Tom, as someone who makes his living from words, I’d be interested to know whether you genuinely think an ordinary reader would take ‘intensively mobilising personnel… on the ground’ to mean mainly systems work, subcontractor oversight and occasional visits. Harry’s explanation still doesn’t answer the selected wording KEFI chose on 4 August.If Lycopodium’s role then was mainly systems work, subcontractor oversight and occasional site visits ahead of its own physical mobilisation sometime in 2027, why say Lycopodium was “installing their own personnel… at Tulu Kapi” and “intensively mobilising personnel… on the ground”?And the same applies to BCM: was it actually carrying out bulk earthworks/drilling at Tulu Kapi during August and immediately before 4 September?

Thanks Tom. That is useful clarification from Harry, but I’m not sure it fully resolves the wording of the 4 August RNS.Sam Wells, on behalf of Lycopodium, has told me that based on Lycopodium’s scope its natural progression was that it would likely not have been onsite until sometime in 2027, subject to premobilisation requirements.Harry now appears to be saying that the August reference to Lycopodium installing personnel and subcontractors “at Tulu Kapi” and “intensively mobilising … on the ground” principally referred to local subcontractors being appointed/overseen by Lycopodium, together with Lycopodium visiting and inspecting the site.That is useful information, but it is not quite the impression I think most investors would naturally have taken from the wording “installing their own personnel … at Tulu Kapi”.It would therefore still be helpful for KEFI simply to clarify:1. Were any Lycopodium employees actually based and working at Tulu Kapi following 4 August, as opposed to making occasional visits?2. Which Lycopodium subcontractors were physically working at Tulu Kapi during August?3. Was BCM physically carrying out bulk earthworks/drilling at Tulu Kapi throughout August and immediately before 4 September?4. Did any of that physical contractor activity reduce or cease before 4 September and, if so, when and why?Those are straightforward factual questions and would resolve the issue.

Harry Adams says:Lyco is obviously installing its systems and people over and through the local subcontractors who it appoints and oversees. That process has been underway for months. In doing so, it visits and inspects tulu kapi and the sub-contractors’ other sites. Moving these people and machines onto tulu kapi follows resettlement as has always been made clear.And security infrastructure and associated systems also get installed before a large construction group.Likewise, whilst we have ordered components of the plant, they need to be manufactured and delivered in order to instal.These explanations can be deemed common sense by me or material information by an individual reader. I leave that to you to judge and I am comfortable with our level of transparency.EndsI agree with Harry

Leaving aside the tragic events themselves, there are some important factual questions about the period between KEFI’s 4 August RNS and the 4 September attack which remain unanswered.These arise in part from Lycopodium’s clarification that, based on its scope, it would likely not have been on site until sometime in 2027 and that any eventual site presence remained subject to the Company’s premobilisation requirements.That sits very awkwardly with KEFI’s 4 August RNS, which stated that Lycopodium, EEP, ERA and BCM were:“installing their own personnel, subcontractors and systems at Tulu Kapi”and were:“intensively mobilising personnel, subcontractors and systems on the ground.”I have now asked three times by email for the following questions to be addressed through the Company’s Q&A section, without even receiving an acknowledgement:Which KEFI/TKGM employees, principal contractors and subcontractors were actually physically active at Tulu Kapi following the 4 August announcement?Did any contractor or subcontractor reduce, suspend or cease its on-site presence before 4 September? If so, when and why?Were any KEFI/TKGM employees withdrawn, relocated, stood down, advised not to attend site or otherwise subject to changed working or travel arrangements before 4 September?Did KEFI, TKGM, its security advisers or contractors receive any project-specific warnings, threat assessments or security advice before 4 September which affected staffing, access or project activity?If personnel had already left Tulu Kapi before the attack, when did that happen and what prompted it?If there was any material change from the position described on 4 August, when KEFI said principal contractors were “intensively mobilising personnel, subcontractors and systems on the ground”, why was the market not updated?Alternatively, if there was no meaningful physical contractor presence at Tulu Kapi in the manner naturally conveyed by the 4 August RNS, how does KEFI reconcile that with the wording of the announcement?Was the physical contractor mobilisation described on 4 August part of the basis for KEFI’s repeated statement that the project remained on schedule for commissioning in late 2027 and full production in 2028?These are not questions about sensitive operational security. They are questions about the accuracy of information already provided to shareholders and the chronology immediately before a material event.I have put these questions directly to KEFI and would like to see a clear response through the Company’s Q&A section.

First things first, the sad loss of life and any injuries should be the main focus. There is nothing like seeing photographs of some of the victims, as Tom has, to bring home the personal tragedies involved. It was an act of evil and will hopefully lead to a much stronger security ring around the site going forward.Turning to the less important, but still legitimate, shareholder issues, I have received a direct response from Sam Wells on behalf of Lycopodium regarding its physical presence at Tulu Kapi.He stated: “From the Company’s perspective, the natural order of progression (based on their scope) is to likely not have been onsite at this project until sometime in 2027, and always subject to all of the Company’s premobilisation requirements.”That sits very awkwardly with KEFI’s 4 August RNS, which stated that Lycopodium, EEP, ERA and BCM were: “installing their own personnel, subcontractors and systems at Tulu Kapi” and were: “intensively mobilising personnel, subcontractors and systems on the ground.”On any ordinary reading, KEFI’s wording conveyed that Lycopodium was part of the physical mobilisation taking place at Tulu Kapi at that time. Lycopodium now says its natural progression was that it would likely not even be on site until sometime in 2027. That is a serious discrepancy between KEFI’s 4 August RNS and Lycopodium’s account which Kefi should explain. I have asked KEFI several times to provide answers on their Q&A to explain the discrepancy.The obvious questions are: what precisely was KEFI referring to in relation to Lycopodium on 4 August, which principal contractors were actually physically active at Tulu Kapi, and did any of that activity reduce or cease before 4 September? There may be a straightforward explanation, but shareholders are entitled to one.

:)Nice one Tom but still, you are quoting generic statistics and probability of success. Avacta is using warheads that are already proven. Hence one of the reasons the FDA granted them a pivotal phase 2 trial for generation 1 drug. When you have warheads already proven, that derisks phase 3 massively. Do you not understand that? Because that alone is just one of many things you are missing about avacta and its probability of success and therefore its risk asjusted net present value. Effectively warhead proven before they even start the trial, increasing probability of success way beyond that of a generic POS. Now they've proven safety multiple times in multiple patients with 2 highly toxic warheads.Anyway, I can only conclude you either dont understand or dont want to understand? My offer is genuine to help educate you but if youre not interested, fine. Good luck with your African gold mines and modular housing in South America which are far less risky than a heavily scrutinised and regulated British biotech 👍

That is an admission I would not make on BBs if I were you. Another piece on way!

I personally think that the CoS in a repurposed targeted version of an approved efficacious existing product is higher than a de novo candidate.But the issue here is that there needs fairly soon to be a £25m raise. The key issue is whether there is any industry ratification of the precision platform at this point. If there is, in the form of a deal with an upfront, then tick, a smaller capital raise can be done.If no industry ratification with cash attached, then yet another plain vanilla raise will be a very bloody affair.Comes down to industry ratification at this point (or not). It’s the swing factor.

Incorrect, I said it’s a possibility, which it is. If you want to keep making things up to justify your conformation bias, that’s your call.