Member Info for CaveatEmptor

Hello Howezap,

Not quite.

If they manage to buy 30% of the company then they are obliged to offer to buy the remaining shares at a price greater than the average price they paid for their shares.

They would need 2/3 of the shares to gain a controlling interest and my view is that they would have to offer 15p to 20p in order to get to that point.
Unless, of course, there is a clause in the buy back agreement that prevents them from buying our shares...

Hello Howezap,

Yes, the board could reject a £150M bid our of hand, which is another good reason for AA to buy shares in the company because if they manage to accumulate 30 % of the shares they are obliged to make an offer to purchase the remaining 70% and there is nothing the board can do to stop it. Of course AA would not be able to make the offer at a price below their average purchase price of the 30% they own, but that is likely to be well below the 15p to 20p that they would need to offer in order to get a controlling interest in the company.

Still a lot cheaper to them than having to pay a fair market rate once 2M+ tonnes are proven up.
True, AA have been slow to act in the past, but that was generally in a bear market and before copper became the mineral of choice.

Times have changed, so maybe AA has to do the same if it wants to secure a profitable future?

All IMHO, of course...

I suppose, if they owned 20% (or maybe more?) of the company at, say, an average of 10p per share and RC was valued at 60p per share then they would get a whopping discount on the buy-out price as they would be paying 20% of it to themselves?

What is to stop AA putting in a buy order for, say, 100,000,000 shares ( could just as easily be double or treble this amount) to be filled over a period of weeks or even months. Surely they would not have to issue a TR1 until the deal completes - by which time they would own a big chunk of the company?

Apparently, the central core should be "beautiful"...

At $250 per metre drilling costs and a maximum realistic drill of 2,000m per month that would require about $500,000 per month for, say 4 months so about $2,000,000 in total.

When considering that phase 2 is not likely to start until July or August, and by that time we will have full grades and updated 3D model of the Racecourse porphyry, with the recent £5,000,000 fundraise we should have enough money in the bank to cover the phase 2 costs, then there is of course hard rock income to look forward to...

Interesting that the IP survey will also cover Foot Rot - a case of getting a jump on the Phase 3 drilling programme that will be implemented once Racecourse has been disposed of, or is it going to be included in a massive phase 2 programme so that the whole of Bushranger can be sold as job lot?

Another great interview - it must be killing CB not to be able to talk about hole 6, but not difficult to read between the lines...

As we pass into the second quarter of the year, i thought i would look at what news is expected in April and early May.

This is what I came up with:
Completion of Hole 6.
Assay results for holes 2,3 and 5.
Completion of IP survey at Bushranger
Commencement of stoping at GF
First income from ancillary alluvials
Update on position at FB
Delineation plan for Kalengwa
Update on follow up Phase 2 diamond drilling programme of approximately 1,600m planned to test the Eureka copper-gold deposit strike extent and to further define the internal grade and continuity of the mineralisation - drilling started early February.
Award of contract for open-pit mining at Eureka.

I have assumed that hole 6 assay results will not be available until late May - providing the hole has been completed by then -:)

Is there anything that I have missed?

Also the fact that the geo survey will go beyond 1000m vertically rather than down plunge. As the porphyry is sloping at a 60 degree angle then the down plunge strike length will be well over 1000m at 1000m vertical depth...maybe even 1250m?

A good RNS that avoids sensationalism but speaks very clearly to the well-researched and knowledgable. A very clever move IMO.

Tell me you're joking, right?

During a recent conversation with CB he did say he was grateful for support from LTHs over the years "through thick and thin - and now we will be going through the thick"
Hopefully when he said ' thick' he was referring to the width of the porphyry. Lol.
About 400m width of porphyry mineralisation already demonstrated by hole 6 if the bit is still turning - and that in a system that was previously thought to have an average width of around 150- 200m, so already a very good result...can 'good' become 'great'?

Hello TD,

The hole was at 330m on Wednesday morning, so could be as much as 750m by close of play on Monday - which would not be bad as we are drilling across the formation rather than along or down it.

However I am happy to wait until later in the week as each day that passes increases the chance of that double porphyry - either that or gives more evidence for a single monster...

Hello Andrew - I agree, although he does mention that they have not issued any cheap warrants attached to fund raises as they tend to slow down any increase in SP - Maybe a lesson that CB can learn moving forward?

My understanding is that the half cores have to be pulverised prior to chemical assay and this takes time when there are many hundreds of metres to complete - but i should think it is a bit of a conveyor belt-type operation rather than a 'one assay at a time' type production line.

Advice welcome from those with more knowledge .

Hello Cyber,
"Weak to moderate copper mineralisation and bedrock alteration was first noted in the hole at a depth of about 130m within the hanging-wall margin of the deposit and becomes more pronounced from 340m as the hole approaches the main porphyry target zone"

So I have taken the worst case scenario, assuming assaying was commenced from 130m.

ATB

H1 assays were over a mineralised core length of about 940m, whereas H2 will have been about 770m - so logically the assay results should take about 20% less time for H2 when compared to H1?

Holes 1 and 2 seem to be of particular significance when seen as a whole-
"As the first two completed holes by the Company at Bushranger were particularly critical in defining the overall down-plunge and width dimensions of the Racecourse deposit beyond the limits of previous drilling"

Hello Andrew,

When I was talking to Colin a while back about the true significance of the assays from H1, he did agree that they would give a rough indication of the overall picture but he did not expect them to offer an accurate account of the grades.

The way Colin put it was, imagine you have a really big fruit cake. Now take a piano wire and push it through the cake. If the wire does not hit any cherries, does that mean that none exist?

I took this to mean that any results achieved by H1 were likely to be low-ball and that the subsequent drill assays will build up a much more accurate picture of what is actually there.

Following the receipt of actual assay results and the confirmation that mineralisation is continuous, I could not help but think that this must be a very rich fruit cake in deed.

I'm going to stop now because I'm making myself feel hungry, but I do think the H2 assay results could be very illuminating...

Last time I discussed this with CB he reckoned it would take another 3 or 4 drills in phase 2 to prove up Racecourse and that, providing the drills go well, we would probably be in discussion with AA at some point over the summer and before getting Fair Bride income. So my best guess would be Q3.