Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
With respect to the resolutions being proposed :-
1. Receive and adopt accounts
I see no issues with this, I will be voting for it
2. Reappointment of Elizabeth Henson
As far as I can see there has been little for her to do since her appointment. Her particular and indisputable skill set is the access she has to high net worth clients. However , with the stalling of progress then there has been little call to raise much new capital at ALBA to date. She was however successful in attracting High net worth private investors upon GROC's flotation at a level of 2.5x the current open market price of those shares. From an ALBA point of view then she achieved considerable value on that spin off. Moving forward and looking ahead to the next three years, is there need for her skills at ALBA during that time and at what cost does that come ? I am expecting a substantial cap raise in the autumn and expect that capraise to be in the form of a placing, possibly with some mechanism for existing shareholders to participate at the discounted level. However, could such a placing be done substituting at least in part new HNW PIs for brokerages ? It could at least bring some post placing SP stability. Furthermore, with only 3 directors then it would not be prudent to reduce that number for a meagre cost saving.
As such I support her re-election to the board
3. Reappointment of Michael Nott
Again, with a small BOD then I would be reticent to reduce numbers. He is familiar with the operation and as such I support his reelection to the board. I would point out however that it is likely given his age that Mr Nott would quite possibly wish to retire at the next rotation. The obvious candidate to replace him would be Mark Austin. It could be argued that now would be better time for that, nevertheless with the crucial make or break 3 years ahead of us, I think it prudent to retain Michael Nott if only as a sounding board for Mark.
4. Reappointment of auditors - nothing contentious here
5. The BOD seeks authority to issue new shares numbering 61.8% of the current shares in issue. Over the past year the BOD have exercised some restraint, using less than 20% of their authority. Nevertheless, little progress has been possible anyway, and regardless of the stated partial aim to be to accelerate progress, in retrospect it achieved little other than to meet overheads and provide a cash buffer. (aka keeping the lights on). As such it was wholly dilutive and as such the SP was so low (in historic terms) then I question if even that amount was a little excessive but not reckless.
Entrusting the BOD with this level of authority to allot shares presents a considerable risk and to approve this resolution would be an act of immense trust in the BOD. Nevertheless, a capital raise is inevitably necessary to bring the N Wales to a successful conclusion and to participate in GROC future fundraises.
It is with some trepidation I support this and
@Noobz the bankers and instutions arent invested in ALBA, too small for them atm.
On the subject of pubs, I'm all ears. I usually grab a pie and a pint in the Sawyers arms near Paddington on the way home anyway
What's the concensus about how much authority to allot shares we should allow the BOD this year ?
I'm thinking around 450 million, based on an SP of about 0.4p yielding about £2M
I'd prefer to authorise a specific number of shares as opposed to an amount to raise as it incentivises the BOD to seek value in placings.
@Prentice - there's Anglesey Mining, Parys project, but also there's Sarn Helen Gold, a private limited company that has aquired some exploration options in south wales, near Dolaucothi. Slightly different geology but gold in veins a
I would expect a chunky placing following a rise in sentiment if and when the permits are granted. So much is dependant on sentiment alone to determine the value of that placing. I would hope for 0.5p or more and a raise of some £2M. Let's hope the PR is up to scratch this time and no wild claims like the Daily Mail article.
@novice / goodluck / ryan
worrying times ? really ?
if you feel worried then I would suggest that junior miners in general and this stock in particular may not fit your investment needs profile. It's something of a gamblers fallacy that past losses (if you indeed own any shares in ALBA) are of any future significance.
The only thing that is important is where you think this business is going from the present onwards. If you think it will fail, and there is a real possibility that it may then you should sell your holding. If you believe that the potential rewards are worth the risk of incurring future losses then you should consider holding or adding. The only rational regret would be to not to have sold sooner to either 1. mitigate your losses or 2. to allow you to buy back in at a lower price.
The current share price is largely immaterial unless you are thinking of buying or selling, or if you believe the company is about to do a placing.
I speculate the following :-
1. News on the Habitiat Assessment will be forthcoming in the near future
2. Following a successful outcome then it is probable that other permits will be considerably easier and quicker to get, particularly as the NRW have in the past commented favourably on the benign nature of the groundwater flooding the lower part of the mine.
3. Following an unsuccessful outcome then is is probable that the North Wales gold project is unviable, so the value in the company would be based soley on its GROC holding and Horse Hill holding. The vast bulk of the potential would be the GROC holding. Should this be the case then there is no justification in having a board of this size, nor indeed offices of anything other than an accommodation address, thus overheads can be slashed. In fact, the company's value would then tend towards the market capitalisation of their GROC holding. It would make little difference if you owned ALBA or GROC in that case. Thus GROC holding provides a safety net towards a total loss.
The GROC safety net at present market prices are GROC market capitalisation £5M
ALBA owning about half so £2.5M
7129 M ALBA shares issued
so 0.035 p approximately is the GROC safety net
I've not assessed Horse Hill as it is a private limited company so rather illiquid to dispose of especially before it can provide a stable income stream and repay its loans to ALBA.
Nobody wants to think that they'd need this safety net, but it is good to know it is there. Its a bit like lifeboats on a ship, best to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.
@scotalba thank you for your most informative posts.
Am I correct in understanding that all applications to the NRW bar the Habitat Assessment are suspended, with the view that the other applications should take considerably shorter a time, once and if the HRA is granted as they refer to and are therefore dependent on the HRA ?
@LodesOrLoads https://www.investegate.co.uk/stellar-resources/rns/change-of-name/201611301346245774Q/ is a good starting point.
@pactrol progress in the last 6 years
making the mine safe to enter
deploying of services within the mine
a programme of hard rock drilling to build an accurate geological structure model
identification of new unmined target zones meeting the control criteria identified by others for gold mineralisation
confirmation of gold mineralisation
the application for permits to progress the works
the identification of tagets is spoil heaps to generate some early revenue
establishment of a pilot processing plant
ongoing studies on how to market this gold effectively.
So at this point we know with as much confidence as we can where to target bulk exploration (we didnt 6 years ago)
The seeking of permissions is well advanced though not yet granted
The main risk in this project is regulatory
I dont think Stellar as was, had any real intention of mining gold there, just spinning a story to attract more investment.
If you believe that Alba have the same intentions, then get out now
If you believe that Alba fully intend to reopen the mine if it is proven to be viable and you believe that the gold can be sold as a sufficient price to make the investment attractive, then either buy or hold
Yes I would have imagined that. With the exception of possibly some commercial gold from the waste tip, then I would expect it to take another 2 to 3 years before any commercial gold is produced.
The main "risk" factor in this investment is regulatory.
I am pleased at the drill ahead approach which the company has undertaken. The alternative is scrabbling about with less certainty . Without the drill ahead approach, then we would have no knowledge of the structures below Llechfraith nor the main lode extension. In this type of deposit, then an accurate model of the structures is critical as they are strong indicators of the controls of deposition of gold, especially the "bonanza" zones.
Personally I would like to see some more drilling in parallel with the anticipated underground activites, however, Mark seems confident that he has sufficient data to provide a sufficiently accurate model for his needs.
I wouldn't count on us having a monopoly on Welsh gold indefinitely.
https://youtu.be/y0kFBOROn3c
Sarn Helen Gold have secured exploration licences in south west Wales. If GF has some interesting aquisitions in mind, then they would certainly be in the top five.
@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.