Member Info for Insertwittyname

As with chalmdog, happy with small gains or flatline (basically consolidate) through to results. As good as sentiment based rises are, with no immediate news to substantiate it could fall just as quick.

Seen the updates after I finished typing - aaannnnd relax!

this sounds familiar to a past spike, with p/f accounts showing a substantial price reduction after the close. As I remember it, the following day was greeted by an excise RNS which stalled the rally and pulled SP down. No one was happy after that.

Quite right ST - support level not resistance level.
That is a fairly major mis-type. Can I blame auto-correct?!

I dont know show the markets pick this, but hopefully a resistance can be set in the high 0.40s to prevent a slide eroding todays lovely gains. Better still, a flurry of company updates to push this higher. .
My thoughts/hopes are that this stabilises around this value before assay results and confirmation that the processor is in full working order. then a big push for the end of January. Lots of big daily gains before then, (although welcomed!) may not mean the RNSs we are waiting for have the impact we want and the SP may fall back on their release.
For those that got spiked last time round, hold tight for another 4wks, and you'll be smiling. Hold for another 52wks, and they'll hear your laughter in the bottom of the Clogau mine above all the drilling and blasting!

I see today’s movement being due to a wider audience awareness of UKOG, with ALBA only RNSs not getting the reach they deserve. Once the asset results are released as the PR machine kicks into life we should start seeing the rises we expect based on our own merit.

Seems like an excuse for MMs to nibble a bit more off the SP. …..whats that, did someone mention 0.32p in an RNS....must mean we can pull the SP back towards that value then. Totally baseless on such a small volume (compared to market volume) being excised.

It’s the same as the RNS pdf version, showing the offset from a fault.

Took my small holdings at the last spike at 46, then watched it retrace to mid-30s! Happy to have held and liking the current upwards move. Steady as she goes.....

Well I guess that killed the thread.

Bonus mark for putting a value to it!

I see it as opening up debate in a thought experiment.

Hypothesis to test - is there sufficient info in the RNS to guesstimate the size of the structure Alba have identified. Use critical thinking & historical data to support your answer (5 marks).
:)

@luckybob. The RNS states the length of the lode (550m) and the thickness of the gold bearing sections is also shown - look at the table with the grades. Granted, the vertical thickness needs proving, hens etc the infill drilling, but that’s why I stipulated an assumed cylindrical lode, based on the core logs.

The bulk samples are only from one face, and not anywhere near the new lode which is several 10s of meters beyond the current mine face/sidewall.

I’m not trying to get an exact value to put my hat on, just a ballpark of what the financials are behind the findings of the RNS.

There is a lot of focus on the drill core diameter, which I can’t see has much bearing on the purpose of the post - in essence, what is the volume of the new lode & what is its gold value?

@eddy, the 15g/t is the historical mine average, so takes nuggety nature into account. The fussiest amongst you will say it’s 17g/t, but I’m trying to be conservative.

Ignore my red herring ‘spherical’ nonsensical- meant cylindrical!

The drill logs have gone through the qtz lode, so have mapped its thickness perpendicular to the drill core. The three drill locations have proven its length parallel to the current mine workings. The diameter of each core is therefore a bit irrelevant. The info is there to infer the possible gold contained therein, I just hoped I had missed something in my calcs as would have liked to see a much higher value (obvs not taken welsh gold uplift into account).

Maybe I have set it out wrong:
the crux of the RNS was the identification of a new gold bearing lode over 550 linear metres. using the drilling data you can calculate the thickness of the quartz seam identified, and therefore I was trying to put a (not very robust) figure on the possible value of gold in this lode based on historic results.

As stated in the RNS further 'in fill drilling' is required to confirm its consistency etc.

still waiting for bulk results. This one was the in-mine drilling works

taking some data from the drilling RNS, i've tried to calculate a value for the extended lode area. Assumptions are:
- lode is spherical (using RNS data drill lengths as quartz lode diameter at average 1.00)
- average gold in lode, based on conservative historical values is 15g/t
- lode is a consistent 'tube' along its 550m length.
- average gold cost £43/g

therefore, cylinder (lode) volume is approx. 430m3. Tonnage would be around 860tonnes, which is therefore 12,900g gold. This gives a fairly rubbish return of £554,700 before expenses. where have I gone wrong??

My understanding is that the bulk samples were submitted for analysis along with the drill samples. As such, the bulk samples should be due any day now.

These will be more representative at current ‘gold in mine’ concentrations, albeit collected from areas of historic mining. I expect higher grades than the drilling, but possibly not up at the 17g/t range (hopefully I’ll be proved wrong very soon with an RNS that blows that away!)