Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth 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.
Well now that has been cleared up, can we now let it go genghis? Enuff is enuff 🤣🤣
Thanks AGEOS, timing is impeccable. I'm off on a dusty tangent again, ye must think I'm nuts, but I only play the fool 😉
AGEOS wrote, inter alia", 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."
That is my assumption, too, but when reading contractual terms assumptions can be a dangerous thing! In terms of the share based payments, I'm sure neither SB nor Century are losing any sleep over it.
I'm sorry to bang on about this, because I'm confident that nothing is amiss here. BUT..the RNS speaks off, and specifies terms for, CU/Au throughout, ans is silent on other minerals. Imho we should not be left assuming the terms applying to other minerals, and it should be publicly spelt aout as clearly as for Cu/Au.
AGEOS, thanks for your reply. Maybe before I post again on this subject, I should email the co and ask them to clear it up.
I would in theory consider that even though the main drive is now towards titanium extraction and evaluation they still have to refer to, and stick to original agreement shall these mineral deposits present themselves as there is still a fair possibility they will come across them, and will be subject to those agreements. It's still very early, and any talk of future operations towards extraction of other deposits will be spoken about off table as to not distract, or mislead shareholders or investors.
But again, a theory
FUZZY1014 regarding performance-based payment (ii), the JORC Code 2012 specifications do not allow for Ti, or any other element to be used in equivalence calculations in defining a Mineral Resource, if that element constitutes more than 50% of the stated Mineral Resource as will be the case with the Pitfield TiO2 resource. Thus in the RNS (ii) example, “250Kt Cu metal equivalent” this must include at least 50% Cu with the balance obviously comprised of other metal elements quantified in terms of 'equivalence'. See JORC Code 2012 Clause 50 Reporting of Metal Equivalents relates to polymetallic deposits. Hope that makes sense.
Makes perfect sense thank you aegos.
Ageos you don't mind me asking your thoughts on the minerals and deposits like copper that is stated coming into play at some point. I'm aware the full has shifted to titanium but its fair to assume they will stumble across these assets at some point, and will need conversations on what to do with them, in the realisation they could be substantial to just ignore.
Obviously you don't need to answer, and it's all just theoretical at this point, but if it was meant to be there, is starting to appear can it be easily dismissed or does it become a multi operation, one too large for empire alone. 🤔
Dear god.
I've been on share forums for many years and I've never ever experienced anything like the debate this contract has initiated.
I'm not a geologist, an mineralogist, a mining engineer or a contract lawyer, so therefore I am incapable of commenting on any of the aforementioned.
But, there appears to be numerous posters experienced in mining and extraction on this thread, so can't this contract issue re minerals and percentiles be answered, on order that Genghis's insatiable desire for answers is satisfied.
Surely, somebody can analyse the contract in legal terms and explain it to his satisfaction and this debate ends.
It's tortuous.
Dustyslay re your enquiry of April 11th regarding my “thoughts on copper and other minerals coming into play” sorry for the belated reply; I don't follow this chat-board daily. There is a great deal I could add in response but it is perhaps best left until drill results justify discussion of the prospect of resources other than the current Titanium targets. What I would add as an indication of the potential for copper, and in addition to what I have previously posted on the subject, is the following:
During the 1960's, 2025ft of diamond drill-core from 6 holes, the precise locations of which are not recorded but which were in the vicinity of the South Arrino/Baxter mines, was obtained from an area which I estimate to be within 2km maximum, NW of the COS TiO2 target area currently being drilled. No assay results were disclosed at the time but subsequent visual inspection of the cores led to the conclusion that 46m thickness of Cu mineralisation occurred along a strike length of 800m within a c100m thick sandstone, probably unconformable on the Mulingarra Gneiss or above a discontinuous conglomerate or thin siltstone horizon. This stratigraphic relationship, and consequent potential mineralisation, probably extends along the 30km+ Mulingarra Gneiss/Yandanooka sequence contact zone on the western margin of the Pitfield licence area and may be a target for future exploratory drilling.
This is however just one of the many Cu anomalies within the Pitfield region.
AGEOS.
Thanks a lot for the time, I await drill results as we will have much to discuss at that avenue. It is an exciting find for sure.
I think the saying we're only scratching the surface is suffice.
Unfortunately means these guys are stuck with me, but thank god your here and I welcome your posts.
Your timing is impeccable, and you just saved my bacon as i was off on a tangent again 🤣