Member Info for Blackrhino1

At the presentation last week I was a reassured by the confidence of the delivery. I've attended quite a few of these and it's not uncommon for the CEO or whoever to come over somewhat needy. That just wasn't DS's stance. The presentation was short and felt like a 'take it or leave it', we're alright approach. I said at the time I'd had a little top up as the presentation ended. That was at 10.3p. Over the weekend I'd decided to grab a few more on Monday morning assuming it hadn't surged and was amazed to get in at sub-10p. It is just astonishing that the price is still less than pre-RNS. We have oil, we have a model that appears to be spot on, a CEO who has delivered in the past, geologists who are very excited at what is yet to be uncovered and we'll either receive $10m or a greater share of the acreage. Roll on April

Then why indulge him?

Given the posting history of the initial poster (same question April 2018 and others) I think that's a fair response SIMMO123

I would imagine the Congo have been all over the results to date. If they're scrabbling around to try and get the £10m together (which was a clear indication yesterday) to offset changes to the ownership % it seems a pretty good indicator of what they might have seen

From the corporate presentation:
Exec compensation aligned and share options at 20p per share

Incredible that this is the same price as before the RNS. 10p a share for the potential here with what we know now!

The geologists are clearly very excited about the prospects here. I'd like to see that model, it looks to have been very accurate to date and I'd love to see what else it has predicted

I think the point is the trolls have won when they get respected posters to respond to inane questions rather than maintain momentum. They play on the fact that the majority who log in here are respectable people who are willing to consider alternative viewpoints and educate those who ask genuine questions. It happens every time across so many boards. Good/great news is sidelined by petty squabbles that take up board space. They have a list of 'flashpoint' words or sentences (death spiral financing, placing, duster etc) that they drop in regardless of the company or the facts about a resource.
The best response we can make is to continue with a genuine thread. It shows them they're being ignored and personally it makes me smile when they put up something massively provocative and an investor simply responds to a previous thread as if they didn't exist.

Yes I was there. Quite a short presentation but glad I went. He recognised it would have been a different atmosphere had they not hit! Seemed comfortable now. Acquisitions a possibility but would not be drawn, did state no wildcats I got the impression the £10m vs increased % may get resolved relatively soon. I’m not interested in day to day price movements here now. Had a cheeky top up to tuck away, thought it would be rude not to :-)

Didn’t get to bottom of Djeno. Bitterly regrets putting ‘subject to funding’ in RNS, no begging bowl. With this resource dilution would be last resort. Thinks Congo now trying to get money together, or there will be a material change in %ownership of field.

Clumpet
In a depressed market this is a rare beam of light. Market conditions have been perfect for those who choose to sow doubts in the minds of shareholders. As I said about 10mins before the RNS landed I don't have many of these, but I'm thrilled for those who held their nerve.

+ licence news

Just to make it absolutely clear. I have not suggested that anyone else filter anyone. It is personal choice. I have chosen to filter FLBW/TDT and I wouldn't dream of arguing with anyone who chooses not to. As you progress from a child you realise that not everyone's opinion is worth listening to or arguing with. I may miss out by ignoring someone but I am grown up enough, and have a strong enough backbone, to accept the consequences. Each to their own.
Let's get back to AMC and good luck to ALL investors

FLBW/TDT
That was a childish response. I wasn't boasting about my qualifications, I was simply giving some indication as to why I could reasonably be expected to understand the impact of supply and demand on price. So your comment finally sealed the deal for me.
In your previous guise of TDT I often wondered what your real motives were. Mr nice guy until you thought someone was questioning your over-riding intellect. At which point the veil slipped. All of course with the very best of intentions of 'open debate and simply offering a contrary view'. That's why we often have 2 paragraphs of agreement or pre-amble followed by a final paragraph with a negative....'share price collapse' for example.
I must confess I initiated and continued this conversation to provide a test. I am now comfortable filtering you and that's what I have just done. You may wish to do the same. We may miss the odd pearl but I think there's more upside, particularly for the other board members who I'm sure won't miss the clutter.

The holders on here don't need to be reminded of the licence award, that was given and why I picked the dates I did.
Some have such a pre-occupation with stock levels and taken such an 'ownership' of stock figures that any reference to them by anyone else results in an immediate response to try and undermine that poster or their argument.
I have a degree in economics and am a qualified accountant, so I can grasp supply and demand and what a rise or fall in stock levels can do.
My point was clear, I was showing the impact that news can have on this share price irrespective of stock levels.

My point was that the significant rise in the share price was not down to falling stock levels over that time period or rising prices.I wanted to get the pre-occupation with stock levels, in particular, out of the equation. It was down to news.
Of course had stocks been reducing or nickel prices rising then perhaps the share price would have risen even further, it would certainly not have hindered the surge.

I remember it well. For my own purposes I just wanted to see if the nickel price or stock level fluctuations over that particular period had any bearing on the significant rise in the share price and I think we can conclude it didn’t.

On Thurs May 21st 2015 Amur's share price was 10p
On Fri 12th June 2015 that share price had risen to 37.25p
Source for the above: London Stock Exchange
I was interested to see how that correlated, or otherwise, with the stock levels for nickel and the price of that nickel.
The price of nickel over that period fluctuated between $5.8 and $5.9/lb, whilst interestingly the stock level ROSE from 447kt to 465kt.
Source: www.infomine.com

FLBW
None of us know what is discussed behind closed doors. We can only make our investment decisions based on what we read, our experiences elsewhere etc. I think with this one we are so close to a deadline the company have set themselves that we can wait and see what transpires. I know you put great store by the stock levels of nickel, for example. That level is a fact, what can only be estimated is the future usage, particularly around EV's. That's just one variable in this complex equation. Overlay that with 2 countries that want to a) economically develop a region b) develop an industry/secure key resources required for that industry and what they are both prepared to do to deliver on those national imperatives and we have another set of key variables that could impact in many ways. The list goes on.
We've both been here a long time. I'm settling back and will reappraise on 31st March, I'm an Amur investor, what's a few more weeks? :-)
Have a good weekend

Yes, opinions can be debated endlessly on bulletin boards until the company proves one person’s wrong. It’s my opinion based upon my understanding of the situation. As you said in one of your earlier messages ‘if you were in the room’ we could have a chat and I’d be happy to do that. A day out with the family beckons so please don’t misread any lack of further response.