RE: Looking ahead20 Aug 2025 09:37
Coldfeet, the issue with some posters here is that they post opinion as fact and then build upon the opinion to rubbish the company. That they do this time and again, indicates either a lack of critical thinking that, having been challenged once or twice, one might hope they would amend or a deliberate attempt to mislead other readers, for whatever reason, which some might call having an agenda. As certain posters do seem determined to write almost anything to undermine sentiment toward the company and its management, to the extent of verging on libel, it is hardly surprising that they are called out for their deceit. Isn't it better though that such, to put it kindly, "misinformation" is actually challenged and the reality made clear than others are misled by allowing the claims to stand? And is it surprising that said posters behaviour irritates those who simply want honest debate about the realities of the operations but have to spend time challenging, time and again, the "misinformation" ?
On your point with regard the "M" word... Why is the relevance of the company being perceived as a miner an issue? Quite simply, the cost base, risks and timescales associated with being a traditional DEEP miner, which is the kind of mining automatically associated with the word, are entirely different to JLP's operations, which are predominantly about processing and refining. That we now own, but are not going to operate, shallow, open-pit mines of exceptional grade transitional copper ores, does not make us a "miner" with all of the associated risks and costs that go with the usual use of that term. So anyone using the mining term casually in reference to the company, either through ignorance or with intent, is propagating a misperception as to what it does and how it does it. This matters and is rightly highlighted when it happens.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
