Member Info for NikeAir180

Not the same board as before 2022 - if a previous part of conversation read is correct.

10:42.- or chooses not to and then whataboutery, etc.

10:18 - Yep, perhaps Helpful, Banbury (10:21) is inviting you to counter him - so that if you espouse beyond the simplest of corrections, he can try and use potential responses against you. 😎

😎notifications, reading.

09:59: Yes - "previously" - I agree.

For a few weeks now new post notification are often not showing up when I am readimg/ responding - might go back to obvious chronolgy. 🌟 ...

Except, he didn't say that. ☀️

More licenses than beans then. Main target is gold which up till now, was cheaper to buy last year than this year.

While some might count beans, others can see vitamins.

No Theeeduke, nothing to do with september 19th, more to do with August the 14th.

Re. 01:07: referenced (not refenced)

Cheers : )

Re. 17:51: Banbury on the other recent lithium thread - which you also atarted, on 07/08/25, Specinvestor99 made some (in my opinion) salient points regarding impairment and non-declaration of inventory.

I have always regarded the 11/12/23 RNS as an interesting one for how some urgent costs were paid - perhaps in the light of change of plans at the time and it was interesting with regard to costs paid, at the time, for setting up an export pipeline.

Regarding the storage of lithium spodumene - it doesn't cost too much to do in some countries and if it was perhaps 180 tonnes in Harare and perhaps 20 tonnes or some other split of the 200 tonnes of spodumene - it is quite possible that a portion of 58k relevant to the 11/12/23 RNS could easily have covered storage costs perhaps for as long as a few years if that scope were necessary.

So shares were issued as per 11/12/23 RNS - approximately 58k was in satisfaction of lithium project costs and gold project costs - including urgent costs which had been paid by a high net worth investor who was reimbursed with shares and was happy to invest an additional approximate 52k for futher development of African projects - an overall 110k investment which raised cash for the company -which issued new shares relevant to that.

If lithium spodumene storage costs relevant to RRR were possibly paid out of the approximate 58k then in a sense it wasn't paid at the time by ALR or RRR but possibly by the high net worth investor.

In terms of amounts refenced above from the RNS - the audited section 24 of the 13/12/24 RRR annual report acknowledged the precise amounts... as per the 11/12/23 RNS further authenticating (in my opinion) the basic core points of that RNS.

Re. 10:37 - 08/08/25: Following a re-read of the 11/12/23 RNS, I can see that it was a proportion of the approximate 58k attributed to lithium project costs and a proportion of that same 58k that was attributed to the gold project costs - the approximate 58k was in satisfaction of project costs paid for by the high net worth investor, approximately 52k would be available for the continued development of African projects at the time of the cash raise by issue of 110k worth of shares.

Iterspersed along a sometimes negative sea, there are buoys of positivity.

13:03... there may...

Twasn't very Carling Premier : )

... (tock) 🕑

🤦‍♂️ 🙂

Hah, maths... or chronology, tuesday was 05/08/25. ✅

... 13:19 and 13:13 posts - to be fair - wanted the photo removed (even if perhaps accurate) was just an interpretation by me as expression - the fact relevant to the consideration of both those posts by way of response is the consideration of his twice expressed opinion that a photo should be removed. That expressed opinion and what it corresponds to negates point 2 of 16:07 post yesterday.

Point 2, 16:07 - 12/08/25 by Banbury is inaccurate.

The two posts I have put up today responding directly to the threads where Banbury opined that the photo (with bureau of mines caption) should be removed - further illuminates the inaccuracy.

Theeeduke, I am not trying tp justify anything, I have countered some of your and others' attacks - that is different, the chronological facts remain separately - it was a good point Help made about the officail update having been a Reach RNS, I didn' think RRR would get any futher uptades beyond the photos on X relating to Faso Greenstone activity out before the tuesday (04/08/08) as opposed to the monday - where I fet Helpful was being a little bit too enthusiastic with his expectation so I didn't recommend his post where he first mentioned Bumigeb which I thought was unremarkable and could be understood logically from the photos - specifically the non-booted one that was subsequently removed. Internet search regarding Bureau of Mines - Burkina Faso proved my assumption to have been correct. I am quite relaxed and will make the point that some things are a matter of chronology which is why we have geology.

Wah... 07:36 - 02/08/25, Banbury wanted the photo (bureau of mines... ) removed again.