Member Info for PuzzledPete

Maidit seems unable to grasp that 'funding at project level'' means 1) outsiders provide the funding (Doh!) and therefore take the profits 2) As a result the outsiders effectively 'own' the project, and not Mast. 3) If Mast wants even a small share it has to contribute 4) It hasn't got any funds to contribute.

How can you drum facts into an empty brain ? Answer. You can't.

Rodney your 10:54 today. Slightly puzzled you think co has major news to be announced that will change the picture. If so, they would have said hold tight wouldn't they ? - Instead of minded to accept

If you were to read back Claudiu and also on Met1, you would see that it has been an almighty scam. Reported time and again to the fca. And f if you knew anything about the bottom end of the London market you'd know that the fca never does anything - probably because they don't have staff qualified enough to spot dodgy company statements and incipient bankruptcy.

Slow learner here has learned the most. You should read his explanation of the scam. My explanation was soon after I first posted on here, which you could easily check. You might then realise who deserve to be insulted, and those who don't.

Well Clauiou. As its seems youv'e only just arrived on LSE. , still less have read back on here about QDE, it doesn't seem that you're qualified to judge.

Sac. Its no good explaining or discussing anything numbers or maths related to this lot. I believe there is a sub-set of the low IQ who just don't understand numbers. They're probably not allowed out by whoever shares their lives to the shops or to deal with money. They've heard of shares - which in their imagination always go up. But they don't grasp that whether they go up or down is ultimately to do with the numbers. 'Dilution' ? they just don't understand the term..

There is no such thing as 'non-dilution'. If shares aren't issued to pay for an investment or capex, the money has to come from outsiders in the form of taking equity stakes and/or loans. Either way the project 'owner' (ie QDE) gets far less of the returns - ie they are diluted at the project level instead of at the top company level. Its just a question of the maths as to which might dilute earnings per share more - or less. In any case, QDE shareholders have already been massively diluted by the warrants - with a lot more dilution to come if QDE is to escape bankruptcy. Its because of its lack of capital that the 4 or 5 or so projects that QDE is trying to get up and running have all been 'diluted' already either (like Hindlip where Powertree will be talking over 90% of its earnings, or like Pyebtridge where Riverfort will take everything for the next five years.)

Butt he rampers on here don't even understand that.

A liar AND a fool Mr Trader Man.

A 'partnership agreement' is merely that. There are loads of 'partnerships' out there. Doesn't mean they have secured any contracts. Doesn't mean they have secured the funding for any contract. Doesn't mean that any 'contract' they get will will have terms that give the partners much profit. Neither Mast nor Navon has any money. Mast has a bad track record of getting any project up and running without problems on the way. To get any contract, a 'partnership' has to show robust finances and a solid track record. Please explain where that will come from. You can't of course.

TraderMan's 08:30 post

A deliberate lie. Mast has not been 'chosen' for anything. It has merely been talking to Navon, who hasn't been 'chosen' for anything either. Its web site is like QDE's - just aspiration - no solid contracts. Its companies House documents tell the truth. |No track record. No money. No solid links.) Every single business is always 'talking' to others. Or entering into MOU's. Very few turn into solid contracts and then actual commercial activities.

To ramp a share as if this is all certain is to spread a lie.

Copy that email to us Mr TrafderMan. Otherwise we'll know its told you ACF Research isn't regulated or authorised and is dismissed as incompetent by qualified analysts.

Sham. That 'revenue' goes to Pyebridge- an unlisted company totally separate from QDE. Its 'Profit' is only 27% of revenue, and has to go to repay Riverfort's £2.1million loan. So no cash goes to the listed top company QDE that everyone here has shares in and suffers all the overheads you mention. Krugel has never made that clear and is why shareholders here are stuffed.

When number of shares is increasing at a torrential rate, charts based on historic prices and volumes can't possibly have any relevance or make any sense. Shares here have increased tenfold in last six months, and could increase another 3 times before July. And that's only if enough warrants give QDE a bit more cash to survive that long. If they don't, Krugel could come back with another massive fund raise at below 4p, increasing them much, much further.

Do explain Mr obviously can't do. Do you have an aversion to facts or something ? Can you not spot fact when you see it ? Are you not capable of verifying it for yourself ? Or is it that you want to deliberately prevent other punters from seeing it ? And you regard someone else who does want them to see it as scum. Very strange. Not to say disturbing. Prompts the question, from under what stone have you emerged ?

NH21. What Krugel doesn't tell you is that those revenues don't come to Mast. They go to the generators SPV's where their net profit is only 27% of revenue, which is only barely enough to cover their loan repayments. Its why Mast itself can only expect peanuts income for the foreseeable future. That omission to tell you and the other punters the truth is the biggest scam here alongside the warrants. If you and most others on here had done your research, or read back thoroughly on here, you would know why the knowledgeable recognise Mast as the fraudulent dog it is.

Well Well Mr Element. So I have been 'trolling' Mast have I ? Noticed its share price since I started 'trolling' it on its original float April 2021 ? And noticed what it is doing at the moment ? Thought not. I'll be following up with my reasons why GGP looks far too expensive soon..

NH 21 If you read back on here just a few days, you'll have a full answer and the implications for share value and Masts chances (not) of survival

One has to stop feeling sorry for JT and his like. G-d knows how many he has dragged into this dog. Drivels about 'excellent fundamentals'. Doesn't know what a 'fundamental' is unless its his own. Doesn't know the 'fundament' fact about any company is its balance sheet and likely income. The former is like his fundamental and the latter empty like his mental faculty.

Oh Dear. Oh dear oh dear. just hit 4.4p. If it stays here Krugel's dream is truly busted, toasted, frazzled, seen for what it always has been.

Parts of 'the market' might no buy it. But do you really think the co would risk hinting at some sort of assay result before anyone even knows. Don't be daft

I see the financially illiterate Hornsby - backed by our mentally challenged Maidit - is saying 'warrants finish after Jan 11 - and then free to .." whatever.

The sheer bone-headedness of thinking the warrants are just a headroom of shares being dumped is mind-blowing.

GGP Market cap £2.7bn.

Havieron NPV at $US 1850 long term gold price £1.45bn

Ditto @ current $US 2,500 spot gold price £2.7bn

NPV is at 5% discount rate. Far lower than major institutions would invest at. At 8%, NPV i s some 60% of 5% NPV. Noticeable that 8% NPV is not shown

Historically mining share prices never match NPV's

At top spot, payback is a not particularly startling 3.2 years.

First positive cash flow not for another 4 years.

GGP far too expensive at this stage. Explains damp reception for FS