Member Info for MF2017

@L1b3rtarian

I don’t think it’s about fragility. I actually value divergent views—often more than agreement—if there’s some rationale behind them.

The issue for me is time. When certain posters consistently make claims that don’t seem grounded or explained, it becomes noise I have to sift through to find the useful discussions.

So filtering isn’t about avoiding disagreement—it’s about improving signal. It helps me focus on posts (whether I agree or not) that at least attempt to explain why.

I’ve disagreed openly on here before (e.g. takeover discussions), so it’s not about echo chambers—it’s just about keeping the board readable and worthwhile. 🤷

These are the guys that I filtered:

Bukowski750, BodyShott, dsrt2012, buried_treasure, Buffett_Protege, Bonkers0801, HBLU, MrHumble, UPshunt, MRPlumper, GerbilBroth, bingobrodie8, Crisu, newbie222, Newt79

It's sad that the list keeps getting longer and longer. The filtering has been a godsend for the board, though.

I welcome the update and the chance to put questions to Harry and the team, and I’m looking forward to the presentation. That said, the absence of any RNS on Saudi feels notable.

Without new information, it’s hard to form a truly evidence-based view.

My expectation—unless something lands beforehand—is a clearer articulation of the raise and some high-level planning detail. In the near term, likely a period of churn while placing shares settle and we wait for either construction progress or meaningful Saudi updates. Short-term, that probably means range-bound movement; long-term, it’s still a case of sitting tight and waiting for first gold.

@brian76

Negative or counter views are always welcome—when they’re informed and evidence-based. Throwing out isolated figures without context just feels performative, not analytical.

@Newt79

Why? Gold is climbing?

What fundamentals have changed or calculations are you doing that makes you nk this?

🤡🤷

I’m here seven days a week—no disappearing act 🍆💪.

But ‘DYOR’ isn’t really a substitute for showing your working. 🤡🤡

If you’ve got a rationale for 0.5–0.8 by Friday, I’m all ears. Otherwise it just comes across as noise rather than analysis.

@Newt79

🤡🤡🤡

Predictions like 0.5–0.8 by the end of the week don’t really add much unless there’s a clear rationale behind them.

At this stage, the only number that really matters is whether the company gets to revenue and free cash flow—everything else is just noise.

Post 2 (Q&A + I disagree with the BOD + FCF)

One point from the Q&A I’d challenge: it was said it’s “unacceptable” to wait three years before pursuing expansion or exploration.

I don’t think we need to wait three years—but we do need to get the mine built and close to cash flow first.

So what’s the downside of waiting until we can fund expansion from strength?

The only real downside I can see isn’t strategic—it’s personal timeline.

If decisions are being accelerated to fit within someone’s tenure or retirement horizon, that’s not aligned with shareholder value.

Right now, the priority should be proving we can execute—by building a simple, viable open pit mine that generates meaningful free cash flow.

Once we have that, everything else—expansion, exploration, rerating—follows from strength.

Post 1 (Execution + management + market reality)

@PortfolioPower I appreciate your point, and it may hold more weight once construction is complete and we transition into operations.

Right now, though, I don’t see the case for adding more management or increasing overhead. We’ve just raised capital—this should go into building the asset, not expanding costs at the top while we’re still in construction.

It’s also easy to criticise Harry from the sidelines. This is a complex financing and development project in an emerging jurisdiction, and he’s built the relationships that made it possible. That deserves respect.

My sense is the market already understands the value and potential here. The issue isn’t the asset—it’s execution risk.

We were slightly undersubscribed on the retail offer. If a takeover was imminent, that would have been the perfect entry point—yet no one stepped in. That tells you something about how risk is still being priced.

So for me, it’s simple:

100% focus on getting Tulu Kapi to first gold and into cash flow.

@dvharrison

How do you come up with 3p?

What was the price of gold used?

To be clear, I’m not calling for Harry to go. I don’t think KEFI gets this far without his vision, persistence, and ability to navigate a very difficult environment. And at this stage, I don’t think it adds any strategic value for him to step aside—if anything, that would introduce more uncertainty when what’s needed now is stability.

But trust does take a hit when strategy shifts and expectations aren’t met. I understand pivots happen—but going forward the message has to be simple: full focus on Tulu Kapi and getting to revenue. No distractions, no chasing additional upside, no spending on things that don’t generate near-term cash flow.

What I’d like to see now is a reset in communication—clear, intentional updates and a steady run of “boring” progress. Slow, steady, predictable delivery as the mine gets built.

That’s all that’s needed. This should be the straightforward phase: build the mine, generate cash, and then grow from strength.

Everything else at this stage risks becoming a distraction—and ultimately, wealth destruction.

But that's been the message for the last few weeks. I am not overly concerned about short term sp movement.

I want our CEO to focus everything on a single revenue generating mine. No more cash from investors on potential value.

Sent below to KEFI team - put here for your thoughts:

Not interested in any additional value - want revenue and then fund from strength - no more distractions! 🤷💰💰

Good morning Harry and Roger,

Is the plan now to fund from strength?

It seems the placing was about securing certainty after the royalty route didn’t land. From a long-term perspective, I can accept that if it removes funding risk.

I recognise this has been a difficult period, but from a shareholder perspective the priority now feels very simple:

build Tulu Kapi, get to production, generate cash.

With the $34m now raised, is the intention to keep that fully focused on construction?

It would be very difficult to justify returning to the market for more capital if funds were diverted into exploration or additional licences ahead of revenue.

Everything else—Saudi, exploration, expansion—can follow once the company is funding itself.

The concern is that past decisions may have prioritised optional upside over certainty. As an investor, I’m only interested in capital going into assets that generate revenue in the near term.

That’s why I come back to one principle:

fund from strength.

Surely the message to the market now is simple:

"We are fully focused on Tulu Kapi—no distractions, no additional spend on exploration or new licences, and no pursuit of “potential value” ahead of revenue.

The capital raised is being directed to construction and production, with the goal of generating cash flow as quickly as possible. Everything else can be funded from that position of strength."

Saudi leaves us currently with unanswered questions and unclear timeline.

No more dilution. No more surprises. Delivery and revenue are the priority.

Best regards,

From Harry’s update: the 1.2p placing is being framed as a reaction to a geopolitical “shock,” with the decision to stop “finessing” and just secure funding. They now say Tulu Kapi is fully funded and moving (groundbreaking + resettlement), so it’s a clear shift to execution. Saudi is mentioned as upside via a separate vehicle, but no real detail or timeline.

My take: feels like we’ve been shafted by Chancery Royalty—turned out more “chancers” than partners—and management got caught out, leaving dilution as the only option. I’m a long-term holder with a decent position, but this is getting frustrating. I don’t want more licences, more exploration, or more “finessing.” Just build Tulu Kapi. Get to cash flow, then fund everything else from strength. No more surprises, no more dilution—just deliver.

Disappointed — a 1.2p raise is hard to square with recent messaging.

In Jan, KEFI said the prior raise had “completed the balance of the equity funding required for Project launch.” In Feb, the project finance package was described as “covered,” with the remaining ~$20–30m being finalised. That’s why this feels like a shift, even if it was never explicitly stated that no further PLC funding would be needed.

So the key question for me is simple: is this a dent to the narrative, or to the project fundamentals?

The latest RNS suggests total funding now exceeds capex and includes buffer, which should strengthen the project on paper. But the price and timing of this raise — after weeks of expecting the final ~$20m to be closed — raises fair questions about what actually changed.

I’m not in the camp that calls for constant updates, but in this case I do think we need clear, concrete explanation from Harry: what drove this decision, and where does this leave the funding structure now?

As for me, nothing really changes. I’m not trading this. I’m effectively locked in and waiting for construction and first gold.

Frustrating, yes.

Biggest question: is financing now finally closed — done?

@Kpow

Not sure I fully follow your comment, but the outcome speaks for itself. Clearing all debt in year one and already paying dividends to shareholders—what’s not to like?

I understand from 2929, right?

First year to psy off debts i.r. 2028, next 12 months pay dividends 2029.

Incredible!

On the takeover angle - predictably I know 🤷🤪

On the idea of a takeover halfway through construction — I’m still not convinced.

That’s usually the point where risk is highest: build risk, cost risk, no proven cash flow yet. Most majors wait until things are de-risked and first gold is in sight. So to me, this feels more like “possible” than “likely,” and maybe being leaned on a bit too much.

How I took Jeremy’s comments is slightly different as well. He openly said the royalty becomes more valuable if a major steps in — which is fair enough, but it also tells you where his incentives sit. It made me realise he’s not really invested in KEFI as a long-term equity story, he’s invested in Tulu Kapi as an asset.

That’s a bit disappointing for me personally. I’d assumed more alignment with the long-term build → production → dividend path. Instead, it sounds more like a portfolio approach — get the project moving, see a rerate, and potentially rotate capital elsewhere.

To be clear, the deal still works well for KEFI — getting capital in on terms that don’t bite until dividends is a big positive. But I do now see Jeremy more as a shorter-term player than I’d originally thought.

It also makes me wonder whether Harry always saw it that way and just needed the capital to get things moving — which, if so, fair enough.

For me though, the value is still in getting this built and producing, not in hoping for an early exit.

Hi all — and first of all, thanks for sharing the video. It’s genuinely useful to get wider context, especially hearing directly from companies invested in KEFI and Tulu Kapi.

As expected, I’m going to add a slightly sceptical layer.

Listening to Jeremy Gray, I think he partly gives his hand away. He clearly benefits in multiple scenarios — either from holding long-term or from a takeover — but he explicitly notes that his royalty becomes more valuable if a major acquires the project. That, to me, suggests his incentives are at least partly aligned with a rerating event (e.g. takeover) rather than purely long-term dividend flow.

It also stood out that he talks about deploying capital into other projects. That gives me the impression he’s excited about Tulu Kapi, but ultimately running a portfolio model, where capital rotates. In that sense, he’s invested in Tulu Kapi as an asset, not KEFI as a long-term equity story — which is an important distinction.

Here’s a tight, friendly post that

@ElectricLion and @Crazytowner — I liked something ElectricLion said earlier: “I think we’re closer.” And I think that’s right.

Most of us here probably agree on the fundamentals. The differences are really just degrees of probability about how certain scenarios might play out.

That’s the strength of a good bulletin board — people bringing slightly different perspectives and information to the same investment thesis.

After all, we’re all here for the same reason: we think KEFI is a great investment.

And if, in a couple of years, nothing’s been sold and I’m sitting there with boxes and boxes of dividend cash, both of you are invited to the party. Let’s agree it should be London… or maybe Paris.

All fantasies aside — good debate, gents.

#BallsDeepInKEFI #HoldForGold