Member Info for KeithOz

Hi Noodle, Both are correct! The key phrase in the 'notes to editors' is "provided the mineral grains are in contact with each other". With massive sulphides, this is almost by definition the case, since the rock will be mostly metal sulphides. I mentioned Friday night your time about other S 8000 conductors that when drilled were found not to be massive sulphides.

Most graphitic rock will be only 5-10% graphite, so the graphite lamellae will not be in good contact. One of these two S 8000 conductors (somewhere in Canada, don't have the ref to hand) was in fact graphite, but in a very unusual presentation - it was concentrated to almost pure graphite by heating and compressional shearing during the metamorphic process. Pure graphite also occurs in small veins, but only in Sri Lanka. The B1 conductor is highly unlikely to be pure graphite.

The other S 8000 was at the Arya deposit here in Queensland, recently drilled by Castillo Copper - this is what was found:
"Approximately 200 m of dark grey and black carbonaceous siltstone/schist was intersected, with occurrences of scattered base-metal sulfides and fine-grained graphite mineralisation, remaining open at depth. Encouragingly, visible but scattered chalcopyrite (copper sulfide mineralisation) was observed in drill-hole AR_001RC." Castillo presented this as a success, I (and the market) didn't agree, only seeing it as a positive indication for generalised mineralisation in the area. B1 is cross-formational, so will not be compressed siltstone.

A sufficient concentration of magnetite (guess - 50+%?) would also have very high conductance, but would be noticeable without the time and expense of TDEM, because your pocket compass (if anyone has one of these nowadays!) would be going round & round in circles.

F&M. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't optimistic about this company, and I see Morocco as the main opportunity, although I respect the different views that others may hold. As for actual numbers, I have done a back of the envelope calculation using the recently released data for MOU-1, and as you would expect, it is clearly an improvement. I don't think we yet know enough about MOU-4 simply to multiply the MOU-1 drill data across to a larger area with a thicker reservoir. Since (as I have said on a number of occasions) I am not an O&G specialist, I am uncomfortable publishing these amateur calculations, and suggest it is much more instructive to wait at most a month for the updated CPR. I can't help noticing that since July, every RNS released has made the opportunity incrementally more attractive!

Wacky - part of the seismic graphic you refer to, showing the gas cloud to the east, is also shown on a small scale on p. 9 of the September 28th presentation. On the same page, above that is an interpreted cross section, showing that the Lower Hoot sands (there referred to as MOU-4 Deep) extend further eastwards than the Upper Hoot. A fault extends between the eastward limits of these two formations, which I assume is the line shown in the middle of the gas cloud on the larger image. My guess is that you are correct that there are in fact two sources for this cloud/chimney, being the two levels of Hoot Sands.

I am tempted to speculate that the "information that would set your hair on fire" held by GRH relates to satellite observations of the surface expressions of this and/or other clouds/chimneys within the Guercif licence - he has stated that 95% of gas migration is vertical, and as Nametrade has correctly identified, clouds/chimneys are highly correlated with discoveries. If the gas cloud is confirmed, it would seem that MOU-4 has a good chance of hitting two productive reservoirs.

There are some comments about if it's so good, why move to Ditau, how about more boreholes in the KSZ?

By end January KAV will have a vast amount of data which requires verification, assessment and consolidation. Assays, petrography and further verification will need to be done by external experts who are already under a high workload, plus working with Covid complications involving anything cross-border. Only once all this is done can you make cost-effective plans for the next steps in the KSZ. KAV are already lining up further targets for TDEM, but remember for any kind of work you need governmental approval, and we know this is taking longer than expected in the KCB.

Most importantly, additional work also needs to be paid for. Ben has already made it clear that once they have a comprehensive package available for the KSZ, derived from TDEM, DHEM, aeromagnetics, petrography, assays, etc., it will be discussed with one or more potential partners. The more complete the package, the better the buy-in price.

Assembling a really professional set of data, negotiating with (hopefully) several majors, and getting the major's board approval, will take a few months. It makes eminent sense to use that time when the management and technical experts are busy, but the field teams are not, to go ahead with drilling Ditau and maybe also the KCB if approvals have come through. These non-KSZ campaigns are already funded under the Kanye JV with POW, and will add further value to KAV. Once initial results from Ditau & KCB are known, there is a better chance of devolving Kanye by IPO or sale, which will provide further funding to progress the core KAV projects.

I have always had some concerns that POW management is over-reaching by having so many projects, in different countries & continents dealing with a multitude of jurisdictions, across a wide range of commodities, which is why rightly or wrongly, I am not invested there. I am much more confident about KAV, which is operating only in the mining-friendly jurisdiction of Botswana, where it is well-connected, and is focussed solely on the 'electric transformation' with Cu, Ni & REEs as the main focus. Some coincident PGEs will provide an additional smile.

I have said this before, but it needs to be re-stated - KAV is an exploration junior, so by definition has a high risk profile, which means it is not a suitable investment for everybody. However, I believe the risk/reward ratio is extraordinary, and the ratio seems to improve with every RNS, which it is why KAV is the largest holding in my portfolio. I think that investors holding for 1 - 3 years will do very well, traders holding for 1- 3 weeks could get their fingers burnt.

Happy holidays to you & your families, looking forward to a great new year to everybody. Live long & prosper!

PS - please send me some snow for Christmas, my kids have never seen it.

I was very sensibly fast asleep when yesterday's RNS was released at 1.20am my time, although rather curiously I did dream about about the KSZ, which must be a first for me. So having caught up, here's my thoughts.

As we all had, I was expecting a pre-holiday wrap up RNS, but my money was on after hours yesterday if there was anything significant. I certainly see this as significant, and am rather surprised it wasn't released an hour or so later, although that would have given an unfair advantage to the US. I am even more surprised that there was minimal effect on the share price, and what appears to be only sells after the announcement. The US quote was up 8%, but on the derisory volume of just 2500 shares.
Possibilities:
- Folks were shopping/partying on a Friday evening and didn't see it.
- Traders were unhappy about their money being tied up for another month, including over a holiday period that will undoubtedly act as a Covid super-spreader event.
- as is usual for KAV, releases tend to be rather technical, and they wanted to wait for the usual explanatory interviews & follow ups.

Negatives:
- drilling is obviously really difficult, have a listen to Ben's comments on Stockbox.
- there will be a further month before we get definitive results.
- that also delays assays & petrography, and the move to Ditau.

Positives:
- DHEM has been successful, and provides another 'layer' of imaging to further refine the TDEM data, and being 350m closer to the conductor than the surface survey, is of considerable value in adding detail.
- the target conductance has increased significantly, I scanned the literature a while back and found only two S 8000+ conductors which proved not to be orebodies, at S 11000 I can't see it being anything other than massive sulphides.
- the size has been upgraded.
- as previously KAV has sought independent external verification of the data (this is very unusual and commendable).
- the position & orientation have been confirmed. Capt. Thorpe/ Fuku79 in this context, 'formational' refers to the sedimentary layers, which here are essentially horizontal. Its steep orientation means it is non-formational, therefore not part of the sedimentary mechanism, so is presumably intruded from below, bolstering the hypothesis that this is an intruded orebody, either directly by magma, or later by transforming hot mineralised fluids. It is however entirely 'natural', having been formed by normal geological processes, not shovelled into place by prehistoric apemen.

In conclusion, highly positive. At this stage, it's safe to upgrade the turkey, wait until the January sales to upgrade the car or your spouse.

I agree that the partner whose approval it is subject to is ONHYM. Commercial partner(s) is cognitive bias.

Typing too quickly, got it wrong! drill MOU-4 mid Q2, drill one of MOU-5 & MOU-NE late Q2. Sorry!

Interesting revised schedule, start with MOU-1 extended test late Q1, use that to finalise supply contarct, then move on to MOU-4 & 5 in Q1, MOU-NE Q2. Looking forward to revised CPR early in Q1.

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2021/12/schedule.pdf

I've been up for 11 hours. Nada!

"SDX Energy Plc (AIM: SDX), the MENA-focused energy company, announces that due to operational issues affecting the drilling of the KSR-19 well and COVID-19 border restrictions impacting the mobilisation of equipment and personnel into Morocco, the current two well campaign, which commenced on 18 November 2021 and which was initially expected to finish at the end of December, is not now expected to complete until mid-Q1 2022."

Not sure where that leaves PRD.

Sorry, the Irish TIMES article, posted by Obadhia
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/republic-will-need-equivalent-of-another-corrib-gas-field-to-supply-power-plants-1.4753491

I thought that this was the most interesting bit from the Irish News article:

"Legislation bars the issue of new fossil fuel exploration licences in the State’s waters, but allows work to continue under existing permits.

Tom O’Brien, managing director of Corrib field shareholder Nephin Energy, recently said there may be potential replacements for the country’s only gas reservoir in nearby areas already licensed for exploration.

If these proved viable they could tie in to Corrib’s existing infrastructure, allowing their gas to be brought ashore with minimum disruption."

So Nephin are casting a greedy eye over Corrib South?

Apart from his 20% of PRD, PG has an additional interest in getting Corrib South & Ram Head up and running - 50% is held by his company Theseus, effectively giving him 60% ownership of the two gas fields. That's one hell of an incentive.

There is an old (November 2016) presentation that gives some valuations (based on an unknown gas price) on page 6. Some interesting stuff in here, even if it is rather old. Your security software may tell you that the website certificate has expired, and tell you not to download it, but it's OK!

https://www.pip.ie/download.php?fragment_id=6366&group_id=1185&page_id=376&requested_page_id=376#

BCB, if you read my post on IOCGs last Friday, you will recall that ** IF ** the GRS/tail turns out to be an IOCG, it will be very different to Olympic Dam, for the reasons I detailed. Enthusiasm is all very well, but let's not mislead people.

Deskstand - Do you know what the problem has been with Sound? Have you taken a look at Sound in the last couple of weeks, and seen what they are up to?

For a bit of light relief, I wanted to see how much our £20M company would be worth with a Norilsk-Talnakh mine overlying an Olympic Dam. My calculator says the answer is 'E'.

A few weeks ago, the term IOCG first appeared relating to KAV. Going back in time from the present, we have Alastair Ford of Mining Capital mentioning “a whisper” of it on Proactive yesterday, before that a question was asked of BT/Jeremy Brett on the 25th November One-to-One concerning “a rumour”. BT tweeted on 17th November about “a 30- year old theory that we're looking at”.
The origin was a 2000 article in African Earth Sciences by no less than Jeremy Brett., quoted on this board, which suggested an IOCG as one possible explanation of the Great Red Spot, which at that time had yet to be successfully drilled. So, what is an IOCG (iron oxide copper gold) deposit?

Major magmatic copper/gold orebodies are of two main kinds – porphyry, which are associated with subduction zones (eg Peru, Ecuador, where the S. American & Pacific tectonic plates meet), and IOCG, which are associated with deep crustal fracturing, mostly close to the edge of a craton, such as in S. Australia (eg Olympic Dam / Gawler Craton). However, IOCG is a very loose term, which includes structures and orebodies of diverse origins and forms. The term was first used some 30 years ago, and there has been much debate ever since over what is or is not an IOCG.

Most geologists are in agreement that:

1. A pre-existing sedimentary and/or volcanic basin has been both compressed and stretched due to very large subcrustal events, but at that stage has not yet been highly metamorphosed.
2. Then, large scale, crust-deep fracturing has occurred, with IOCG deposits typically occurring at the intersections of large faults with these major fractures, often in zones of brecciation. Alteration of the host rock and/or of the synchronous intruded magma has then occurred on a regional scale.
3. At least two episodes of alteration by high-temperature fluids have taken place – sources may be magmatic or groundwater, and these sources and temperatures have major influence over mineral deposition.
4. Generally, higher temperatures lead to magnetite IOCGs, lower temperature to haematite.
5. Most were formed during the Proterozoic

The economically most important IOCG is Olympic Dam in S. Australia, on which most research has been done. In a way this is unfortunate, since O. D. is right at one end of the IOCG spectrum, so is atypical – for example it is the only one with a high concentration of Uranium & REEs. If the GRS is an IOCG, it will be very different to O.D., which is haematite-based.

Magnetite IOCGs are more likely to be enriched in Cu, Au & Co. It will be very interesting to see the assays and petrographic analysis of the KAV cores, plus further work on the 30km magnetic anomaly.

Why are people only whispering about this? No one wants to be accused of misleading the market at this very early stage. Look at the size of the GRS, plus 30km 'tail'. Olympic Dam is only 5 x 2km, but contains an estimated 6.5 billion tonnes of ore. As Alastair Ford said, “hold on t

Coxo - Actually BCB is a real person, not a troll. He is a genuine holder who is just over-enthusiastic about KAV in his hope to become a millionaire. Let's face it, all Bitcoin buyers have to be over-optimistic since they're putting money into a pyramid scheme.

Neil - I can skim your credit card, will that do?

Only £10k shares changed hands yesterday, any share price movement is totally irrelevant.