'Appears to be' or 'could be' does not mean that it is.You all...

'Appears to be' or 'could be' does not mean that it is.

You all seem to be misinterpreting the true meaning of a conflict of interests. It must result in financial gain for the individual at the expense of the companies they work for. So, do we anticipate that this will be the case? Let's look into this:

Jones and Pobjoy were once employed at Heathgate Resources. Their early-stage discovery-related experience at that 'private' company appears to be a perfect match to what could turn out to be a carbon copy of the Four Mile and Beverly uranium deposits at Overland (In My Opinion). Therefore, their experience adds potential value for shareholders especially when it comes time to developing drill target programs this will be a critical.

Regardless of what one might think, the company's exploratory diversification is always a wise move to safeguard and maintain shareholder value. After all, we are technically a company still in the exploration phase for our rare earths potential. So, I'm glad to include uranium into the mix at a time when it is becoming more and more of a global trend as we transition away from fossil fuels for our energy requirements. Which I might add has led to a clear divergence in supply and demand, raising the spot price closer to all-time highs.

Furthermore, AR3 is a publicly listed company with constant disclosure requirements and obligations, as opposed to a private one. Therefore, compared to a private corporation, this increases its honesty.

It all 'appears to be' and 'could be' a big plus for shareholder value.

AIMO, DYOR GLTA(patient)H