Member Info for Teacup64

Castaway - I did not say that BP is not going to be worth it.....what I said is that it MAY not be worth it. Look guys, I hear all you say, but your failing to understand what I am asking for. AP has given indication that the BP resource is of a P1 category, which by any standard is rather low, when looking at what it could be. If AP has indicated that it is a P1 resource, then unless I have missed any later made statements that refer to an upgraded resource, then I have to resort to what is fact, rather than speculation. I don't see why asking for AP statements that I may have missed has become so dam controversial to a few users on this BB, that they must argue the hell with me....an answer that exceeds my evidence would suffice. ORT - Not having a dig, but what is a compelling reason to allow them to have options?....they already have a cut of the assets, is that not enough for them?

Hey guys....or at least to the guys that haven't filtered me due to their inability to challenge me with answers. I have some concerns regarding BP, but have been shut down by most on this board, but until the naysayers can provide evidence to prove me wrong, then it will remain the case that I am in fact correct....So here is my thoughts on BP. BP could be profitable, AP has mentioned that himself, the RNS has referred to 1.8mt at a 6% copper equivalent....so he right to say that it's profitable based on those figures. If you read the RNS in question, he states that the figures are derived from Russian standards(Reserve & Resource Reporting System). He states that BP is only classed as a resource. Now if you look into the Russian standardisation system, you will find that BP is not considered a category A, B, C1, or C2 reserve, but either a CP1, P2, or P3 resource instead. If you dig a little deeper, you will find that BP fits nicely into the Prognostic 1 Category(P1). P1 resources are calculated using as little as one drill core, any data such as the old production results which were taken from an isolated area of the mine within our license area, and any surrounding structures. In BPs case, it's ~50km from the Rosia Montana mine. If 1.8mt @ 6% copper equivalent is derived from such a potentially small dataset, then the BP project could in reality be a massive hole, or a jackpot. Before funnelling all our funds towards BP, and taking on debt financing, I think shareholders need to know what exactly they are getting into first before committing ourselves. On another note, topics concerning APs percentages, and also about APs Options will be coming very soon!

Sandy - As far as I can see, under the 'Mining Law 58/2013', there is nothing that mentions about keeping secret precise geological location reserve info. Perhaps I missed it, maybe you could point it out for me? http://www.ropepca.ro/en/legislatie_oil_gas/mining-law-85-2003/2/

Sandy - Imagine how low my postcount would have been had you and your gang just accepted an opposing view, instead of challenging it without any evidence to back yourselves up!

Congratulations by the way, you received my 2000th post!

Strongboes - You have clearly only read the parts of my posts that you want, otherwise you'd understand the logic and timing of events....I suggest you start from the beginning again to catch up! By your opposition, and clear misunderstanding(or purposeful misinterpretation), I suppose your jumping into the default official line.... Get more debt, and take a gamble on a P1 resource...where if BP fails, so does the company! So where your logic there? ....or are you just trying to ensure that BP prevails without any justification whatsoever? .....because by the insults, it sure looks that way!

Pecten - We have never seen him ourselves. I have personally sent him an email without response, but no. My brother invested just before Vasts nomad left, so only ever knew of AP when he joined. Anyways, this has got nothing to do with AP personally, just the situation were presented with.

Pecten - "suggestion that VAST should voluntarily default on outstanding debt obligations is shockingly naive. The reputational damage alongside the resultant longer term doubts over creditworthiness would be damning". The other alternative that has been proposed is the binary BP plan, which if fails, kills us! This is no longer about preserving our reputation, but rather preserving our existence, even if that means bad creditworthiness....which I agree will be the case btw. But if the house can be put back in order, then we can start again, but with a slower form of organic growth instead. "A simple question - where are you and your brother from and where do you live now?" ...Uhh....I'm not really sure why that matters?....does it?

Sandy - Its not really about attempting to block, or pass decisions, or resolutions....if however, my efforts invoke a resolution to be proposed from elsewhere, then so be it, whatever their angle may be. But that's not my intention. It's more of a public awareness campaign, that if effective, and it manages to connect to enough peoples imaginations, whether on this BB or afar, then it's the resulting psychological effect of theoretical barriers that are created inwhich to guide a CEO through the will of the publics(shareholders) opinion. This particular case, refers to the companies current financial situation, and the other possibilities that exist, other than the 'BP is the only way' method. Who knows? ....AP might have a swerve ball that changes things completely, but as of the current situation, my beliefs are as outlined previously.

Ian - I feel that we need a radical overhaul of operations, which includes defaults, but rids of our biggest cash burner, Manaila. I believe that by focussing on where we do already make money, PP, is the key to generating the much needed extra cash, that can later propel us onto BP and the rest. Zagra. Well that, apart from diamonds, and more specifically, a JV announcement with a major, is one of the reasons I am watching myself. If it does measure up as anticipated, then I wouldn't be able to disagree with you....I'd be in with you!

Ian - Thanks. To be fair, technically I do have a motive, to allow AP his share only when it's best for the company to allow him to have it, and not the other way around. I don't have anything against AP, or AP Groups share in the assets, after all he did bring them along when he joined, and RP did agree to those terms at the time. I just want to take the safest path for the company to flourish, and wish for AP to take that root, even if it means holding back on his assets for the moment until we're stable. AP Options is one thing that is a certain no go for me, but that is another story entirely, and also regulated under the SandyTea Peace Treaty 2018, which until they become relevant, both parties have so far not breached.

Ian - My brother, even myself, see value in the company. It's current financial situation has changed the dynamics somewhat....but managed correctly, and with as little risk as possible, that value my brother seeks may still be obtainable.

He could sell, or he could stand his ground a and defend his investment hoping for change instead.....this world is far bigger than the 3 or 4 naysayers that frequent this board to crush any opposition, and those few folk who say their bored reading it. It's everyone else beyond them that's reading my words that I'm trying to get too....a motion for change doesn't happen with a single post on a public BB....repetition of ideas catches all those that only look in occasionally.

Ian67 - "but once again i will ask why are you trying to save me?". Ian, I'm trying to save my brother, not you! Please don't confuse me for a super hero. Dodge - Yes, I have taken into account the Faneata tailings, but they only samples taken from isolated areas from within the greater license area of Baita Plai. Further, those tailings haven't increased the classification of the resource, otherwise this would have been announced already, but it hasn't unfortunately.

SukiSuki$5 - "Please show me where you can prove BP isn’t what is stated !". Uhh....I think your missing the point. I'm saying that BP is exactly as is stated, 6% copper equivalent, and 1.8mt. Here's a post I made the other day, and until the naysayers can provide evidence to prove me wrong, then it will remain the case that I am in fact correct.... "BP could be profitable, AP has mentioned that himself, the RNS has referred to 1.8mt at a 6% copper equivalent....so he right to say that it's profitable based on those figures. If you read the RNS in question, he states that the figures are derived from Russian standards(Reserve & Resource Reporting System). He states that BP is only classed as a resource. Now if you look into the Russian standardisation system, you will find that BP is not considered a category A, B, C1, or C2 reserve, but either a CP1, P2, or P3 resource instead. If you dig a little deeper, you will find that BP fits nicely into the Prognostic 1 Category(P1). P1 resources are calculated using as little as one drill core, any data such as the old production results which were taken from an isolated area of the mine within our license area, and any surrounding structures. In BPs case, it's ~50km from the Rosia Montana mine. If 1.8mt @ 6% copper equivalent is derived from such a potentially small dataset, then the BP project could in reality be a massive hole, or a jackpot. Before funnelling all our funds towards BP, and taking on debt financing, I think shareholders need to know what exactly they are getting into first before committing ourselves". Furthermore, Mercuria could have recommended that AP should increase production at BP....but that doesn't confirm that it's a good asset, just that it could be ran more efficiently.

Sandy - Coincidentally, that was also your response last time....strangely, it's everytime I mention APs interests that your hobbies get announced to the BB....call me the conspiracy theorist, but people can see straight through you ;) Besides, you publicly announced yesterday that I was wrong regarding the P1 resource, are you actually going to back your story up with evidence to prove me wrong?.....thought not! ;)

Sandy - I remember when we had the AP Options chat, you resorted to the same tactics of 'a good weekend read'....why don't you provide the evidence to back your,claim, instead of resorting to indirect attacks?

Mullaney - My brother bought at 0.1825 when the monad issue came up, so he's only a little bit down....but since then, mostly the last month, things have become more apparent let's say(I won't go into detail, but you know what I mean). It is this that has caused the intense questioning of every aspect of the operation.

Sandy - I'm sure I might have missed a comma, you might be able to find something else to jump me for ;)

If I can get enough people to stop BP progressing until we obtain enough solid evidence of its contents, then it could potentially avoid us taking on debt obligations that we later discover we cant service.

Guys, this is looking silly.

I provided data straight from APs RNS, regarding BP and the standards of which they have been measured against.

You all seem to be ganging up on me over my principal arguement concerning BP, all I have heard is "mining has been done before", "samples have been taken from different sections of the accessible geology", and such.

But I haven't heard AP make a statement regarding an upgrade of the resource since. Therefore, the information AP has previously provided prevails over any assumptions made by folks on this BB that say otherwise.

Is appears that people are twisting the known information by omitting key information as to where the facts derive.

If the gang mentality that's prevelant on this board is going to drive agendas to mindlessly spend the companies cash on potential gambles, then I will defend my brothers investment by challenging any distortions....with the view of ensuring the company survives over the long term, rather than the short term.

But please back off with the ganging up to defend illogic, a culture that has developed on this board for far too long now.