Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I've come across this before Pumpandtrump..........!
x2 scenarios for the LTH............ :)
1, Been in this for an absolute age.............
2, Intend to be in this for an absolute age.............
All the best (it's all I got :()
Another LTH post.
It gives absolutely no validity what so ever.
True LTH would have averages at about a break even sp of a p1 oil strike and as such would ramp the pants off this in an effort to push the sp as far up as possible..
More dilution = less future return. Simples
The last time I " instructed solicitors over a libel matter"..............!
I was told to STFU........!
All the best (I'm just a sparky though.......... :()
a gud'un mind......... :()
Nothing snide or unproductive about my post at all Starchild.
I did not indicate you are a 'know it all' either, I know you are not or you would have included the % of holders that will not vote due to inertia, fatigue, uncertainty. Some and that might include myself will just let the dice roll.
laallee.
You omitted the
Laloo: based on your rather unproductive snide last post be assured I’m not a ‘know-it-all,’ have attempted to post rational opinions over the last few months to help everyone including dimwits. In fact I’m actually very humble. Last year I instructed solicitors over a libel matter. On a legal technicality relating to my skills for prophesy rather than any form of divinity, they strongly suggested I go for the more serious allegation of BLASPHEMY, however I declined such a pretentious act out of humbleness and personal religious belief. Have a wonderful day.
Starchild
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Howsabout
8. To abstain due to constipation.
May the farce be with you.
laallee.
No patronising kisses.
Since the 11/6 announcement of the proposed merger, I believe nearly every argument for and against has already been posted on this BB. There have been c2500 posts!!! As of today, I believe there are 7 key groups of sentiment:
1. To vote Yes and fully trust the BoD no matter what, as of today’s date.
2. To vote Yes with doubts and concerns.
3. To vote Yes under extreme protest that the BoD has not provided additional information as yet.
4. To await further RNSs before either voting or disposing of BPC shares. Prior to the vote deadline, if no further news, to do ‘3’ or ‘5.’ Or a total share disposal.
5. To vote No because the BoD has not provided additional information.
6. To vote No as a point of principle even if RNSs are forthcoming. (example: a shareholder who was happy for the huge spud risk/reward with one throw of the dice, but unhappy with the CERP merger ROI dilution).
7. To publicly state a Yes or No vote, despite having no shares or very few shares in either company, to attempt to move the share price up or down for personal strategic reasons.
I am a lth since 2014, and currently in the ‘1’ camp for reasons I have opined on in many posts since 11/6. Everyone will of course vote as they wish. We are not a religious cult where total obedience is expected and public dissent will result in ex-communication, a public whipping, or the death sentence for apostasy.
May the force be with you.
Starchild
xxx