Member Info for PaulFG

@cherry:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SVML/holdings-in-company-4tzpq4ln634heq8.html

Rio have 18.45%.

That level of shareholding could put off another bidder coming forward - BUT yes I agree Rio is not a shoe-in. Obviously, like Rick Rule, I think we'll extract better value as shareholders if we were to proceed to develop to production - I guess when Rio see the DFS it'll trigger what they want to do.

My guess is they already know what they wanna do and have built this significant stake to put off others that may be interested until the DFS confirms, or not, their preferred pathway...

I'll be more confident when we've broken 0.70p without the immediate follow-on announcement of another raise (for a change)

Looking at X, I think OFs new catchphrase is...the significance of this for GMET cannot be overstated...

At least we're given a break from ' the largest undeveloped Tungsten resource in the USA'...lol

I was listening to Jim Rickards last night on YOUTUBE interview - he's predicting a $15k gold price in the next 5years - can you image the impact on SPs with companies like AMRQ IF it were to happen, especially (as you quote) with the grades they have.

https://youtu.be/R4KR9JWMQn4?si=ZC0Fh-sDqs5YoWo1

I'm kinda low-key surprised by the current SP if I'm honest.

To me this remains in strong buying territory but can only think:

1. Market is anticipating not much going to happen until Q4, so why rush in; and/or

2. Because the WHOLE world expects a Rio t/over bid within a year with their already 19% (approx) stake why bother buying in for limited upside when there's potentially more to be made elsewhere (?)

However, on a risk/reward basis this is a much safer bet (IMO) than those other potential 10x returns elsewhere, that retail love so much. Okay you gotta have some of that in the portfolio but if you can grab stuff that's almost a shoe-in (Location risk a given) then you need companies like SVML there also - almost as hedges against the other stuff.

Given the clamour of shares (by insiders) at 40p recently, I'm considering topping up yet again...

Yes nice to have a continual mention - though it didn't add much value.

If the USA Sovereign Wealth Fund got going, and given their desire for Greenland domination, AND given the dominant position AMRQ has wrt to tenements, you'd expect to see some stake being taken in the company sometime in the future.

That's a lot of 'ifs & whens' I know, but in the interim as long as things remain ontrack for Nalunaq bring on the large free cashflows...

Great RNS

Was listening to Jim Rickards last night and he sees gold going to $15k in the next 5yrs. Little did I ever think HAA was being conservative.

https://youtu.be/R4KR9JWMQn4?si=r16TdmKUgRRv1H6k

OF hinting heavily on X today about advantages of a Big Board listing in the US...can't disagree

Not sure anything is a 'no-brainer' these days but goodluck St Pete

Yeah different approaches but I think you have to give credit to COBR they identified one of the major reasons REE projects don't/can't progress and decided to tackle that first so that everything thereafter would be worth doing.

I wouldn't be panicking about missing the REE boat, there is long term demand here, and increasing, this ain't disappearing for years let alone 6 months. Further given China's targeting of specific REEs Cobr is now able to tailor testing/JORC estimation around those highly sensitive elements, as recently indicated by Rupert.

@STPete could be, could be

Although not huge volume today clearly the market seems not like that RNS or at least the implication contained therein.

I really don't understand what people are talking about here - we live in a dynamic, now almost chaotic Trump, world. What would you have had Mike do - pause the project whilst the DFC may or may not get going again? What he did was absolutely correct - sure all the short-terms don't like it - but he has kept the project progressing, hopefully we're still on track for a staged DFS completion and yes we've had to suffer a bit of dilution.

All the dramatics here are NOT justified - what was the alternative?

@Urban - yes I agree, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek about offload - which was to mean not 100% but still offloading a significant % (let's face it more than 50%) of the asset at this stage without further exploration given we have the funds seems foolish to me - given all the hype that Garfield has been given by the company and the associated PR-type pumpers it's engaged, like that Burton guy, that adds no value at all IMO and actually serves to damage the corporate reputation.

If Garfield is potentially as good as OF has led us to believe, and given the amount of time the company have already spent on it, then why not some more drilling in the identified key targets? It just doesn't make sense to me from a risk management perspective. Perhaps my conviction has been coloured by the analysis to date.

Again this is further coloured by the last 100 days of erratic behaviour from the W/House - I know the Tungsten assets contain other metals but they're still classified as predominantly Tungsten - and when are we getting the ruddy PFS's anyway? At the end of the day Tungsten remains, shall we say, niche, albeit essential in certain sectors, and we're potentially looking to divest (to a %) of something we've been led to believe has major Gold/copper potential - it's just not a good strategic plan to me.

I will look at what crystallises in the fullness of time, but these are my thoughts right now.

Really have an unsettling feeling that this RNS is preparing us for basically offloading Garfield. Something most of us on here were very excited about exploring further. Will wait to see what the game is. I really hope we don't give away this potential - because without further exploration that's exactly what we could be doing!

I mean we have money, OF is always going on about US govt grants - either he believes these are going to land or not for the support of the Tungsten assets, in which case surely to God we can afford another round of drilling at Garfield - not just continuous reanalysing of historical data.

If we end up as a pure Tungsten play I'm not sure I want to be as exposed here. IN the Unpredictability of Trump's America it's better to have as many fingers in as many pies to hedge your bets against the next whacky WhiteHouse headline.

Have a read guys...

https://m.miningweekly.com/article/us-offers-190m-for-victorys-western-australia-ree-project-2025-04-23

On mining in Greenland, with insights from Amrq

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/opinion/greenland-trump-rare-earth-mining.html

Http://news.chinatungsten.com/en/tungsten-product-news/169720-tpn-13688.html

I expect the Greenland winter limits activity.

At least they're selling into buying strength, could've been worse if a distressed seller.