George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. 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.
I have asked this question to both TNR and notesco but they both swerved it. Possibly donkey will have a craic at telling us why they have bothered.........I won't hold my breath.
Has to be a good reason they went for them.
Duly completed Form I with geographical coordinates of the area of interest which should fit the predefined cadastral grid.
A Compressive Statement of the Mineral Deposits in the area over which the licence is sought (Should include details of all known minerals proved, estimated or inferred, ore resources and mining conditions).
Feasibility Study for Mining Operations (Should include forecast of capital investment, the estimated recovery rate of ore and mineral products, and the proposed treatment and disposal of ore and minerals recovered).
Approved Environmental Impact Statement (EIA from ZEMA).
Details of expected infrastructure requirements.
Proposals for employment and training of citizens of Zambia.
Proposals for promotion of local business development.
Detailed geographical report on the Area’
Pegging Certificate.
Valid Tax clearance certificate (Issued under Income Tax Act Cap 323).
Plan of Proposed Mining Area.
In the case of Gemstones, a Plan for Cutting, Polishing and Faceting of Gemstones in Zambia.
Statement of duration for which licence is sought (should not exceed 25 years).
Articles of Association, Certificate of Incorporation, Certificate of Share Capital.
NRC/ Passport copy (ies) for all Shareholders.
Any other information which the Director of Mining Cadaster may require.
Https://transparency.org.au/publications/zambia-mining-licence-process-map/ I wonder what info they had to give to be able to be awarded mining licences that last 25 yearrs.
Sorry lantier "he" as in donkey nuts I really must replace this screen ;)
lantier regurgitates þhe same old **** constantly, having said that i put him above tnr at least he makes a modicum of effort.
ps ffs donkey who do you this'll be steering this jv........ill give you a clue.....aa
That's a bitter "small -time retail nobody" to you Lantier. Imagine how bitter he would be if he really had a problem in life ! Boggie /Donkey there are people out there in the "real world" that have real and insurmountable problems and your efforts on a soppy BB where you have lost a couple of bob are embarrassing ,try doing a couple of volunteer shifts at a hospital to sort your thick head out and try and create some perspective !
Donkey that's an awful lot of words to explain you're a small-time retail nobody.
But thanks for the clarification.
Ladies part Donkey, in case your IQ was blocking your understanding Boggy !
sorry they're even blocking **** ,i meant ******* !
"i repeat the words of one of aim's most well respected junior mining analysts" i absolutely knew you were a **** and now you have confirmed it along with your adulation for that total and utter amateur insider trading bell end ffs
Deary me, Lantier - mathematics clearly isn't your strong suit, is it? Goes to credibility you know! lmao
And yes, since I only put 10% of my portfolio into speculative punts on AiM, you're quite right that I would regard £20k into something as mismanaged as ARCM as a lot to risk. It's a part of portfolio planning to decide what proportion of your assets you're comfortable taking a big risk with. Since I already have about 1.1m shares in FCM, about 50k shares left in JOG, 220k shares in GMET and whatever 3.8m POW shares (in old money) converts to, I think that I've plenty already invested in this sector on AiM. But thanks for your concern.
As for the gold assets which needed to go for a joint venture, that was the rationale for disposing of them certainly (I remember a certain cretin who brought those assets into the company and was singing their praises for years, and taking his salary the whole time surprise surprise, and suddenly they can apparently be thrown away in exchange for completely worthless shares in a fraudulent entity! You imply that the choice was a binary one between keeping the assets and no JV, or chosing to acccept worthless shares in return for them; competent management would've negotiated for actual value in cash or shares.)
I repeat the words of one of AiM's most well-respected junior mining analysts, John Meyer, about the management of this company: "I wouldn't trust the Arc board to run a local sweet shop!"
The fact that Arc's share price is at multiyear lows when they've a JV with Anglo tells me quite clearly that the market thinks there's something very wrong, and since there's absolutely nothing to worry about with Anglo clearly the problem is with Arc. And all Arc have is their Anglo JV, some KCB land they can't afford to drill, and a liability of a management team.
Oyster- "you don't sell the sausage you sell the sizzle"
1.2 brain cells is a lot to Donkey !
Corr: 1.2m shares is apparently a lot to Donkey.
Maybe go with management who own at least 50x more.
Donkey that's completely disingenuous - you have made the point here repeatedly that the dilution caused by the last raise was now an insurmountable obstacle to potentially high returns for ARCM shareholders. When I made the point that said dilution was neither here nor there in the overall scheme of things, you doubled down.
As for your criticism of management, you clearly feel you've been wronged in some way and your arguments are emotional rather than factual. To address your concerns:
1. The Congolese assets had to go in order to get the JV done. Management took a view on the buyer. It didn't work out but the JV got done, which is all that really matters.
2. The price at which the raise was done was unfortunate, but was driven by factors outside their control. Whining about it says more about you than it does about them. As for the dilution, see point 1. above.
3. The fact that 2m shares or approximately £20k is a lot to you speaks volumes about the level of your self-importance. I think I'll go with management and their 50 million shares.
What copper?
"To act like the lowball placing has blown any chance of meaningful returns is quite obviously daft."
HarChris, my point was more about the poor management managing to find a way to screw things up, even with a big discovery by AA, not just that the warrants were highly dilutive at multiyear lows. As I have always said here, the extremely poor management are the real threat to this company.
We are sitting at the bottom of a wave, historically these last 4-8 weeks. Can sometime stretch longer if this dips further. However if this pans out to be the bottom of the current wave, next week or 2 we should see a sharp rise.
ATB.
When this has MOMO, the FOMO will explode! 😈
There's no doubt about it that Nick and the board made the wrong calls re the placing, at least with the benefit of hindsight. Equally it's understandable why he would have expected the signing of the Anglo deal in 2023 to support the share price sufficiently in order to place at at least 3p in 2024, and maybe higher. Instead he got caught on the wrong side of a massive collapse in valuation for any non-cashed up small cap and we get to where we are now.
The warrants are a bit frustrating but in the grand scheme of things it's almost immaterial if the JV proves a roaring success. Before the placing there was 1.233B shares in issue and now there are 1.446B. A placing at a much more stomachable price would have meant perhaps 1.35B shares at this point with slightly fewer warrants.
To act like the lowball placing has blown any chance of meaningful returns is quite obviously daft.
@SK
I think we've both had a good run in UFO over the past month.
Must admit I took some off the table from my 0.12p - 0.14p entries and it has pulled back a little. & happy to discuss UFO on their bb.
-
Coming back to ARCM..
If you look into what is classed as a genuine Tier 1 deposit then the $1.9billion valuation for the whole ZPC project would probably place it towards the conservative end of a Tier 1 deposit. (Especially with copper prices on the rise).
In recent history, battles over some of these tier 1 assets have been fierce, extremely tactical and in many cases totally unexpected.
-
Tier 1 deposits are “Company making” mines. They are large, long life and low cost
Tier 1 deposits valuations typically in excess of $2billion +
Tier 2 - $500m+-$1.5bn.
The opportunity is certainly there for AA to prove up multiple structures and define a Tier 1.
They have committed sufficient cash to drill sufficient metres that by the end of Phase 1 drilling the market is going to have a very good idea of the size, scale and potential here.
Returning to the valuation target of $1.89billiom for ZPC.
AA would not commit that level of cash into drilling if they didn't think they wouldn't see a significant multiple on their outlay.
The valuation target likely provides an adjustable margin for either a Tier 1 discovery or mulplie Tier 2 discoveries (each outcome of which would be extremely value accretive).
Really, PP? I didn't realize that highly respected AIM junior mining analyst, John Meyer, had slated the incompetence of any other mining companies as directly and openly as he has Arc: "I wouldn't trust the Arc board to run a local sweet shop!"
Sadly, his assessment of their lack of ability is reflected in what has been happening in ARCM recently:
-failed due diligence on the Tingo shares, which are now suspended as a suspected fraud
-loss of almost $5m worth of available for sale securities from Arc's balance sheet
-massive overpayment on salaries (how these clowns can think their failed performance warrants about a million a year!)
-driving the share price down for a year and then placing an addition c20% of shares in free float at 5 year lows
@Portfolio Power
Thank you for posting the WHI research. Reading it now.
I used to have one of these for Alien at 2.7 but have since lost it.
Do you hold much value in these broker notes?
See it across a few boards.
Posting like some kind of deranged jealous jilted former lover.
Embarrassing comments really.
A new broker was brought in.
Whinging comments once you have been kicked into touch is desperately embarrassing stuff
ARCM clearly living rent free in the heads of some on here on the daily :-)))
The real risk in a company like ARCM comes from the incredibly poor management here - I'm not sure if anyone has ever doubted that a major will be able to find copper on our licences if there is any to be found, but with such poor leadership here which has led this company to the verge of bankrupcy and then done a placing at 5 year lows....well, it's hard to see how PIs will get any huge upside now. Sadly, NvS and his bunch of freeloading pals will still bleed a million a year out of Arc, which is a real shame. (I find the guy's behaviour at ARCM to have been an absolute disgrace - losing the only large cash/cash equivalent holding with no explanation, placing at multiyear lows rather than placing straight after the AAL deal was announced, etc. As noted junior mining AIM analyst John Meyer said, "I wouldn't trust the Arc board to run a local sweet shop!" Thing he's right on the money there.) Regardless, I've bought a couple of shares here to flip if and when this gets into the 2s (so, come on guys, get ramping please!) If it had a credible management team with integrity I'd have sunk this year's complete ISA allowance into Arc, but there's no way I'd want to risk a lot with someone like NvS at the helm.)
Zambian Copper Project (ZPC)
From WHI research:
The ZCP in the ZCB is a pre-resource project with significant potential.
Valuing potential is not straightforward, though history shows that tangible success (i.e.
discovery drill hole, maiden resource, resource upgrade, and progression through
engineering and economic studies) is likely to accrete significant value to ARC.
We determine a base value for the ZCP using the terms of the Anglo JV (first reported -
RNS 12.05.22):
• Phase 1 - Anglo will pay $14.5M in staged cash payments to Unico Minerals Ltd (67% ARC) and invest up to $24m in exploration expenditures (total $38.5M) within three years and 180 days of the signing of the Agreement (RNS 20.04.23)
to secure a 51% interest in ZCP.
-
• Phase 2 - Anglo may elect to increase its interest in the ZCP to 60% by investing a further $20M (total $58.5M) within two years of the completion of Phase 1.
-
Phase 3 – Anglo may elect to increase its interest in the ZCP to 70% by investing a further $30M (total $88.5M).
We determine the value of the ZCP using the value that Anglo places to earn 70% of the
project. Anglo will, in total, pay $88.5m for 70% of the ZCP project (which calculates at
$125.4m for 100%). ARC’s interest in the project was 67%, prior to Anglo’s involvement,
we therefore calculate that ARC’s stake is worth $84.7m (being 67% of $125.4m).
We consider that Phases 2 and 3 are dependent on exploration success, should the JV
advance beyond Phase 1 we would revise our valuation approach and fair value, but note
that in similar cases there has been a significant rise in the value of the junior partner.
We show what could be achieved in exploration success.
-
Valuing exploration success:
-
Based on our two examples – we are not aware of any other AIM listed explorers with
comparable recent success – we conservatively suggest that a maiden resource for the
ZCP could generate a 10x uplift in the value of ZCP.
This would likely represent the
completion of Phase 2 of the JV. Should the JV progress through Phase 3 (JV Completion
and reporting of updated resource) we anticipate an updated resource and suggest that
the uplift in value may reach 15x.
-
Some Conservative SP targets in the region of 10 x to 15 x for ARCM.
https://s2.q4cdn.com/256050873/files/doc_downloads/research_notes/2023/FN-ARCM-031123a.pdf