Member Info for Iaintittle

Are they your dream results AG or do you know something I don’t ???

Tsibis, yes I am.

So what do we reckon folks...... RNS Monday or Tuesday ??
More 30g shallow holes would be lovely.
More 50g shallow holes would be fabulous.
Any 70g holes would be amazing
Anything 100G+ is starting to blow the doors off...... I have to say that I am really excited about the next few sets of results!

Right off for lunch now...... confit duck and cepe fideo and a nice bottle of Ribera deal Duero !

I agree that time lines have shifted; KC is adamant that he wants a secure bankable off take, not a flimsy MOU or LOI. To get that he needs to work closely with the battery maker and the automotive and also SMS, that takes time. Plus all the negotiation with the Politicians in EU and CR and the financiers....... it all takes time.

I do not agree that the DFS will reflect the PFS. I believe that once the mining and environmental permits are granted then the company would move to increase the production that goes in the DFS.

Morning Tsibis. I apologise for failing to explain myself in a way that you can understand. I will have one more try. Unless, of course, you are just trying to have an argument......
‘ So in your own words we choose to run a parallel costly study (these are not for free like buy one study get an additional for free) to upscale the size of the plant or plants with probably additional environmental study requirements depending where these additional plants will be, instead of option one, to upscale the PFS by adding extra shifts.’
I said nothing of the sort.
What we do is progress the DFS in line with PFS. This is the project that is furthest advanced and the one where we can scale up with extra shifts each day. The scaling up is likely to happen after we have green lights on permits, until then, we stick to the PFS.
At the same time KC has said that we will ‘explore the possibility’ of increasing production (by increasing plant size or number) .... this is NOT INSTEAD OF, this is in addition to.
Yes this will have an expense attached to it but this will be marginal in comparison to the economic benefit of an extra 25 ktpa production (double with two shifts) at a profit of $10k pt. I would expect a responsible management group to undertake such a study as it has the capacity to double our valuation.
If plant 1 is targeted to be producing in late 2023/early 2024 I would expect plant 2 (if it is able to get a permit) to be coming online 18 months later.

Make sense?

Now, how to boil a frog;
If you put a frog in a pan of boiling water on a cooker it will jump out.
If you put a frog in a pan of cold water on a cooker, it will sit there until the water is boiling.........

I am really not getting what you don’t see here Tsib.
Let me try and spell it out to you.
Now, are you sitting comfortably?
The idea is that we put in a PFS that was for enough product as to be interesting but not too much to make it over ambitious and un-permitable.
Next stage is to get the key stake holders involved and invested. (Just for clarity, you and I are not key stake holders when it comes to permitting and financing this gig.) That way, the locals, the environmental lobby, industrialists and local political bigwigs feel that they have a say on the project.
Once onside (esp the local population and environmental lobby) we can seek to expand.
So, in conclusion, show the PFS to all, get agreement, then start asking questions about how much more beneficial to the local population and environment a zero carbon double/quadruple scale project might be.

So, just to make it crystal clear, there are two dynamics here.
One, upscale our PFS by sweating the plant (add extra shifts)
Two, upscale the plant size or number of plants; this is the second parallel study that KC talks about.

So, your question: ‘ Again why not go to the bank with a DFS of two shifts, double production and double profits if it is only a matter of adding another shift that you didn't include in your PFS?’. We may well do, but only after we have permits for the initial PFS volume, and perhaps the expansion volume.

‘ Please enlighten me on how many shifts was VUL's PFS calculated on?’ Not a clue, maybe you know? What I do know is that VUL is very well marketed and potentially extremely misleading. The bulk of their extraction is due to take place under highly populous areas and the chances of them getting permits hang in the balance. The environmental lobby in Germany is very powerful.

‘By the way, except EMH next year I have two other companies that must release their DFS. Should I start contacting them and ask them on how many shifts did they calculate their PFS's and on how many shifts the DFS will be calculated on?‘. God only knows. What are the hurdles that the management need to leap in order to get to cash flow? What are their chances of getting permitted?

Do you know how to boil a frog?

There is a lot of bull being spoken on the board this morning.
1/ The ore has a very consistent Lithium content. True, there are sections of the ore body that have increased tin and tungsten content and we aim to mine those first as they produce the best credits.
2/ Dumbpunter; ‘exhaust the high grade ore too quickly and break the economic plan.’ Pile of bull. The PFS of 25 ktpa over 20 years uses less than 10% of our known resource of 7m tons. It is thought that there is over 12m tons of lithium on our side of the border; whilst nice to know (think or suspect) it is not deemed important enough to define AT THIS STAGE
3/ With regard to a new metallic separation methodology, I can’t comment but pray that this does not effect the SMS quality guarantees.
4/ ‘if that was the case, that the PFS was calculated on one shift, there are serious legal implications for misleading the market and the shareholders.’ More bull.... we do a PFS based on mining and processing the ore to produce 21ktpa carbonate or 25 ktpa hydroxide and we announce this to the market.
Nowhere does it state how many hours a day the plant will be running in order to achieve this. If we subsequently change the efficiency of the plant to increase production, great, announce it when it is done. It is my understanding that getting the permissions to mine from the local authorities was considered more important than demonstrating how much we may make....... slowly slowly catchy monkey. I did, however, bother to ask the question of the right people (person) and the answer was, one eight hour shift. Recent talks of doubling the plant capacity are on the same basis; not increasing shifts but plant size and/or number.... and, yes, this study will run separately from the DFS/BFS.
If we had have announced 2 x 8 hour shifts in an RNS and this was knocked back (or the whole project knocked back) then we would be as guilty as some of our competitors like VUL, PLL, Savanna and Infinity who have all announced details of their projects only to have to apologise to SH’s.

And finally Tsibis, don’t tell me you know who the source is. You may think that you know.
I have been in EMH since 2015. I have bothered to attend AGM’s in London, I have shared the post meeting buffets with Edwards, Morzaria and Pavlik and be able to question them extensively, who knows, I might still be in contact with them ?
I have travelled to symposiums where KC has been speaking. I have sought him out.......
How many times have you had half a dozen beers with the boss man? How many times have you had dinner with him? How many times have you reminisced with him about playing cricket in Yorkshire??????
(Yes many ????)

I am not part of your spat with Fingers but he makes a good point. We are not here for what we know but what we think we know or hope will happen.....
Good luck all!!!!

Several points Tsibis:
1/ The ‘soil’ is not ‘scattered over a large area’ it is a homogeneous lump of ore, pretty uniform in its content.
2/ After 600 years of mining there are various chambers within the mine structure which could be used to house the machinery that reduces the ore to a slurry concentrate through wet magnetic separation.
3/ Whatever you say, the PFS was based on one eight hour shift per day, I have it from the same source as Fingers.
4/ I believe that the DFS will also be the BFS.
5/ I agree that the DFS/BFS will not incorporate ‘double production’ from a machinery expansion perspective, it should, however, be with increased production from a shift point of view. The initial PFS was designed not to upset any regulatory body within the CR whilst a head of steam was raised for the whole future of Lithium within the EU...... job now done. Watch this space.

Spod concentrate has a grade of 5 or 6 % but it has to be processed to get there. To my knowledge most natural Spodumene contains 1-1.5% Lithium.

I am certain that BM knows exactly what he is doing. Each RNS reveals around 2,500 meters of drilling. He has 20,000 meters left of the drill program to reveal plus the extra 3/4,000 metres mentioned recently..... so 8-10 RNS’s worth. August is quiet, BM knows that, but he also knows that putting out an RNS alongside a dozen other AIM companies will have our message lost amongst the other noise, perhaps an RNS now captures column inches. I am confident that there is one in the pipeline for next week which may be the last until after the bank holiday....... but from them on I see them coming thick (perhaps 5,000 m a time) and fast (probably weekly) leading to an updated resource end Sept, early Oct.

Totally agree Sid...... and the added value created by a supply chain that has access to Lithium chemicals produced locally in terms of jobs and national prosperity will make the politicians popular..... as the biggest supplier to Germany’s automotive industry the failure to create the supply chain could lead to the decimation of this area of the national economy; they can’t afford to get it wrong.

According to the ‘reserve matters’ within the buy in contract and shareholders agreement any disposal of an asset valued at more than €5m has to have the unanimous support of the board which includes 2 (out of 5) EMH representatives.

Watch the mms drop this to get their hands on some shares for the yanks......

I heard from someone close to Cadence that they recently rejected an unsolicited offer for all of their EMH shares.... don’t know if there is any truth in that and, if so, at what price, but they still own around 10% don’t they...... that is real demand!!

Food for thought indeed LW.
A couple of further observations if I may; All on the understanding that Cora's strategy is set by BM in consultation with his biggest 3 SH's.
BM's first objective was to get to cash flow. To do that he has to satisfy the conditions of the term sheet which requires a minimum of 6 years production at 40 koz pa with an IRR of 60% at $1400 gold.
As the scoping study at Sanankoro was for 45 koz with an IRR of 84% at $1400 gold ($21m cost yielding $19m free cash) (RNS 18/06/2020 from scoping study january 2020) it is clear that we will be able to meet the conditions in the next 2 months.
So I guess we are looking at 2 or 3 lines on a graph to find the sweet spot. Maximum 1st phase production as soon as possible within funding parameters. Minimum expenditure on resource upgrade until cash positive to prevent dilution. Ability to expand any plant.
I am certain that Cora will ditch the heap leach and use conventional crush with CIL tanks. This will increase capex but also recovery.
How amenable will the term sheet provider be to doubling (or more) initial production? The IRR of 84% could go out of the window with gold at $1800 and the AISC of $942 could radically reduce if mining grades improve from 1.5 g/t.
What happens if we are able to show a new resource of say 1m oz, can we get funding for 6 yrs @ 150 koz?
Or if we get 1.5m oz 7 years @ 200 koz?
Or do we keep capex low and target high grades in the initial years to fund expansion?

We have 20,000+ meters of drilling results due over the next 8 weeks ...... significant tailwinds

LW; agreed we should not get too carried away BUT
firstly lets remind ourselves of the resource RNS;
'Highlights
· Pit constrained Maiden Inferred Mineral Resource of 5.0 million tonnes (Mt) at 1.6 g/t Au for 265,000 ounces of gold
· Reconfirmation of the SRK derived Exploration Target of between 30 Mt and 50 Mt at a grade of between 1.0 and 1.3 g/t Au, for approximately 1-2 million ounces of gold, originally derived by SRK in 2018
· MRE based on under 25% of the total 40 linear km strike length of the potential mineralised zones identified to date
· The majority (88%) of the Inferred Mineral Resource is derived from oxide material.
· Mineralisation encountered up to 170 m depth with the current pits extending to a maximum depth of 130 m, therefore offering significant upside potential'

POSSIBLE INCREASES FROM CURRENT PIT DEFINITION (EXCEPT DEPTH).
1/ I know that BM was said to be livid at the SRK resource of 265k as the rules for defining it were very different to those allowed by HUM. He argued that if he was able to use the same definition of 'pit' and the same pit wall angles he would have announced well over 600k. Lets hope the pits gets re-defined.
2/ Look at those average grades, 1.0-1.3 g/t ..... we have got to get substantially higher than that in the next resource upgrade.
3/ Pit depths will increase. The grades found underneath existing defined pits is superior yet still mostly easy digging oxides.
4/ There is no resource currently for zone C which is showing exceptional grades.

lets look at the drill results that led to the maiden resource; RNS 4/11/19
'Results from this programme demonstrate that identified mineralisation correlates with the results from earlier programmes. In addition, the host mafic unit continues to be identified and a new oxide gold zone was discovered. The depth of oxidation was confirmed as extending to 80-90 metres at the southern end of the gold zone, shallowing to 50-60 metres towards the north. Results include 9m @ 3.07g/t Au, 8m @ 3.12g/t Au, 25m @ 2.81 g/t Au, 19m @ 1.61 g/t Au, 25m @ 2.81 g/t Au and 9m @ 2.37 g/t Au. Continuity of oxide gold mineralisation is traced for approximately 2,250 metres at surface.'
just doing the maths Gram x meters per hole...... 27,24,70, 31, 70,21
compared with recent holes........ 762, 250,76, 104,59, (4/8/21)
and 153,142,80,39,34 (23/7/21)
and 94,57,83,83,64,52,52,52 (14/7/21)
and 599,121,41,38,120,85,56,50 (7/7/21)

food for thought

My understanding is that, regardless of fulfilment of the ‘other matters’ and the conditions of the term sheet BM retains the right to go elsewhere to fund this if he so wishes ...... from which we can conclude that he may ask Lionhead to sharpen their pencil.
Either way I can’t see Lord Falmer being impressed should a favourable deal be awarded to Lionhead.
What I would say is that there are many West African gold plays who would give their eye teeth for the level of support we receive from our two biggest SH’s not least in having a viable term sheet in hand.

I have had this conversation with BM (probably 4 months ago) and whilst I definitely do not speak for him I expect that he would say specifically with reference to the term sheet:
1/ The economics of the project when the decision to build is taken will determine the funding partner/method.
2/ The method/partner selected will be in he best interests of the company and ALL shareholders.
3/ Lionhead Capital (Quirk family) are well aware of a potential conflict of interest.
4/ BM has maintained a relationship with Coris. Bank (since HUM days) and suggested that they would be interested in pitching for Cora’s business.

If the current drill program continues to deliver I suspect the term sheet goes out of the window.
The Quirks/Lord Farmer are our biggest shareholders but rather than perceiving them as a threat I think what is good for them is good for me. Both continue to stand their corner in placings Neither want to be diluted.
All concerned will benefit from Cora being able to fund extended drilling and plant expansion from cash flow..... and BM is well aware of this.

‘AG1989 - we need Bamps to do us some resource calcs. With these stonking grades and lengths, it would be great fun.‘

I don’t know who Bamps is but I would love to see some resource calcs!!!!!

AG1989. I have asked BM to add to his RNS’s a running total of the number of metres declared .... so hopefully it will read ‘up to an including this RNS we have disclosed the drill results of xxx meters out of the 35k meter program’