Member Info for SharketMare

The same. Because there are the same number of shares issued. You are making yourself look very, very silly.

Bravo addicknt. It's very strange he's chosen this hill to die on. I expect he'll be back under a new name after this embarrassment.

Quady - lost for words at this point.

Shameless - there is a perfectly good BB for 1SN and I can see you're already ramping it over there. Latest post claiming it'll go to 50p.

Quady not understanding dilution is up there with the funniest things I've read on this board. Earlier this week we had BBG not understanding at a UT was and now this. From someone who claims to have been investing for 40+ years too. Must have the luck of an Irishman.

So we can add the basics of trading shares to 'geopolitics' and 'contracts' to the "things Stackhigh has no f*cking clue about" list. This has been an amusing read.

I know Stackhigh would try (and fail) to weasel out of his "dilutive" statement. Next up he'll be trying to spin that placing the shares at 9p or whatever is "massively painful" for shareholders. This will likely precede him disappearing into the ether like a bad smell claiming he's managed to get a good entry for one of his "clients".

Please have the decency to stop cross ramping the other shares in your portfolio. It's pathetic.

Stackhigh, you must have missed the acquisition of Ecuador focused exploration and development company Adventus, just last week.

Agree

Link here: https://www.ft.com/content/e37bc016-43b3-49b1-bc39-dec8dc2234c0

The thrust of this piece is that the big boys are going after producing assets to avoid the hassle of having to build a new mine themselves. That being said, producing assets worth the time of the major miners are few and far between. At some point, in order to secure future supply they are going to have to bite the bullet.

Speedy, why do you expect a lot bigger? Won't be anything >0.5% as this would have to be publicly disclosed. I think a more reasonable explanation for the share price being where it is, is uncertainty around our future and the possibility of further equity being issued should we attempt to buy Telfer, the other 70% or both.

Thanks for sharing. Reading this, the only short position is 27m shares from ActusRay, which out of 5bn shares in issue is a drop in the ocean?

Add, Sangha had confirmed via email to DG in the Telegram group that this development doesn't impact the IPA or exploitation contract. It's more to do with free trade type agreements between countries. Ignore the idiots on here.

It's because he's about 40% down on his investment in First Tin.

"What restrictive covenants and compensation clauses was Rinehart subject to during negotiations?"

Hilarious. This is Gina Rinehart we're talking about. She's worth $30bn. If she doesn't want to invest $200m in Ecuador because of a change in the geopolitical landscape, the deal doesn't get done. It's as simple as that.

If option 2 were the case the share price would be far south of here, as it has been in recent weeks. I actually think it this scenario it's much more likely that the company has various financing options available and is therefore happy to let this go down to the wire (as they may well be close to agreeing a deal for an asset or the business as a whole).

Also your desperate "this deal was inked weeks ago" schpiel shows you have absolutely no idea how these things work. As addicknt mentions if Rhinehart or any investor saw the embassy situation as a serious problem, those contracts get torn up before they're signed. They're released to media the day they're signed because it's in literally everyone around the table's benefit to do so.

I also note you attempting to weasel out (already) of your claim that we'd be raising capital at a share price far south of what was then around 6p or 7p. I wonder what volley of bullsh*t you'll treat us to when that doesn't happen.

Stackhigh, a few days ago: "The UN confirming that this is a violation of the Geneva convention simply cannot be a good thing for the president's chances of attracting investment. There is violence and corruption in lots of the countries where majors invest, but blatant disregard for 'inviolable' international law is a troubling precedent. Majors sign IPAs which are underpinned and upheld by an adherence to international law. They can cope with the occasional coup or assassination, bribery or extortion, because the ruling parties in other jurisdictions are smart enough to adhere to the relevant bits of these legal agreements. Ecuador has just clearly demonstrated that it won't."

Aged well, didn't it.

I thought Stackhigh and Needatooth told us that big business would be deterred from investing in Ecuador after the Mexican embassy debacle? Might it be the case they were talking absolute b*llocks?

Eloro, if add and myself are the two contrarian voices, who's the real sheep? Not the sharpest tool in the box, are you.