We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
This is from a note from Alternative Resource Capital (ARC) dated Feb 22. i downloaded the whole thig at the time, but you may be able to locate the original with a bit if diligent searching.
"Having historically been viewed as an oil-dominated natural resources jurisdiction,
Nigeria is increasingly getting on the radar of miners given its aforementioned gold
potential, an accommodating legislative structure (including a five-year tax holiday
for new mining ventures) and Thor’s success in delivering Segilola to commercial
production. Thor’s substantial ground-holding and status as the only commercial-
scale producer in the country gives it significant first-mover advantage, in our view,
and provides a solid foundation for further success"
Prospector
"Genghis15, that may apply to conventional mines. What do you think the SP will do when all studies prove a high value TIO2 product can be produced and a JORC compliant resource of billions of tons is defined? Do you think the market cap will still be £37m?"
Good question. I'm not sure if that pumps up te value, or if that comes after pilot plant start. Tho any good news can always spark a re rate, who knows.
It's interesting that while I was putting EEE in the orphan phase on the curve, (or feasibility, as Mikb says) you see it differently. Thereis scope for both points of view, I guess, and of course the graph is only a good rule of thumb, not an exact guide.
Good RNS from EEE, i thought, sets out their plans, gives a lot of detail. It is NOT, of course, an RNS to excite the SP, bcos it highlights the long path to production, requiring capital along the way.
SP wise, investors will be aware of our position on the Lassonde curve, which, barring major interventions, indicates a sticky period ahead. The curve is not immutable, of course, but it IS the usual fate of early miners' SP.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-life-cycle-of-a-mineral-discovery/
I agree with your conclusion that the sands issue, whilst worth clarifying, is unlikely to be applicable. The more important issue, imho, is whether focus on Cu/Au alone in the rest of the RNS is significant, and operates to exclude other elements.
Prospector It certainly makes no sense, as you say. They simply cannot be that dumb.
Nevertheless, the wording in the RNS needs clarifying fairly urgently. The 6 4 22 RNs, as Razz says, refers extensively to Cu/Au KPIs etcs, with no word on other minerals. It mb that bcos they were only seeking Cu/AU at that time, they simply omitted others from the RNS....after all, you would not expect them to publish the whole JV agreement.
But ambiguity needs to be clarified, and soon.
Reading that RNS (it was 6 April 22, not March) i can see why the OP has raised the question, which my earlier post was unfairly dismissive of.
I still say they cannot be that dumb, but it is entirely reasonable to ask them to clarify. That wording on 6 2 22 does leave some ambiguity.
We see things differently, which is OC the whole point of well conducted BBs. I do not see the article I posted as pure conjecture, tho it had elements of that. A good part of it focused on the issues that concern me, and others, around the commerciality of titanite processing. I won't go over that again, I think I've made my concerns clear already.
ML
I have invested considerable time to research this share and am still interested in the story. If things develop favourably, there may well be an investment opportunity here at some point....I just don't think that point is now.
What time or day i post is irrelevant to me, i just post things that seem relevant.
But overall - like many, indeed the vast majority - of bb posters, you exhibit this feeling that negative posters shouldn't be on the forum.
I consider that exactly wrong. BBs quickly become a church of the converted, where the foibles of human psychology mean investors with money at stake really, really, want to believe. I always welcome sensibly put, factually based, negativity, for the sake of balance. If t can be refuted, fine, but debate is healthy. Driving away any poster who is less than fully convinced diminishes the board, but often happens. (Not accusing anyone here, tbc)
So there it is. This is a v interesting share, and story. I'll continue to monitor, and post. I may, or may not, trade from time to time, tho tbh ST trading is not my forte.
Actually, re reading that, perhaps the statement from 2 weeks ago "I have little doubt that the process will be proved, and that at some point EEE will be valued at many times today's" feels a little less robust at the moment.
Your post earlier
"I have to say I’ve been a little disappointed to see your recent posts on EEE. I know you a long time & I know your stance on Empire or I thought I did.
Your tone has changed dramatically this last 2 weeks & the only reason I can attribute to this is the below!
You 2 weeks ago:
“ Let me say that i have no technical expertise here from a mining perspective, and am no stock market guru either. , so DYOR, etc, but i have reluctantly taken my stake off the table for now. Might be a big mistake, but capital preservation remains the priority for me, and if i miss out so be it.”
I’m assuming you’re still not invested & you have preserved your capital so well done but it now seems that you are driving or hinting at negativity rather than being happy with your decision. You might have been right, you might have been wrong but sadly it smacks of someone now having sold out wanting to drive it down (or hope it does) to get back in or ensure it doesn’t rise proving your sale an incorrect decision. I find it unbelievably strange to see you take the time to start a thread on a Sunday in a share you left two weeks ago. You’re far better than this & as I said it’s disappointing to see. "
My positio is very much as stated in the rest of my post 2 weeks back
"It appears that refining product from titanite is a relatively unproven process, not in use at any scale within the industry. Given the innate conservatism both of industry generally, and investors/financiers in particular, it's my fear that all relevant parties will be looking for EEE to provide proof of concept and economics before true value gets recognised here. Given the need to raise several $$ms later this year to finance that, and the tough market we are in for early stage companies, we have a rocky year ahead, SP wise.
I have little doubt that the process will be proved, and that at some point EEE will be valued at many times today's. But But the reaction over the last 2 sessions seems to me to indicate that markets at the moment have little appetite for shares like this until they are much closer to production, aside from ST specculation. "
My posted link to the Charle Archer piece turns out is a week old, and the author seems to be ill regardede by some ; I had never heard of him before. But i am less interested in his history and motivation (relevant tho they are) and more in the substance of what he says, which accords in the main with my own views AT THIS TIME.
As more info emerges, my view might change, as it did when the titanite analysis emerged.
As ever, of course, all imho, dyor etc, ...other views are available, especially here!
Jeli
I'm sure I am not alone in missing commentary occasionally. But perhaps it would be more helpful (and certainly more to the point) to address the article and its claims rather than directing sarcastic comments at a fellow poster.
It mb a week old, but it's new to me, just seen it on X.
Prospector, as a non metallurgist I don't have the knowledge to judge if this is part BS or not. I do know that much of it accords with facts as in the RNS, and that large scale titanite processing is not an established technology, and would seem to be unproven both technically and economically. I do know that a pilot plant is deemed necessary to prove it, and will need financing in the tens of $$m.
Is he a bad actor pushing the downside? Mb. Mb not, I can't tell.
Cevodniya
No, every single investor seems not to know this, judging from the blind certainty expressed by many posters.
"Investing in Empire Metals before it can prove that its titanite can be processed, and sold through an economically viable model, is risky."
Worth reading this....make your own calls, but this ain't gonna make for a pretty SP tomorrow, I fear.
https://investingstrategy.co.uk/mining/empire-metals-an-alternative-perspective/
The only thing more unfathomable than the incompetent/destructive behaviours of the founding family here is the willingness of some on here to look past it and see positives.
The lesson of the last couple of years is that no assurances from the Bod an be trusted (incl, imho, the "imminent" VAT refund) until backed by evidence. None is ever forthcoming. Perhaps the long trailed VAT refund will arrive next week, the co will turn cash +ve, and the SP will rise eventually back over 1. Perhaps.
Otoh, perhaps a thinly denied raise will give enough cash to struggle on for a few more months, perhaps the VAT refund will turn ou to be less than promised, . Perhaps our new NED wasn't privy to everything, and/or failed to do enough DD b4 purchasing.
i can't fathom it ; the +ve side simply doesn't match the history. the -ve side accords perfectly with the pasty, but seems almost too surreal to be true. Whatever the truth is, the uncertainty means no new investor in his right mind is going to take a punt here without a LOT of DD, far more than is publicly available to investors.
Now why would a cash strapped company use scarce resources on appointing a second broker, I wonder?
I find it hard to see a +ve side to that. The NED share purchase looked to be a good sign, but with this following on its heels, I cannot fathom what's going on. And still no news on the "imminent" VAT refund from 7 March.
Is the NED as far out of the loop as we are? Given the history of governance here nothing can surprise me any more.