Sapan Gai, CCO at Sovereign Metals, discusses their superior graphite test results. 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.
Apologies should also have said 4th March RNS included detail of a payment as well
'Galileo Resources plc ("Galileo" or the "Company") announces that on 3 March 2021 it entered into a conditional agreement with Siege Mining Limited ("Siege") in relation to the ceding of ownership and operation of the Star Zinc Project (the "Star Zinc Project") for US$750,000 (being US$200,000 in relation to the large-scale exploration licence 19653-HQ-LEL (the "Star Zinc Project Licence") (the "Licence Consideration") and US$550,000 for Galileo ceding its participation in the Star Zinc Project and all exploration information which it has in relation to the Star Zinc Project (the "Project Assets") (the "Project Consideration"). Galileo will also be paid a royalty (proportion share) based on future sales of zinc from the Star Zinc Project for Galileo allowing Siege to use Galileo's information, know-how and commercial experience in relation to the Star Zinc Project (the "Agreement") .'
Relevant to this discussion is GLRs dealings around Star Zinc. This asset owned by GLR was expected to be mined for the benefit of shareholders. It came light (in Nov/Dec) that another party had applied for a licence to mine it - applied for on the 26th Sept 2020 according to the mining cadastre. The trading update issued on the 30th Sept 2020 stated
'Further to the announcement of 3 October 2019, drill core material from the Star Zinc project was made available to Jubilee Metals Group to facilitate bulk sample testing. The potential contribution of silver and germanium from Star Zinc ore will also be further assessed. It is planned to prepare an application for a small-scale mining permit, including an environmental permit, with mining to commence as soon as this process is finalised - targeted for 2021. Star Zinc mining plans and permissions are progressing favourably and the Company will make an announcement in due course.' This does not appear to reflect reality at the time.
From the results published 24th Dec
'Our Star Zinc Project in Zambia has been fully evaluated and is now ready to commence production as a small mining operation. Whilst small, the zinc, silver and germanium metal content make the project a very valuable, potentially 5-year duration, cash flow supplier. The willemite ore occurs from surface to just 60m depth, making open pit mining a relatively simple operation. We are currently finalising our plans to bring this project into production during the first quarter of 2021.'
Several investors tried to contact the company from mid Jan on to get clarification, as the mining cadastre was clearly showing someone else was applying for a licence to mine it, but could not get a response via email or phone.
29th Jan RNS glossed over Star Zinc which raised concern with several shareholders
'Galileo has decided to cease seeking Ministry approval and therefore will no longer be assuming the rights from BMR.'
Eventually on the 4th March after several investors contacted the NOMAD an RNS was issued that effectively states that GLR will get a 3-4% NSR rather than the 100% revenue expected from Star Zinc.
As always up to individual investors to do their research and make their own decisions. The above is an interesting story of how info can get released to market on aim.
Howezap re "
If I’m correct in thinking, you are suggesting that the BOD have received back the hole 2 assays from lab and wilfully holding them back from release. Ans so , will package hole 2 results with incoming hole 3 to gloss over the fact.
Do not believe they would do this , illegal for starters to hold back market sensitive information and to jeopardise their integrity to prove up the resource would not bode well with any potential buyer if it came out."
I hear where you're coming from but when dealing with AIM aka THE WILD WEST, that's a tad naive.
For example the directors of VOG took several months to tell shareholders that their major customer Eneo, accounting for half of all gas sales, had not been paying them for several months.
Nobody prosecuted them
Think we’re all on same page understanding what’s needed. Is good to get a relevant debate going on quiet days, beats talking about wild animals and fruit! .....melons are a fruit yeah?
When you look at phase 1 drilling in total and post that geo physical analysis/ouptut and pre phase 2 modelling and phase 2 drilling in total and everything else up thereafter up to and including JORC, how material on a grand scheme of things would ole 2 and 3 of phase 1 drilling being notified together or seperately be ? If he wanted to, I'd guess CB could easily argue, not particularily....
Also for those who don't like volatility it could be argued that phase1 'ole assay batching together in whatever shape or form might be more useful than one by one 'ole assay reporting ( and inded ditto for phase 2 'oles.. etc)
Altogether: How long is a piece of string?
Good luck to all fellow holders with their BETS 'ere.. and the next place.. etc
Joeman - It will be 8 weeks as of next Tuesday that hole 3 finished. Also, 150ish meters less to assay. They are surely going to drop the results for both holes 2 and 3 together and (all jokes aside) it must be imminent!
Fingers crossed for next week as it has been a while now.
As said above the timeline could be delayed as we have no idea how the assay results need to be analysed and modelled into an (hopefully good) RNS.
I've been in this share since January and it hasn't been a smooth ride, hopefully it can level out and actually perform.
Its looking like a lovely weekend, so I cant deny that id be over the moon if I could mull over some more assay results this evening as I enjoy a chilled cider... but ill still enjoy the cider without news.
..... but next week must be nailed on surely..... must be getting close to even hole 3 having been assayed.
I would accept the likely fact that , in general holding back certain market sensitive information does happen and AIM rules are broken or at least pushed to the limit.
Not so in this case, I feel with the quite unique position the company is in, with regards to the 2mt buy-back option, the prospects we already know are far bigger than first thought and simply the timing of this whole process going into a potential alluvials super cycle.
They simply don’t need to gloss over anything. The overall results will take care of themselves. The bar has already been set, and it’s not particularly high! Arguably, this will be a huge resource and majors will be very interested.
So why be dishonest and employ dodgy practices that will put investors off that have seen it all before. Transparency is critical if we are to attract institutional investment.
Cyber
To avoid confusion, I have no idea how good / bad / average the assay results will be. My point was that Aim rules are not always strictly followed and NtM’s point was that info is withheld. He’s right.
I have no idea if that is happening now. No one does.
Apart from CB !
Touche on alluvials updates here Andrew.
AIM is what it is and as they say: 'it's not for everybody.'
As long as an executive is not visibly looking to make short term financial gain from timing of sensitive info. release etc then all things AIM just go on as they do.... and I believe that CB has not done and would not do such a thing.
Generally there are plenty of things I admire about CB eg his sector big picture understandings / strategic orientation is brilliant imho ..... his experience and shrewdness are excellent too.. I also think that altogether he tries hard to do well by his shareholders and for the stuff that really counts has good integrity... which is more than I could offer for a a fair few other AIM executives whose companies I've held shares in :-)
Do you not think that the detailed assay of the hole 2 drill will need to be cross-referenced with previous drills so as to ascertain the significance it has on known intersections?
I am not a geophysicist, but I am pretty sure that is not a ten minute job and will depend on the availability of people with the correct skill sets.
Fact is all we can do is wait.....
I'm with andrew on all those previous alluvial results coming out at variable times, and I defintely think colin is very capable of being elastic with his interpretation of rules and timings etc. They always seemed pretty consistently disappointing though if i remember rightly and honestly rather in consequential sums.
However I think this is a very different ball game and sitting on assay results of this importance for more than a day or two to get their presentation ready would be a risky and dumb move and result in a loss of confidence in the whole project should it ever come out. It would be pretty obvious to the lab company management for eg if they release the results to xtract on day 1 and xtract only release on day +15 or something.
IMO they are simply just taking a long time or indeed the lab have been instructed to share Holes 1 and 2 at the same time to XTR.
Being invested in a copper-gold play company with the POG currently over $1,770 per oz and copper over $9,300 per tonne, it would seem logical that the future is rosy - and it probably is IMHO, providing we can prove we have sufficient copper and we start getting decent income from the gold we already know is there.
And remember the addagnew mantra after hole 1, ie, "No news is good news".
Re this issue of withholding price sensitive info.
I’ve been here 6+ years. The alluvial income has been the only source of income and after the quarterly returns were released, understandably, the sp move sharply (obviously up or down).
The returns were released at different times after the quarterly period had ended. Earliest was 3 weeks after the quarter ended, usually about a month but slowly this moved out to 2 months and then, nearly 3 months after the period ended.
The last return was the latest ever – 3 months after the period ended and this was the lowest ever income produced.
I find it hard to believe that this price sensitive info was being released exactly when CB had the info. Did it really take sometimes 3 weeks, or sometimes 6 weeks or sometimes 3 months to work out the income from Gold sales each quarter?
And make no mistake, as this was (is) our only source of income it was highly price sensitive and significantly moved the sp.
This is Aim with its very very bendy rules. CB will do what he thinks is in the best interest for Xtract.. Info management is one tool he has.
IMHO NtM is bang on the money.
Thanks for taking the time to write that howezap.
Altogether, I reckon I've held very aprox. 250 AIM stocks for some period of time over the last 10 years, and if I could bottle and sell each instance of what may or may not have been price sensitive info. that may or may not have been withheld for some period of time for say 100 gbp a bottle I believe I'd easily already have made plenty more than the 100k gbp I eventually cumulatively hope to make from my altogether bets on xtr over the years.
I'll clarify ..... NtM post is pure drivel. Simples.
No need for illegal withholding of assays, they may have got the gist of the numbers from their xrf readings, and decided a batch release of results was preferable. Or, it may well be that the labs are just even more backed up, as has been mentioned here & there. We can only guess.
NicetiMichou
You say,
“my guess from much previous experience in holding Xtr.l is therefore that 'ole 2 assay results are a little/somewhat underwhelming versus 'ole one..”
If I’m correct in thinking, you are suggesting that the BOD have received back the hole 2 assays from lab and wilfully holding them back from release. Ans so , will package hole 2 results with incoming hole 3 to gloss over the fact.
Do not believe they would do this , illegal for starters to hold back market sensitive information and to jeopardise their integrity to prove up the resource would not bode well with any potential buyer if it came out.
Has been discussed earlier in the week here, is very likely the lab, under instruction would defer releasing hole 2 results and when core samples of hole 3 have been analysed. Both sets of results will be released to Xtract. This would tally with the statement made, in the “completion of phase 1 drilling” RNS on the 6th April. Stating “remaining completed holes will be released in batches.” The wording was however, open to some interpretation. This being the case, they simply would not have access to that information.
The other explanation to support your ‘guess,’ would be that the lab has communicated the results prior to release. Again, as above, so have strong doubts the lab would have any involvement in any illegalities that would jeopardise their integrity and credibility.
After all, they are just one set of results of many more, some will no doubt be better than others. All of which will make up the average grade.
No doubts you were just surmising, but felt I should just clarify for others. So no disrespect intended.
The idea of intermittent updates spaced apart in broadly similarly is a good one.. and things seemed neatly set up for that by the natural scheme of things.. and should have seen 'ole two update on it's own decently before mid April, imho... and then 'ole three later in April.. etc.. That's a pity.... and - again - my guess from much previous experience in holding Xtr.l is therefore that 'ole 2 assay results are a little/somewhat underwhelming versus 'ole one.. but great if i'm wrong and only time will tell.. and the bigger picture 'ere is a different paradigm to one 'ole assay results anyway.
PS; I'm also disappointed we have not had a Manica revenue progress update by now.. again my guess is if there good news to be given out it would be given out quickly.. if average/poor/bad news, CB does what CB does
i fully expect an rns tomorrow 7am assay results 2 for sure and possibly hole 3. will definately be the boost we are needing right now