Member Info for Fukurokuju79

The options isn't a big deal IMO.

I do have a broader concern about the desire to land grab and take advantage of the liquidity issues in the junior space. Nothing wrong with that in the right situation but I have two primary concerns with this strateg ATM....

1. While I love the thought of some low hanging fruit Ben recently talked about 'having backers with very deep pockets' when discussing adding to the portfolio and that sounds very much like dilution to me. Weve just done a strategic fund raise which was great to get away in the current market. Were cashed up for our current portfolio. We don't need the capex costs of low hanging fruit IMO.... Plus

2. Ben often reiterates how things take time, longer than expected and how small the KAV team are. That their is only so much they can do. I accept all of that. It's very valid. So adding to the portfolio, even 'low hanging fruit' is very counter intuitive.

The priority I think ( and I suspect many think) is let's get more into the current assets. Taking on low hanging fruit may chalk up a smaller win, but it may not. It should only be considered if they can be progressed concurrently to the existing stack with the existing resources and strategic financing.

The other primary issue I have is around a JV at this stage. It think it's just too early to take on a partner and expect generous terms to us. I don't mind a smaller operational style JV to reduce costs and expedite the campaign at the ksz but JVs are only as good as the terms. ARCM has a cracker JV in the pipeline but that's taken years to get and isn't formalised (it will be soon IMO). A meaningful JV at this stage with kavango on the ksz would IMO need to give up way too much.

If we're 'cashed up' for this year I really would prefer a strategy of consolidating a very clear independent plan on our current assets. Leave the land grab, let the small team work on the known unknowns and get to at least trying to find a discovery on the data they've worked so hard to build up.

If that fails then plan b is speak to investors with deep pockets, JV and expand if need then. Let's have those discussions on opportunities, financial backing, JVs etc. Get the ducks aligned as options but not execute on them at this stage is my opinion.

I do have faith in Ben. I know many don't. I'm not him and I don't have his inside awareness. It may all turn out favourable and I may like what comes next even though my instinct is as per the above.

This is just a brain dump of my thinking as an investor. I'd just like Ben to have a breather, step back and really assess whats best for the company and us.

I'm holding my position here though. It's a high risk market and it's important to accept the dips. As much as I don't enjoy them, they are part of the curve.

Atb

Same MH25. Was writing mine as you posted the similar

Well I know the issue of merit in the issuance of options may not be mutually agreed by the various contributors of the board. Personally I'm m not against options generally, depending on the terms.

I must say when I saw the RNS header I did have negative presumptions given the current position we find ourselves in as shareholders. However the terms seem fair and it's not exercisable at current lows which would have been particularly annoying.

If they hit the prices to make the options worth exercising, and hit the 5 day closing prices at some point, then I'll be happy with the direction of travel by that point.

It's very quiet generally and I don't personally believe Ben sits on his hands, possibly too much the other way, so I can only assume it'll pick up soon and we will get a slurry of news of some sort.
Not ideal to see the low prices ATM.

I think he had a fairly justifiable position when saying the share price had been impacted by the broader market conditions. However, while things in the markets are still not buoyant I don't see that reasoning as being as valid as it was.

Clearly it impacted the markets and KAV but their is money out there and stocks are still rising on the right news. It's as much about confidencr in KAV now IMO with the market needing to see outcomes, or at least a feasible strategy and roadmap towards outcomes from Ben now.

By outcomes I don't mean a whopping mineralisation find, although that would be great and isn't impossible. It just feels a little too zig zag, ADHD with ideas and less focused ATM.

So lets get these exciting prospects back on track. I still have faith here.

Atb everyone

When I looked at it earlier I didn't think I saw the 33402-HQ-LML includ anything extra. So I did wonder if 24958-HQ-SEL wasn't within it.

It was obviously part of the broader zaco assets that don't seem to have reduced. Its possible it's an error or an area of relinquishment for the broader areas that seem to be intact under the applications.

I'm looking forward to finding out how close we are to the reality when announced.

Wasn't up for expiry not export

Seis is it still within the boundaries of the 33402-HQ-LML application?

It's the one area I can't reconcile as I'm not sure from memory where it was before it wasnt searchable. It wasn't actually even up for export until sept this year.

Yes defo all getting worked on

No Seis it wasnt there before. It was mentioned in my original post on the cadastre. I thought you said it was now within on if the new licenses.

Have a look at our posts from that thread.

It's a guesswork tweet.
He may get it right by chance. However if it's not Monday I won't worry and if it is Im still sure the tweet was guesswork.

We'll get an RNS of some nature next week.
Hopefully completion. Stating the obvious here but it will all depend on if they've managed to get those things outside of their control completed.

I'm as sure as I can be it's still on. For me it's more important it's done, it's done properly and it's done in time to sink the drills this year. What I'd much rather want to see is a drill plan alongside or very quickly after the completion RNS. They've had time to determine plans and logistics to get going fairly fast.

I see the news on drill campaign, drill turning and the news that can follow after to be the biggest value adds. We may see a rise on signing, we should. I'd like to think we will, but im not expecting meteroic rises on completion of the JV unless coupled with additional info. It's a well known deal albeit of course some will want to see the dry ink before investing and some may not know about it.

So long and short. Wait and see. Happy to see a big rise but not expecting it from signing alone. Love to be wrong. Signing is the start, not the end etc etc

The move to pending transfer on the zaco licenses that were up for renewal is probably the most encouraging. As I'm sure they'll be key to resolve, or have confidence in ahead of entering the formal agreement.

Thanks and yes Seis. I listed that as a potential reason ' It could be on legal advise e.g. to mitigate a risk over the areas that Anglo now have an exploration application over.'

Lots of possible reasons. But all in all I'm comfortable, even encouraged, by what I'm seeing. Looking forward to getting some clarity in the next RNS. Cutting it close to the wire. At this stage both an extension and completion are feasible outcomes by 8th, but I'm confident they'll be doing all they can to expedite matters to get it done on time and ahead of the indaba.

Post 1 of 2 parts….

So had a look at the cadastre. I believe the below summarises all the licence areas, broken down by entity, with summary of status and changes. You may want to skip this info if too much and go to my observations and views summary in the second part just posted. The views are just my own expression/musings based on what I’ve observed, or found most interesting, although I know some are shared by others here. They are simply a view for discussion.

Handa
- 19906-HQ-LEL Handa status active ( Expiry 9/9/2024); this same area has now has a LML (Large Scale Mining Licence) at application stage submitted 23/12 (33404_HQ-LML). Interestingly this is not in the name of Anglo.

Zamsort
- 8248-HQ-SML - Active Expiry 23/05/2025 ; adjacent to handa 19906 but not within the LML application (33404_HQ-LML).
- 23243-HQ-SEL - Active Expiry 26/08/2022 ; adjacent to handa 19906 but not within the LML application (33404_HQ-LML).

Zaco
- 23005-HQ-LEL - This has gone from pending renewal (expiry 26/08/2022) to having an application over it by Anglo Exploration Zambia (32254-HQ-LEL) and within the last two days has moved from pending renewal to pending transfer. This indicates the final stages of the transfer from Zaco to Anglo Exploration as part of the JV.
- 23004-HQ-LEL - This has gone from pending renewal (expiry 26/08/2022) to active. It has an application over it by Anglo Exploration Zambia (32564-HQ-LEL ) and within the last two days has moved to pending transfer. The wole area also has two mining license applications over it northern part (33402-HQ-LML) in the name of Zaco. The southern part (33403-HQ-LML) also in the name of zaco.
- 24958-HQ-SEL – No results on the cadastre. Seis has advised this now sits within the 33402-HQ-LML as covered above.

Afrimin
- 28700_HQ-LEL – Active Expiry date 31/03/2025 ; No open applications I can see.

New
- 32583-HQ-LEL – New open exploration application for an area adjacent to 23004.

……Continued Post 2 of 2

Observations and view:
- I find it interesting that Handa now has a mining application on it, sits adjacent to the new Zaco mining applications, but wasn’t due for renewal. Also all the mining applications appear to be in the name of Handa or Zaco and not the JV entity. This ‘may’ suggest a change in approach under the agreement with Anglo. No idea what, too many permutations.
- The recent change on the Zaco areas from pending renewal to pending transfer suggests the open applications in name off Anglo Exploration Zambia are happening and progressing to final stages, ahead of finalising a JV. Getting close IMO.
- We know there is a relinquishment requirement at renewal of exploration licenses and as both the Zaco licenses were set to expire on 26/08/22 it fits the view/hypothesis that the transfers to the JV name is to potentially avoid this relinquishment of half the area. It doesn’t look like we are relinquishing any area as the application boundary within the JV name covers the whole area, not part.
- Interesting that Zaco 23004 has multiple applications on the same areas. An exploration application within the JV name (32564-HQ-LEL) made on 23/11 for the whole area and two ‘mining’ applications in the Zaco name (33402-HQ-LML & 33403-HQ-LML) over those same areas made on 23/12. I’m not sure why we would have multiple differing applications over the same area. I can think of several possible reasons (not exhaustively):
1. It may be a contingency against a way of concluding the JV quicker but I’ve ruled this out as the mining licences (which I believe would take longer) were submitted one month later.
2. The different application types may indicate an intention by Arc (as the mining licences are in Zaco/Handa name) to use some JV capital to generate some free cash flow from the area, while the exploration by Anglo happens under the separate license.
3. The mining license applications could just be a headstart for further down the line with no intent to currently mine.
4. It could be on legal advise e.g. to mitigate a risk over the areas that Anglo now have an exploration application over.
5. It could indicate a change in the nature of the deal with Anglo, as per my first point.
Cant narrow it down really, but its all very intriguing / interesting.
- I believe the new area adjacent to 23004 (32583-HQ-LEL) is likely to be included within the JV. My view.

All just a view.

F29 guesswork is my view on that tweet. No unknown info etc. Doesn't mean the guesswork is wrong, but unlikely an informed tweet.

Cheers for the share.

Evening Ella,

When you say 'Turtlewax is well informed but I must say I found F79's post today rather interesting. I'm sure F79 would be pleased to see everyone get a return on their long term investment. '

I think I've lost the trail here. What post of mine did you find interesting?

Also I'm struggling to understand why the reference to my pleasure to see long term holders get a return? I don't understand the reason to say that...obviously I'd be happy for all holders over any duration to get a return, myself included, but whats the driver of that statement?

Atb

Not had chance to look at the areas and latest today. If they say pending transfer then yes that's a change from yesterday for both of them (yesterday's status on my original post on this thread) Will try look at it all later.

Agreed Seis. They are clearly not quite right. Seemingly only able to offer attacks and diatribe persistently. I'll filter and share some of my own.

Noresco, I suspect you've had to swallow a bitter pill somewhere along the line and proceeded to throw all your bile on here, rather than act like a mature adult. After emptying your stomach of said bile you've subsequently decided to do the next mature thing you know.....to chuck the toys, rattles and fluffy teddies out of your pram, all the time.
You have a superman complex, possibly marginally narcaccistic and can't see how you demonstrate all the behaviours you apparently detest.

Aside from that it's been a pleasure to benefit from your knowledge. Your invaluable contribution to this board and your maturity has been a shining beacon here.

Atb to you. I'll let you have the last word as your type always need that. I'll filter you now. I hope your gastric upset gets better soon and Santa replaces all your toys.

Take care dear. X

'No, you hoped for a full takeover as did everyone else.'

Thanks for telling me what I hoped for. Very kind of you.

Actually I did at stages desire a takeover, even over a JV. That was because I liked the thought of the finality of it. By finality I mean that we get a clear price and it's a clean edge, theirs no FOMO attached.
However, I also acknowledged that a takeover before discovery wouldn't provide the kind of return a good JV and discovery could.

You see, wanting a JV and wanting a buyout aren't mutually exclusive. You realise this don't you? You can actually want both, yes they are different outcomes and both are good for different reasons.

Just because I'd have preferred a takeover at times doesn't mean I didn't want a JV. But that's semantics. I wanted either, sometimes one more than the other, but the terms were key. I didn't want a JV of the sort many make. Thankfully Nick delivered way more than I'd hoped for.

You've such a chip on your shoulder Noresco. Why carry around such negative emotion constantly. You're doing the exact thing to people you say you dislike yourself.

Aggressive, rude and you don't add any valuable insight.

Atb

But you're now jumping further down the line than necessary. No one is talking about having a developed mine, going through the construction process. Lol.

Personally im not here to that end. At least, its not in my horizon of decision making on an investment. I'm here for the assets and had hoped a deal with a major which has been defined and is much better than I'd hoped for.
As you say. The cash being spend will go a long way to drilling and so that as far out as it's worth thinking about at this stage.

If AA do find us all a tier one or more then yes a you say it will add a LOT of value. At that stage and even potentially before it's highly possible AA would offer to take us out. However for now I'd be happy with the JV, the drill plan and the professionals and the commited spend being sunk into the ground. I'm not gonna be an ARCM lifer until the bitter end but it's barely begun.

Ella,

It really did take a long time to negotiate but that's because Nick negotiated a fantastic deal, would you agree? I'm not sure how anyone can question the terms so I assume you do.

Regarding completion, yes that's. Also taking forever. No one wanted it too, but given the various factors on the timeline I can understand it, have accepted it and happy to move on.

In reference to your comments around the post from Seis, it seems a bit unfair. Seis didn't mention about arc selling a developed mine. You have inferred that from his comments, as you so often do. What the comment from Seis does do (to me at least) is give some relevant info around the potential in the region. It's a very relevant point he is making and you've taken it out of context, IMO.

The deal will take as long as it takes, as will the drilling. Despite what we want, need, like etc. If and hopefully when it executed it'll be worth the wait imo. However as others have said it's just the beginning point, not the end.

Some of the biggest risks to junior explorers and investors in the sector (or any company) is balance sheet health and costs. The conclusion of this deal would give ARCM milestone payments and a free carry on massive exploration capex from AA. At the end of the day these delays will be worth it should it conclude as AA will still likely find something before we would have don't solo and we ( that is shareholders) won't be diluted to oblivion in the process.

Atb