Member Info for elir71

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

I think the siltbusters take care of the sediment

I thought is was more to do with the potential for habitat disturbance of bats through alteration of the water level in the now flooded shaft

not necessarily a takeover, but buying a resource when proven up, or indeed developed to exploitation licence

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/582663a7bebafb7de35e3db9/1565034713536-GUIJDR7OQR3YM8EJHV5N/Gold_bullion_2.jpg?format=2500w

half of one of those

Lets be clear, the 1000g/T is of concentrate
The material sieved from the spoil heap and put into the processing plant is about 1.6g Au / T
There is estimated to be 4000 T of it so I'd expect 6400 g Au from the fines. at today's spot gold price then approximately £300k

For this reason and given the regulatory effort in getting permissions to mine etc, then would it not make sense, given the relatively small volumes to try to set aside some of the larger visible quartz and put it through a crusher as a secondary programme.

@Crippen24

Are you using the bio fuel produced next to the tug berth at Immingham ?

@Maplinman

I found myself in the same boat, sold just after consolidation at a small but reasonable profit and kept monitoring the stick since. What is the source of the information that substantiates statements on here that the IP is unprotected ?

@Robbie

x3 on spot historically

its not the only spoil heap

Welsh public servants are not known for the alacrity with which they approach their work tasks

Some years ago first equity wrote a broker research note which I thought anchored a lot of the speculation on valuation. Since then, Brockham has been disposed of and the Greenland assets have been spun out and progressed. Clogau has seen some good progress on the modelling front but has encountered a setback with respect to dewatering. Nevertheless other free draining targets exist.

Is it time for another research note ? Particularly as the capital structure with respect to Greenland assets has changed so much ? My personal preference is , when arriving at a fundamental valuation is to consider net asset value factoring in timings of income streams and required investments, together with some view on risk. It is appropriate, even if proven reserves are sold on to others to develop.

would it not be more profitable to convert the ashpalt into crude oil or fuel oil using the PQE technique and the QFI MSAR process ?

what does this mean for the
commencement of
duration of
rate of
the production stream ?

I can see why consumers of asphalt would like a 10 year deal when that same asphat could potentially be making suel oil

@PBShares "cant see trade" it may have gone through Aquis. In the drop down list for company selections you'll see something like ALBA.PL .... thats the Alba shares being traded on the Aquis market

true, but that said possibly a good buying opportunity

The goldfield project reward for risk is down mainly to regulatory approval as opposed to presence of gold, which I am very confident of .

Scotalba "but they wont be doing any of that now" ... well they should. Just because one avenue's timescales is in the hands of others is no reason not to drive a trial adit. The first target at 25m and the second a further 30m. It would be a good time to iron out any teething problems with what is after all basic mining.

Spoil heap recovery is a valid process.
The aim of mining is to produce an ore.
Some has already been brought to the surface so it makes sense to process it.

There is no point in ignoring it is there ?

The fractions tested from the spoil heap have grades that you would expect from the ore of a south african gold mine.
so over £600K worth of gold.

What ALBA and GROC have are some mineral assets with huge potential. ALBA's further expoloration has been frustrated by NRW however the stance the company and GF have taken is one of constructive engagement. What else would you rather they do ? Throw their toys out of the pram ?

I however believe that other avenues could and should have been pursued sooner. Namely the underground bulk sampling of target zones already identified. The reason I hold this view is that for a fairly modest investment of cash and time a proven underground resource could be reliably confirmed, which, on its own would not provide full substantiation of the mine's future viability , but it certainly would be a vindication of the drill ahead strategy. That would in itself , confer a greater credibility to other identified targets and provide tangible news with which to attract investors.