Member Info for 28jaczar01

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 ?

Not seeing how these ongoing mixed bag of drilling results (grades ok but intersect widths are lacking) would warrant for them to mobilise an additional rig, let alone buying a brand new one themselves, which will also need a crew hiring to operate it.

Doesn’t sound like they had insurance coverage……strange.

Just posted on YT. Interview was done on 31st March. Matt gets plenty of details and some hints from Gavin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZtDsF_In0k

Today I am continuing down my rabbit hole of “Digging for info” related to the La India (Rock Creek Mill) Processing Plant. Main question I want to find an answer to is “why did the Rock Creek gold mine with its processing plant and all related facilities that had cost several 100 MUSD two decades ago, get all the way to achieving initial gold production to then be shutdown after a few short months of operation and never to be re-started and does it have any relevance for La India?” It’s a strange situation to me. The Almaden news releases do not speak of the historical background to this matter, so my search continues.

Simply plugging “Rock Creek Mine Alaska” into Google search gets you a few hits on local Alaskan newspaper related articles etc for the 2015 sale of the processing plant to Almaden. One such article is linked below.

https://www.adn.com/business/article/gold-dreams-scrapped-nome-s-defunct-mine/2015/11/17/

Herein we get some summary historical details and we are able to establish that this asset was originally built and owned by Novagold Resources Inc through a subsidiary (Alaska Gold Company LLC). When you go to website of Novagold Resources you don’t find anything on the Rock Creek asset as they only go back about a decade with their archived news releases etc. so that’s a dead-end for obtaining any historical information regarding this asset.

Next I looked into the 2012 purchaser of the Rock Creek asset (Bering Straights Native Corporation (BSNC) and they have a simple website with archived news releases. Their Nov 2012 news release outlines the Rock Creek asset purchase and states that “BSNC is currently working with an outside Engineering firm to evaluate future mining potential of Rock Creek…” Fast forward several years and we get a 5th Nov 2015 news release that advised that BSNC decided to proceed with reclamation of the mine when it was determined that it could not be re-opened as a profitable venture - see the link below. This news timing matches closely with their sale of processing plant facility to Almaden. So apart from this intriguing summary statement about lack of profitability its another dead end.

https://beringstraits.com/bsnc-alaska-gold-company-complete-reclamation-at-rock-creek-mine/

Not one to give up after several dead-ends, I scrolled further down the Google search and I hit upon a goldmine (pardon the pun) of information within the Alaska Department of Natural Resources website - linked below. I am just starting to look through it and I can see encouraging headings for various annual reports, presentations, etc that are historically dated right through the Rock Creek construction, operation and reclamation time periods. I shall proceed to review it and feedback shortly. DYOR.

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

When you read the article you come to realise its probably best not to hang around being fully invested in a Company for the actual litigation outcome, but rather to time your stock entries and exits based on the bumps & troughs of news that typically come on the litigation journey. Zenith Energy (ZEN) listed in London is a good (& complex) ongoing example as they navigate thru several litigation cases running at different stages.

With the troubled world we live in these days I found this article I just came across to be an interesting bank holiday read. We will likely see a growing list of stock market listed Companies getting involved in various litigations resultant from the spoils of wars, growing sovereign country protectionism/de-globalisation (e.g. the Trump MAGA push), etc. Probably will bring some investment opportunities in the future… typically high risk/reward.

https://www.undervalued-shares.com/weekly-dispatches/litigation-investing-a-route-to-riches-sometimes/

Latest RNS mentioned about the original plan to re-use existing motor control centres that were part of the purchased Rock Creek Mill Processing Plant has been changed. This peaked my interest into trying to find out more about the technical details and history of the Rock Creek Mill purchased facilities and to consider if there were any key considerations/impacts to be taken on board for its La India future. Long weekend was getting boring, so I have made a start below (I shall continue “digging for info” and others may follow suit….):

We recall it was purchased by MTL around a year ago from Almaden Minerals Ltd (TSXV: AMM) as outlined in 5th March 2025 RNS. When you search the Almaden website news release history you find out the following main related highlights:

Almaden purchased it back in Oct 2015, having a similar plan as MTL to dismantle it and re-assemble for use at their Mexico Ixtaca asset. The facility was originally constructed from 2006 to 2008 and tested/operated very briefly for a few months (Sept 2008 to Nov 2008 when it was shutdown - the reason not given) and then subsequently put on long term care & maintenance.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ed92e4d58c63e6402d44f65/t/5fa07bf0ed792d7387244ef6/1604353010439/AlmadenNR_Oct19-15.pdf

The dismantling, packing and storage (Alaska) of the facility was addressed by Almaden with this undertaking announced as completed back in Oct 2018.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ed92e4d58c63e6402d44f65/t/5f28dd6eaa77a6463204ac83/1596513648553/AAU-10-04-18.pdf

It appears that the Almaden plan was foiled as their Ixtaca asset subsequently got bogged down in various issues ranging from the covid impact, permitting/court case issues, etc and so it looks like Almaden after waiting for a decade and ongoing paying for the storage costs, etc decided to give up on it and to recover their costs on the Rock Creek Mill facility by selling it to MTL.

So based on this history, what overview aspects could we reasonably conclude ?

* It’s a circa 20 year old plant that was designed for Alaska based production, which had the related technology of that era.

* It’s been circa 12 years erected in Alaska (care & maintenance) followed by 8 years disassembled in storage (Alaska).

* it’s had very little operating time, so it should be almost like in the new condition.

* it’s had very limited operating time to do full testing, ramp-up/running at full nameplate, de-bugging, etc.

* Both Almaden and MTL planned for the Alaska climate based facility to be used in a South/Central America climate location.

* it’s not been seen by MTL in its built condition, with due diligence based on the stored condition assessment + docs.

Based on the above bullet points I personally arrive at a mixed bag of what you would potentially deem to be somewhat positives or negatives or just plain vanilla neutral. Anyway it’s given me food for thought and certainly wetted my appetite to continue “d