Member Info for PaulFG

So important nuance confirmed today.

POW is no longer the majority shareholder, with a holding less that 50%, but remains the largest shareholder.

LW - point taken on CMET, but you gotta take each situation on case by case basis, taking into account many variables. In the case of CMET I simply do not trust them, as you know.

On Government announcements - I wouldn't place too much faith on what they say - if you trawl back through SL papers from yeas back they've said all this before and nothing has happened.

The real added-value for Oluvil was the original proposal (phase 2) to build the separator plant there and then load direct to vessels. This was always the the MF plan but Greg seems very woolly on what's going to happen at this stage.

Https://www.google.com/finance/quote/GMTLF:OTCMKTS?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP3oz6hcKGAxU6UUEAHVsSAZIQ3ecFegQIOhAX

up 30% in USA

@Troajan, think you meant this one:https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1049565/golden-metal-hits-high-on-exploration-update-pulling-parent-along-1049565.html

@Doc - I do think, given time, POW will start to shed it's associated historical negative sentiment. But it may ultimately require a brand revitalisation, I do like the fact that they are keeping more assets inhouse (e.g. Canadian uranium) as progress there will more directly drive value (although I'm not sure that was the best deal on the uranium assets).

I'm also talking from the very comfortable point of having started GMET accumulation from below 10p.

The alternative of course is to buy into POW, which I considered, but that'll give you less than 50% exposure to the upside (POW's stake now diluted below 50%) and frankly I think POW will always lag the valuation and it has (let's face it) a sentiment issue, currently.

SO I discounted that option.

- Tungsten ban - to be clear the ban is only on Tungsten for military use, so not a total ban.

- liquidity - it's true there's a tiny free float, reduce even further by the likes of me (many me's) sitting on decent percentages and willing to let them run. However, we're now entering multiple bag territory for LTHs (i.e. those of use that have held for a year !) and there will be a % of this most probably released into the market to accommodate a free ride.

- that said I've not had an issue topping up, though truthfully I haven't bought since 15p I think, you just have to be prepared to hit the offer and not be too clever about it. If you look at the potential and the current mcap that shouldn't be as painful as it sounds.

Interesting from today's RNS:

" The Company believes that this geophysical work programme, and specifically the IP survey, will be the last exploration step that should be required prior to delineation of drill targets. The entire geophysics campaign is expected to take approximately 2 weeks and following the news of the strategic raise announced on 10 June 20241, the Company is fully funded to continue the ongoing campaign along with follow up drilling."

Sounds like Purebond really wanted to progress Garfield, as so many of us here did also.

LW - I think you're being a little hash/unfair on MR. Yes you're correct it's non-binding, as it absolutely has to be until DFS/financing in place to construct to prod. You can't bind until then. But at least it demonstrates, as far as it can, definitive interest in the product which also helps when it comes to financing construction. It's a little chicken & egg situation.

SO yes non-binding (almost goes without saying that it HAS to be so at this stage) but a strong demonstration of interest. I think as we approach Q4 plus any more value adding announcements (e.g. more non-binding MOUs, more of the remaining $2m grant funding, the prospectus etc etc) the share will gradually drift upwards.

Main thing for me is I have faith in MR, great resource, clear expression of interest from offtakers and to be honest MR is progressing the project constantly adding incremental value, at some point the market will have no choice but to reflect that, so I'm happy to continue stake-building.

Interestingly with todays strategic investment the percentage stake now held by POW falls to 49.53%.

Would you agree @TRAY?

Small but important point - no warrants issued.

That and the premium is the sign of a QUALITY raise for a quality project.

Interview out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByzE3xJd9vI

Just something else you're wrong about I'm afraid.

I still hold a significant number if shares , I'm just nit as unrealistic about ludicrous short multiples as some in here.

Long ago I pointed out the 12 month to production timeline appeared to have been dropped, long ago I predicted the jv would not be concluded within the CMET deadlines and I repeatedly tried to get across that the 60 day exclusivity period on LB & SHF did NOT mean the deal had to be concluded within that period.

Ands for all that I have been constantly attacked and ridiculed. I have been here long before many amd I suspect I will be here after the rampers have all sold out at 10p in spite of their ridiculous price predictions.

What have you been right about ???

Possibly, you have a point. But okay, is it unreasonable to expect something two weeks beyond their already delayed deadline?

If it doesn't come within the next couple of weeks I think it's prudent to conjecture that there's something going on beyond dotting \& crossing letters on a JV agreement.

I'm still optimistic of an agreement, but like LW the longer this takes the more I'm starting to wonder what that agreement might look like...

As next week will be 2 weeks beyond the last exclusivity deadline when CMET decided to stop with the whole pointless deadline thing (makes you wonder as to how much of grasp of reality they have) I would hope that by June 14th we should receive an update otherwise I'd be worried that all is not as great as we've be led to believe.

I think POW need some rebranding. There's clearly sentiment fatigue with so many retail investors associated with years of lacklustre performance.

I'd go for an immediate name change.

I would imagine potentialJV partners would want to influence a drilling program.