Member Info for Spikeyj

but they are *not* cash-flow positive overall,
which is why they keep running out of cash.

this company burns it, rather than generates.

14:19, dan, that’s why they’ve always been careful to talk
about reducing *operating* costs, but have kept very quiet
about the admin (& renumeration) side of things. always
worth watching carefully with AIM what is *not* stated.

Early_Bird, you’re the fellah who posted a false statement on
this board on 24th june about this company already generating
“positive cash-flow”. .. that wasn’t true then, and it still isn’t
true now. ... perhaps worth considering before you try & ramp?

.... placing probably in progress right now. price walked up for it,
peel taking the chance to exit more, now some forward selling.

(they said previously, didn’t need dilution s/term re **operating**
expenses. but always important with ADME to watch carefully that
slippery distinction between operating expenses versus the **admin
expenses**. note what is *not* said about any reductions in admin
expenses ( = extent to which BoD have their snouts in the trough...)

£200K at 12th june. but it is now 30th june, so they
will have burnt through almost half of that already
given the ‘admin’ (!) cash burn, which is pretty hefty.

“In the short term, the Group will require further additional funding in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due.”

admin costs remain very high. company continues to burn through
cash, with all oil revenues still going to pay off the project level debt.

ian, in fairness, you could perhaps accept with better grace that you got a
clear, polite & straight answer to your question whether i was american?

(but beyond that, i see no particular reason why i would want to give
out very much personal information on a semi-public internet chat
board like this. all sorts of dodgy characters on a boards like this, eh?)

ian, according to some of your fellow enthusiasts, i am tom
winnifrith, so if that’s true then i am from clerkenwell/ greece?

any particular reason you want to know, ian?

hi ian, no, i am not american.

calamari, maybe take a quick peek at the bard’s
phrasing in merchant of venice? [act II, sc VII] ; )

+ all that glisters is not palladium?

some other potentially relevant sayings
for speculative AIM resource companies:

a fool and his money are soon parted.
if it seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t.
don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
if you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made.

(...that last one is the hallmark of many an AIM CEO.)

it didn’t show the returns from the various prufunds in a good light, did it?
- i was half-expecting MNG to take a bit of a hit from that this morning, tbh,
but i suppose it’s mostly stuff professional market is already well aware of.

10:25, yes, in theory.

but to do that, they would firstly need to satisfy AIM regulation that they
had *resolved the original reason for suspension*, and then they would
would need to *produce a second genuine reason* why another suspension
was needed (not sufficient for them to say, we’d like to suspend please.)

did you manage to decide how many EUA shares you have yet, ragsrob?

it was 250,000 on 4th may,
but 333,000 on 29th feb,
and 233,234 on 26th feb.

[or “iam [sic] in for 20K at about 6.5” on 11th feb, vs
“i bought in a [sic] isa at 6.0 a share’ on 12th feb.]

slippery things, numbers.

it would be more interesting (at least from my point of view) if posters
spent more time posting about the company itself, & related business
or market issues, rather than making personal insults or engaging in
extended personal arguments / bullying with others. i think it can be
difficult sometimes for lse admin to see what the problem is from the
reporting of single posts, if the underlying issue is actually about a
pattern of behaviour over time from a particular poster, or the way
that someone repeatedly targets someone else for personal mockery.

in such situations, it can be helpful to explain the problematic
pattern of behaviour in an email to lse admin at info@lse.co.uk

there have been a fair few posts on this board (and tbf, plenty of other
AIM share boards!) about how evil shorting is, & how it should be banned.

just as some food for thought during this relatively quiet period on EUA
board while we wait for some more news, the recent self-immolation of
Wirecard suggests an alternative perspective... it was short-sellers who
helped to uncover the fraud, assisted by some good financial journalism
(e.g. from the FT). interestingly, german financial regulatory authority
BaFin tried to support wirecard and also (presumably inadvertently?)
helped conceal the fraud for longer by banning short-selling for a while.

well argued and detailed argument in defence of short-selling from one
of the hedgefunds who were shorting wirecard, in an open letter to BaFin:

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/14c124c6-8b4b-4fce-aa5b-4fc04834d828/downloads/Safkhet%20Capital%20to%20BaFin%20on%20Short%20Sale%20Ban.pdf?ver=1553002904959

TheTruth, they’ve said that they have the cash fpr *operating costs* until the
end of the year, but that does not mean that they have the cash for their
*administrative costs* (including BoD renumeration) which are significant.

they will also need to raise cash from somewhere to buy that additional
slice of aje that they’ve RNS’d about, and they will need to raise cash for
drilling new wells to replace the existing two aje ones as they decline,
and to pay for their share of aje development. they have nothing set aside
to cover those costs at present, but they do have permission already from
s/holders to issue a vast amount of new shares. although they are producing
some oil, adme receives none of the cash from selling that, as all the oil sales
revenue still goes towards paying off the project level debt which is a shared
liabilty between adme and the other partners. but it is looking good for peel!