Member Info for aprogerson

@3Turn I admire your honesty and must admit Low6 does not sit comfortably with me for similar reasons, but that does not necessarily make it a bad investment. Personally I'm mining focused, so as long as these other investments come good I'm okay with that as it keeps GUN funded.
APR

RNS out detailing pre-IPO £200k investment in Low6 B2B 'white-label' sports betting platform.

"Gunsynd Plc (AIM: GUN, AQSE: GUN) is pleased to announce that it has invested £200,010 in Low 6 Limited ('Low6'), a UK-based, influencer-led, B2B pool betting platform for franchises around the world. Low6 offers a white-label pool betting platform for professional sports franchises.
This investment in Low6 was made on the following terms:
· subscription for 6,667 ordinary shares at a price of £30 per share for a total consideration of £200,010; and
· this investment is a part of a £1.5m funding round"

"Low6 has raised over £8 million to date and expects to raise additional funds through a pre-IPO funding round with a view to completing an IPO at some stage throughout 2021."

I know GUN make some canny investment choices but this is not my bag so unsure what to make of it ... maybe another poster with more knowledge of this industry would care to comment?
APR

@Scotty Nice spot. The JORC compliant MRE broadly confirms what they already knew hence the sell-off as I think the market was expecting all the recent drilling from Sept-20 to be included which it wasn't! Great start though

Initial Drill results for another 6 drills at the Big One "Shallow, visible copper oxide and sulphide intercepts up to 12m continue at Big One Deposit". Await full assays from 13 holes drilled to date over next few weeks.

RNS 27-Oct-20: Drilling commences at Big One deposit
RNS 30-Nov-20: Oxide & Sulphide mineralisation evident in 4 of 7 drill holes & await full assays
RNS 14-Dec-20: Oxide & Sulphide mineralisation evident in 6 of 6 drill holes & await full assays

The Big One Deposit campaign comprises:
o A 4,385m reverse circulation ("RC") drilling campaign, over 35 drill-holes, which will focus on a strike zone (~580m by ~120m) to test for mineralisation from ~26m up to ~190m below surface
o An incremental 160m diamond drilling campaign, comprising two drill-holes, that will test primarily for shallow mineralisation from ~26m up to ~52m below surface
o The drilling campaign's overall objective is to verify scalability via targeting to extend known mineralisation, especially how deep high-grade supergene mineralisation extends from surface and if this transitions into underlying sulphides at depth

Commentary:
We know "Previous drilling delivered excellent copper intercepts up to 28.4% Cu with the best high-grade economic intercept of 3m @ 12.25% Cu from 42m incl: 2m @ 17.87% Cu from 43m; and 1m @ 28.4% Cu from 44m (B07)". So far initial assays have been underwhelming on both intercept length and grade while the latest results give no indication of grade. Looks like we need to wait.
APR

@setanta I understand that the drilling season is now over in the high country. I'm sure some of our LYH could give an indication of when this might restart?

Meanwhile back at Marietta we await sample assays from UK to inform trial production using separation plant for low level gold/silver recovery from the available 25t tailings already extracted. What I am really awaiting is what recoveries they achieve from this and also a timetable for establishing a heap leach facility to maximise recoveries.

I agree it is frustrating while we await news but the path to trial production is now set.

@volmer I'm crossing everything that it is an unequal share allocation given the share consolidation pre-IPO that overly diluted 'loyal' seed fund raisers such as GUN. Time will soon tell, but 20% would be lovely :-)

What gets my attention front & Centre is the shallow high grade copper/gold with long intercepts and a huge amount of historical data they are now crunching says a lot to me as does its strategy.
> Utilise Data in all its Forms to Prioritise Prospects
> Deploy Capital Effectively & Efficiently
> Apply the Experience & Expertise of Leading Geologists, Geophysics & Data Analysts
> Create Shareholder Value via Resource Discovery & Development

@AG appreciated. I also just noticed Wishbone has had a Placing and raised £2m for its initial drill programme and Artemis continues to divest projects to focus on its tenements surrounding Havieron meanwhile GGP now sits at MCap £1.2B following announcement of a further JV with NCM across some of its adjacent licence areas.

Some interesting context in and around NCM Telfer:
Greatland MCap=£1,200m Cash=£50m* Cover=420m Licences=who cares! Drilling 126km & 120 holes
Artemis MCap=£84m Cash=£2-5m Cover=400m Licences=600Km2 Drilling lots
Wishbone MCap=£17m Cash=£2m Cover=120m Licences=57.4km2 Drilling 250m & 2 holes
Rincon IPO MCap=£5.8m Cash=£3.8m Cover=10-50m Licences=525km2 Drilling 24.8km & 260 holes
* GGP new loan facility via NCM
Note: Cover means barren rock before expected to hit any mineralisation

@riskassessor So go buy Rincon direct on the ASX, no one is forcing you to buy GUN. I think the point you are trying to make is that GUN has other investments that make up its MCap and so Rincon is but a small % of its holdings ... yes?

Well all I can say is go check Wishbone (AIM:WSBN) who was MCap £3m in Oct-20 before sealing the deal on the Pilbara licence just last month and is now £17m ... or £14m uplift on licences alone with only about £380k cash on the books to fund exploration. Rincon will be £5.8m MCap and fully funded to Hasties MRE in under 2 years if it doesn't accelerate its plans, but then it will have £3.7m cash it the bank at IPO to do so if it wishes.

I maybe wrong but I am expecting GUN to hold around £1m of Rincon at IPO and it to perform strongly afterwards if WSBN performance is anything to go by. I was an early investor in GGP, saw the potential, took my position and sat on my hands just as I am doing here.

Draw your own conclusions and do the math ... I know I have! Nothing is nailed on in this world, but I think you really need to DYOR first.
AIMHO APR

Reference Materials:
> Rincon IPO prospectus @5-Nov-20: https://www.rinconresources.com.au/ then Investors & IPO prospectus
> Rincon IPO Presentation @5-Nov-20: https://www.rinconresources.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Rincon-Resources-IPO-Presentation-JORC.pdf
> DL facebook post & his views on GUN & Rincon strategic shareholding @13-Sept-20 https://t.co/JqKcxNoSQ1?amp=1
> DL Proactive Investors @21-Sept20 GGP, Artemis and GUN (from 08:00/11:00) https://t.co/14NX6hdyrj?amp=1
> Peter Ruse Podcast @5-Oct-20 https://www.share-talk.com/peter-ruse-director-gunsynd-plc-gun-l-interview/

David Leningas (DL) was Artemis director at time of abortive Rincon purchase and knows local geology well.
PR Podcast contains GUN Strategic aim to hold 15% of Rincon

Bold statement @riskassessor How come given all the uncertainties? Do you know how much GUN applied for, how many they got or indeed the scale of the over-subscription? ... if so please do share

A Rincon comparable is Wishbone (AIM:WSBN) MCap £17m and yet at IPO Rincon will have MCap £5.75m implying a x3 uplift at the very least. Rincon has 24km drill data from over 200 holes at Hasties project with long, high-grade copper/Gold intercepts from surface and is 12km from Telfer Copper/Gold processing plant vs. Wishbone being prospective due to the postcode but no mineralised intercepts from 2x holes drilled due to 120m barren cover.

At A$0.20c IPO price then GUNs 8.55% is worth around £500k of GUNs current MCap of £8m of which £1.5/2m is cash that we know of. I don't think anyone realistically expects GUNs %holding in Rincon or Rincon's SP to stay where they are.

@MJT That is my understanding but I can't now substantiate it sorry

Has anyone got anything substantial on how over-subscribed the Rincon offer was as GUN had around £1.5m cash at the time so if all investors are treated equally (which they will be as a 3rd party conducted capital raise) then I would expect all bidders to be scaled back equally.

What we know:
(1) Rincon IPO to raise A$6m at A$0.20c by issuing 30m new Rincon shares
(2) GUN holds 4,461,943 shares for 8.55% pre-IPO before IPO capital raise and total shares are 52,194,536 at IPO post capital raise.
(3) GUN Cash = Placing plus cash to hand = £1.5m with £400k due to announced transactions not yet closed
(4) P Ruse confirmed GUN targeting minimum 15% Rincon post IPO or another 6.45% to be acquired
(5) At A$0.2c per share an IPO subscription for £1m = 9m (17.2%) Rincon Shares assuming no scaling back.

Commentary:
As we do not know how many shares GUN subscribed for pre-IPO or indeed how much subscriptions have been scaled back trying to work out what Rincon has at market open on day of IPO is tricky to say the least.

My intuition says GUN went in heavy with the Rincon subscription knowing they needed a further 6.45% (£370k at A$0.20c) to get a 15% target holding, so why raise £1m if they only needed £370k unless they were planning to pickup more and/or hedge against a possible oversubscription given heavy interest in Pilbara after GGP, Wishbone, Antipa and Artemis?

If that is the case then a £1m subscription would still give them 15% target holding unless offer was oversubscribed more than 2.7x. After that this is anyone's guess at this stage given GUN had Approx. £1.5m cash available for the Rincon IPO.
AIMHO APR

@AG what competition was that as Rincon was incorporated in Aug-2018 have acquired their Pilbara licences in Dec-2018 and held them intact for some time despite a flirtation to sell themselves to Artemis on 16-Jul-2019 ?
https://www.artemisresources.com.au/index.php/investors-relations/announcements and search for 16-Jul-2019

Having checked back to Rincon website https://www.rinconresources.com.au/ I spotted a supplementary ASX IPO prospectus changing fees paid for float fees. This increases GUN holdings at IPO from 8.55% to 8.69% before further share allocation as part of over-subscribed A$6m (£3.3m) IPO capital raise. Unfortunately I now cannot find the supplementary prospectus or its link. Apologies

IPO date was 10-Dec-20 and now delayed with no date listed on https://www2.asx.com.au/listings/upcoming-floats-and-listings

IPO Presentation https://www.rinconresources.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Rincon-Resources-IPO-Presentation-JORC.pdf

JUst checked and no new news on Rincon site and ASX still has IPO date as RBD

@TheFrog Interesting. My preference has always been for a project-by-project Earn-In type JV deal (GGP, OMI et al) where:
> Major gets a % share (max 65%) on a project-by-project Earn-In basis to DFS concluded within say 2 years
> Major gets an option to buy more of JV at Market rates once Earn-In concluded say max. 10% or in-toto and retains a %NSR for future revenue stream
> Major pays all CAPEX & OPEX costs associated with Earn-In
> Major pays ARCM £1m revenue at each stage of Earn-In covering ARCM running costs to avoid dilution as ARCM has no income

This way ARCM avoids selling out wholesale licences and shares in any upside on a project-by-project basis enabling ARCM to move onto next project area and prove it up for possible future JV with Major .... wash & repeat.

I know others on this BB prefer an outright sale, but of course everyone's investment needs and horizons differ.
AIMHO APR

Thanks @The Frog for those figures ... so the best comparable would probably be FQM Kalumbila / Sentinel sold in 2009 when Copper was average £5,164/t (Statista.com) for $290m as it was also an early stage project with similar grades. Of course copper is now £7,635/t so you would expect the valuation to be significantly higher as a higher realised Copper price AFTER CAPEX and/or production OPEX costs has been factored in generates significant multiplier effect on potential profitability as seen on any PFS or DFS at different metal prices everything else being equal.
AIMHO APR

If anyone REALLY wants to understand how to value a mining company please read the following https://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Valuation_of_Metals_and_Mining_Companies.pdf
What is stunning clear is that for early stage explorers like ARCM valuation of a project is all about 'comparables' or as BasInvest on page 15 put it "Relies on the principle of substitution. The Mineral Property being valued is compared with the transaction value of similar Mineral Properties, transacted on an open market". Figure 3 on page 17 shows where ARCM is in the Life of a Mine Cycle and confirms the most appropriate valuation methods based on an Inferred Mineral Resource (Table page 18) defined as:
(1) is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade, or quality, can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling; and reasonably assumed, but not verified,
geological and grade continuity.
(2) The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes where the the chance is 10 % or greater that mineralization is there

For reference the probability rises to 50%+ for Indicated Mineral Resource & 90%+ for Measured Mineral Resource.
So in my view ARCM is seeking to demonstrate at least a 10% probability of grade, extent and depth of mineralised to establish the basis for a transaction with AAL on decent terms .... more info is always better but takes both time and money to do so.
APR

@Ortus ARCMs drilling to date at Muswema and Fwiji is wide spaced drilling circa 400m apart to test the extent, continuity, grade, type and depth of mineralisation at these 2 targets ... this is what explorers do to locate ore bodies. What is clear from the latest RNS is the grades are actually very encouraging as:
> Sentinel (FQM 40km away) is 923Mt @0.53%,
> Lumwana (Barrick 100km away) is 678Mt @0.48% and
> Kansanshi (FQM 200km away) is 662Mt @0.59%
... what needs to be established is extent, continuity and scale with JV partner to drill it out to prove it is economic.

To get a high quality JORC resource you will need LOTS of infill drilling 50m to 100m apart (& perhaps at depth) in all directions to work out the size & grade of any JORC compliant resource in both indicated and reserve categories as it a probability based statistical science with a strict code to follow. This is what developers and producers do as it costs lots of money.

For some clarity on ARCM approach go back to what NvS said at the Intaba interview was to generate Shareholder value : https://m.miningweekly.com/article/zambia-copper-explorer-has-exclusivity-agreement-with-anglo-american-2020-11-08/rep_id:5582?__twitter_impression=true

“Our game plan is to exploit as many of these targets that we’ve identified to make it as attractive to a potential suitor."

“We’re not here to simply keep drilling for the sake of drilling, as I think many junior companies do without really an end game in sight. "

“We’re really going for ideally some sort of commercial relationship with a much larger company that can drill this out as it should be because, truth be told, on any of these 14 targets, we really should be spending $4-million to $5-million per target.

@alyhels
Yes I can see that it is not GWMO news probably because it says "TR1 Notification of Holdings" at the top of the RNS. Quite how you can interpret that as somehow poor performance or comms from GWMO is beyond me.