Very well put Walter.
Shaking my head at some the below items. I apologize for the long posting in advance, but I make up for it by posting less often - lol!
I am a long term shareholder on this company from the time it used to be Butler Resources - 14 years ago. I am, also almost like everyone else here, disappointed with the funding from the SPAC deal and also the progress of this project, but to do things properly and most efficiently requires time and unfortunately in our case a couple of retries to save costs later on, which will flow to the bottom line making all then current shareholders happy. The most recent one being the REE possibility. 2 things have changed that made management revisit REE's: 1) The price of the various REE's have gone up since our first FS due to more demand already seen and expected in the future with the expected "greening" of the society and more importantly 2) The global security issues of Critical Minerals has put a lot of support both politically, environmentally and financially. Yes I see arguments that why did management not consider REE the first time around. If management did that it would not be good use hard to come by cash when the business case is not there and the same folks who now in hind sight ask this question would say management is irresponsible and not spending investors funds wisely.
Words, either for or against the project to not make things happen. It is very easy to put out words questioning everything when you do not have the responsibility for the company or making it happen. Perhaps, some experienced business people will know that building a company takes time. Just talking words do not tick off items of progress. Our project is not a small project - it will be one of the largest Critical Mineral projects in the USA and perhaps also one of the largest in the world. We should be proud to be part of it.
I read these extremely unproductive arguments that keep on being repeated over and over again even though they have been proven to be wrong. For example, a largest shareholder does not necessarily make the person a majority shareholder (as in our case and that is a fact unless you are in an alternate universe), yet I see it being presented as the largest shareholder is the majority shareholder. For these folks I see a different agenda to what is supposed to a constructive dialog. Most serious investors would move on when they do not have confidence in the company, especially when management is committed to this company and will not be going somewhere else soon. Someone just recently put it, there are 3 outcomes to being a shareholder: Buy, Hold or Sell. I would add a 4th one: a short seller - will be risky with our project very soon - give it 3 to 4 months!
Of course, it is possible that they do not hold any shares, otherwise who is their sound mind would beat down the company in which they are invested and waste time when they could be doing something better. OR they don't have any shares but want the price to go down and then buy in. The other thing I do not understand is that derogatory name-calling is not proper decorum - of course it is very easy like all social media to put anything on media from behind a screen with faceless names - it is very brave of them!! I would be really interested to see how many of these folks turn up at the ground breaking (which is going to happen) and tell everyone who they really are.
Sorry for the rant, but I learnt it from a fellow Canadian - Putz - lol!
Bullish
