Member Info for SpaceHoppa

There is as far as I know, zero evidence that ICSID judgements are influenced by eco lunatics.

Comparing apples and pears and suggesting bananas is not particularly useful either.

Is an OM award priced In, yes somewhat in that a loss could see the SP half, but upside is not priced in as it depends on the size of the award. Even a $30m net to Rock could see the SP double. It's all a big finger in the air prediction.

The moronic COP 26 summit, to agree to beggar the west whilst China and Russia
continue on churning out CO2,
continuing to undercut the west with cheaper power,
and cheaper exploited labour,
will have no impact on when ICSID announce their decision.

What is a concern, growing daily, is why ICSID have yet to throw out the latest Italian/EU bu*LL****e attempt to avoid the consequences of inviting $millions of investment money to Italy,
only to then change the playing field and saying feck off suckers!

I can sympathise with wanting top management change, however I am not sure yet that would benefit Pure.
Also whoever you bring in would likely be like most Directors, greedy trough feeders.
Pure directors are rightly tainted with their actions, particularly insider selling en masse when they must have known they needed more funds and H1 numbers were disappointing!

All that said, they have 'on paper' at least, the knowledge and experience to make Pure a raging success story.

Hello Diadulus. Good to hear you bought at the low of 50pence. I took a few in the 50p's too on the way down to bring my average lower and round off my ownership to 100,000. That is me finished buying though, and I am here for the longer haul as things stand. I do not see Pure as a takeover target atm, but often these come out of the blue.

Pure management have not covered themselves in glory, and I agree they seemed too desperate to push forward but at the cost of unnecessary dilution. It may be they had to dilute anyway as H1 performance was perhaps more disappointing that anticipated.

As said, directors integrity and collective ability is in question for me, however I like the asset more than my concern for their credibility, and given their collective experience and deeper knowledge of the company, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.

H2 should be far better in terms of gold produced than H1 as per RNS
''As production transitions to higher grade stopes in Q3 and Q4, head grades are expected to continue to improve for the balance of the year along with increasing throughput.''

However we have been warned that owing to the capital costs headline AISC will not look good as per RNS
''Cash Costs1 for the fourth quarter, the first full quarter of commercial production, are expected to be in the range of US$1,025 - $1,125 per ounce. AISC1 for the fourth quarter is expected to be in the range of US$1,600 - $1,750 per ounce. Looking forward into 2022, production is expected to increase and Cash Costs and AISC are expected to fall significantly driven by higher grades and throughput coupled with decreased investment in capital development and other sustaining capital programs. ''

There is much to look forward too, but it might take another 6 to 18 month perhaps, before we get above £1 again.

Nobody doubts the possible impact of the 8 zone, or it's potential,
however what I dislike is the company over ramping itself, directors selling en masse
and then after declaring commercial production, they flog off more of the company /diluting shareholders,
rather than getting a loan for $20million!

The asset is beyond doubt, but management's ability and especially their integrity is not.

Hargreaves Lansdown number is 01179 809800 and you then have to ask for their corporate actions department.

That might be a fair explanation Ovets, however as Pauldrayton initially pointed out,
it only took ICSID just two days to reject the last spurious jurisdiction claim as below.

June 24, 2019 The Claimants file observations on the Respondent’s request of June 18, 2019.
June 26, 2019 The Tribunal issues a decision on jurisdiction and on the Respondent’s request of June 18, 2019.

The odds are in our favour that the OM award will be/is won,
and the pay out will be ok to good, $40m to perhaps $200m.
Meaning somewhere between $20m to $130m for Rock.
It is of concern and annoyance though, that it has been a week now since the submissions regarding jurisdiction.
I was expecting the biased/bent EU judges comments to be quickly dismissed as the irrelevance that they should be.

NM

Starting to tick up again.
A decent Q3 report and we'll be off properly I hope.

Well credit where credits due, they're doing a first class job of not looking interested!

Thanks for the reply TDDW.
I see it simply as a seller, HBR, trying to get something/anythng for an asset-Sea Lion, to a possibly buyer-Navitas.
Rock in this instance don't get a look in, but I assume Navitas would have to take on all the responsibilities and commitments that PMO/HBR made to RKH.
I was just a thought and not a suggestion anything like that will happen.

Just thinking out aloud here, as I am unsure if this is a possibility.
I appreciate Sea Lion is a big investment, & Rock has no cash to help a partner develop SL,
but what is the possibility of Navitas taking over /buying /being gifted, for a small royalty etc, all of Harbours SL rights??
I appreciate FIG may need to approve, but if Navitas can organise the cash, then that would be a massive opportunity for them if they have the balls and the means.

CHEATED.
I wished you well as you said you had sold out. 'Much better shares out there you said'
You have no shares. Your input here is tainted, your opinion is tainted, you are tainted.
Nobody gives a monkeys about an ex shareholder who is de-ramping after they sold out at the bottom.
P1 s5 off !

It took two working days for ICSID to dismiss the jurisdiction claims last time.
I would say the current claim has to consider the new spurious material from the bent EU judges comments,
however we could or should hear from them at any point now, if past speed is anything to go on.

June 24, 2019 The Claimants file observations on the Respondent’s request of June 18, 2019.
June 26, 2019 The Tribunal issues a decision on jurisdiction and on the Respondent’s request of June 18, 2019.

Herding the fickle pi cats is almost an impossible task Glenrothes!!
However you did incredibly well to organise a decent voting block.

This voting block can still be used to in the future, if we have one.
So when it comes down to the next chance to vote,
many are now much better prepared, and will, to use their voting rights.
Well done Glen and thank you for trying.

I am a supporter of Glenrothes shareholder activism to get the BOD's snouts out of Rocks dwindling cash trough.
However I, like some others, am minded to wait until we have indicatively secured Rocks financial future with a decent OM settlement award before having a GM.

Since Rock successfully raised money and appraised Sea Lion, the directors have proven to be mediocre at best.
Rock have cash for another year, but we can not let Moody & Co mess it up again if we get a decent cash injection, so trying to put some checks and balances in place, and to a vote is not a bad idea or a bad thing, but on balance, right now might not be the best time.

This old dog still have weak beating heart.
Just needs a decent OM injection.
And some tender Navitas
and she'll be up chasing sea lions again.

''The game is up here I am afraid.''

I must have missed the RNS were Navitas have walked !
The game certainly is not up, however to be fair the same hurdles are still in place.
Getting a partner with the desire and financial clout to develop SL has always been a problem.
Plus time is not on Rocks side.

All that said, a significant OM payment and a deal with Navitas who, unlike PMO, seem to get things done, added to oil above $80, and things could change around rapidly. The fat lady has not started to sing yet, but she is in the lobby.

Glenrothes, if possible, and if you want to, perhaps contact Moody directly for a chat,
impress you have the backing and contact of a significant number of shareholders, and voting shares,
that we are not going away and are deeply unhappy with their lack of performance compared to pay etc.
Perhaps there might be a constructive middle ground between their views and ours??