Member Info for NikeAir180

Thanks for the reply News, interesting perspective you have and I appreciate your reasoning regarding twitter, think that is ideal.

Bell once said in relation to him and Johnson, they have different strengths which can complement each other. Perhaps that also applies to Wade and Johnson accross their different periods of leading the company, though there may be some overlap of ability.

I don't follow POW that closely, very good foundations were laid in Paul Johnson's time and I think Wade has developed from that with some further diversification but not at the expense of concentration.

All in my opinion and it comes back that old saying... "there's more than one way to crack an egg".

Am going to walk soon, get a take away and probably a break from the share chat.

Have a good weekend...

News, I also respect Paul Johnson a lot and presume he does know those as you say - likely, also may know more on New Ballarat from the joint ownership with RRR, and the work him and Andrew Bell did together, oversaw.

When he left POW, he was and still is accepted as aninformal and esteemed advisor on relevant aspects in the background. Respect that Johnson is involved in the other company you mention.

Sean Wade is the current CEO of POW and helped to encourage an investment from Rick Rule, just wondering if you may want to copy Sean in as well re. for some of your communications like you put on twitter today. Am impressed though...

This is in no way a criticism because I might be missing some of the subtlety of your reasoning for how you communicated.

Overall though re. assets and neighbours, I get that gist and I like it...

Well Helpful, that's a nice read and I am going to look at those links later on this afternoon. Thanks to both you and News...

Regarding brief allusions to how language is expressed: "missing" is inappropriate for lithium based on evidence. The RRR half-year report on 28th March 24 says the lithium stockpile is in storage, in Beira and Harare. That evidence may not be strong enough for some but it is a half-year report RNS rather than a joke, perhaps based on opinion, presented like it was fact.

Agreed News and basically correct but it was a combination of Johnson's POW leadeship and then Wade's POW leadership for the exposure to GMET of just over 50%.

There was a POW RNS but also a good Stockbox interview with POW on 09/12/21 regarding pre-IPO financing of GMET, reducing down from 100% ownership as financing raised to gradually achieve a successful spin out. POW has flexible strategy for its assets, New Ballarat was also mentioned in that video... where IPO may be achieved - if that was to be decided would at any point depend on perception of markets at the time.

£17.8m market cap for POW went up to about £18.35m yesterday.

Regarding the conversation you mention yesterday on hopes for RRR - junior gold miners but also your earlier mention of the bigger energy player providing a letter of support to UK minnow re. potentially hydrogen storage asset, it is obvious that the respect for other companies from stronger players is based on knowledge of assets and if potential is reasonable - share prices and market caps don't get in the way of that respect...

Theeduke, I have pressed the All section on the RNS for RRR, which covers more than 100 pages - relevant years were 2010 - 2015. The subsidiary company which operated it was Four Points Mining, RRR seemed to own slightly over 50% of that. Annual reports of 2012 and 2013 were both good even though different gold market years. 2014 a little bit of decline in terms of grade but that was due to non-prioritising of investment, from their partner as well, confirming validity of the intention to sell the asset. Clumbia Gold Asset sale RNS 14 April 2015, shows successful deal. There is no evidence or reports of those precious metals assets being stolen in any manner.

I haven't spent all night on this, just re-visited, important to confirm there were was decent production, profitable periods and a successful sale of those assets.

The posts by News in the interim are more relevant to the present and worth a read...

Theeeduke refers to an opinion piece... but it is just one guy's opinion and the blunt slang might suggest bias? Even if there are some opportunities for genuine criticism.

15 years of failure, no... Columbia gold and silver assets that RRR had ultimate responsibility were decent grade silver and high grade gold, profitable operation, e.g. annual report on 19th October 2012 and RNSs 2011,12 provide good examples.

Assets ultimately sold for 5million US dollars (correcting myself from earlier) 2million dollars up front, 3 million dollars royalty from monthly production, most of which to still be paid on operations re-starting.

The guy Theeeduke included is wrong, when he expressed an overall perception that he has - as absolute historical fact.

Regarding posts that I am catching up with - from a historical perspective: News' 22:02 comments are well worth a read regarding the bear years and company(s) experiences.

Should clarify, apologies for mistake - all figures for remainder of royalty, 5 million for total sale in 2015 Columbia precious metals assets, 2 million initially, 3 million royalty, most of which is still to be paid from montly production is in dollars....

Thanks Theeduke...

News, I forgot to say in the Proactive Investors interview that I retrospectively saw, concerning the sale of those assets, it was done during a bear market, well certainly after a sustained decline in the gold price - which partly influenced the decision to sell, the royalty which is potental income for RRR and may have made the transaction easier for then buyer of the assets as 2 million pounds sterling was a smaller initial payment compared to the overall total.

News, I just have a basic knowledge from the company website and quite a good memory for what I find interesting from the Proactive Investors and Stockbox interviews.

The Columbia assets were sold for 5 million pounds sterling, 3 million of that is by royalty payments, most of that still to be paid in smaller monthly payments.

Heplpful follows the company and / or companies who now manage and own those assets. He will have posted recently and may have time to clarify further, might even have replied as I was typing?!

Any mining projects that are brought into production and are fair to the workers, create income for the employees and helps them to be able to supply for their families or if some workers are not at that stage - they have more scope to save or to spend on their local economies - there can be a combination of all those factors for people - with different combinations of freedom and responsibility.

So potential financial gain for workers in valid mining projects, stability for families and hepful for commerce in local economies.

So not just the few...

Previously succesful in Columbia - different type of precious metals project, initiated in 2010... sample annual report from 19th 0ctober 2012 re. end of year 30th June 2012 shows a small, high grade and profitable project that was realised, at a time of RRR ownership... project may have been managed by a subsidiary company.

Hello News, I don't think there was ever a rebuff involving a major and I think the closest thing to a rebuff but it could, instead, be regarded as a more of complication is explained in the middle writing section of 5th August 2022 RNS: Asset Review and Current Developments ... major not involved in that process.

The Stockbox interview from 5 months ago: Updates on Burkina Faso, DRC & Zimbabwe... is interesting and you may want to listen from 5 minutes to 5:50 or so within the interview as a whole, where he talks with hope beyond... the process that is referred to in the earlier RNS (as well as the video) but very much in the sequential or lineal sense and it is in no way a prediction but there is some logical thinking.

Appreciate it's late but I knew even this research and summary would take some time and other things to do first with my evening.

Have a good day...

Further.. less than 10% holder also includes non-shareholders - effectively anyone looking to buy shares or fractional shares, any trade should be based on public information and not during a period of restriction relevant to the person looking to make the trade - whether it be a buy or a sell. The same standard applies to people holding 10% plus and those with less than 10%, including those with nothing.

Hope that language is sufficient specinvestor99, it is now quite late in the UK and is time for me to snack, drink tea and relax.

Cheers...

Specinvestor99, I think what I said was adequate but for the avoidance of doubt.... same goes for anyone else less than 10% holding as long as it is on publicly available information and not during a period of restriction relevant to the shareholder.

The standard applies to the 10%plus holder and the less than 10% holder.

I was thinking of smaller holders external to the company but I take your point.

Cheers...

Thanks Maidit, no idea on short term gold price movements but it is fair to say it has a strong price when compared across the last several years and regarding the link for another company operating in West Africa 2020, price of equipment has possibly gone up because of inflation as was suggested by an alternate stance but as a matter of fact the price of gold has gone up since then, so it wasn't a stupid link people can read dates and judge for themselves.

To me it is a nice video: bears, bulls and steady animals await further news in the appropriate format, when the time is right.

Goodnight...

Banbury, he is not giving anyone any advice on this forum, he is stating his opinion at the time of points expressed. It is others who have claimed he is a financial advisor and tried to make out he is giving advice to people here. Even if a professional, that professional is only stating opinion or publicly available facts and where appropriate finishes with DYOR.

On another matter speaking to an adult on this forum and comparing them to Pike from Dad's Army - as much in anger it seems, as humour with relevant quote, is not a remark worthy of respect.

Reasonable to criticise points of view, reasonable to have banter or very assertive differences of opinion but let's try not to single out on belittle just because of annoyance over a bit of levity.

Of course if people are going to be humorous, someone might up the ante on the way back - do think though there is a difference there between the general and the specific.

So yeah, if people don't like responses they can think about what they say but the responses are going to be judged by other readers as well.

Sorry Spec, blooming adverts as screen moves, slowing down likes, do have to wihdraw one recommendation, though have intentionally supported the occasional comment from you...

When I was stuck on threads I did fall down a warren without meaning do, in any case assuming strongly positive poster has less than 10% holding of RRR - no matter if it is signifant exposure and variation of that exposure, he is not an insider.

If anyone posting had 10% holding or that type of holding for a lithium asset outside of RRR holding which is not quite the same... as that holding couldn't be publicly traded, as long as they stick to public information e.g. from the RRR side and as long as opinion expressed is not based on confidential information, they aren't breaching insider rules from my reading if it.

One should still think about what they say, even when they feel like expressing their thoughts, pile ons aren't pleasant... and a bit of self-discipline is healthy... probably good for everyone here. I don't think the pile on on that aspect of criticism has ever been justified.

Have got to get on with other stuff now, thanks.

Err no.... Banbury. After doing Internet search I found Investopedia gave the best clarity of what a company insider is, anyone wanting to check can do the same.

By checking the RRR website it is clear that pile on'd poster is not an officer or director of the company and if he is a less than 10% holder of RRR, he is not an insider per se even if he is has more communication with the chairman than other posters.

For that matter: if a relative, friend or political ally of a company insider who owned less than 10% were to post here - they wouldn't be an insider by virtue of that relationship, they should not be given anything more than public information by which to understand the company.

An insider, as long as they only communicate public information and only trade on publicly available information, and not during a period of restriction is not insider trading, same with anyone else e.g. less than 10% holding but...can only be on publicly available information.

And yet... are things that bad? I mean worse than the general malaise? I've just watched the two most recent Stockbox interviews again and the one from four weeks ago discusses the April 19th due diligence with POW, I must have missesed that is a Competen Person's Report, there has been a little delay with it and bot companies would have to give it consideration but the Aprril 19th due diligence doesn't seem to have anything to do with share price. As for paying POW in shares, the asset value to RRR would increase, the 49.9% stake is valued by POW close to 800k sterling if I remember correctly.

The video from 3 weeks ago, explains calm, persistent pressure is required, my words... for the cobalt stuff, not jumping up and down or loud nagging.

Regarding the photograph of possible gold, it could be said: "if you want a job done well, do it yourself...", let's see what happens.

Thanks for clarifying it zumore, regardless of that venture from another company... not working out, the person who was off camera and the interviewee sharing some lighter conversation afterwards doesn't seem to be a laugh at shareholders expense, just a normal type of conversation irrespective of it later not working out.

Am about to have a reasonably hot kebab...

Cheers and have a good weekend...

If that is so Theeeduke, maybe someone just said something funny? Doesn't make sense for the boss of the company to "play shareholders" because that would result in a paper loss to all shareholders -including said boss.

Am going to thank you though, because I've finally managed to get back on to message view after being stuck on threads and having to look back... It is nice to be able to see things as they are now.

Have a good weekend...