The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Come on then Lenoman, do something you seem to be totally incapable of doing, add something that is of relevance to the company. If what I post is so amusing then offer some arguement against what I post or are you unable to.
Attack the post not the poster.
Feel free to bin me yourself then Leno.
Can't say I have any opinion of you other than an unpleasant waste of space who adds nothing of value but takes down negative posts that don't suit your agenda.
If people want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality then they are free to do so.
Oops, being economical with the truth again, another amendment 0.19g/t raw Pt, 75% of which gives 0.143g/t of pure Pt and other PGMs. Note to self, check notes before posting. Wrist severly slapped and given myself a talking to, me bad.
So, any substance to back up your claims Makeabundle? Or I'll have to green bin you as a serial ramper :)
I will amend my previous post as I was working on the specific gravity of gravel when further looking into it a cubic metre of average dry gravel weighs 1.68t so the average grades are higher than I previously said.
So average grade of 0.19g/t of raw Pt, 65% of which gives 0.125g/t of pure PT and other PGMs.
So come on Makeabundle, where have I been seriously economical with the truth because if you don't want to point to anything then it's you simply offering bluster and nothing to back up what you are saying.
Attack the post not the poster.
Hi Makeabundle,
As Mr Wolfe suggests you do seem to imagine you hold some importance here with your threats of green binning people put across as some form of terrible punishment when it's just more a case of you seeking confirmation bias like many others.
Would you like to highlight the many positives you see in the RNS mentioned that mean buyers are at the table?
I have highlighted information given by the company both you and I are invested in that is the most important bit regarding any buyers beeing (or not) at the table for WK, in situ grades show the economics as do the amounts of reserves/resources. In fact I didn't present them as badly as I could because they have average grades of 0.325g/m3 of Raw Pt not pure PT. As Raw Pt contains on average 70% pure Pt and 5% in other recoverable PGM's (RNS 15/5/19) then the actual grades are lower.
You want to believe that WK is worth a large amount of money if sold, I am pointing out the reality of why I don't hold your belief via company released information. That doesn't make my credentials dubious,.
I suggested you green bin me in my last post to you because I couldn't give a .... if you do or not.
With reference to the 15 March 2021 RNS on WK.
You can see they have 13,760,000 cubic metres of gravel containing 4477kgs of raw Pt. So 0.325g per cubic metre of gravel. As gravel has a specific gravity of 2.8 they have 0.12g/t which is very low grade. There is a small amount of free Au as well and past production has shown higher actual grades mined but more recently they have also processed lower grades than expected.
"Can you tell me when CS deliberately misled us?".
7th December RNS.
"Active discussions are maintained with counterparties in HK and Russia but as yet no terms have been agreed" So not counterparties but potential counterparties.
"Value of unsold concentrate £3.5m". Never said whether the concentrate is all of WK production, if it is then EUA would only be due 68% of the £3.5m.
"Announcement 8 February 2022 which updated reserves and resources at MT and NKT". No, it gave one figure for MT, NKT and all the potential JV areas added together.
"Company received a licence for Travyananya area2". No, KK received the licence and EUA own 68% of KK so overstated EUA's ownership by nearly 50% (difference between 68% and 100%).
Makeabundle, if you want to believe our CEO is "ever trustworthy" then that is your perogative. Quite how you come to the conclusion I am some "leader" I will never know but, again, your perogative. I do, and have, accepted I can be pedantive around detail and it being presented correctly.
I wouldn't belittle our CEO with sarcasm, I'm happy to call out misinformation and failings by him in a straightforward way, I have done since first posting here and will continue to do so as is my perogative.
Feel free to relegate me to your sizeable green bin as it's clear we are miles apart regarding how we view prospects here.
MyIPA, your post yesterday, at 22.43, didn't include any detail of "indemnifying the company, directors and employees etc" your quote detailed only the undertaking made by Q and M that the share certificates had been lost, stolen, destroyed or not received, ie;- anything other than sold to another party. Perhaps you could have linked to the Tomlin order so what it said was clear to all.
These are 3 named share certificates, each for significant numbers of shares. If someone tried to sell shares held on a named certificate where they weren't the named holder it wouldn't work especially as the registrar had cancelled those certificates leaving both Q and M unable to do anything with their holdings hence the court case.
Yes, marked difference between an imdemnity and an undertaking hence the delay in M and Q being given their certificates, if they had provided imdemnity then no real delay would have been needed.
As no-one knows what the settlement was to Gowlings then pointless to guess what it was or claim what it was.
There is still clause 6 which allows either the claimant or defendant to apply for such further directions as they see fit after 5th March (date share certificates handed to Q and M) so not over yet although no further action may happen.
Except EUA claim in their last coporate update that they were issued the license implying they own 100% of it, whereas if it was issued to KK (there was a copy posted here which showed it was) then they only own 68% of the license.
The same with their claim on the value of the sand concentrate, that amount seems to refer to the whole WK production and not the 68% that EUA are entitled to.
Not really a surprise RNS.
We knew the tax case had been won and I said previous accounts had mentioned provisions set aside for tax had the case not been won of £1.65m which should come back into company coffers as the case found in KK's favour.
Because I've asked if the company want to say what the over £10m moved to the holding company is used for and they don't want to answer.
I been investing in AIM for 25 odd years and have learned never to put blind faith in any BOD but to question things.
That £10m + was raised at the expense of diluting shareholders, if it's being used to actually benefit shareholders by adding value that at some point is realised by shareholders then good but it could be being used to pay directors in a way that can't be seen and adding to the salaries they are already drawing and which are seen in the published accounts for EUA. The holding company doesn't publish any accounts nor can it be chased for any losses the subs rack up.