London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

I was only previously suggesting that running the mining application simultaneously with pfs work would reduce overall time to production relative to the sequence the msa article described (start one after the other/s (studies))

I personally think delay is down to a combination of Ni price and mgmt/major shareholders wish to get in the best personal position before this comes good/Ni bull market starts in earnest and or potential discovery made.

https://audioboom.com/posts/7142465-horizonte-minerals-hzm-live-company-group-lvcg-obtala-obt-and-malcy-on-fpm-ophr-sdx

From 8.50ish to end of jm interview - stresses importance of nickel price at time of raising money (he is referring to financing construction but the same imo would apply to financing a pfs) msa have previously recommended a 2 stage pfs at a cost of about $10m from memory. That is what I would like to see being the next stage here. Maybe an umbono/umh linked jv partner would provide some/all of money for a cut of the project. Maybe this pge/ni/cu discovery is to be used to improve sp and raise money when the time is right.

My understanding is that companies can go straight from pea to bfs but to some extent this depends on detail of the former and skipping the pfs doesn't always work out well, imo this won't/shouldn't happen with Zeb. As for clause of doubling of retaining monthly payments on commencement of bfs. I can't see how this would delay anything really. The agreement was entered into recently so don't expect it is getting in the way or delaying things/is a relict problematic issue etc. The clause about issue of 12m shares, I don't see any problem there, that number is (should be) now 12000 and seems perfectly reasonable to me. The fact that 75k zar have been shelled out per month for at least 20 months now, you would hope umh have done something for that, we are lead to believe they are responsible for the prospecting license renewal so that is one very significant thing. Their involvement in exploration activities, hiring/overseeing drilling/geophysics teams/ nearby project review etc is also very probable. I don't generally see any current reason for any of the clauses to be a source of delay in and of themselves.

My issue would be if the time limit/minimum spend clauses, whereby, if they were not met then umh can reaquire the license, were ever defined. To me this would create a conflict of interest. Umh would have influence over pace and expenditure of project progression as well as standing to benefit by the missing of progression time/expenditure limits. But we are told these thresholds are still undefined, so apparently no current risk of that.

The main prize currently for me, is the scale of Zeb disseminated Ni and although it's incredibly difficult to progress through feasibility during bear markets in your leveraged commodity, getting at least to post pfs stage in time for the main bull run should be prioritised and will aid bfs funding & construction

A few thoughts and what's stuck in my mind since consolidation.

Not that I like this article due to its inaccuracy in regards to contained Ni, it does offer suggested albeit idealised timescales.

http://msagroupservices.com/press/zebediela-the-nickel-needle-in-south-africas-haystack-mining-review-africa-issue-7

It mentions.....

July 2014 we are finishing metallurgy.

We will upgrade resource.

We will do pfs

Then if all goes to plan apply for mining license early 2017 and then with that in hand (assume 6 months to a year but total unknown) 24 months construction before first production.

So starting from July 2014 that's production starting between July 2019 and early 2020.

I don't see why they can't get the mining license application sped up at least, have it in going in conjunction with pfs completion.

Obviously we still awaiting some metallurgy results. Still awaiting resource upgrade. Still to hear a word about a pfs. Have dilluted focus with new discovery of smaller potentially more selectively minable part of the deposit which is right at the start of the process (not a bad thing but true).

Think it's more realistic (or what is more likely for uru to accomplish at least) to think about drill out to get significant measured resources and convert some more inferred to indicated (3 to 6 months depending on number of rigs and ambition of upgrade). Some how fund and get started on a pfs (12 to 18 months). These can definitely over lap. Get the mining license. Hopefully in the background at the same time. Then sell or do a major deal to make existing shareholders very happy over the following year or so. Assuming all goes smoothly and results are positive that is.

Are they going to / hoping to be able to use this pge Ni Cu discovery to raise funds for the above? Or sell mrs if/when that eventually comes good. Right now raising enough to get through the next year (after upcoming drilling and geochem) seems like it would be difficult.

Whats new since consolidation....

News within interims of postulated critical zone geology extentions on Zeb property, previously thought to be lower zone and 'wide causitive' ip results suggestive of last year's discovery being potentially of significant scale - if true/proven to be accurate, potentially a massive positive.

Cash position arguably realistic to see us though to diamond drilling and geochem results. Better than some may have expected. Debatably a positive depending on what you were expecting.

Articles changed significantly in several ways. Including reduction of threshold of agreement required to vary rights to different share classes. A massive negative imo.

Some of Jz other interests losing value hand over fist. Anr not bothered. Mrs not worried.

Jz in ccc - taking shares for accured salary and ccc, & sp responding positively. Not sure how I feel I guess it's a slight positive. Thanks to king for heads up on this one.

All in all a fair bit and a mi

199452 tonnes left, finally broke sub 200kt stockpile yesterday.

https://www.westmetall.com/en/markdaten.php?action=show_table&field=LME_Ni_cash

Draw down pace quickened this year after a slow down in December.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/warehouse-levels/nickel/1-month/

Still a ways to go tho

http://www.infomine.com/investment/warehouse-levels/nickel/all/

Tick tock......

Still think this is the number one driver of potential return on investment here (no inference toward project realisation). Looking like my sept prediction of getting levels sub 140kt by towards the end of april is going to be off a fair bit. Still heading the right direction and in no particular rush.

Pf had a much needed bounce last fortnight, now need uru heaviness removed. Was looking at the pretty ip images on another of mine yesterday. Just don't understand why we don't get to see stuff here. Pea still 'classified.' Whats with all the secrets?

Wonder how many issued shares there'll be this time next year, that is the problem for me now. Possibilities have now been so far expanded. My view of warehouse drawdown (leading to price increase) being the number 1 driver of return, unfortunately now comes with the massive caveat of ...if tens of multiples of current issue aren't placed/issued. So really our roi is more greatly dependent on reasonable mgmt alignment/behaviour.

Hopefully sp is down here so accrued salary can be compensated by granting of shares. Then the newsflow can come and sp rise, ie I'm trying to stay optimistic.

Reminder that we have another election in SA to mix things up again this year (August latest) then there's the on going land expropriation issue, EFF will be campaigning on that. Anc win required, imo.

Hard not to be a bit impressed about pace of ev progress, price tipping points and s curve adoption acceleration commencement, expected within 36 months. Where will the Ni stockpiles be then?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LATZ0g-Sz2s&t=4s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QMfxJEfb4lw

Best get building these charging stations had a look around my local area - bit of a joke currently. Mainly daily overnight home charge im thinking, going to need our nuclear fleet then (not impressed with govt reg wylfa) and/or loads of storage - could again be good for Ni.

AIMO ATB

I'm thinking the 10 drill targets are identified anomalies of sufficiently suggestive data (high chargability) and of significant scale, to warrant spending the money required, to obtain physical rock from the depth/location in which the readings were obtained, via diamond core drilling. Thereby correlating the ip result with assay results of actual corresponding mineralisation or lack thereof.

It's likely that a max of 6 of these will be chosen (although multiple targets could potentially be targeted by one hole) to be actually drilled with initial priority delegated by a combination of signal strength, anomaly size, and depth of occurance. Secondly geographic context between anomoloies will be considered in deciding which to drill and possibly also the geologic context eg position in relation to footwall contact, localised expected footwall geology etc. We were previously told a likely number of 6 diamond holes total, and that was to cover both the pgm and the Ni in both rocks associate with the bushveld, and within the footwall.

Im hoping they do at least 1 deep hole targeting the area (or similar ip highlighted area) where the 1.6% Ni intercept was found last year. Also would like one really deep hole >700m at some point, but that's more expensive meterage down there so less likely this time. The large scale disseminated Ni deposit is open at depth so how deep does it go and what is below it or at the base.

In my earlier post I was (in relation to open pit) considering 2 separate deposits.

1. Zeb - low grade, bulk minable, long since discovered, disseminated Ni, PEA'd, reasonably understood and relative homogenous deposit.

2. Pge-Ni-Cu - potential more selectively minable, recently discovered, bearly explored, relatively unknown and heterogeneous deposit.

I think the large scale bulk mining of Zeb with its 0.36 strip ratio is and has always been considered open pittable. Its the low grade large capex and other things that cause its optionality in relation to prevailing (potentially significantly higher than current) Ni price.

However, open pit, as an optimal mining method, of the recently (after momentous april 2017) discovered and likely more selectively minable pgm-Ni-Cu deposit is, imo much more debatable.

Aimo ATB

2/2

Is this a significant project?

From 18/06/18 ‘Pedra Branca Project is the largest and most advanced PGM project in South America with a JORC compliant resource of approximately 1.45 million ounces of PGM+Au at a grade of 1.36 g/t, 140 Mlb of Ni, 26 Mlb of Cu, and 9,7 Mlb of Co’

So to compare with last years pgm discovery at zeb, 1,450,000 oz compared to the 5900 so far and projected 820,000 oz in my post of 29/12/18 (with the multitude of assumptions included). However now we have results, still unquantified, of ‘11 traverses have mapped up to 5 individual IP chargeability anomalies per traverse.’

The basket price seems world class it is still about the size, importantly tho, the smaller the scale of a mine, likely the smaller the capex (funding of which is one of the most significant barriers to deposit to mine realisation). This is why I picked up on the SPA’s ‘selectively mine’ mention, it implies smaller operation and possibly lower capex/barrier to funding (especially IF still open pit). JZ has a proven record of achieving large funding for his ventures (eg Vietnam). Considering the grades, which when examined in isolation (not reliable method of considering viability) are good and are economically extracted by others, and now the indications towards scale at relatively shallow depth (a 4.5m thick deposit at 10m has a strip ratio of 2.2 and at 50m (stated av) the same deposit has a strip ratio of 11.1)

For reference

https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/base-metals-investing/copper-investing/strip-ratio-western-copper-gold-nemaska-lithium/

‘For example, Nevsun Resources’ (TSX:NSU,NYSEAMERICAN:NSU) high-grade Bisha copper mine in Eritrea posted a strip ratio of 5.4:1 in 2014. Similarly, Avesoro Resources’ (TSX:ASO,LSE:ASO) high-grade New Liberty gold mine in Liberia has a strip ratio of 15.5:1’

Results from the geochem and diamond drilling, which now appear potentially possible with existing funds, if positive could make good reading and, in time, estimation of an impressive initial resource.

I fully accept this is a very simplistic way of looking at things and with 'up to 5 anomalies per transect' things are going to be more complicated & less optimal etc but with limited data available a simplistic view/comparison is best I could do.

As an aside, regarding consolidation, some views from the finance guy of a fellow aim junior mining company (this time a producing one), his view was (from 25.55 link below) consolidation from >5b not required and not preferred as would likely lead to reduction in retail investor interest and reduced retail holdings overall – something I have suspected has been a motivation of mgmt here for some time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZIhjcqJuSo

Question of why remains.

AIMO ATB

1/2

The RNS’d basket price comparison (eg 18/07/18) suggested the potential economics of the material, and I mentioned subsequent to Zeb pgm discovery that is was all about size of the discovery. Confirmation yesterday of depths involved being 10 to 50m and down to 150 - suggestive of open-pittable potential and therefore currently, imo, justifiably speculative comparison with existing/developing open pit projects. Imo it is important to remember the local comparisons/competitors are world class ‘opposition.’ Below I looked at a project with very promising economics but not on the Bushveld, instead Brazil, their strip ratio, quoted 18/06/18, was 1.2.

URU Metals Zebediela (drill results only)

Pt $/t 15.91, Pd $/t 32.40, Rh $/t 7.43, Au $/t 2.79, Ni $/t 62.38, Cu $/t 11.13,
Basket price $/t 132.04.

Open pit on Bushveld IC open pit comparison Magalakweena

Pt $/t 30.24, Pd $/t 40.50, Rh $/t 6.08, Au $/t 5.98, Ni $/t 25.52, Cu $/t 6.18
Basket price $/t 114.49

Using same commod prices as uru, from zeb (18/07/18 rns)

https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/9505U_1-2018-7-17.pdf

Pt 825 US$/Oz, Pd 933 US$/Oz, Rh 2100 US$/Oz, Au 1241 US$/Oz, Ni 14177 US$/t, Cu 6182 US$/t and current (info mine quoted) Co price of 25.17 USD/lb

Their 18/06/18 pea results in ‘table 2’ total grades are quoted as

Au 0.027ppm, Pd 0.768ppm, Pt 0.567ppm, Co 114.9ppm, Cu 0.03%, Ni 0.18% (1ppm = 1g/t)

https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/6731R_1-2018-6-18.pdf

On this basis the basket price of the ‘total resource’ stated at that time was.

Pt $/t 14.99, Pd $/t 22.96, Au $/t 1.07, Ni $/t 25.52, Cu $/t 1.85 Co $/t 6.37
Basket price $/t 72.77

An extract from their most recent rns

“The new resource adds 8 million tonnes of mineral at 0.22% nickel; 0.04% copper; 135 g/t cobalt; 0.21 g/t of PGM+Au at a nickel equivalent grade of 0.39%
The new resource could add circa US$110 million, at today's spot price, to current estimated project revenue - a 10% increase in revenue”

In May they announced

50% increase in global ore volume to 34.5 million tonnes at 1.3 g/t PGM+Au

AIMO

This new news from ip is very promising imo.

Discovery potential much improved if their exploration model of critical zone extentions squarely on the property is proven correct.

'Some 19.6km of survey lines over 11 traverses have mapped up to 5 individual IP chargeability anomalies per traverse, reflecting wide causative sources at depths of around 10m to 80m (exceptionally 140m) with an average depth of 50m.

The survey has allowed for a better understanding of the local geology of the project. In addition to this, the company has embarked on an extensive review of publicly available data for neighbouring Ni-PGE projects, which has resulted in an exploration model that places Critical Zone rocks of the Bushveld Complex, which host the economic Platreef, Merensky Reef and UG2 Chromitite reefs, squarely on the Project area at depths of between 30 to 100 m.

Anglo American's operating Mogalakwena Mine mines the Platreef at surface, and is the world's largest open pit platinum operation, and Ivanhoe Mines Platreef Project, currently under construction, targets the Platreef, at depths of about 780 m below surface. Uitloop is located adjacent to, and updip of, Ivanhoe Mines Platreef Project.

In all, some ten IP targets have been recommended for drill-testing, possibly correlating with up dip extensions of Critical Zone material.'

10 drll targets so they have a choice. Each time exploration has been done good results have appeared. Still yet to read 'no significant results were achieved', as much as some called the use of the term 'significant', Its use was, imo, both warranted and preferred relative to - we spent your/our money and found nothing of significance.

Overall a positive read & plenty of cash too as diggit says and we know how they watch those pennies. Geochem & Drill results before need for placing, changes perception for some here? Just a shame about this remaining article 10 niggle I've got, now my opinion is swinging closer to accumulate than hold. Could halve my av with further purchase of <25% of total stake - just too much murkyness & and can't afford it currently anyway. Will be interesting to watch reaction of market to this, if there is one.

Aimo atb

2/2

The discovered grades and intercept thicknesses are potentially economic the rest (resource size, capex & opex etc) however is totally unknown without depth/consistency/tonnage/metallurgy etc, ie indicated resource and up/PEA and up – exploration focused on pgms has only just started at zeb – long way to go.

Assuming 40m x 150m (180m including likely dip) (from recent zeb update rns pdf map) and 4.2m average thickness and 1.85g/t average grade and a specific gravity of (used peridotite (didn’t check if data exist)) 3.3 then current resource would be 30240m3 at 1.85g/t or roughly 100,000t of material containing around 5900 troy ounces of pgms.

The geochem survey area is roughly 1km2 assuming the same is true over the whole area numbers are more like - 1000m x 1000m x 4.2m giving resource size of 4,200,000m3 roughy 13,860,000t of material containing around 820,000 troy ounces which would be much more significant and worthy of studies to see if it was selectively economic especially considering good Ni and Cu credits. We are a very very long way from that and in no way should this be the expectation (obviously) just using assumptions for illustration.

An interesting read with many similarities including similar (lower zone) geology and PanEx links which can be used as a likely comparative deposit in terms of setting and geology (not size yet) of what this discovery could potentially turn into (if we are very lucky) can be seen in link below. Well worth a full read, imo.

http://www.sylvaniaplatinum.com/b/files/appendix/competent-persons-report-volspruit-complex.pdf

Platinum and palladium are very similar in their autocatalytic properties (even though ive read there is a general preference towards Pd, and it is my understanding that they are interchangeable/used relatively more or less in relation to each other in line with the current ratio between Pt:Pd prices. Higher Pd prices therefore likely to increase use of Pt in exchange for Pd subsequently reducing Pd price (ratio gets closer to 1:1). From what Ive read the future of a very significant proportion of Pgm demand hangs in the balance on the success/take up of fuel cell technology (a competitor to battery ev’s tech). With uru’s current resources and dominant Ni content, Li-ion battery powered EV’s proving to dominate would be no bad thing imo.

Mistakes possible/likely as stomach bug has me housebound in fact largely seatbound today hence a hour or two to refresh myself on some of this stuff. Corrections as always very welcome.

AIMO ATB

1/2

Cant really help on viability. Better understanding obviously expected after results of IP, geochem and follow on diamond drilling are made public.

The data that we have so far are inconsistent as well as very minimal – totally inadequate to estimate anything, having said that doing the best with what we have……

Inconsistent - rns 20/09/17 states 9m of approx 2g/t pgm at 112mbgl, whilst rns 16/03/18 summarises same interval at approx 78mbgl interestingly the two intercepts have a consistent ratio of variation between the two releases of 1.42, potentially highlighting that two different hole inclinations were used?

Secondly pdf in rns 18/07/18 shows green circles as 2017 holes but only 5 green holes are shown - my interpretation is that hole Z022 is the purple hole between Z021 and UL-13.

The resulting (extremely low reliability due to low data points) section produced potentially could indicate some consistency with overall strata dip (down to the West) between Z019 and Z022 with the intercepts decreasing in thickness up dip and an average approx 35m spacing between intercepts. The absence of matching intercepts in Z021 demonstrates the inconsistent nature of the pgm containing strata (assuming whole hole was assayed).

Generally the four 2017 holes found to contain pgm are relatively tightly clustered in relation to drilled area of zeb as a whole - a negative towards significant tonnage being present. However, the cluster is located on the southerly extremity of the previously drilled deposit and the geophysics was done/geochem will be done/is being done, to the south and east - a positive in terms of potential discovery of significant tonnage. Another positive is south and east are directions in which uru license extends considerably and east is the likely direction in which shallowest depth (most likely economic) of resources are most likely.

I mentioned/questioned previously (14/03/18) the potential significance of SP Angels squwark where they stated the term 'selectively mine' and I suggested that that was the first i'd heard of that.

aimo

1/1

No recent success on my part my ones in positive territory on are ones that previously had >100+% up sitting next to the ticker and those are the minority, the less said about the rest the better, a lessen im slowly learning - take more off the table when well up. Financial pain hopefully a successful teacher. Total loss for me likely at bzm much less significant sum than here tho. Agree diversification critical - mainly property for me, potential returns on aim tho are just so incredible, hard lessons are surely worth it if experience leads to success over time. About 10 years for me on and off so far and feel I've learn plenty still a long long way to go tho!

The main problem I have with the article 10 change is that it increases the likelihood of a scenario (outlined previously and referred to by me as differential dillution) which provides a potential answer to actions of mgmt over the last year and a half or so.

Previously I've mentioned how it was hard to reconcile mgmt actions (which possibly could be perceived to be negative to sp performance) in the light of the combination of; their skin in the game, their ccc links and stated desired exit, average price of their personal and indirect shareholding.

The proposed reduced barrier to new share class introduction, with rights variation toward preferential class rights for the share class held by those on the inside, imv provides a potential mechanism to reconcile the combination of formerly odd and seemingly counterintuitive recent actions/chain of deliberate events.

Even if the differential dilution could not happen which I still haven't nailed down, differential rights to any dividend payment between share classes can certainly apply and we know the significance of dividends in many a discussion on uru.

The pre emptive article change only applies to issuance of >500% (over 12 months) existing issue, a threshold which my previous worked example deliberately didn't cross. In any case prescription to the offer requires risk of extra capital which may be undesirable or even impossible for some.

Far from being proposed to protect shareholders im suggesting, as a pi shareholder, I would rather the proposals not be implemented.

An underlying theme as king has mentioned, in all of this is.....

Why go to the trouble of all this if they see no value. The chink of positively is that even if they are trying to get a preferential cut of the proceeds, it shows that at least they genuinely expect proceeds and foresee future value worthy of pre emptive effort to secure maximised personal gain. If anything like potential future value/optionality of these assets ever gets achieved then even a minimised piece of the return is likely to provide decent roi for us, just depends on the level of differentiation mgmt may apply in the mean time.

Aimo

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Dave85

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Dave85

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending