Member Info for Fukurokuju79

Seis you're a man of much research on the cadastre and the assets/licences.
Don't suppose you can summarise the small scale and large scale areas and what they include could you?
I had it all listed from research but must have deleted my notes grrr

I looked at a couple of our licenses earlier but was half arsed effort. Can't say I noticed any change in our licenses.

Can you give a clue and reduce the prize to a biscuit with a bite out of it?

Im not sure we will necessarily hear on the licences tomorrow. Albeit happy suprise if we did.

I'm not convinced the backlog will be completely cleared before the cadastre reopening...I don't recall hearing the minister of mines say that it would be done by then in the 30 min announcement.
Although I couldn't hear all the words I know he said they be working hard to clear the backlog, but beyond that...?

Obviously the first thing is its opening, then backlog and therefore confirmation on our licences (which I believe will be fine). ARCM mentioned the deal conclusion had been impacted due to cadastre being closed impacting 'confirmation of certain information' relating the mining licences. We assume this is the renewals but may be other elements or both.

I'm not sure why there is an expectation it'll be tomorrow. Did I miss something?

Anyway, tomorrows opening of cadastre is great news I just think we need to be realistic it may take a little time. If it doesn't then great but I wont be castrating the company or worrying if we don't hear anything given its day 1 of the cadastre opening.

I'm sure they'll want to prioritise these licences given the in flight transaction.

Atb

Pgtips, how has anyone explained how or why we would lose our licences? Is also a valid question.

If you remain unconvinced that's clearly your prerogative and you can avoid losses if you are correct, or wait for any confirmation before you invest. That's your call..
No one knows for sure but the following is my common sense reasoning, for better or worse, as posted yesterday...
-------
Indeed it should re rate. A 30% retained interest as part of the JV deal, on a free carry, with tens of millions of dollars exploration spend committed and significant cash to ARCM wouldn't (and clearly from NvS comments wasn't) an easy negotiation to get to.
The deal was signed off at a very high level within AA and 'if' (or IMO when) the deal is completed this deal is a show stopper pretty much unheard of tbh.

Clearly, no one can say what will happen next. Or evidence exactly what drives day by day volumes and values traded. We can only hypothesise. Albeit I believe it's a pointless exercise.

However, the desire demonstrated by AA through the deals scale and terms are unprecedented.

Additionally in regards to speculation by many on the risks to ARCs licences following the recent cadastre announcements, I'd also add ...

In the May conference NvS said in response to a question on where the JV capital will be allocated that we have been 'offered' another smaller area in Zambia so it didn't sound like the ministry themselves held any concerns on the existing company licences and were prepared (at that point at least) to even extend it.

The minister of mines and other senior officials were engaged and pleased with the deal, with it being raised as part of the Indaba attended by HH.

The other key player(s) are the local chief(s)..and it was confirmed that ARC had been in 'active dialogue' with the local chief who is 'of course supportive' given it's been such a impoverished area.

Clearly the above points indicate and cover (IMO) the principal players and risks over the deals conclusion and licencing renewals.

Let's not forget the whole point of the activity by the ministry is to stamp out corruption in mining, make it fair and prosperous for Zambia/Zambians.
I don't see how Zambia not renewing the licences to complete this deal would be a) in the spirit of what they are trying to achieve or b) in the best interests of Zambia or Zambians.

Clearly as per the company info it was clear that after signing the JV AA would be the 'controller and operator' of the current assets within the JV (so all except the small kalaba plant) and that a JV Co will need to be formed where ARCM will have representation on the board.

So while no one can assert the future with 100% confidence, logic and common sense suggests the likelihood of the outcomes of coming events.

This type of deal is indeed why I originally invested, and anticipating the conclusion and subsequent drilling and potentially attributed NPV to ARCM is why I remain invested.

Atb

Personally while I'm expecting a re rate of sorts on any confirmation of the deal being concluded (as tbh it's practically not built into share price at IMO), I don't know if on its own, with the current climate, it'll make the SP 2x. I'd be happy to be wrong there but personally I see a more subtle but reasonable initial rise.

But I'm expecting the main rise to start on confirmation of first drill programme by AA, and any subsequent results and programmes.
So the real money IMO is to be made on AA drilling and getting results is my view.

I don't see, I assume, I think blah blah...sound familiar lol

Ngt Ella get some rest you must be tired with all this thinking and assuming all the time. Hate to see how much time you spend thinking about actual things that have meaning to you, and that you actually invest in.

Baffling. But still, as mentioned earlier it's your time to waste.

Oh, while we're talking about time wasting. Apparently liquid hydrogen is a fairly common rocket fuel and if stored at very low temperatures, it doesn't decline. I can't vouch for, it's merely light reading, but it's reassuring that the rocket may still be okay to launch.

Over and out.

None taken. Yes will find out soon enough, backlog permitting. I've my views as per what I've already said.
Atb

The obvious answer being the one you always start with in analysis, which is 'do nothing'. So in effect they proceed as per agreed.

Not saying what is more probable, but given you asked for options, this is a critical one you've missed out.

Also the term used in the call by NvS wasn't small, that was my adjective from outside of quotes from what NvS said. What Nick referred to was 'offered' and 'relatively modest but quite interesting' in relation to an additional licence.
However, I'm not focused on that, as per the content of my other posts....ad nauseum

Kully- not sure what you mean by 'Been offered another small license area! You really can't make it up!! We may get a 100km sq license area for nominal sum? End of.'

Was that a reference to my post? It may not have been but just in the event it is...
I've no idea what the additional area is / was and I'm not overly worried about whatever it is/isn't. My point (alongside my broader post content) was more about the reasoning behind me not being concerned ATM with regards to the renewal of licenses, and the cadastre changes/policies negatively impacting ARCM.

Probably Ella, but I'm no rocket scientist.

As for ARCMs future share price, time will tell.
Im comfortable with knowing my strengths and weaknesses and while the shelf life of rocket fuel is admittedly a weakness, I've done well at investing and trust my judgement.

So I'm very much not unhinged by the posting of others on this BB and generally avoid the trials and tribulations of the tit for tat.

You carry on as you wish, it's you life/time.

Atb

Indeed it should re rate. A 30% retained interest as part of the JV deal, on a free carry, with tens of millions of dollars exploration spend committed and significant cash to ARCM wouldn't (and clearly from NvS comments wasn't) an easy negotiation to get to.
The deal was signed off at a very high level within AA and 'if' (or IMO when) the deal is completed this deal is a show stopper pretty much unheard of tbh.

Clearly, no one can say what will happen next. Or evidence exactly what drives day by day volumes and values traded. We can only hypothesise. Albeit I believe it's a pointless exercise.

However, the desire demonstrated by AA through the deals scale and terms are unprecedented.

Additionally in regards to speculation by many on the risks to ARCs licences following the recent cadastre announcements, I'd also add ...

In the May conference NvS said in response to a question on where the JV capital will be allocated that we have been 'offered' another smaller area in Zambia so it didn't sound like the ministry themselves held any concerns on the existing company licences and were prepared (at that point at least) to even extend it.

The minister of mines and other senior officials were engaged and pleased with the deal, with it being raised as part of the Indaba attended by HH.

The other key player(s) are the local chief(s)..and it was confirmed that ARC had been in 'active dialogue' with the local chief who is 'of course supportive' given it's been such a impoverished area.

Clearly the above points indicate and cover (IMO) the principal players and risks over the deals conclusion and licencing renewals.

Let's not forget the whole point of the activity by the ministry is to stamp out corruption in mining, make it fair and prosperous for Zambia/Zambians.
I don't see how Zambia not renewing the licences to complete this deal would be a) in the spirit of what they are trying to achieve or b) in the best interests of Zambia or Zambians.

Clearly as per the company info it was clear that after signing the JV AA would be the 'controller and operator' of the current assets within the JV (so all except the small kalaba plant) and that a JV Co will need to be formed where ARCM will have representation on the board.

So while no one can assert the future with 100% confidence, logic and common sense suggests the likelihood of the outcomes of coming events.

This type of deal is indeed why I originally invested, and anticipating the conclusion and subsequent drilling and potentially attributed NPV to ARCM is why I remain invested.

Atb

I found it interesting the use of terminology in the Anglo deal announcement RNS, specifically around the description of the monies from AA in relation to the three phases.

If you read the RNS it specifically states 'exploration expenditures' for phase 1 and 2, however for phase 3 it doesnt use this 'exploration expenditure ' terminology. Phase three states 'by funding USD 30,000,000 within 2 years of the Phase II End Date'.

So by the end of phase 2 they'd have had to spend I think about 44 million USD, over a number of years, on 'exploration expenditure '.

My thinking is either this wording difference is nothing, or more likely its intended and NvS and co realised that after such a large exploration programme/spend by AA the 30 million USD it more about 'funding' subsequent stages post a discovery. Or obviously more exploration if needed.

It also explains why phase 3 has a larger price tag of it of $30 million USD. Albeit anything significant could see phase 3 being largely irrelevant to ARCM anyway if AA want to just buy the asset etc.

Atb

- Following the completion of Phase I, Anglo American will have the right to retain an additional ownership interest equal to 9% (for a total ownership interest of 60%) by funding USD 20,000,000 of additional exploration expenditures within 2 years of the Phase I End Date ("Phase II End Date")



- Following the completion of Phase II, Anglo American will have the right to retain an additional ownership interest equal to 10% (for a total ownership interest of 70%) .

Lol Keith, 'I suggest we all settle down a bit'...
I am calm not sure your actions have been haha.

P.S, good call on ditau.

Decent progressive RNS today.

Atb

NOBesco, please don't feel required to engage with me, I don't feel obliged with you tbf. However I'll oblige in this case.
I was indeed engaged in Comms with NvS back then after the announcement and I've never fabricated, nor needed to fabricate anything on these boards.
I'm afraid I'm very much an open book with no agenda, not everyone can say that can they (turns mirror to face NorEscO).

Anyway it's been a pleasure reading your posts and valuable input here. Please do keep it up.

Anyway let's revisit your comment about 'the ones who make no money and call everything wrong.' I'd love to compare portfolio performance with you, lol.

Anyway, night sweetie

I don't really get involved in the dross but with regards to ...

'the ones who make no money and call everything wrong.'

I'll happily put that comment in the draw NorEscO and revisit that view in the coming months/years.

As an aside, it's interesting you choose to spend your time and wisdom, as 'top investor', to discuss only on ARCM who you have no desire to invest in.
Clearly you're a level headed and a highly diverse individual.

Atb

Or doesn't want to be seen and stalked GTTMUFO.....that may be an option? What's your chart say about Know0?

Great to know. (Inserts what's the relevance to RMM emoji here)..

Some good constructive discussion.

C1 isn't the true cost, it's not inclusive. C3 IMO is better indication as includes more costs. However even the c3 cost doesn't include other capex / exploration costs at a company level.

RMM need to reduce the costs down significantly IMO. Have to wait to see the strategy and financial options/terms.

Have to wait and see.