Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Stuart I think you're right , in that they definitely have a very good idea of the MRE and the scale of the potential, although it may be many years before it is all unearthed! I agree also that we all hope it is at least 5 if not 8m oz to commence with to get the market perked up with antennae alerted, which will scoot this SP where it belongs. Then GH is in the finest of positions and will have choices....although in my view, it will be Newcrest all the way. Be daft not to. If the MRE is as good as we all hope it to be....he can write his own numbers out!!
ATB
Stuart, it wasn’t meant as a criticism. I merely suggest it could come anytime and could even be pending or awaiting independent verification. SB also seems very keen to relay Newcrest’s excitement about the potential at Hav, and what better way than to issue MRE earlier.
End of the day none of us know, however wouldn’t want to be out when it drops ;-)
If they put in a low value. Greatland will sell 30% to someone else. They will want to keep greatland happy, more joint ventures for sure
Antigua all I am saying is it appears to be a requirement for lodging the mining application lease that they announce the resource report and supporting statement, as they didn't, technically it cant be method 2 below. I just find it all interesting, not suggesting anything. Its going to be one news rich period the next 6 months. Popcorn at the ready
Hi Stuart
I seem to recall that the issues around requirements for the mining lease were discussed following the release of the RNS back in early June.
Although my memory is.......what was I saying? Ah yes, not what it was. Pretty sure that Newcrest could avoid producing an MRE at this stage provided that they had sufficient drill data to support the application. They certainly have that.
In terms of timing for the MRE, I've always felt it would be very late this year. I've seen nothing to change that view but could of course be totally wrong. Whenever it comes, I think it will have been worth the wait
As we are in the second half of the year then the MRE could come anytime, also would it not be in Newcrest’s best interest to release a lower one early to support any required documentation or even potential takeover considerations.
They could then revise as results are known. Why would they wait until the end of the year as some indicate.
@Stuart "Objections to the application can be taken up to the 7th September FWIW"
Let's file an objection that we want to see an MRE, shall we? ;)
Hi Stuart,
Puzzled over the guidelines this morning.
Not really written for the man on the Clapham Omnibus I’m afraid.
UR
So according to the 3 ways you can submit a mining lease application in WA, The first appears to be for earlier stage discoveries with not much drilling, the third appears to be for old discoveries with old resource estimates you are hooping to use or add too, and so I am leaning to the middle one as commented earlier. BUT, there is a flaw in my theory. It clearly states:"the report and supporting statements shall become available to the public when they have been submitted to the DMP" the report it is referring to is the resource report whos requirements include essentially an MRE. So this would seem to suggest they needed to release the MRE alongside the mining lease application in order to have gone this route, leaving only two possibilities in my mind, they are allowed to delay the MRE that was submitted alongside the mining lease application(why or how I am yet to figure out), OR they went the Mining proposal route.(why as we easily have enough for an MRE would we go this route - perhaps its quicker with a concept study for the stoping operation and gets us to the explo decline faster) more research needed just wanted to share for comment either way. Objections to the application can be taken up to the 7th September FWIW
1) a mining proposal under Section 74(1)(ca)(i) (see separate Guidelines for a ‘Mining
Proposal’ at http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Environment/Mining-proposals-5993.aspx; or
2) a statement about likely mining operations (‘supporting statement’), and a
mineralisation report under Section 74(1)(ca)(ii) (see separate Guidelines for a
‘Mineralisation Report’ at http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Geological-Survey/MineralisationReports-and-1404.aspx ;
or
3) a statement about likely mining operations (‘supporting statement’), and a resource
report under Section 74(1)(ca)(iii) — these Guidelines.
great post Stuart really interesting obs and what a platform that would be at a time where Gold is hot property! Cheers MFU
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Geological-Survey/GSWA-ResourceReport_ApplicationsGuideline.pdf
very interesting read to support my post below folks
There are two routes to a mining application lease and once you have committed to one you cant turn back, they are a mining proposal route and a mineralisation report route. For various reasons I think we have more than enough data to go the mineralised report route. researching for one of these and the competant persons statement that goes with it, I found this (hope the link works) https://geodocs.dmirs.wa.gov.au/Web/documentlist/8/ML_NUM/M70%2F1380
if the link doesn't work, the short of it is that the mineralisation report and resource reports for mining lease applications (if we have gone this route) DO appear to have a resource estimate as per the above. I will keep digging, but I think we have our MRE incoming folks. it would be perfect timing for the results on the 14th from a PR perspective.
Good luck all, If I am right, here is hoping for 5-10moz for starters, (I doubt the breccia will be included if it is ready and submitted as pert of the mining lease application as I believe it may have been.
GLA, DUCKS DUCKS DUCKS