Member Info for howezap

A buyer anytime soon would be exposing themselves to too much risk still. The company had commissioned a Feasibility Study Report which is just a summary of all the contributing factors put together so far toward the project, along with a technical report for how the plant will be used and a summary of how H&G will be developed. The financial model presented a strong economic case for the Project, enough to justify the decision to advance to the execution phase.

Although long term economic feasibility is not guaranteed yet as it is not supported with ore reserves, that will come to extend mine life when more extensive drilling will begin to push out that bow wave of mine life in front of the mine as the mine matures.

So give it a season or three to de risk the mining operation and they can then use a discounted cash flow model (DCF) to value the mine further before serious buyers, that are willing to pay serious money for the project, would want to come to the negotiating table.

As an exploration junior company as a whole, they are not usually taken out be hostile takeover. ( from the horses mouth) and as a shareholder I would be peeved if H&G were to be sold on the cheap separately before full value could be realised which could be mega.

“Bloody MMs at it again?”

All trades are matched, is really common for buys to show as a sell, they are reported as such depending on which side of the mid price at the time the trade was executed at. Unknown trades are usually at the mid price of bid and ask.

To put some perspective on what the team are up against, most lead geologists go through their careers without making a commercial discovery. Those that do, rarely go onto find another. One model that worked on one project will not likely work for the next as every mineral deposit is unique. Mineral exploration is crucial to have an experienced management team behind it, so although WSBN have appointed Apex Geoscience Consultants to manage the day-to-day on the ground exploration who are more than capable, being over exposed in your portfolio until more material results are delivered is always going to be a foolish move.

You are not a very nice person are you kagefc ?

Regarding those first couple of holes that returned no mineralisation and others assays. In their own they are not good, but ultimately for a reconnaisance round, tho only have two holes not in mineralisation is a good outcome. It was never going to be about hitting high grades first time round, it’s more luck than strategy, but these will follow as interpretation of the geological model increases through raw data.

Big epithermal and porphyry related systems can be difficult to predict, mineralisation often thickens and thins sometimes going in and out of mineralisation on a trend and can see dissemination that too is not predictable. But one thing these systems usually offer are huge bulk tonnages of lower grades that are the backbone of a resource through economy of scale.

The next round of drilling will be interesting as they are testing two anomalous targets identified in the geophys. These would be of priority and could be significant.

Fortunately for me and many of the GGP members that took notice, the forum did have a highly respected resident GGP member geologist, comment on the red setter core sample pictures that the company put out at the beginning, saying he didn’t see anything of interest in those cores. Yet when there analysis was reported back here it was ignored as a de ramp.

Just to be clear, the segment Gemstar has highlighted was taken from the financial report for the reporting period up to Dec ‘24. Where they state they have ‘access’ to capital for the ‘25 season, where they then raised those funds. Whether or not additional working capital will be required for the ‘26 campaign should not really be in question at this time as the company has stated they are funded for it. But you can never say never if strategy or priorities change through the campaign.

It’s not my opinion Manifesto, I have provided evidence from the ‘audited’ financial report

I think you need to read it more carefully and explain where it says they have the available funds in treasury to fulfill their financial commitments for the next year without coming to the market with their begging bowl.

“The Group closely monitors and manages its capital position and liquidity risk regularly throughout the year to ensure that it has sufficient funds to meet forecast cash requirements and satisfy the working capital requirements and planned exploration activities. Taking into account the ability of the Group to raise adequate funding to support its planned exploration program, the Board of Directors is confident that the Group has access to sufficient funds to enable the Group to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due for at least the next twelve months and also to continue full operations in exploration.”

“They hyped it up bigtime.”

I’ve not listened to any previous podcasts, they can be a distraction. CEO’s are renowned for pushing the boundaries in making more forward looking statements than they could ever do in a regulated RNS. They will use careful terminology to cover themselves to promote an asset.

If it were true that all the gold that CEO’s reckon they have or think they have in ground was realised, gold would lose its scarcity value, put it that way.

Investors tend to also hear what they want to hear. Every podcast issues a disclaimer and telling listeners to do their own research for very good reason.

So unless you have a good grasp of the natural resource sector and mineral exploration, it is not a good fit to believe everything you hear in promotional media or to ask AI. Stick to official company presentations, the website and official RNS.

Fao Manifesto…..

You said to another member,

“You must be new here. Check last years RNS's One said we are funded into 2026. so all on here accepted that as fact. Then a few weeks later a massive £4Million”

On page 17 of the ‘audited’ last full year report it clearly states….

The Group closely monitors and manages its capital position and liquidity risk regularly throughout the year to ensure that it has sufficient funds to meet forecast cash requirements and satisfy the working capital requirements and planned exploration activities. Taking into account the ability of the Group to raise adequate funding to support its planned exploration program, the Board of Directors is confident that the Group has access to sufficient funds to enable the Group to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due for at least the next twelve months and also to continue full operations in exploration.

I’m sure people only see what they want to see. There was fair warning and certainly had not misled shareholders.

Facts are more simple now, the current market cap is certainly more a realistic value for a company that has no tangible assets or any form of regular income. There is an argument that this is still overvalued currently on that basis. Junior explorers are 100% ‘not’ for the risk averse and investors really do need to know exactly what they are buying into. It is clear that has not been the case for many sadly.

But with what the team have learned so far toward establishing a large epithermal system , proximal to an existing large scale mine in a safe jurisdiction, in a mining nation close enough to infrastructure and supply chain is pretty good value.

At least this is not half way up a mountain in Chile. Red Setter is in highly prospective territory, proximal to a major mining operation and one of the best currently undeveloped ore bodies in Australia. GGP are actively exploring the region and with any discovery they make , that will also feed positively into WSBN’s positioning with their foothold they now have.

They have a lot to go at, so there will be big opportunities ahead. This is a big system that needs extensive mapping to return best value from drilling. Companies often will bring in a porphyry and epithermal specialist geologist to run the project as these can be such big complicated systems to effectively explore.

Whatever you think of the board, if there is ‘concentrated’ gold down there, they are doing all the right things so far to find it, but they have only scratched the surface so far so this is still very high risk.

Said I couldn’t have wished for a better gift, not only is it now just a gift, it’s a steal, it’s the sale of the f****** century.

Is fine for the meantime, after all why would you want to pay more for shares when you still have this opportunity. Dig deep, you know it’s coming.

So 1&2 were not mineralised, it’s really is no great deal. So although both those assays have returned negative results, they are still invaluable to the modellers by overlaying the EM survey with the drill data to help the modeller with the interpretation.

It’s not a case of and it really isn’t as simple as, drilling directly into the heart of the bright red signature from the results of the drone mounted surveys. The highest mineralisation is usually offset, or on the periphery of those signatures so understanding the geology and how mineralisation presents itself is a crucial step toward more successful targeting as understanding improves.

The only way that can happen is through drilling and what the ‘26 campaign will also achieve, is to begin to understand the global resource potential with major step out drilling along strike.

A couple or three good graded holes do not make a resource, that will come as a first major milestone when enough mineralisation can be confidently joined up with more localised drilling to start to turn deposit into resource. Is a sensible strategy and quite normal.

I think you’re missing the mark there CH , yes a JORC resource classification is a legal document and part of the broader regulatory reporting standard for mineral resources, but they clearly do not have any kind of resource yet. Are you not getting confused with ‘All’ drill data from exploration has to be submitted and validated by third-party mining consultancy to receive a JORC classification.

A company cannot cherry pick results and just submit the best to build a resource. On the other hand the reporting of drill results to the market falls under AIM Market compliance for reporting results. The AIM is a capital market designed to assist fledgling and junior companies so compliance is tailored differently to main markets right or wrong.

A company does not have to report individual results if they are part of a wider exploration program. It means they are perfectly within their rights. If they feel individual results could be misinterpreted and cause share price volatility.

What a company says in a promotional podcast does not come under AIM market compliance rules, ‘only’ what is written in an official news release and company presentations fall under Nomad jurisdiction, so you can see the grey area.

Hi nettlesthecat “Very happy to be told I'm missing something.”

Sorry but cannot compare grades of a mature mine that has produced over 10m ounces to an early stage exploration project that does not even have a mission objective yet, let alone even a loosely inferred non JORC resource.

Must stop this nonsense of comparing grades, it’s all about what can be shown to be economically exploited, there are considerably more factors than just grade that determine viability, such as the mineralised strike length, how shallow to surface that strike starts, how will it respond metallurgicaly to separate the target minerals from the host rock? If open pittable, what the strip ratio tolerances are, toward pit wall angle, economic cut off grade. An UG mine is a totally different animal altogether, which Red Setter will probably need to be.

For a new mine, there will need to be both high grading to kickstart a starter mine to payback development costs but also lower grading in large bulk tonnages to continue to feed the mine for years after. It’s the bulk tonnages that are actually more important to give economy of scale.

This journey here hasn’t even started ! But it is on the right track.

Said manny times the last round of drilling was just reconnaisance in nature and not a time to be chasing grades. Early rounds are necessary to confirm the presence of mineralized zones which establish the framework for exploration and increase ongoing drill targeting accuracy.

These ‘partially’ mineralised results are often misinterpreted wrongly by the market as poor, as they are essential for building the geological model.

The last round was just that, but clearly the ‘26 follow up campaign, will also be a reconnaisance round testing for extensions to what is evidentially a large mineralised system as they ultimately look for a much higher grade shallow concentration that can essentially go on to be commercialised which hasn’t been found yet.

I expected nothing much more from these results and will add some more, but do admit my holding is very small at this stage in the projects evolution and will remain so.

I could say I think WSBN have bitten off more than they can handle, but I believe many shareholders have done just that.

Doing one at this point is not going increase volume traded, until financing is announced and then the mining op is commissioned, this period of low-liquidity behaviour will remain where their automated systems match orders and continually move the spread around to try to create liquidity to make their profits on the spread.

Just normal AIM behaviour, this will soon change with news and more volume.

The spread is not a result of the share price, it is the mechanism of how market makers generate their profits.

Don’t see any merit in a share consolidation in view of the company soon to be generating revenue. Not expecting any further significant dilutive fundraising.

So unless the company look toward listing on a bigger exchange where there are limits on shares in issue for example to complete a share split for compliance purposes, there is no purpose other than to look more attractive again to new investors in competing in the capital market, which obviously should not be necessary now.

Wishbone have recently done one, but will clearly need annual access to AIM’s capital market to fulfill ongoing expenditure. Which can be a bit of a red flag.

Is this something that the company have discussed?