Ann: Acquisition of Highly Prospective Vanadium & Lithium Assets, page-25

I'm not into wasting my time on gripes, and I write this simply because somebody needs to.
25 May, why has the SI6 SP fallen subsequent to the 17/5 ann. by more than a third? Why so many sellers v. buyers? Is it because the shareholders and prospective investors for SI6 are stupid, or perhaps they do know a bad deal when they see one?
As any fool can plainly see the consideration offered by Multiplex and our Mr. Letcher - the "highly prospective" areas are un and under explored, unproven to any real degree, and in no way worth two million dollars plus of SI6 shares.
Conversely, the Maibele North project has a guesstimate JORC value on today's prices at over 300M US, without even looking at Airstrrip and Dibete prospects where assay results have been very high for copper and silver, and remembering cobalt has been recorded -when tested - on some parts of those prospects.

RTO: an example now current is FNT - Forise of China, through the latter's Aust arm.
Very simplistically agreement is Forise pay FNT (who have little in the way of assets) $6 million (the FNT SP then was 1.6 cents) and in return FNT issue 328,125,000 new shares plus 164,062,500 free options to Forise who end up with (initially) 67.9% of FNT, all paid for in cold hard cash by Forise. Total issued capital of FNT will then be 483,476,938 (ordy. shares).
WMS Solutions P/L of Qld. were tasked to do an "Independent Expert's Report" (big, 200 pages plus, I think) who concluded" ...the placement is not fair but reasonable to the non-associated FNT shareholders".
WMS state: "We think the scale of this raising will provide a significant cash influx for the company (FNT) to proceed with it's stated objectives". "Alleviates the need for alternative capital raising."
The deal was passed at the EGM recently.

The foregoing is the crux of the oncoming problems which IMO will be created with the Mirroirplex (M.) deal, in that SI6 will give away 30% or more of itself in return for no cash influx, whilst faced with taking carriage of a significant grassroots exploration program on the M. ground, so that capital raisings of one form or another are a lay down misere, and consequently with the issue of the new and capital raise shares, issued capital will sky rocket quickly, making a consolidation more than likely.
Wasdan in his recent post clarified that SI6 has nothing like the 8 or 5 M$ ConH mentioned, much below, less than 3M, so new funds will be needed, and fast.

To me -and me alone - the M. approach to SI6 looks like this, while being backed by an SI6 director owning 34 or so percent of the would be vendor....For illustration purposes imagine this as Mirrorplex speaking.....we'll take your shares up to say 30% plus, but regrettably we won't/can't pay you for them , but instead we will inject some "prospective" ground in Zim largely owned by one of your three directors which were rejected by Anglo in the sixties (to be fair logistical difficulties were one reason for rejection).
In return, SI6 will give M. $2M + of your company's share capital.....oh, and BTW, you will then pay all the exploration costs on these new areas. Then, if you are fortunate and find a 10M. t. plus deposit, you are to further pay us (M.) 20% of the market value of whatever your exploration expenditure has found - for free.

Good deal?....oh yes, if you are Mirrorplex and its owners, including the one now a director of SI6. RTO....you normally would pay the price of the shares you are being issued, in cash, or equivalent value in kind. As with FNT/Forise, in this case SI6 would issue M. new shares for cash, which would then be used to fund exploration.
Given the minuscule amount of work done on these prospects by M/plex's own admission, the option (due Diligence) payment is okay, but the 2+ M$ of SI6 shares for the mainly un or under explored and in some parts un pegged areas being vended is in no way okay.

I have no doubt my views on this may not be totally welcomed by all holders, but a bad deal is what it is. Concluding, if the Zim ground is to be used at all, then the inequitable terms must be greatly improved, at the very least. Perhaps some of the directorate also need to take a close look at who they are working for....if there is maybe a possible conflict of interest perhaps look closely at that also.

Regards.