Member Info for Genghis15

Where, exactly, maxi, was my post negative?

Well, 8 days since that last post, and now over 40 days since the VAT refund was declared "imminent". At best, this is creative use of the English language.

At worst, seriously misleading, perhaps bordering on criminally so. Will it ever arrive? Was it ever real in the first place? Who knows?

Just 9 trades on SETS today, worth under £5k. It's simply an illiquid stock.

Btw, the title of this thread is JORC. Not MMs, which should be started on a new thread. Just sayin'....

A useful clarification this morning.

Those posting that they "saw off" the "derampers", etc who queried these things would do well to consider that the RNS refers to previous "ambiguity", which was serious enough that the company was willing to stump up A$250,000 to clear it up.

These things matter ; I suspect that had this not been addressed now, such "perceived ambiguity" (SB's words) could have caused some difficulty further down the line when looking at FO, partnering, fundraising, etc, which could have proved far more expensive than A$250k in terms of delay alone.

Next steps will be further drill results, but the real next milestone for me is the PFS on the pilot plant, and financing thereof.

Yes, i didn't mention that the 2022 projections by ARC that i based my inv decision on was based on $1700 gold, now testing $2400.

Of course inflation has hit AISC but that's still only c. $1200, I think..and the POG has to hold up at these higher levels. Even so, this sharte is overlooke, under traded, and undervalued.

In June 21 this listed at c. 20p. At the time it had not started production, had $81.5m in debt and other liabilities.

At 30.9.23 net debt was down to $19m, should be less at 23 YE, and even with some capex at Segilola and explo costs at Douta, must be well cash +ve at 24 YE, if not well before.

Agree with Harchris that with a clear MLE plan and a PFS at Douta, 25p has to come as a minimum.

Add in a competent founder who has delivered this mine to plan. Life extension plans are a little later than some would like, but should be low capex and easily delivered.

Douta has also run a little late, but that's par for the course in the mining sector, and with Segun's record at Segilola I've no doubt it will be progressed soon. With gold testing $2400 this SP should be doing 50% from here easily.

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.

Fuzzy

It speaks of and specifies only Cu and Au. It is silent on other minerals in sects i and ii.

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.

TBC, my points over Cu/Au vs other elements relate to the JV terms, NOT the explo licence.

"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.

Your methodology? Opinion is worthless otherwise.

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.

I have no faith in the long promised "imminent" VAT refund. I fully expect the next mention of it to either say its still contested, is less than expected, or some combo of the 2.