Member Info for Dave85

Definitely see your point in paragraph 5 king certainly a pertinent consideration. Always apprecaite enjoy reading your thoughts. Ive hoped for much of the last 2 years that a string of newsflow was close which could be very good for me as a PI. Part of the reason I've had that opinion is because I have been lead to expect it by company announcements.

I've always been consistent in my long term positive view of the investment case here (with or without suggested newsflow) & viewed a low sp as an opportunity rather than a negative. It changed for me with the combination of consolidation terms & article 10 change as I explained at the time. In a nutshell I'm subsequently more wary of increasing exposure, as now I see the alignment of mgmt with PIs as much more questionable. My concerns could come to nothing or could be born out just as I fear.

I think I/we have demonstrated a reasonable/good level of patience in terms of newsflow. The specific news I refer to here is that which we have been waiting for for about 12 months+, - extra magnitite test work & Ni bioleaching, these two could transform the project especially the bio leach and it's potential to reduce acid consumption. I personally think we have throughly tested, even exhausted the route of, have faith & trust in mgmt to do the best for the PI.

I now feel the sp is down here to allow mgmt/majors to average down. Something I have sympathy with and would like to do myself but with the recent restructuring and rewriting of the company rules, the risk in doing so is just too high for me without improved clarity on several things. This clarity includes the above news, other expected news, mgmt reasons for article 10 changes, 'real' reason for consolidation, future dillutitive/anti dillutitive aspirations towards project progression, plans to take company private, only some of which, even if successful, would we stand to achieve via any update. I expect most will become clear eventually.

If sufficient updates had been forthcoming my thought process would not have drifted towards coveting the cse's mechanism of coercion.

Perhaps differences in our opinons stem from how it appears your patience, or level of acceptable risk to capital, or level of understanding of the current situation, or trust in mgmt, or all of the above is/are greater than mine.

Totally acknowledge, respect and appreciate your consistant stance with regards rocking the boat (calling a meeting).

I know deep down my daydreams of a form7 type device by which to extract news is very likely unachievable but my want for improved clarity currently narrowly overwhelms my fear of rocking the boat (if done correctly). Any mention was just a thought/provocative comment really. I guess maybe we will have to await introduction of the new principle measures. I won't hold my breath tho.

As Givens said 'use the losses and failures of the past as reason for action not inaction.'

Just kidding, smart guy tho.

AIMO

Thanks king, I think we are broadly close to agreement just with a slightly but significantly different take on certain aspects.

Just because I had some time to kill waiting for someone and enjoy a decent discussion.....

Paragraph 1, totally agree, that is precisely my point.

Paragraph 2, agree but over what timescale will implementation occur and what will be the efficacy of measures once in place. Undefined/unpredictable/under control of mgmt - all apply.

Paragraph 3, my opinion is as follows....both pre and post contact last time, sp movement was heading south. The rate didn't seem to significantly change upon the event of 'the call.'

We have previously got news hungry as a result of, not prior to, news black out/going to ground. In relation to what happened last time he was called out. The sequence was as follows...

Zeb related rns dated 16/03/18, then

No Zeb news for about 17 weeks, then

MB Call 11/07/18, then

No news for 6 days, then

Rns - zeb update dated 18/07/18.

Paragraph 4, yet again agree. Success is highly doubtful, however effort (simply to get as far as a meeting (not implying specific aim of meeting)) is relatively small. Few hours work perhaps and a few quid postage, if support was inline with that enjoyed last time assuming lths contribute similarly.

Global hydro, adams and umnex likely all underwater or unhappy with recent stake value direction, does jz/ccc control them all? - the logical assumption for 40%ish requirement you mention. If so what do individuals behind these entities know that keeps them in line. A vote would demonstrate/suggest support or otherwise behind mgmts recent strategy and manner of conducting business. If support exists......why?

Minex exit could either be because they didn't support or was designed to make it look as though they didn't support (considering minex, panex, ccc linkages I expect if any, the latter ). If neither these reasons, then why exit/finish off exiting when they did rather than earlier and at higher sp? What did minex know that they didn't like (if sold due to lack of support of mgmt) that umnex (closer to the project) either didn't know or didn't see as enough of reason to exit themselves.

Paragraph 5, will post my thoughts on this one separately. But generally I have, and have had the same personal views, in regards to a string of news, as you. Recent company actions have now reduced my willingness to allow benefit of the doubt.

AIMO ATB

Agree king, if implemented they would be, or at least potentially be, better for shareholder communication. My concern is that, it all just sounds/is worded as vague and aspirational objectives without any concrete timescale commitment. Form 7 has much less wriggle room, it is compulsory in terms of its content and frequency and therefore it is completed and released. If uru had to do the same, the experience of holding uru over the last 2 years or so would have been very different. Not saying sp would be better or worse. Just that a properly informed investment/divestment decision at any point in time would have been relatively and very significantly more possible. Principle 8 is very interesting and to me reads a bit like ..... this is how we work, you better get used to it, it is the only way shareholder value will be achieved, and its how we will continue to act, furthermore this stubbornness/culture is key to the success of the company. I happen to agree with the gist of what they are saying. What l disagree with (would like to see change) is, once they have suggested a particular, apparently future news producing, activity/event/test is planned/underway, we are actually kept informed of progress in relation to the matter in question at reasonable intervals (at least every quarter imo). A mandatory update in similar vein to Form 7s, but with imo less required frequency, would surely befit an open and respectful dialogue with shareholders - a stated central requirement within their exact same principle.

AIMO ATB

Much appreciated as ever king.

Ccc still sticking to cannabis, although they've sold up 2 stores, they did so by acquiring Medman shares at a decent (cheapish - considering values over the last year) issue price of 3.21

Very roughly 20% of the acquired shared tied up for up to 6 months (lock in or in escrow) so plenty to sell if cash required by ccc. Imo if/when ccc do sell it will be significantly higher then 3.21 remembering (if my memory is correct) medman insiders are inside at ccc - could be mistaken on that tho?

If the subscription agreement was as they say, does seem to be a decent defence to quash the lawsuit.

Wouldn't it be nice if uru had a form 7 to complete each month.

Ccc used to hold much closer to 50% of uru so are they looking to get back closer to those levels. Wouldn't be expensive at current levels.

Who knows? Never been particularly convinced on these guys selling on a low, just to unify towards a business sector, different story if it was to maximise personal gain by some, as yet unclear mechanism.

AIMO ATB

4/4

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43097127.pdf (section 3.2)

Ive heard GG say when considering his Co’s (wuc) V he produces U for free, I don’t think Tiris is the same but it should do our costs no harm at all.

Generally very positive, still significant points to overcome but definitely getting there, water nearby confirmation, local soda ash supply, clay issue to sort, finish off the rest of test programmes hopefully to positive results, then game on.

My take is that they will investigate and remedy the clay issue and then from that point in time, assuming all else goes well, dfs completion within about 8 weeks. Hopefully within H1 then.

Haggan drilling to complete March/April so release of SS maybe April/May with Tiris dfs June/July? We will see. Where will V and U prices be then, Im thinking higher than today,USD29.10, USD18.35, respectively. When/will the IPO happen?

Any pointers towards clay issue significance, solutions, likely cost implications, most welcome and appreciated.

Looking to, up to roughly double my holding here, dependent on time sp stays at these levels

AIMO ATB

3/4

The occurrence of poor materials handling was known within the quarter leading up to and including December 2018, whereas offtake news was released towards the end of January. The two things together indicate to me that either PR is just hoping that the high concentration of clay particles encountered will not significantly increase costs both capex and more importantly opex for tiris and in which case signing the deal with Curzon is relatively risky and questions exist over whether the deal will secure at least some profit throughout the spectrum of prices agreed. Or that, and I hope and expect this is the case, the issue has been known about for some time, he has been advised by people (WG) who are specialists, that the issue can be dealt with by additional processing of acceptable extra cost, and hence the signing of deals has negligible risk of signing up to lose money on the lower of the agreed fixed prices. I know the offtake will have been a lengthy process and hard negotiated, and that talks are likely to have progressed significantly prior to encountering the material handling issues but to actually go ahead and sign up without a high degree of surety that the deal is wholly profitable based on most up to date project economics and the most recent level of confidence attached to those numbers would be something that I doubt he would do. Therefore I feel that despite researching the potential issues and finding that they are potentially capable of significant increase in both capex and opex, Im comforted by the actions of mgmt at the moment, and expect a resolution to the issues which incurs minimal changes to economics. Otherwise how can you sign a binding offtake without knowing your cost base to a high confidence? Generally a bit surprised by the sequence of the news releases. Maybe it is my naivety and lack of experience/understanding showing.

• Optimising the residence time in the leach circuit, potentially reducing its size further;

Could not find reference to reduced time but this in relation to reduced flow which also potentially reduces size requirement.

RNS 30/08/17 Another collateral benefit of the reagent and process stream optimisation has been a reduction in the process flow volumes to the leach circuit. This flow reduction will lead to a strong reduction in the size of the leach circuit and consequently the capital cost of that section of the plant.

•Recovery of vanadium as a by-product.

This has to come to the fore significantly recently. Aura have stated the small capex increase to add the vanadium extraction is realistic.

Rns 17/10/18 - Further studies and test work, including capital and operating estimates, are required to fully investigate the economic viability of adding a vanadium ion exchange and purification circuit to the Tiris Project. The changes, however, would be considered only marginal additions to the existing design of the uranium recovery circuit.

TBC

2/4

• Reduction in the amount of reagent-consuming minerals going to the leach circuit, thereby reducing purchase and transport costs;

RNS 30/08/17 The primary method to reduce this cost was via a reduction in consumption; however, Aura also commenced exploration for local sources of soda ash as another cost mitigation step.

RNS 30/08/17 The modelling focused on optimisation of liquor recycle streams through scenario based simulation to minimise losses of recovered soda ash in the beneficiation circuit. This modelling defined that requirements for soda ash could be reduced by 32% when compared with scoping study estimates.

• The use of hydrocyclones to allow the early rejection of ultrafine barren waste, which would also allow an even smaller leach plant;

looks like this maybe necessary to remove the clay prior to leaching.

Quaterly pdf - The initial leach tests have unexpectedly exhibited poor materials handling characteristics. The initial analysis of these characteristics identified that they were related to high concentrations of clay minerals. An investigative program has been initiated to examine the parameters controlling materials handling in the alkaline leach and optimum conditions to minimise their influence.

Quaterly pdf - A concurrent program at Mintek Laboratories, Johannesburg, South Africa has been delayed pending completion of materials handling investigations.

Quartely rns- retesting is required and may impact on the final project design criteria

Quaterly pdf - Pending completion of the materials handling investigations, the expected delay to finalisation of the feasibility test work program is anticipated to be approximately 8 weeks.

Ive read that Portland cement agglomeration works well for minimising impact of clay minerals whilst not interfering with alkaline leach processes too much. However, with the particle size of the carnotite being so fine and the poorly graded psd that will exist post screening, this process could create more of a pelletisation – an unwanted result, so possibly wouldn’t be suitable.

With likely psd of carnotite in range of up to 5 microns and likely density around 4.2-4.7 the differentiation for hydrocycloning from the likely illite related clay minerals (weathered granitic setting) with psd of <0,5 to 1-2 microns and density more like 2.75 seems realistic (to my very laymans eye). Extra capex and opex however for an extra process required. SS sensitivity highlighted the greater significance towards opex changes over capex changes on project economics.

Capex of hydrocyclone gear offset in part perhaps by reduced size of required leach plant, opex increase offset by reagent requirement decreases from above mentioned optimisations and perhaps on internal sourcing of soda ash from auras own sabkha? Not heard about this for a while unless I’ve missed something. Net cost effects…..unknown.

TBC

1/4

Tiris SS blurb (towards the end) on the website set out a number of possible project opportunities. Its clear from news released in the interim that these opportunities have received considerable focus during the some of the worst parts of the uranium bear market and Tiris is all the better for it. Yes it required capital and now there are well over 1b issued shares soon I expect to approach 1.5b but on the flip side looking at the progress, improvements and current stage of the project I think it will prove to have been very wise. Quite glad, however, I stumbled upon aura as late as I did…. Doing so now would have been even more fortuitous.

Opprotunities listed as follows with subsequent developments/comments.

• A larger operation, possibly in a different, optimised location, to take advantage of the resources not included in the current Project;

30/04/18 RNS "The resource contribution from our new exploration area Hippolyte South was very encouraging as was our resource experts highlighting the orebody continuity, an important aspect for our future development plans. Pleasingly this upgrade study only covered part of the original resource so further increases in the Measured and Indicated categories are possible in the future."

Had only had minimal exploration in 2011 now good confidence level of significant resource contribution.

• An opportunity exists for the doubling the mining rate to 2.0 Mtpa in Year 4. This expansion would only utilise approximately 50% of the current estimated resources for the Project, and consequently further expansions could be contemplated.

30/04/18 RNS Our objective was to upgrade approximately 7 million lbs of contained U3O8 to the Measured and Indicated categories, so the achievement of 17 million lbs has exceeded this by a wide margin providing potential for more than 17 years mine life

Aimed at 5 to 10 year mine life resource requirement, excess result suggests increased mining rate achievable maybe to >2Mtpa from cashflow. Combine this with likely higher U prices lack of/reduced debt and high project economic sensitivity to U price by the time this expansion takes place….huge cashflow potential.

• An increase in the volume of the higher grade mineralisation in the various zones;

30/04/18 RNS Aura previously defined an Inferred Resource of 49 Mlbs at a grade of 334 ppm U3O8 (at a 100 ppm U3O8 lower cut-off grade)

30/04/18 RNS Parts of the mineralised zones have substantially higher grades than the global average. As indicated in the resource tabulation in Table 2 at a cut-off grade of 300 ppm there is 24.1 Mlbs U3O8 at 450 ppm U3O8 (in all resource categories)

More certainty of resources with about half the tonnage at higher grade at 3 times the cut off, not bad.

TBC

Tend to agree but around 1.8c is likely the ballpark starting figure to work from, imo. According to the AGM notice 10% of current issue can be raised at minimum of 75% of 15 day vwap on asx.

https://hotcopper.com.au/documentdownload?id=uOMxKKzFkiWRTLKhOROKAxjvTDYD4wq9yROZofJ8ke92GA%3D%3D

Called that 1.8c or 0.01gbp.

So call it 110m at 0.0075 raising around 800k.

Then get the two studies out and some pr done. If interest gets to level where capital can be raised at say 0.03gbp then raise the further 15% of current issue allowed - by then would be 180m ish raising over 5m gbp.

I'd be happy with that.

Eca finance of 85% tiris capex - mentioned as 50m usd with possible slight increase with dfs. This 5.8m gbp or 7.6m usd would provide the other 15% for a tiris capex of 54m usd in its entirety. Just an example. There's also vanadium extraction capex increase to consider - just have to wait for dfs for figures.

Hopefully they can do better than the minimum price, and hopefully they can do better than 3p. We will see. Just because placees may get shares at 0.75p I don't think with, how aura are positioned, they are going to be selling for 10/20%.....but you never know, maybe some cheap ones for sale soon.

Aimo ATB

There it is - halt on asx for capital raise around 1.8c. Close to my average so not fussed about that.

Minimum 8 week delay on tiris dfs. Maybe can get some more in the isa after all.

Shame no sp boost after recent news, the raise is pretty much at lows. At least the order of releases was as I like to see.

Maybe interest here will pick up once this is out of the way.

AIMO ATB

2/2

Uranium ban - important one, went through emotional rollercoaster while translating and reading piecemeal. By the end though, aura statement that this won't affect haggan current polymetallic proposition rings true.
https://www.regeringen.se/496084/contentassets/0dddaf4d29964944832d6d738d5e2dc8/lagradsremiss-forbud-mot-utvinning-av-uran.pdf

https://www.321an.se/are/2015/foreningen-nej-till-uranbrytning-upploses

https://www.321an.se/amnen/diana-fernlund

https://www.ltz.se/artikel/berg/tvingas-hoja-rosten-an-en-gang

Still conscious of resolution 5 and the 10% 15 day vwa asx price potential dilution. And the 15% further that is currently possible (My post 16/10/18). Need money to do stuff and aura are certainly getting stuff done of late so fine by me. Hopefully tiris dfs & haggan ss will do the boosting of sp to increase the capital raised when mgmt decide to go for it. Seems London based major shareholders still selling into news. Seems strange to me - timing their exit to happen so close to/at same time as these recent significantly positive announcements. If it's true that motivation surrounds lack gold/base metal permit issuance they must be pretty sure its not coming soon (contrary to pr recent interview suggestion) or have somewhere else they want to be more. Who knows, just seems strange to me.

One thing, imo, about the ipo process, seems it would provide a quick mechanism for Swedes to take a stake - Something that some may say, may influence speed of/likelihood of various approvals and success at haggan. Process at Bem (also on AktieTorget) has taken years with Swedes now owning about 60%. Maybe insignificant but just a potential positive I see in ipo process.

Great developments of late and potentially more to come in short order. Aura now my largest holding.

AIMO ATB

1/2

Some worts and all haggan research links in case people looking in are interested. Google translate often required but important to get a Swedish perspective. Some may make for difficult/negetive reading but after digesting everything, personally I'm very positive about aura/vanadis prospects in Sweden and links provide good background info imo.

http://nonuclear.se/sv/lindholm20070427.html

Links to many a useful study including viken
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uoeur.html#LILLJUTHATTEN

Some history of study of haggan
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292151203_Early_stage_metallurgical_evaluation_of_a_complex_low-grade_uranium_project

https://www.nyteknik.se/premium/gruvforetag-jagar-vanadin-till-batterier-6941253

https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/gruvbolag-ska-producera-batterier-av-vanadinmetall-6915146

https://www.ltz.se/artikel/berg/gruvdrift-kan-gora-myrviken-till-ett-nytt-kiruna

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/World/Europe/2012/0331/Do-jobs-trump-environment-Bucolic-Swedish-town-faces-uranium-dilemma

Interesting comments below article, very few people can create non proportional impression of opposition using internet and social media. Imo tho will be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome if not the biggest.
https://www.321an.se/are/2017/debatt-prospektering-for-dagbrott-i-oviken

https://www.op.se/artikel/jamtland/insandare-c-uranstopp-en-viktig-delseger-for-storsjobygden-men-varfor-rostade-m-nej

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/ledamoter-partier/ledamot/saila-quicklund_243f0434-ae15-41b4-92b6-146a0fb0700a

https://data.val.se/val/val2018/slutresultat/K/valdistrikt/23/26/0308/personroster.html

https://data.val.se/val/val2018/slutresultat/K/valdistrikt/23/26/0614/personroster.html

http://effektmagasin.se/http-effektmagasin-se-sverige-pa-vag-att-forbjuda-prospektering-och-utvinning-av-kol-olja-och-fossilgas/

https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/globalassets/aktuellt/utkast-till-sakpolitisk-overenskommelse.pdf

Tbc

I really think PR is being smart about how he's doing things.

Good balancing acts going on everywhere.

Tiris off take at average 44, hopefully this means that tiris aisc are covered by the lowest fixed price of off take (sub 44 probably sub 40) suggesting that he firstly, now knows what the figure is, and secondly, that it is genuinely lower quartile.

Claw back is a great negotiated move and forward thinking. Some say he's committed too soon and id agree if the percentage committed was higher and no claw back possible. As it is I think it's just right and the premium to spot shows current appetite and provides precedent to further deals around the space.

It derisks the project and will help funding, straight away we've had news on that front! The fact funding connected news includes haggan is good and suggestive of both ambition and expectation. He recently told Swedish press aura looking to spend around £420m (5b sek) on haggan. Not an unexpected figure when I saw it but order of magnitude beyond tiris. Agree with others comments that some clarity on ipo would be ideal from him soon.

Regards haggan, the massive downsizing that comes from focusing on the 49mt coherent shallow relatively high grade deposit and the switch to vanadium (albeit forced) from uranium should sway some of the more rational of the local environmentally concerned. My research into berg and surrounding municipality opinion, suggests much less than blanket opposition. The protests will be significant tho and approval certainly a challenge.

Sell it to them small, neat, and green. Done right, by locals, for locals (partly at least). Vanadium based mini haggan will/would be a different animal to proposed and failed uranium viken. Much better chance of happening. I like the term 'green metal', sowing the suggestive seeds early.

Lack of market reaction I see as a positive, selfishly, give it until April and the new isa allowance, then it can improve accordingly. PR putting a good chunk in, a must for others to believe and very welcome imv. More the merrier maybe his wife would like to av down.

AIMO ATB

*sxx

Marl, ssx, vrs and solg spring to mind off hand. Many of the good ones likely disappear as do the bad. Just that the disappearance from aim is under relatively shareholder positive circumstances.

Generally tho I must agree for the majority of shares but to do the in and out, in and out isn't so easy as making a decision and holding firm. The former makes small common wins (assuming done succesfully) the later can cost dear but if you pick a good one early on, many mistakes can be overwhelmed on a single win.

Just my opinion, nice to see sp picking up here.

Aimo ATB

Have an account but never really used it and don't normally go on Twitter. Don't known how to search for/join groups for instance. Seems good for adding things other than text but brevity demands don't seem aligned with detailed discussion. Happy to join in tho, when I can, if you could please add me.

@dave8513

2/2

Furthermore, we have actually had quite a bit of good news. I know it's been slow (understatement) but it has been significant and good, it's just that it wasn't what was lined up to be expected during the hype - lithium / reduced capex / magnetite, gasprom? - (Still unaware of info surrounding that one) etc, and after a 1300% rise off lows it was almost inevitable that the combination of news slow down and missed expectations and increased issues shares would be met with downward momentum. Something, some have suggested, at least, wasnt combatted wholehearted by mgmt. Potentially significant drill results of ip targets and geochem results are expected next.

So even if people have been acting outside the rules, can and will they be proven to have done so, and will that give shareholders a financial gain. Or is perception at uru and mrs being negatively affected by goings on elsewhere and is this fully justified and more importantly will this actually turn out to be a correct/financially beneficial (if acted upon) perception.

I stand by my opinion that the most powerful thing shareholders can do is to unite collective holdings behind a common beneficial cause and through a meeting resolution - aim to make it so. I then circle back to who actually owns most of this company. They (plural - unknown number of entites apparently <3% each) aren't named on the website and they don't apparently post here and I would suggest that intimates they are happy/apathetic to how things have unfolded.

On a personal note, my main negative is the consolidation without coincident proportional reduction of max possible issueable shares, accompanied by article 10 change - nothing I could do about that. Could have voted by proxy, but didn't designate required effort and if I had it would have been to no avail.

Incidentally, it doesn't matter where/when a meeting is held, we can all vote whenever/wherever just need to do it in time and by proxy - as I understand at least.

Side notes

Ccc selling down here - need to see it to believe it personally. If they do it will be imo, to secure jz et al's position in uru somewhere more favourable for them.

Would be nice to know the interval/timing/destination and value achieved of minex disposal...would any of that appear in their results at all is info available?

https://edtimes.in/the-top-10-fastest-growing-cities-in-the-world-from-2019-are-from-india/

I've mentioned before our relative proximity to India compared to others is a plus. Incidentally right up there in my 'travel to' wish list.

As ever long and rambling - apologies.

AIMO ATB

1/2

AimG post 11.25 proper cracked me up!

I just think, our problems are 2 fold.

Firstly

Assuming actual illegality has occurred, rather than merely immoral actions or questionable completion of duty. In the later case it would likely require a lawsuit and related expense, to create a case, in order to prove the neglect of duty was indeed, beyond questionable and actual - down to us.

Just because an individual may have been dodgy elsewhere doesn't mean they have here.

Even if they have been, have they messed up enough to get caught - leave a trail of evidence?

Even if they have will authorities have the inclination and resources to look hard enough to uncover these mistakes. This is the bit we can help with - the inclination.

Even if they have and they do. Does any result of them doing so improve shareholder situation in a financial sense?

Secondly

No amount of dodginess or even illegality elsewhere, is evidence of the same at uru. In fact the forner could be seen as a method of further reducing demand here. Negativity by association! Obviously in terms of investment rationale, actions of individuals elsewhere should significantly enter the investment decision process.

The problem is, the placings taken here were at premiums (e.g. 17% from memory) to recent share prices not a massive discount, in fact some shares were bought in placings at multiples to share prices traded within the previous few months. Did this happen at anr or were placing conducted at huge discount (that's how I remember it)?

AIMO

For perspective £13 is a little over £10m mcap. Uru had over £20m mcap without mrs, without Pgm discovery, without modelled presence of critical zone geology, without 1.6% Ni assay result, without settled mining charter, with zwane in charge at dmc, with zuma running sa, with lower Ni spot price, with EV linked prospective Ni price improvement much lower in investing publics consciousness, (e.g. not even mentioned at M event April 2017) etc etc.

The difference is sentiment - almost everything on aim. General Ni market uptick connected with Philippines and Indonesia was jumped on by those with influence to pump spread rumour, make profit and secure funds/value with reduced dillution after their own highly dillutive stake taking.

Sentiment is dynamic and will again change and will again be jumped on at the opportune moment. This time the hype may potentially be backed up by delivered numbers/assayed results/agreed deals/lasting market & Ni price improvement rather than rumours and social media ramping combined with some misinformation.

Yes I did I king and thanks for that, I've read all posts since I first invested. I like analysing or at least observing posts over time and how sentiment and sp correlates with concurrent posters/post content/trade activity, and especially price movement in the months following occurrences of certain posted content. This is a hobby for me but I seem to have a decent memory for this info. Just a shame that that can't currently (on lse) be augmented/confirmed by referencing historic posts from the uru rise from relative obscurity.

As always thanks for your and everyone's posted info.

Good weekend all.

AIMO ATB

Continued

The main prize currently for me, is the scale of Zeb disseminated Ni and although it's incredibly difficult to progress through feasibility during bear markets in your leveraged commodity, getting at least to post pfs stage in time for the main bull run should be prioritised and will aid bfs funding & construction finance or project sale (whichever route is taken) at the best price. It's all a matter of how to get there without wrecking the structure and ownership/liabilities of the company for the pre existing shareholders in the process. Reducing cost of capital, by almost whatever means, is to be welcomed as the other way of saying that is reducing dilution. I'm just concerned, and keeping an eye out for positioning of mgmt by which they achieve an optimised holding which can be ring fenced/protected in some way from my aforementioned wrecking.

Since April 17, if the services agreement is to be believed umh have effectively been the ones responsible for activity, pace, effectiveness of most things Zeb related. They seem a likely candidate for source (linked to at least) of placing funds and hence would like cheap sp/placing price. The relationship/involvement of umh considering publicised clauses and the history between the companies is a bit of a strange one. In some ways, bee linked/local knowledge etc it's a good thing, but in some ways it a but more tricky.

AIMO ATB