Member Info for NikeAir180

... second paragraph re. 03:43.

Sunstar Philipines 10th August 2015 is the article, I've copied the link twice and each time it is a large spiel when pasted and doesn't seem to open up, I used to be able to send links on a tablet but don't seem to be able to on a phone, at 03:43, I refer to some of the content of the article, in the first paragraph...

Https://www-sunstar-com-ph.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sunstar.com.ph/amp/story/more-articles/gas-beneath-west-philippine-sea-enough-to-energize-entire-country?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_ct=1724986391595&_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17249863872028&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunstar.com.ph%2Fmore-articles%2Fgas-beneath-west-philippine-sea-enough-to-energize-entire-country

That is a valid link at 03:19, it's just long because I don't properly know how to send links on a phone compared to a tablet, hence the extra spiel.

It is from a a 2015 article which refers to an impressive US estimate for West Philljpine Sea gas reserves and within the article it is considered there is enough gas to power the entire country.

Responding to Eddie at 23:27 and that article, this was from another source... ExxonMobil did leave the joint venture, it was in 2011 - four wells, three of which produced - lower gas prices, I presume in 2011, ExxonMobil considered it to be not commercial enough and left the project and the production to their partners - who I hope it worked out for - that's all the details I know but will add: I think surveying technology and computer modelling is now more sophisticated, engineering is probably more advanced in some respects as well.

Cheers...

Https://www-sunstar-com-ph.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sunstar.com.ph/amp/story/more-articles/gas-beneath-west-philippine-sea-enough-to-energize-entire-country?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_ct=1724984006386&_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17249838527144&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunstar.com.ph%2Fmore-articles%2Fgas-beneath-west-philippine-sea-enough-to-energize-entire-country

News, I have a slightly different view to you regarding potential compensation. Firstly, if we include Stockbox interviews with RNS statements then it seems through a mixture of the formal and informal, we have recently had montly updates on that, amongst other topics - until it is resolved, that is fine for me. The last RNS that referred to that matter said that RRR awaits the "final metting" so I am not sure about an interim RNS unless it was part of a general update. I think RRR will be considering various aspects around this matter and don't dount they want to relay good news to share holders when they can but think they will exercise some due caution as well, I'm of the inclination to give them some peace and quiet over it, based on trust that they will try their best to get resolution.

If current Grrenland expenditure is to do with clean up costs, I am pleased the company is fulfilling its obligations - that would show it cooperates well with regulations and is important for reputation, it is satisfying to me that RRR is able to fund this in spite of recognising historic frustration to do with that asset and I think fulfilling that obligation if that is what is for or whatever the country's regulations are requiring it for, fulfillment of such by RRR is for the long term good.

More Elephant Oil assets following that diversification and more potential exposure for RRR...

Helpful, I think RRR were quite pleased with Elephant Oil diversifying to Coted'Ivoire...

Just a quick message or two from me News...

I am nut sure the exact timings of Bell and Johnson at Greatland Gold but I saw an interview with Johbson where he said it was in the 0's, they went in, restructured it and left when it was around 2.5p. The Haveiron discovery may have been afterwards, don't know the full details, think it went to about 38p+, don't keep up with that one now but obviously Newmont and Newcrest activities will have had some influence... Appreciate you will probably know a lot more on that as with Greatland Gold.

Regarding POW, it used to be African Battery Metals, Johnson rescued what had become a faiing company, helped to re-finance, re-focus and improve diversification of assets, a refreshed company was given the new name: Power Metal Resources. Think he left not that long before GMET spin out and it is worth noting some of the original uranium assets investment was down to Johnson. I wasn't in POW all the time Johnson was there but slightly longer than my first position taken in RRR, don't think he has reduced his POW position (could be wrong) but remember it was in the percent range you alluded to and he was the biggest individual investor until Rick Rule took his position, via his company.

Cheers...

Just realised my typo on 10:12 post when I was on the bus, reply was to AimDogs - apologies for typo.

11:17... 23/08/24 RNS' were updated on 27/08/24 so... updated RNS of 27/08/24 was what I meant to refer to by chronological combination with 24/01/24 RNS which would, if finally correctly posted, be two RNS, four attempts to post. : )

... The retained (third attempt at this post) assets haven't gone anywhere. The convertible loan to shares option acted upon and any extra shares that have been issued do not surprise me at a time where there is not yet any revenue, cash and or stock / royalty value from sale or compensation.

As well as the offer referred to in the updated RNS of 23/08/24, the RNS of 24/01/24 when chronologically combined, shows that there have been multiple approaches across two continents with regard to RRR assets and I think it is fair to see we are in a news period.

I apologise for my 11:09 post from 27/08/24 and appreciate that it was removed, I had mixed up two words in my personal conceptualisation, there was no attempt to knowingly mislead.

Thanks...

Okay AkimDogs re.07:42, I was adjusting to use a gentler example which is true and on reading back the timing of the expression, placinng of the words within the sentences was crucial so that a handshake was not just the end of an approach - imllies distinction but "as" was okay to get my meaning across.

Seeing as you couldn't resist yor evocation relating to those glass bottle deliveries.... The primary thing as I was thinking back why I was mixing in approach with offer, from knowledge and experience of the physical world is the wrong type of approach can sometimes be dealt with decisively, such an approach would of course have been considered an "offer". The two situations there, that I am most focused on are based on knowledge of and experience with, both checked by the police, both self-defence both fine, no harm done - best avoided if at all possible, I regard regulated sport and peaceful exercise as much more ideal.

The people you refer to, are on RRR closer to "bulls" than yourself...

18:17... Lac Gold Minerals Limited in the boxed section of 24/01/24 (which I went back to) mentioned two offers for sale or cooperation. This is for Coted'Ivoire.

In spite of my instinct, on looking up definition of the two words this is still unlikely to contain an offer.

Very quickly: once as a passerby I broke up a situation which was on the edge of violence, there was enough space to get between the two and I advised one to go in the direction he was walking home or to the train station. I then walked towards the other to shake his, hand, not because, I thought he was a good guy but because it would distract him and provide a physical barrier. As I closed the distance by walking a couple of short steps, I offered my hand to shake which he accepted, meaning the situation was basically over by that point, I could then check he was going home by bus (which was his form of travel) and he walked to the bus stop. The point is the physical approach I detailed was a type of offer.

It is clear why I was prone to mix approach and offer but I accept after carefully checking definition, in the business world they are conceptually distinct.

The physical tactic I used is not meant as advice or encouragement, it was just suitable for me - related to the two individuals at that time, in another situation it may not have been suitable.

Cheers...

Second paragraph of 18:17 is with reference to considerations of 25/08/24.

Re. 16:05: With respect, specinvestor99, to the RNS of 23/08/24 which was updated to today and with respect to RRR mentioning offer - RRAL, I believe RRR is true there and not false.

It was the 24/01/24 RNS I had in mind, I also had in mind when I was trying to work out if I was correctly recalling something to do with silver, this may have distracted me when I was reading it and thought some kind of offer had been made, as I mentioned at the time.

Although I have re-read that RNS, over the weekend and today multiple times, I was still misinterpreting it and looks like I have not read it enough, either glazed over the last paragraph before the boxed content or just misinterpreted it.

The crucial bit of thst RNS which I do recognise but did overinterpret was the final point in the highlights section regards Approaches by third parties for (at least some of) RRR's mining licenses in Coted'ivoire.

I have overinterpred appoaches to include offer(s) but that is not an offer to the same extent as regarding RRAL re. RNS information, it is not an offer in terms of an offer to buy, the semantics of "offer" could be stretched re. "approaches" and interested parties - final paragraph before boxed section, I think (these two words are approximate from memory).

The last paragraph before the boxed section of 24/04/24 I haven't read properly or probably missed it in recent days, it is clear from that on a proper read through that there are interested parties who may be interested in buying but... there has been no offer.

I acknowledge that I have read the 24/04/24 in a clumsy fashion and that there will have been some confirmation bias in what was too quick an interpretation which was not accurate enough.

It was a rather detailed RNS, a bit of depth in the content and re. "sunny side up", I still think it was a good one.

Apologies for my mistake.

Re. 15:08: You referenced it yourself over the weekend Banbury, I had read the relevant RNS prior to that post on more than one occasion and also within recent days, the comment, to which you are both publicly being sceptical, is correct according to the chronology of multiple RNS.

Incorrect specinvestor99: This is referring not just to the most recent RNS and it is the situation, you can read the share chat posts and then consult the RRR website with the chronology of RNS' or you can just consult the RRR website and the chronology of RNS'.

I am not going to make the clarification easy for you, the information is quite easily available, won't take to long to do the research compared to say a cup of tea and a snack.

Bearing in mind recent discussion of gold and antimony and very nearby Southern Cross Gold with Rising Sun trend going towards RRR's Kilmore region owned by RRAL, for which the updated RNS refers - offer - RRAL.