Member Info for GreenWolf

bigeye - that's nonsense - that's nothing but a binary outcome - win or lose. You invest in shares to get a return and you invest based upon the company information, made public by the responsible body - the Board of Directors which was headed up by Rufus. I still don't get the defending of Rufus - as a CEO he failed miserably in returning any shareholder value and the share price tells us that.

Bigeye - " continually lower the sentiment towards Edl" - we've had that discussion many times before. Investors dont invest on sentiments, they invest on facts and fundamentals. All the hot air in the world on this board has no bearing on our P&L and the share price. Rufus was in charge, the share price has been decimated under his stewardship - who else is to blame? CEOs and high paid people in private companies are measured on their success around share prices and profits. That's why he's gone.

aerial - he has decimated shareholder value whilst reaping his own rewards from an inflated salary and a load of cheap (0.02p) shares. I do find it very odd that you continue to defend Rufus, despite the fact the rest of the BoD have quite clearly come to the same conclusion as a number of shareholders. Just remember - we are a loss making company, so it is shareholders money and debt that has supported us over the last ten years or so. GLA

It's a fixed coupon rate - it means you pay £20k to borrow £100k, however long you borrow it for, although it must be paid back by the due date. It's not the same as interest on the loan, so it wouldn't be pro rata depending on time. GW

Sausage - output figures from when?

aerial - there you go - they were sells!

aerial - I'm not wholly convinced they're buys given the online quote I am getting for quantities above 500k shares. The spread is way tighter than on here. GW

brightspark - I disagree - that's not how big investors work. Look at what McMaster has just done - he lent us £100k in November and in 2months he has £120k. Where can he possibly get that sort of return elsewhere? The secret to getting rich is quick returns - it's where a lot of us go wrong on the stock market by overtrading or holding on too long and chasing the dream. It's the same with placing shares - big investors don't tend to hold on to them especially when they are high risk / AIM type shares that "might" come good. They buy in as low as possible and then flip them for a profit. And of course if you get it bang on, you end up on a free ride just in case it ever does come good. This is exactly what I said about the mega rise we had from 0.02 to 0.12 - the big investors are likely to be in the know far earlier than us - they flip their shares, bag the money and end up on a free or fairly free ride. That's how they manage their risk and reward. Most PIs simply are not in that league. GW

Sausage - just been catching up after flying back, thankfully not from the far east. It was a positive RNS yesterday on funding at a reasonable price and quite open about the output figures over the last two months being next to nothing, which is refreshingly honest. AM certainly has a far more positive tilt to his words. Next week is a bit of a key for me in terms of the share price. There is quick money to be made here for investors - buy at 0.04 on a placing and our bid is currently hovering around 0.05, which is 25% return straight off. That's my only slight reservation on potentially buying back in to pull my average down. GLA

aerial - because of our BoDs "foresight" we are losing c£100k a month even though we aren't paying any Director salaries, so that is racking up as a liability too. If our BoD really had intelligent foresight they would have thoroughly reviewed their own capabilities and decided that actually nobody knew that much about opening up and running a mining operation and got somebody in years ago. It's great to have the foresight to do something, but only fools rush in, particularly when ,as is now apparent, they quite clearly have naff all experience of running a mining operation. I still don't understand why you are so defensive of the BoD - you are no doubt heavily invested in Edenville at some significant paper loss - that shareholder value has been eroded by lots of spending, probably millions in salaries, which has tanked our share price and put is in a load of debt. But that's all in my humble opinion of course. Who knows - Alistair might just pull us out of the mire, but I suspect he's been pulling his hair out for the last few months. Good weekend all. GW

Aerial - the belief we will be break even within Q2 2020......yes, it's in the RNS, but then so were many other things we simply haven't achieved. It's all about money now - we are clearly having to scrape the barrel (I'm still interested in that allotment of c£5k of shares last week - what was that for?) And that knife edge I've mentioned before and been castigated for, is here. If we can't get more investment, we're finished and Lind get first dibs on our assets. Genuinely GLA - we need it at the moment.

Aerial - I know nothing about Kibo but there's a whole world of difference between deciding to extract it and understanding if the business model works. Rufus was an explorer who in my view rightly decided to look at short term mining - but he's little experience of whether that works and we should have had someone like Alistair on board first, who undoubtedly would have looked at the option of short term mining and decided if it was financially astute. We sort of know the answer to that.

aerial - I do like your continued praise of the BoD and the use of foresight. You must be related to Rufus!! Seriously, I have just never bought that - you discover 170m+ tonnes of near surface coal - you're hardly going to leave it all in the ground until a power plant is built. And we have a continued debate about revenue - it's no use having a revenue stream if your costs of sales are greater than your sale income. That's how company's go bust. Which is our problem. Edenville was built on a business model around the RCPP - our website still promotes that - "focused on the Rukwa coal to power project in Tanzania". That's massively changed the investment model. It is huge risk here now for potential strategic investors, particularly as our BoDs "foresight" with the CLF has tied up all our assets to the loan agreement with Lind. We need something very transformational, very quickly. GW

aerial - sometimes people deliberately leave holes so others will fill them. You know my quite substantial knowledge about this as we had a protracted discussion about the World Bank and proposed schemes etc. It will be there in my posting history. My point is simple - like you say, RCPP which was the basis of our investment model, has gone. Yes, it could come back at the drop of a hat, or it might not. I'm guessing that's very much norrab's point - the world is changing and Tanzania may well have pulled the RCPP to look at alternative sources of producing cleaner energy. And to put the cherry on the cake, it's all gone very quiet with Sinohydro who were also looking at potential Chinese funding for a power plant. News please Alistair. GW

aerial - I read that as slightly twisted logic. The Rukwa mining was progressed as an advance measure ahead of supporting, if I recall correctly, a 320MW coal fired power plant. Sinohydro have always been keen to look at something bigger, which is commercial acumen. The power line coming into our area doesn't necessarily require a power plant- it is simply transferring electricity from somewhere, which could be the new facility at Rufiji, although I doubt that will be online by the proposed 2022. That's some 2000+ MW. I'm not really bothered about aspirations from RNSs as we've seen plenty of hopes in Edenvilles RNSs fall by the wayside. Like you say, and something I've consistently talked about in relation to our operations and P&L - it's all academic without the money. GLA

Aerial - doesn't quite answer what I posted. If we have no funding for a coal fired power plant, of what use in a transmission line to us? And if we do get a 300Mw plant, how do we get to 90000t per month production on our current operational model? We've been mining already for over two years and got nowhere. Combine that with not insignificant monthly losses, we desperately need news, including on the MoU. I'm with Sausage - I suspect a discounted placing could be on the cards, but perhaps that may present another averaging down opportunity. GW

aerial - what is the use of the transmission line without a power plant - the Rukwa plant is an aspiration at the moment - there's no confirmed funding and Sinohydro were also looking at this as part of the MoU (that's gone quiet)? And if we do get a power plant, how much coal a day is it going to need - I estimated 300Mw needs about 3,000t a day, which is 90,000t a month - I'm interested in views on that, because if that's correct, how are we going to get anywhere near that volume to service it?

Aerial - put simply whoever reported Norrabs post is suppressing the right of open speech and presentation of facts. They have quite clearly not liked the article, moaned at Admin and are undoubtedly a regular reporter of posts given the swift removal. That is the sort of behaviour that is killing, sorry has killed, this board. The fact norrab has or hasn't lied about things in the past (I have no personal opinion on this by the way) is irrelevant - the factual article on hydropower could have opened up a nice debate on our future if we can even get to break even. I guess for the sake of honesty, do you know who reported the post?

aerial - I agree that honesty is very much the best policy. I don't agree with the removal of Norrabs posts as I found them a good reminder of last summer's article. I don't see how it broke rules on this board and it stifles the debate, which is very much what is now missing. I would add that with approaching 18,000 posts (you know that's an average of at least 9 posts on LSE every single day since you joined??), I can't fail to imagine that you personally have put more research on here than anyone else. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to suppress the posting of factual articles. GW

norrab - I agree with the sentiment, but that's more the reason why we can't have objective debates anymore. I see nobody has picked up on my back of the cigarette packet tonnage requirements for a coal plant - I can't say the operation of power plants is very high on my knowledge list so it is a genuine question of everyone on here. But probably lost in the noise.....GW