Member Info for CRK22

and from CGNR website on the Mining in Ireland link - thus we can note there's a lot of work to be done involving time and money. So all good and moving in the right direction but let's be realistic

Noting the presence of gold mineralisation associated with historical antimony workings at Clontibret in County Monaghan in a geological terrain known as the Longford–Down Massif Conroy Gold applied for prospecting licences.

The subsequent exploration programme led to the discovery of over 1 million ounces of gold on 20% of the Clontibret target together with a 30 mile gold trend containing a series of major gold targets which conceptual studies by the Company estimate a potential for 15–20+ million ounces of gold within the gold trend covered by the Company’s licences.*

The Company proposes to develop a conventional open pit gold mine on 20% of one of these major gold targets – Clontibret, located in County Monaghan. The area has a history of mining and was known as the Armagh–Monaghan Mining District. The mines included lead, zinc and copper mines as well as the antimony mine. A large open pit gypsum mine is currently in operation in County Monaghan.

* This projection is based on the 1m ounce JORC-compliant resource outlined in only 20 per cent of the Clontibret target, the potential of the remaining 80 per cent of that target, the new discovery at Clay Lake and other large gold-in-soil anomalies that have been outlined elsewhere on its licences. To date there has been insufficient exploration carried out to define the mineral resources as estimated above (other than the scoping study resource). There can be no certainty that exploration will result in resources of the above magnitude being realised.

TBF the established case is given in the overview (ie they won't put anything not RNS'd in there)

https://www.conroygoldandnaturalresources.com/projects/overview

Anything beyond that is "potential", a word used by prof Conroy which gives insights into possible upsides. So turning potential into bankable involves drilling, jorc update etc etc. This isn't rocket science. I'm invested here since July 2020 with a long term outlook and the JV moves us in the correct direction. The actual full value will be revealed over time. Its not a FIFA trading card with exploding stars the moment we invest.

GLAH

Rumors are improvised new designed to fill the void created when news demand exceeds new supply. Factual content may vary.

I'll just leave that there.

Personally, I'm not keen on those sort of tweets.

Patiently waiting and allowing the story to unfold.

GLA

Ant, the study refers to backfilling the underground mine with the tailings of the new excavations I believe.

You need t6o look at your holding and value. loss of 88% invites you to double holding for 12% of your original investment so £359.76 doubles your holding and lowers your sp average accordingly. worth considering depending on your circumstances

Jezzoo I believe sp charts account for consolidations or splits in the sp but don't give any indication of mcap i.e in 2006 I would wager there were far fewer shares around at £20 otherwise on current mcap to sp that would have been a 20bn quid mcap

I can understand averaging down with money you're prepared to lose as it drops but I don't understand compunding a short on the way up with unlimited liability. Doesn't feel smart, feels like a gambling bug looking for a high speed windshield.

As a long position holder I hope you find your windshield oh buffer of Darrens

Ganfeng reneged on the agreed floor price in the OTA. It's notoriously difficult to challenge this sort of thing throuh the Chinese courts. This plus the Aussie governments refusal to forego royalty for a while sealed their fate. Floor price disappeared, royalty cost as a % of per tonne value shot through the roof. Altura got rodded big time

wrt the two mineralisation pictures discussed the first was based on no assay information and as such I take as "an artist's impression" of what might be down there vs the later picture wich uses assay info and cut off data to make a more informed decision of how to portray the image.

SnowStorms observations on the image are correct however I not that this does not enable anyone to say the porphyry has changed from offering x mt at a cut off of y% Cu for a total contained copper estimate of Zmt to anything whatsoever.

Its like someone drawing a cat then going a bit closer and realising its a dog and updating their sketch.

Completely neutral on the observed differences in how much green or yelly they have used in the pics andf far more interested in waiting for the numbers and model to take shape.

In like 10 pages of your post history there are only circa 3 posts not dedicated to ARCM. You must have lost an absolute bundle to to so obsessed.

Have a great day

Hardly new news, I'd expect us to be fairly rangebound until warrant overhang is done so I had thought 5.8 to 6.2 type range but looks like selling knocks out the lower end plus more prob due to MM reactions as much as anything. Just keep quietly writing for this story to tell itself.

fair points cy but it remains important that we are able to use a valmin code in discussion and throw out some numbers to highlight weaknesses in using the code to generate a sale price. No one was stating that any of the numbers was going to be an agreed price, it simply intended to highlight potential problems with using the code. Folks saw 5p and lost the plot and missed the point. The information discussed and visible on the BB provoked a response from CB which indicated he's not to be lowballed via Valmin reliance and so discussion here imo proved valuable and shouldn't be an issue impacting continued reasoned discussion. Anyway, am awaiting next results with eager anticipation

Great post there iceberg. I appreciate the context that your posts provide. The unfortunate recent "spat" (if that's the right word) I believe was born out of the low end valmin valuation which you clearly contextually explained at the time in terms of your intention when posting but which was ignored and treated as a deramp of some sort. The tirade of snippets of previous posts of yours certainly did not demonstrate any inconsistency whatsoever on your part.

An over reliance on folks posting "the CEO said, the CEO said..." is evident on may boards and is to be avoided imo. What the ceo said is one thing, what the data says is another, if data and ceo are in agreement it's a different matter and it's our job to check that alignment and consistency.

Many thanks for your continued contributions

Dan you said you got in OVER a year ago mate. Looks a bit silly asking people to go check their charts going back only 11 months to the January spike. You just made a mistake on your original post - best to move on.

In the meantime sp should appreciate in value as more drill results and assays come in but may be a bit up and down as folks get bored so growth in sp or sale if you hold to the end and we are successful are your best bet.

GL

Wind your neck in Ella it’s good news. Perhaps you can’t just absorb it for a bit and take a day off.

Interesting snip from article

Australian mining company South32 has signed an agreement with Sumitomo to buy a 45% stake in the Sierra Gorda copper mine in Chile for $2.05bn.

"The transaction amount include an upfront cash payment of $1.55bn and a contingent price-linked consideration of up to $500m, which will be paid at threshold copper production rates and prices in the years 2022-25.

Located in the Antofagasta region, Sierra Gorda is a conventional open pit mine that was commissioned in 2014."

So, a working mine with full infrastructure and I assume a fully worked up resource.

Link to full article here: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/south32-to-acquire-stake-in-chilean-copper-mine-for-2bn/

So capex for infrastructure to come off , discounting for JORC maturity etc

I wonder upon which fundamentals that valuation was reached? Would be interesting if there was a breakdown available

ZeroMatrix, those are the two best first posts I've ever seen. Very informative and contextually useful - thank you.

rather unfortunate typo there…..