have a good reason for doing so, especially financial."

I've absolutely no idea what point you are making there Hedgehog. If you are arguing, that despite the badly delayed programme as a result of the slow shaft construction, Eurochem should have pushed on with the rest of the programme as quickly as possible as if nothing had changed, perhaps you could expand your theory for us. Would they spend all the cash as quickly as possible, complete the whole works and then employ the miners and have them sit in the canteen for the currently expected three years, waiting for the cage shaft, or what? Although it's unfair, if you extrapolate the completion of the shft shaft from existing progress at suspension, even allowing six months set up time, completion by shft would have taken another 30 years, the miners would have become restless! (sorry, getting a bit facetious again)

Then there's all this rubbish about 2016, where if I understand you correctly, your opinion of Helmer's opinion is that the men with the crystal balls are saying that prices will be good by 2016, and Eurochem are waiting for that. Perhaps you could tell us what alternative they have? They apparently, belatedly, received the supressed consultant's report saying that the grouting technique wouldn't work on the well defined water bearing strata to be encountered (supressed allegedly by the "cheerleader" IMR or shft paid, who worked in Eurochem) or they wouldn't have started a court action against IMR partly on the basis of that supression. They then had a contractor who had achieved 8% of the shaft depth in 75% of the contract period for 44% of the anticipated cost, without getting through even one of the three difficult strata ( and don't forget the shaft sinking gets slower as it gets deeper). As pointed out before, if a little facetiously, extrapolating that progress gives completion in about 30 years. Changing over to the freezing technique should enable them to complete by 2016, but I doubt if it could be any quicker than that.

And this question about who paid the "cheerleader" is interesting. IMR say in their defense as I understand it that it wasn't them it was shft, but in reality, who cares? As I've stated before, the shft Chairman and CEO from the time of flotation were both previously IMR employees, and the CEO worked for both IMR & shft at the time of negotiation of the Eurochem contract and is fluent in Russian, so I'm sure that both IMR & shft knew exactly what was going on. According to Hedgehog it was a little innocent "over optimism", but if that's the case, why the hell is there such evasion about who was paying him?

[buywell2] 30/6/2013 09:14

Delusional !

[wylecoyote] 30/6/2013 00:45

Incredible!

[hedgehog 100] 29/6/2013 21:54

Ivyhuang 28 Jun'13 - 18:40 - 2119 of 2120 1 0
"more x is coming."


Exactly Ivyhuang.

A couple of £100M. contracts in quick succession will put a very different perspective upon SHFT.

As indeed should the interim results, announced in late August for the last two years. These should show a dramatic increase in the 'headline' numbers of pre-tax profit and earnings from the 2012 interims, highlighting the operational turnaround that is underway here. They should certainly be up well over 100%.

We're now this weekend at the half-year stage, and SHFT has twice, in the mid May IMS and at the AGM earlier this month, publicly stated that it is on-track to meet the 2013 forecasts.

And an interim dividend of about 1p/share would only cost SHFT about £475K., and will I believe be a priority. Every cloud has a silver lining, and one advantage of the dividend being pulled in April is that SHFT can receive the boost of it being reinstated. Plus of course SHFT is currently 4.8p/share in cash better off than if it had paid the final dividend.

[hedgehog 100] 29/6/2013 21:29

muckshifter 29 Jun'13 - 18:41 - 51 of 52 0 0
"...The two extracts of posts hedgehog selects in post 50, by Citymohawk and Sigala, are at best misleading. I think Citymohawk thought again and didn't buy any shares, and Sigala thought again and sold the small holding he had bought...."

Not at all: I was specifically quoting - verbatim - their views on the EuroChem dispute and nothing else. It's you who are being at best misleading.

Sigala had a small holding of SHFT which he sold months ago at a much higher price, but that's different from selling now at 27.75p.

Whereas Citymohawk was never close to buying shares as you are implying, but rather wanted to be kept updated on developments as he liked the company.


And just two day ago on his thread "RAINMAKER'S VALUE THREAD (VAL)", Rainmaker posted this about SHFT:

Rainmaker 27 Jun'13 - 12:38 - 5172 of 5177 0 0

"I know Hedgehog, I'm a shareholder. I'm going to reresearch this Company with a view to making further purchases.

regards"

[muckshifter] 29/6/2013 18:41

Thanks, PUGUGLY, nice to know all that typing wasn't completely wasted!

The two extracts of posts hedgehog selects in post 50, by Citymohawk and Sigala, are at best misleading. I think Citymohawk thought again and didn't buy any shares, and Sigala thought again and sold the small holding he had bought.

The bit by the journalist is from a rubbish article full of factual and logical errors, but for once I'll use an old hedgehog technique, and just repost my answer to cocomac0's question to me asking why the article was rubbish.



cocomac0
In terms of the journalists daft contention that the intention of the arbitration was to "cover up" in some way bringing the project to a halt because of the current potash price, just think about the following few points;-

Firstly, they are now continuing the shaft using a theoretically more expensive method, as well as continuing with the other works, presumably to suit the new programme. On the original programme, the shaft that shft were constructing would have been the major component of the project critical path. I would expect that the whole thing has now been reprogrammed, with a new critical path based on the new expected completion date for the cage shaft after the changeover to freezing - they have probably diverted Thyssen over onto this shaft to get freezing underway and will then let them have two teams for the two shafts from the point at which they are approximately one year apart in programme terms. In a nutshell, you don't spend huge amounts of money then sit and wait a couple of years for first income because a critical component is way behind everything else in the programme if you can help it, you keep construction progress / spend in keeping with a realistic programme if you can. It is now perhaps a case of mitigating the cost of delays to this plant while bringing the other potash scheme, where the shafts are already close to completion, to commissioning as quickly as possible.

Secondly, the whole crux of his argument comes from a remark made by Strezhnev (Eurochem) mentioning that the mine would still be profitable at $500/tonne. Helmer attributes ( by being economical with the truth I think) that remark to announcements made in 2008, but gives the game away by also quoting S's next sentence saying that Eurochem don't expect prices to go lower than $700 - 800/tonne, which seems to indicate that the statement was made in 2009 after the peak of $900 / tonne was reached at the end of 2008. So, what "S" says would be an acceptably profitable price, becomes in our demented journalist's head, breakeven. But there are two relevant points here. Would you expect "S" to give out accurate cost information publicly (although it's not "cost" he gives), to assist his rivals presumably? The initial costing / planning and the pushing of the button on this project took place in 2007 when the potash price was under $200/tonne, so yes, I should think they would make a very, very acceptable profit at $500/t, with a breakeven probably close to $300/tonne.

Thirdly, although our demented journalist suggests that Eurochem expected to start producing 2.3mt of potash / yr in 2012, how would they have done that without the work being completed even on the original programme, in 2012, I wonder? It now looks likely that first output will be in 2016 rather than end 13. Presumably he thinks Eurochem consulted a gypsy with a crystal ball and now know that the current world financial struggles, which have drastically reduced the price of all commodities, will still control commodity prices and keep them low in 2016. Helmer perhaps thinks they have the gypsy on the payroll, looking constantly into the future so that they know when to push the resume button about 3 years before a huge price rise. (Apologies, getting a bit facetious there).

Fourthly, the bulk of the cost of the plant has almost certainly been spent or committed, probably $1.5 - 1.75billion. Over the last three years (which according to our journalist have been terrible years for the fertiliser industry) Eurochem have reported an average EBITDA of 34% on their phosphate and nitrogen operations. So does it make sense that they sit there indefinitely with $1.5 billion spent and no income to even pay the interest bill? I believe that production at anything above $300 / tonne for potash will make a very significant positive contribution to their financial situation, as opposed to a significant negative if they just sit there, without taking account of any benefits to be obtained from their original concept of an integrated facility for all their fertilizer products at their new shipping terminal .

Finally, another pivotal part of his argument, leading to his daft conclusion that the arbitration was entered for reasons other than poor performance, is that everything on the contract was going "swimmingly" (his term not mine- to do with the water???)until end of 2011.
The contract was let on the basis of an estimated value of $270m with completion in 2012. At the end of 2011 after at least 75% of the contract period, shft had reached a shaft depth of 94metres out of the contracted 1100m (8.5% approx), at a cost of $120m (44% of anticipated contract value), and had not managed to sink the shaft through even the first of three well defined, difficult, and thick, waterbearing strata. In contrast, Thyssen were already through the first two water bearing strata and looked to be about on programme at 455m. At the end of August 2011 shft effectively acknowledged that they couldn't complete on time and began trying to agree new contract terms with Eurochem. Until then, all shft's comments in updates and reports are talking about making up lost time, the CEO making the job his top priority, etc. And don't forget that shft had a "cheerleader" working for them within the Eurochem organisation, who presumably maintained the job could still meet programme, right up to the August 2011 confession (I don't think anyone is now denying that either IMR or shft were paying a Eurochem employee to push their case - they are just denying that any corruption was involved, but I wonder if the top people at Eurochem knew of the arrangement).

[hedgehog 100] 29/6/2013 18:11

A useful extract from SHFT's prospectus dated 20th. December 2010:

"Under no circumstances does the Group accept liability for consequential loss and damage. In circumstances of force majeure, each party generally is responsible for its own costs."


And some informed and unbiased views on the SHFT-EuroChem dispute:
from Citymohawk on his "VALUE INVESTMENT THREAD (VALU),
"from Sigala on his "ValueGrowth Investing (VLG)" thread,
and from journalist John Helmer in his article earlier this month -


citymohawk 10 Apr'13 - 14:39 - 395 of 465 1 0
"...I couldn't possibly imagine that SHFT would engage a contract which exposes them to such arbitration especially given the fact that the reasons for the delays to work on Volgakaly ultimately fall under a force majeure type clause. I'm definitely inclined to think that the market has over-reacted to this pending litigation more through ignorance (which I also share) of the issues in hand. ... "



Sigala 20 Jan'13 - 16:54 - 263 of 647 0 0
"... Now I know there are always two sides to every story - and this is SHFT's version of things, but it does sound like Eurochem were interfering in the job. ... "

Sigala 21 Jan'13 - 20:41 - 266 of 647 0 0
" ... I feel I have looked into the Eurochem situation as far as I can - and have the hunch that Shaft will not have signed a contract in a way that could leave them liable to the vast sums that Eurochem have mentioned.
As far as I can tell - it does appear that Eurochem were meddling with the job towards the end - and also I bet some execs in Eurochemn have been desperate to pass the buck on to Shaft Sinkers when it became obvious just how bad the ground conditions were...."

Sigala 23 Jan'13 - 22:16 - 268 of 647 0 0
" ... I just can't imagine contractors as experienced as SHFT leaving themselves open to such far-ranging liabilities as Eurochem are talking about. ... "




"Low Prices Force Fertilizer Giant Eurochem Into A Corner
JOHN HELMER, DANCES WITH BEARS JUN. 10, 2013, 10:17 AM

Vladimir Torin, Eurochem's spokesman, added: "We searched the global market for a company specializing in what we needed, and found Shaft Sinkers by ourselves. We then negotiated directly, sending Alexander Tugolukov, our technical director, to South Africa to study their previous and pending projects. They are the largest shaft constructors in the world, so the choice was obvious." ...

A spokesman for Shaft Sinkers was asked this week to clarify what happened, and also why the dispute escalated from a problem of mine delay to an $800 million claim. He responded: "Shaft Sinkers has built many shafts worldwide and we were involved in the construction of the other deep potash mine in Boulby in the UK. Shaft Sinkers was called in after other companies failed and we successfully completed building the mine. We believe that the [Boulby] mine continues to operate normally."

"The technology is not experimental, having been used successfully in many mines around the world and it did not fail in this case. However deep shafts are clearly complex engineering projects where delays can happen due to a wide range of factors. In the case of Eurochem, the ground conditions were difficult and Shaft Sinkers were in the process of refining the specific application necessary for the shaft when Eurochem suspended the project. Whilst the exact details of the contract are covered by commercial confidentiality and are subject to legal restrictions, I can say that as Shaft Sinkers has – so far – not failed in its mining efforts, provision for failure was from Shaft Sinkers' point of view unnecessary." ...

Is there another reason why Melnichenko has stopped one of the mine shafts, and ordered his lawyers to pursue Shaft Sinkers on the technical claim?

Since the potash price is well below where the miners would like it to be, mining less potash is one way of putting a bottom under the price. Eurochem's Russian potash rival Uralkali implemented a production cut in 2012 of 8%. In the first quarter of this year, Uralkali said it is cutting by another 40%. The Russian cuts match those of Canada's Potash Corporation, the largest producer in the worl, which has taken 1 million tonnes off the market since last year. For Eurochem to hurry a fresh 2.3 million tonnes from Gremyachinskoye on to the market would be folly, as the price it would fetch would probably be lossmaking. Mining the law courts may look a better bet to Melnichenko, especially if he must pay his lawyers less than the $15 million in overdue invoices from Shaft Sinkers for the work done but not paid for when the contract was halted.

Is there any other reason for the attack on Shaft Sinkers and its Kazakh control shareholder?

The answer to that one may lie in problems which Eurochem is having in Kazakhstan, but which the company is reluctant to acknowledge. ... "

[hedgehog 100] 29/6/2013 16:42

Pugugly,

You're obviously completely new to SHFT, and know next to nothing about it.

For starters, EuroChem's claim is against a subsidiary company of SHFT with nothing of substance in it. So even if SHFT did lose (very unlikely), the company would carry on relatively unaffected.

[hedgehog 100] 29/6/2013 16:36

PUGUGLY 29 Jun'13 - 16:25 - 47 of 47

"...My gess at odds More tan 15 to 1...."

You can't even spell, LOL!

[pugugly] 29/6/2013 16:25

muckshifter: Congratulations = An excellent and well reasoned review of the history an current position.

Basic take :- A poisoned chalice - Do not touch at any price - Far more downside risk than upside potential.

OK If SHFT win the arbitration argument then could be a great recovery stock - My gess at odds More tan 15 to 1. Too risky for me.

[buywell2] 29/6/2013 11:58

A forward order book in SA is meaningless with the parlous state of the Mining Industry there both GOLD,PLAT ,COAL for example.

Profits if any will be cut to the bone by re-negotiations with mine owners who are struggling to maintain break even due to wage demands /strikes/ and falling commodity prices ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

SHFT could NOT be operating in a worse environment in a worse place ... they are deep in la merde so deep they are sinking out of sight.

The chart of SHFT share price clearly demonstrates what is happening ALL facts/future data are in the SP

My call next week is therefore is now 25p

Hope this helps

dyor

[ivyhuang] 28/6/2013 18:40

more x is coming.

[muckshifter] 28/6/2013 15:55

Two things pulling shft in different directions are, imho:-
The need for cash. I feel they have a problem without regular infusions of advanced payments from new contracts - and I don't think they will want, or be able, to pay an interim dividend because of this, without an "infusion".

But the reduction in number of current contracts that must be occuring by now may well be good news in a way. My first employer expanded far too rapidly in a segment of civil engineering where it had acknowledged expertise, and struggled because good staff were then too thinly spread. Because of its internal problems, and government brakes being slamed on at the same time, it then ended up with a much more concentrated workload which condensed the staff again, into an industry beating bunch, with spectacular results.

Hope, for the sake of holders, that something like that occurs here.
Regards.

[wylecoyote] 28/6/2013 12:28

Oh yes, in relation to these russian Oligarchs. It should be noted that they were in the right place at the right time during the collapse of communism in Russia. Not exactly self made millionaires using clever businesses enterprises, some of the techniques in acquiring these interests before the collapse may be dubious...

[wylecoyote] 28/6/2013 09:56

HH,

thanks for you comments on CUP, I will read in detail later on and maybe counter your arguments later.

Muckshifter,

I agree with you methods, DYOR!!! I have to admit to reading one or two books, albiet to remind myself to keep my self discipline. It sounds like you do your own research and make your own judgements, you don't need a book to tell you that! The whole point being, is that you identify companies within a criteria that you are comfortable with, and try establish from those clues how they perform in the future. As soon as a company tell the market that it has exceeded expectations, it is more often than not too late to profit from that. My best trade this year was in TCG, a recovery stock, major director buying and the potential to return to earnings... I quit too early though(lack of experience and started thinking it was getting a little pricey when earnings haven't arrived yet.).

So I am learning all the time, through experience though.

[buywell2] 28/6/2013 09:22

SHFT shares are sinking fast

Just how long will it last

All time historic low just hit

Are shaft sinkers now in the ....

[muckshifter] 28/6/2013 09:18

From HH post 2065
"Say what you want about oligarchs from the former Soviet Union, but they are good businessmen. They have the ability to take a previously sleepy, under-performing business and transform it with better business controls and pursuit of growth."

From my post 2105
Perhaps you could explain what better business controls they use, and how exactly they pursue this growth.

And I see you are still repeating your praise for the Russian Oligarchs in posts here, but I notice you didn't answer this Hedgehog. If you asked the average man in the street what he knew about Russian Oligarchs business methods, if you got any answer at all, it would either be "Chelsea" related, or corruption, in 99% of respondents, I reckon. So when can we expect an answer?

Hedgehog's answer
"Oligarchs from the former Soviet Union are typically self-made men who have become immensely wealthy - sometimes multi-billionaires.
How do you think they did that: by being bad businessmen?

But that is different from saying that they are squeaky clean."

I think it's fairly well established that they mostly became fabulously wealthy by corrupt and frequently violent business methods and deals Hedgehog, so obviously that's the magic ingredient which you so admire in their pursuit of growth, or was there something else we in the west missed in the last 300 years as capitalists, which these oligarchs discovered in their 20 or so years of capitalism?

Certainly the growth shft experienced while majority owned by these "good business men" was more than spectacular, with two huge new jobs in Russia and India awarded in 2008 on top of their existing workload, just one of which, Eurochem, had an anticipated annual turnover as big as their previous years total turnover. I wonder how they did that?