Member Info for NikeAir180

Theeduke, I'm aware there might need to be a placing, I don't want it to happen and there might be other options - if genuine production happened afterwards that would hopefully create a build up of cashflow.

Hopefully it would be the last one for some time and there would be genuine upside before anything like that again - raising capital is still preferable to a company going bust, the other one I mentioned did expereonce that, in spite of just about proving some serious assets. Not impossible perhaps that that area is recovered for mining one day but it might not be by a public company or it could be some time later...

Another way of looking at it is that those who have been able to take part in placings for this company have helped it remain a going concern.

I am not too worried for this one in spite of some of the challenges it continues to face, there is risk but as Banbury has said, this an interesting few months.

All the best...

I do listen... positive on these attitudes irrespective of what you have written was for the benefit of those who try to say they may have led some astray, apart from your confidant tone I think there isn't anything in that point, we all have different styles of expressing.

No-one should invest on the basis of any one poster or combination of posters' comments but if interest is piqued, people should, as you say, do their own research.

Thanks Helpful, I have always liked these assets and I think I'm right to recall 0.5g/t very near surface is economic cut off - higher gold price now... 2g/t is good with the cheaper operational cost compared to deeper mines - am not checking and typing from memory.

One thing I will ask you to clarify is semi-mechanised is more valuable from what you say in the short term? Fully mechanised more favorably at the end, is that when ratio of cost and profit change at bigger scale up re. West Africa? I think I know what you mean but anticipate a challenge regarding how that might read.

No offence but regarding the merry go round, my positive opinion of assets is nothing to do with what you have written but I do appreciate your comments....

Hopefully occasional humour aside, exchanges can be a bit more serious so opinions can be genuinely tested.

Thanks again...

Helpful, you're probably understandably annoyed right now and I can't reply to an insult... Separately you might have Banburyboy on filter so I don't know if you missed my replies and it was around a scenario of 3.5 million dollars per month which is 2.8 million pound sterling. Scotgold Resourses RNS 11th July 2022 referring to second quarter of 2022 ounces production was worth 5 million pounds for the quarter and in today's prices would be 6.5... million pounds approximating close to 2.2 million pounds sterling per month. That was from one junior gold mine, Banbury reasonably pointed out splits of earnings in Burkina Faso but is also useful to bear in mind potentially simpler near surface production and cheaper operational costs.

Bearing in mind different structures and the time to build some experience and if required scale up, I don't think an optimistic figure is that wild. More precise figures from the Cononish mine that had some success in Scotland were in the exchange. 2023 was another matter also briefly detailed.

Cheers...

Fair enough, good point about splits, let's also bear in mind potentially easier production and less operational costs when it is near surface, I don't know if Helpful's scenario involved four wash plants or less.

Scotgold Resources were quite experienced at that point though still a fairly new producer, ultimately they would run in to some bad luck but should have perhaps played a bit more defence in their planning, very good environmental management during their stewardship and I remember the second CEO's comment in a Proactive interview about beautiful faces of gold - in that landscape, I don't doubt it!

The 2.2 million per mont figure based on today's gold price is a very close rounding approximation and is extrapolated from former producer Scotgold Resources RNS update on a Scottish junior underground gold: 11th July 2022. It related to their best quarter but would fail in 2023 while building out in the wrong direction (it does happen) tight on the debt against the accelerated rise in interest rates and high inflationary costs.

Banbury it converts to 2.8million pounds sterling. Scotgold Resources (who would fail in 2023) in the second quarter of 2022 produced from one junior underground mine 3531 ounces of gold, at today's prices it converts to 2.2 million pounds sterling per month - different structures but worth considering.

Thanks Banbury, I read that through again, thought about it and realised I wouldn't be contradicting myself or disloyal to press the thumbs up.

I appreciate your supportive message and it was very generous of you to say you are reconsidering some of your posts within this multi-person debate.

I have read your comments, those of of the bears and the disillusioned as well as the bulls and I have used them to test my own wary optimism and my stance has not changed but it is good to test our beliefs with the opinions of others.

Like you, I wish shareholders, posters and of course the company, the best...

As you once said Banbury, this is a "fun board" it's certainly an interesting one with some occasional good humour on both sides of the debate as well as some serious perspective.

The last three and a half weeks I have been allowing full recovery from an injury after slipping down some rainy steps after a sudden outpouring of the vapours. Nothing too serious and though still active wasn't going to the gym so had more time to be involved in the chat. Have been a reader of this forum for some time so even though I will soon resume lifting I might be unable to resist commenting or maybe I will save myself slight niggles from typing and try and maintain a decent posture a bit like an averagely decent tree.

In relation to your question, I'm no acorn - just an ordinary voter with slightly less beer money and a couple of pints in different pubs.

I was concentrating on previous production and profit, the other variable is market cap - currently very small and currently without any production and profit.

Partly joking but how much does an acorn cost?

19th October 2012 - not 29th, regarding final year results / annual report including gold production - proftit for that and some general profit.

Well... it didn't stop someone buying the gold asset in Columbia - no theft is ideal but I await seeing how significant it was with appropriate detail.

The year in question remains a decent year with some successful production and profit re. Final results 29th 0ctober 2012 - year of enterprise ending 30th June 2012 after citing operational RNS on 11th October 2011 relating to gold production.

Theeduke, you are referring to the RRR annual report of 19th 0ctober 2012 covering the year's enterprise ending 30th June 2012. This on page 33 of the RNSs on company website assuming ALL is not pressed.

There is no mention of any gold theft either in writing or in the figures.

There was mention of profits for that gold production, it was a good report and was another good day in the history of RRR. I appreciate there have been ups and downs.

Thank you Theeduke for helping me to draw attention to a decent annual report on what was one of the good days...

12.2g/t was Silver grade out of 396 ounce product for September's production in 2011.

16.4g/t was out of 527 ounces of GOLD produced for September 2011.

As reported in RRR's RNS 11th October 2011 on page 38 of the RNS records on company website, don't press ALL as that might change page number, go to 53 if interested and arrow left.

To be fair, it might have been an explorer producer who bought RRR's Columbia gold interests but probably more experienced in production compared to RRR.

Does show RRR have had some good days.

On 11th October 2011 Red Rock Resource put out a fairly decent RNS regarding gold production from its interests in Columbia.

I should have taken notes before typing but it's late so will be quick, it was a fair bit over 500 ounces for the month and it was at about 12.2g/t gold - pretty good, probably not huge production but it was quite high grade and would have been some cash flow. I regard that as reasonably successful and hopefully there will be an active royalty in future from what I assume is a specialist producer who bought the asset.

Crucially, the company has produced gold before so that shows where there is a will, there is sometimes a way.

Thanks Helpful, I'm glad RRR protected its' Juno royalty and I think Bell's perspective was valid. I have always liked this company for its' gold projects and the potential for royalties - all else aside, that will always have some of my attention, hopefully the summer will be more obviously positive. Battery out...

I'm aware of Greenland. Regarding Jupiter, always nice to be wise after the event and yes it would be nice to still have it via exposure but each time in whatever way it was sold, it was a gain. Strategy and tactics can be debated but gains at time of sale are still gains. I think Juno Minerals came out of all that - I'm not being specifically precise but it was a legacy and could be intersting.

In any walk of life cashflow will always help with debt so I hope for more of the former and less of the latter -in terms of overall balance, moving forward.

Time frame I had in mind Banbury was over more... than five years, not just the time you have followe them, which is longer than I have and I think the interview I was drawing from was given in 2018.

I think originally... before the liquid assets was sold, I think originally the Jupitet asset was bought from Red Rock Resources, it might have been a non-public asset when Jupiter bought it but the way I read the Bell interview from 2018 (read recently) was that Jupiter bought it and thst probably explains the nice dividend RRR got from it and how that one asset, through the retained equity exposure up till late 2021 was often worth more than the market cap of RRR.

Regarding El Limon, I think that was successfully sold - at a time of lower gold price (made sense) royalty retained, let's see how that goes over the next year or two... if it starts or re-starts after not coming in for a while that does suggest some success even if there had been previous complications.

Some stuff definitely needs to be verified before it can go to RNS.

There was a wider point that has been alluded to in this general discussion about how can a company discuss its general aims, its current progress outside of what the RNS messages are currently for. It stemmed from points to potentially improve Aim that were written by a freelance financial writer who specialises in financial law. (A reply to that on twitter was mentioned by one of the posters here but the points were by the financial writer).

One thing Helpful was indisputably correct on was that his and the writer's point (independent of each other) regarding restrictions on what can be communicated and how can a company talk about its general efforts was in the same context. It is a point not specific to this company. There were a couple of points in the article that might even have united this stock's bulls and bears followers.

The article was Charle's Archer's "15 points to improve Aim" and was meant to get some people thinking, not a claim to the answers but a good read...