Busy elsewhere so need to keep this brief. Take a look at paragraph 38 of the JORC Code 2012 Edition. By my reckoning, the Scoping Study will form a part of the Feasibility Study submitted with the MLA.
I'll deal with the Offtake Agreement when time allows but I think that a mountain is being made of a molehill, rather typically. It is going to require some logical deduction however. Is that allowed now or does the TTNN brigade still classify common sense as 'ramping'? :-)
Seems inevitable to me that BA will step down as CEO prior to the AGM. In the ordinary course of events that would result in a reduction in the SP but we might well see the opposite, depending on the CV of his successor. With that change, we should be able to look forward to an improvement in setting and meeting realistic timescales and improved communications with SH's. BA will be retained as the resident Geologist, though, which is where his talents lie. And there's plenty of acreage to keep him busy doing what he does best and what he enjoys doing... exploring.
I agree with Daz on the issue of timing but I completely disagree with his assertion that our getting our permits will have no effect on the SP. As he says, we have a 'boa' (a binding offtake agreement) for a minimum 80% of our product at full market value and that will be key to the funding of the project. When MLL get to the same stage, they too should see a significant increase in their SP. So the two stocks are not directly comparable in that sense. Our getting our Mining Licence with a clear understanding of the project funding should see a significant uplift in the SP and, of course, once the money is in the Bank, then we should see a restoration of value with a dramatic increase in the SP.
Testing times but the project remains as attractive as ever it was.
I'm taking your question to be rhetorical BiB since anyone following the theme will well understand what I have said. In any event, why would you expect me to enter into dialogue with you when it's perfectly apparent to everyone reading your posts and looking at your posting history that you are a single purpose poster? Furthermore, you don't even answer my questions!
It's very revealing that, following the RNS, you reached out to Daz to seek support for a new offensive. Due credit to Daz, he passed on the invitation. Next up though will be your fellow single purpose poster 'ball crusher' Shaddam IV, I'm sure. He and you share a similar agenda and a very similar posting history - exclusively KOD and but for an initial, few, enthusiastic posts (a long time ago now), exclusively negative.
ARahim seems to have answered your questions perfectly well, by my estimation, but I daresay that you'll not let matters rest there, will you? I know that some have, wrongly, entertained the notion that I might be in the pay of KOD but I wonder who's pay you are in. Nothing posted on LSE but KOD and, for the most part, all of it negative.
With respect Timmy, that makes no sense at all. Why would Seafox, a competitor, look towards improving GMS's fortunes? In a tight market, the obvious thing to do is to take out the competition. IMHO, Seafox will pounce and, in so doing (through a Reverse Take Over), will achieve four objectives -
Reduce competition (the 'best in the business' no less);
Give Seafox an easy entry to the FTSE;
Enhance their Fleet; and
Liberate the tactically important real estate belonging to GMS. In this respect, it should not go unnoticed that GMS's next-door-neighbour is none other than Halliburton who have featured (and profited) significantly in previous Gulf conflicts.
Let's see how it plays out.
From the July Placing RNS - "Exploration and expansion drilling to re-commence in October 2019 following the rainy season with a focus on expanding the Boumou and Sogola-Baoule Resources and further definition of priority exploration targets". No further drilling of Ngoulana mentioned there.
The need to increase the size of the resource or upgrade classification will only be of importance if we are looking towards 'external' funding?
Fair comment BiB but they're unlikely to carry out more extensive drilling there to prove up the resource in that pit if, as I believe, the funding is coming from our Chinese friends. Whatever more is there will be extracted for so long as it's economically viable. There's plenty of modern robotic miners which can fully exploit the resource to greater depths than were previously achievable through conventional open pit mining techniques.
No, I don't think that you're missing anything Joeman1 but for the fact that SR (via SC) has a 25% stake in the Co and more than enough 'skin in the game' to want to ensure that the project is brought to fruition. ARahim calculated their average at 0.32pps, I believe, and there will be few, if any, shareholders (PI's) whose average comes anywhere close to being that high now, given the opportunities for averaging down.
It may, at the moment, appear to be nothing other than a matter of faith but it's not blind faith, despite what some may say. The project remains attractive and viable and I remain optimistic that it will be brought to fruition.... I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be. After all of the negative posts and taking all things into consideration my confidence remains undaunted. No excuses for poor comms and missed, self-imposed, deadlines though - managing shareholders' expectations is something that BA needs to work on.
Like many posting here following the RNS, I claim no expertise in matters metallurgical but we now have an explanation of why it is that we're not looking towards the introduction of a flotation circuit at the outset.
Roo, the 'elephant in the room' that you're seeing is illusory at this point. The method of funding will become clear as we progress. Either I will be proven right and it will be from our Chinese friends (via the OTA) or, if I am wrong, we'll be told how we are to fund the project. Let's get the ESIA out of the way and see what we can glean from the Feasibility Study which will accompany the MLA. And if that doesn't give us a clear insight, we've got the AGM upcoming where that issue can (and wil) be addressed. Were the AGM to occur before the MLA is submitted, we'll find out that much sooner. The draw in the Second Test was a disappointment but try to remain optimistic!
It would be a mistake to think that gambling addiction is restricted to online Casino-type operations, Roo. My nephew's addiction has only ever been one relating to sports gambling - horse racing and ball games (soccer, rugby of both kinds and, dare I say it, cricket!). It's in this way that he sees it not as gambling at all but he's delusional. His family and friends have been unable to do anything about it and he squander all of his spare cash on the addiction rather than providing for his future and secure accommodation for himself.
You too, Roo, although it seems that the rain is affecting the weather at the Test Match in much the same way that it's affecting the entertainment hereabouts - https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/weather/hour-by-hour-leeds-forecast-heavy-rain-set-to-hit-ed-sheeran-s-roundhay-park-gig-1-9939060 - still, it's a freebie for me so I suppose that I shouldn't complain. Still sorting out the acoustics atm. Darned cold with the windows open though! :(-
I'm an optimist Daz, neither a ramper nor a deramper, a (negative posting) trader nor a troll. And before anyone asks (again), it is perfectly possible to trade stocks down as well as up. That's why those trading the stock talk it down, as they sell down. It's not rocket science.
Given the amount of time you spend posting here and on HC (not to mention the birdcage), it certainly seems that you believe that you are, or may be, influential. If not, why spend so much time doing it?
The ESIA application will be lodged. As will the MLA. Funding is key. I happen to believe that's in the bag for KOD but we'll find out soon enough.