Member Info for Legalwolf

"I’ve never been in a share like this where I’m so uncertain about the timing of a share price increase."

AG spot on. I think that's probably true for us all. Part of this might be that this is unchartered territory for all concerned, in terms of new technology and sector for us. The other is because ORCP/Naheed have not produced a timeline, or given any indication. Most of the AIM companies that I have been in and around, will have some kind of timeline, usually set out in their presentations. Whether they then meet those timelines is a completely different matter, but at least it gives investors something to work from. Even with Cora, we know what the blockage is, and what the likely steps and timescale will be once that blockage is removed. Easier to then wait it out and endure the difficult periods.

I'm more inclined to agree with PFG's view on this. Frayne's exit can only be a good thing for (retail) shareholders. One less expensive mouth to feed when money is tight, who didn't actually talk to the retail shareholder base, and went MIA when needed most by them. Will we even notice his departure?

But will GM be any different? We could certainly do with him addressing the market and talking about the strategy to get the IML reinstated and tell us all more about wth has been going with GSMB. All imo and dyor

IF Tamer is okay and in a jovial mood, i'll share a funny thought I had about him earlier today, when we were discussing 'the try before you buy' option. Only as a bit of banter though.

Notrex - we should go easy on ALL investors here? Tamer might not be your cup of tea (that's pretty obvious), but if he is genuinely invested here, as opposed to just trolling this, and hence possibly (deeply) underwater, then show him some consideration as well?

BT (or FK79) if you are reading this BB, now(ish) would be a really good time to drop some positive news or update, whatever it relates to.

FK79 - that was a joke btw. I know you're not BT, but we should be able to laugh at the suggestion. How are you getting on in Zimbabwe btw. What's the weather like there right now?

AG1989 - that's the question for the BOD to resolve. ORCP could consider selling a % in the project. Or it could strike a deal with potential offtakers, which secures funds for itself. I've seen other companies do this as part of offtake, where they don't just sell the commodity, but also cover their own costs in the process. It makes no sense to have multi billion pound projects and partners, and a rich backer in the Sheikh, and yet be raising paltry sums from the market.

But to be honest, all that said, the non dilutive financing is only important IF ORCP is still going to require some time to deliver binding commitments here, which will then create that momentum and reverse the share price (and with it ensure future raises are at higher prices). If they are less than 6 months away from delivering such news, then forget the non dilutive financing, and focus on getting those binding commitments.

But, if they are, say 12-18 months away from delivering binding commitments, then delivering the non dilutive financing becomes more important to me. Because otherwise, how many "ruinous" placings are there going to be over those 12-18 months? 2, 3, 4?

These placings might not be "ruinous" to you directly, because you have strong conviction and will use them as an opportunity to average down. But indirectly, these placings are "ruinous", because such dilution IS putting off the market/majority, from jumping onboard (other than the short term traders) and the share price gaining some traction. And so for that reason, LTH also need this dilution to end.

Therefore, I would suggest that in H2 of 2023, one or other of the following simply has to happen: binding commitments, non dilutive financing, or a share price recovery from elsewhere, meaning the trend reverses and future raises, although dilutive, will be at higher levels. All imo

Tamer - it's not about the vendors seeing the results. Regardless of the results, we still get to exercise the Option. This is about ECR having the results in order to inform its decision about whether or not to proceed with the Option and the acquisition. It's not clear what the deadline is for us exercising the Option, as RNS gives two dates a month apart:

"Once the Option Fee has been fully satisfied ECR can then exercise the Option at any time prior to 30 September 2023, at its absolute discretion."

"ECR anticipates satisfying the Option Fee and exercising the Option to acquire Placer Gold before the expiry date of 31 October 2023.

But even if it is October, if we are not drilling until Sept, will we have results back from the lab? It might be that the results aren't going to influence the decision to buy, and its a virtually done deal already?

One thing I do need to correct, is that I don't think ECR will need to stump up the cash or the shares for any acquisition at this moment in time. On a re-read, I've noticed that the RNS also states:

"A further update will be provided if and when ECR satisfies the Option Fee and another announcement will be made if ECR exercises the Option and begins the process of acquiring Placer Gold."

So that is actually good, as it leave open the time for the share price to recover, before any shares are issued to the vendors, whenever that will be. All imo and dyor

Yes, it was confusing, and there was no reason to read their EGM notice until today. But its all perfectly fine and actually, I now better understand why they had to split their fund raise into two tranches as well, so that was a 'brucie bonus' from having to read an otherwise very dry document! Also, their management team are very much on the ball it seems, in that they are thinking well ahead about their post drilling funding needs and already setting the groundwork for that. That's also in stark contrast to He1. NHE are totally outshining He1 so far, in terms of their comms and their post drill planning. It's not even a close run thing. As good as they have been, that's how bad we have been in comparison. At the moment, we are coming across as the reserve team, and NHE are the first team. They are Man City and we are, well, Salford.

I mean, when you start to miss DM, it can't be good can it ;-) All imo and dyor

Tamer - think you are missing the point here completely. What I am saying is that before we actually complete this acquisition, surely ECR would want to have completed the drilling AND received the results. That is what 'try before you buy means'. Simply drilling and paying up without the results would not be 'try before you buy'.

As for the vendors, they would actually want their shares as cheap as is possible. That way they get more shares and more upside. It totally suits them to have ECR's share price as low as possible at the point of completion. All imo

All good and very valid questions AG. I think mine would be more about the short to medium term. Whether she answers them is another matter (probably won't and will do a GH on me), but the main ones would be:

1) What is the anticipated timescale for binding agreements on financing and offtake? I appreciate that she can't say exactly when, but I would settle for something as broad as 2023 or H2 of 2024. It can't just carry on being open ended here without any sense of when completion might be of these milestones. She's already had 2 years without providing timescales, and if she can't give investors an indication as to when they can expect such milestones to be achieved, then it's not very confidence inspiring at all (and quite the opposite)?

2) Is she actively exploring non dilutive financing for ORCP, to get it to project financing stage, and in particularly if 1 above is going to take several months or quarters from here?

3) If not, what is her strategy for addressing the issue of downward dilution and which is harming the share price. She can't keep on citing market conditions, because she has a responsibility nonetheless to alter that market sentiment, and she can do that be doing 1 and 2 above, for example.

I would like to think that if game changing progress is close here, then Naheed will convey its imminence. If she doesn't, then for me, it means its not close and neither therefore is any significant share price rise. Maybe more P&D type action. All imo and dyor

Let me try to clear this up (and I have gone back and checked the relevant ASX announcements). NHE have ALREADY issued the Tranche 1 shares AND have the funds. They were issued on 9 June 2023 under existing authority to issue without shareholder approval, and a total of 43, 472, 217 shares were issued for trading on that day at 0.18p. The notice of admission of these shares was then accompanied and followed by three TR1s (change in substantial holdings) announcements on 9 & 13 June , for all the holders who had received these Tranche 1 shares and thereby triggered these TR1s. Tranche 1 is done and dusted.

The reason they are seeking "ratification" of this decision is not because they need any "approval" as such. They only need "approval" for Tranche 2. No, it is because by getting this "ratification" from their shareholders, it will again enable NHE to issue shares without getting prior shareholder approval under their listing rules, for the next 12 months. Under those rules, there's only a certain % of shares a company can issue without prior shareholder approval, and NHE have used up that % already with Tranche 1. They want to regain this flexibility going forward. And this is also the reason they have had to split the fund raise into two tranches.

Overall - nothing to worry about here at all, and we can put any such concerns to bed. But all imo and dyor.

PS: for anyone who wants to read or fact check all this for themselves, it's all set out in the Explanatory Memorandum in their EGM Notice at paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4!!!

Not checked back in on Antipa for some time now. It was looking good a couple of years ago if I remember correctly. Are Cora still after more funding, or is that all sorted now following the Term Sheet. I think I read or heard that they were looking to secure more money, and I thought all that had been sorted out.

Back to ORCP, yes it will be interesting to see whether and how quickly ORCP gets to financing and offtake. My worry would be that if this DFS is only preliminary, will a full DFS be needed to secure financing and offtake? If so, how long will that take - one of the reasons I have been banging on about not having a timeline, so that its all set out for investors without having to second guess it all. Hopefully, a full DFS won't be needed, because you then have the issue of how much that will cost, who pays for it and how will ORCP finance itself during this period?

How much will any of them really care? It's a side gig for most of them anyway. To be honest, AH's other company looks like it will mean a lot more to him than ECR, and of course he's personally invested in that one. Even AG is a paid brand consultant isn't he, which explains why he continues to promote ECR as enthusiastically at 0.3p as he did when it was 3p? If so, its notable that most of the media is done through a paid NED or a paid consultant. A free ride to just pitch whatever they want, without the more searching and difficult questions, like will you take a pay cut, and if not, why, etc?

All imo and dyor

Thanks for the response AG - understood. BTW, are you still in and around Cora these says? I noticed a bit of buying activity there last week (I think) and wondered if they might have some news. Anything else on your radar these days, or are you mainly all in on ORCP?

Tamer - the problem is that we have to make these Hurricane payments by the stipulated deadlines. So we have not choice but to issue the shares, otherwise we risk having paid the option fee and done the drilling, but then be able to complete the acquisition. The other thing that bothers me is that if we are only drilling in September, will we have the results back in time to make the 'try before you buy' work effectively for us?

Hi Dan - yes that's right, a minimum cash payment of AS $250k with the remainder in shares, and whatever is left of the original AS $200 option fee. Not a massive sum, other than the dilution at these levels from paying $750k in shares at these levels, but then money is very tight right now. If they took salary cuts in return for share options, they could actually pay the money that way. And it would demonstrate their belief in the Hurricane asset. Could even be a smart play by the BOD?

They should follow the approach of the Oriole BOD, who all entered salary sacrifice schemes. And to be fair, they delivered a lot more gold mineralisation in one drilling programme, than ECR's have delivered across all of theirs. That's the leadership that is called for now, and they should take responsibility for the wastage and misuse of resources and failure to realise value from it. Otherwise, this is a lifestyle operation, where the salary of the BOD actually override the best interests of ECR and its shareholders. As they are all part timers, I am sure they can survive with some salary sacrifice, rather than rummaging for what assets they can strip out, and it would probably restore a bit of belief and credibility with an investor base that has exited en masse? All imo

Yes, no answer as always GH, because you don't have one, which I sort of knew anyway. You just like to lash out at those who question ORCP. Other posters have come forward since yesterday and have been more willing to entertain the possibility that this placing was forward sold. Yet we are not allowed to discuss it the day after because according to you, its already been discussed ad nauseum even though the placing RNS only landed yesterday. Honestly you couldn't make it up.

Seriously, I think it would be far better if we just filtered each other. Your posts offer no useful insight or opinion to me at all as an investor, and no doubt you feel the same way towards mine. Therefore, there's nothing to be gained from us exchanging views over ORCP, as we think and analyse differently, and end up with diametrically opposing views on pretty much everything. And as you seem incapable of debate and discussion without personal barbs, then we can't even debate and discuss those differences properly. And it's not good for the overall BB to have to endure this either - as AG alluded to yesterday.

Therefore, to the extent that you are indeed a genuine investor and poster here (and not a ORCP troll of the ramping variety), I will finish by wishing you well. I'm sorry if my postings have caused any personal upset/grief, that has never been my intention. I call ORCP as I see it, and I just see it not very favourably at the present moment, that's all.

So all the very best GH with your investment here and elsewhere and I will now filter. I would respectfully ask you to do likewise.

Dan - the first half of the interview listening to AJ was just painful. Even AG appeared keen for AJ to finish his waffly answers and revert back to AH, who is far more polished at explaining the positives. They are selling off assets and scaling back operations, but won't look at their own remuneration as part of that. They have people on the BOD who are contributing nothing, and have played a key role in wasteful expenditure.

And just how are they planning to pay the $1 million for Hurricane, which will be due very shortly? That has not been explained at all, and I can't see where those funds are going to come from.

I try to choose my words very carefully, and the fact that you read them selectively and incorrectly is a matter for you. As you claim to like facts, then perhaps raise your own standards of accuracy, because the share price was actually around 0.15p when the sell off occurred. You are also totally incorrect to say that "a few days is normal, 6 weeks is not." It's actually the very opposite, and I know that from experience in other shares. It takes time to execute, and the practice of forward selling would become far too obvious and suspect if it was done in a matter of days. Also, it actually requires news flow to sustain it, as people need to buy the shares that are being forward sold!

Honestly GH, you are coming across as overly rigid and simply incapable of engaging with anything that is remotely negative about ORCP.

Whilst you snap away at me, I am yet to hear your counter explanation as to why there was an unexplained high volume sell off during a period of POSITIVE newsflow, leading to a placing weeks later? There were shareholders incredulous as to why such positive news was met with high volume selling.

The floor is all yours if you have a more logical explanation for why that happened then?