We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
AGEOS wrote, inter alia", As it has not been so disclosed we can assume that the TiO2 resource discovery is not subject to a similar performance-based payment or an equivalent."
That is my assumption, too, but when reading contractual terms assumptions can be a dangerous thing! In terms of the share based payments, I'm sure neither SB nor Century are losing any sleep over it.
I'm sorry to bang on about this, because I'm confident that nothing is amiss here. BUT..the RNS speaks off, and specifies terms for, CU/Au throughout, ans is silent on other minerals. Imho we should not be left assuming the terms applying to other minerals, and it should be publicly spelt aout as clearly as for Cu/Au.
AGEOS, thanks for your reply. Maybe before I post again on this subject, I should email the co and ask them to clear it up.
If you see "250k Cu or equivalent" as covering other minerals, I knid od see your point, tho I am baffled how anyone could define whais a "cu equivalent" in any other element or mineral.
Let me say again, I think this is just absent from the RNS bcos it wasn't thought relevant at the time. But absent, imho, it is, and I would like to see it spelt out.
I feel obliged to opoint out - again - that I have never questioned the "mineral sand" issue.
I do acknowledge my grave error today of correcting a poster who I have to date avoided engaging directly with. I will try harder not to do so again. So many sensible posters are being driven off the BB by one person.
"A great chat board this is. "
We'll know the herd has arriced when that changes, always happens.
"mining stocks from AIM have been some of the most successful in the past decade being listed" A handful. Most AIM mining stocks have been an investor's nightmare.
I have clearly stated that is NOT my position, It IS the position implied by the RNS of 6 4 22 which refers thru out to Cu/Au, and sets out milestone payments to Century on Au/Cu ONLY.
My position, TBC, is that is almost certainly merely an inaccuracy in the RNS given the focus on Cu/Au at the time. But iit is there, it is silent on Ti rights, and the co should clear up this ambuguity in published information without delay,
AGEOS has set out why the exploration licence regime will not be so specific. I and others have pointed out that a BoD of such experience simply cannot be making the schoolboy mistake of pursuing minerals to which they have no rights.
BUT.. the ambiguity in public domain info remains. Are the terms for Ti the similar to Cu/Au (which are specified in g/metre or %/metre) , or different, and if so, in what way? Do Century get the same milestone payments, or not? Does their free carry end at the same point, or not?
These are valid questions for investors to ask, and I am surprised SB hasn't clearly answered them already.
Might be later today b4 available, , just google InvestorMeet and search for East star.
Agree, Cash runway was my Q, and I'm happy with the reply.
V positive, JORC inside 2 weeks, then hopefully FO news by midsummer. Onwards and upwards, increased my holding today.
I welcome AGEOS' response clearing up the mineral sands "issue", tho to be frank it never was, imv.
The Cu/Au still needs spelling out by the co, imv, tho, bcos THAT'S the wording of the RNS. I have no doubt AGEOS is correct, nor that Ti must be included, bcos, no BoD could be daft enuff to pursue a mineral they had no rights to, and i have confidence in the competence of the BoD.
BUT..the RNS is ambiguous, and should be clarified, imv.
Mine life ext is a given, and addnl capex for underground ops, increased rev costs for u/ground and near mine trucking, will both be easily absorbed by a co that will be cash rich by then.
Douta, and lithium, will require addnl capex, but that can be debt funded, or even spun off into separate entities.
Despite the persistently low SP I've got no worries here that THX is primed for greater things.
Mcap still sub £6m, lots of potential here. Just a sniff of asuccessful FO should really move the dial, if you believe (and why shouldn't you?) that "the value of Verkhuba alone significantly exceeds the current market capitalisation of the Company".
SS
ARC's 2022 note projected 114000 oz in 2024. Can't copy here, sadly.
Either way, lots of cash this year....but don't forget capex coming up at douta and for Segilola extensions.
Despite that, with debt gone this year (if Segun so chooses) a very healthy position by 2024 YE
$2m, "imminent" on 7 March.
So a month later, nothing. Odds on, imv. that if it ever does arrive, it will, for only vaguely explained reasons, be less than $2m.
I have zero confidence in any statement the BoD makes, sadly.
Formerlyeasyp wrote "If EEE were owned by a major mining company then Pitfield would probably have 3 or 4 campaigns under way today. "
Nonsense.
All companies have strict capital budgets, usually allocated annually, tho revisions
can be made. All companies have competing demands on their available capital, whether they have cash on hand or not, and projects will be prioritised according to Roc and their place in a larger strategic plan. All companies are subject to timelines imposed by govts, licence terms, etc, etc.
And ALL companies have a limited corporate recource to carry out the planning, permitting,scoping, specification, tendering, etc.
If anything, a larger co might be less advanced with a singular focus on Ti and pilot plant, tho I do agree that a wider drilling and resource identification campaign might be undetaken more speedily if more capital ere available.
It is what it is, EEE is proceeding at a fair clip and nobody would be going any faster, imho.