Member Info for NikeAir180

Banbury, I was going to get round to telling ya, I don't have any heroes but I"ll tell ya again - ya wrong...

That's quite funny, almost worthy of Kemche himself.

Re. 2026: El limon - profitable production of more than one year and subsequent successful sale - for which a royalty might be relevant in the months ahead.

Jupiter iron ore asset / investment, RRR had good years with that, sold their share of it in 2021 and finished that year in profit in spite of the pressure of the covid pandemic.

Taking part in a fund raise for Power Metal Resources, later selling their investment at a profit and any other investments invested in and subsequently sold with a received gain on the investment.

Any fund raises that have sustained RRR as a company are a type of success for maintaining the company combined with annual reports requirements met annually and no suspensions I am aware of, is a type of success re. continuinig as a listed company, hopefully there will be some good days ahead with progressing one or more of their assets.

Re.1931: Blueboy1975: you exaggerated from negative sentiment and ptesented it as fact. The directors section of the Red Rock Resources company website, provides a summary of Bell's professional experience, he worked for Morgan Grenfell & Co in the.1970s. I have previously read via "Simply Wall Street" online research facility that Bell ran a specialisist fund in the base materials sector, which was the most successful in its' sector for several years. I accept not everything has worked out well for RRR in the past but I think there have been a few successes.

Re. 17: 30: Zumore the final link you put up in that post re. Stockbox interview 29th April 2024 regarding the aspiratuon of putting up a fence at approximately 9 minutes - it was aspirational, assuming relevant staff and equipment were on site - between then and now we have had a a VAT issue with air freight for larger scale equipment and various issues re. ability of previous potential managamwnt arriving to site with staff for initial production. Because of the subsequent slowness since the 29/04/24 video, I don't think the fencing was put up, now there is different on site management looking to use smaller scale equipment (perhaps at lower operational cost) to hopefully start or continue the initial start of initial small scale gold - production.

You extract information from different times - months, occasionally years to try and apply it to your critique on an indidual day but information relevant to the present and plans or tactics sometimes change as a result of cirunstances and re. potential initial gold production, we have been kept informed via RNS' and subsequent... video interviews.

Your April 29th link is at approximately 9 minutes contained aspirational comment relating to a different potential management and some progress did not happen - which I think incuded putting up a fence - an aspirational idea to the concept re. the plan at that time.

R

Except Banbury, there are variations you are not considering. In december 2023, Bell visited this share chat when he decided to correct something erroneous you had suggested, he said he would ask someone to read, without posting, RRR share chat. The other possibility includes other readers unconnected to that, who read without generally or ever posting as well as other posters via which Bell might have become aware or he might have noticed away from this share chat, I haven't watched the most recent informal update from him yet.

Re. concluding 16:20: ... as long as their (RRR's) holding in ALR remains around 50%, no further RNS purely on that is required, in my opinion.

Around 50% is the same as approximately 50%, I was taught aprroximation of exactly in the middle of two figures will be estimated up to the higher number. 45.0 to 54.9 is an example of a percentage range that is approximate to or around 50%. The figure 47% is within that range so for anyone getting excited about that, they are, in my opinion, wasting their energy.

The March 08th 2023 fund raise mentioned a fund raise which was still ongoing, different individual's or groups percentage holdings could have increased, stayed the same (approximately stayed the same) or diluted after a fund raise, I don't think we were told if the fund raise had concluded, aspects of it could carry on and as long as RRR maintain a holding of around 50% in ALR no updates purely on that are required in my opinion. It is quite possible that if RRR were slightly below 50% at some point, they would look to have bought back or might do so to 50.1% or perhaps they won't, as their holding in ALR remains around 50% no further RNS purely on that is required.

Two slices of toast later, 15:40 correction: Any one...

Re. 06:08: I've already responded on 47% being within the appoximate 50% range etc, as long as RRR maintain a holding, even if they adjust their holding, between 45.0 and 54.9, maybe 55.0 if I'm being generous, I don't think they have to issue another RNS purely about ALR because of what the 08/03/24 RNS already states.

Banbury referrred to Helpful's "Peter and his friends" banter comment. Banbury also said, Helpful thought that he was called Peter, that seems like it might be over-interpretation. There is a comedy film from the 1990s called "Peter's Friends". The comedy series Family Guy has recurring characters in it known as a group by "Peter and his friends". Beyond that, names can be substituted for convenience or comedy aspect in general dicourse. Anyone of these facts could have influenced what I took to be a banter comment involving the choice of a substitutional name.

"Biggest surprise" as a range comment was exaggeration by Banbury.

There is sometimes back and forth between Banbury and Helpful.

Re. 23:22: Specinvestor99, your continuation was noted at the time of this reply. I don't agree with your opinion of Helpful and remember the content of his response so I don't believe he does either.

Acknowledging, at 23:06, I thought I was on the other and main thread of today, Specinvestor99 commented on that one at 16:10, initially before responding to a subsequent post, I though his most recent post at the time I am typing was 22:10 but it was 22:16, so Zumore's post was at 15:02 on the main thread of today, not this one. I will correct / clarify part of my 23:06 comment: similar to what I said on the other thread, there have been a lot of comments today, I will unite one feature of both my most recent comments by saying, there are various aspects of humour.

As I said earlier, there have been a lot of comments on thread. I read Specinvestor99'comment at 22:16 where he starts by acknowledging humour, then I read Zumore. The 15:02 post of the latter contained a quote from Helpful, I think the 5 million tonnes question was rhetorical and on the day of the original post, I read it with humour.

Correcting 19:36 and acknowledging 15:44:

There have been a lot of posts on this thread and as well as checking some RNS' I am utising memory for part of RRR's assets that I have not referred back to much in my own research.

If the local partner had 25%, perhaps Helpful and his friends had over 10%, for some reason I had over 30% in my mind but could very well have been mistaken. I do specifically remember Bell in video interview (one or two from memory) mentioning someone who I assume to be the local partner re. interest in ALR as well as RRR interest in ALR, don't think that had anything to do with Helpful and his friends with regard to not be part of that group via percentage of holding. It remains that Banbury has been too focused on Helpful and in my opinion is wrong to use what I consider to be erroneous supposition to falsely claim a fact and then erroneously focus that as part of his negative and sometimes incorrect criticism.

The core things to think about in response to some of Banbury's comments on this thread.

African Lithium Resources was set up as a private subsidiary 75% owned company by RRR in March 2022.

The annual year end report of december 2023 for up to end of june 2023, lists the percentage of ALR owned by RRR as 65% in the june 2022 category.

The 08/03/23 RNS does refer to RRR working with a local partner re. Afican Lithium Resources - it is at the start of the boxed section and I think the work was concerning a fund raise. RRR estimated once the fund raise was concluded, they would own about 50% of ALR.

The local parter was not considered by Banbury when he was earlier trying to say Helpful and his friends had over 50% of the asset, from memory and unless much has changed I think it is over 30% for that group. I think the local parner has 10%+ or 10% or still near 10% and RRR has somewhere close to 50%. I think it will be more than 45% and less than 55%.

I remember at least one or two videos relating to ALR from RRR and definitely don't consider the only interests outside... RRR to be the people who Banbury wrongly attributed 53% ownership of ALR to.

I acknowledge I was imprecise at the start of my 14:55 post which I wrote from memory. I remember Banbury referring to 47% and RNS - by lack of it but I forgot the lack of it, when he was posting about ALR / RRR.

47% is still within the approximate range of 50% so I regard that difference as of minimal significance and regarding approximate percentage this sounds like something I might have typed in the past relating to such matters. Even if RRR's interest was slightly under 50%, possibly even 47% re. ALR it would, if I am broadly correct be the biggest miniority interest in ALR, I don't know when the funding process concluded, perhaps RRR's interestes ended up being a few percent higher than 47 and was by the end of that process slightly over 50%, perhaps the annual report for 2024 will show us what it was in June 2023 but unless I have forgotten a detail, the funding may not have concluded at that stage for ALR so there could still have been a small range of subsequent difference.

Banbury, you are missing a couple of details in your other percantage criticism, though I will also correct myself.

Think I may have been wrong at the start of 14:55, can't remeber that detail for certain and will check through later.

Re. 15:41: Zumore, no × multiple = combination of strong opinion and absolute fact.

Helpul, I am rembering it as over 30% (re. not as much as 53%) from a previous comment on this share chat; re. 47% - RRR, I may have made a mistake there

in my earlier comment today, I have assumed there was an RNS saying 47%, that figure has occasionally been posited, happy to be corrected if I am wrong on that.