Something Fishy Here!, page-109

Sorry those figures in the post above should read kt not t.

Also just a thought on the fund selling. The London listing needs liquidity in the form shares held by CREST in a central depository in RSG's home country. Read the mechanics in the quote below.

"Under UK law, international shares cannot be handled directly in CREST, so CDIs were created to allow trades in some overseas stocks to be settled in the same way. Essentially, for each stock available as a CDI, CREST has the required number of shares in shares held in its name (or the name of an intermediary acting for it) at the central securities depository in the company’s home country (these are the foreign equivalents of CREST – for example, DTCC in the US, Euroclear in much of Europe, Clearstream in Germany, SIS in Switzerland).

CREST issues CDIs representing these shares – one CDI for each share of underlying stock. These CDIs are an English law instrument and trades in them can be settled through CREST, just like a regular share. The underlying shares are held on trust for the owners of the CDI, who have full economic rights over them."

Could it be that the director related fund is selling shares to supply the central securities depository with enough free float to make the London listing possible. Contrary to what some of the blatant downrampers having been saying about the London listing being a front for a CR the company has said the opposite and numerous other similar examples have shown that no monies have been raised when companies go through the same listing process. Having said this and I've said it before, even though no shares will be issued as part of the listing, the process of partitioning sufficient liquidity for the listing must come at some cost. Maybe we are seeing that cost now with the director related fund selling down some of their holdings to achieve sufficient liquidity for the central security depository holdings here in Australia that will allow the dual listing to occur. The short funds and other panicked sellers could just be riding and exacerbating the sell off.

This is just a hypothesis but if correct means there is no mal intent on the part of the director related fund selling, in fact the sell off would be a longer term supportive move to enable the company to achieve its ambition of listing in London. I'm not sure if this is actually the case it would be so easily explainable to the market in an announcement so it might just be getting done behind the scenes.

The company has sufficient liquidity IMO to get through the quarter even if Ravenswood is effected (assuming there aren't other undisclosed concurent issues at Syama).

As I said the only numbers that have any baring on the long term picture here IMO are the UG mining rate at Syama for the March 2019 quarter and the sulphide circuit recovery rate. I can't estimate what recovery rate to expect until the mix of ore sources has been disclosed but we need to see between 320kt and 355kt mined from UG at Syama to be on track. Those are the all important numbers and the key to being on the path to future success IMO. Esh