NML is due its interrim results now, last year it was the 28th of this month.

They are setting up a new site to explore/research/analyse and all the equipment to do this should be on site now, and drilling should start soon, all this extra news should be covered in the interims.

does anyone have any further positive views on this company ??

Unfortunately guys, I think he points out some good things.

As i have said, i once held this falling into the trap of empty promises. If NML do pluck out all these diamonds and are as cash generative as they say they will be then I will be the first person on here to congratulate those who have stuck through this.

I hope it goes well for you.

Anomolous obviously knows people close to the company - and doesn't hold any shares!! I don't think he is short selling them - because of the spread it would be hard to make any money on them plus the mkt cap is very low, so he has no reason to deramp the shares for personal gain. Perhaps people should at least take on board some of his thoughts.

BY THE WAY.. THANKS EVERYONE FOR REPLYING TO MY QUESTIONS. MUCH APPRECIATED.

Its clear Anomalous has held NML shares in the past, like yourself, and has sold, probably at a heavy loss, because he wasn't patient enough.

He may now regret selling out and wishes he had held on that bit longer.

He may feel a lot of bitterness towards NML Directors because things didn't turn out exactly how he believed they would at exactly the time he believed they would.

He certainly will regret not holding it in a few months time IMO.

mjr1234 -

That's largely because how he believed "things would turn out" was based on misunderstandings, misconceptions and a tendency to twist what he heard/read to suit his desired outcome. You ought to see if you can find his "NML will be producing 20k carats a month from day one because they are going to use a barge to mine both sides of the river at once!" theory. Laugh a minute, that one, but he would not be talked out of it, and continued to present it as "fact". His chagrin when - surprise, surprise - they were found to be doing no such thing was huge - even though the whole theory was preposterous.

Wendy,

I don't think Anom was the source of the "barge" rumour!

Good to see you on here, why not start a TDM thread?
BTW are you going to Bedwas next week?

There is a PM facility here as well, if you set up an email address.

Andy -

He was definitely the source of the emphatic statement that a "barge" meant double production from day one - i.e. 20k carats per month, mined from both sides of the river by a plant situated on a barge in the middle. Think about what you know of alluvial mining - it's a ludicrous proposition to start with, even if you are dredging! I quote:

"Anomalous - 6 Oct'04 - 00:04 - 3999 of 5103

< <>>>

The Project Summary gave the extraction figure of 675 cubic metres of ore per 10 hour shift. However, we know that they intend to mine both sides of the river simultaneously during the day and run the processing plant 20 hours a day in two shifts. This means that the extraction would be 1,350 cubic metres a day. All moved in 25 to 35 tonne 6-wheeled trucks."
-------------------------

Now - we KNEW no such thing. Anom had merely mis-interpreted a telephone conversation that was reported to him some weeks after it actually occurred, by someone who didn't understand what he was being told by someone who at the time knew damn all about alluvial mining.

I queried this assumption, which Anom treated as FACT, based on what he said were DECISIONS made by the company, on a number of occasions. This was one of the replies I got:

"Anomalous - 18 Oct'04 - 10:49 - 4655 of 5103

< <>>>

The information on the increased mining came from two sources. The first was the website and the second was the Project Summary.

If you check the figures on the website:
http://www.new-millennium.com.au/ang_resources.php
They show that the original estimated extraction was 120,000 carats per year. Increasing to 240,000 carats after 5 months.

"The project financial model is detailed within this report. Initial production of diamonds will be annualised at 120,000 carats increasing to 240,000 carats five (5) months after operations commence, yielding a profit of US$ 110 per carat rising to US$124 per carat with the increased production. The recoverable reserve of 188,100 carats of diamonds identified in the Rio Lapi Garimpo should thus yield approximately US$ 20 million."

The Project Summary:
http://www.new-millennium.com.au/download/Info%20Memo%20for%20Valuation%20Report%2014May04.pdf
gave a figure of 247,163 carats per year. This corresponds with them mining both sides of the river.

There is other evidence as well in the quantities of ore being mined. The figures could not be supported by mining one side of the river at a time. They had to be mining both sides. The other sources corroberated this, so it stands to reason that they were intending to mine both sides from the start. It makes perfect sense to do so.

Security becomes more difficult outside daylight hours. So it makes sense to work the trucks to build up a ore pile, for processing during daylight hours, to guard the pile under lighting during night time, as it is being processed and have the trucks remove the tailings and waste, which don't need to be watched so carefully. I am completely happy that this is the true state of affairs."
-------------------------------------

So - Anom is happy. In spite of the fact that as yet he clearly has no idea of how an alluvial operation actually operates. So it becomes FACT.

I queried it AGAIN, as follows, and got another reply:

"wdurham - 19 Oct'04 - 17:49 - 4852 of 5103 edit

< <>>>

Anom - are you sure about this "both sides" business? After all, a diamond plant can handle gravels drawn from a 360 degree circle around it if it likes, let alone stuff from just either side of it. You seem confident, based on this concept, that initial production will be double that originally planned - but if your theory is correct, that means double the number of lorries and double the number of gravel excavators, with all the drivers concentrated into one shift instead of two. The double shift was not planned to come into operation for 5-6 months in any case, and would, of course, use the same mobile plant as the single shift. It truly doesn't make sense to me to spend a whole lot of dosh on more mobile plant at this stage. I can see the logic of putting the plant on the river - no nasty floods to stop operation during the rainy season - but have you taken note of the sheer size of the alluvial plain? And thought about the variability of the width of the Lapi in the first place?


Anomalous - 19 Oct'04 - 19:52 - 4858 of 5103


>Wendy
I believe my info on mining both sides is 100% correct. They originally planned to start just one side. When it was decided to mount the processing plant on the barge, they said "What the hell" and decided it would be easier to hit full production right away, by doing both sides of the river at the same time. That way they can keep tight security on the ore pile feeding the processor.

Night-time is their worst enemy. Once the ore is exposed, the artisan miners (and some of the staff) will be in for the quick kill. It would be pretty easy to spot a few on the bed surface. The idea to mine both sides simultaneously, cut down on the security problems and build up a reasonably large stockpile to keep the plant fed at full speed."
----------------------------------

I put it to you that Anom knew NOTHING of the company's "plans" and certainly nothing of what he calls their "decisions". What he has stated immediately above is utter and complete rubbish, mainly because the company had no such plans, and took no such decisions! He merely took a piece of misunderstood hearsay and twisted it to suit what he wanted to hear and interpreted it to fit HIS view of the situation.

His views now are very different of course, but his methodology has not changed. Take some "evidence" (never mind whether its right), interpret it (never mind whether the interpretation is even logical, let alone achievable) and use it to present a FACTUAL view which is often preposterous rubbish and sometimes no more than wishful thinking. He was EXACTLY the same on CDG. Lack of knowledge = misinterpretation of what he is told = rubbish posted on BBs. Ask Rolandp!

Trouble is, he is so authoritative and persuasive that those who have not looked in any depth at the company believe him. Which is PRECISELY his intention.

Sorry this is such a long post - but you did throw down the gauntlet, and MoneyAM posters need to know the "other side" of the apparently knowlegeable and all-seeing, all-knowing Anomalous.

P.S. Been here since Day 1 though I haven't posted for ages. Starting a TDM thread here is the fastest way to self-immolation I can think of. No, I am not going to Bedwas next week - although I have the promise of a visit in the near future.

P.P.S. Have you seen the latest 3DM patent applications listed in the Patent Office Journal published on 8th June? They make interesting reading.

Wendy - thanks for your views. Anomalous seems well-named, although a normal arse only needs scratching when it itches, IMHO, not every minute of the day - so, a further discrepancy! lol.

sd

Wendy,

Ok fair enough, you are correct.

OFF topic

I see TDM as a PDX type of company, and a terrific solution to disposing of the world's plastic waste products, there should be a thread here IMO.

Ok will look out for the journal, thanks.

Wendy
A brilliant resume of that incident..thanks

Andy, if you really think there should be a thread on TDM, I will see what I can do. But it is a stock fraught with all the usual, unfortunately.

It doesn't just have similarities with PDX, but also with BPRG, PRM, TRK - the business model is the licensing of intellectual property. PDX and to a lesser extent, TDM have had to modify that slightly, but the basic premise is very similar.

Wendy D - 09 Jun'05 - 18:19 - 721 of 725
He was definitely the source of the emphatic statement that a "barge" meant double production from day one - i.e. 20k carats per month, mined from both sides of the river by a plant situated on a barge in the middle. Think about what you know of alluvial mining - it's a ludicrous proposition to start with, even if you are dredging!

Absolute Rubbish by Wendy D She knows full well who was the ultimate source of the stories about the barge and I pointed this out to her on the ADVFN thread.
The source of the rumour was none other than Shane Healey, NML's finance director
The information on the barge was passed by him in a telephone call to one of the shareholders. That shareholder then passed the information to others in the Group. Shane Healey represents NML, regardless of the fact that Wendy calls him a bean-counter. I was told by Gunnergonk (another ADVFN poster) tht he spoke with Shane Healey and was passed this information. Shane had no right to put out stories such as the barge if the information was incorrect. I had no reason to believe that the information Gunnergonk gave me was incorrect and I know that Wendy D knew about the information coming from Shane too.

Wendy D has deliberately withheld stating who originated the barge information and the 'mining both sides' story as she knows that it proves my point. An NML director was the source of the information (according to Gunnergonk) and Wendy believed this was true too. I can prove that Wendy knew about it, because I have an email from her in which she mentions it:

From: Wendy D
Sent: 01 November 2004 15:34
To: 'Anomalous'
Subject: RE: skjimey

I have always been suspicious of the Healey emails. Shane is an accountant, not a geo nor a mining engineer. I have been baffled by the content of some of his notes, as they just don't make sense. This business of "mining both sides" is a case in point.

Important to remember, too, that all those emails were solicited by shareholders. Naturally one would expect honesty in any reply, but it just goes to show that the more you badger them, the more likely you are to get information which is misleading and can very easily be misunderstood.

I do not believe these people are crooks, though. They would be hardly likely to organise a meeting for shareholders if they expected to be lynched for lying before the evening was over. Similarly, no company director would be stupid enough to put misleading information "on paper" - as it were - to shareholders.

Thursday should make a number of things clear.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anomalous
Sent: 01 November 2004 15:18
To: 'Wendy D
Subject: RE: skjimey
Importance: High

Hi Wendy

Yes I saw that, but I let it pass, because I didn't want another war to break out of "you know something, so you should post it".

I'm very concerned about NML. Although Gunner and I spoke about it over the weekend, it is possible that the directors were leading us up the garden path in a pump and dump operation. If this is the truth, I doubt that they will be allowed to leave the country as people will be anxious to pass some of Shane Healey's 'emails' to the FSA. I just hope that they are intent on releasing another RNS, otherwise it could get very messy.

Best Regards
_____

Anomalous
Co-ordinator
RSV Shareholders Action Group


-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy D
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:06 PM
To: 'Anomalous'
Subject: skjimey


I note that he has posted a hint about the new grades for the AK6 and BK11 kimberlites - he has said all along that he knows the grades, for some weeks now.

X.xx cpcm - very interesting, and much better than the historic Debswana figures provided by Leon.

So you can see for yourself that the whole issue of the barge and mining both sides was known by Wendy D and that the information originated with the directors of NML.

So you have to ask yourself why Wendy tried to deceive you in post 721. Wendy D has been embarassed on the ADVFN BB, because it was through her refusal to accept incontravertible information, that the directors had failed to declare their holdings, that the directors are now under investigation by the AIM Regulatory Department for non-compliance with Directors Declarations Rules.

She attacked me in a similar post on the ADVFN BB and this was my reply:



Yet another load of trash from WDurham. Does she realise that the people she is attacking in this post is non other than NML's Finance Director - Shane Healey - a mere bean counter by WDurham's own estimate.

wdurham - 9 Jun'05 - 18:49 - 1589 of 1590
Not quite fair, Campbell.
I am sure he tells the truth as he sees it. He only presents FACTS after all. Or what he tells us are FACTS - though they are often only the product of his imagination.
And I quote:
"Anomalous - 19 Oct'04 - 19:52 - 4858 of 5103
>Wendy
I believe my info on mining both sides is 100% correct. They originally planned to start just one side. When it was decided to mount the processing plant on the barge, they said "What the hell" and decided it would be easier to hit full production right away, by doing both sides of the river at the same time. That way they can keep tight security on the ore pile feeding the processor.
Night-time is their worst enemy. Once the ore is exposed, the artisan miners (and some of the staff) will be in for the quick kill. It would be pretty easy to spot a few on the bed surface. The idea to mine both sides simultaneously, cut down on the security problems and build up a reasonably large stockpile to keep the plant fed at full speed."
NOW, folks - does anyone recall the company planning to start "just one side" of the Rio Lapi? Does anyone recall the company saying "What the hell!" and deciding to hit full production (20k carats per month - although this is not stated in this particular post) right away by mining both sides of the Rio Lapi? Does anyone recall the company saying they would be operating a double shift right from the start, and buying loads more excavators and bulldozers and lorries to do it with?
Course you don't!
It's all a figment of Anom's extremely fertile imagination, based on his incorrect interpretation of a conversation reported to him some weeks after the event by someone who didn't understand fully what someone else who knew damn all about alluvial mining was talking about as a possible option. And even after being challenged a number of times, he stuck to his FACTS - which later proved to be simple garbage. And was he angry? Goodness, the screen flamed with his total indignance when he learned that his carefully constructed house of cards was based on nothing more than his imagination - there was no barge! The righteous rage was incandescent.
We knew the idea was preposterous all along, of course. But there you go - that's Anomalous for you.

The lies about the barge were passed to none other than Gunnergonk, who then propagated them around the group. Even you (in an email) admitted that you had heard about the barge story and didn't believe it. Yet Gunner swore that Shane told him about the barge. It was only when we found out that the story was a fabrication, a lie that was passed to Gunner, that we realised the company had been fabricating quite a few stories.

Even csmyth was at it. In his posts he stated the company was operating on 1st November he wrote:

"People are getting too wound up about the difference between exploitation and exploration. Nobody has been issued an exploitation permit in Angola yet at all, including Petra. This doesnt mean that companies cant mine diamonds though (Petra obviously is). NML is commissioning their plant and will ramp up to expected capacity in the next few months (which is normal mining operation procedure). They have recovered diamonds and this will result in cash flow for them. I have every confidence that John Cross will produce to the throughput specified in the technical summary (20000 carats per month)."

Yet 6 months later and they still hadn't started the mine. He also said:

"So far, NML has got the equipment on site, it is operating, and they will ramp up."

6 months to ramp up production? - what sort of Mickey Mouse outfit is this?! Even Walt Disney could do better than this and he's dead!

The company has told one fib after another to placate the anxious shareholders. The recent news I heard makes me believe they are still up to their old tricks. I'm not going to say any more, but the smarter ones (if there are any in NML) will be able to work out what I heard.

The simple fact is that the company has been feeding stories to the shareholders to convince them that nothing is wrong, when in actual fact the management continues to be incompetent.

Where are the NML broker notes?

Where are the NML Institutional Investors -

Oh Yes - THEY CAN'T GET ANY!!!

No-one can forget the biggest story, the one put about by Shane Healey.

"The diamonds are only one metre down"

and

"You can pull handfulls of them"

and

"We're going for it from the start"

At least when I found out that they had been telling fibs I called them for what they were. At least when I found out they were not going to start of schedule I warned everyone. At least when I noticed the share price would go to 4p, I warned everyone. At least when I saw that more dilutions were on the way, I said so, the NML management didn't. They had you all believing them at that meeting when they said they had enough funding.

WDurham is a case in point about believing that nothing is wrong. Thanks to her, the directors of the company are now facing an AIM investigation into their dealings. If WDurham had accepted the in-controvertible data that we had in March, then I wouldn't have had to contact AIM (in exasperation) to prove conclusively that there were discrepancies. I tried to warn the directors, through one of the regular posters. Three times I asked her to contact the directors and get their house in order. But she did nothing. So it's not surprising that WDurham provoked an investigation that could result in a rather large fine for the directors. I just hope that she feels responsible enough to pay the fine on their behalf, rather than hide on this bulletin board, fooling the other regulars that nothing is wrong with the company.

You should be ashamed of yourself Wendy.

At least I had the courage to admit that I had believed the lies told by the company. They had fooled me good and proper with the stories. They fooled Gunner too. The poor guy couldn't afford to lose money in that way.

The company had put out these false stories and false claims about when they would start operations and some of their 'henchmen' like csmyth have helped perpetuate the story by saying they would be operating in a few months. 6 months later - still nothing. So I've looked at the company data and checked their statements and found that the company did make poor estimates. My estimates were better. The share price did reach 4p. They did dilute. They didn't start in February.

So keep on supporting the company the way you are WDurham, because when this all goes pear shaped because the share price does not get above 8p, don't say I didn't warn you. The rest of the NMLers believe your 'authoritive' posts, but the Minmet people don't. They know you better than that.



So you can see, Wendy D has a bit of a reputation. The Minmet shareholders remember her quite well and not fondly at all. Many of them feel that she led them down the garden path with her support for Minmet. Even Wendy admits that she's had to pay quite a price for her mistakes there.

I had no reason to doubt the information passed to me by Gunnergonk. He said that it was from Shane. I checked the Project Summary and the company releases to see if they corroberated the data and the statements - they did.

It was only in early November 2004, that we finally found out that the directors had misled us very seriously. In questioning someone who works for NML, I found out that there was no barge, no mining both sides and most importantly of all - the company had not started the mine as thy had promised.

Shane Healey had repeatedly stated that they were:

"Going for it from the start"

He was asked about this and he said that they meant to start mining immediately they arrived at the mine site and at full speed. Not working up to full potential as is the normal practise. As I pointed out, Shane Healey is a director of NML. When he makes a statement, he is making it on behalf of the company as a whole. Yet as Wendy has stated, the statement does not tie in with normal mining practise for alluvial operations. Shane is (by her own words):
"A mere bean-counter"
Yet this bean=counter is a director of an alluvial diamond mining company and making statements about their operations - of which he knows next to nothing about.

The Operational Directors, Shane Healey and John Cross, came to a meeting in November 2004 in London. The people that attended this meeting came away afterwards and told us what they said. They said:

1. They would be operating the mine by February 2005

2. They would not need any further finance (from dilutions) as they had all the funds they needed from the placing and the convertible drawdown.

3. That they would be able to recover the first 5,000 carats in about 2 weeks after start up.

ALL THREE of these statements have turned out to be false.

1. It took until April to start the mine. Not 4 months but 6 months after the statement and a full 12 months after the original planned start date.

2. They have so far carried out TWO major dilutions since that statement about the funds. The first time to the Badenhorsts, to convert the cash payment into shares (because the company obviously had too little working capital) and to the directors, to convert their fees. The second time, they raised 500,000 purportedly so they can explore the kimberlites. Yet the data suggests that the company has had absolutely no revenue from their operations, so they needed some extra funds. By their own admission, they are using $400k per month during mining and have been operating for close to two and a half months now. That's a good $1 million used up with no visible revenue. If they had received revenue, they haven't stated so and they should have declared this price sensitive information.

3. Even this statement seemed at odds with all the project data, as they would have needed to have been operating at full exploitation rate to find 5,000 carats in that timescale. All the data suggests a work up with 3,000 carats in the first month, 6,000 in the second and 10,000 in the third. The management have made no announcement to state that they have reached this goal of 5,000 carats at all. They have recovered some diamonds, but from the data they supplied it was very little, and the quantity of fresh ore used could not be determined as they only mentioned 'ore concentrate'. Something completely different.

So you can see, that the management have even failed to complete the targets they talked about in their presentation meeting.

What's more, there's one other goal they set that they may also fail to achieve. They said that they would be cashflow neutral by the end of June 2005. To be cashflow neutral, they would need revenue (which they have not announced) and they would need more than is being spent ($400k per month). In fact, strictly speaking to be cashflow neutral for 2005, they would need to have obtained revenue equal to the entire amount spent on the operations for year ending June 2005. Something that is highly unlikely.

They've even failed to obtain any brokers notes or attract any institutional support for NML. One of the reasons is more than likely because the project only represents a revenue of $6.75 million for the first 18 months with the possibility that there will be NONE afterwards. What Instituitional investor would trust a company, where there is any liklihood that the company will be without a revenue stream 18 months after start?

It's obvious, the 'big boys' are not interested in NML whilst they only have a 40% chance (or less) of bringing in the other areas on the known data at present. Even the kimberlites are by no means certain and Catoca stands a much better chance at getting the license than NML do, because Catoca is already operating a huge Kimberlite processing plant 20-25 km down the road. In Endiama want the NML kimberlites brought into production as early as possible (so that Endiama can get the revenue) then they would be better off handing the C9 kimberlites to Catoca. Until the matter of the C9 Kimberlite licenses is resolved, I very much doubt that NML will get anything in the way of institutional support.

So you can see for yourself, that Wendy D was deceiving you with her stories about me. She was leaving out important information about who originated these stories about the barges and mining both sides. It might be a good idea to find out why she wanted you to believe that I created them, when I did not. Could it be that she is just vindictive towards me, or maybe that she was embarassed by getting the NML directors in trouble. I tried three times to get the NML directors to sort their own problem out. But Wendy denied that there was a problem and got them into trouble as a consequence.

Why is she deceiving you? Your guess on this is as good as mine. But what we do know is that Wendy is not the only one deceiving you. The NML directors have been as well....

I really can't be bothered to read that diatribe beyond the first page or so.

My original post made it perfectly clear that I was aware that the "barge" theory did not originate with Anomalous. But it was only Anomalous - as his own posts from that time prove - that seized upon it and asserted quite categorically that production would be double (i.e. 20,000 carats per month) from Day 1, because they would "mine both sides of the river". The whole concept is preposterous, and only someone who knew very little about alluvial diamond mining would have taken such a theory on board in the first place. They didn't have enough mobile plant to do it with, just for starters! Nor did they have any mechanism for shifting gravel from the river bank to the barge. It's just stupid. Oh, and the production figures do NOT bear out his theory. Check them out, if the topic interests you. They gybe perfectly with the original plan of 10k per month for the 5 months following workup, and 20k thereafter when the second shift would be introduced.

I could probably defend myself against the rest of the umpteen pages of bile if I could be bothered, but I do not consider Anomalous' imaginative pejorations and allegations worth even reading in full, let alone acting upon. I have him filtered on ADVFN, and will probably follow suit here. Someone who reports a company several times to the FSA and AIM because "Wendy made me do it" is not worth the effort.

Deceiving people is not my style, I'm afraid, and anyone who knows me knows I don't lie on bulletin boards. Ever. Life's too short.

This Anomalous1 is clearly a very sick and disturbed individual who was made it his full time occupation to denegrate NML, its Directors and its shareholders.

FILTERED!

More rubbish from Wendy D. I don't know how she can lie so blatantly.

They didn't have enough mobile plant to do it with, just for starters!

Of course the company had a mobile plant. They say so in their own project data. If you don't believe me, just look at this from the NML Project Summary:



and this picture (which is not the Badenhorst's equipment):



The same project summary also points out that the company does intend to use dredgers - possibly dredging barges, to mine the gravel from the river bed in the later stages of the project. As we can see from these two parts of the same Project Summary:

AND


So to claim that the whole barge episode was a figment of my imagination is Wendy D trying to deceive the reader.

Gunnergonk told me, that Shane Healey told him, that the crushed ore would be moved to the barge by conveyor belts. The same conveyor belts that can presumably be seen in this picture of the Badenhorst's equipment:



Wendy D then goes on to say:

"I could probably defend myself against the rest of the umpteen pages of bile if I could be bothered, but I do not consider Anomalous' imaginative pejorations and allegations worth even reading in full, let alone acting upon. I have him filtered on ADVFN, and will probably follow suit here. Someone who reports a company several times to the FSA and AIM because "Wendy made me do it" is not worth the effort."

I gave Wendy every chance to recognise that there were contradictions in the declarations. I gave the company three chances to make the changes themselves, but in the end, I gave up trying to convince her and asked the AIM regulators to do that instead. The company has made two RNS. The first was inadquate and the second contradictory, so the AIM are continuing their investigation.

Wendy D in the meanwhile, tries to pass the buck for her responsibility by stating that the report was nothing to do with her. When in actual fact there are numerous posts on ADVFN that prove it is down to her intrasigence to even recognise that there was a problem. Even her fellow shareholders were telling her there were discrepancies and she ignored them.

I do hope she feels responsible enough to dig into her pocket and pay the director's fines. I will keep reminding her of this (and the press) when the announcement is made.

And as for her deceiving shareholders - ask the Minmet investors and they'll tell you plenty. The company liked her posts so much, they gave her some kimberlite in a presentation at the AGM, before Minmet hit problems.

It's like a broken record....stuck in a groove.
It is ridiculous, in my opinion, to even think of blaming wdurham for the present situation. The individual doing the constant reporting is obviously rather bitter, and certainly twisted in logic. He may even get himself into some trouble.If the company has mis-reported something, it should be dealt with, but it hardly seems to be a serious matter for pages and pages of repetitive invective from Anomalous1 and a great deal of personalised mud-slinging

>takahe

The big difference is that I have taken the trouble to do some in-depth research which the others obviously haven't done and I've come up with startling information. Shocking information in fact.

By all means, ignore my posts if you like, but then you will very probably have cause to come back to them in the future and wonder why you didn't notice what they said.

Let me put it this way... I've spoken with people who've been in the industry all their working life, and even they have serious doubts about NML. When the 'alarm bells are ringing', only fools ignore the warning signs and say that nothing is wrong.

Anomalous -

If you could understand half what you read, you might be useful. In the event you are just plain dangerous.

But never mind, if you want me to take the blame for you reporting NML to the FSA and AIM on umpty-ump occasions about everything down to whether they change their socks on Mondays, please be my guest. I am sure most folk will realise that you really didn't want to do it - I forced you against your will to report every little infraction of the rules that you could imagine. Folk will, I am sure, make allowances for your bigoted, narrow views, because it was all my fault. I stood over you with a large bull drover's whip, beat you into submission and forced you to do all this snitching.

Yeah, right.

Where's this "squelch" thingy? (Edit later: no worries - FOUND IT! What joy...)

Oh - and before I forget, will someone explain to thicko-Anomalous the difference bewteen "mobile plant" and "a mobile plant".

Just so you have the full picture, here are a few posts by Wendy that show that she's been equally condeming NML and their management:

Well, my comment is a simple one.

If the rains are so serious as to delay workup to full production by a further three months above and beyond the "end of March" start that the management predicted only weeks ago, that makes a complete nonsense of the projected figures that they published this time last year.

Whilst I fully understand that constructing a plant during the rains is rather different to later operating that same plant during the rains, how do NML propose to maintain production for more than 8 or 9 months of the year?

The further delay in gearing up to production, in itself, does not bother me, as I have been expecting just such an announcement. Things always take twice as long, etc....

But having always described the current management as shambolic, I now find myself concerned that their entire business model for the future is deeply flawed, and was put together without the slightest understanding on the part of an equally shambolic previous management of the task they were about to tackle.

Having said all that, though - the current market cap still looks stupid even if you cut annual production by half.....

I like this bit:


But having always described the current management as shambolic, I now find myself concerned that their entire business model for the future is deeply flawed, and was put together without the slightest understanding on the part of an equally shambolic previous management of the task they were about to tackle.

Wendy decided to slate the NML management before the Monday RNS. Now she's after the shareholders. Oh dear, she doesn't know which way to fire!

Anomalous1
In depth research, but you don't mention what the shocking news is? If you have insider information which puts you in a position to suppress a share price and to say this openly, that is very serious.

Let me say that I have shared this information with both the FSA and the AIM regulation team. They are aware of the seriousness of the implications.

I've also received information from other sources that make me even more concerned, as this does indeed question the credibility and viability of the operation.

I have not had this information verified, but I do trust the source implicitly, as the person has the highest integrity. I will pass this information to the regulators in due course.


The information is not 'inside' and no law has been broken. Therefore, anyone of the shareholders could have obtained this information themselves, if they had done enough research, or contacted the appropriate people. I am satisfied that the regulators are also 'concerned'.