Shall we believe you or the newspaper article, which is public information, the answer is obvious. If the situation is the opposite, why is it the paper finds it important to inform the public one thing but not the other?
Show us something publicly available GBB, there is no point arguing. Adding "More bull" in everything you say is not substantive evidence. If someone comes to show you an assay with uranium from Tanbreez, you don't dismiss that by saying "more bull" or do you? How do we know that's not what you said when your staff came to you?
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
4.4¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $68.26M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | $0 | 0 |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | 510386 | 4.4¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 4.6¢ | 967811 | 3 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 13.36pm 30/07/2025 (20 minute delay) ? |
| ETM (ASX) Chart |
Day chart unavailable