Member Info for Markyess

That we got caught up in a Reddit pump and we all managed to exit at around £1.50-£2 a share ...

It was a shame to wake up! :-)

Regarding the offer of options and a potential for a takeover - the company has to act 'business as usual'. Even if there was a takeover offer, it doesn't mean it'll materialise nor be successful. If there is one, and it takes place, then the Options will be superseded and redundant but the company can state in all good faith that the takeover was not on the table when the options were issued.

I'm also hoping to attend the GM - equally without expectation, but it is an opportunity to have some informal chats with the leadership. Although they can't state anything material off the record, I've generally found you can still glean a lot of added value that is not evident in the formal business.

PC - There's far too many variables at this juncture to give you a reasonable answer. A lot of the price movement will be driven by a multitude of variables, news flow, and market sentiment.

If we get a good run of positive news, then even if options are below market, there's no reason to suggest that there'll be a mass sale. If there's not a run of good news and the share price is above 0.18p when the share options are executed, there may be some profit taking and a short term price decline.

If you find a company selling good crystal balls, I'm in for one. :-)

I'm still of the opinion that T/O is the most likely natural conclusion and I'm not averse to it. Just thinking through what other options may be on the table.

With regard to the change of Management team at FU, is there no possibility that the new management team have close association to a laboratory from prior to their involvement at FU? I.e. a personal relationship, rather than an FU relationship.

Note: I'm a little uncomfortable bandying 'FU' around so freely on an amiable chat platform. :-D

I think the woes are generally more with us LTH's than with the Johnny Come Latelys. By and large, the JCL's are sitting pretty with low cost holdings and probably tidy profits.

The recent corporate actions are very positive for folks sat holding an average cost >0.10p - but a little more frustrating if your average is >0.30p :-)

In my case, it's my own fault for clinging on to the potential of Togo, and my personal demand that Keras 'wipes it's own face' regardless of the associated performance of the Calidus in specie return.

Thinking about it over night, there is a slightly less benign and boring potential explanation for the use of the Canadian standard and it still concerns First Uranium.

It could be as simple that, as a significant investor, they have access to laboratories that can guarantee us a rapid turnaround, given global backlogs across assay processing and they just happen to be over the border. There are a number of 'Mutual Jurisdiction' laws that allow sharing of standards across North America - but the impacted company has to sign up for them....

It'll be interesting to see how this develops. I feel First Uranium will grow more and more pivotal to Diamond Creek's future.

We wouldn't be obliged to follow the regulatory practices of an individual investor. It'd ordinarily be custom to follow procedures of the local operational country or the parent company's country.

Additional: Some uplift attributable to that value based on rising mineral prices since the Shard Capital study, too.

So very roughly, we'd be looking at a share price fully diluted of around 0.27p for 100% owned DC based on a £20m MCAP across 7.4bn shares.

That could be subjected to some TBC uplift based on formal confirmation of resource reserves (and mine life extension) to whatever approved mining code, plus then a 'takeover offer' premium. A few too many known unknowns to have a fair stab, but we can use 0.27p as a fairly confident starting point based on what we do know.

That's based on a zero attributable value for Nayega and Ogaro.

It's a good question - frankly with the proliferation of shares on issue, I've lost track. How many shares on issue did we have when the Shard Capital note valued us (based on a 51% holding?) It's probably easiest to start from there and extrapolate out.

Suffice to say, Jim - taking the saving grace of Calidus out of the equation, I'm not sure that Keras will be 'wiping its own face' in its own right for either of us based on DC alone.

I picked up a few thousand extra in Calidus via my Limited Company. Dipping (quite well) below the $ mark on a day that commissioning was announced just seemed like a gift too good to turn down.

I'm glad my dog had me awake at 5AM this morning!

My first instinct this morning was 'prelude to a takeover'.

Yep, you're right on SDGM. Falcon Isle is still Falcon Isle in the US and will continue to be so (I would suggest). It's a privately owned company that essentially just has a change in owners/directors, but that wouldn't require any change in the company name, registration nor US financial/statutory reporting. It's just Falcon Isle wholly owned by Keras, rather than Falcon Isle partially owned by Keras and the other chap.

Agree on the strategic 'fog' - as I said earlier on, if the company has plans to ditch Togo, I'd like to know as in essence, it's the only reason I continue to hold.

whoops - rather fundamental mistake in that post,

Last sentence, 2nd para should have read:

It's not really been spelt out, and so it is not outside the realms of possibility that 'other activities' 'expanding products' and 'making DC work' *aren't* mutually exclusive?

I think only part of that is asked of me? SDGM is not wholly owned by Keras, and so the listing is necessary. FI is wholly owned by Keras, but wouldn't need to reflect a name change - in fact, that would run counter to building a brand and market.

I'm not sure the rest was aimed at me, but ref: your last question - I guess it would depend on what those other activities are? It's not really been spelt out, and so it is not outside the realms of possibility that 'other activities' 'expanding products' and 'making DC work' are mutually exclusive?

I would hope that financials and sales plans were included within FU's due diligence, as they're pretty basic/fundamentals?

Falcon Isle will probably permanently remain as a trading name and a wholly (privately) owned subsidiary company in the United States. Similar in principle to Société Générale des Mines being the named company in Togo.

Frankly, yes, I think it is just about the funds. I'm not sure we're obliged to take any guidance nor expertise from them, unless they make greater strategic intent to take over.

I agree the failure to generate the funds through non-dilutory means is a huge slap across the face. But as I said, the FU board would have had to undertake their due diligence under their fiduciary responsibility to their own shareholders before investing.

I'm probably being slow on the uptake here, but I'm not sure I see your concerns with the new investor.

First and foremost, they're an investor looking for return on their investment. You'd assume that they've exercised their fiduciary responsibility to their own shareholders before making the investment? Is it not therefore some positive indication that they feel they can generate value for their own shareholders?

At this moment, I'm not sure their strategic objective is as much of a concern as understanding what ours is. That may change if they look to strengthen their position and potentially seek a takeover, of course ...

I don't disagree - there is seemingly no value attributable to Togo in the share price. It is, however, a significantly more valuable proportion than Diamond Creek and one that we've sunk a lot of time and effort into, and so I feel that we are entitled to a frank update on our strategic interest (or not).

As a LTH, if we've cut Togo, I'd rather cut bait and move on. I don't see Diamond Creek as significant enough on it's own to make the juice worth the squeeze. Being totally frank and honest.

My concern was with the notion of an absolute cut away - I was (incorrectly) under the assumption that Russell was predominantly leading on Togo (putting the erstwhile 'in country manager' aside), and so with him stepping back, we'd have no Togolese coverage whatsoever. I don't know how Graham's role had so significantly slipped my mind.

In terms of prioritisation, nothing has happened in Togo for 3 years, Diamond Creek is in production and requires time and attention to optimise both production and sales, so making the US a primary focus seems sensible and doesn't concern me. In fact, from a shareholder value/prioritisation perspective it makes sense, it is the jam today/tomorrow whilst Togo still seems to be fumbling around for a definition on the strawberries and sugar to make the jam. Togo is still certainly the biggest opportunity - don't get me wrong.

My concerns were that Togo has completely slipped off the table - on balance, I still feel it has, but a reminder that Graham was actually significantly involved placates my concerns that there is no longer anyone in the building at all with Russell stepping back.

TL:DR A Board statement on Togo would be appreciated. Even if it is to say, 'no news, we don't expect anything soon, but we're committed as ever' - or even - 'Gnassingbe has sh*t the bed on us and cut off one of our fingers'.