Member Info for zumore

THEY'RE LOVING HIM!! ☹️

I've just looked and Bell's tweet now has 56 responses, 160 retweets, 623 likes and 37 posters have bookmarked his posts. 😳

The way this is going he could the replacement for the Reverend Calvin Robinson on GB News. 😳

He's loving those who praised his tweet, in fact he's retweeted 7 of those posters tweets that praised him.

His twitter followers also seems to have jumped by around 40.

In his X profile I wouldn't be surprised if it all goes to his head and he starts calling himself a political commentator.

This Andrew tweet currently has 35 responses, 82 retweets, 341 likes and 19 people have bookmarked it:

https://x.com/ABell2019/status/1896110546287538682

After commenting all these years Andrew has finally got a response to his tweet that he's always wanted. 😄

The huge pitfalls of asking AI is that it latched on to Bell's "imminent" so it wrongly assumed that meant anytime now.

Plus you can't show AI Bell's various Stockbox interviews or twitter broadcasts. For example in the Stockbox interview before the 22 January arbitration meeting, near everything Bell predicted would happen in that video didn't happen.

In that Stockbox interview the director general of Gecamines was apparently coming to the arbitration meeting for "one purpose" and that was to receive instruction on who to pay out the arbitration money. Bell also said he knew how much money RRR would receive and he was happy with it. He also said everything would have been prepared before the meeting and that was the reason for the arbitration meeting. In that interview he basically said the money was now a formality.

However after the adjourned arbitration meeting Bell suddenly switched and said it can be a slow process where everything has to get a ticked off from the various departments. He even tried to reverse it on shareholders making out they were too impatient when he was the one who said recieving the money would be a quick process.

I actually disagree with the AI's view because Gecamines have a bad reputation and if Gecamines truly wanted to pay out the $15 million they could have done it years ago.

The problem is Andrew Bell is a cash hungry chairman. So if months go by and still no DRC money then this present share price will be a distant memory and the RRR share price will likely be multiples smaller than today's.

Orslega, on the 28 Feb Dukey asked me on this thread to ask Grok 3 if the DRC licenses got stolen. So last night I copied numerous Red Rock RNS's to see what opinion Grok AI gave. I won't be doing it again because the GROK AI doesn't simply know instead you have to give it numerous RNS's to build up it's knowledge on the events. That's what I did but it was super tedious to do.

........

Orslega, I don't know what AI you used?

At 7:08 you posted:

"What AI says about that illegal sale to Glencore (who paid $420M).

“There have been allegations regarding the sale of the Kamituga project involving Red Rock Resources and Glencore, specifically pertaining to the actions of VUP (the former DRC mining company). Here are the key points regarding these allegations"

........

Orslega, what RNS's did you give the AI regarding this illegal $420 million sale? And I cannot say I've ever heard of Red Rock's Kamituga project?

When I used GROK AI I gave it actual RNS's.

Orslega, did you just give the AI made up stuff, meaning you didn't give it actual RNS's? Or are those posts today your idea of a joke?

Final part. Again all Grok AI:

MOST LIKELY SCENARIO (March 1, 2025)

"BALANCED OUTCOME: Arbitrators are likely cautious but not paralyzed. The February 19 update’s “predictable outcomes” and Bell’s confidence suggest a ruling favoring RRRC (e.g., $7.515M+, 50.1% of $15M) is near, possibly softened (e.g., no punitive damages) to avoid ruffling Gécamines or the state. The $15M holder—assumed as Gécamines—may release funds under state pressure to settle, not out of legal defeat.

TIMING: By March 1, 11 days post-February 19, unrest (e.g., M23 advances) might delay announcement, but Bell’s “imminent” and sustained effort (three trips) point to closure within days—likely achieved or pending final sign-off.

RELUCTANCE LEVEL: Moderate. Gécamines’ role introduces friction, but Cabinet oversight and prior legal wins tilt toward a decision. Hesitation shows in the settlement push and delays, not a refusal to rule.

CONCLUSION

The arbitrators might be reluctant due to Gécamines’ state-owned status and the DRC’s volatile context, potentially preferring a negotiated fix to avoid confronting the state directly. However, the $2.505M precedent, Cabinet mediation, and Red Rock’s pressure (as of February 19, 2025) suggest they’ll rule—likely soon after March 1 if not already—awarding RRRC its share (circa $7.515M+), with Gécamines releasing the $15M under duress rather than defiance. Reluctance exists but won’t derail the outcome; it’s more about timing and tone than avoidance."

GROK AI

Counterarguments: Why Arbitrators Might Not Hesitate.

(1) Prior Court Ruling:

"The December 2021 Lubumbashi court award of $2.505 million to RRRC against VUP sets a precedent. It confirmed VUP’s breach and RRRC’s 50.1% entitlement, suggesting legal clarity that could embolden arbitrators to rule similarly on the $15 million, even if Gécamines holds it. The arbitration builds on this, focusing on proceeds, not asset ownership.

(2) State Mediation as a Signal:

The Cabinet’s involvement (January 15–February 19, 2025) and Andrew Bell’s three Kinshasa trips imply high-level pressure to resolve, not bury, the case. Bell’s “imminent” and “predictable” outcome (February 19) suggest confidence in a favorable ruling, possibly with state blessing to clear a lingering dispute and avoid reputational damage with foreign investors.

(3) VUP as the Primary Target:

The arbitration pits RRRC against VUP, not Gécamines directly. If Gécamines is a neutral escrow (holding the $15 million per the August 2022 RNS), the award could order VUP to compensate RRRC, with Gécamines releasing funds as a bystander. This sidesteps direct state liability, reducing arbitrator reluctance.

(4) International Optics:

The DRC seeks foreign investment in its mining sector (e.g., battery metals for EVs). Stiffing RRRC could deter others, especially amid Tshisekedi’s anti-corruption rhetoric. A fair ruling might outweigh domestic pressure to protect Gécamines, particularly in a high-profile arbitration under state watch."

Will They Be Reluctant?

(1) Yes, Potentially:

If Gécamines’ interests align with state policy (retaining funds for national gain), and the Cabinet views this as a test of sovereignty, arbitrators might delay or soften the award. The DRC’s instability (eastern invasion, protests) and Gécamines’ clout could amplify hesitation, especially if ruling against them risks political or economic fallout. The repeated push for settlement (August 2022, January 2025) hints at discomfort with a decisive ruling.

(2) No, Not Necessarily:

The $2.505M precedent, Cabinet mediation, and Red Rock’s persistence (Bell’s presence) suggest momentum toward resolution. If Gécamines is just holding the $15M, not claiming it, arbitrators could rule without directly challenging the state, focusing on VUP’s breach. The “imminent” closure (February 19, 2025) and 32-month arbitration duration imply fatigue with delays."

BELOW ALL GROK AI:

KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING ARBITRATORS RELUCTANCE.

(1) Gecamines state owned status:

"Gécamines, as a fully state-owned enterprise, wields significant influence in the DRC’s mining sector and economy. It’s a key player in copper and cobalt production, often acting as a gatekeeper for resource deals. Holding the $15 million (pending arbitration) positions Gécamines as a stakeholder whose interests could pressure the process.

The DRC government, under President Félix Tshisekedi (re-elected in December 2023), has pushed to maximize state control over mining assets, especially battery metals like cobalt. A ruling against Gécamines could be seen as undermining state revenue, potentially making arbitrators—appointed under the Cabinet du Chef d’Etat (President’s office)—wary of political backlash.

(2) Arbitration Oversight by the Cabinet du Chef d’Etat:

The January 15, 2025, and subsequent updates confirm the arbitration is conducted under the President’s office, not an independent body like the ICC or a purely commercial tribunal. This state involvement suggests political oversight, which could align the process with national interests. If Gécamines’ retention of the $15 million is framed as a state priority, arbitrators might hesitate to order its release to RRRC, a foreign entity.

(3) DRC’s Legal and Political Climate:

The DRC’s judicial system is notoriously subject to political influence, corruption, and delays, especially in mining disputes involving state entities. The OHADA framework (which governs arbitration in DRC) aims for uniformity, but enforcement often bends to local power dynamics. The eastern invasion by Rwandan-backed forces (e.g., M23) and Kinshasa protests (January 28–February 19, 2025) add instability, potentially making arbitrators cautious about decisions that could stir further unrest or scrutiny.

Past cases, like Dan Gertler’s sanctions disputes or First Quantum’s license battles, show the DRC can delay or skew outcomes to favor state interests, particularly when foreign claimants challenge Gécamines.

(4) Arbitration Dynamics and Negotiation Push:

The August 5, 2022, RNS notes arbitrators urged Red Rock and VUP to settle, and the January 22, 2025, meeting repeated this (per January 24 update). This reluctance to rule outright—favoring consensus—might reflect unease about deciding against Gécamines. If Gécamines holds the funds, a direct order to pay RRRC could be politically sensitive, pushing arbitrators to stall or dilute the award.

(5) Economic Stakes:

The $15 million, while small compared to the $250 million KCC deal, is significant in DRC terms. Gécamines might argue it’s entitled to retain it (e.g., as part of the $20 million deal with VUP), especially if VUP’s surrender was state-sanctioned. Arbitrators could hesitate to disrupt this, fearing economic or diplomatic ripples, particularly with Glencore (KCC’s majority owne

GROK PART TWO

STATUS OF AS 1 MARCH 2025

"ARBITRATION TIMELINE: From January 22 (meeting) to January 29 (resumption) to February 19 (update), the process spans a month of active effort amid DRC instability. By March 1—11 days later—no further RNS update exists (per your inputs). Scenarios:

RESOLUTION IMMINENT: Bell’s “imminent” claim and sustained pressure suggest a settlement or award by late February or early March, with announcement pending.

FINALIZED BUT UNANNOUNCED: Consensus or an arbitrator ruling occurred post-February 19, delayed by logistics or unrest (e.g., eastern invasion effects).

SLIGHT DELAY: Ongoing DRC chaos (offices shut, flights canceled) pushed closure past March 1, though Bell’s tone implies days, not weeks.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: RRRC anticipates $7.515M+ (50.1% of $15M, possibly with damages) atop the $2.505M, totaling over $10.02M. Bell’s confidence and “predictable outcomes” suggest this minimum, though the $250M KCC deal remains a separate, unpursued loss.

DRC DYNAMICS: The Cabinet du Chef d’Etat’s mediation and Bell’s presence signal high-level resolve, but eastern invasions (e.g., M23) and Kinshasa protests underscore the fragility, explaining adjournments and delays.

CONCLUSION

VUP’s surrender of the JV assets isn’t theft—it’s a civil breach of the JVA, costing RRRC its 50.1% of $20M, addressed by the $2.505M judgment and an impending $7.515M+ arbitration award. The $250M KCC sale amplifies the loss, but VUP didn’t “steal” that—Gécamines profited. As of March 1, 2025, the February 19 update shows Red Rock on the cusp of resolution, likely achieved or hours away, despite DRC unrest. The civil strategy fits the context, but the $115M gap from KCC’s deal remains out of reach without escalating against Gécamines or Glencore.

If a post-February 19 update surfaces or you’ve got JVA specifics, I can nail this down tighter. Given Bell’s “imminent” push, what’s your bet—settled by now or still snagged by DRC turmoil?"

GROK is serious today. So don't criticise me. I just fed it the RNS's.

....................

PART ONE:

GROK'S FULL DISPUTE RECAP

"JV Setup: In March 2019, RRRC (Red Rock’s subsidiary) formed an unincorporated JV with VUP and Bring Minerals S.A.U. (B.Min), holding 50.1% of the Musonoi copper-cobalt tenement, governed by a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA).

Unauthorized Surrender: On December 4, 2019, VUP surrendered the JV assets to Gécamines for $20 million ($5M paid, $15M due) without RRRC’s consent, breaching the JVA (assumed to require mutual approval).

Subsequent Sale: By December 20, 2019, Gécamines sold a larger land package, likely including these assets, to Kamoto Copper Company (KCC, 75% Glencore-owned) for up to $250 million.

Legal Actions:

December 2021: Lubumbashi court awarded RRRC $2.505 million (50.1% of $5M paid).

June 2022: Arbitration for the $15M began, now at 32 months by March 1, 2025.

2025 Updates: The January 22 meeting adjourned for consensus attempts, resumed January 29 amid unrest, and progressed by February 19 despite further disruptions."

IS THIS THEFT?

"Theft Definition: DRC Penal Code defines theft (vol) as intentional, unlawful appropriation with intent to deprive permanently. Civil wrongs like conversion or breach of contract prioritize compensation over criminality.

VUP’s Actions:

VUP, a JV partner (likely 49.9% or less), surrendered the Musonoi assets to Gécamines for $20M without RRRC’s approval, violating the JVA.

Gécamines resold them within KCC’s $250M deal, with VUP pursuing the $15M via a 2021 garnishee order.

Final Assessment:

NOT CRIMINAL THEFT: VUP didn’t “steal” in a legal sense. As a co-owner, it formalized the surrender via a notarized protocol on December 4, 2019—not a clandestine act. Intent to deprive RRRC permanently is ambiguous; VUP might claim some JV authority (though the $2.505M judgment and arbitration refute this). Theft requires direct, dishonest appropriation, not a contractual overstep. No criminal charges emerged over 5+ years, and DRC mining disputes rarely go criminal, especially with Gécamines involved.

CIVIL WRONG: The $2.505M Lubumbashi award (December 2021) reflects conversion (wrongful disposal of RRRC’s 50.1% interest) or breach of fiduciary duty. Arbitration seeks RRRC’s share of the $15M (circa $7.515M), reinforcing this civil framing. The February 19 update’s focus on finalizing payments aligns with compensation, not prosecution.

GECAMINES GAIN: The $250M KCC sale (12.5x $20M) drives RRRC’s $115M loss (50.1% of $250M = $125.25M vs. $10.02M). VUP didn’t take this—Gécamines did—making VUP’s breach a stepping stone to Gécamines’ profit, not theft by VUP.'

FEBRUARY 19: IMPACT: Bell’s push for closure and the arbitration’s civil nature solidify that this isn’t theft. The process targets VUP’s obligation (the $15M share), not a criminal reckoning, despite DRC unrest slowing i

Yes thanks Aimdogs, I didn't see that Lundy's tweet. 👍

Plus I said at 6:45 to Orslega: "By the way Orslega it was YOU who posted that Bell tweet on the 20th February and you used the thread title "BELL HEADING BACK AGAIN".

...

So two of the ramp crew thought that tweet meant Bell was about to return to Kinshasa. To be fair I did too. 👍

I never said he did go back to Kinshasa but his 20th February tweet indicated that he was going back because in that tweet he talked through his different flight options to reach that destination. I don't know how anybody thinks he meant different. Unless Bell thinks that the DRC capital Kinshasa was calling out for him. If that were the case then he's insane

https://x.com/ABell2019/status/1892549401148559389

Talkinto also included could be "briefly adjourned" from the below 29 January RNS:

"The resumption of the arbitration by a scheduled meeting in order to conclude its work and arrange payments was held last week and briefly adjourned in case the parties wanted to take a last chance to reach agreement by themselves"

Orslega, skimming through the last 6 pages of that old NCT thread, you, Helpful and Drillingcrew were prolific posters.

You three certainly looked like a well organised ramping crew.

Aimdogs to be honest I don't know.

Years ago when I was longer and stronger in this company, Red Rock invested in NCTs disastrous "Shoat creek" project. So many of us began to look on the NCT thread and I'm sure the NCT holders did the same on this thread. So that's when "Helpful" and "Orslega" first came on my radar.

On that NCT thread on 2nd August 2016 Mr Magic posted:

"Wasting your time with Orslega, can't be taken seriously imo. Anyone constantly perpetuating rumours comes across as rather desperate and does the company a disservice imo. As you have noticed he won't tackle the real issues or talk about overheads vs income, admin expenses, salaries and the like. Very strange for any genuine investor"

....

Pretty much how he is now in that he doesn't want to talk about the dire financial situation Red Rock are in. 👍

Sorry that ticker for Mayan was MYN.

Looking through the first few pages of that old NCT thread we can see Orslega and Helpful posting away. I also see old friend of this RRR thread Mr Magic. 😄

Aimdogs, this is the old Northcote (NCT) thread: https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=NCT&share=NCT.L

They later changed name to Mayan with ticker NCT.

I'm sorry Orslega. I sometimes forget we look on Red Rock Resources differently.

Me, Grok and others look on Red Rock and Andrew's Bells track record without emotion. You and others can't see what we see. 👍

No because he was tweeting about the then flight options he wasn't about distant future flight options to Kinshasa. So if he didn't go to Kinshasa then yes he was lying.

I actually don't know what we are arguing about because Bell has got a long track record of lying.