Member Info for Propinquity

Tro, He’s a fiery character that one - and, yes, it’s hard to disagree with him when the BoD, as you say, are a bit iffy in their decision-making. LOL

Appreciate the quick, informative responses, folks.

Anyone aware of how much cash we may have left before we have to raise again?

Sammybow, Very kind of you - I’m trying my utmost to approach this situation as objectively as possible, without slating anyone.

Slurm, I do indeed remember what you said about care and maintenance. Your sentiments broadly resonate with mine - except that I thought it was a reasonably good purchase, on the proviso that it could be monetised within 12-18 months; I still believe that it will produce us the goods - copper and money - but, as Grosuch states, stop with the half-truths because every confident future-looking statement is undermined by the ensuing - underwhelming - reality; their imperative must be to restore investors’ positive sentiments by a) telling us the truth, b) delivering on their strategy (wherever in the ether that may be), and c) buying shares on the open market.

Verbs - Write, post, wait, analyse, respond - rinse and repeat. ;-)

Slurm, What are your feelings on LC?

Folks, Highside is not being offensive - he rightly posts alternative views.

MM’s posts are merely positively informative, highlighting to would-be investors the mining story unfolding in EUZ’s Spanish stomping ground, with the potential regional funding significantly contributing to develop a fully working mine.

Which is why I said ‘LR et al.’ - and, moreover, you would have presumed that it was checked by Myles’s colleagues and seniors - university grads, excluded, of course - for its verity.

DV, By name, by nature - ;-)

Gorsuch, Definitely agree with you that they are a useless bunch, whose main collective characteristic is prevarication.

Indeed, I fully understand that investors had been expecting a fully approved PEPR before the end of this month, which had been strongly implied for a long time; yet, now, it’s a conditional one, with a number of conditions that should have been dealt with beforehand, thereby provoking unwarranted uncertainty on what’s required and by when in order to achieve full approval.

Maybe LR et al. misworded that famous RNS, and instead meant that we shall look to soon complete a placing, making it a ‘valueless event’.

Lupi, Would you think our PI votes would make a material difference to the expected outcomes of the various AGM resolutions?

Gorsuch, I believe that they had already knowN about it; hence, they state in the RNS that the bond requirement is larger than they originally catered for in the company’s financial modelling of LC. The conditional approval should imbue the financial backers with confidence that their funds will qualify SML with a full approval to monetise the asset.

Are you taking about the much sought-after value-event? Come on, LR, desist from maintaining our collective suspense: if it continues for longer, I may top up at these gift-bearing prices.

The South Australia government would not grant a conditional approval if they thought the conditions were unfulfillable; besides, the RNS implies that the slightly surprising one remains a higher-than-expected security deposit.

With the imminent fall of the financial barrier, the view beyond becomes clearer - and commercially realisable; it’s a confident half-stride over it, with the expected burden of conditions slowing and weighing down the anticipated excitement to a shiny, new future.

Bitcoiner, You’re on cosmically-fun form today.