Member Info for Chinasyndrome

You may be right, SunDrum,

It is starting to sound a bit like the Second coming, but I still prefer the PRE odds on it actually eventuating!

Perhaps if everybody posts about expecting an RNS, our redeemer might one day provide.

me, an aussie red neck; haw haw ~ you're not a ****** by any chance? and related to william joyce!

must i correct you yet again for demonstrating your total ignorance,

fyi, i was born in worcestershire uk,

A) Not one of your supposed facts has ever been proven

B) Being an Investor does not come with any qualification

C) There is no regulation stating that a Company has to publish anything about works in progress, in fact there are explicit exemptions regarding "Commercial sensitivity"

D) No concrete has been poured on the process pad to date, so an RNS stating it had would be untrue. Your attempt at constructing a Modus Tollens argument is disingenuous

E) Huambo experienced one of its wettest Aprils on record 176mm of rain for the month, almost 2.5x the months average.

E )A 7,000m of drilling @ 7.5m grid pattern will delineate roughly 400,00 BCM = or just over 750,000 tones, of Ore, which is enough for the first 12 months operations. I have managed mines for almost 40 years, so I can comfortably say what is considered to be CAPEX or OPEX.

Definition of a "Scab"; A person/member of an Organisation whose acts are seen to be deliberately detrimental and against the best interests of his fellow members.

As opposed to a "Dog": Who performs detrimental acts against an Organisation, but is not a member of said organisation.

Take your pick and then FO

Total ignorance or deliberate false and malicious information designed to damage? Everything he has posted to date has been proven wrong, and every time he then comes up with a new grievance based on his own personal? opinions. A sponsored provocateur or just a half smart idiot seeking attention ?

1) An RNS is not required until a material change has been crystalized, delays are not material changes.

2) The process pad is most certainly in plain site, we get a satellite image of the process pad every few days, you don't have to scour the internet, they are posted on the TG group of which you are still a member.

3) The 7,000m drilling is not part of the planned Billion-ton exploration program, it is for production grade control and is therefore OPEX not CAPEX

4) "I am an expert in the application of the UK Listing Rules, so there is little point in you trying to argue with me about them."

Hard luck you have failed again on all points:

1) Pensana by your own admission did advise the Market of the transaction on the 4th March, and as that transaction is subject to procedure, everybody must assume that it has not yet been finalised until told otherwise. Only then might we expect an RNS, or do you specifically know that said transaction has gone thru ? If so, then you are the one with "inside information". If you don't know then everything you say is baseless, if you do know then feel free to report yourself to the FCA.

2) The fact that "first concrete pours" have not yet commenced on the Process pad is in plain sight for everybody to see. Unfortunately, operations had to been delayed due to the unforeseeable rain events throughout April. Once the pad has dried out sufficiently to take the weight of a loaded concrete truck, I am sure that construction of the process plant foundations will progress rapidly. Again, nothing significant warranting an RNS.

3) Production drilling is not a significant event on a Mine site, it is considered to be a normal day to day operation, and as so does not warrant an RNS, If you still don't get it, please sight any examples where other companies such as BHP, RTZ, Anglo, Lynas, Mountain Pass report every time a drill rig or any other bit of kit for that matter, is mobilised ?

You have previously claimed to be an 'expert on commercial law', if so, I pity your clients. You clearly cannot balance what is actually written in Law with your own personally opinions.

Even better, he should send the Company an Email voicing his opinions, we all know from experience that the FCA are toothless and incompetent.

Mind you by his own admissions, Pensana have done nothing wrong so he might have trouble presenting a rational case.

Methinks he doth protest too much? Owning shares does not equate to being a supporter; The Chinese own shares in a lot of Western companies, mainly to steal their IP and styme their development. Peek, MP, ARU all cases in point. The CCP actually has a division specifically dedicated to commercial sabotage of Western companies ~ Dragon bridge immediately comes to mind, and REO have been preaching the Party line for years. Their Game plan is classic Sun Tzu ~ sow dissent and let your opponents destroy themselves.

The Scab is cherry picking Regulations and ignoring others: . UKLR 7.1.6 (2) excludes:

(a) a transaction in the ordinary course of business;

(b) an issue of securities, or a transaction to raise finance, which does not involve the acquisition or disposal of any fixed asset of the listed company or of its subsidiary undertakings; (Ozango is not a fixed asset?)

(c) any transaction between the listed company and its wholly owned subsidiary undertaking or between its wholly owned subsidiary undertakings;

(d) a break fee arrangement;

(e) an indemnity or similar arrangement, except where the agreement or arrangement meets the conditions set out in UKLR 7.4.1R(1);

(f) an issue of equity shares by a major subsidiary undertaking of a listed company, except where the issue meets the conditions set out in UKLR 7.4.4R;

UKLR 7.2.6

29/07/2024

R

(1) In addition to the tests in UKLR 7 Annex 1, a listed mineral company undertaking a transaction involving significant mineral resources or rights to significant mineral resources must determine the percentage ratios that result from the calculations under the test in paragraph (2).

(2) The reserves test is calculated by dividing the volume or amount of the proven reserves and probable reserves to be acquired or disposed of by the volume or amount of the aggregate proven reserves and probable reserves of the mineral company making the acquisition or disposal.

Longonjo's "Reserves" have an Enterprise Asset value of US$5 Billion, so US150M is nowhere near to being a 'Significant" 15%

" shame on you both for your personal sleights, it is completely unnecessary and inappropriate." Says the mad who spent four years sledging PA, just because he did not get the job he was expecting.

Why would anybody listen to somebody who admits that you are NOT breaking any Laws or regulations, but then insists that you break Commercial confidences because somebody else MAY be delinquent? In Oz we call such people Scabs. IMO classic Theorists -Syndrome: A disgruntled ex-employee desperately trying to create trouble for those he blames for his own pathetic inadequacies. His last rant was about BLOE and TR1's again a Gurnsey connection!

I totally agree with both Blueril & Hogsnipe, re the SP Manipulation. It has been going on for at least 9 months: "Criminal market manipulation is an offence under sections 89 to 91 of the Financial Services Act 2012. " And yet the FCA refuse to investigate, despite numerous complaints. Hopefully the bloke who holds ultimate responsibility for the UK Financial Regulators (Keir Stamer) will soon be booted out.

OG, you are digging your hole deeper. Where is the full stop, comma or IMO in your diatribe... "states the specified information (not all of which was in the RNS) is required and (b) the reason that the DTR 5 disclosure notification requirements exist is to prevent someone from buying or selling a stake in issuers (e.g. Pensana) in secret"

You clearly can't write English, perhaps you should use AI. You deliberately tried to pass your own opinions off as a legal requirement. Your opinion is not a legal requirement and now we know it was just your opinion you can F-off. On ignore you go with the other Trolls.

OG your last posting, " ....(b) the reason that the DTR 5 disclosure notification requirements exist is to prevent someone from buying or selling a stake in issuers (e.g. Pensana) in secret."

Is pure and simply Fraudulent misrepresentation. In positing it you have just lost all credibility and have exposed yourself as a blatant liar.

DTR 5.8.2 b does not say that; it actually says: "(b) if applicable, the chain of controlled undertakings through which financial instruments are effectively held".

https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/dtr5/dtr5s7?timeline=true

I suggest you go back down your Troll hole and stop making things up then trying to pass them of as Law.

OG, I see where you are coming from, and it certainly appears that a TR1 is certainly required to be lodged with both Pensana and the FCA. However, where does it state that a Company has to publish an RNS detailing the actual TR1 to the Market?. Pensana has already informed the Market of all of the significant events. We have been informed by previous RNS's of :- the name of the Entity 'Cascade', who is providing the Finance 'Oman SWF', the name of their lead manager, 'Llyod Pengilly', the number of Shares issued '13,992,357', the issue price '80p', the total number of shares now in Registry '353,515,226' the date of the Transaction '27 April 2026' and the resulting % holding for Cascade '3.8%'.

Perhaps I am wrong, but given the above, I cannot see any pertinent reason why another RNS is required. Yes, it would be nice for clarity as it might shut the whingers on this forum up for a while. But no, I doubt even that, as said whingers will simply find some other perceived/contrived issue to continue their trolling about!

Tbow, as I said, the Algo's are not to blame, it is the owners who program them to commit illegal acts ~ High frequency trading, swamping the clearing computer miniscule and zero transactions to block other traders, deliberately delayed reporting large trades, walking the SP down just before the closing auction , and many other strategies all designed to gain an edge and to control the SP. Yes some of it is now legal but much is not and it all boils down to Market Manipulation, which the last time I looked is still a crime? One can only assume that the MM's Brokers and FCA are complicit and will therefore do nothing to upset their vested interests. Which is why it is now time that the mug public wakes up and starts asking those who are supposed to have some control of the LSE pigpen, if they want to get reelected in 2029.

While we all blame Algo's for this manipulation of the SP, we forget that somebody 'a real person' has programmed them to operate in this manner. Now given that the net result is a slow but steady acquisition of shares (Buy volume exceeds Sell volume) the ultimate intent of the Algo's owner is to accumulate a sizable holding of Pensana shares without paying a fair or reasonable price for them. Even though the FCA is gutless wonder, this Algo and its owner will eventually become known, at which point a 'Class action' by disenfranchised shareholders will be warranted. Whether such action will initially target the FCA to expose their incompetence, or the Algo's owner directly remains to be seen. In the meantime, we can only continue to gather evidence of this manipulation of the Market.

It should also be noted that USA-RE have just paid US$2.8B for roughly one million tons of TREO. What price does that indicate for Hogsnipe's proposed LJ takeover bid, with its current 4.5Mt of TREO? before this year's drilling has even commenced?

Hi Hosnipe, Take-overs are always in the Air until they happen. But why the concern? At least a TO bid will reveal a true value for Longonjo, which is far greater than the value that this manipulated Stock market is currently suggesting. There is a well-accepted method for valuing deposits, based on the contained in-situ value of the minerals contained within the 'Resource' which is then discounted for Enterprise opportunity. Currently that discounted in-situ value is somewhere between US$4 and US$6B based on Chinese commodity prices. With Pensana owning around 47% of Longonjo that would suggest a TO price @ US$10-15/share.

While many shareholders may not be happy with that number, nobody would be out of pocket, in fact many would 10 bag or better.

I am not so sure if direct involvement by the US Government would be the best outcome, I would prefer Cascade to be one-step removed, somebody like Orion or Project Vault; DYB to DOB eh Theo ?