Hi Croc.We discussed the other day to keep the same stance on...

Hi Croc.

We discussed the other day to keep the same stance on all stocks, regardless of whether you hold the stock or if you have a negative view of another company.

Your investment philosophy is you need to wait to see if the company can achieve its DFS forecasts, once they have ironed out all of the issues, only at this point can anyone criticise the company or your investment,

Yet here you are passing judgment on MRC and EGR who have fantastic DFS/BFS or currently trying to iron out the production issues which indicate significant returns to investors if this is resolved successfully.

I find it odd that you have such a positive view on WKT which hasn't completed all the test work as other industry peers, yet you attack the investors and companies who have gone the extra length to validate its projects and secure offtakes. this is one thing WKT has struggled with, even today they have no locked-in sales agreements, they simply have a sales and marketing agreement with a third party.

@Red Adair IMO, you have overinvested in WKT to have that view, is it not a fact that WKT stated the project would only take 7-9 months to complete and we are now up to 27 months, I do recall a bullish presentation which stated commissioning wet and dry would only take 2 months to achieve yet WKT is in its 5th month. I do know why you think this slander, slander is making up comments that are not true.

Anyway, other comments that WKT have made, which failed to eventuate was claiming WKT was fully funded until production, we all know CRDB banks funding was pulled, which resulted in a life-saving capital raising and WKT securing US$20mil from Gemcorp. Don't you find it odd CRDB funding was for US$20mil (claimed fully funded) yet WKT has secured additional funds from BMCG, a $16mil CR, and now has US$25mil from Gemcorp? Plus we have WKT advise they are looking at US$4mil in funding from the Tanzania banks. This is significantly higher than the original US$20mil WKT claimed was only required to fully fund the project.

I know you won't look into where the additional funds have been spent, you seem to believe the BS spin that there has been no CAPEX blowout.