Member Info for 28jaczar01

Chevron getting in on the act of directly supplying natural gas power for the running of mega data centre (Microsoft, Texas).

Certainly looks to be growing traction in the US for natural gas powering of upcoming large data centres, for locations where the economics, etc is making it to be good business sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd0Kz5YEEIw

To very timely demonstrate this…..Botswana exploration assets land grab by Sandfire (circa 10 billion AUD market cap) is announced by GLR today. Bodes very well for the ARCM Botswana assets that are in close vicinity.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/conditional-sale-of-2-copper-belt-licences-for-3m-ndghy2ohykyq2pz.html

Refer slide 5 of ARCM latest presentation linked below:

https://www.arcminerals.com/documents/arc-minerals-presentation-june-2026/

Refer slides 7 & 8 of GLR latest presentation linked below:

https://wp-galileoresources-2024.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2026/04/20260424-GLR-PPT-2026.pdf

BBC news…..interesting…..Pulsar Helium gets a mention.

What is Helium-3 and could we get it from the moon? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8jmg2e4kro

From the many postings being seen on this board it seems there is potentially a tempting set-up for achieving the “no vote”…..

However, I wonder can the impartial integrity of the vote be trusted? E.g. Is the vote count accuracy going to be independently checked by a neutral body, etc?

Reminder that the infamous cheapie 0.8p warrants complete their 1 year lock-in period in a few weeks time (3rd July).

👀 for a pump & dump set-up in the coming few months that allows big warrant holders to get them in the money, exercised and offloaded for a profit.

Exercised warrants would add to the Company coffers and so Mgt would likely be supportive and perhaps looking to issue some rampy RNS shortly in order to aid the P&D cause.

The ordinary retail investor watching from the sidelines if getting their buy/sell timings right could make some money with Hama in such a scenario in the coming period. DYOR

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/placing-and-subscription-to-raise-1632467000-9bgo171s3121cyd.html

I am a very disappointed stock holder, albeit I sold 50% before the recent price return to the low 0.2s. Should have sold the lot.

Raglan sounds like it’s becoming another ECR expensive mistake….production figures details continue to be withheld and they are s***king more money on various experts and surveys.

They have even managed to chose a terrible sentiment week of falling gold prices to drop this load of tripe RNS.

Please go Nick….

Napster news link:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/napster-launches-nv2-a-real-time-conversational-video-model-that-democratizes-access-to-multimodal-agents-1036231928

Unfortunately I missed the investor presentation yesterday, so will look forward to watch it when the video gets released.

In meantime, from just a cursory comparison of the RNS details of the 2025 failed NWR acquisition and this 2026 latest Cygnus acquisition plan, I actually am preferring the latter on most key aspects.

Particularly I like the inventory mix being predominantly copper & the significant amount of gold, which are foreseen as having robust pricing within a recessionary environment and it avoids more meaningful exposure to the much less robust pricing foreseen for zinc & lead, for which CAML already has more than enough price risk exposure via their existing Sasa asset.

My main concern now is whether this time around they can get this latest transaction over the finish line. The break fee on this occasion being its also an Australian Company is once again limited to just 1% of the acquisition value so they will need to have learnt the NWR lessons and be much sharper, creative & timely on this latest rodeo to actively strive to close the door effectively on any bidder competition and to promote to get the necessary votes (CAML and Cygnus) to successfully complete the transaction. The call option deed they’ve set-up with Ocean partners for circa 10% of total stock is a good start made by CAML to put up significant walls against any bidder competition. IMO they should (if allowed) now be aggressively buying up CYG stock at the current circa 0.13 cent stock price which is at a nice discount to the acquisition offer (circa 0.17 cent) in order to be further supporting their bid position.

Looking forward to how this progresses in the coming weeks/months…🙏

Taj Singh (significant commodities sector deal making experience) hiring is the one that has really peeked my interest here today. Why is he getting on board now with an LSE listed micro cap explorer (potentially a developer)?….I guess he must like the prospects going forward and is perhaps being brought in for his strengths towards supporting a specific purpose.

Along with all the other AYM recent news in H1 2026 (balance sheet (debt removal) clean-up, sole asset (Pars Mountain) focus, Mgt team shake-up, recent 6p placing to fund ongoing progress with a noticeably very short 12 month exercise expiry date on the 7p warrants) it leads me towards getting the sense that something significant could well be brewing here for upcoming H2 2026.

Furthermore I really like the copper market fundamentals going forward with the new AI data centres demand looking to be huge and their sub 3 MGBP market cap (SP low 4s pence) currently gives IMO a great risk/reward buying opportunity.

Hence started a position this morning. DYOR

Wondering if the departing employee was the heavily pregnant lady who was presenting in the recent video’s release? That certainly would count as a good reason…and it would tie in well with the statement ”until our next adventure - which I hope is very soon” which implies for a temporary employment exit. If correct then Avacta would inherently have had plenty of notice of her departure plan and ensured timely succession continuity to mitigate against any adverse staffing impact.

Clearer transparency on those 2.14 BILLION of unexercised warrants would be nice….full breakdown table of their exercise prices and expiry dates.

As I’ve said before they need to find ways to timely overcome the 0.2p warrants overhang (it’s no coincidence the SP sits around 0.2p) and it starts by them being fully transparent about the scale and timeline of this problem. They really need to take a leaf out of SWC book who have recently been working well towards addressing a similar issue. In the meantime the Bitcoin positive performance seems to be largely irrelevant for them.

DYOR

Once again they have somewhat confused matters on their production figures when comparing across their historical RNS.

In the 4th Feb 2026 RNS operational update they vaguely reported production as being 385 ounces of dore from an end of January 2026 gold pour. If we use the 79% factor established from their previous gold VS dore related publications, then this would have equated to 305 Oz of gold. What remains unclear is how much (if any) of this end January 2026 gold pour was contributed from ore stacked at the back end of 2025?

Now coming onto todays RNS the good news is that they have reported production in a much clearer seemingly unambiguous way. Let’s hope this continues in future. Their production for the quarter ended March 2026 was 480 Oz of gold produced.

I will reasonably take that at this early stage of the 2026 whilst operating in the rainy season, with good signs of making +ve progress in their growth strategy.

The much anticipated inaugural dividend news has landed today. This is a likely catalyst for increased institutional investor interest in taking up a position on the Company share register.

The 0.2p warrants are clearly the overhang cause here that’s preventing meaningful SP rise despite the BTC price recently showing positive signs. Wondering whether SATS will explore paying off their 0.2p warrant holders early at a fair premium price to the 0.2p exercise price in order to get rid of this ongoing SP damaging overhang. I noted SWC who had been in a similar situation has recently pursued for this pay off approach and it has already had some positive impact on their SP. With SATS we watch and wait…..

Interesting OMI tweet from earlier this morning:

https://x.com/OrosurM/status/2044289291233439931

The recent 30 g/t hit at just 1m below surface had a corresponding lack of any geochem expression at this location.

Just a thought that it could be worthwhile for them to bring in a couple of small cheap to operate and easier to manoeuvre air core type drill rigs to the PEPAS vicinity and quickly pepper the area with dozens of short (say 5 to 10 meter depth) holes in a grid matrix style approach with the aim of striking some other near to surface hotspots that are not showing up on the geochem, etc. If they get a good air core drill hit in a particular location then they move in the diamond drill rig to go deeper and generate the core material needed for full assay analysis in that location.

Another thought is to go in with a couple of dozers and remove a meter or two of the at surface cover material and see what nice shiny material it uncovers beneath. This approach might be problematic for getting an environmental green light?

Anyway as Brad would say….it’s a nice problem to have 😉

Many thanks for your very knowledgeable feedbacks Kat-079……your replies have to a great extent allayed my related concerns to the Alaska historical findings, as I am sure they also did for many others who have been reading this thread.

Until getting your two positive replies last night (I just read them this morning) I was becoming increasingly worried about my findings, as there had been a deathly silence of any knowledgeable feedback on this thread for a day or so. Just got the stupid one liner “wrong board, irrelevant” comment, which was not atall helpful to anyone (although it got several recommends). 🙄

Once again Many Thanks 👍

Ok final instalment for today, digging for info of the Rock Creek Mine (RCM) facility in Alaska…..again my source being the Alaska Dept of Natural Resources website. I ask upfront please don’t shot messenger as I am just an ordinary retail investor doing my due diligence. I am myself currently reflecting on my surprising findings & thinking about what relevance it could have for La India and how best to overcome the related concerns that I now have. I welcome others views:

Key document is 2008 Annual Report (link below - 54 pages) that covers for the brief period of intermittent mining operations (Sept - Nov 2008) and then adopting the Temporary Closure Plan (TCP) with facilities under Care & Maintenance (C&M), that is issued in March 2009:

https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/reclamation/nanuuq/pdf/rc2008ar.pdf

There are two key section clauses regarding operational matters within this document, as follows:

* 2.1 Project Overview - RCM (page 6) states “”mills operated from Sept 18th to Oct 9th when the ball mill resistor packs burned out shutting the mill down. The mill was recommissioned on the 12th Nov and operated until 24th Nov. On 24th Nov 2008 the decision was made to suspend operations at the Rock Creek Mine and enter into a period of Temporary Closure / Care & Maintenance”

* 6. Care & Maintenance RCM (page 26) states “The most significant cause of the operation being placed into C&M was the primary crushing system’s inability to provide sufficient amounts of 155mm crushed material to the secondary crusher. In particular, the system was designed with a vibrating feeder supplying material to a scalping grizzly and oversized jaw crusher. When moving dry ore, angular, run of mine (ROM), the vibrating feeder performed reasonably, however, with wet or “sticky” material the feeder would plug up causing significant down time to chip out the feeder.”

The other main document that I found worthy of highlighting/linking below is a Novogold presentation dated 6th May 2010 titled “Rock Creek Project Overview Annual Meeting”.

https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/reclamation/nanuuq/pdf/novagold2010ppt.pdf

Within slide 3 you have some key summary bullets, which includes:

* September 2008: Started Commissioning

* November 2008: Global Financial Crisis, Mechanical Issues and Water Management Concerns — suspends commissioning

* December 2008: Project on C&M

The final slide (No. 34) has future plans bullets and the final bullet states “evaluate long term site options”

There are several other yearly Annual Reports where content focus is on describing ongoing C&M activities which covers various environmental monitoring, water treatment upgrading, etc. But no more mention of Processing Plant Issues.. The 2012 year reporting reflects when they go from Temporary Closure Plan into Reclamation and permanent closure plan. I cannot find any discussions on why they took this final closure decision and did not attempt to re-start the minin

Good SoH explanation video. Watching it makes one wonder why Oman has not been a much more powerful player in the Middle East/GCC for the past 50+ years considering the shipping route importance thru the SoH.

Got busy this past week….weekend spare time now so have a few hours to explore this excellent website that I had flagged up last weekend and specifically the key historical info looks to be in the section called “archive of older finance assurance, permits, approvals, annual reports, and other supporting documents” with the direct link to this section given below:

https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/reclamation/nanuuq/archive/

Firstly it’s important to note that the contents generally have an environmental focus (e.g. waste management, water management, reclamation, etc) because that’s the focus of the Alaska Dept of Natural Resources, but there is plenty of other Project information “nuggets of gold” (pardon the pun again) to be found within the various included documents, as follows:

Firstly below is the Plan of Operations Volume 1 Project Description (May 2006) which is a 40 page write-up describing the mines, processing plant and supporting facilities. This gives us a good summary overview of the set-up they had in Alaska:

https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/reclamation/nanuuq/pdf/vol1.pdf

Next up of interest is the below Novagold presentation dated 10 July 2008 (close to construction completion) titled “Rock Creek Annual Public Meeting”. Some interesting slides of the Project status etc and I would particularly highlight Slide No. 22 (page 11 of 38) which gives us a high level summary of the “economic benefits” (assume in USD) which states: Capital Approx $175 M, Operating cost/Oz $467 (LOM).

https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/reclamation/nanuuq/pdf/novagold2008ppt.pdf

This is important info to take on board when considering the prevailing gold price in the first 15 years of the 2000s. Here below is a website that summarises the gold price in this period. It shows that the gold price was rising nicely throughout the 2000s first decade and even when there was a price dip for a few years in mid 2010s the gold price was still seen up at 1000$+/Oz and that would seem to be supportive for a viable economic running mine that was designed to have circa 500$/Oz operating cost.

https://goldprice.org/gold-price-history.html

Ok off for a coffee break now….my next posting later today will be what key items I can find within the Alaska website that covers for the operational time period in late 2008.

Did your Grok analysis take the quoted widths as being the drilled widths (I.e. at the stated dips) or as being true widths ?