Member Info for gorsuch

"the fact that this document is being accessed means that the DEM are using it for reference"

Why does it??

All it say's is that it has been changed in some way, doesn't say it's been used as a reference.

We are trying to get a PEPR for the "Mountain of Light". Both the document links you have posted are old PEPR's for the "Lorna Doone" mine.

Terra Consulting worked for the previous owner of LCCM Phoenix copper, they may have also been used by SML instead of doing our own due diligence.

Thank you for the link Prop, this bit about Richard Galvin made me laugh.

Richard Galvin, on behalf of Galvin Investment Company, has
submitted a creditor claim seeking in excess of $50 million in
damages in connection with Smith’s/CV Investment’s purported
interference with an agreement with SMG for the purchase of
magnetite concentrates.

He's the guy that made the first big client deal with SMG, but he failed to pay the bond figure asked, hence SMG kicked him into touch, then Brenda mysteriously turned up with the same deal, but she quoted higher magnetite purchase figures and SMG bit her hand off. ( After due diligence of course )

But how Galvin has the nerve to claim $50 mil is beyond me, I checked him out when I first looked for the major client, even then he looked like a crook, but Brenda beats him hands down as far as being a crook, I hope he doesn't get a cent.

Well said, agree with everything you have written.

Quote by receiver:

Upon information and belief, CVI did not actually receive any magnetite for which it failed to pay; rather, it failed to purchase the full amount of magnetite required by the PSA. It is further believed that some of the magnetite paid for by CVI was retained by SMG.

The magnetite Brenda bought and collected has basically vanished, but the receiver's view of our claim is interesting, because we still have magnetite that belongs to Brenda as she had already paid for it, which in law could be assessed as part of her assets.

So has the receiver removed the “STAY” he put on SMG ? Does anyone actually know.

If not, then the arbitration award will not have been ratified by a judge, therefor can they actually lodge a claim using their arbitration award, because it would not yet have any legal standing under U.S. law.

I seem to remember "Southwesterner" saying the following in his last post.

( I don't think they actually own any land or have even decided where the surface facilities for any mining operation would be located.)

So do we own any land in Cornwall? or just the mining rights to someone else's land.

In the USA for an arbitration award to have any legal standing, it must be ratified by a district court.

As it stands, the receiver won’t allow us to take our arbitration award to the district court, so our $21.9mil claim is currently not legally binding, in other words at this moment in time we have diddly squat.

Prop,

People have been saying that for years, all the way down from 2p+, so at what low point should people stop buying ???

Bubble are you serious?
(sml on the move atm maybe an update coming soon)

Do you not know the share price is actually going down, I could possibly accept your enthusiasm if the price was going up.

Justdandy, I think you should revisit your figures, one minute it's 10.8 mil over 12 weeks, then you say it's over 10 weeks, when in fact it's actually over 14 weeks.

Don't know where you plucked the figure of £50,000 from, he's only paid out 34,000 for his 10.8 mil.

We may be long term sad people, but at least we can add up.

There is still nothing in the status report about removing the "STAY" against SMG's court case, not sure why they are keeping it in place.

SMG filed a Petition for an Order Confirming the Arbitration Award in the District Court, but the Receiver filed a Notice of Stay in that action.
Until the receiver removes the "Stay" our $21.9mil is null and void, because without a courts decision to confirm the arbitration award, it's worthless.

I haven't seen anything to say that the "Stay" has been removed by the Receiver, or did I miss that bit?

Ironically some people pay for his wisdom, John Peters has been a part Time Lecturer at Macquarie University in Sydney since July 2016, apparently he teaches Investment Management courses to Actuarial Students, so not long now before the Australian education system crashes and burns.

Croutom.

Whether you are Peter Wale or not it doesn’t really matter, because most people couldn’t give a toss, but you are definitely linked somehow with SML, because you seem to know too much about things we haven’t been told about.

For instance where did you get all these bits of information from? they all appear in your posts but not in any RNS’s that we have been given.

1) PEPR4735539 (( Where did you find this reference in the public domain ))

2) With a few outcomes (5) left to address on the PEPR (( Where does it state 5 conditions still to be rectified ))

3) if approved will start to generate some revenue which can be used to process the remaining part of the PEPR (( Who has said £400,000 is not enough to get the full PEPR ))

4) continue to engage with ATLA in a consistent, meaningful, and respectful way (aboriginal heritage) (( This is the correct wording, but not what was said in the RNS ))

5) DEM took just under a month to check the last resub (( Where does it state that ))

6) I hope that a PEPR resub is pretty easy bearing in mind that the Aus government have told them the issues and how to resolve (( Where did it state they have been told how to resolve them ))

I belive all the above are possibly correct, but have never appeared in an RNS.

You think version 9 is bad Hursty, imagine what version number we would be up to, if we hadn't employed professional??? people to do it for us, should do some due diligence when employing people.

Prop, I would also be interested to know who Arthur Hunt is, Croutom would you care to enlighten us.

I can't fault your sums on any of the scenarios Lupidog.

My thoughts about the scenarios.
1. We get finance and PEPR.------ That’s what dreams are made of, hopefully!!
2. We don't get finance but get PEPR.------ At least that would make it easier to sell LCCM.
3. We get finance and don't get PEPR.--- I can’t see this scenario is actually possible.
4. We don't get finance or PEPR.--- We are all doomed Mr Mannering, doomed I tell you.

"apparently part of the $400k will be used for the first few months production - so we don't have to wait for payment of the loan to get the wheels in motion"

Either JP is not keeping you up to speed, or someone is lying to us?

(RNS 25th Oct) The proceeds of the Placing will be used primarily to complete work required to satisfy conditions placed on the current PEPR associated with the Paltridge North deposit at the LCCM. In addition, the funds raised will be used to assist in the working capital requirements associated with funding Cornwall Resources Limited's ("CRL") portion of the DDC project, where the funding rebate process is taking longer than expected.

Croutom, Go back and re-read the email you posted from JP, you will notice what you have just posted is a total contradiction as stated below.

"The major funding requirement is paying for the three to four months of mining before revenues commence"

"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." -Abraham Lincoln

Dotcom that’s a big ask, I could try find out which bank it is/was, but I could just end up chasing ghosts and figments of JP’s imagination.

Looking back at a couple of the latest RNS’s, it reminded me of an old saying, banks will only lend you money, if you can prove you don’t need it.

RNS Fri, 8th Oct 2021 07:00
(JP) US $10m loan facility to LCCM, guaranteed by the Company, are being progressed with a top global bank.

With a market cap of only £8m (US$10.8m) what is the company going to use to guarantee the loan, bearing in mind we won’t have any production, because we can’t start work until someone gives us some money, anybody know the answer.

(JP) The bank has been undertaking due diligence
Should this not be ( is ) instead of ( has been ) the past tense makes it sound like they have already finished.

(JP) the Board is confident funding will not further impact the revised timetable to production.

RNS Tue, 26th Oct 2021 07:00
(JP) production at Leigh Creek which, subject to finance, is expected to commence in the first quarter of 2022.

Two weeks earlier JP said funding would not impact production.

Whenever JP puts anything into print, it always ends up contradicting the last thing he said.