A reminder that tonight’s Webinar, sponsored by PrimaryBid, features Zephyr Energy (ZPHR), Power Metal Resources (POW) Scirocco Energy (SCIR) and SpectrumX. Sign up here.
I guess I was surprised to read that the assays are still in transit. I've spent the last few weeks assuming they were undergoing examination in the laboratory and that we would be getting the results in a matter of weeks. So I was surprised to read that they are still in transit.
This might well have been my own misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the last RNS. It's no big issue really, just a question of timescale for the assay results.
What do folks think could be the bad news? The tweets stopped when they were drilling (and before any assays would have gone to the lab), so what could have happened around that time to cause the cessation of tweets ever since? Furthermore, as well as sitting on price sensitive information, it doesn't also strike me as sensible to just watch the sp price fall, and then release bad news at the end of that fall, thereby causing it to fall even further? That's tantamount to self-harm.
The point I was trying to draw attention to was that on 16 August, we were informed that the assays had been sent to Canada. Today, we are being told they they are being sent to Australia. Now, I don't care which lab they are being sent to, but I was hoping we would get assays results soon, but now that doesn't look it is going to happen.
Not all CEOs play the game of trying to hoodwink shareholders about fundraising. But of course, a number of them do do it. It just makes it more difficult to treat what they say in the future with total credibility and leaves a bit of a bad taste. If you're going to fundraise, then just do it, but no need to give interviews making people think the opposite and risk your standing.
Anyway, Bibemi is now becoming central here. Could be the gateway to unlocking ORR's future.
I agree that it’s good to finally get this out of the way. Most of us expected it.
However, don’t you think it’s disappointing that TL gave interviews recently in which he said the very opposite? This is the second time I’ve had reason to be a bit wary of what this BOD say. The last time was when IAG messed us around over the JV and the BOD didn’t let on.
16th August: "1,150 samples currently in transit to the JORC-accredited labs in Tanzania for sample preparation prior to assaying at SGS in Canada."
20th September: "all samples have been prepped and are in transit to laboratories in Australia for assaying."
He might not be in a position to answer some of the below just yet, but my questions (some of which overlap) would include:
1) Have the findings from the first two holes changed the previous thinking/thesis in any way?
2) Have they carried out XRF on the cores from the first hole?
3) Are they intending on doing an downhole survey after completing hole 2?
4) Are they still intending on moving to target area B after this second hole, or will they be drilling a third hole in this area?
5) Do they now think they should have drilled deeper at the first hole?
6) What aspect of the findings are causing the most excitement?
7) What aspect of the findings have not been what they would have hoped for?
8) Is the original thesis of sulphides in the Karoo now switching to the Proterozoic?
9) He has previously commented that mineralisation below a certain depth won't be commercially viable. What are the depths that any ore body needs to fall within in order to be commercially viable?
10) Has any of the core already been submitted to the lab?
Thanks KeithOz - very interesting interviews where the comments you have highlighted, taken together, would suggest that KAV have presented/pitched their KSZ modelling to other "firms". It was actually interesting listening back to these presentations now that we have results from target area A.
What are the likely timescales from when the Rig arrives (i.e. spud to drilling results). ADV said they would have the results before Xmas, do we think that is easily achievable even if you go for the latest arrival time for the Rig of mid November?
Hi Burleigh - the GGP bb used to be one of the best around, with some very knowledgeable posters, but arguably that was last year when everything was going well and there was no negatives to discuss really. The test of any bb is when the chips are down and although I'm no longer heavily invested in GGP (and hence don't go on the bb much) I am aware of the problems through posters such as yourself (and Jtb - what has happened to him btw?) coming onto other bb and lamenting about the state of the GGP bb.
Although I'm not heavily invested in GGP, one thing I would say is that if you look at the Lassonde Curve model, then isn't a sharp retracement in the share price quite normal for a company post its major discovery, and then a return to the uptrend as you move towards construction and then producing mine? Therefore, if this model is typical, then isn't there every chance that longer term, GGP will reach/surpass its previous heights (depending also on the eventual size of the MRE from the growth drilling)? If so, the LTH might, therefore, have an argument?
Like I said, I'm not heavily invested in GGP so speaking from a position of relative neutrality.
Thanks for all the responses folks. I guess one of the things that any major will need to consider is potential/likely interest from other rival companies. No major can assume that they can make their move simply when it suits them. I would also expect interested majors to have done some research in KAV, and unless they found the whole thesis regarding KSZ (and comparisons with Norilsk/Voisey Bay) to be lacking in any real substance, you would also have expected them to have made contact with KAV 'many moons ago' and at least have registered their interest. Possibly, they might even have kept some form of contact going, to start laying the foundations for future talks pending the outcome of this campaign.
I'd be very surprised if the first contact in these situations only happens post drilling results. The prize on offer is potentially huge after all. Maybe BT might answer questions about this (avoiding price sensitive information).
Is it surprising that none of these majors (or an insti) have taken some kind of holding in the company already? When I first came across KAV and the comparisons with Norilsk/Voisey Bay, it's one of the things that I wondered about. I've had other investments where a major has seen the potential in the junior and has positioned itself in this way into the junior. Given the promise at both KSZ and the KCB, I'm just wondering why none of the majors have taken a strategic position already?
One example of this Chesterfield Resources (CHF, a junior copper explorer) where Polymetal International (a large mining company) have taken a holding in CHF primarily because CHF hold a large land package in Cyprus. Now I'm also invested in CHF, but would argue that KAV and its projects appear much more exciting and with a lot more potential that what CHF has in Cyprus.
Is this surprising, or would it be more surprising if a major/insti had made a move already?
Hi all. Many of us have discussed the possibility or need for ORR to do a deal with IAG over Senala. I was wondering how likely or realistic this might be, and whether it would be in IAG's interests to pay us a large amount for purchasing Senala outright? At the moment, under the JV, IAG will have to spend a total of $8 million to work through all of the JV stages. They are currently at Year 4, and once they complete it, the JV terms are that:
"Subject to completion of the Year 4 expenditure plan, IAMGOLD will have the right to acquire a 51% interest in the Project and will thereafter need to spend a further US$4 million over two years to earn a 70% interest."
Now, ORR's current market cap is only circa £6 -7 million (and falling). So I was just wondering what the incentive is here for IAG to a) pay ORR a large sum for purchasing Senala outright, and b) spend another $4 million to increase its stake by 20%, when that sum represents about 30% to 40% of the total market cap of the ORR, and doesn't get you Bibemi or Cental Cameroon.
Can we be confident that IAG will proceed with/through the JV?
Hi all - I was suggesting the next RNS could be the final one in terms of results, but also put a "?" around this, as who can say really for sure. With 10000m left to report, there is every potential for more than one RNS. It's not just about the total amount of samples left, but reporting zones together etc. Of course, if they get some more world class holes, they might want to get those out straightaway rather than wait for the remainder.
Regarding the upgraded MRE, the timing of this will also be related to the above. If work has already commenced on it then October becomes more likely, but if the company doing the MRE will only commence work once they have all of the results, then I would say Oct/Nov. However, I would imagine that Bert will confirm the timescale at some point. All IMO