Member Info for NikeAir180

£135,000 was paid in expenses for Greenland , am assuming that relates to Melville Bay written off asset, fully wriiten off in the first xalendar half of 2018 if I remember orrectly form fairly recentvretrospect ive reading 135k was in point 6 of the amnual report 13/12/24 and there have been continuing annual costs which Banbury has commented on before. It didn't surprise me that there was a long term debtvrelevant to that in the RNS that rererred to it....

All a bit arpund a prhrase, 17:02 💤 but with a bit more alertness... the next annual report with regard to an asset that was fully impaired for "the current year" from the point of view of the 13/12/24 annual report for accounting year end 30th june 2024. 30th june 2025 is a year after the previous end of june date and perhaps an annual report for 2025, accounting year end 30/06/25 might be approximately a year 13/12/24 annual report. One impaiment year for some stored spodumene doesn't have to follow another e.g. by contrast an inventory with some value is conceptually possible.

... meaningless.

" inventory holdings at 30th June" was presented as part of extract from claimed email conversation, not ... on 30th june so such a pharese could be taken to mean (and it was one of my interpretations) a check of the inventory holdings as of 30th june... to check nothing has changed compared to the most recent annual report - accounting year end - 30th 2025 publidhed on 13/12/24 but the thing with the previous posts from earlier in the week, relevant to extract, is they are part of private communications which can't be clearly verified which is why there is chat rule 5d and why pontifications and debate arouund the extract Theeeduke presented are prettty much meaingless.

11/12/23 RNS was a moderate highlight of the day.

Re. 13:24: So if a true extract - it wasn't silence. ⚖

Bumigeb - bureau of mines and geology of Burkina, publicly abailable information when typing in Bumigeb - Burkina Faso, to an internet search engine.

Excuses, excuses...

You are responsible for your own posts Banbury.

At least the article about imagined companies was open to the comments section below it - including from Bell and Winnifrith - who were in agreement with each other - reasons. : )

10:24: Banbury, your fourth sentence doesn't make sense, your fiffth sentence is not a matter of fact and is ridiculous exaggeration.

I don't do screenshots and i am no-one's assistant with regard to your earlier post.

That is the RNS I was referring to Spec' - so 8 years and four months ago, content of the settlement which by that point had been resolved could now be made public. If clause 3.6 referenced yesterday and the penultimate highlight of the RNS are substantively the same thing - then there is harmony from my perspective.

I have never regarded Helpful's comments posted on the forum as investment advice.

05/04/17 RNS contains highlights of the settlement agreement. Penultimate highlight explains the 3% NSR is wth relevance to all gold produced from the El Limon Mill Site including third pary ore.

The above might have been clause 3.6 on tbe settlement agreement given what has been posted several hours ago, I have only read the RRR RNS with the highlights of the settlement agreement forming crucial content of that RNS retrospectively (this year); it is the point Helpful has been making as relevant reason for why potential royalty from production might restart this year, following care and maintenace work that may have progressed well enough for tbe for the Mill site to start being utilised again.

22:43 ... and without... 🤦‍♂️ 💤

11/12/23 RNS is in my opinion precise and interesting.

Maybe not 2200 of them. ✅

In relation to 14:50 post, I was going to subsequently reply to an erroneous post from earlier in the year, doesn't seem to be there now and have thoroughly checked so I will not allude to content other than it was total negative but quite inaccurate - hadn't kept a record of date and time so the missing aspect is a statement of opinion and with the sure knowledge of fact. 15:08 - I have... sold middle items. : )

15:08 - forgot to say: and not - apologies, fatigue. 🥁🎾🎯🍻

"Super Accounts Clerk" or someone like that has been echoed by Theeeduke on Theeeduke's presented reason for still posting on RRR - motivations can change but I seem to remember lasy year, in a reflective moment, Theeeduke said to Helpful that he actually liked their banter. Last year he did directly reply to me in relation to him having perhaps having done very well - epically well on a stock in the past and why so much time having a negative stance here - it was because as long as Bell was running the company, he would be here - posting; I think part of his presented opinions of RRR might be because he doesn't like RRR current incarnation and part of it is because, he has sometimes liked playing to the gallery a little bit.

Ahem : ) 15:02 follows on from 14:50 and 14:57 - the middle is much better . 🙂

... not etc .

The slithering was done at 13:53 by Banbury when he said he had called everything right all the way down from 1p. He lied about his past accuracy and then pretended to know a specific future when he said "This will not end well."