George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
I didn’t really like how they threw David under the bus. The man gave over two years of his life to the company and deserves a level of professional respect, even if they thought he made mistakes. IMO should have been hyping up Lorna on the merit of her achievements - not by throwing mud at the former outfit. Minor point but it didn’t sit well with me.
Unfortunately there really isn't much to report. I didn't overly have many questions to ask, and the board headed off rather swiftly at the end of the meeting so I didn't even get a chance to speak with Lorna and ask some Qs i had lined up. I spoke to Ian briefly and he made it clear that they are putting the past behind them and are striving towards locking up a suitable rig ASAP. I am confident they will be able to bring this home, with a disappointing but ultimately more realistic timeline.
@Dai
1. Posted about rigs before in the TG. It’s also not too hard to find the numbers, specially Africa in our case online either. It’s getting better.
2. Not true. You can find the court documents online. It was actioned once the rig was near the TZ/Kenyan boarder.
This would be due to the conflicting belief in regards to commerciality, yes?
I believe noble are focusing on the margin basins - in theory a more reliable trapping system but also (from a reasonably analogous petroleum system viewpoint) likely to have lower volume of helium flowing into the system, and therefore would need a VERY good trap/seal system to hold an economic accumulation. They are hoovering up the margin plays while He1 are focusing on intra basin faults. I’ve said before that I believe if He1 hit, they’re more likely to hit an economic quantity but it’s also harder to find a suitable trap/seal system.
I actually think it’s not a further delay - they had stated in the RNS referenced that results would be out before year end so they were just putting an RNS to let people know they’re still on the way (I would assume it’s still on course for 2-3 weeks time as said in the interview).
Also another point to note - not having this ability often makes raises harder to facilitate, as brokers are less likely to want to present a prospective offer to clients if the offer itself won't for certain be passed by the shareholder base.
For example with the recent raise: I could easily see a lot of retail shareholders voting no to the previous 5p raise as they feel hard done by - but without that raise we would've been running on our last few £m with a recently failed to pass fundraise.
IMO it's always best to give a board autonomy over capital.
The best aspect of this for shareholders is this allows the company to give shares in lieu of payment which is in my opinion always a good sign if vendors are willing to take shares instead of cash - indicates what they’ve seen/worked on is more likely to succeed than not!