Member Info for Ella10

Warrants?

And the ARCM annual report states something slightly different again. My money on MTC ASX announcememt being correct.

'In addition if before November 2024, the Šturec JORC Indicated and Measured Resource exceeds 1.5 million ounces gold at a grade greater than 2.5g/t (inclusive of recoverable Ag equivalent), MetalsTech will pay Arc a further A$2 royalty per additional ounce of gold. This royalty is capped at 7 million ounces of gold or Australian dollars 11M. Because of the general uncertainty about the size of the Sturec resource the Company has not recorded the royalty in the accounts. '

Interestingly the MTC And ARCM announcements that I've found contradict the timescales for the resource upgrade to trigger the royalty. There may be an ARCM or MTC announcement that corrects this anomaly but I haven't found it. I wonder which is correct - I suspect the MTC ASX as it specifies 2 to 5 years but difficult to be sure.
MTC
https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02175013-6A955632?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

ARCM
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ARCM/option-to-sell-sturec-26sexdwnodk84i3.html

Reading the MTC ASX it appears that any resource they delineate before 2 years is exempt from the royalty so it seems to make sense for them to get a max amount that is exempt from the royalty delineated this year. It appears that only additional resource after the 2 years is subject to the royalty...

Kopore announced the extension on the Botwana licences to the 23rd June. Even if ARC don't communicate with it's shareholders we should get an update from Kopote in the next day or two. They do try to keep shareholders informed via official ASX.

I believe cattleman has a point
https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02175013-6A955632?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

Also it states after 2 years which seems odd.

I assume the packaging contracts are for PCR test from looking at the contents. There may be packaging that covers lateral flow tests but the 2 June contracts look like they are for PCR tests to me.

Twatcher,
My understanding is that the mologic design is unique - see pictures in previous post. I suspect it this aspect that is causing the issue - and that's why it seems to be classed as a kit failure.

Mologic should publish the instructions and a video of a couple of folk performing the test. They seem to have a unique package for the test but are keeping it secret - is this because they have had other negative feedback. If they don't think there is an issue why not let the public see the devices in operation?

Twatcher, the test can't be that complicated. Assuming there is an issue and trying to figure out what it is is generally a better approach than refusing to acknowledge there could be an issue. It may be something as simple as an incorrect assumption by the tester or an incorrect instuction on the test. It seems to be a bit of a unique package.
I don't think sueing the gov will benefit anyone.

Omega and Mologic need to figure out what's going wrong and fix it, either with new instructions or a modified test.

https://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/mologic%E2%80%99s-covid-19-rapid-antigen-self-test-selected-nih-radx-initiative-funding

on how the mologic test works.
'The test has reportedly fallen short because of “kit failure” or being too difficult to administer.  '
Can we have some demos please?

From 19th Apr RNS

'The issue of warrants is conditional on shareholder approval of the necessary increase in authority to issue the warrants. A General Meeting will be convened as soon as practicable and a further announcement will be made in due course as and when the notice convening the meeting is published.'

I wonder how 'as soon as practicable' compares to 'imminent'

 

I assume this is the mologic test that we want to manufacture. Anyone seen any instructions for it?

Having mulled over yesterday's RNS I find it strange that ODX are in commercial discussions with companies who have a test. Technical discussions on how to manufacture the tests - yes - but why commercial discussions?
ODX have a contract in place so I would expect the DHSC to be the one in commercial discussions with the test owner.

https://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/mologic%E2%80%99s-covid-19-rapid-antigen-self-test-selected-nih-radx-initiative-funding

Rocquet ,
Phase 2 can use frozen samples- it needs to get through phase 2 to get to phase 3.

Rocquet,
I was just commenting that Avacta isn't on the list published today. ODX would be mad to be planning to manufacture a test that has yet to get approval considering the mologic saga. Do you have some links for any Avacta evaluations already preformed?

This is not an Avacta ramp but research to figure out what test ODX might manufacture.

I didn't see Avacta ob the list...

This is referring to the gov contract but it seems for some reason the gov have taken a step back. I assume they would still facilitate the licence but this does read more like omega are trying to figure out a test that will work for them, for the gov and the company with the IP.
A bit of a change as for some reason it now looks like ODX have an input to the test selection but from a very limited list. Is this due to the amount of time the gov have wasted and trying to let ODX choose the one that suits them best? I suspect we don't really want to do Surescreen in order to provide a risk reduction by having 2 tests.