I don't think it is a good idea for anyone to believe everything that a poster says based on the poster's identity.
IMO, posts should be evaluated based on the evidence. What makes sense in context of the information and analyses presented?
For my own posts, please argue with my interpretation. And for sure, if the data I quote is inaccurate or out of context, point that out and I will agree or not as appropriate.
But do not attack my motives, personality, or iHub experience. Those are irrelevant, really, to the informative accuracy of posts.
But for those who want to know -- I bought stock at .15/share based on a (too) quick reading of EEGC PRs. I have since learned to evaluate PRs (and now posts) based on a full evaluation of the information, and don't want anyone else to fall into the same trap. If they did, they could be potential plaintiffs against the company, not a good thing for anyone.
If you believe the recent posts that funding is a 'done deal' and the first tranche of the $180M of Sure developed funding is imminent within the next 'week or so' (as of 6 September, per one poster), then take an extra mortgage on your house and use it to buy stock, because if this is in fact true, EEGC pps will skyrocket as I have previously agreed.
PPS will skyrocket because stock market does not believe this will happen (<$10M valuation versus Mr. Bendall's belief of $2B+ valuation -- or even versus an 'expected value' lease valuation of $40M, before gross margin is allocated to Sure investors per the funding Agreement), and neither do I -- again, based on the company's own PR last week which was unusually clear in new disclosures of critical pre-requisites for Sure funding ($12M of 'upfront' cash from EEGC, PPM, insurance policy).
Look forward to contrary evidence as to why near term funding should be expected other than 'it would be a good thing.' I agree with that statement -- but it is not evidence. Where is this $12M to come from? At current common stock valuation, this is almost double the value of the company!! So, raising it would be significant dilution if equity -- and debt is unlikely given that all collateral has to be available for Sure so they can offer 'pricipal protected' notes.
In particular, advise of any other evidence of predicted funding presented by the company or its CEO in the last two years which happened other than SmartWin (50% of the company at a $0.25 valuation -- which happened partially but was not completed for whatever reason, I do not have sufficient information to blame SmartWin or EEGC, resolution of pending litigation should resolve).
Stock is down almost 50% since end of the RO less than six weeks ago. Anyone who believes Sure funding is imminent, believes posters other than me; those who believe me are likely holding (as I am), as the current value is fair compared to the prospects (Monarch, Tasmania oil and gas, flare gas technology ).
Net: Bet your beliefs with your pocketbook.
On the other hand, the Grand Monarch acquisition will give us a new Chairman, per the PRs -- but does anyone believe he has a magic wand?? Based on what history?
BTW, what is the purchase price and how will the Grand Monarch acquisition be financed?
AI
