Member Info for tbow112

It sounds like you do not understand how dilution happens. TUN has a history of very dilutive fund raises which favour existing major shareholders.

"potential $25m shareholder support is fantastic news, assuming the latter isn't on abusive terms."

History suggests that this particular assumption is unlikely to be fulfilled.

Thanks, Hogsnipe. I have downloaded the Copilot transcript but not the trade statistics so if you could PM me a link to the latter that would be helpful.

It is certainly a lot to read through.

It sounds like the Copilot analysis is the interesting bit.

Hogsnipe, how do we ask to see a copy of your trades analysis ?

All that permiting is theoretical. It is the reality that will be interesting.

AFAIK noise reduction can require considerable expertise. I once camped near Phalabora copper mine - the noise coming through the ground from several miles away was incredible.

LB, it seems to me that one of the biggest risks to TUN is that they fail to solve the noise problem.

Any information that you are able to provide, either by listening appropriately or via the pub, would be very welcome. And please provide independently of whether the news is good or bad.

This might be of some background interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDz1JqKULfw

From my post of 11 March:

"As useful strategic investors one might cite the US government who can provide guaranteed prices as a quid pro quo, or Solvay who could bring significant processing expertise and European support,or a US mining house who can prove mining and marketing expertise."

Because if they are simply investment funds there is not the slightest reason to offer them a significant discount when investing. There are other institutions which can offer an important quid pro quo in return for investment.

I will certainly be disappointed if it turns out that Cascade is owned by two non-governmental US investment funds.

"That aside, the BoD are NDA'd up to the eyeballs - the SI is clearly very secretive "

There are times when directors need to insist that they are directors of a public company and that disclosure is required.

Hogsnipe, is it possible to find a dictionary for all that in one place ?

"That also raises the question, why did Pensana agree to a worse deal now?"

Was there any answer to this question at the meeting ?

"Tbow - genuine question - why are you invested in Pensana?"

I cannot think of a less risky and more promising mining project.

Strategic investors need to bring more than mere money, and if you are simply dealing with an investment fund you are actually excluding strategic investors who could be much more useful.

As useful strategic investors one might cite the US government who can provide guaranteed prices as a quid pro quo, or Solvay who could bring significant processing expertise and European support,or a US mining house who can prove mining and marketing expertise.

Mere money should be available from existing investors.

It is usually a good idea to treat merchant bankers like snakes and ignore their sales blurb.

There does seem to be a connection between Cascade and New York but it is very difficult to see that simply being a US financial institution justifies the sort of discount that is being offered to Cascade.

"The revised structure will benefit all shareholders which will be apparent when the identity of the Strategic Partners is disclosed."

Thanks for the updates.

Was this a statement by the company or is it simply a deduction ?