Member Info for Ella10

The_Frog - valid point - Thanks.

Dcat80,
Interesting with regards to ARCM and Anglo as that also appears to be in relation to an ex Anglo asset.

Andrew,

Have a look at the suceess payments GLR have attached to the sale of the KCB licences. It ocurred to me today that if Racecourse gets proved to 2m tonnes cu then the whole licence could be sold for the value of Racecourse plus a success payment based on drilling the other prospects. It's all pie in the sky at the moment but it is interesting to speculate on the outcomes..

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GLR/sale-of-9-licences-for-us-3m-subscription/14839891

The other option is to hopefully drill Racecourse to prove 2 million tonnes of contained copper and negotiate JV or sale with a success payment clause for the other prospects. CB negotiated a success payment in the sale of the GLR KCB licences to Sandfire. The big question is are AA In need of additional resource at the moment.

IF Racecourse is as good as it currently looks and the licence has additional prospects that also look very promising then it doesn't appear to be obtaining best value for shareholders to sell the licence with only one prospect drilled. Even IF Racecourse is greater than 2 million tonnes of copper equivalent then other prospects in the vicinity if proven, seem bound to add value, not only to the licence but to Racecourse itself. This would suggest that even if splitting the licence was possible it probably would be more valuable kept in tact.
Is there anything that dictates a need for rapid progress? Obviously we would all like our jam today and I think Colin would also like to have plenty of time to bask in the glory of a major discovery but I'm not sure there are any significant drivers for a rapid rate of progress.

The options and shares puchased last week will have occurred with the knowledge of the layout and mineralisation of the first 3 drill holes. If that information was different to drill plans published via RNS then an updated RNS would have been issued. However, I cannot convince myself that hole 3 was drilled as per the long section and plan view diagrams issued.

C7
Trust you to come up with an excellent suggestion and a star email too!

Trying to keep my feet on the ground I suppose the other thing to be considered is the cost to get to a point of sale (which i can't see being a significant portion of the value of a sale) and the number of share options available to be exercised (which I don't know).

I agree but I think Anglo will need to declare their hand or we need to get to JORC (in order to force them to declare their position) before anyone else can be a serious contender.

Hi Andrew,
I've posted this before. Although we have 3 dimensions are I'm not sure what we should use for an average width as it appears to be wider at the bottom than the top. My understanding is that the length of the ore body doesn't correlate directly with the mineralisation in any of the holes but I'm no longer confident where the 3rd drill was. On a positive note the strike length has been said to be 1000m and the depth you have used doesn't seem to account for the bit of mineralisation offset at the top of the ore body. The differences in my view of the dimensions and yours probably cancel each other out. I think we are definitely over 1 million tonnes and well on our way to 2 million tonnes of contained copper. I'm not sure how realistic $9000 POC is for a long term project. A really significant increase in SP does seem inevitable. :-)

Hi DC,
Not sure if it's a case of "Great minds" or "Fools" ... but I tried the same with UK Companies House, Zambian companies and also for Swiss and SA companies in case it was Zopco related but didn't find anything. It's an application for an Exploration Licence so there aren't the same
country restrictions on it as a mining licence. It could be registered anywhere and it may only have been registered very recently so may not show up on the appropriate searches.

I agree, updated versions of the two drilling diagrams previously issued would be great.

I suspect it will be the company rather than the crew themselves being paid in XTR shares. In addition I suspect our consultant geo was a recipient of some of this weeks share options.

Message sent as below

"I am a shareholder in GLR and am writing in the hope that you can reassure me with regards to the status of Star Zinc. Investors had had the expectation that Star Zinc would be generating revenue by Q4 2020 but this has now been revised to Q1 2021.

The 14th April 2020 RNS detailed the expectation that GLR would assume the rights to EML and it's Zambian subsidiaries. I understand this hasn't occurred and EML and it's Zambian subsidiaries is now held under JLP. A marketing agreement with Zopco was announced on the 25th Nov. The half year report of  the 29th Jan contains the following statement "Galileo has decided to cease seeking Ministry approval and therefore will no longer be assuming the rights from BMR."
There was no further clarification as to the intention as regards to Star Zinc progression.

The Zambian mining cadastre shows that Joackim Chelelwa has been approved for an Artisan mining right that appears to be for the area that GLRs zinc resource resides.
In addition, Siege Mining have an application in for a Small scale Exploration Licence that appears to cover part of the Enviro Processing LEL and the area of the JORC zinc resource. It is concerning that the applicants for the above licences are not obviously related to GLR.

Could you please provide some reassurance that Star Zinc is still on track for producing revenue this quarter and that it is still GLRs intention to progress Ka****u."

Caterham,
Thanks for your excellent suggestion. I shall attempt to put together something to send to them. No guarantees of when.
Please can other folk do the same. I shall let folk know when I send something. I still think things must be ok but it's all a bit odd.

Westlad,
I agree with the sentiment although only being here from August the '3rd cheque's in the post promise' doesn't apply.
I'm hopeful Siege Mining is GLRs Mechanism of working with the Zambian authorities to get the the mining rights. However, I don't understand why we wouldn't use our existing subsidiary.

:-(

I think come mid April, assuming we've got the assay results for hole 1 and maybe some for hole 2, then we should be over 20p.
I'm expecting/hoping the drills will have gone close to some of the nice areas of gold, also, I think looking at the historic copper results hole 1 may have slightly better results than the those reported from the XRF.
"Particular interest will focus on zones of secondary gold enhancement - where up to 6m @ 2.5g/t Au and 1m @ 11.1g/t Au was encountered by previous drilling within the wide copper-gold mineralised intervals"

Padmaster,
That sounds feasible, except for the fact they cover the tiny bit of the area within the LEL that holds the resource that we completed a JORC on. If these licences have nothing to do with GLR then it would appear we no longer have any zinc. I don't understand why we wouldn't use an existing Zambian subsidiary if we needed to convert our LEL to an SEL. We could really do with figuring out who owns Siege Mining.

The new exploration application includes the area covered by the AMR and the Star Zinc resource. I can't find any details on Siege Mining Ltd. It doesn't appear to make any sense as far as GLR is concerned.