Member Info for cyberbub

No one commented on the financials yet, from today's interims? The half year admin expenses seem very high to me, what were they doing to spend that much when they haven't been drilling? There's no explanation. How was that money funded - was it the apparent 2 x £2.5M that the directors put into the company?

Ezhik are you saying that Hex management are carrying out testing which will not work? What do you propose they do instead, specifically? What techniques and equipment did you use in the North Sea to test gas composition?

Yes but the mine isn't on the coast! You'd then have to build a 100km pipeline and multiple pumping stations...?

OCP would be under pressure to make sure the large international investors from Singapore don't lose out IMO. That would really hammer the country's reputation. I would think they must have an average of about 4-5p, so a minimum of 5p ($75m) I would say, and Emerson will walk away. Still peanuts for OCP.

Whether that's realistic when we're under 1p, I don't know. But if this problem is purely politically-driven, then maybe the solution is too??

I understand that it was water supply that led to the refusal.

But if the company were told at the time that grey water was acceptable, and now it appears they've been refused again, how is that acceptable?

Or have Emerson completely misunderstood that the CRUI saying that grey water was acceptable, was actually rubbish and only a desal/pipeline solution would "really" be acceptable?

I understand that it was water supply that led to the refusal.

But if the company were told at the time that grey water was acceptable, and now it appears they've been refused again, how is that acceptable?

Or have Emerson completely misunderstood that the CRUI saying that grey water was acceptable, was actually rubbish and only a desal/pipeline solution would "really" be acceptable?

My query is more fundamental. The company submitted an ESIA 3 years ago which was refused. They must have been given a clear understanding of *why* it was refused, and *what* needed to be done to get it approved??? Would they have taken more months/years and more millions, amending the ESIA and resubmitting it, if they hadn't been given confidence by the relevant bodies, that it would be accepted with those revisions??? EML also employ local environmental consultants, did they not advise that it should be approved?

Unless the national policy (on water or whatever) has changed significantly literally in the last few months?

Cyber

I don't think the KMP patent should be for sale. It has wider applicability across the world and is a significant independent asset.

"Methinks" (one word) is Old English, often used by Shakespeare, still used occasionally in an ironic or playful sense today. Certainly not a sign of low IQ.

2 x 190k is clearly a rollover not purchases...

Er, how do we know that Vanguard bought 8M shares, there was no RNS??

I tend to agree. I would like to think that this regrettable situation was not really Greg's fault. Initially LB were dragging their feet, so they brought Sheffield in as a competitor, and decided to go with them, just before the Sheffield share price went off a cliff, making it unpalatable to raise money. I see it as being the fault of Sheffield really, they must have had some visibility of their own problems before agreeing to a deal with Cmet. I certainly hope (and believe) that there wasn't some back-slapping All-Aussie deal going on, anyway.

Https://youtu.be/Uxpe46lTrBY?feature=shared

Bruce Griffin is reasonably convincing in terms of Sheffield being OK, cashflow positive as of this month, and not needing to raise further money for some time if at all. However it seems clear that the likelihood of coming back to complete the Cmet transaction in the next 12 months is low. I think we need to be working on other options ASAP, preferably going back to LB and asking what they can offer. Their terms will probably be a bit worse, having been rejected by Cmet, but on the other hand it's a great project for them too, so maybe not much worse terms?

Someone's just dumped 4.3m shares at 1.5p. Not sure if it's a stop loss or they've just lost patience.

I agree that a takeover (by LB or ANOther, not Sheffield) may be on the cards now, but talk of 5p is ridiculous. 10-12p would be fairer, around $50m, given the large and extendable high quality resource. I think a lot of people would accept a 10p bid in the near future if it came in.

Agreed Catbert. IMO less than £1m could see a small operation underway, boosting investor confidence, keeping the government happy, and providing some modest cashflow. Meanwhile some low-cost drilling (it's only shallow sands!) will massively increase the resource.

These comments turned out correct, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If Sheffield get through their funding tight patch in the next 6 months, their share price could easily double back to its previous level, making raising cash palatable again. At that point they might come knocking on Cmet's door again!

This is obviously very disappointing. But it's not devastating. The high quality, low cost minerals haven't vanished (and will soon enough be significantly upgraded). The company doesn't need cash, for 18-24 months anyway. And the door is still wide open to Sheffield to come back to resurrect the deal in that timeframe. Or LB might come knocking again...

Having said that, clearly it's not going to hit 20-30-40p for some time now.

Unless Greg makes a deal with LB or A N Other to just sell the project for 10-12p a share? I don't think that's an unreasonable price, and many shareholders might take that now.

I wonder what the Aussie HNW investors will do? Topping up would be a great sign of confidence.

I'm holding, and may top up depending how things go.

GLA NAI

There seem to be a few people on here who have got their knickers in a twist after that interview. I will agree that it wasn't Greg's finest hour in terms of clarity. However I still find it hard to believe that a good deal for Cmet shareholders has somehow instantly vanished. We are sitting on a huge, high-grade, low-cost resource, and appear to have had a competitive bidding process for the best deal to exploit it. Possibly the timelines have slipped a bit yes. But Greg and the Aussie HNWs have good skin in the game. I struggle to believe that they don't envisage (or intend to deliver) a share price of 20-25p as a minimum in the next 2-3 years. Of course nothing is guaranteed in the stock market and there are risks, not least the political risk in SL, but if you're not willing to take that risk, then you definitely shouldn't be in the AIM junior miner space! Just my view. GLA NAI

It's a big sell from yesterday yes, but the seller took a significant discount for that size. The £95k value is hopefully a coincidence in terms of Ando's claim. I agree it's always wise to be suspicious of people claiming to have bought or sold loads of shares, these boards are stuffed with charlatans talking their book, there's no way of knowing reliably.