Member Info for B_A_B_A

Early stage exploratory talks is the next step on from ‘very advanced discussions’ it seems.

Is this AAOG Chatboard or ANGS?

They’re labelled as Zhejiang Orient Gene Biotech. Box also says supplied by NHS test and trace

Wow. A more bizarre list of theories one never will see.

Just read the article but my take was that they’ll be purchasing and distributing rapid antigen tests (LFT) rather than PCR, for home use. I’d thought that the PCR bottlenecks were due to processing capacity rather than test kit availability, similar to here.

Really? £70BN? So around 7 times the current value of Newcrest? How could that be possible?

DA has a full time day job; I’d be surprised if he was involved in anything NCYT related at present and certainly shouldn’t be the ‘force behind’ it. His employer would have something to say I’m sure, and I’d be disappointed in the integrity of anyone who gives up on their responsibility on day one of their notice. His current day job ought to be consuming 100% of his time if he’s anywhere close to being the person we need to take over from GM.

No problem getting a quote from HL here; 20.85 for 300k, instantly.

I think $2 is nearer to £1.41, so pretty close to where we closed.

If a 10% rise is flatlining then I’m happy to flatline every day, or even once a week for a few months! Volume in US has been insignificant generally for many weeks, I don’t see how we are relying on them. The rise on OTC yesterday pretty much only brought the USD price up to where we had fallen to by the end of the day.

Almost all of the other miners were down, digihost was up 34%

SEL is Forum I believe, so from what I can see at first glance, we buy 25% of SEL’s 49% share of Saltfleetby by paying them £8m worth of shares. We then raise the £1m by selling a further £1m of shares (to Forum at a guess). So that new £9m worth of shares means that our current holding is diluted 9 fold/ worth 10% of what it is currently. In effect we (current shareholders) then own the equivalent of ~2.5% of Saltfleetby and I suppose that forum still owns ~47% of the current 49% by virtue of its increased holding in AAOG (90% of the company). I guess that Forum then benefits massively from the accrued losses and tack benefits, at a cost of ~2% of their asset. What have I missed, or have I misread?

I’ve considered the frenetic typing tweet to be much more likely linked to either the mining pool agreement which was announced just a few days after that tweet or to the ongoing Texas objectives, both things that PW ought to have been frenetically working on - and nothing at all to do with an application for listing on another exchange. I absolutely agree that we need to be out of the OTC ASAP but I get the feeling that where NASDAQ is concerned, too many people are adding two and two together and making ten!

Not sure if I’ve missed something but the company hasn’t released any detail yet that describes the nature of the dispute with DHSC. If that is the case then why is it being described almost as fact that it is DHSC that hasn't paid what it should have paid? All I’ve read from the company so far is that ‘ Regrettably, the parties are now in dispute regarding the contract’. Could also still mean that DHSC is claiming that the company hasn’t fulfilled its commitments until we are told otherwise?

Wow, didn’t see the antigen LFT coming; great news at last!

Positive news all the same though.

Not quite winning a contract; winning a place on a supply framework agreement that could lead to some contracts, on terms agreed within the framework.

I think you may have misread that? Appears to me just to require that, should the company sell the products at a lesser cost to a similar customer elsewhere, then the company should refund the difference/ apply the same rates to DHSC for the period that the lesser price applied.

I don’t see how that is designed to prevent NCYT from undercutting competition - and worth noting that it’s normally not possible to consciously undercut other bidders because most tenders are bid confidentially - so NCYT wouldn’t be aware of the value that it needed to undercut.

What do you mean by ‘the antigen LFT’? There has been no mention of such a thing as far as I recall; have I missed something?

Correct