Member Info for elir71

@Shirley re funding, there will almost certainly be a need for further rounds of funding, even with revenue from waste tips. I would prefer to see funding and more rapid progress, i.e. parallel developments rather than exploit the waste tips and put underground activities on hold until revenue is realised from waste tips.

I would hope to see a cap raise of at least £1M in November 23 following a successful outcome of the bulk sampling in the dewatered areas. The target lode is beneath the existing workings (although it may be possible to extract some workable ore from readily exploitable areas.

I'm working on winze / shaft costs of about £3k per m and £1k per m for levels|

So assuming a 50m shaft (x2, upcast and downcast) that's 100 * 3000 = £300,000 for that alone, and that's before any machinery, services, safety equipment. I would prefer to see work progress at a good rate, especially given the delays we have endured and funded over the past almost 2 years. Naturally, I would prefer such cap raise to be done when sentiment and share price is far higher. At least in the 0.5p - 0.6p range. The driver to those trading ranges would be expected to be some solid and timely results from bulk samples at Llechfraith. It would be advantageous to "test as you go", i.e. not wait until all samples are ready before dispatching them for independent analysis.

As long as these samples live up to expectations, then investors can be reasonably confident of the expected returns from extracting the panel(s) of ore between the probable economic base and the current lowest levels at Llechfraith, which should trigger a revolution in sentiment. The secondary target identified and discussed shortly after the decline of the initial dewatering application could and should be explored in parallel.

If you read my past posts I have cautioned against cap raises at low sentiment (and SP) levels when the way forward is clouded by regulatory risk. However when significant portions of the regulatory risk is removed , then it is important that the project is unhindered by being starved of investment.

I would not hold my breath for a verdict this week, nor even this month.

A poster who seemed remarkably accurate in his or her insight into NRW posted a little while ago which suggested May would be "the" month, however it is outside of ALBAs control. What is in ALBA's control, and what we should hold them accountable for is a rapid sequence of preplanned actions following an outcome. In the event of a successful outcome, I will not want to hear "meetings with consultants", but "dewatering commenced within 1 hr of the permit being issued, equipment for initial survey of dewatered shaft being mobilised in anticipation of completion of dewatering".

I would looking further forward (but this summer) expect the initial trial winzes to have been sampled, sent , processed and analyzed and not at the laconic pace of the bulk sample and grades in terms of grammes of gold per Tonne of ore being quoted (and overburden to ore ratio).

We do not need another concentrategate.

We do not need results to be held back to produce a short term spike for the expected November pre end of accounting year placing

Quite a lot of "dry dock" work can be done with the vessel alongside but afloat

If I was still a shareholder, which I am mercifully not, then I would be pushing for an EGM and sacking the board

Re Greenfoc Net Present Value (which includes a deduction for required capex etc)
A broker note was issued not so long ago. I think I'd used similar methods a few months prior and came up with similar estimates. SHould be about 70p a share and has the potential for it

Much of the risk is regulatory and financial in terms of how favourable the finance package / JV will be

There is of course a technological risk too with respect to some other technology coming available that renders graphite obsolete during the life of the mine, but i think the inertia is with batteries at present

with thinly traded stocks then I dont think that the efficient market theory quite holds

ive always seen mineral exploration's companies' "product" to be proven resources, sufficiently explored that others can take it forward to development and exploitation. So my way of looking at it is the appreciation of an unexplored prospect to the sort i just described.

Happy St David's day everyone

It is quite rational to monitor progress towards the maturity of an investment.

I would not expect any production from Clogau for many years, I would expect at least three years. Nevertheless with every step closer to that and with each factor of uncertainty removed then the fundamental value should progress. Neverthelss there has always been a disconnect between the fundamentals and the SP with these stocks. If you believe in efficient market theory (which I dont) then it would suggest a market perception of about an 80% risk of failure for both Alba and Groc. I would point out the fundamental valuation arrived at by the recent GROC research note and its disconnect with the SP. Of course, it does present an opportunity but for both I would rule of thumb the following

somewhere beterrn 0% and 80% risk of failure
2027 "maturity" date
possible x5 to x10 return over that same period.

Its not everyone's cup of tea and no doubt there'll be spikes and decays on that journey. Look at SCZ and JAY for examples.

Unfortunately rather illiquid stocks are prone to a certain amount of manipulation and it doesnt help that some investors have found trading the stock difficult, however, they tend to be investors using low commission platforms (not necessarily low cost as some have found).

news on timescales ? the news on timescales is that the NRW won't be bound by timescales as the submission is too big and hard (and possibly is done in little writing and have few pictures)

... though they would be able to exercise warrants at any time

Ive been out of this share for a good while, but still keeping my eye on it. What if any progress has been made at Dundas ?

Regulatory risk at GROC are considerably less than in Wales because
1. Lars Brunner
2.Greenland governement wants mining income, and are likely to help companies comply with their environmental obligations, unlike in Wales, where there is an apparent indifference, probably because money grows on trees here.

Finance (cap raise) risk is greater for GROC, because the option of a smaller scale less capital intensive initial project is not feasible, unlike in Wales, where as long as the modelling done to date is proven to be correct, then very high grades can be targetted.

I havent looked at the GROC action on the market today, however I suspect that it will be only fractionally connected to the fundamental value put forward in the report, due to the uncertainties involved with the value of a future finance package. Given the assymmetry and relative negotiating advantage an offtake partner would have, then it is easy to see how existing shareholders (inc me) could be bullied out of the full potential value.

@jimjam, i do take your point about control, however in all fairness Steffan hasnt put a foot wrong in my eyes. I'd clarify that I'm invested directly in GROC as well as ALBA as I particularly like the Amistoq resource.

With respect to TBS what's causing concern is that, despite favourable noises from US banks to JAY in respect of their Dundas project, progress since then seems to have stalled. I have always seen Dundas as a forward scout for TBS

@Robbie totally with you there

@Robbie, with respect to Amistoq, GROC I agree with the "huge fund raises". They are clearly necessary to bring the mine into operation, but not necessarily to bring the resource into a saleable asset. I did a calculation (with many many rough assumptions) which led to the conclusion that under these circumstances :-
1. ALBA dont sell any GROC shares
2. ALBA dont participate in future fundraises
3. Finance for bringing mine into production is raised wholly by a mega placing

then ALBA would be left with a 10% holding (that 10% being more valuable than the current 50%)

As at GROC's flotation a relatively small number of high net worth individuals were targetted, and given Henson's BOD position at GROC then it is my assumption that these "elite investors" would be given the first and best bite at it when the time comes (probably in 2 years time). As I can't see how ALBA would be able to get the cash together for participation, then I think my thoughts that the proportionate ownership would shrink is not unreasonable.

Ive submitted questions on numerous occasions prior to a voxmarket update

To be fair to George he has answered the vast majority of those questions. Whereas I appreciate time is limited I have found that the questions that are unanswered tell a stroy of their own, as a subject he either choses to avoid or is unable for other reasons to answer. However, I ususally send in unanswered questions in the next one.

An example is my concern at access to Gwynfynydd workings .. went unanswered on the first attempt, but acknowledged in the the following podcast (and substantiated). Given that the Plan B which Mark has spoken about shortly after the decline of the first application for dewatering now seems intertwinned with the the new permit application, then it has upped the stakes on the successful outcome of the current application, which it has been made clear, the NRW refuse to be bound by service levels published because they allegedly state it is complex and volumous.

On the steelworks note .. Tata bought it for a song in the full knowledge that they had to meet the pension obligations going back as far as and including the steel company of wales where considerably more employees were engaged and are still in receipt of the pensions which they have earnt. Tata have spent years trying to wriggle out of their obligations, shame on them. Shame on those who agree to represent them legally.

Should they close Port Talbot then the works should be immediately confiscated by force from them by either the workforce or the state. Perhaps the welsh government should pass a bill enabling this so there's the threat to Tata of a knife to their juggulars. "The continuity of strategic means of production bill" sounds quite nice.

What's needed at Port Talbot, where there is an abundance of land around the docks, are consumers of the steel made there to bring a secondary manufacturing interest on their doorstep. There is a good argument for nationalisation of strategic primary industries.

process is just complicated .... thats why they employ suitably qualified people
takes time ..... work harder

if i came out with whinging excuses like that I would be down the gangway with a fresh p45 in my hand

I also do think thy have no agenda against ALBA, however I do think they are lacking in "industrious spirit". Their agenda is to work within their paid hours and at a pace well within their comfort zone. When you consider wages in Wales, the generous benefits package that comes with such work, then frankly I think we should expect more.