Member Info for Ella10

Hi Xeiger,
From what I've observed it looks like anything below 0.15% doesn't make it in but I haven't seen it stated anywhere.

Disappointed that they didn't find gold but can't complain about the intercept or grades. It looks like the grades in the last part of the hole were probably just on the wrong side of the cut-off.

Thanks SL I see what you mean. That aspect doesn't bother me as they were really reporting results from the first block of phase 2. I t will be interesting to see what the plan for the next stage is. I am also excited to see where hole 20 is as mineralisation in hole 18 started very early so it looks like this could add a huge 'lump' to the resource.

Hi SL,
I don't understand the issue with hole 20 and 21. Can you please expand on it a little? My take is that hole 20 was mentioned in the RNS because it related to hole 18 which was being reported.

Hi SL,
I'm missing what the issue is with hole 20 and 21 - can you please expand a little? My take on it is that hole 20 was mentioned in the RNS as it is relevant to hole 18, which was specifically reported.

Zak is hosting CB at an event for investors next Thursday. I suspect if there is no sign of any update on drilling before then he will have a few disgruntled investors asking him so one questions. I suspect he would prefer this not to happen and may release results before then but who knows. Looking at the AGM circular GLR appear to be trying to introduce an incentive scheme similar to the one they are trying to introduce on XTR. The transaction aspect of the scheme is particularly interesting.

Hi Steve,
I agree we need hole 7 covered in more detail and I would love another RNS to appear today but I won't be too upset if it doesn't. Hole 7 went to quite a depth and I'm assuming there was a reason for that.

Hi Steve,
That is not what I stated!!! The copper equivalent values for hole 7 look great but I was expecting any gold to be further down the hole. Perhaps that box includes more intercepts for hole 7 and it just got sized incorrectly for today's RNS. I would love to see some gold.

I don't think there is a need for an update unless the results shown on the diagram are erroneous. It could be that they are in the midst of compiling assay results for hole 7. All the info we received was in an RNS so providing it wasn't misleading then I don't see an issue.

Hole 9is historic hole 9 not one drillers by XTR

NTM,
I hope you are wrong! I am hoping for an RNS much sooner than that...

Ok, I was wrong about when the middle of the week ends. I think I need to find myself a new dictionary!

Hi PGE_Geo,
Thanks for the clarification. The geology lesson is also appreciated, I find it it interesting in spite of zero background in the subject.

Are we about to get a bonanza RNS that also includes news of a spin off listing for ProspectOre. Is Jeremy Read a director of ProspectOre? I couldn't find any confirmation but I assume he is. I'm not sure how enthusiastic i would be about a spinoff. We batted around ideas on how Racecourse might get to a point of sale but I suspect quite a lot of work is still required to get to a point where fair value would be achieved. The other 3 licences might suit a spinoff as there is still over 2 years before we could add a lot of value and not give close to 50% of it away. They would probably need some work to make them more attractive so would need Racecourse as company at the moment. At this point what is the likely value of a spinoff (apart from a few £m in the bank to pay for drilling)?

Anyone else think the middle of the week ends 7:05am on a Thursday morning?

Hi PGTips,
I'm not a geologist but reading around the subject 60% seems the general threshold for massive sulphides. An RNS confirming massive sulphides will often state they are using this threshold. From PGE-Geo's comments and looking at the photo it appears that there are somewhere around 0.15m of massive sulphides but the assays are really what will define the intercept(s) of interest.

Interestingly, If you take the RNS title at face value and assume the massive copper sulphide is chalcopyrite then you can work out the minimum cu% expected for that intercept when the assay results are announced.

Hi Andy ,
Not necessarily incorrect or inconsistent. The cores for hole 8 were prepped and ready for dispatch at the time the RNS on the 12th was approved.
At the time the RNS of or the 19th Aug was approved cores for hole 7 were prepped and dispatched.
The cores for hole 7 may have been completed and ready for dispatch between RNS approval and tweet or perhaps they realised hole 7 had been left off the RNS and that's why they put out the tweet. Not sure what time the tweet occurred.

;-)

Hi Steve,
Do you notice this behaviour on any other shares you own?

LSE really ought to fix their filters. I manage to mentally filter people's comments but for folk who can't manage this it appears that the LSE filter is necessary. Perhaps those folk who need to make use of the LSE filter can ask them to fix it.
'Its clearly (to me at least) a copy and paste job from Meyer in a rush to cobble together a research note - he’s just tacked on previous notes to the end of the latest update. Not v professional but it happens.
Doubt you will care Ella but now filtered - handy tip if you want to deramp (be it for money or some weird kink) at least try and see the other side - otherwise it’s very easy to see through…
Anyway all the best'