Member Info for DevonianExile

MT - I know you didn't ask me but I do read your posts. May not agree with you but you have a valid view IMHO. Those now appearing in green are the ones who are in need of help - again IMHO. Am sure you can guess who

I have quite a solid holding here, steadily built up over the last few years. I very rarely post but I have to say I am entirely comfortable with our position. I see Zambia as simply a matter of patience - based largely on the degree of risk and commitment that a major has placed on this development. Botswana is obviously less clearcut and if successful has far less upside. But it does have upside - particularly in view of the position of the licence area.

My investment will never be influenced one way or another by what is essentially a band of 4 or 5 anonymous individuals - who surely have no holding - but for some extraordinary reason fill up their rather sad days by incessantly posting negative views on the Company. Bizarre behaviour indeed and a psychologist would have a field day trying to fathom out the personality traits involved. For some weeks though it has been a sea of green for me - which visually illustrates the eccentricity even more starkly! 5 people filtered (the first time I have ever done that) and it now looks like they are all chattering away to themselves, saying nothing and with absolutely no impact on anyone else.

I have never really believed in the paid deramper theory - but at least it would explain it all. Otherwise I will put it down to obsessive and rather sad character deficiencies.

Have to say it was a little rose tint that built up the expectation of an announcement on the international public stage. That stuff is of dreams and tales of romantic fiction. The nitty gritty of a deal will be announced when all the parties are ready and through much more mundane channels.

But IMHO signed it will be

Last post got deleted so I’ll say a very simple yaaaaaaaaawn

AIM risk/reward shares require a lot of nerve, confidence that the long term upside is worth the risk and inordinate amounts of patience. For ARCM I have all of these in abundance

Re share movements it just needs a few triggers. I am heavily into QED - another nerve tingler. Up four fold over the last few weeks with enormous further upside.

I remain incredibly confident regarding the ARCM touch paper

Well for me the real white elephant regarding Zambia is that AA may have spent 2-3 years using their vast employed and consultancy resources (not to mention previous deep knowledge of the geography), carried out umpteen internal risk assessments, and then go|| on to screw it all up. Possible - but I won't lie awake worrying about it.

So I have sat on the side lines for a couple of years whilst quietly building my stake here. Like most I had a few wobbles – the timetable and radio silence being the main issues. The anti-brigade didn’t really worry me – but I was concerned about the possibility of a political stumbling block. Anyway - well done to all the advocates who kept batting off the attempts to derail things.

In my view this really is now largely de-risked – and the final confirmations really should mark a turning point (even if the SP flatlines for a while). Large doses of patience are always required in this type of situation.

My decision to post is in part prompted by Outofluck’s comments today – and partly the AA perspective here. It comes from a lifetime spent in the heart of the corporate mindset.

Large corporates are more than ever obsessed by risk mitigation – at every level of management. Which is why they simply would not buy a stake in ARCM at this stage. A small investment would be public and the share price would rocket. At 30% they have to make an offer – but upto that point they still have no control. Quite simply the AA decision makers are not speculative fund managers, and Risk Committees would never approve speculative ventures.

Instead a contractual commitment of a very significant investment has emerged – one that allows an increase in the share of the JV as exploration and investment progresses. Classic risk mitigation – but nevertheless a very substantial financial and political investment. The sort of investment that will only have been approved at the highest levels and with substantial assessment of the likely ROI. The level of commitment is a testament to AA confidence and that alone is enough for me.

And one more thing. For NVS to have used the RNS to thank the President and quote the Mining Minister in the last RNS approval would have been required at the very top of both AA and the Zambian Government. And the Nomad will have wanted to see all the documentation and approvals. Another layer of cement for me

So more than enough for me to sleep well on this one.

Steve - you are absolutely spot on. The reasons why Peggy and the Donkey (plus a few others) post on here would provide enough material for a serious Psychological Conference (just like that famous Basil Fawlty episode)

Posting repeatedly on a share you claim not to be invested in is bizarre behaviour indeed. Either you are manipulative or just obsessive. Anyway I think there are enough adults in the room to know what risks we are all taking without the constant prompting of our gratuitous guardians

As a very rare poster (but avid reader) I have to say most boards seem to have one or two like this, and whilst it drives the rest of us nuts I guess he/she has nothing better to do. I can just about live with the “permanent” negative posters – at least we get to understand them – but it is the transient “here today – gone tomorrow” mob that amuse me.

So interesting that the Donkey suddenly appeared on LSE on 14th June – out of nowhere. And has since blessed the ARCM board with 158 posts in around 6 weeks. I wonder what made him/her leave behind a previous mystery name to rename as a Donkey.

Anyway – we are not alone. Since 14th June the individual has posted on other boards – including EUA. This little classic popped up the other day: “Just set up a Gmail address with letters and numbers for the address, ie ghl45hwe23115@gmail.com, don't use your real name to register the account, and use a VPN in somewhere with very strict data protection laws, like Norway”.

So someone who is quite at ease with a bit of deception. I wonder whether he/she has deceived LSE regarding his/her real identity?

I’m normally pretty silent on this board – but time to say something. A lot of emotion expressed here and elsewhere – some of which is not that helpful. So I have tried to step back a little when thinking about how best to protect my investment. For what it is worth I have decided to take part in the open offer – based in part on the following:

- The Q&A did in fact have a lot of substance but of course we are way behind where we hoped to be - for all sorts of reasons. And JM did appear apprehensive, but given some of the flack here and elsewhere perhaps not a surprise. However we all know the MSC deal is complex – and whilst hugely important to QED is one of many initiatives for MSC. But they have gone and bought a ship to test this, have completed the upgrade works, and nothing seems to have deflected their intent. Re Morocco and Utah we still await conclusive outcomes – so we will have to sweat them out.

- Regarding the fundraise timing of course the ideal would have been after at least one conclusive outcome. But the “runway” was getting tight and I suspect the BoD did not want to risk doing this in August

- Some of the discussion regarding the “team” – especially JM – needed balance. Thanks IMHO to DoN for supplying some balance. This is a very small team and their future also entirely depends on QED success.

- AM is a non-Exec Chairman – and has non-exec roles in quite a few entities. I would guess his contract is for just 1 or 2 days per week – maximum. I have no idea regarding his personal wealth but the commitment to another 2.4 million shares cost him £30K. Not insignificant in my view and a bit of a statement.

Everyone to their own on this – but I think I can justify another last push

I have no particular issue with the name change but given the importance of other news the BoD must have fully anticipated flack from shareholders

I’ll allow my reaction to be tempered by an assumption that management confidence on other news remains high. Hope I am right - otherwise this will look like a poorly timed prompt that will further encourage the cynics

So either the rules re tax treatment have changed (I don't think they have) or a review has concluded that the wording around these original grants wasn't sufficiently tight for tax treatment purposes. An optimist could draw the conclusion that someone has done a deep dive in the expectation that the options might soon be exercised.

Whatever - the bit I was pleased about (I wasn't previously aware of it) is that over 8 million options are with non disclosable individuals - presumably key employees. That is a lot of options - and I personally would be delighted if those individuals were able to benefit in some way.

Obviously the delays here are frustrating but my take here is quite simple. As a significant holder in a high risk/high reward type of share I have only 2 core considerations.

First - are the declared projects still on track. Answer yes. Second - will at least one of the projects conclude before the current tranche of money runs out. Answer - seemingly yes, and the Morocco trials are confirmed as still planned. Re MSC we will always be at their behest but for such a big prize I am quite happy to wait

Patience can be very tested at times on this type share but there is nothing to suggest that the current plan has been derailed.

Just to confirm Jim has kindly forwarded the relevant detail and the FSHG team are entirely satisfied regarding it's authenticity. We have thanked him for his efforts and would hope that the contact established proves to be a basis for future progress - for company and shareholders alike.

As previously communicated FSHG remains in hibernation - but should the opportunity arise we would be happy to use the database for the mutual benefit of both company and shareholders.

Yep - very well done JIm. As most know FSHG is in cold storage - but we do occasionally check the inbox.

We have had a couple of requests to see if Jim would be willing to contact FSHG to confirm the receipt of contact by forwarding the message - knowing that we would absolutely not reveal the who from/who to detail. Nor do anything else with the content. If you are willing to do this we have agreed to simply confirm receipt on this board

Your call entirely Jim - but if agreeable the email address is:

fronterashareholdergroup at gmail.com (need to reformat to use!)

Have a great break one and all

Many thanks DoN (and others who attended). Much appreciated!

The fact that the board engage and mix in such a way is a constant plus for me - and hugely important. The direction of play is my main focus - and nothing appears to be adverse in this regard. Timing is all about dealing with real life issues - eg getting the damn stuff across a border. These issues will get addressed but as most of us accept the timing will be out of our hands to some degree

Again - patience folks

Have to say a very professional document in my view. Andy Morrison very bullish re “doubling down on delivering key projects” and some very compelling content.

I like the confidence - surely his words must be based on some clear view regarding progress?

So the lights still flicker

The FSHG team do not check the boards that often these days – or the email account – but a number of people have asked how we feel about the recent request to email members regarding funding a visit to the US.

We have discussed – and for what it is worth we have the following view

FSHG was set up with a crystal clear mandate – and we also went to considerable lengths to ensure that DPA rules and intent were followed. We believe that we stuck to those principles. We also went into hibernation when we reluctantly accepted that the Company was simply not prepared to engage with us. However we did publicly agree to maintain the database in the event that some form of wide shareholder contact was required – either by a shareholder connecting with the company or for a request from the Company itself.

Our view – emphatically – is that the FSHG group database should not be used to try and raise money for this type of venture. Indeed we think the idea of rocking up to SN’s abode or office to be utterly crass. If others disagree then fine – set up your own network and then ask for funding. But please think seriously about what you want to achieve, what you are realistically able to achieve – and perhaps most importantly the unintended consequences that might result

Finally – well done Looed and others on your persistence and efforts. I personally don’t think anything will change until the raft of legal action has been controlled – but if progress is made then contact with Looed and one or two others remains our best hope of some form of dialogue.

At one level this is routine and time bound - but the renewal does give comfort. However I would expect that due diligence on any commercial deal would require this to be in place - given the size and limited resources of QFI.

Patience still required

Re the Forum I really would recommend both. I personally read LSE several times a day - but also like to dip into the Forum every few days as well. There is some really insightful input over there. A couple of points to note.

First - most of us will recall not only efforts to short this share but even worse some individuals actually contacting potential partner organisations to try and muddy the water (has even been tried with MSC some time ago). The Forum went to great lengths to prevent such posters belonging to that site - and hence create a more or less non-toxic environment.

Second - by creating a constructive - and largely supportive vehicle - some of the Forum organisers were able to create a mechanism for occasional informal meetings with the QFI senior team. Clearly this would be bound by the rules - but to be able to get a group to see the "whites of the eyes" and become a trusted interface is incredibly helpful in my view. We can't all do it and I am quite happy for others to develop such a relationship if they can. And I cannot think of any other share where this has evolved in a non-confrontational way.

There is room for both in my view - and any serious holder would want as many information opportunities as possible I would suggest. And this is one of the reasons I am so seriously invested here.