Member Info for specinvestor99

Banbury in essence you are stating that the 2 internet interviews and the posted video showing 200 tons of lithium ore are completely false. If your statement is true then AB/RRR IMO committed fraud and charges should be filed.

If your statement is false then RRR should file a slander/libel lawsuit against you

Banbury LOL "Collapse of Lithium expectations"

what expectations did you have?

personally I think the export plan of 200 mt for several months and then increasing is incredibly positive.

To whom are referring as to having collapsed expectations.?

The RRR share price will continue to be weak until there is a liquidity event (Cash from Congo, ELPEP IPO or some other event)

I suspect you are looking at 'research" as somehow credible. future pointer-they are all rubbish,

This forum had lots of post on that report and it became quickly out of line when Zimbabwe changed its laws.

Banbury/Helpful-- license renewal in August. Kenya does not approve license renewal quickly. The actual approval might not occur for several months. This lag time impacts the timing of getting a JV or a deal placing the tailings into production.

Here is the challenge that RRR has in creating value

$400 annual cost to be public

$1.6 annual cost to maintain properties (I dont know the real cost but someone else posted this number so I am using

$2.0 total

20% is just doing doing nothing

80% is doing bare minimum but does it really create value? when it is spread out amongst so many countries and properties

IMO RRR needs JV partners to use "OPM" other peoples money

Zumore every single mining license issued by any country also contains requirements to spend money. The business model of picking up multiple licenses is a fairly common business model in Canada ('prospect generators') but they also require the ability to attract other companies to spend money on your properties. Can RRR do this? They did it with Lithium

RRR needs to more money flowing into junior mining sectors, so far I dont see this happening in North America but perhaps the UK is different

Zumore every single mining license issued by any country also contains requirements to spend money. The business model of picking up multiple licenses is a fairly common business model in Canada ('prospect generators') but they also require the ability to attract other companies to spend money on your properties. Can RRR do this? They did it with Lithium

RRR needs to more money flowing into junior mining sectors, so far I dont see this happening in North America but perhaps the UK is different

Since there have been no RNS regarding lithium then as RRR stated in their RNS dated Nov 15th it must be concluded that no additional material progress has been made

Zumore

No one know if AB/RRR did chose local arbitration, it could have been mandated (most likley). International legal action including arbitration is always possible, most likely as a last resort. I suspect AB was told by RRR''s advisors that this was a good course of action.

My main complaint is the lack of details, Can it be truly said that it is "imminent" ? Is there any required timing for making the arbitration decision? Can the $2.5 court judgement be used to take action against property held by the losing side? Can that court judgement be used to get payment from the funds being held, if not why not?

AB/RRR could be doing all of the above and more there is an absence of knowledge not only on Congo but also the export process underway by RRR/ALR

Helpful

The devil is in the details. I understand and appreciate what you are saying as well as what AB has stated. Delivery to a duty free zone IMO does mean that the ore was exported because in fact that duty free zone is not the destination but merely a resting spot.

As to your comment that it takes a NOMAD 3-4 days to approve a RNS (a material event) if true that is an incredibly sad state of affairs for a public company to conduct business in that environment. At the very least it creates a tremendous opportunity for insider trading. Certainly a major red flag for investors given a share placement could have already taken place but we wont hear about it until Friday

However numerous posters have commented about the lack of trust with AB. An RNS about current facts might impact the share price.

You are correct

Helpful i recognize that what is significant to some may not be significant to other.

IMO there is significant difference between beginning to Export (as stated RRR's RNS) compared to have Exported

RNS provided by RRR is a forward looking event which announced the start of a process..

your point that it might not be material to keep announcing further progress is debatable but IMO it is material when additional steps such as -Ship has left the port

just my 2 cents

Helpful- to be clear. Are you stating that it would not be a factual statement to issue an RNS to state more than one truck has left? or that 200 tonnes have arrived in Beira?

IMO it is clear that an RNS can have a forward looking event.

Robins I agree that it is always relevant to question any management's ability to lead. However that is not what was happening. He was questioning a familiar relationship with an implication that it was wrong and then forced to admit that disclosure was not required and the transaction legal and proper.

In other words if you want to say AB can not manage just say it, dont trust him -then just say it

Everyone can have an opinion just dont make stuff up or try to be cute with sly innuendo

Banbury let me see if i understand what you saying.

"if a family relationships exists then it is both legal and does not need disclosure but you would still like that information"

Do I understand that correctly?

I listed numerous things I would like more information on (Congo award, lithium exports, timing of IPO's for ELEP and Australia) which would potentially impact my thinking on RRR shares. Personally this would not make my list but I respect your right to include this in your investment analysis

Robins- "we are all more concerned about .. .projects"

Certainly not all and perhaps not even the majority, far too many are concerned about relatives and making vague allegations of fraud and misconduct all anonymously

Banbury-BS Both AIM and independent audits require disclosure on RPT

YOU ARE ALLEDGING FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!

BS-'share concerns about transparency' to what? something that it is not required but exists with an anonymous poster?

I repeat make a written complaint- its laughable that you only want 'transparency' one way. Put your name behind it

Family relations are easy to prove. MAKE YOUR COMPLAINT!

Robbins-Harm? If AB had answered with a detailed response then the complaint would have been about the specific words used etc etc.

example -Did you hit your wife on Nov 24th?

answer- i never hit my wife

Complaint- See he did not answer my question

If Banbury or anyone else wants to make an fraud complaint or allegation of fraud then do so in writing to the proper authorities and stand behind it.. In Canada making such a false complaint is a violation of law and subject to damages. I suspect it is comparable in the UK

This is BS on so many levels. RRR has gotten so many loans from so many different sources and someone is concerned they might be a family connection via director? Was there loan terms materially different from the other loans?

Personally I am more concerned about :

1-lithium exports

2-Cash from Congo

3-timing of ELEP IPO

4-timing of Australian IPO or funding

ANY DEBT in company that has no operating cash flow is a concern even if it is a related party debt

Banbury Related party transactions are disclosed in the financial statements. Mr. Bell responded with a broad denial.

If you believe that there is a non disclosed related party transaction that is very serious allegation of fraud.

Your proper course of action is to file written complaint to RRR with copies to its attorneys, accountants and the regulatory bodies.

This is not the forum in which an anonymous poster makes allegation of fraud, particularly after a broad denial Sorry you do not get to stand behind "Oh AB did not answer my specific question" You will never be satisfied with any answer AB provides

Banbury- No need to stand your ground. Mr. Bell answered this earleir 14.56 in which he stated in part

"and of course I am unrelated to any director of a former lender, whether sharing the surname Bell or not.'

IMO you lose any credibility when you complain about something that has already been answered unless your posts are really designed to damage the share price and people's reputations

Capt_kurk LOL there is no requirement for RRR/ALR to build a refinery. Only the material has to be processed/refined in Zimbabwe

It is laughable to believe that every single producer has to be a have a refinery. Like all government manate issued worklwide this one will be modified and delayed.

The key issue is not a refinery but generating cash flow and second what exactly do they have on their licenses

Banbury- I am also concerned about "radio silence". If one truck is worth an RNS then surely completion of the task of sending 200 tonnes is worth an RNS, same thing with a ship leaving, ship arriving and sale. If share placement is made worth those purchasers be aware of that information or be provided any additional information regarding Congo?

The controversy regarding the pictures should be explained via an RNS (so as it is vetted and RRR be held responsible for its accuracy-although I am not sure much teeth those rules actually have).

The need for commercial confidentiality is understandable and justifiable but such claims/statements should be made via an official RRR position stated in an RNS not in a media interview. In Canada/US if material statement are made via sources (which occasionally happens) then the regulatory authorities either force of the companies voluntarily repeat such information via news releases and/or other regulatory channels. This ensures proper context and disclosure to the investing public

All could be well within RRR but I dont like the AIM regulatory framework. One annual report and one interim 6 month report is not sufficient given the high risk nature of the companies listed on the AIM.