Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
@jimjam
Re something for your grandchildren
By which I understand you to mean that the maturity of this investment is several decades. I disagree with you, here's why :
North Wales exploration licences (strictly speaking options) have already been extended to the max. By that time either projects will have been sold on, brought into production or surrendered
Naturally some totally unexplored areas of the dgb will take longer.
Timescale for the former, C. 4years
Greenland
Two projects well advanced planned mine development In 2 to 2.5 years
Although longer term projects exist. The above ones have a 3 to 4 year horizon which will result in either total failure, or reasonable duccess
With respect to exporting the material then a conveyor to a permanently moored barge would be a quick and cost effective solution.
It's what Jay did when exporting the big bulk sample from Dundas. There's pix of it on Jay's site
GF in his recent address to investors at Greenland mining conference stated start of development end of 2023
I'd point out that bluejay found some interest from the American Bank of export? To provide a sizeable debt facility at competitive rates
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220708005254/en/Viston-United-Swiss-AG-provides-CFIUS-Update-in-Connection-with-All-Cash-Offer-to-Acquire-Petroteq-Energy-Inc.
so that takes cfius investigation potentially to 12th September
GROC is an exploration company (At present at least)
Therefore its costs are exploration, not mine development
It potential reward is the appreciation in the value of the asset due to the proving up of the resource and probably get an exploitation licence following the necessary permits including socio economic impact studies, environmental studies.
In the case that a viable mine plan / exploitation licence is granted then GROC have a number of options
1. sell on the resource to a mining company for cash or near cash
2. sell part of the resource to a mining company for the mining company bearing the cost of mine development
^^^ these two options require no capital raising on the part of GROC
3. Develop the mine themselves financed by :-
i) placing
ii) debt
iii) combination of placing and or debt
4. GROC "spins off" an asset ready for development, retaining a significant shareholding, raising finance through IPO in the spinoff company, or possibly an offtake partner.
--------------
The important point is that the activity GROC is engaged in at present is exploration .. i.e the appreciation of a mineral resource
What they will bring to the table is a proven resource when it comes to moving onto development
Timescales for TBS and Amistoq is end of 2023 for moving onto development phase.
-----------------------
"why has it not been done before?"
strange psychological fallacy (linked to a deep seated inferiority complex)
, which, if was true would mean that nothing new would ever be done, for if it was possible then it would have been done by others in the past.
@copland
The purpose of the company at this stage is exploration and not to mine gold, but to prove up gold deposits and assess those deposits suitability for mining. If the exploration reveals viable proven resources then it may in part start to mine, or sell off that resource to a miner (or a hybrid like a JV)
In this sense the main activity of the company is the appreciation of a possible mineral resource
Clearly some people are ill suited to be shareholders of mineral exploration companies. Best sell up if that's you
Does anyone know if QFI have any contact with "Heavy Sweet Oil" ?
About 12 months lost to covid, basically a season at Greenland. Clogau less affected and Gwynfynydd added to the portfolio during this period. I thought alba mitigated the issue very well.
As for the major risk being regulatory, yes I would agree with that. A positive result could result in a significant and rapid appreciation in SP particularly if good grades follow on from bulk samples retrieved from the dewatered workings. So you could take the view that a 'quick buck' can be made then.
Nevertheless I'd say its a 2 to 3 year horizon to maturity of this investment
Re emphasis on one shaft
1. Because visible gold was relatively recently reported down there
2. Because it demonstrates nrw will accept Alba's minewater environmental management
Wrt to other areas, yes I agree parallel exploration should be conducted
Given the strike price of the warrants in issue, that have a final exercise date in 2022, it would be interesting to see if the SP will be well north of that then (0.55p and 0.75p) respectively. The fundamentals are all there to justify it.
Tesla currently source their batteries' graphite from synthetic graphite. I believe Hitachi have a process of manufacturing good grade graphite from petcoke, a by product of oil refining . As I understand synthetic graphite is more expensive than natural battery grade graphite.
As some of you know, I campaigned last year for the restoration of the shareholder's rights of preemption. The reasons for that were
1) I believed the company had adequate cash resources to conduct its planned operations for a year
2) The number of shares that the board sought authority to allot was at 72% of the shares in issue was excessive
3) Whereas rights issues are considered to be prohibitively expensive for companies, its my view that poor value placings are very expensive for existing shareholders
My general view that existing shareholders should be included in issuing new shares (especially at a discount) remains unchanged , however, the circumstances of the company have changed
1) They probably do not have enough cash resources to fund another 12 months exploration
2) The board are seeking an authority to allot fewer new shares about 38% of the currently issued shares
GF has stated in his letter that the board will explore some facility by which existing shareholders can aquire new issue shares on the same basis as institutional investors. However no resolution binds the board to do this, so if as a shareholders we agree to support these resolutions then the matter of existing shareholder participation in future fund raises is a matter of trust in GF.
Given the almost certain need for a fund raise (hopefully at significantly higher SP levels than at present) then it is not in anyone's interests to restrict the board's authority to do so, given that the amounts they seek authority for are moderated and there is a bona fide intention to allow existing share holder participation.
I shall be supporting all of the resolutions
References
Chairmans Letter Extract
While rights issues are considered to be prohibitively expensive for junior AIM companies, the Company has been investigating a way to provide a mechanism for existing shareholders to participate in a future capital raising on the same terms as any new money. As a result, subject to legal and regulatory compliance the Company intends to make available to existing shareholders, on a future capital raising, a "broker option" whereby a portion of the intended capital raising will be reserved to existing shareholders on the same terms, with interested shareholders then instructing their brokers to contact the Company's brokers, ETX, to seek an allocation.
Notes to the accounts 1(b)
Based on financial projections prepared by the Directors, the Group’s current cash resources are insufficient to enable the Group to meet its recurring outgoings and projected exploration expenditure for the entirety of the next twelve months. The Directors have prepared 12-month cash flow forecasts to 31 May 2023 which take into account planned exploration spend, costs and external funding. The need for external funding is a material uncertainty that may cast doubt on the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern. At this stage as an explorer the Group does n