Thanks for taking the time, and nice to see your usual sneering arrogance and air of superiority toned back a bit.
You may ultimately be right - either presciently for all the reasons outlined on here (in which case, congrats) or flukily (the mine falls over for other reasons, but the net result is no mine like you predict).
I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but weren't the tests that achieved these results conducted by 3rd parties?
If so - do you see any liability issues for misrepresenting their results as highly favourable?
Your position seems to include the inference that the company and it's officers know the resource and plan are a pipe dream, but are pushing ahead regardless.
You have also said you know kaolin better than all of them. Didn't you also say better than almost anyone at one point? I believe so, but could be wrong. Sorry if I am.
Is it your position Corella is essentially a fraud strining along investors? If you can pick these massive holes in it without any access to their actual feedstock etc, enough to say it will definiteively never get off the ground, it seems like a real house of cards and there could be significant liability issues for the company officers?
Or do you think they are completely kaolin ignorant and just playing at being mining execs recklessly?
As to potential - sure, you are largely correct on the possibilities and inherent uncertainty of outcome of anything with potential.
Plenty of things with potential have succeeded, too. The Beatles had potential. CSL had potential. Phil Foden had potential.
So I mean you're really just saying the obvious and defining that word. If there were certain plans, they would have used certain language. But inversely not using certain language does not equate to that potential being impossible to fulfil.
You're definitely no idiot - you seem to have a very good knowledge of mining processes generally.
You do have a reputation on here as a bit of an intense character - I've seen your name mentioned before.
It is possible you just take glee in stirring though, and know enough to do so with apparent authority.
There are risks here and you may be validated ultimately. As said, well done to you if that's the case. Investing is inherently risky. If you're right, I'll claim the tax loss and move on.
Please try and maintain your balanced approach and post with respect. No one has issue with you thinking CR9 is a no hope, the issue is that you often post in a very antagonistic and egotistical way, which always under cuts your message significantly.
I find it really odd how every stock has a white knight trying to save the poor investors, but they always seem to do so in the most unpleasant (some might say "trolly") way possible.
There is an inherent contradiction - you all care enough to try save us for no personal benefit, but you also all usually do so in a horrible and rather rude way.
Expand
