Member Info for aprogerson

@sanboy I'm with you there ... have a good day
ATB APR

@bamfman Please see my post from last week with grades and tailings kt across both MJ and Olympic licence areas with cross-references to relevant RNSs. I also had a stab at production revenue given last RNS %metal extraction figures.
(1) MJ Tailings = 12kt at 2.28g/t gold and 658g/t silver Ref: RNS @15-Oct-20 & current licence to extract 900t
(2) Olympic Tailings = 41kt at 1.67g/t gold Ref: Sept-20 company presentation
ATB APR

@sanboy We are currently sat at £7.8m MCap with SP=0.25p and an exploration programme about to start across 4 of our licence areas following last seasons geophysics work to delineate drill targets. We also know that many of the historic mines were very high grade such as the Olympic mine producing just 35kt ore, but grading at average 25g/t gold (28Koz)and 658g/t silver (740Koz) for 39k GEO over the mines lifetime.

My approach is slightly different in that I think that if the Olympic extension has been found and drilling proves this, then we should see grades 'at least' as good as the above especially as it is believed to be the feeder system for the historic mine workings ... this alone will deliver a £25m+ MCap and considerably more as confidence rises with multiple drill hits.

If any of the other drilling campaigns prove up the suspected mineralisation, then I believe they have the capacity to do the same especially if they are shallow, high grade veins that will be relatively easy to mine and process which in the 'new' MJ zone between the historic mining areas is a distinct possibility.

Mining is notoriously unpredictable, but having a number of good drill targets in areas of historically shallow, high-grade mineralisation gives us decent odds of good results and an SP rerate.
ATB APR

@basically I'm not surprised that BH subsequently made those comments as without the sample size it is impossible to give the tailing grade figure any credence especially as it is so far above any historical figures quoted by GWMO. Any seasoned investor in the junior exploration space would know this and surmise it was most likely a 'sample' size and therefore not representative over a bulk quantity as you would have if all the tailings grades were averaged out.

My point is one around trust and credibility as this is a hard-won commodity and GWMO made no attempt to provide any context, sample size or state that it may not be indicative of the tailings grade overall which I think was poorly judged. I just hope when the all-important exploration and drill results start coming through that BH looks to address this.
ATB APR

@basically Unfortunately not, perhaps my tone was wrong?
ATB APR

Strategically speaking why did MM not just swap all of their shares for ARCM shares once they gave control to ARCM I wonder?

@techtonic Frankly I can't blame Akers chancing his arm ... if I could pickup 3m shares for 4p (£160k) when the market price has gone from 5p at IPO to over 8p when sold wouldn't you? I agree it cannot be an accident hat GUN still retains a huge strategic chunk, but PR must reckon GUN has a better use if it sold it off at a 50% discount than sitting on it for another 12 months.

I agree Low6 looks a very likely candidate and having RB payback the CLN would also be a very useful addition whether cash or shares as long as they are not locked in shares.

No news update for Low6 IPO date (yet) https://www2.asx.com.au/listings/upcoming-floats-and-listings
ATB APR

@penderos Despite my disquiet over the recent RNS tailings grades quoted I think GWMO has excellent prospects given the twice extended 2021 exploration campaign. This is underpinned by the existing copper JORC that with a bit of well placed drilling could be upgraded increasing the chances of attracting a JV partner at reasonable Earn-In rates.

At a £7.5m MCap GWMO offers a lot of upside potential if you can handle the exploration risk ... the fact that GWMO have now completed multiple geophysics surveys to pinpoint their gold/silver drill targets significantly increases my confidence and diversifying by adding back in the copper opportunities limits any downside if/when we hit 'dusters'.
ATB APR

Wheaton's purchase of the Cobalt stream in Jan-2021 from Voisey Bay has oodles of detail https://s21.q4cdn.com/266470217/files/doc_presentations/2018/18-06-11-Voisey%27s-Bay-Acquisition-FINAL.pdf

@fulmar Just read through the 3x Voisey Bay Infographics = awesome ... fingers crossed!

That's what I was after ! ...... https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-story-of-voiseys-bay-the-discovery-1-of-3/

Sorry @fulmar I never quite got my head around that one. Is there a Volsey Bay scenario summary anywhere?

@fulmar I'm 99.99% sure that a deal will be done as AA REALLY need to scale up their copper production given predicted demand and prices are very likely to soar whilst supply and head grades for new mines drops. The chance to get a deal with access to 2 Tier 1 assets and the possibility of some smaller sites in close proximity served by a central processing hub with associated very long life span must be a dream ticket.
ATB APR

@Kully spot on ... 100% my thoughts exactly!

@kully I'm not convinced that an equity stake helps anyone as it is the licences & associated assets that AAL will be interested in not the entity that owns them and some other stuff in Namibia? Any JV might 'feature' agreements around:
> JV project area as subset of Zaco/Zamsort licence area
> 2-3 stage %Earn-In with links to exploration $spend, timescales and/or deliverables such as DFS
> agreement over who pays what CAPEX and OPEX during Earn-In period
> Options to buy out further full/partial %share at market rates
> Agreement that AAL would be 'Operator' and treatment of future costs, profits and any CAPEX needed
> If Earn-In stages include any staged payments to ARCM or perhaps Loan (£ and %rate) to cover ARCM share of costs
> Heads of Terms and/or rights of first refusal over sale or JV of other project areas
> Details of any arbitration routes/rights agreed in case of future disagreement
> NDA, confidentially, rights and obligations of both parties
> Any JV subject to necessary licencing agreements
> tolling principles for ARCM to use AAL plant to process its own ore from Kalaba

I don't see why AAL would buy into ARCM or why NvS would give up some control unless it was for an obscene sum over and above 'current' valuation to reflect expectation that mineral resources would be reasonably expected to grow ie some of that future value paid as a premium now to seal the deal.
ATB APR

We could really do with a Wiki type site setup which a few of us can moderate so we can lodge information that other investors can then access. I'm sure that somewhere amongst our investor base we have the necessary skills to:
> Setup and manage independent site ... investor agnostic & some simple rules
> Geodata collation, maps & overlays ... overlay drill sites to maps to soil sampling maps?
> repository for relevant 3rd party data ... sentinel
> list of links to 3rd party sites of interest ... DW lectures et al
I'm sure there is more we could do with the application of some collective smart thinking!?
ATB APR

@viable Okay managed to find original 177 page Technical report for FQM Trident project (Sentinel) @31-May-2015 https://www.miningdataonline.com/reports/TridentProject_TechRep_05312015.pdf see page 14 for satellite map of mine.

To say that this report is detailed is an understatement !
Have fun & ATB APR

@viable All I have is Zamara map https://www.zamareminerals.com/s/34/ntambu-licence but no coordinates

@kully You make a good case. I do think that ARCM would not want to sell all the 'family silver' cheap in one go hence why I am firmly in the 'JV' camp with first up being largest/highest grade deposit for all the reasons you point out. If ARC also reserve the right to produce from their own smaller scale deposit around Kalaba as the JV progresses we can also fund our own share of the costs which means we do not have to give such a large % away as part of any JV agreement.

I do think the challenge with all of this will be that AA will want absolute right of first refusal over other 2 deposits as any CAPEX investment on plant will be predicated on amortising investment/payback across a number of years with ability to ramp-up production by operating deposits in parallel as copper demand peaks over next few years. On the flip side ARCM will not want to sell them off cheap given the limited drill data at present which points to a JV giving ARCM value accretion possibilities and AAL security of supply and decreasing risk as other assets get proven up over next 1-2 years.

My sense with world copper demand forecasts vs. falling production capacity is that AA have a perfect opportunity to dramatically scaleup their copper production in a known jurisdiction, territory & geology with added bonus of shallow, high grades and bonus cobalt credits. We should not underestimate any Majors appetite for such an opportunity.
ATB APR

It is worth pointing out that modern day open pit operations are considered high grade at 1.5g/t and we have a variety of figures given from various RNSs that are comfortably above that figure. We also know that the historic mines that were 'worked out' 80-100 years ago were all shallow, exceptionally high grade gold and silver, but extracted with relatively low-tech panning and/or sluicing methods.

Tailings grades and volumes:
(1) MJ Tailings = 12kt at 2.28g/t gold and 658g/t silver Ref: RNS @15-Oct-20 & current licence to extract 900t
Note: Sampling of veins in former workings returned high grade gold samples including 19.1 g/t, 27.4 g/t & 95.6 g/t Au Ref: Mar-20 company presentation

(2) Olympic Tailings = 41kt at 1.67g/t gold Ref: Sept-20 company presentation, subject to licence $135k balance paid
Note: Olympic mine produced 35kt ore grading at average 25g/t gold (28Koz)and 658g/t silver (740Koz) for 39k GEO overall. No tailing grade quoted for silver content although likely there will be 32g/t minimum assuming similar 5% of head grade

(very) Basic Cost/Profit Modelling:
MJ Gold = (12Kt ore x 2.38g/t x 50%)/31.1 = 460oz x (1750-1350) = $184k or £133k profit (revenue = £585k)
MJ Silver = (12Kt ore x 658g/t x 40%)/31.1 = 102Koz x (25-0) = $2.55m or £1.85m profit (revenue = £1.85m)
MJ Summary: Costs = £450k & Revenue = £2.42m & Profit = £1.97m

Oly Gold = (41Kt ore x 1.67g/t x 50%)/31.1 = 1,100oz x (1750-1350) = $440k or £320k profit (revenue = £1.4m)
Oly Silver = (41Kt ore x 32g/t x 40%)/31.1 = 16.8Koz x (25-0) = $420k or £305k profit (revenue = £305k)
Oly Summary: Costs = £1.08m & Revenue = £1.705m & Profit = £625k

Assumptions:
Gravity processing recovery: Gold = 50% & Silver = 40% Ref: RNS 1-April-21, expect higher %gold but no info!
Metal prices: Gold = $1750/oz & Silver = $25/oz
Costs: AISC of $1350/oz on gold production only as very small scale, but offset by ore readily accessible at surface & no real mining required
Plant: would need to be sized to ensure adequate throughput and additional gravity separators could be added to boost %recoveries

I've made some basic assumptions and lumped cost into a variable ASIC figure that I applied to the gold recovery only and could be used to cover both OPEX and CAPEX repayments over time by including both MJ and Olympic tailings. Costs massively predicated on equipment sizing, throughput & %recovery expected as relatively modest % increase may pay for itself quite quickly depending on throughput and tailings grade. Once setup and running could be used to process primary ore mined from GWMO licences.

I'm no mining engineer, but was expecting to see higher gold %recoveries, but like anything it depends on complexity of gravity processing used and cost/benefit. A 10% increase in gold & silver recovery would give an extra FCF of £490k for MJ and £140k for Olympic using above model to set as profit and/or paydown higher spec plant costs.
AIMHO & DYOR