Member Info for specinvestor99

Helpful I merely stated that the public information is one truck. Please let me know the information (one truck) is not correct. See RNS dated Nov 15th

"The Company has 200 tons of lithium ore prepared for export and the first truck has now left Harare for the Mozambican port of Beira."

There is no information about additional trucks, date of export or future plans which is exactly why I stated the lack of information is negative for RRR's shareholders.

To answer your question re: additional RNS for each truck. My answer is NO but information on the export, delivery of 200 tonnes, or arrival details on shipment, next steps with sellers etc would be very information and IMO beneficial for the RRR share price.

All of the above is based on an understanding that RRR/ALR knows what the planned next steps are.

Helpful

correct and so far ONE truck (34 tonnes) has been sent out of a total of 200 tonnes needed for export

IS 200 tonnes needed or some other number?

RRR positive aspects-a number of potentially game changers in #1 and #2 and even at Burkina Faso which is still very early and needs more work. Timing wise #1 and #2 and short term and could see material RNS short term

1) Cash from Congo-this is a game changer

2) Lithium exports -irrespective of where the ore exported comes from it has the potential to be cash flow positive for RRR-again game changer

3) Gold production -Burkina Faso- more drilling and work to see if it can be fast tracked to production

3b) Kenya tailings-obviously on the back burner but with higher gold prices this should be of interest to someone

4) IPO- ELEP-often delayed and I suspect we will see another delay since more current financial statements need to filed. RRR has a 6 month hold before selling to public but perhaps some private sales are possible. This has the ability to fund basic overhead and some additional work

5) IPO Australia-should eventually be listed maybe by mid 2024, higher gold prices help

6) Kenya-Mid Migori 700K ounces of gold This should attract a JV IMO needs more drilling but RRR should spend its funds elsewhere

Banbury mostly its devil advocate. I have posted negative comments about RRR but they are outnumbered by my other posts.

Summary of negative views

1) RRR took on too many projects

2) RRR took on projects in anticipation of Congo funds-clearly they should have waited.

3) RRR has lack of transparency about minimum expenditures needed to maintain projects (this is a failing of AIM reporting standards)

4) RRR lack of transparency on Congo litigation and arbitration process, which goes back to early 2022

5) Currently there is a lack of transparency on lithium exports. One truck containing about 200 ton left site but 2,000 tons are needed (my understanding). Was this done? if not when or why not?

6) RRR announced plans to put gold project into production is vague. How much production? capital costs? where is that money coming from? outside sources for a % of project is fine just say so.

My main issue is the cash from Congo and the arbitral award. What, if anything, triggers the award? If there is no set timeframe then say so. Will the proceeding eventually expire and they have to start all over? Does it expire when the current president leaves office?

Granted some of these things might be best left unstated via a RNS or anywhere in the public domain so I recognized there is a balance act in providing information that is useful to shareholders but if disclosed places RRR at a competitive disadvantage. I have served numerous public companies at which these types of issues were discussed both at the BOD level and with outside legal counsel

Banbury ELEp's financial statements show about $7.5M of capital put into the company. Note some of this was debt conversion and some compensation converted but however you look at it, it is clearly not zero.

Even if it was 100% cash it still does not change the risk vs reward calculation since all the prior funds is a sunk cost and what matters is moving forward

Banbury

1-the facts clearly show funds were invested prior to this IPO

2-I have been involved with oil & gas, on and off, for over 30 years and have never seen an exploration program funded with a loan

3-risk vs reward- This is the crux of the issue. After the IPO ELEP has a market cap of $70 million. The public paid $7 million for 10%, If ELP makes significant oil discoveries and the market cap increases to $700 then that 10x return..

If there is nothing then it becomes worthless. Using those numbers then if the chance of success is greater than 10% the risk is worth the reward. Conversely a less than 10% success rate means it the investment is not worthwhile.

Using that same analysis tells you why banks do not lend money on exploration projects since they look for 100% certainty of a loan repayment.

ELEP also has 98 shareholders so why would any shareholder make a loan which would entail a loan risk to benefit 97 other people?

Why invest in ELEP at $4 to $5 because if the hit oil it could be $20+ (that's a big if)

Potentially they have multiple big (referrred to as "Elephant"). This potential is what makes ELEP different from TPET which had an interest in small oil field in the State of California (limited upside potential by comparison)

Fleas bite so be careful what you say

"not guilty" because he knows the pictures are real

I hope they get sued. It was intentionally false.

Banbury I live in a world of reality You left it out.

Banbury interesting comment from Tom but you left out this

"but on these 2 counts it is not guilty."

why? doesn't fit the bashing narrative?

Is this about RRR? The author denies it see his response to AB where he states in part

"No idea what you’re talking about"

When challenged the author backed down., what smear campaign

Nothing new here just bashing and reliving the past.

RRR/ALR is moving forward. If they can buy ore from others, export it and make money I am good with that.

AB publicly stated that ore is purchased from others. I guess the posters who 'caught' him are looking for congratulations. So congratulations on your great DD

Posting intentionally false information is wrong and I hope a number of parties will get sued and force to pay damages.

Zumore- I see no information either way spodumene or lepidolite on the various properties held by RRR/ALR

The picture on RRR's feed on X (twitter) shows an excavator in the background. This would be used in mining operations not in the purchase of material from other sites.

I suppose the conspiracy theorist can say it was photo-shopped or just rented just for the picture

But for the sake of discussion I would think the key is whether or not the material (where ever it came from) can be exported and sold at a PROFIT. Personally I dont care where it came from JUST MAKE MONEY

Possible suspension for RRR is fear mongering.

lots of things are not rare- takeovers are not rare either and IMO given the assets, near term developments and low share price that is more possible than a suspension

The interview is being misrepresented. Go and listen to it:

at 1:20 RRR/ALR will do all 3 (relating to exports) use stockpile, have ability to produce our own ore and buy ore

at 2.10 AB states there is "active operations" referring to RRR/ALR property

Of course this is confidential information. This is a competitive business.

The fear mongering on this board, including suspension, is outrageous

Banbury

AB gave no specific details.

I always suspected as well as many others on this board that the first sale would come from the material mined by others on this property (called the 'stockpile). Since neither RRR/ALR paid for that stockpile the cost is zero (this is a guess on my part but since it was illegal mining it makes sense). Comments were also made about the nice road made and paid for by those same illegal miners

On the issue of buying ore from others I suspect it is being done on informal basis as in: "Bring it to us, we will assay it and pay you." I suspect that there is no title check. legal opinions etc

I have been involved in other export operations (not Zimbabwe) where a legal opinion or formal declaration that all the material being exported came from your property to properly source the material, assess royalties etc

Further this is also the time constraints inherent in any interview that come into play to describe a situation.

This is a long explanation as to the possible reasons why RRR/AB during an interview does not provide a lot of information,

As I previously posted I like this approach and is consistent with a prior post that the first shipment would be a learning exercise. Quite frankly I dont see why this is a surprise to anyone. There is ALWAYS a learning curve on ANY new operation.

Acknowledging this IMO is a sign of strength not weakiness

Based on the comments received it appears that there is an agreement that the "traditional AIM model" is not good for the shareholders.

Therefore it must be concluded that this board agrees with AB.

Thanks everyone for your feedback

I dont live in the UK so I am familiar with AIM as others.

Please express your opinions or fact as to that is the "traditional AIM model"