RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:$44.8 M, "ConcreteneTM", 9,868 tpa Manufacturing Capacity?We'll simply agree do disagree NewOpportunist.
You went on to state "It's about believing in the potential of graphene, the capability of Management executing their outlined strategy, doing better than GRA, which is still struggling to generate positive cash flow after years of heavy investments. I am putting my money behind the SWAN Management, as I see a credible strategy, tangible progress, but as an investment have been too early too and wrong so far."
Now you choose to take a swipe at NanoXplore?
"Doing better than GRA" you suggest?
Understand that NanoXplore management has already successfully completed a previous five year "strategic business development investment plan" and also understand that Mason Graphite, now Mason Resources Inc., has yet to fully define let alone successfully achieve certain most specific company "tangible deliverables".
Also, you elect to pooh-pooh NanoXplore not sufficiently ramping up the generation of positive cash flow and seem to want to come across as also pooh-poohing the years of heavy investments which NanoXplore management has quite intentionally elected to pursue in seeking to keep growing it's present and future revenues generation capability and NanoXplore's overall breadth and depth of downstream business verticals integrated enterprise.
Clearly there exists a distinct difference amongst you and I NewOpportunist.
Such a differnce being that I don't ever seek to knock SWAN for the very growing pains it has undergone and will necessarily continue to undergo whilst defining and then actually raising the relatively massive amounts of capital needed going forward and then rolling out the capital expenditures required to incrementally pursue what would perhaps be SWAN management's clearly conveyed "five year strategic business development investment plan".
You, on the other hand, elect toreach out for something, anything, about NanoXplore which you can hammer on in a attempt to childishly lash out at what you know to be my greatly weighted equity investment in NanoXplore Inc and it's very bright current and future business development prospects.
You would do better not to compare the two companies during SWAN's current development phase. Instead what you should be looking to is NanoXplore's past and future strategic business development investment accomplishments being a tried, tested and true roadmap for Black Swan Graphene management to employ and to follow very closely.
Black Swan Graphene is merely at the start of it's beginning; whilst NanoXplore is well past what had been the beginning phase of NanoXplore's previous five year strategic business development investment plan.
Black Swan Graphene management are actually taking a page out of precisely how NanoXplore began it's previous five year long leg in a relatively long journey of strategic business development investment.
What's more, you will necessarily recall that NanoXplore previously held exposure to a certain developed graphite bearing lands project and that Mason Graphite, now Mason Resources Inc., management and the Thomas Swan &Co., stakeholders knew better than to weigh SWAN down with having to develop and operate a future mining project.
I am certain that NanoXplore management could surely teach SWAN management about needing to always focus, focus and keep focusing on SWAN's core competencies and SWAN's specifically outlined strategic business development investments interests.
Finally, you stated "I just don't like your style of arguments, it's mostly conjecture, pipedreams of the big picture, macro trends, all sorts of wild speculative M&A ideas, while the market in form of share price performance of the underlying stocks tells you a different story. Do you actually talk to the company representatives at LLG, SWAN, NOU directly or anybody else to substantiate your investment case?"
You don't have to like "my style of arguments". You have to finely examine the precise points I do make and do support with facts which you would rather ignore NewOpportunist.
In closing, I'll point out for you the fact being that any given company's share price performance at any given moment is not often entirely reflective of such a company's ongoing fundamentally sound and greatly improving company wide operations; as is the case with NanoXplore and precisely what said company and it's wholly equity controlled subsidiary, VoltaXplore, do presently have on the front burners and about to commence building to a boil.