Member Info for Red0rb

To me, this being a re-order (of comparable size/increased distribution rate to the 1st) is a big endorsement.

I'm no expert in sales, but sure if you're customers come back for more then you're probably on the right track.

Well I'm poised to add more if the opening feels right, or if it settles down shortly after. If it just shoots up them I'll sit back and be satisfied watching the existing investment.

The funding being transferred might be priced in (I'd be surprised tho), but yesterday we also got a 40% resource upgrade and written indication of swifter movement to the 2nd, more advanced on-site processing plant (floatation plant) and details of the comprehensive additional/parallel drilling activities. They aren't priced in.

IMO it'll shoot up or stroll up, either way it really should go up. Let's enjoy the ride!

There are 12 individual resolutions to be separately voted for.

E.g. You can vote to remove BT, but you don't have to also vote to add TH, the position on the board could remain vacant until a suitable, qualified, trustworthy individual is proposed.

The company would not fall apart if BT went, but it might be a wake-up call for them. Who really knows...?

Hi NGR, I agree this is an organised concerted attempt to manipulate shareholder opinions by TH and his team, for balance though, today's RNS is likewise from the board.

Neither party has set out details of what they will do with the money to further the company, it's just scare tactics from both sides.

A progressive R&D team at the cutting edge of science should have loads of exciting plans, but most teams struggle for funding. This company has the cash but can't communicate an idea.

For the record, I'm neither fully-for or fully-against all proposals, I'd like to see a limited amount of Board-change. Also, I'm a research scientist (different field, Med Tech) and would have no difficulty using the money ;)

It's amazing how the Board believe the average investor can't think in grey scale!

Personally, I don't think wholesale, sudden change is a sensible course of action, but no changes at all will breed complacency in a potentially inept status quo.

The RNS is amateur, 'think black & white', pressurising scare tactics and pointing out the risks of change whilst ignoring the risks of no change. It does little to build confidence in the current management.

I'm 'in'! Should have bought last week but wanted to do the background research. Listening to the StockBox interview tipped it for me, no hint of dishonesty to be seen.

I also like that they know it's new and they're not afraid to experiment with approaches to roll out (Re. The RNS earlier in the week), this exact one may or may not come off, but they'll learn and grow quickly either way.

Well, I don't like the roll-out... if it's no big deal why sneak it out late in the day, and why only incentivise the guys right at the top? (I work in tech R&D SME's and the assumption that the CxO does 10x more than anyone else and so deserves it is usually incorrect, and that engineers/scientists are not motivated by financial reward is such a fallacy).

But I do agree with you both - it's not a big deal and incentive plans are generally a good thing..., so I'll leave my grumbles be.

Hmmm, not convinced an exercise price equal to the current share price is hugely 'incentivising', it sets the bar for success as like "any raise in share price, however small, is a job well done".
And as for releasing this RNS late in the day (given the content was decided days ago), suggests it's an embarrassing communique they'd like to get away with quietly.
I want this company to succeed, tidal energy needs to succeed, but does the senior leadership have the required passion to drive it forwards? I'm open to being convinced, but am not currently convinced.

There's a difference between Net zero CO2 production & Gross zero. If you don't understand the concept maybe you also shouldn't be handling your own finances.
Furthermore, biology lesson, plants 'breathe' (ie respire) O2, just like most life on the planet (think some deep sea archea/bacteria might be an exception, not sure, I'm a chemist). Plants do use CO2 to photosynthasise, and they're very well evolved to do this at pre-industrial atmospheric levels.

@Nanogeddon, no hands-on experience of QD's, but I do work in biotech & have read and helped compose a good number of sci & tech parents.

Patents never disclose the fine detail, and it's that fine detail which often makes the end result 'tick'. More generally parents focus on covering higher levels, and as broadly as possible to provide wider protection.

It'll be impossible to directly convert the patent info into a product without some parallel internal research effort. This being said, the patent info will highlight the right direction & the destination of said research (saving >75% of the cost, IMO), and if they can entice the right employee to switch companies that helps too (btw, no evidence of this, would be v naughty, but happens & is proper difficult to prove!).

Morning all, I remember there being some discussion around the norm with these kinds of settlements - the norm being based on 'lost revenue' rather than 'lost income'. I have zero legal expertise, but the arguement/conclusion makes sense to me as S will have taken on the expense of manufacture.

The question for the board... Where does N's past R&D spend (to establish manufacture) factor into the equation?

It will be a large amount, but likewise, S will have had to do at least some themselves to get their manufacture up & running, but that doesn't negate N's spend...which has already occurred.

If it's not subtracted from income (as a component of 'cost of goods') when calculating revenue then the markdown may not be so great, leading to healthy margins.

Be great to hear thoughts from more knowledgeable people to capture into my (guesstimated) sums. Ta!

and let's focus on Nano!

I have to weigh in... disinformation deserves challenging...

Unfortunately, the pandemic has negatively affected many things including cancer diagnosis & treatment... however...

This is how cherry picking to suit agendas works... it's insidious, misleading and then leads to outright lies.

The original report published end of 2021 by the National Audit Office "...The NAO estimates that there were between 240,000 and 740,000 “missing” urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer..."

The British media (this example from 'The Metro') "...Up to 740,000 urgent referrals for suspected cancer "missing"..."

FH "...Over 740,000 people in the UK died from misdiagnosed or untreated cancers due to the so-called pandemic..."

Nanogeddon "...740 thousand was the number undiagnosed..."

So FH has exceeded the upper end of the range estimate, stated it as 'known, absolute', you've replaced 'cancer referral' with 'died'.

Poor

Thanks for posting - a sound, balanced and progressive statement by the Environment Committee which will hopefully encourage positive action from the government.

The government doesn't have to even do too much, just set dedicated tidal targets, approve more licences, subsidy/development funding...etc, basically show some half-decent support to this example of UK-based innovation & demonstrate to the industry that the support will be there for the long-term (i.e. 'stability', to encourage investment)

It's also great the article got informed opinion quotes from a statistician and an executive at a car company. No need to hear from an independent nuclear physicist or anything!
I'm comfortable with that.

I mean "...advance for nuclear fusion"... of course!

Of course it is an advance for nuclear fission, but there's still some way to go just yet. Being energy positive is one hurdle, extending/maintaining the reaction is just as essential. At the moment this tech mostly remains in the de-risking/PoP/research stage.

Another reason this news is not the death knell for nuclear fission is that the world needs an energy mix for supply security, very few countries (none?) get all their power from a single source.

Err, Sophie, hate to break this news, but we still have Covid, it's not gone away & some people are still suffering.
The general situation has changed now though, most of our population has had exposure (vaccine or infection or both) so it is settling towards that category of 'one of many endemic viruses that we live with'.
The Chinese state does a lot that I don't agree with, but being pragmatic (thinking global economy, wars, climate change), China opening up & the rest of the world working with them is not the worst thing that can happen right now.

Additionally, China are reducing the burden on aircraft/all passenger isolation, making it more realistic for airlines to increase flights again...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/11/11/business/china-covid-flight-bans-quarantine-updates-intl-hnk/index.html