Member Info for NikeAir180

... or on day before - 04/08/25, I only noticed it was removed on the tuesday, think ot was the friday 01/08/25 was typing in tge date and time of the post but my battery ran out and I postponed replying to it, at a mininum noting when exactly it was posted.

I will correct one aspect of 18:16 - the removed post was not that many days after photos on X regarding activity on the valid Boulon license. I noticed it was removed before the RNS was announced on 05/08/25 and it was either removed earlier on 05/08/25, same day as Helpful said slithering cited - which might have just been a coincidence and I noticed that it was gone idependenly of that post but it was easy to remember which helps jog accurate memory regarding chronolgy.

Not a big deal that it was removed, perfectly reasonable to realise what was error but perhsps one could be slightly more humble afterwards.

Gee that was almost quite good. 🍻

Well there might be enough 0z gold "down under" to make Banbury's presented binary limit, not a matter of fact. He did opine last summer that the deal RRR to acquire the remaiming 49.9% of RRAL, wouldn't complete. It did complete, he did suggest that RRR was a ponzi outfit but Soma did a deal with them recenntly and I don't tgink they would entertain a ponzi outfit and RRR have always got annual reports - fully audited by people who know more, specifically, than Banbury - clealy given that last he predicted a delisting for RRR - but it actually continues as a going concern.

Banbury did spend some of this year opining that Cote licences were delinquent. There was one post on general delinquency that was removed - perhaps because he realised and / or others realised it was delinquent in quality - not many days after RRR had announced exclusivity fee in relation to Cote asstet(s).

🥁🎼🍽🍺

Thank you News, I have caught with the reading - all good stuff. I appreciate why you the like Gold / Copper acquisition, on a previous read through one of CDL's RNS', I hadn"t properly registererd they were referring to at surface and in gemeral with regard to the Darlot West project it seems to be at or near surface so far, the technical term for both I now know is "open surface".

I know CDL from before and was ulitimately 25% up on one wrapper and the same percentage down on the other - knew the timing was not as good - there, have always been optimistic they would put themselves in a position for good chance of recovery and I like how the new leadership is strongly focused on gold. Have taken a new position in both wrappers from cash and reducing a stock position in the other one (only a sub 12% reduction in the overall holdings for that one) no reduction in other gold orientated stocks / interests. Most of my holdimgs are only in one wrapper.

Cheers again News, I will follow this share chat intermittently. All the best...

Re. 22:25: And it is only a bit of distance -10km from the Darlot Gold mine. News, I presume those grades - the recent sampling from Darlot West are basically at surface? Greenstone Belt...

Re. 20:04: Helpful, approximately how many years do you think it has been possible to have functioning set ups like that?

20:19: But your workings Banbury... how unbiased are they?

The 2025 half-year report detailed the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as of 31/12/24, I am rounding from that: the combined current and non-current liabilities were approximately £7,500,000, Total Equity was approximately £12,000,000. Importantly RRR have assets which, I think, still gives it a positive balance against liabilities.

Technically... the screen protector - which was worth the money and it was another line which was derived from the crack. So perhaps a reason and not an excuse. Some people might find posting and some types of repetition a good "craic" but there are other ways to enjoy life or calmly pass the time - and it doesn't have to be a spread between those two considerations - they could both be part of one's own consideration.

Hah... filter. The crack in the screen might have been at that point in the line as it was being typed. Though that is not an excuse for not doing a thorough enough spell check, though is pehaps a reason for missing an l, initially. Well, some reps are more boring than others.

Blueboy, your response was anticipated on the basis of your ability to add, appreciate that you appreciated the 22/09/25 RNS. 💰🍻

It is not stange blueboy nor is it stange that the time spans you haven't had fiter on are time spans within which previous comments could have been read. One may choose not to repeat previous comments and can choose that further comments as a response to a question - which might then skew the context somewhat are not worth the spell cheques. 😉

But it could play a role in working out the monetary value of the discounted sell price and was used as a relevant poimt of comparison by RRR on the 12/09/2/ RNS.

Spec, I reckon the number of times my now getting that date right is now less of a difference to the number of times you've been commenting against Helpful.

I am also positive following the RNS' of 12/09/25 and 22/09/25, not least because it is clear how RRR will have capacity to honour the remaining payments to POW and ultimately, in my opinion: an expanded gold portfolio - even after the more recent sale of the royalty - compared to 12/03/24 is validated.

16:30: The $2 million figure is very close to the pounds value RRR was carrying it for on their books, they explained why the discounted value plus warrants was a fair deal as per the RNS of 12/09/25.

Some of the content of the 08:45 post was quite reasonable, the post heading was a misleading contradiction, the Company is still aiming for 2026 as they have previously stated.

Filthy, with a lot of respect, it was a failure to drill - not a failed drill. Previous data from Shell and data from Sunda - as you know is pointing to a significant asset. It is potentially world class as you know, drilling might reveal a serious asset which is also world class, serious asset in sporting terms might be good international standard or nationally significant - all good in my opinion and that's a simplified similarity by which I undestand Chuditch.

I appreciate your continued and steady posting and whatever happens this year, I do expect some updates within the next few months - maybe an update on the environmental report and at a minimum an update on perceived progress before the year is over, possibly updates at least on X re. Conference and so on. Might be new things for posters to talk about in the next few months. All the best...

20:52: Banbury there is no reasonable doubt - doubt with regard to that plural, which was discernibly expressed with the letter s - is irrational.

Oh, by the way, the company doesn't have to use your words to clearly confirm that a second exclusivity payment was made - as proven by today's RNS of 22/09/25.

RNS - 14:51

19:58: Reminder Spec - it is only your opinion that such conceivable payments - as constituents of the past - are fantasy. You do not authoratitevely determine the difference between a chronological sequence of facts and a linear sequence of fantastic imaginings.

... and Banbury, more precisely, you don't have control of the boundaries by which the difference between a perceivable positive future for RRR or a perceivable negative future for RRR can be differentiated in the minds of people other than yourself.

19:19 - Banbury, your final sentence and penultimate line is your opinion - maybe. You do not control whether RRR is investible or not and you do not control perceptions of whether it is investible or not.