Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Hahaaaaa that's so funny, I'm not even a man
I'm not Kevin, I literally have no idea what you're on about, but it doesn't surprise me that I'm the first person to notice your market manipulation tactics.
I literally have never posted on here before and only joined because I saw how much you talk about MM in your past posts, and I had to share it with others to mitigate the damage you might do.
I am a stranger to you, I have no idea who you are and I only saw your messages yesterday, but if I've noticed and this Kevin has noticed, and the CEO of Xtract has noticed, then you need to realise there's a reason for it.
Looks like you've got yourself in a sticky situation Steve, trying to manipulate share prices can land you in some serious trouble.
Now you're fighting for your life in the comments, but it is clear that you did this for your own benefit, from all your previous rhetoric about MM and your dodgy calculations that you are now trying to backtrack on.
Even the CEO isn't happy with you and is not going to take the trashing of the company SP lightly, so you better cross your fingers and hope it doesn't get escalated, because you know what that will mean...
A reminder, since you seem to be so forgetful about everything you have said, here's you today at 15:30, Steve...
"922k tons at 0.08% Cu" ?? 922k tons at 0.08% Cu is less than 74k tons of Cu. Where in the XTR RNS did you see those numbers?
The RNS had a table that breaks down the resource by cut-off and grade. The 1.1m tons is for 512mt at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq and includes both copper and gold. The copper grade is 0.18% so 512mt x 0.18% = 922k tons of copper. The gold grade is 0.05 g/t. Converting that into 'copper equivalent tonnage' accounts for the other 178k tons. The 0.01% CuEq cut-off is a combination of copper and gold grades, so with gold accounting for 18%, the copper grade cut-off is approximately 0.082%. Hence, 922k tons of copper at a 0.08% cut-off.
Steve you literally posted this on the 8th November:
I think everyone that has done their research is already invested. With no news for now, there is nothing to spark new investors, so the share price drifts down down on minimal volume. While it might have fallen to 3p-ish, the number of shares actually sold in recent weeks is only a small percentage of the total held. The MMs try to generate activity (which is how they make money) by moving the price around - usually down - far more than the trading activity would suggest.
Once news drops and sparks wider interest (assuming it is generally in line with expectations), the price is likely to move up rapidly, which is to the advantage of those already invested. Currently, its a test of patience and faith in your own research.
I can show you his exact calculation and where he has gone wrong vs the actual calc:
Steves calculation is as follows:
- Then take the above 512 and multiply by the 0.18% (expected actual grade) = 0.512*0.0018 = 0.9216m
- Multiply 0.9216 by 1,000 to convert from millions to k = 0.0009216*1,000 = 921.6 (or 922 rounded)
- Multiply the 922 by 0.08% (cut-off/minimum grade) = 922*0.0008
There are two mistakes in this approach, one is the minimum cut-off used has been stated as 0.08% when it is actually 0.1% as per the most recent RNS, and the 0.18% (expected) should be 0.22%.
But the biggest mistake by far, is multiplying the expected and THEN the minimum AS WELL.
The actual calculation should be minimum vs expected:
- Expected is 0.22%, so take 512m multiplied by 0.22% = 512*0.0022 = 1.1264
- Minimum is 0.1%, so take 512m multiplied by 0.1% = 512*0.001 = 0.512
So, the expected amount of copper is 1.1m and the absolute minimum copper would be 0.512m or 512k (not even close to the 74k Steve has calculated, because of his double multiplication)!
This reconciles with Colin Bird's rhetoric around having 1.1m and also reconciles with the most recent news release from 23rd November, titled "Xtract Resources notes updated mineral resource estimate", if you want to double check these numbers for yourself.
Steve, I think your calculation is wrong because you multiply the copper by the minimum grade cut-off (the 0.1%) and then after that you ALSO multiply the copper again by the maximum amount (0.22% from RNS or 0.18% in your calc).
What the RNS is saying, is that the copper will be between 0.1% (the cut-off/minimum grade) and 0.22% (the estimated actual grade).
If you take the 512mt and multiply it by the 0.22% copper grade, there is your 1.1m tons that Colin Bird keeps mentioning, and it is confirmed in the last sentence below.
Here is a direct quote from their most recent press release:
"...Says after the completion of the drilling programme, independent consultants Measured Group Party Ltd, updated the historic inferred mineral resource estimate to 512 metre tonnes at 0.22% CuEq, at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq. This contains 1.1 metre tonnes of copper equivalent metal and classified as indicated and inferred in accordance with JORC."
Whatever this is, Cela is most certainly in on it too, the phrase "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" comes to mind!
"Steve" probably is Colin...
Anyone can search your username "Steve4077" on Google and find out your true credibility, I am just stating facts that I've found, but I'd love to know why anyone should trust someone that features on a website dedicated to outing market manipulators?
You know I checked your posting history, so has everyone else now.
100% posts in the past 30 days on XTR only...
Maybe you can explain why you feature on Pumped or Dumped as users not to trust?
A direct quote from PumpedorDumped:
"Do remember these folks can flip from ramping to de ramping a share. This does not remove them from the database at all, they remain. However, this should show you who is trusted or not - going from ramping one day to deramping later is a sure sign!
If they have a high post count they won't want to give up their account and go back to being a low post count #nocredibility type, however you will be much wiser..."
Congratulations on being number 151 of the list of the worst market manipulators in the world, that's some achievement!
Blocked for spreading misinformation, to benefit from changes in share prices?
I'm not asking or expecting people to trust me, I'm just providing evidence of why not to trust Steve.
I did my own research on him today and made an account on here to share this information, because I thought it too valuable to keep to myself.
You can take it or leave it, but the information is there about his history of manipulating the markets, and he has a reputation for pumping and dumping which is bad enough for him to be listed in the top users not to trust on the pumped/dumped website, so it wouldn't be the first time he has manipulated the share price in order to benefit personally.
I don't agree with these sort of tactics, which is why I have just provided the information on his background, for anybody to make their own conclusions.
Cela24- do you not think that at least one of their 31 employees, who are in the numbers of the business all day every day, and have a significantly greater interest in the company, would have notice their plan was not "economically viable"?
More so than someone outside of the company, who has a vested interest in, and a history of making money from, artificially moving the prices of shares?
Links have been removed, but a Google search for pumpedordumped Steve4077 will bring you to the page.
Steve4077 cannot be trusted for the following reasons:
- Member since Sep 2020 and almost every single comment has been on Xtract or Bezant share price (both with ties to Colin Bird).
- Earliest posts refer to manipulating share prices and questioning the outcome of FCA complaints, direct quote from his first post on LSE:
"...the share price is still going nowhere. I know there have been suggestions of MM on this forum and I found the following link about an FCA complaint on those lines from 2019.
https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/fca-complaint-case-ref-205882095-422
I was just wondering if this complaint was resolved and what was the response of the FCA?"
- Named and shamed for pumping and dumping on this website:
http://******************/rampchecker/rampcheckbytidm.php?search=COBR
I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of this guy's mouth, or his "analysis"...