Member Info for Legalwolf

Gino - as long as they how to operate the Rig properly, I couldn't care if it's Tang and that (what does he do exactly) NED operating the Rig! I really don't think there's any placing imminent. They've had plenty of time to arrange one, and doing it on the eve of receiving potential share price moving results from CresWick would seem a strange time to place again.

I'm minded to take AH at face value, which is that they have enough to see them through in the near term, and will likely place in late Q3/Q4.

By then, a lot of water will have passed under the share price bridge, with the potential to lift the share price, or indeed cause it to fall further - in the form of exploration results. All imo and DYOR

KR - I think when you look at the list of clients that Prime Energy have, that NHE could potentially end up with a major internationally recognised company as their farmout partner. I am very intrigued to see who it might be. It could be a very big name. And if so, they have not just set themselves up for the next two wells, but will have laid the foundations for going into development and production, if they make a discovery. In many ways, post farm out, they will be well ahead of He1. But the strong interest and farmout deal for NHE will bode well for He1. Anyone of those companies that missed out on a deal with NHE, will surely be interested in He1. And He1 won't need to give 50% or more away. All imo and DYOR

Folks, we have discussed this before (many times). Sector and market sentiment play a MASSIVE part. In fact, very few stocks will perform well, if the overall market and sector is not strong. So market/sector sentiment is not just a massive part but likely a DETERMINATIVE factor imo.

This impacts LTH more than it impacts short term holders (who are probably short term for this very reason!). Like Roger65, I wish I had averaged down and traded out. But I reasoned that Molopo would take us back to previous heights and I could then decide what to do. Plus, I don't have a large holding here, for the very simple reason, that market and sector sentiment doesn't merit having a large investment here right now.

I tend to ignore or place less weight to what these CEOs are telling us right now. They mostly each and all pitch to us on the basis of this much awaited/promised bull market for juniors. PJ was talking about it for sometime. It never came and now he's gone. A lot of what these CEOs say should just be put in the same category as other "noise". Most of them are no wiser than we are in terms of when things might turn. But they have to remain upbeat at all times - what else can they do?

It's down to us to adjust to the realities of a bear market, and tune our expectations accordingly.

Tati might provide us with a move up. The Uranium sector could liven up. Those are potential opportunities to look forward to, but just have a strategy for if/when they happen, and also factor in that they might not happen given this prolonged bear market for juniors. All imo and DYOR

Fair play to BT for doing the Q&A?

You then have all the exploration programmes (drilling, soil sampling, etc) from last year. Were ECR not more active/expensive on the ground with their projects last year than they have been during this current year?

NHE tweeted today in the following terms:

"Noble Helium was the talk of the town this week in Sydney at the Resources RoundUp. With US$7.5 billion of helium in the ground and drilling to start next quarter, it's no wonder why."

Of course nothing new, but we can maybe infer from this they are still progressing towards finalising the farmout?

Yes, it does all feel rather tactical, as if KAV are trying to push this through no matter what, rather than genuinely seeking the support of their shareholders. If it's a good deal, then they should have the confidence to pitch and present it first, and then put it to the vote, after we have been able to digest what has been said.

This just feels as if its being engineered imo. Almost as if the company are playing against their own shareholders here.

Sometimes the approach taken, rather than the merits (or otherwise) of the actual proposal can be quite illustrative, and this is starting to feel like one of those situations.

So come on KAV/BT, be better than this, or come across better than this, and do a Q&A, so that we can support you from an informed position. I'd be happy to vote in favour, if I could understand and learn more about the rationale, and hear from BOD about why you are so positive about selling at 1p, timing of this, future implications, etc, etc. All imo and DYOR

BT - valid points. I guess the question that BG needs to address, before it can be understood why he says the JV has an inherited weakness in it, is whether this pessimistic view is based on legal advice. There should certainly be an expectation of timeliness when it comes to this transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2, and the JV agreement clearly supports that by imposing a deadline for (a part of) the process i.e. the concept of timeliness. Of course, not much OMI can do to stop MMA sitting on its backside for the first year of Phase 2, but at least the clock then resumes ticking again, which gives OMI that leverage/protection. All imo

At the moment, BG is saying his preferred option is to take back control. I just don't know how realistic that is, and why the majors would agree to it if they are gaming here. It will just eat up valuable time pursuing an option that might be doomed to failure, and then you return back to square one, which then just plays into the majors' hands. Anywa, let's see what the webinar brings. All imo and DYOR.

And also purchased the second Rig etc

Gino/TS - is the cash burn incurred last year, likely to be mirrored in this current year? For example, ECR had a very expensive period where they were drilling at CresWick and Baileston, and purchasing properties. So I'm just wondering whether past cash burn is a reliable measure of current cash burn?

BTW, I am asking here, and not suggesting it's not a reliable barometer.

There are clearly mixed feelings and concerns about this proposed financing, and what it means for KAV longer term. If BT is so convinced that its the right thing to do, then should he not be doing an event to explain why, and address some of the concerns or counter arguments? That would ensure that his shareholders don't end up voting on the basis of misinformation, misunderstanding and misrepresentation? I do think this would have been preferable to throwing out some tweets in defence of it?

The fact that he hasn't done so, just adds to the whole air of concern imo. Now, some might argue that he has offered to respond to shareholder concerns by email. Well, that's fair enough, but then it's not realistic to expect all shareholders to be email him, his individual replies don't reach out to the wider market, different shareholders will raise different concerns, etc. Further, private email responses certainly don't reach out to potential new shareholders either, who might be interested in buying here for the upcoming drilling, but are then being put off by this general air of concern that has descended over KAV right now.

I would certainly like to hear BT speak to the financing, before voting on it. All imo but what do others think?

Yes, it is not unknown for the majors to engage in such antics. I've seen it before with other JVs, ORR is a recent example where their major (IAG) played the slow game, and the CEO bemoaned the "inherited JV". I also understand that Newcrest recently tried it on with GGP over Haveiron, and GGP's CEO stood firm and resisted that, but of course, it didn't help GGP's share price. If the majors do try to hardball, the issue then becomes whether/what the BOD of the junior can realistically do to stand up to such tactics, and whether they protect their shareholders, or end up at the mercy of events and having to rollover to the majors."

Let's see how the BOD of OMI deal with this situation. All imo and DYOR

It's worth recalling the plan to list in Nairobi (I think it was?). I can't remember whether the intention was a dual listing, or to de-list in London. What I do remember is some shareholders, inc KeithOz, being concerned by that plan, and concerns expressed about how UK shareholders would deal in shares - which come to think of it, would only be relevant if it was de-listing in London.

Relevance of this? Well, if it was to de-list, then does it demonstrates a certain strategic direction of travel even back then? All imo and DYOR

Bhargav - I did also wonder about your comment from earlier, where you wondered whether the narrative is being put in place here for a low ball TO. I mean, just Phase 2 of the JV requires the majors to spend multiples of OMIs current mcap to to acquire another 15%. And then they go into another big spending Phase to get to 75%. And if they want 100%, they will have to pay a huge sum, because by then they might well have established it as a Tier 1 asset. Against that, if they took out OMI, they would get to 100%, at a fraction of what it might eventually cost them through the JV?

I don't know if this is purely the realm of conspiracy theory, or whether in the cut throat world of business, its money that ultimately talks and guides the majors, and they are not averse to such tactics?

Sorry, I meant the second placing at a lower level than the first....

Fair enough Gino - I take your point that we can never rely on what CEOs say about such matters. Just thought AH might have been different in this respect though.

I still recall what CB did here when he "expressly" ruled out a placing, and then hit us with one for £2 million a month or so later. He then blamed it on the broker's, saying they talked him into it and made him think it would be done at a higher price than it was. Instead, they forward sold it and killed the (then) momentum in the share price rise.

Not uncommon for the same brokers to arrange back to back placings, with the first one at a lower level than the last. I've sometimes wondered whether this non stop large selling since the last placing, has been forward selling of the next placing? All imo

Are we sure that the Tanzanian authorities even have a role to play here? Usually, these licences are held by subsidiary companies. I would have thought that a JV can be agreed between the parent companies, without interfering with the subsidiary and its licences, or in such a way that does not require any involvement or approval from the authorities. That might need to change at a later stage though. There is no mention of requiring any approval from the Tanzanian authorities in any update that has been put out by NHE re the farmin. All imo and DYOR

Understood Brimstone. It would be good to hear more from BG about his actual relationship with MMA, how well the parties work together and respect each other, and so we can get a sense of how long it might take them to discuss and agree a way forward.

Breaktwister - it would be good also for BG to specifically comment on the 90 days requirement that you have highlighted, and why there is/isn't a time requirement and why there is/isn't a breach.

Whether its for completion of the constitution document, or the whole process, they haven't even completed the former, and the 90 days has long since expired.

I am sure when AS asked AH about the cash position in a recent interview, AH replied that ECR were fully funded for the current and near term programmes. And I took him to mean CresWick, Lolworth and Hurricane, because those were the near term programmes that AH had outlined, before he gave the answer about fully funded?

Cash raise will happen for sure, but not sure it will be in 4 weeks. Closer to 4 months?

Breaktwister - I'm not sure you can say that Point 3 is incorrect. It reflects the understanding of the following (in order of importance/reliability):

1) Newmont and their legal advisers.

2) Agnico and their legal advisers.

3) BG and OMI's legal advisers.

Why do I say this? Well, at least three reasons:

1) Because BG confirmed it as much yesterday - presumably on legal advice?

2) The majors clearly think they are acting in accordance with the JV's terms. They would not risk breaching the JV and putting their 49% commercial stake in the project at risk.

3) To the extent that the 90 days stipulated in the agreement was indeed to complete the whole process (and not just the constitution document), OMI has surely accepted this breach/waived the requirement? I am sure you will have heard BG say that OMI had themselves slowed down the mining company process, so that they can first find out what the majors are intending longer term.

So the parties are acting consensually here, rather than in disagreement over terms and deadlines, or that any of them are in breach. All imo and DYOR