Member Info for elir71

Yes the initial drilling used conventional rigs, they used sonic rigs on the second pass. However the results that are expected in March April are I think an addition of the co****r fractions, which could potentially be milled down to a saleable size if they prove to be of the necessary quantity.

It may be an idea to do minimal processing on site as the climate is not favourable, though GF has stated in the past that the processing season would be longer than the extraction or at least export season.\

once the TBS results are out, then wouldn't it be a good idea for SP Angel to be commissioned to do a research note.

as others have pointed out, First Equity used a graphite price x5 lower than what it is today. You can infer into that what you like. The most important figures are for what you think we'd get for it over the life of the mine.

quite so I agree. Its a rough but conservative valuation. I would also point out that First Equity used a method of valuation that does not acknowledge the presence of existing workings. Previously used mines are valued differently.
For an accurate valuation then some more information would be needed such as timescales (which Steffan has illustrated) and capex (including timings of) required. It is entirely possible of course that an offtake agreement or some other funding arrangement may emerge in the meantime , as Steffan is clearly actively pursuing this. I am impressed by the parallel nature of his activities and vigour of his approach.

Bernard and Strache in 1916 estimated a resource of 200,000 to 495,000 tonnes at
an average grade of 20% graphite based upon surface and underground mapping
and trenching work, although this is unlikely to be based upon any drill core results.
A “Review of potential resource critical minerals in Greenland – MiMa report” in 2016

First Equity Research Note
Based on this was a valuation of £2.5M
so assuming 0.495 M tonnes

now 4.7M tonnes inferred and measured

roughly 10x£2.5M = £25M

GROC shares in issue 119 M

Amistoq contribution to fundamental value per GROC share £ 25/119 = £ 0.21 = 21p

ALBA own approx 60 M GROC shares
fundamental present value of Amistoq £0.21 * 60M = £12.6M
the above per ALBA share £12.6 M / 7126 M = £ 0.00177
= 0.177 p

that's amistoqs fundamental contribution
at the time of writing ask 0.14 p

Bernard and Strache in 1916 estimated a resource of 200,000 to 495,000 tonnes at
an average grade of 20% graphite based upon surface and underground mapping
and trenching work, although this is unlikely to be based upon any drill core results.
A “Review of potential resource critical minerals in Greenland – MiMa report” in 2016

First Equity Research Note
Based on this was a valuation of £2.5M
so assuming 0.495 M tonnes

now 4.7M tonnes inferred and measured

roughly 10x£2.5M = £25M

GROC shares in issue 119 M

Amistoq contribution to fundamental value per share £ 25/119 = £ 0.21 = 21p

tell me about it. One of the reasons I got out of civil engineering. Too much talking not enough doing.

@Robbie .... with respect to NRW, if there is a commercially backed opponent to ALBA bringing Clogau into production then they may try to fund a campaign for a judicial review. What we need is the BOD to make a bold assertion that they will make Clogau St Davids the main project, no matter what, even if that means the disposal of their GROC holding in time.

Anyone not interested in that, be big boys take the punch in the face, crystalise your losses and buy into GROC

@nookie, there is no "limerick fund"

NRW have already stated that the minewater quality itself is not an issue

We do have to ask questions of our environmental consultant about not including a HRA

Things may have changed since I was in geotechnics, but the mantra of the day, is that project sponsors reponsibility to assess the environmental impact of their project, and it was the NRW (it was a different named authority those days) that checked through it to check that it complied with the regulations. Why on earth this should take so much time baffles me. "lots of data" .... we're not expecting NRW to type it all in !

@butchers
I have not posted on share no profits. My analysis and thoughts are my own. I'm sorry if the post was too long for your liking, I dont think there is anything superfluous in it. I do correct one statement you made in your own post "sell limerick", there is nothing to sell, it has been surrendered. It is a total loss.

@butchers
Limerick - I think it is a poor decision to surrender the Limerick licence and the reasons given are not in the least bit confidence inspiring. 1. to save the money on exploration - indicates that the company either is so cash strapped that the 50k a year of exploration expenditure is too much of a burden on the group as a whole, a cash strapped situation or 2. they have already concluded that the exploration will not amount to a viable resource. Given the few holes and the results to date then that is the least likely. Let us be clear, surrendering the licence does not mean that there is a residual licence to sell on, it means that there is no asset to sell on, other than perhaps the borehole logs. In either case it is a very poor indicator, especially in the light of the 300k soft loan that was thrown at HH after the successful Nov placing of a couple of years ago.

Horse Hill, the equity stake of HH is known, however what is not as readily available is the amount of loans that ALBA has given to Horse Hill Developments Ltd. As I understand it, then the terms are very loose indeed, no repayment date, unknown interest rate (if any) so in an inflationary environment then the value of that loan (more like gift) melts by about 10% a year. The production rates achieved at HH seem to be clouded in mist and released selectively to the extent that the most reliable indication are pi living locally counting tankers. This is not the level of transparency that I would expect from a publicly listed company.

A disposal of our equity interest in HH and repayment of our soft loans (or sale of those same loans to a buyer) would be a most welcome move, providing a great deal more cash to fund Clogau and perhaps participate in GROC placings in the future.

NRW have stated that they will not be bound by their service level timescales for the resubmission. Who else has worked in such an environment ? How long do you think I would last in my job if a captain asked me for a lengthy passage plan and to have it ready by the next tide and I reply, you'll get it when I'm ready ? The implications for us, is that we are unable to gauge a timescale for this most critical of events.

If ALBA feel unable to fund Limerick then I will be most displeased to learn of any aquisitions, given the very slow progress it would lend credence to a view that the company is using "jam tomorrow" to attract investment sentiment.

Eat what's on your plate ..... demonstrate some capacity to get a project over the line ... any line

@Mullins58

yes, I agree with your assertion that US has no means of production of natural graphite. However synthetic graphite can be produced from petcoke. To what extent natural graphite is

1. cheaper than
2. more available in the demanded quantity
3. can produce an acceptable quality

are the first questions

If all the above are met, then there is the question of inertia in the supply chain, i.e. the resistance to change for the better due to existing contractual commitments , confidence in the existing supply chain, the relative cost saving that can be made.

@mr008

Msy 7bn in issue, doesn't mean they're available

@scc06 shame that mms float isn't public information. The ems is 500,000 so you should be able to get a quote for that. Level 2 is most useful for thinly traded stocks.

I still think 0.9p is a fair valuation based on my analysis 2 years ago.

In the meantime
HH got worse
Amistoq got a lot better
Structure of Clogau got better, regulatory environment has paused progress and introduced more risk, however a successful outcome will have implications beyond llechfraith.

It's a cautious strong buy, but speculative, highly speculative.

Downside protected by groc

The export bank of America was interested in funding through debt, blujays Dundas project

Morocco. It is entirely possible that much that should be released is subject to non disclosure agreements. Personally I view nda as incompatible with the proper conduct of a public company. I would support shareholders resolutions banning the bod from entering into them. 5% shareholders need to propose such an proposed resolution before next agm.

I'm getting well fed up with the bods poor communication and poor performance in meeting any targets. No wonder the ii, pulled out. Much as I respect Jason's technical knowledge and experience, to continue to enjoy my support as ceo then he needs to prove, this quarter that he can get a project, any project, over the line.

the nimby's final legal route of objection should be concluded Q2 of 2023

£3,385,000 is the balance sheet value

i seem to remember valuing it at £2M based on UKOG downgrade. Personally I would accept £2M plus the repayment of our soft loans to them