Originally posted by JimTaggart
Shearwood had someone on the ground observing??? C'mon..... lets try to be a bit grown up and quit blaming a boogey man for all the trials and tribulations of this stock.
What happens if the share price continues to slide and it is revealed he has exited the stock? Who will you blame then? Earlier we had a suggestion that he was responsible for failing to progress the project as he was trying to create fear and panic!
This continual be-rating of an individual is getting a bit thin, market manipulation, inside information, selling stock to himself, stock borrowing in order to short sell, manipulating the market, not offering stock to a buyer in a block...anything this bloke cant do? Does he wear his underpants outside of his trousers and leap from tall buildings?
Honestly people, perhaps now; if he has exited his position, the discussion advances beyond this ridiculous blame game because the share price hasn't responded the way holders have liked.
And maybe the board can now own the share price performance without the backstop of a scapegoat and updating the shareholder register regularly to continue to promote this debacle.
A professional investor that runs a family office... It wouldn't be hard for him to have a contact of one of the contractors updating him on the situation. It's his livelihood to know information other don't and take advantage. We've seen his position decreasing via T20 as proof of the selling and dampening on the SP.
In any case, this would be the best case scenario. If it's not him then it's even worse for LCK. That means there are more people out there selling out.. Which begs the question WHY?
Anyway that's beside the point, I am
trying to progress the conversation beyond this theory however you chose to only focus on this small factor of my post. My whole point which you've clearly misinterpreted is that I fear there is a problem with the project and the technology all together. It has nothing to do with spite which has been spruiked on this forum.
The suspension letter states a failure to continue, which is not stated in such words in the ann and I am holding the board responsible for not communicating and updating us as it was developing as part of their continuous disclosure requirements! This announcement doesn't provide any insight into what is actually happening onsite with no technical analysis of the flaring so far and is contradicting itself IMO
(I will be stoked to be proven wrong).
My assumption here is that there wasn't much to write home about which IMO needs to be communicated immediately. We had 90 days for the PCD - now that we need to re-ignite and start again we've lost 30 odd days - granted lessons would have been learned from the first failed attempt which should be able to be carried over however it's time lost. The fact that the ann only came after some serious selling and hot
I don't mean to be so neg but I think there are some questions that need to be asked. Hoping someone can please help put me at ease
(20min delay)