Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the 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.
“How come it was only the trolls that misunderstood Bamps' point? Are they intentionally stupid or is it an act?”
Easy answer they are all stupid !
Hi Mr MJibberish
I have no opinion on the 5% except that 50m is too low and so is 100 and so is 200 but what does it matter what I think, it’s coming no matter what any of us think.
The assets are still there.
you will have to do better than that to discredit me, but most people have green binned you so they’re not listening
So why are you arguing over someone else’s opinion on the 5%? Won’t make a jot of difference on what GGP and NCM agree upon. Have a night off folks, the repetition on this board is numbing.
See the post in my 5% value implication thread
Mumbo - whats your 5% valuation range and why?
Z
phelpspb -do you know why the reiteration dropped from 33p to 24p?
Mumbo Jumbo - you continue to ignore my request to chat (even offline). Here is your post from 17th Jan this year:
"...The value you put even after MRE2, it just about supports the current mcap of £600 million!! Bear in mind that the next resource update will not come till towards the end of the year. It is a long time to wait for the SP to break this ceiling. Even then you are relying on exploration upside to lift the share price. Nothing is guranteed.
What if MRE2 is not used? How much will NCM pay then?..."
Care to discuss the merits (or not) of your post before you continue to dole out more meaningless drivel?
Let's get down to the nitty gritty Phelps and MJ.....
Z
The onus is on him to stop obfuscating and make it clear. Was that so hard?
Just ask him to even give you a range on the 5% valuation. He doesn’t , but instead daily he will let you know how great the assets are!!
I am not part of a 'motley crew'.
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the change in gold price as originally phrased by Bamps was not the actual historic spot gold price
He, on my request clarified what he meant. So far so good
I do not believe for one second that you recognised his actual intent.
to then call m an idiot shows your inability to enter into civilised discussion
Mr Morley and his motley crew have been embarrassed this afternoon by Bamps. He even posted it 3 times to try and help them. Thicker than a submarine door, the lot of them.
Immaterial whatever price I suggested but NCM work on a discounted price to whatever price the gold is.
This has an implication for us as can be seen in the PFS when they were quoting $1500 and Ggp $1750.
When they’re results came out , profits were way over forecasts as they were using around the 1250 price.
Using a formula based on Telfers performance in previous years.
This has also has an implication of the equivalent factor price , not using current figures distorts the gold per ounce equivalent downwards.
In the first MRE the 4.2m oz eq should have been upped to 4.3m eq soon after publication .
Whatever I quoted is not important what is important to note from my Asset post is that our basket of mineral assets outside Havieron have not gained a monetary increase but the individual constituents have had a phenomenal rise in the passed 12 months or so.
@notrader - you are on the right track, eyes wide open :-))
ATB
"Be assured I did not intend to cast doubt on your integrity."
I think describing Bamps as "quite simply wrong" would be understood by any reasonable person as an attack on his integrity.
Notrader for clarity I repost my reply to Bamps 17.33.
How you can find anything offensive in these exchanges is beyond me
"Thank you Bamps.
In fairness, perhaps you might have expressed it more clearly in your first post.
Be assured I did not intend to cast doubt on your integrity."
CJM - you took it much further than asking a question: "Much as like Bamps, this is simply wrong"
no apology
I asked a question... Bamps gave an answer
That is what BB's are all about. Arn't they?
So no apology then!
James don't try to assert that youi interpreted his stsatement as pertaining to "trading economics " not gold history.
Your nose will expand on you
Keep the good work up Bamps21 I love reading your posts!!!!!!!
Notrader
Bamps wrote
"Assets over the last 12 months
Havieron:-
Gold has risen from c$1200 to c$1830 per oz today"
He has explained his position. It is over.
But try not to act as some kind of 'groupie'
How come it was only the trolls that misunderstood Bamps' point? Are they intentionally stupid or is it an act?
CJM - "I can see no valid justification for your assertion."
Is it not a fact that gold has risen in price from $1200 to $1830?
Where has Bamps said that this rise has happened over 12 months? All other price comparisons contained the term "in 12 months" It is your incorrect inference that this also applied to his previous statement. Please apologise for your mistake.
Thank you Bamps.
In fairness, perhaps you might have expressed it more clearly in your first post.
Be assured I did not intend to cast doubt on your integrity.
Try trading economics
NCM we’re basing their assumptions from this price range all year till the PFS
Bamps please explain your gold price rise over the past year
I have given a link to gold history https://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html
I can see no valid justification for your assertion.