Member Info for Hierarch

CN2 taking longer than expected, likely due to revisiting and testing the Gacheta zone. Arrow are doing a reserves update after CN3 and will want Gacheta captured in that report for the simple reason that it’s massive.

If Gacheta flows and MA recently said “he knows it will” that is 64 feet of net pay. Ubauqe was 58 feet and looking on the presentation that zone alone will have 13 wells and likely many more.

The market is not going to understand the gravity of finding economic oil flows from Gacheta which will probably add the ability to go after another 15+ wells on CN.

Proving up Gacheta and issuing the reserves report after CN3 is basically MA putting a massive for sale sign on arrow with a very nice reserves report to help the buyers see sense in their valuation.

I’m expecting 2 rigs later this year and we can bet that one will be flat out on CN for well over 2 years, in which duration I’d expect someone to come in and take arrow off the market for a hefty premium to the current dismal 21p after they get production up in excess of 5k boepd and secure an extension on Oso Pardo.

God help us if the market continues to ignore the impact of Gacheta and the wider CN complex, we may just be taken out earlier if the market doesn’t see sense. I’m sure a 3k boepd bolt on for Parex at such low valuations is looking tempting even at this stage and MA has been known to take offers once hitting 3k boepd (at great premiums)

The wells produce with an opex of <$15 per barrel. At higher rates on a single pad they can nudge this below $7.50 as per previous presentations, interviews and announcements.

Margins are incredible and payback rates are 2nd to none on these wells - never mind the speed in which they are brought online.

Live footage of FoxyRed practicing his scamming techniques:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9biM_ZfIdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9biM_ZfIdo

“hxxps://**************Kg-OPuILbtM5MTI0”
Note the “xx” in https make sure you change that

Or insert

**************

Where the stars are in the original link if it still blocks the link on here

Thought I’d start a telegram group for #SQZ for a more fluid conversation and easier chat tools than a twitter group with search function/more capacity ect.

Fully promote great balanced discussion and can easily get rid of blatant trolls.

Feel free to join with the invite link below:

https://**************Kg-OPuILbtM5MTI0

Cheers

SwanseaRich - the quick answer is under both a mining and exploration license you are permitted to perform any and all exploration activities, including metallurgical/process testing. Whether it is large scale or a small scale license, although do have some small print caveats which differentiate them (which are not important to dive into, mainly admin) just underpins the size of the license - forget the total area limit for a small scale license but I believe it is max 10km^2 anything above must be applied for as a large scale exploration/mining license. The reason why Kalaba has had a mining license since 2014 is due to a lot of history, mainly from Mumena & Co's era from 2014, which meant it wasn't ever put there by Arc or for that fact needed, after it was discovered that Kalaba ore was not suitable for an economical mining operation after the 2018 drilling programme as the discovered recourse was mainly a cobalt dominated ore body with copper credits and at the time with the cobalt price crashing, no commercial mining could be economically justified especially with a plant that was also from Mumenas era where the plant was actually started to be build and designed before any recourse discovery, which is absolutely mad and an arse over tit way of developing a mining operation.

The only real difference that a mining license as opposed to an exploration license gives aside from all the fiddley stuff is the ability to extract ore for the purposes of commercial mining, crucially it gets rid of an outstanding legacy license and replaces it with a consolidated exploration license all nice and shiny, ready for a JV :)

And Ella10 - how many times do we have to say that a mining license is not needed as no mining is currently taking place?

How many times do we need to say, it was based on a 2014 application from the 90's exploration data making it obsolete with a near term expiry?

How many times do we need to say that the board has told us that the License changes which where underway where going "Extremely" well and for the benefit of a proposed commercial transaction - do you think Anglo wants a tiny small scale mining license over Kalaba based off of data from their old 90's Zambezi JV or do they want one homogenous, clean, consolidated exploration license covering the entire area for exploration and not small scale mining?

How many times do we need to say that such changes between exploration and mining licenses are trivial, easily done and not an issue within Zambia?

How many times does the board need to say, that legal claims are bogus, breach all warranties given for the Zamsort transaction and that they don't have a leg to stand on?

How many times do we need to say is is not significant, it is a non-issue, it is in relation to a proposed transaction and everything is fine in respect to everything that we and the board themselves have explained?

How many times Ella10?

Ella10 - You wont get that RNS, we haven't lost the license, your starting to mislead investors over a self conceived issue you are so fixated on you refuse to listen to the explanation I and others give you over and over again. If any RNS it wont say "Arc loses Kalaba SSML" it will say "License changes" not losses, changes, its still ours. There is a big difference between losing it and changing it.

To clarify for anyone mislead - we have not lost the Kalaba mining license, it is now just absorbed as part of the enlarged Handa exploration License. Why has it changed from a mining license to a exploration license you ask? Because believe it or not there is no mining currently taking place!

It is an extremely straightforward and well trodden process to change it back to a mining license and vice-versa once and if mining at Kalaba resumes, when it can have a renewed expiry date and meet the updated requirements as per our new data and not the 2014 conditions summitted by Mumena/Chisala which where based on the 90's historical data it was originally developed upon.

Absolutely zero point escalating on an non-issue Ella10, please just try to stop being so stubborn to see the light for what it is and what it has explained to be to the legal extent possible by the board - which is a license change which is going "Extremely" well, with a great outfit in Zambia assisting such changes all in response to a potential commercial transaction instigated by Anglo - it is a positive.

There is a reason why you won't be taken seriously by the board, you wont get any answers from them, you wont get spoon fed what they have already told you to their absolute legal extent and the only thing you will accomplish by making such jarringly repetitive "noise" is to mislead other investors, which I'm sure is not your intension, but that is exactly what its doing.

Repeated the break up, as LSE shafted the text format

Ella10 - You wont get that RNS, we haven't lost the license, your starting to mislead investors over a self conceived issue you are so fixated on you refuse to listen to the explanation I and others give you over and over again. If any RNS it wont say "Arc loses Kalaba SSML" it will say "License changes" not losses, changes, its still ours. There is a big difference between losing it and changing it.To clarify for anyone mislead - we have not lost the Kalaba mining license, it is now just absorbed as part of the enlarged Handa exploration License. Why has it changed from a mining license to a exploration license you ask? Because believe it or not there is no mining currently taking place!It is an extremely straightforward and well trodden process to change it back to a mining license and vice-versa once and if mining at Kalaba resumes, when it can have a renewed expiry date and meet the updated requirements as per our new data and not the 2014 conditions summitted by Mumena/Chisala which where based on the 90's historical data it was originally developed upon.Absolutely zero point escalating on an non-issue Ella10, please just try to stop being so stubborn to see the light for what it is and what it has explained to be to the legal extent possible by the board - which is a license change which is going "Extremely" well, with a great outfit in Zambia assisting such changes all in response to a potential commercial transaction instigated by Anglo - it is a positive. There is a reason why you won't be taken seriously by the board, you wont get any answers from them, you wont get spoon fed what they have already told you to their absolute legal extent and the only thing you will accomplish by making such jarringly repetitive "noise" is to mislead other investors, which I'm sure is not your intension, but that is exactly what its doing.

Yes exactly, the mining license has gone, as Ive said for good reason (as no mining is taking place currently) it has just been replaced with the HANDA license area. It does not mean we have lost the area for exploration and for any subsequent development activities where it can be again transitioned to a mining license again as and when required.

To confirm - the mining license has been CHANGED to an exploration license (as part of the enlarged HANDA license).

And exactly Graham I know that mining has occurred at Kalaba historically but right now it does not, only metallurgical testing, otherwise we would have seen some cash flow, and hence why the licenses have been updated appropriately with the transition from a mining license to an exploration license

The Kalaba Mining license has been replaced by the Handa exploration license, it hasn't gone and we haven't lost it - its just changed from a mining license (where no mining was currently taking place) to an exploration License

Ella10 The Kalaba License is still active it has just been absorbed by the existing active license of Handa, which corresponds to what we where told on the CC that such license admin changes where going "Extremely" well and for the benefit of a potential commercial transaction, also he did mention that such changes where commercially sensitive and hence not disclosable - therefore the area of the old Kalaba SSEL is not relinquished, lost, missing, invaded by angry Zambian Chiefs, abducted by a mystical UFO, secretly acquired for the next Disney Land or Taken - also speaking of Taken your last sentence reminds me of that very particular scene :)

https://giphy.com/gifs/angry-taken-liam-neeson-R3FUSQ5H5jzVe

PS - I don't think you will get very far making noise after this all being explained to the extent the board legally can disclose.

Fulmar - I reckon in any deal Anglo will want the 4 main Cu:Sc anomalies being Cheyeza East, Muswema, Lumbeta and Fwiji and a structure to that deal to ultimately gain control over them. So I envisage a JV as the licenses are way too premature to sell outright, with x% for £x with that interest edging up to >51% through certain milestones.

Interestingly the license which was Zamsort, which has now changed its name to Handa on the mining cadaster holds Cheyeza East, Muswema, Lumbeta and in the last CC there was reference to admin changes in the licenses being related to a commercial transaction with Anglo. So I see a strong possibility of the deal relating to this license and hence those anomalies. Mind you Fwiji is contained in a sperate SML to the rest of Zaco's license areas therefore it is in a ready state to also like Handa be JV'ed.

Kullybahia - Ive seen you post a few times now that Fwiji alone has the missing 25Mt of copper as per David Woods copper:scandium ratio mapping theory.

Just to be clear and so it is not misleading to anyone else, David Wood has charted the Cu:Sc anomalies over the entirety of ARCMs licenses - the results of which show that the anomalies with peak Cu:Sc ratio levels are found and concentrated at Cheyeza East, Muswema, Lumbeta and Fwiji. Note that Fwiji is actually one of the smaller Cu:Sc anomalies and the largest is one continuous structure that follows from Muswema through to Lumbeta hence reference to the "Muswema-Lumbeta Structure" as per the last CC.

With this in mind the missing 25Mt will therefore likely be spread amongst these 4 Cu:Sc anomalies in concentrations in respect to their size. In that sense Anglo will be most interested in the Muswema-Lumbeta Structure as it is the largest Cu:Sc anomaly and hence most likely to contain the largest proportion of the missing 25Mt. It also means that Anglo will in fact be desperate for all 4 of these areas, and certainly not just Fwiji alone.

I strongly believe that Anglo will be trying hard to secure all 4 prospects to test their own discovery managers theory which proved highly successful when David Wood applied it to FQM's license next door.

Much appreciated RT! Look forward to it, still read some of your excellent posts from last year. Great to get that level of technical knowledge on it all.

Great to hear from you again Rocktapper, thought we'd lost you!

I know you don't have twitter but I'll post some interesting threads below that I thought you may find interesting on both the plant and the latest drills/AA DD:

https://twitter.com/DavidCa041980/status/1336756803556823040
https://twitter.com/DavidCa041980/status/1338867257351360512

Would too be interested on hearing your thoughts!

Also not sure if you saw my last post, but essentially revolving round a thread on this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfOQ2Qc_h1Y&t=2777s

Essentially the AA Zambian discovery manager Dave Wood who I'm sure is in charge of this transaction with arc, goes into some detail about locating structural traps for copper which relate to copper bearing fluid flow in the NW Zambian copperbelt, some of the slides he is talking are on ARCM/s license so a great insight. (funny that latest ARCM drill RNS references all that to do with structural traps and copper bearing fluid btw).

Apparently there is in the order of 20+ million tonnes of missing copper related to the Sentinal deposit (5m tonnes) and copper depletion over the NW area drained due to the fluid flow - some of which could be accumulated in ARCs tenements, hence the multiple tier 1 statements we hear far too often and constant reference to structural traps in RNS.

https://twitter.com/BradleyEaston5/status/1333440324245610497

I don't know if our resident expert rocktapper is still kicking about, he made some exceptional posts in the past. But if your reading this RT would appreciate your views on this tweet, thoughts on the video by DW, and how you see the whole project going.

Cheers!

Andrew isn’t a speculator he won’t deploy capital on I3E. By its nature it’s a junior explorer and AA has stated multiple times he is not in the business of undiscovered hydrocarbons. If any transaction occurs between I3E and RRE it will be exclusively for Serenity which is a discovered hydrocarbon field near (not yet proved to be connected but could be) to RRE’s 50% owned Tain field. I can tell you right now that if I3E do sell they will not be on the strong side of any negotiation given their current state. AA is also a bargain hunter so he will only buy if it offers extreme value to RRE as demonstrated by all of his previous transactions - whatever he buys is skewed to RRE’s benefit that’s how he turned a 50p IPO to current SP with only 4-5 transactions.