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 ??

Stockdog,

I believe John Cross is in Angola, although he should still be able to receive email there, but just in case, I suggest you repeat your mail to Shane Healy.

Having said that, I emailed him recently and failed to receive a reply.

Like you, I found the two RNS at end of March, and begining of April, a few days apart to be contradictory, and confusing.

If I had sold (I currently don't hold) as a result of the first RNS, I would not have been happy to read the second one.

Pease keep us informed of any progress.

Willco, Andy

The arrogance indicated by failure to reply is anti-correlative with other good companies in my experience.

sd

It could just be that they have not got time to reply to shareholder queries as they are too busy mining the diamonds.

Having said that, they could hire a secretary or just set up some auto-reply stock answers.

Aimtrader -

If you read what Anom actually wrote, he did not prove me "wrong". The facts of that particular case are not at issue - Anomalous' own posts show what he said and did.

Anyway, I REALLY can't be bothered to go through it all again for your benefit. And the reason I couldn't be bothered in the first place is that the argument has already been done to death on other BB's and I have lost patience with both him and the issue. If he chooses to raise these issues in a new forum, that's his affair - I am not obliged to restate all the same old arguments yet again, beyond an initial attempt to show him as not totally competent to form the opinions which he presents as gospel truth.

And that goes for any company, not just NML.

I sold out of AFD when Anomalous started making waves with his condemnatory dossiers to the FSA. If he continues to stir up the authorities against NML and use his "opinions" to further his BB attacks upon the company, I may well do the same. I would not touch EPD with a bargepole, because irrespective of his current fondness for the management, it's only a matter of time before he will be reporting them to the FSA as well, and posting diatribes about being lied to on the BBs. Follow the pattern, all the way from Conroy onwards - it is very, very clear.

If I make a mistake, I take it on-board, admit it, shrug it off and move on. I don't lurk around BBs slagging the company off interminably, reporting them to the FSA once a week, and accusing them of lying, to excuse my own errors.

As regards NML. I believe they have a good chance of succeeding with the Lapi River project, in spite of management muck-ups, incessant (and often avoidable) delays, disruption by rain which they simply failed to predict, and a couple of relatively small discrepancies in director shareholdings. Recent evidence from an experienced consulting economic geologist and a local company - who had the support of a deBeers geologist - is clear, and by Jan 2004 C9 was one of only 14 out of many thousands of applications gazetted by Endiama after the "outbreak of peace." There are diamondiferous kimberlites on the licence area, for which NML have applied for a separate development licence. Alluvial project ops are in charge of two experienced men, who recently took shares in lieu of the final payment due to them for equipment. A number of stones were found during sampling, some of them of a good size. Directors have accepted 4 years worth of directors' fees in shares. A 12-month convertible financing was also redeemed with shares, at the outset, by the lender, who could have waited the year and drawn interest. Money is tight - revenue can hardly arrive before August, if then, and more may yet be required from the market. There may be further unforseen delays lurking of which we know nothing. Production targets are based on the original project economics and may not be correct.

These are the facts. You can interpret them how you like. At just 6 mill market cap my own feeling is that it was worth a reasonable slice of my minex portfolio.

Hi SD,

Yes if you could keep us updated with any correspondence you receive from nml it would be much appreciated.

Anomoulus

fortunately i came out with a 20 profit, god knows how. What alarmed me was when my broker rang up to sell (he tried to get me 6p) there were about 9 sellers ahead of me!!!! so i just got 5.70 or 5.75 (i can't remember) after buying this at 5.5p.

Too many questions need answering here for my liking.

Keep smiling and good luck all.

Anomolous, is what you have heard something to do with the use of nml cash or the amount of a certain persons wage by any chance??!!

legend
nice that you retain an interest, in spite of selling out. Anomalous1 chooses to believe that NML are using the kimberlite money for the alluvials.
The directors don't get wages. I think you must be confusing this with AFD, Anomalous1's other anti-crusade.

Thanks for this takahe....

I have nothing against nml or any of its holders. I really do wish people well and to make money on these.

I hope the company will be honest enough to let you all know what the hell is going on.

What would be the consequences of using the kimberlite money for the alluvials and why is it so bad?? (sorry for being thick!!)

>legend290782

It was something to do with NML cash, but not to do with a certain person's wage.

IMHO, the company was attempting something which would have alarmed the shareholders on the BBs and forced the regulators to take a very close look at the company.

On top of that I've now received more intelligence which is equally disturbing. Although I would not pass this on through a BB, I would say that if you want to find out the truth for yourself, take a close hard look at the people employed by the business.

Anomalous1
what does that mean? Are you inferring that NML are not going to develop the kimberlites and are using the new money raised, for their alluvial operations?
People employed by the company???? I don't understand what you mean.How do I find out the truth?

Chairman and Non-executive Director - Senator David Johnston
Deputy Chairman and Non-executive Director - Datuk Fung-Chee Lim
Managing Director and CEO - John M Cross
Non-executive Director - Dato Azizi Yom Ahmad
Finance Director and Company Secretary - Shane Healy
Non-executive Director - Chong-Kiat Lim
Mine Management, Angola - Piet and Neils Badenhorst
Independent Geologist - Dr Michael Harold Smith, FIMM, C. Eng, from Scotland
Consultant Geologist - Bernard Neehoff, AUSIMM, Perth, Australia

Which one of these people is Anomalous1 attempting to defame now?

Don't know mjr and I don't care...he obviously has nothing better to do or an alternative agenda. It is not worth reading his posts. I am sure news will be out soon and then Anomaly will clear off to deramp another stock!

>Stockdog
Please do keep us updated if they do respond. My guess is that they will not.

It's very likely that the company was contacted by the FSA last year and dissuaded from making inappropriate communications by email or telephone. This was after one of their directors had been sending emails (and telephone calls) about the company to private shareholders. It was as a result of these communications that the whole 'barge' argument started. Not to mention the statement that the company was "going for it" from the moment the equipment was on the ground.

WendyD likes to gloss over this incident, but the person concerned, with virtually no experience in the mining industry, was making statements as a director (on behalf of the company), which were at best extremely misleading and at worst deceiving. In a short while, I'll dissect Wendy D's post for you and show you what she has casually missed. Important facts that a shareholder should be aware of.

As for me, I've invested in dozens of companies. A fair number of them are mining related or actual diamond producers. Some have made me a great deal of money - FDI being one. In all the time I have invested in them, I have known more than a few of them to get their estimates or their dates of completion wrong. However, when I have discovered a mining company that has deliberately lied to their shareholders, I have taken a special interest. This is where I devote a large amount of time to research and posting on BBs.

IN the case of Conroy, I found out that the management had misled the shareholders about the survey being done in 2004. I had been told that the survey was to be used to capture a JV. That the survey company SRK was to be drilling and that this extra drilling would help the company prepare for the feasibility studies. It was only shortly before the survey was released, that I found out there was no extra drilling. The survey did not say anything remarkably different from one taken 3 years before and the company was then dreadfully short of funds. In the meantime, the management were listed as having large salaries and expenses paid trips. They split off the diamond venture (Karelian), saying that it would list in August 2004. It never has. When I realised what the company was up to, I wrote about it on the BB. I accepted that I had been fooled and that I had made a loss. I did not go running to the FSA or LSE about it, but have since kept an eye on the company to see if they pull some of the same stunts again.

In the case of AFD, well, that's covered on the ADVFN BBs. Suffice to say that the company put out a series of RNS last year, including the "we will be a diamond producing company in 8 weeks" RNS of January 2004. These RNS's were extremely misleading. Even AFD's own Chairman regrets making them. But one has to ask why he made them in the first place. If one examines the share price and the issues made by the company, you can possibly see why. To top all this, a director with an impeccable record and one of only two geologists on the board resigned on a matter of honour, when the Chairman used his vote, in my view Ultra viries, to award himself 1,000 per day for working on AFD. Something that was unjustified. The Chairman elected his own son to the board to railroad through these resolutions. At the AGM last December, there was a serious disgreement between the directors over the handling of the company. I have been in contact with shareholders of the company and a complaint has been made to the AIM, FSA and the DTI. We are still awaiting the outcome of the regulators enquiries. But as you can see, I have been involved in this company's affairs, because the management misled the shareholders.

In the case of NML, it is crystal clear to me that the company is also misleading the shareholders about their abilities. Even WendyD has stated that the new management are 'incompetent'. As I dig deeper into the affairs of the company, I discover more that alarms me.

Despite what Wendy claims, I do not report companies to the FSA every week. I do have a relationship with the FSA born out of the Room Service Shorting Scandal. I am keen to see that Private Investors are protected from the rogues on the market. Be they market makers or companies that are abusing their position.

I am also keen to see that Investors are protected from derampers claiming 'insider news'. Your post 'As I dig deeper into the affairs of the company, I discover more that alarms me.' rather falls into that category, without any back-up information. It is an easy thing to say that there is bad news...derampers are alwayd doing that..and your whole tone is very much that of a deramper.

Anomalous1- how can you substantiate that NML have 'deliberately lied to their shareholders'?

takahe - 13 Jun'05 - 14:11 - 781 of 784
Anomalous1
what does that mean? Are you inferring that NML are not going to develop the kimberlites and are using the new money raised, for their alluvial operations?
People employed by the company???? I don't understand what you mean.How do I find out the truth?

NML raised 500k purportedly to explore the kimberlites on the C9 license. Word has it that they've put out adverts to recruit kimberlite geologists. That indicates that they are involved in, or intending to research the kimberlites. It doesn't prove that they will. The company has stated an intention to do so. But then companies can make any number of statements and whether they are fulfilled is another matter.

If you examine the company's finances, you will notice that they raised $1.1 million in a placing last year and agreed a convertible drawdown facility for $1.25 million. Back in November 2004, they said that they had enough finance to bring the company into production. They also told the investors at the meeting that this would be in February 2005 and that they would be able to extract 5,000 carats in 2 weeks after start. They indicated that during the final exploration period (Nov 2004 to Feb 2005), they would be using approx $150k per month and that in production, they would need +$400k per month. The company was obliged to access the drawdown in January 2005, according to the RNS:

http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200501201023585961H.html

So we know that the company had at least $1.25 million at that time. They may have had more, but then it is highly unlikely that they would have activated the drawdown (which carried 6% interest after one year) until they actually needed the money. After all, the facility was agreed on 5 October 2004, so had they activated it back then, when it is known that they had $1.1 million at least (through the placing), then the interest would have been wasteful of company funds.

So starting in January with $1.25 million, we can see the following outgoing cashflow:

1. January (approx) $37.5k
2. February $150k
3. March $150k
4. April $400k
5. May $400k
6. June $400k

Add those together and you get $1.5375 million. So in theory, the company would have run out of working capital at the start of June.

So now you can see why they had a dilution at the start of the month. Even if they do spend some of the 500k on the kimberlite, I would say that it is highly reasonable to assume that a good proportion of the $950k it represents would be used as working capital for the alluvials.

The company stated that they would be cashflow neutral for year-ending 2005. The company year end is 30 June 2005. So they would need a significant quantity of diamonds to fulfill that promise. That would be price sentive news, yet there has been no announcement of this. I guess they might be saving this for the year end statement. Or maybe they can't make this announcement, because they have not collected sufficient diamonds to validate it.

There's no way that an ordinary private shareholder can check the company books, except to question the management at the AGM. It is very convenient for the NML management that the AGMs are held in Malaysia and Singapore, where the largest shareholders are located. It prevents the majority of the smaller shareholders from attending and asking inconvenient questions.

Anomalous1
I take it that you are not a shareholder?

It is surely only your opinion that they are not intending to develop the kimberlites. Leon Daniels has expressed an interest in looking at the kimberlites and he is a renowned kimberlite geologist.
With regard to a previous post of yours about the FD lieing about diamonds being only one metre down...apparently, there are diamonds only 1 or 2 metres down but they are not generally good quality ones, so he was not lying.

Anomalous,

The company has stated that, once in full production, they expect to extract 10,000 cts/month leading to a profit of around $1M/month of which around $500k is attributable to NML.

Why would it be price sensitive news if they were producing enough diamonds to break-even, when they stated they expect to make $500k PROFIT?

takahe - 13 Jun'05 - 14:54 - 786 of 787
Anomalous1- how can you substantiate that NML have 'deliberately lied to their shareholders'?

Quite apart from the ill-informed statements by Shane Healey about them "Going for it" right from the start of getting the equipment on site, you only have to look through the Project Summary to see numerous contradictions.

I pointed out one on the ADVFN BB just yesterday. They couldn't even agree in the Summary when the rainy season started or how long it lasted. See for yourself:


And


At the shareholder's meeting in November 2004, the management told the investors that the company would have to delay the start (because of the weather) and that it would not now be October 2004 as they had been telling everyone, but now Febraury 2005. They said that they had enough funding and would not need to dilute anymore.

Now we know that they didn not start until it was announced in April 2005. Two months late. They might excuse this by saying that the weather held them back. But if this is the case, how do they expect to keep operating during the next rainy season? Even excusing the weather, they still said that they had enough funding and would not need to dilute further. Yet they DID dilute and twice. The first when they converted the Badenhorst's final cash payment and the second just recently.

Wendy has claimed (see 775 above) that the Badenhorst's accepted shares instead of cash as their final payment. But if you remember, the agreement was that the final payment would be made on 30 November 2004:

http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200408040700065934B.html

It is clear from the finances breakdown, that the company was incapable of making that payment for $630,000 and the other payment for the directors' fees from the working capital, without jeopardising the operation. To sweeten the deal, the company offered the Badenhorsts $195,300 extras worth of shares (at the agreed previously agreed price of $0.1) by coverting the $630k due at $0.76 per share. So anyone trying to claim that the Badenhorsts accepting the shares was a vote of confidence in the project is attempting to deceive you, or they don't know that they are misleading you. It has since been made clear that the Badenhorsts have sold or transferred a million shares. Presumably someone told them they could covert the extra shares into cash at much better than $.10 per share. After all, the share price only dropped in April. But back in December when they were issued, the SP was much higher.

So how else do I know that the management misled the shareholders? Well, if you go back to the whole 'death threat' episode, you will recall that there was an AFX about the meeting being moved. We had already asked the Police to attend in plain clothes, which they did. After the AFX had been released, I asked a reporter friend, who works for the Telegraph, to attend the meeting and speak with the directors. So that the story could be reported seriously and not sensationalised. The reporter cam back and wrote the piece for the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/11/05/cnmill05.xml

In the article it says:

The threats had been made in a series of anonymous contributions to a share tipping website on September 18.

New Millennium, which has interests in Angola and Greenland, raised $1.6m in a private placing at a 30pc discount to the share price last month. Company sources believe the threats were made because of a concern that New Millennium had discovered diamonds in river beds in north-east Angola but was withholding this information from the stock market.

You see, they told the reporter that the threats were made because the company was withholding information, yet the real reason was because the shareholder concerned (who posts on ADVFN) had lost a considerable amount of money and blamed the directors.

The BBC picked up the Telegraph story and originally repeated the accusation about the company withholding information. But after I asked them to check with the Police (because I was the person that reported the threats to the Police), the BBC re-wrote the story to say this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3986463.stm

"New Millennium Resources chief executive John M. Cross told BBC News that its author believed the company had divulged market-sensitive information to selected shareholders, allowing them to profit at the expense of other investors.

"It seems someone thought we were withholding information from general release, which was quite untrue," he said.

But the man who spotted the threat on an internet bulletin board and alerted the police told BBC News that he thought the threat had simply been sparked off by a heavy loss on a share deal."

So you can see, John Cross told the BBC the same as they told the Telegraph, yet the management were already aware that the person was making threats because they had mades losses. The company altered the story to suit them and issued a false excuse - the withholding of information.

Sure, a large number of the shareholders did think that the company was withholding information - most of important of all - the Mine Start. The Investors had been told by the directors that the mine start would happen in October. So by November, most of them were fuming and angry, thinking that the news was being held back. What was really being held back, was the fact that the company had deceived the shareholders and that the mine start would not now take place until February (as they claimed).

Time after time, this company has been making promises they have been unable to fulfill. You only have to see the original Project Summary for yourself to realise that they were supposed to have started in April 2004, not April 2005.

The company came to diamond mining rather late in the day. They were originally supposed to be mining Niobium and Tantalum in Greenland. The diamonds on the Sarfartoq license were a happy addition to the value. It seems to me that this was a company in search of a money making project. They happened upon the C9 River Lapi license after the Badenhorsts introduced them to it. Since then, there have been numerous management changes and frequent delays to the project. It appears to most that they lack the necessary experience in running a minex company, to be able to successfully pull off the project. Whether they can learn this on the job is a different matter. They certainly seem to be operating by trial and error - to the expense of the shareholders.