RE: WSBN- massive drill campaign announced FYI23 Apr 2021 09:02
I agree 4 years is a long time. 6 months appears to be in a reasonable ballpark but it appears we were very fortunate with getting the drills in the right location and no significant delays. I assume we will end up with some short holes which will add time. I have only been invested in CB companies for the last 9 months starting with GLR in Aug and adding XTR in early Jan. I have done well in GLR having currently reduced my holding to very little and have also got a significant paper profit with XTR having been lucky and taken some actual profit at 8.5p. But the comms on these companies suck - really admire Andrew4444s balanced view considering the frustrations he must have suffered over the years.
Anyway just off to have another look at the latest model of the Racecourse mineralisation - I've studied it multiple times since it was released in March but still find parts of it elusive.
Hi Andrew, I've probably missed something else here as I keep missing stuff for the historical projecrs but in August the RNS announcing the mining contract for Boa Esperanza stated 'The Boa Esperanza Agreement includes performance targets whereby the Contract Miner will be required to commission a plant with a minimum throughput of 60 tonnes per day within 2 months from the date of signing. The throughput tonnage will be increased to 120 tonnes per day within 3 months of commencing operations. '
I realise this won't get very much income but Explorator were resposible for obtaining the mining licence did that ever happen? Or did we have another RNS to state this had been canned?
RE: Will AA exercise their option if 2MT ?21 Apr 2021 11:44
Although ARCM licences in Zambia have been faffed around with over the last month or so none are in Anglo's name (at the moment). These are other LEL applications that seem to imply Anglo are upping activity in Zambia.
Exploration and development costs in Zambia and Mozambique20 Apr 2021 15:15
I was going through the placing RNS in detail and an trying to understand the following statement 'A small proportion of the funds will also be used to complete the exploration and development phase of the copper and gold mining projects in Zambia and Mozambique, and the balance to provide additional working capital.' Exploration costs I can understand but I'm missing where we have to pay for any development costs. As far as I understand Manica development should not be costing the company anything as the development is being completed in return for a percentage. What am I missing in terms of development in Zambia or Mozambique that the company needs to fund?
XRF results and/or assay results known by directors would be material information that should be in the public domain before any director dealings take place. However, I don't believe the placees spent £5.5m on blind faith!
When XTR started drilling Bushranger I would have expected them to be fully funded to complete the activities as per the investor presentation in April last year. We have drilled more than the original planned 4000m but haven't done the IP survey, drilling to test the other IP targets, regional exploration of the adjoining ELs or re-estimated the Racecourse mineral resource. Therefore we should not have spent the budgeted $2m. We had a £5m (minus expenses) raise in Jan and a £5.5m raise today and 'we' expect Manica income later in the year. The implication I took (possibly incorrectly) is that the £5m from Jan is 'well shook'. I think some clarity on how this money has been/will be spent is required. These are substantial raises but seem reasonable given the size of the resource that we have but I don't get the impression there is a managed budget to get us to 2m tonnes of copper.