Member Info for aprogerson

Just spotted date ... took him 6 months to notify holdings !!!
5. Date on which the threshold was crossed or reached
14-Jul-2022
6. Date on which Issuer notified
14-Jul-2022

@Lukeytukki I'm not aware that GWMO had any copper deal in place as all exploration was self-funded and only put JORC resource up for potential JV after strategic pivot to gold/silver
ATB APR

@TradeDesk ... Thanks, not sure how I missed that

@Lukeytukki I am also in Arc Minerals (ARCM) copper project currently finalising a Tier 1 JV in Zambia with AA and we are at least 2 years+ in trying to resolve the agreement albeit after a major legal wrangle and Zambian government closing the mining cadastre so hopefully weeks away now

The GWMO JORC Copper resource is a part of a larger resource that GWMO failed to link up to before in ran out of cash back in 2018/19 after a "Moonshot" deep drill campaign to try to find the source of the mineralisation which in hindsight was misguided to say the least ... this led to GWMO being recapitalised, new BoD and new gold/silver strategy.
ATB APR

@TradeDesk Admire your positivity but I am intrigued to know on what basis do you think it is a Tier 1 porphyry copper deposit ?
ATB APR

The 50% spread might have something to do with that

@SwampMonster Let's hope so as they could do with the additional 375oz/month assuming 1.5g/t ore and 500tpd throughput unless the mill was offline for upgrading in which case this should double assuming sufficient available ore.

My working assumption is that without operating plants then GCAT would have pared back their workforce over the last 3-6 months so that gold production at least covers remaining OPEX. I think that this is a fair assumption as gold production has dropped so ore consumed would drop with it but stockpiles seem modest implying mining output has dropped to match consumption.
ATB APR

Hi Suggins, if mill is offline then so is main plant 1 and we know tailings plant 2 was previously confirmed as offline as uneconomic. I thought Plant 3 Heap Leach had 3x 7.5kt capacity pads rather than 2, but given last reported HL grade was circa 1g/t then we can expect 150-180oz/month using 50% recovery and 2-month cook cycle. Clearly if mill is offline then GCAT could easily be pushing higher grade ore through HL to boost short term revenue
ATB APR

Hrmm ... my thoughts:
> Exploration work ... will restart over coming 3-6 weeks weather permitting.
> Process plant construction work ... currently underway as largely weather independent
> Reassay of existing cores for REEs ... can be started at any time funds permitting

I'd like to see GWMO continue to focus on plant and bringing spoil heaps in and at least one vein into production before expanding into copper exploration and/or REE assays so we can be assured of a revenue stream first
ATB APR

Morning @Mickey ... pretty much agree on all points and once funding agreed then value will become much clearer HOWEVER what we do not know is at what cost in terms of share dilution to existing shareholders. In other words the risk/reward favours ...
> Invest/top-up now ... if non-dilutative funding as GCAT priced as an explorer with minimal resources
> Invest/top-up later ... if dilutative funding as existing shareholder value will be eroded

IMHO the real problem is that we KNOW that there are CLNs currently on the table so some dilution is inevitable, but how much given we are effectively in default plus what will the balance of funding be to take GCAT to full production and on what terms given GCAT is clearly distressed as born out by the current SP?
ATB APR

@Legalwolf Boiled down the real issue for me is availability of non-dilutative finance given there are a number of Warrants & CLNs that been issued since Jun-22:
>Koenig = 266m warrants at 0.85p ... still unsure what GCAT got for that exactly!
>ORCA = £1m CLN at 8%pa due ... no redemption date noted & secured against GCAT shares (no idea what these are) & due (thankfully) 31-Jan-2027
>ORCA = options for up to 4x £1m CLNs at 8%pa subject to prospectus being issued by Jun-23
> Mill End = $1.5m loan facility dated 22-Jun-22 but notified via RNS 23-Jan-23 & originally expected to be paid off via OCIM/Philoro funding drawdown 31-Dec-22

Non-Dilutative funding:
> Philoro = $3m non-dilutative based on gold sales ... repayment will need to be restructured as gold output is low & originally conditional on OCIM as main lender so NOT released 31-Dec-22 as expected by GCAT

Frankly it is still a bit of a mess, but at least short term funding has been secured and Philoro supportive whatever that means. CLNs are useful short-term finance when bridging a known manageable issue but very unhealthy for anything else as the lender almost always gets paid but the cost to existing shareholders can be onerous dilution.
ATB APR

So short term £1m CLN with 266m warrants keeps the lights on but past CLN yet to be sorted out so terms unknown buT much lower SP does NOT help very much with CLNs. Further non-dilutative funding WIP.

So happy lights are still on but very unhappy with CLNs; one new and at least one in default & terms unresolved
ATB APR

Nice RNS with positive progress report on Mill build and associated licencing application.

Read through new presentation with interest (finally) including decent maps showing relationship between sites, historic workings and new JV Mill processing plant site.

The new bit for me that piqued my interest was comment on processing JV that Mill & plant equipment already existing onsite and that GWMO was paying for its refurbishment which I view as massively de-risking plant costs and schedule to complete
ATB APR

@legalwolf I don't know about GoldPlat's but perhaps we would be better contemplating alien conspiracies next or perhaps Kilimapesa was the site of the original Atlantis?
ATB APR

Regardless rising POG floats all boats but we can run what the Dec-22 Scoping Study scenario figures provided tell us about GCAT assumed costs of running an operation producing 2koz/month steady state and then compare them to the current sporadic output and associated costs.

Scoping Study (RNS @Dec-22) ... using "steady state" figures only:
> POG =$1,650
> AISC = $1,095
> Gold output = 2koz/month
> $19.7m cost of capital ... ignore this as no idea how much has been assumed to have been spent already!
> 2-year payback ... again ignore as lots of sunk capital already
> FCF over 10-year LoM stated as $97m and separately as $118m ... so not helpful !

What does this tell us @assumed POG $1,650?
> monthly steady state FCF = 2,000oz *($1,650-$1,095) = $1,110k or £925k
> monthly steady state costs = 2,000oz *$1,095 = $2,190k or £1,825k

Commentary- unfortunately this does NOT tell us what current costs are as we were only running plants 1&3 at much lower throughput so mining & processing OPEX costs will be much lower but costs unlikely to be proportionally lower hence FCF at 300-500oz/month will compress. This can be offset massively by current $1,900+ POG where FCF will be 50%+ higher than the Scoping study figures.

Sadly no way to tell what the real FCF or costs are despite what the Scoping Study tells us as the scenario bares little resemblance to the current operations throughput or cost base with no recent enough RNS telling us what those might be or even what is running given steep drop-off in output during Q4.
ATB APR

@ZAN_TM There are no AISC figures for past quarters but they have previously issued "All-in " operating costs

My personal assumption is that the $1,100 AISC stated by RM is for the 24koz/annum which would go up massively if gold output was lower, but there are so many UNSTATED assumptions it is really just speculation TBH.
ATB APR

@JC Yes that is my understanding also, BUT what I think Bebeto and SoG are asking is GCAT a going concern given lack of capital and lower than expected gold production in Q3/4?

Without further update from GCAT it is hard to know what is or is not going on as RM is on "Radio Silence" it seems! Although as I have previously posted they should be able to run Kilimapesa as a "Going Concern" albeit with a gold output capped at around 650oz/month to provide OPEX given only Plants 1 & 3 are effectively operational and Plant 4 needs CAPEX to complete.
ATB APR

I think everyone has now taken their position in, out, average down or reduced risk exposure pending GCAT RNS funding update ... not enough information for their to be a "right answer" just DYOR and position yourself according to your own risk appetite
ATB APR

@NotJohn I have read and re-read these RNSs and believe the wording is chosen to lead the reader to believe something that has not actually been said ... some of my favourites in no particular order that lead you to believe something without actually saying or doing it:

> Gold sold ... is NOT gold produced in a month/quarter and as no gold in reserve or on carbon is stated it is not clear what the production performance actually is in stated period, so gold maybe be withheld to "smooth" poorer performing months. Q1'21 Operations report was the first and last fully transparent report

> Funding secured ... is not funds received and in the bank; it is the mechanism/facility not the money

> Updated MRE Jul-22 ... lovely but never stated JORC compliant; suspect so does not trigger 3rd party payment on upgraded resources, but allowed 10-year LoM to be claimed

> 1,000oz/month throughput (Dec-21) ... yes process plant throughput rate demonstrated but not ACTUAL 1koz gold production

> target 2koz/month production ... never truly clear and unambiguous; was it plant built, plant commissioned, ore throughput or gold produced. Whatever it is we won't know until at least Jun-23 or likely longer

> It's "on my desk/being checked and issued soon" ... wearing a bit thin now as desk cluttered

I honestly tried to make the list humorous but clearly failed ... sorry
Back To Basics, reliable production, reporting and operations plus "living within their means"
ATB APR

@LegalWolf Normally an established producer would have a steady state mine & plant operation with established mine plan and blend high/low grade ore to get grade consistency whilst matching this to processing plant for best efficiencies giving gold production stability across reporting periods.

As ID78 said grade makes a big difference to gold output, but does not explain everything as Q4 min/pit ore output dropped by 50% as did processed ore leaving stockpile very low only partially offset by HL Plant 3 being fully loaded but no idea when will produce
ATB APR

@ID78 Thankyou for reviewing, triangulating & confirming my figures as I was beginning to think I was just imagining it!

As you say without more meaningful data it is hard to say whether they can feed Plant 1& 3 fully BUT from past Ops reports we know they can produce more than they did in H2 as they did this in H1 ... it just makes no sense at all especially as would have expected another 6 months worth of mine extension and/or prior additional stopes to be brought into production !

There is a non-sensical reference to % sales to production ratio in the latest RNS and referencing introduction of weight and flow meters into Plant 1&3. The implication of this is NOT clear as implies:
(1) gold still in system & yet to be recovered
(2) gold was "lost" and/or
(3) gold still held "in carbon" & yet to be refined and/or in reserve & yet to be sold.

I just have no idea from RNS what the implication is as reporting is so poor.
ATB APR