Member Info for elir71

@greenfish.whens the bulk sample result on Dundas expected. Does anyone have a rough figure of capex on Dundas since 2018?

@Yanis

"people keep forgetting meteroric rise 0.05 to 0.56 p was down to Clogau alone"

no, it was mainly due to emergency stabilisation of the company using Bergen facility and then ending the Bergen facility when the situation had stabilised triggered the 0.05 to 0.56p. The 0.56p was however not sustained by the market.

.... prior to the "meteoric rise" there had been a rather inglorious drift from
23 July 2018 - 0.62p
to
23 March 2020 - 0.525p

I have no idea why you believe the spinout is good for shareholders

Dilution of greenland assets will continue only indirectly.

My probable strategy is to reduce my Alba holding and to subscribe to the IPO, or at least buy in shortly after the IPO


Spinout is bad for shareholders

Greeno

What are the relative merits in your opinion of you owning shares in the newco directly or owning the shares indirectly through ALBA ?

Why do you think that ALBA will be shareholders in newco as opposed to existing shareholder being given a shares in a pro rata issue ?

Even if ALBA dont sell any of their shares in the Greenland newco then I estimate that on the day of first production of Greenland assets that ALBA would own about 8% of the Greenland assets

Given that it is unlikely that ALBA will own any significant Greenlandic assets either directly or indirectly then have you thought of selling some ALBA shares to buy into newco directly ?

@Furion, alas there is nothing in the articles of association, which you kindly got restored onto the new company website which precludes the Bod from disposing of major capital assets.

The real reason for the decline in sentiment has been the refusal to process / disclose the bulk sample assays and 'concentrategate'.

Surprising as it may seem, I am in total agreement with you Mr008

@Rockinggoose
Pre JORC the balance sheet value of an unproven asset is the cost of the exploration licence and the costs of exploration incurred (as it is assumed that it will be fruitfull at that point)

As a result of exploration then there are two outcomes :-
1. Unviable resources - exploration licence surrendered or expires - asset value = zero
2.JORC achieved - asset can be counted on the balance sheet as a %age of its net present value (taking into account future capex required)

Nevertheless, the market will amost certainly take a different view on this to arrive at a market valuation.

@ian @degsie
I had hoped until yesterday that exploration (not development) to JORC level of two Greenland assets would have been funded through an open offer or rights issue , basically anything but the discounted private placings that we have seen over the past year. Further initial development could have been through JV and as Bluejay have already shown it is possible to raise debt finance for that stage. The BOD were possibly aware that a continuation of their authority to issue shares on a non preemptive basis would be voted down by shareholders. In any case, most realistic shareholders would have anticipated a sale of two of he JORCd assets in Greenland to a mining major as early as early next year.

The stated aim of "protecting existing ALBA shareholders against dilution" and "maintaining a residual upside" are false
why ?
as the initial shares in newco will be subject to dilution itself (quite rightly so) then Alba's shareholding in newco will be subject to dilution. So the risk of dilution remains, albeit indirectly. Nevertheless the fair way of spinning off, would have granted x number of shares to existing ALBA shareholder for y number of shares that they hold. That way shareholders would retain their voting rights in the new company (therefore voting rights over the assets spun off). By doing the spin off in the way that they have, then Alba's bod, now control the voting rights relating to Greenland which you enjoy today.

I've publicly asked many times, do you as shareholders see yourselves as owners or do you see yourselves as gamblers ?
If you see yourselves not as owners, then you're really better off doing spreadbetting where you have no influence on the governance of the company, and are simply spectators not investors.

What you have allowed to happen, as shareholders is an asset strip of our best assets. I had underestimated GF's readiness to throw ALBA under a bus. Perhaps we could all learn from this sad episode the importance of retaining shareholder authority to 1. sell substantial assets 2. be first to be offered preferential terms on the issue of new shares.

The last year has been to some extent a stringing along. Exploration of Clogau could have been done at a far greater pace, we had the funds for it since well before Christmas. Multiple drill rigs could have been utilised on mutliple collars, underground exploratory work could have been executed at the same time as surface drilling.

What assets remain of Alba's are Hensons cast offs. Clogau's viability remains unproven. Many owill get excited at the sight of a lump of gold rich quartz, but that is expected to exist in any case. The real challenges will be to do with planning and environmental constraints . You'll be aware that the lane to the mine is very narrow, windy and steep, restrictions on lorry movements (for spoil) will form part of that permission should it be granted (as it is with most quarries etc).

Bread and circuses

@upsanddowns 'this morning I felt shafted, but'
No you were right first thing

@IamGoldBuyer
Ive been saying that a placing for the exploration of Greenland assets up to JORC would be necessary, as would Clogau developement. I seem to remember my realism being slated at the time as neagtivity. Why wouldnt GF raise the necessary cash from shareholders through either an open offer or rights issue ?

ALBA continues to be indirectly exposed to dilution of Greenland assets because the shares in the newco will be diluted.

In a "boundary condition" : where all the capital needed to take the assets to production is raised at the time of the offering then that dilution would be instantaneous at that time.

In my opinion the new company seems a better investment that ALBA. I can see shares in newco being sold at times that ALBA needs cash, as opposed to when it is the right time to sell some shares. Will the proceeds be tipped into the black hole that is Horse Hill ?

ALBA's asset base has been divided into
Good Co and Bad Co ... ALBA being the bad co. Today's actions have been akin to a "poison pill" action

but ALBA are not getting any cash ...
shares in a shell company in exchange for valuable assets

The Greenland assets are being sold
But not for cash .. .but for shares in a new company
That new company will need to raise cash itself to bring the projects to development
So the stated aim of avoiding dilution is total bull***t, because the shares in the new company will be diluted over time and therefore potentially become less valuable

SO we are selling our best assets before their full value is proven , keeping an unproven small asset in Ireland , the gold belt assets and the cesspit of cash that is Horse Hill

GF probably realised that the LTH would not allow him to continue doing placings through ALBA and would demand the restoration of pre emption rights, so he would have to ask ALBA shareholders for funds through either open offer or rights issue which he either believes would be unsuccessful or he is disinclined to do as the shareholders would be more likely to hold him into account.

The sp

why dispose of these assets now as opposed to in a few months after JORC for Amistoq and increaed JORC for TBS ?

would the market valuation of the assets in a separate company be more than the same assets within Alba ? quite possibly
I get the nagging feeling that GF has concluded that the necessary funds for getting Greenland to exploitation stage would be hindered by trying to do so through Alba. Yet, he seems absolutely determined to exclude the current LTH of Alba from any discounted placings.

So if he goes down the disposal of the new shares for cash route, then he will have effectively sold assets with good potential before the true value of those assets are proven. Remaining will be an unproven relatively small asset in Limerick, Horse HIll and North Wales Gold. Why all the emphasis on Horse Hill ? It arguably is of a negative value.

I'd be more inclined to buy into the new greeland asset company

Im not a marine engineer, but conversion to LNG is non trivial. Still, good news for us, the momentum is shifting away from ULSFO

Im quite surprised at the relatively short exploration times, they must have multiple rigs ready to go\
Why have they not used two rigs, one at each collar at Clogau ? as they are independent activities (i.e. the actions of one are not dependent on the results of the other)
How would you look at "mid may" for me it means (10 May to 20 May) ? would others see it as (2 May to 30 May) ... and I am referring to May 2021

It says more about t212 than any particular share

what's the "waste"? do you think its clayey fractions ?

@Rhys
how many employees ?
I'd imagine that on the books PAYE employees are only a handful. It would be normal to engage contractors on an as an when needed basis, since the demands of labour and techniques would vary from stage to stage.

@Yanis
11 Feb 21 RNS 6949O
"The Exploration Licence has now been extended for a further four years, being the maximum extension possible under the terms of the original licence. As such, the Exploration Licence will now remain in full force and effect until 9 February 2025. In keeping with the original licence terms, GMOW is required to submit formal progress reports every two years. As and when GMOW is ready to proceed to commercial production, it will apply to convert the Exploration Licence into a formal, long-term Lease."

However I would imagine that production will in fact start within 24 months, i.e. before May 2023

The most pressing of questions from a project cashflow point of view is proper bulk sampling of payshoots below "John Hughes" near the intersection of the cross cut and the main level and bulk sampling of reported payshoots at Llechfraith.

Strategically the company had in the past plans of getting HH to fund other exploration projects, and possibly they had hoped that for Clogau too nevertheless I believe that exploration of Amsitoq and TBS to JORC and to either disposal or JV will probably require a placing.

I think a lot of new investors see things a little differently from me . I see the role of a junior miner to be primarily exploration as opposed to exploitation. So when people ask .... "oh where do we have the funds to build a terminal facility , processing plant etc", then what they should be asking is ... "would a mining major make an investment for production facilities given the proven grades". Alba's role is not gathering the required capital for exploitation. That is the job of the RIO of this world.

"Keeper" projects would be North Wales. Key to success is identification of richer zones for priority expolitation so the project becomes not only self sustaining, but, moving forward, funds aquisition and exploration of new projects (which are intended for explore -> prove -> sell model).

@Indigo thank you for the explanation re uncrossing trades auctions etc
With such a large spread, do you think market orders are the way to go to try and pick up shares at the best possible price these days ?

@rhys Normally I'd agree with you on the retraction of gold following the abatement of a crisis, but there's also an underlying inflationary swell due to the vast quanitive easing of a decade ago.