Member Info for C1p2D

"For a small, surface mining operation such as a shallow open cut or alluvial mining operation, the

information you provide may not need to be as detailed as for a large open pit or underground mine.

However, there should be sufficient information to give confidence that the mining operation will be

viable and that there are sufficient resources within the area of the application (e.g., results of test

work completed with maps showing where testing took place and the proposed resource areas).

Statements in respect of the grade, quality and quantity of the mineral or coal resource that relies

solely on inferred category resources, exploration targets or inventory coal is not acceptable for a

mining lease to be considered"

You sure about that?

Bluekebble provided internal documents, not a mining permit or compliant resource estimate - its in the RNS

Moving forward, but can't see how you get around submitting a resource report - which means drilling.

Let's hope so

It's been a long 14 years...

All sounds great - maybe we are finally catching a break...

Does anyone know - do we need a resource estimate before we can produce? Or can we get a mining permit without one?

What's needed now is comprehensive drilling programme to identify how much gold bearing ore is there.

If there's a couple of dump trucks worth then it's irrelevant how effective the recovery methods are.

On the other hand, if we're talking 000s of tonnes...

This is why Imv they need to apply some focus and rein back on flitting between prospects.

A plan leading to commercial production, even if its modest, would be something the market would take note of. Then we would see a real rise and not these up 5% one day, down 4% the next.

You might want to read it again.

91.7% of the recovered gold came from 0.4% of the mass tested.

It's referring more to the side of the gold particles and the fraction they came from?

While this is hopefully good news, pretty sure it's not saying 91.7% of the gold at the site is recoverable.

Lot more nuanced than that.

Curious - TT with the "no agenda" deramps, obviously concerned for us and our readies.

Fair enough, lots like him on most boards.

Widdy though, very odd.

The sky is falling, so...what? We should all sell?

Why don't you sell Widdy?

Don't give it the one where you're too far underwater, coz if it goes the way you are so sure it will, well, you'll be even more underwater.

Rationally, if you don't believe there's any potential and you think it's going nowhere but lower, wouldn't it be logical to get out now before it completely collapses to 1.4 and is back on AIM?

Hard to take seriously...

Joey,

Investing long term - the hint is the"long term" bit.

Depends on your definition of long term I suppose.

If you're worried about what basically amounts to fluctuations before the company actually deploys its product, is suggest that is not long term.

If you want"long term" , why don't you stick your cash in an index tracker or a blue chip div paying stock?

Worrying about 0.5p here and there looks a lot like trading.

Great news.

Let's see where this could take us

C'mon, own up you lot.

Some of you are blatantly running 2nd accounts on here.

At least try and use a different style of language when you ramp / deramp.

Got it, thanks Jace

Thanks Jace, its;

@c1p2d3

Jace - have you got the address for the tg group please?

Looks to be 1.55 - flat on the day, no?

Nope, in fairness I think it's one of those "I've spoken to the bod and they said..." jobs

I would be happy for anything that gives the ECR sp a kick in the right direction and if we're getting into the helium game and it pays - then great.

At this stage though, a tie in with voy just looks a little bit murky...

The chaps on the VOY bb claim they have been given assurances otherwise regarding ECR.

If it does end up being Voy, post RTO one would assume, then the Voy bod would appear to have been telling porkies to their shareholders.

Nick is chairman or ceo of voy?

Credibility...

Voy are progressing a RTO with M3, there isn't going to be any tie in with ECR, the conflicts of interest for Nick would be significant.

So, currently, in terms of a helium we are basically saying that we are thinking of having a dabble?

As posters on both sides of the debate here have said - there's any number of things that ECR need to sort out in Australia. Perhaps ECR would be better getting their head down and proving up some minerals...

Jace - yes, that's how I understand it.

High sensitivity at threshold A, run the identified positives again at C where the specificity is 87 to exclude false positives.

The test is cheap and quick, no?

Max, Max

C'mon mate, You're sounding a little cynical there

Just trust the BOD...

/s

👍