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 see there are a lot of opinions on what mineral sands are, but they are all only opinions. If one looks at the RNS mineral has a capitalised M which should mean that it is a defined word/term in the contract. Which is why I stated that I await a response from someone in authority at Empire. Still waiting after 3 unanswered requests.
Thanks Grampyan.
Please keep at it, and let us know if you get a sign of life.
I'll do the same on my side.
GL, GTA.
There are certain posters who like to spread FUD, to get people to sell their shares cheaply.
Fear
Uncertainty
Downright lies.
No matter how many times they are told the facts, they will try and twist it for their own or their employers end.
The sp is being held back at times for no reason, all to allow someone to accumulate. If you believe in the story, then hold your shares tightly. The Diamond drilling should have been completed by now and we are a few weeks from results.
Unfortunately this 'debate' relating to two 'issues' supposedly arising from the 06.04,2022 RNS announcing the JV with Century Minerals for Pitfield, Walton and Stavely, is as 4kandles posted, a classic example of “a little knowledge being a dangerous thing”. In claiming that, I mean no disrespect to anyone, as knowing the extent of one's own ignorance is always a prelude to understanding.
Century, in reserving the rights to any Mineral Sands resource “on one or more of the Projects” [ie Pitfield, Walton and Stavely], were, where Pitfield was concerned, fully aware of the adjacent heavy-mineral sand deposits of Yandanooka [10km W of Mt Scratch] and Durack [16km W of the TOM Ti-target area, acquired by Image Resources from Sheffield Resources in 2021. These are Eocene-age [c30-50M years] relict coastal dune deposits. [see my 11.02.2024 post for further details]. It is possible that the Eocene coastline could have extended further eastwards into part of the Pitfield Licence area and formed similar Mineral Sand deposits, hence the Century reservation of rights.
With regard to the assertion that the TiO2 resource at Pitfield might be considered to be a Mineral Sand, that claim is fundamentally baseless. Definitions of what constitutes a mineral sand, silica sand, garnet sand etc, all of which are classed as “minerals” if on private land [but excluding “sand”], are specified within Government of Western Australia mining legislation. The definitions are based on a range of geological criteria, not just those of mineralogy, with some relating to mode of deposition and relationship to underlying strata ie unconformability or discontinuity. Age is also a factor. There are no Mineral Sands older than Eocene in western Australia, whereas the Pitfield TiO2 resource rocks are between 1100M and 541M years old and have no Mineral Sand characteristics whatever.
The other query raised by some is the reference in the RNS to the three projects being described as “copper-gold projects”, from which it is surmised that the rights might apply to these two minerals only. Again this is a baseless suggestion arising from a lack of understanding of Mining Legislation and in particular that of Licencing and of special provisions required for prospective gold terrain and for differing rights on Crown Land, Reserves & Commonwealth Land, and Private Land. It is impossible to provide links to all the relevant legislation and regulations without posting reams of information. The RNS refers to Exploration Licencing only and will include all “minerals” as defined in Legislation, ie excluding “limestones, rock, gravel, shale, sand [other than mineral sands etc] and clay [other than kaolin etc]”. Only when an economic “Resource” is defined does licencing progress to the mining phase.
AGEOS
Thank you AGEOS, always great to see a post from you. The BB is always left all the better for your posts.
Hallelujah, see how nice it is when someone turns up not giving you definitions of sand from Wikipedia 🤣🤣. It was getting so confusing, I had to leave the beach in fear I didn't have a right to build a sand castle at one point.
Muchas gracias, ageos
Thanks AGEOS,
It was starting to get very tiresome all the speculation.
I hope it was genuine worries and not something more sinister.
I love the dig but are you that cretinous that you can’t use google and read Wikipedia? I did it purely to calm someone else’s fears, if you can read… reread my posts and you will see I’m quite clearly saying it’s rock and not sand.
Mr 6ft4 and I train, you of course never train that brain do you?
Personally, I’ve been very clear on my views on SandRock Gate but It’s not about the content of the queries from some posters, if indeed those people emailed the company (absolutely no reason to doubt them) it should have been replied to within 48 hrs.
That’s not up for debate IMO.
I always receive replies to my emails with EEE & have never been left waiting so no personal issues on my side however, we can only take those who said they emailed at face value & having no response to a query that has been misinterpreted via an RNS due to how it was worded deserves a reply.
The fact that some investors don’t know about the mineral makeup of sands & rocks isn’t to be sneered at either, as we all have our knowledge bases across multiple industries & some may not be in mining as is the case here.
It would be great if we could now move on & get back to the real issues at hand, we’ll not issues, the results of thousands of metres of drilling into high grade titanium from top to bottom.
Results ever closer and an abundance of news to come as we head into Summer.
Thank you as always Ageos for taking the time to post your thoughts. As you can see from the recommend’s it’s greatly appreciated by all here. Looking forward to your next contribution on the analysis of the drilling campaign.
ML
Hahaha rattled, calm down calm down now petal, don't get all worked up over it 🤣 crikey, it's settled in your favour be happy bru
I welcome AGEOS' response clearing up the mineral sands "issue", tho to be frank it never was, imv.
The Cu/Au still needs spelling out by the co, imv, tho, bcos THAT'S the wording of the RNS. I have no doubt AGEOS is correct, nor that Ti must be included, bcos, no BoD could be daft enuff to pursue a mineral they had no rights to, and i have confidence in the competence of the BoD.
BUT..the RNS is ambiguous, and should be clarified, imv.
Really?? I get English lessons on punctuation and abbreviations, yet ghentit puts ENUFF, tho and BCOS and the boards utters complete silence?
Double standards
I wanted to reprimand Ghengis for his deplorable misuse of the English language but couldn't be bothered. However, you have motivated me to try, Dusty!
He usually sounds so polished, the mask slipping I wonder 🤔
So is it your position that Exploration Licence (E70/5465) and an Exploration Licence Application (E 70/5876) at Pitfield only allow Empire to explore for copper and gold?
I have clearly stated that is NOT my position, It IS the position implied by the RNS of 6 4 22 which refers thru out to Cu/Au, and sets out milestone payments to Century on Au/Cu ONLY.
My position, TBC, is that is almost certainly merely an inaccuracy in the RNS given the focus on Cu/Au at the time. But iit is there, it is silent on Ti rights, and the co should clear up this ambuguity in published information without delay,
AGEOS has set out why the exploration licence regime will not be so specific. I and others have pointed out that a BoD of such experience simply cannot be making the schoolboy mistake of pursuing minerals to which they have no rights.
BUT.. the ambiguity in public domain info remains. Are the terms for Ti the similar to Cu/Au (which are specified in g/metre or %/metre) , or different, and if so, in what way? Do Century get the same milestone payments, or not? Does their free carry end at the same point, or not?
These are valid questions for investors to ask, and I am surprised SB hasn't clearly answered them already.
TBC, my points over Cu/Au vs other elements relate to the JV terms, NOT the explo licence.
Genghis the 6th April 2022 states
"Empire has also agreed to pay Century performance-based payments in the following amounts, either in cash or Shares at Empire's election:
(i) an amount equal to 1% of the Shares on issue immediately prior to Empire first announcing no later than 5 years after the date of acquisition that exploration drilling on any of the Projects determines multiple (more than 2) intersections exceeding 30% Cu metre or 50g Au metre; and
(ii) an amount equal to 2% of the Shares on issue immediately prior to Empire first announcing no later than 5 years after the date of acquisition a Mineral Resource in the inferred category or better compliant with the JORC Code 2012 exceeding 250Kt Cu metal equivalent in relation to any of the Projects,"
The Jorc 2012 code defines Mineral Resources as
"A ‘Mineral Resource’ is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in
or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade (or quality), and quantity that there are reasonable
prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade (or quality), continuity
and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted
from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling. Mineral Resources are
sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into Inferred, Indicated and Measured
categories."
What is ambiguous about that?
Fuzzy
It speaks of and specifies only Cu and Au. It is silent on other minerals in sects i and ii.
If you see "250k Cu or equivalent" as covering other minerals, I knid od see your point, tho I am baffled how anyone could define whais a "cu equivalent" in any other element or mineral.
Let me say again, I think this is just absent from the RNS bcos it wasn't thought relevant at the time. But absent, imho, it is, and I would like to see it spelt out.
Genghis if it's piece of mind you want you won't get it here asking, polite people are trying there best, taking time and energy to articulate it for you. I read the corresponding documents among other agreements I'm place with century, and even old hillbilly dusty can understand it.
If your unsure on your investment then no one is going to crucify you for it, but they don't want you to pester them with the issue. It's not their's to resolve.
But when you throw ambiguous in with the word enuff, I don't thinks it's worth my time, so I just talk to you on a level befitting the conversation
So fuzzy, and correct me if I'm wrong as interpretation can vary from peoples perspective.
Am I right in assuming that, even though its not referred to titanium is is a resource of economic value, and based on extraction, and drill results at the level required to enact the agreement that it still amounts to the same share percentage, ie 1% for 30% and 50% per metre as suggested?
That's how I interpret it, that the agreement is in tact, without reason to change it.
But that the only thing that will change is the resource and value, and century have no grounds to deter from the original agreement?
Genghis15 is correct in highlighting those aspects of the JV Agreement with Century, as detailed in the 06.04.2022 RNS, which detail performance-based payments [ as posted by FUZZY1014 as I type] based specifically on Cu and Au prospects at any of the three Projects [ie Pitfield, Walton & Stavely].
I have, successfully I hope, explained that Exploration Licences based on Western Australian Mining legislation allow prospecting for all “minerals” other than the few exceptions I referred to in my 09.04.2024 post [ie limestones, rock, gravel etc], so the JV specific reference to “Copper-Gold Projects” does not imply restrictions on prospecting and exploitation to those elements alone.
The JV performance-based payments [as detailed on page 3 of the 06.04.2022 RNS] are however specific to those two elements [Cu & Au] alone and will remain in force for five years from the date of tenement acquisition. If the JV Agreement does extend such provisions to “other elements and/or minerals” this would have had to be disclosed to the market as being “market sensitive information”. As it has not been so disclosed we can assume that the TiO2 resource discovery is not subject to a similar performance-based payment or an equivalent. I'm sure that Ed Baltis and Steve Hart [Century Minerals Ltd] will not lose any sleep over that.
This opportunity also prompts me to highlight the fact that nine months after the JV Agreement with Century was signed, the Empire-Century JV legal entity [it is important to differentiate this from the two constituent companies] applied for and was granted two Exploration Licences of 426.7 sq km, additional to the two original Licences of 615 sq km at Pitfield. [ref RNS 13.12.2022]. The two additional Licences are, E70/6620 which includes a 20km northward extension of the Darling Fault zone and a portion of the Yilgarn Craton which is adjacent to an area recently surveyed by SR Resources as their Three Springs Nickel-Copper-PGE [Platinum Group Elements] project, and E70/6323 including a 20km southern extension of the Darling Fault zone and part of the Yilgarn Craton bordering Chalice Mining's Barrabarra Nickel-Copper-PGE Exploration Project. Both Licences therefore extend into part of the newly recognised West Yilgarn Ni-Cu-PGE Mineral Province to which Empire will no doubt extend its exploratory interest in time. Perhaps the Empire-Century JV should now be renamed, with regard to Pitfield, the prospective Ti-Cu-Ni-PGE-base-metal Project.
AGEOS..
In my opinion point i) only relates to them finding Copper or Gold at the relevant amounts.
point ii) is what is potentially relevant for the titanium discovery. The definition of Mineral Resource in the JORC code is such that the Titanium discovery would in my opinion be covered by that provision.