Member Info for SlurmsMckenzie

If anything though you have highlighted the fa ct that there are gaps in what the company are telling us.

But it's not flooded

How to explain this ...

Nobody is claiming there isn't a problem related to water

Water is used extensively in mining and is a waste product of mining as well.

There is no sign of flooding

There is no report of flooding

At a pinch a redesign (and that's what most of this is about) might be needed with rainy season being a factor, but again ... that's not due to current conditions on the ground which you have been given a satellite image of

They have also been quite clear about work continuing and I can assure you an interruption to construction work due to flooding would be worthy of an RNS in itself and hard to contain from the news given how many people work there.

They use water as part of the mining process and need their own reservoir.

Given your logic Gregg I could say it's down to Aliens or Jeremy's anal warts causing discomfort and then claim I'm right because the RNS doesn't disprove that and if that just so happens to sow seeds of doubt well that's just handy isn't it?

It's called market manipulation.

Because that's not how the burden of proof works.

But just to humour you

I've searched for both 'water' and 'flood' and guess what ...

"If the Construction site is flooded has the work been halted yet"

Source? Otherwise this is dangerous speculation with intent to move the market in your desired direction.

I'm at work so can't engage as fully as I'd like.

Like you I'm currently out, unlikely to come back in (never say never though). Like you I have an absolute right to commentate on this

Your scenario is dependent on all the major shareholders colluding (well that's not unheard of) but also

1) Nobody else wanting a slice of the pie. This is where the Sirius comparisons need taming. Risk /Reward much better

2). All the major shareholders happy to stump up more cash, now according to some of your own posts one is flat ass broke and would vote against themselves being diluted as they can't pony up the cash.

I'm not claiming either of the above to be probable or unorobable , merely possible and I don't consider this a lost cause yet although I can't stress this enough that's dependent on finalisation of costs.

The ball is in play, if many serves quite a few made a fortune in sxx as it went from 3 to 5.p

I don't think this is another sxx for quite a few reasons the most important being

1). The size of the mine and the risks of the technique's used, woodsmith mine is crazy deep

2). The sums involved, they were huge

3). The requirements for state aid

4). The quality of the sales contracts, lots of weird clauses in contracts and in one case sold to what was practically a shell company (the South American sales were dodgy at)

5) And this is really important and what made me sell out the end product. Polyhalite , good in a blend but an unproven market. This is nickel, two types.

So yes there are risks here ( I personally don't like the fact that costs have not been confirmed yet and are at *least* 35% but Sirius this is not

And if you're sick of this board you're more than welcome to go back under the rock you came from just over a week ago, with your constant false predictions, fake claims about when RNS's will land and false claims about funding being sorted

Here before you and will be here after you. Trader scum

"Funding will be confirmed Wednesday"

That's a lie

Doe you understand

Yours forever blowing bubbles ..

Slurms

Stop telling lies

You're an an absolute fraud.

A Jonny come lately fraud.

They don't know what the final figure is yet, it's being reviewed independently.

It's clearly a different board to last week Tornado T. Looks like they made an effect to answer your question via the message so thanks for asking.

I'm in the camp of watch and learn and sit it out until the report is in. I don't think think it's going to a penny but I don't think you'll see more than 40p or so in the next year.

Shame it came to this.

Over and out (until the dust settles)

Ok some people have got it into their heads that because of the companies act 2006 section 580 the company can't offer shares at a discount. I really really doubt that's applicable here. Sorry.

I wish I knew!

I'd never heard that in all my time here and I've never heard it said about any other share, so if some rampers (I'm talking about the day traders here) are spreading BS it needs sorting

People on the blue channel (and maybe here) saying they can't raise below 20p, is this true? Seems strange to me and I've heard so much bs this last few days.

Can personally verify,I took a 30% haircut on that (I'm glad I did most of my panicking at 8am on the Monday).

It did knock my confidence in AIM though as a result I've taken a bit of profit elsewhere including here.

I've reduced my holding by a third, but I'm done now (not that you should believe me as this is s BB)

Prisoners dilemma. Shaft or get shafted.

Decent chance I think, my guess and it is just that an uneducated guesss

1). The share price goes a bit lower

2) the costs of *at least* 35% come in higher, JM praises this as definitely derisking this time.

3) a bid comes in, there might be competition but I can see shareholders getting too much more than where we are now.

This is just wild speculation on my part. It's clearly a traders plaything for the next few days.