focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar 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.
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 🤣
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.
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.
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. 🤔
Makes perfect sense thank you aegos.
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.
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
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.
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 😉
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.
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..
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?
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
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.
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.
Fuzzy
It speaks of and specifies only Cu and Au. It is silent on other minerals in sects i and ii.
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?
TBC, my points over Cu/Au vs other elements relate to the JV terms, NOT the explo licence.
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.
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?
He usually sounds so polished, the mask slipping I wonder 🤔
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!
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 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.
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