Member Info for Legalwolf

The title of this threat is very pertinent. I'm sure we all recognise KAV as a high risk/high reward play, which is the common scenario with most junior explorers.
But when KAV have not been able to get a JV partner for the KSZ, even after engaging Tamesis to help them with that search, what is giving a HNW such conviction of a discovery, such that they are willing to put £6 million in? That is very intriguing actually.
Have they been given a boxset of BT's KAV interviews to watch, from right up until the outcome of the last campaign at KSZ, including the 'Year of Discovery' series, and been sold that way :-)

The 'skin in the game' doesn't always mean what it should, and doesn't necessarily translate to conviction/commitment. Often, shares are purchased to support the share price when its needed (sticky plasters), or because its the expected thing to do, or because Director's can't credibly expect others to buy shares in the company, if they are not doing so themselves. How many times on these BB do we read discussions calling for Director's to buy shares? (Currently have a raging one about just this on ECR BB, asking when its new CEO is going to buy).
So whenever 'skin in the game' is a consideration on AIM, I factor in how much salary, bonuses and perks, the particular Director has taken out of the company vs what they have invested into it by the purchasing of shares. That's a more accurate barometer and truer measure of the level of conviction and alignment for me. A good example of this was PJ, ex CEO at POW. I think he has something like £500k invested back into the company and was on a lower salary. That's hard to argue with in terms of conviction and alignment. I have not carried out this calculation or looked at the figures for ORCP's Directors, and so my comments are more general. I would not be surprised if there are LTH who have put a greater proportion of their wealth into ORCP, than its own BOD have, relatively speaking.
In this game, it is us investors who usually take the biggest risks, and end up with the losses. Very rarely the Directors! All imo and DYOR.

I thought similar to Spank, when I heard Naheed say that the last raise was for the minimum amount required. That would suggest to me that the next raise won't be too far away. As the raises get smaller, so does the period in between them. And ORCP in recent times have been raising with regularity anyway.
Therefore, the key thing for me, and I guess for many, is whether and what share price moving news might land? The main possibility that I can think of is the DFS. That is only weeks away now, it is only preliminary, and so will it move the needle, and reverse the downward trend? Who knows.
I'm happy to wait and see, especially as the share price is currently not creating any pressure. In the past, it's been said to me by posters on here that ORCP placings are forward sold. I don't know if they have been accurate, or were just responding to my posting at that time of placing overhang. But if they are right, then I would be thinking about that as well if the share price continues to decline.
As AG says, each to their own, and everyone will act in accordance with their own reading of the situation. GLA

If it's completely unrealistic to expect the private investor to be locked in, and I take the point that it might be, then I have to ask again, how does the share price go far north of 1p in these circumstances? If it was a normal placing at 1p, then it would leave overhang to be cleared. This large private investor will surely want to recoup some of their investment during any rise, and there can't be any guarantee of a discovery, let alone a sale, to give them that ultimate exit strategy?
How do others see it - am I howling up the wrong tree here completely in terms of worrying about this deal being a potential stranglehold, or creating a permanent selling cloud always hovering over the share price? All imo

I've read a few posts now about handing back the keys to OMI and Agnico leaving. Is that realistic and credible? MMA own 51% of Anza. If it's a good idea for OMI to take back the keys, then it's also a bad idea for Agnico/MMA to give back the keys. In the absence of any clauses in the JV agreement (and I doubt there will be otherwise MMA would not hardball in the first place), anyone wanting that 51% is going to have to stump up the cash? That surely includes OMI?
And in terms of the asking price, well that's the interesting question. Assuming MMA/Agnico are even wanting/looking to sell their current interest in Anza, do they value it at what they have spent already on it. Or do they value it as a potential major Tier 1 asset? Either way, the asking price would rule out OMI, would it not? Or am I missing something here? All imo

I agree with you BCB - but BT needs to confirm that those 1p shares will be locked in. I would imagine that they will be, but I would like confirmation all the same. Therefore, he should at least confirm on twitter that the proposed terms will include a lock in. Obviously, we will get to see the terms, when they are announced for shareholders to vote on, but that means an uncertain wait of X weeks until we get to that stage. Without a lock in, it's a big no way for me, as it creates that P&D type scenario. But with a lock in - which is what I anticipate will be the case - then less of an issue. All imo

Maybe things should have been done in reverse order, i.e. webinar first explaining and setting the scene, offering whatever re-assurances and positives he might offer in 10 days' time, and then following it up with yesterday's RNS? Or if that order was not possible, RNS and webinar on the same day? This does seem a little bit reactive and 'after the horse has bolted'...
Anyway, its good that he is at least doing a webinar to explain, which is considerate towards shareholders, and hopefully he will have something positive to say, and put yesterday's otherwise negative looking news into a more positive light? It won't take much in the form of positive explanation for OMI to bounce back, at least to previous levels? All imo and GLA

What concerns me is the idea of going into hugely significant drilling activity, which we have been waiting patiently for, and now this acquisition. Ordinarily, these would be share price moving events. But until these 1p shares are issued, how does the share price go FAR north of 1p as it would put this private investor into instant profit as he/she would then be getting shares at a heavily discounted price - if the share price rises in the interim because of the above - which they could just sell to make an instant profit?
I've seen this type of dynamic before (but totally different facts). Presumably, there will be somekind of clause preventing the sale of those 1p shares within the first X months?

Assuming it goes ahead, how long will it take to execute and will it amount to a stranglehold over the share price until then?
How does the share price rise above 1p, when there's a private placement at 1p to come?
I'm genuinely asking here rather than making a statement.

One thing that potentially concerns me about handing over such a large stake of the company to a single investor, and especially if introduced by BT, is the control it hands over. Take for example the stated desire to list in Nairobi (I think?). When this was met with resistance last year, BT said that he would explain and engage with shareholders about this, and he has not followed up on that (unless I have missed it). So if shareholders are not happy with proposals such as that, or the overall direction of travel, will they be easier for the BOD to vote through if they are aligned with the largest shareholder(s)? All imo

Maybe its the Motley Fools Crew driving the price up? :-)

Breaktwister - I'm no expert, but have been thinking and asking similar questions to yourself. What I know from general experience is that this kind of hardballing by the major, IF that is what is happening, is not uncommon I don't think. A recent experience of it was in ORR, and its JV with IAG. I recall interviews where the ORR CEO commented on IAG's strategy of playing the slow game over that JV asset, or in declaring a MRE on it, because that is what suited IAG, and not ORR. In doing so, he also commented on the fact that he wasn't the CEO when the JV was agreed by ORR. And even though he said that, one year when IAG failed to meet its phased expenditure requirements, ORR rolled over to that - financially it had little choice.
This does illustrate that the terms of the JV agreement are paramount in either enabling the junior to deal with any hardballing situation, or disabling them from doing so. Problem can be that the juniors are so excited and desperate to do these JVs in the first place, that they may be overlook the need to put safeguards and anti hardballing measures into them?
In the case of ORR, the JV provided that if the IAG choose not to move through the phases and increase its stake, then future exploration and development costs from that point become the joint responsibility of IAG and ORR (each to pay in accordance with their % ownership of the asset). And if either party fails to meet its expenditure requirements, it will be diluted out gradually, and left with a NSR at the end. ORR can't afford a pot to [you know what], so IAG are in the driving seat. All imo

TS - when it comes to underperforming or non priority assets, let's be honest, when does a sale ever really happen? I mean, we haven't even sold in the Phili, and the 'For Sale' sign has been up for quite a while there. I really can't see ANY sales being achieved at Baileston, and I tend to put ZERO reliance or expectation on such statements, whenever juniors start banging that drum. Just ask holders at ORR - they've been waiting several years for a sale of their legacy assets - which actually have proven resources in them! All imo

Thanks for that clarification KeithOz - all understood. It's still a potential cost saving for the farminee, albeit far less than I thought and therefore might not carry as much weight/significance as I thought it might (if any) for the farmout/farminee.

Interesting that Noble are now going for two targets when previously we thought it might have been three. And they have capped the costs of those two exploration wells at $20 million. I would imagine that cap was based on Noble going it alone (and/or drilling more holes), rather than based on any collaboration with He1 - I believe Noble started this farmout bidding process before any collaboration with HE1 came into the equation? If so, then you would expect the actual costs paid by the farminee, if NHE/HE1 collaborate, to be (far) less than $20 million?
Therefore, if NHE 'tendered' on the basis of up to $20 million, and received bids on that basis, I would hope that the reduced costs of drilling under a collaboration agreement, will make it 'easier' to get the farmout over the line. The logic here being that the farminee might end up having to pay far less costs than the up to $20 million that they might have bid for. All imo and DYOR

At the end of the day, the ONLY thing that will settle this raging fight you are having over ECR, is NOT your repeated postings and jibes at each other, but the drilling results that ECR generate from its completed and forthcoming drilling results. That will also settle the issue of what happens to the share price, and whether we stand to make or lose money. In the meantime, the share price might continue to decline on this selling, or it might find a pre-drilling results bottoming level, and its next move will then depend on the actual results (with CresWick to go first). For my part, I would argue that the current share price is obviously not pricing in any success at any of the projects.
Whilst I originally came back in for CresWick, I am equally if not more hopeful about Queensland - my sense is that AH might have stronger enthusiasm for the latter projects tbh. So, if the drill bit starts turning in Queensland in the coming weeks, then it means we have multiple throws of the dice here, and only need one to land impressively, in order to get upside from these low levels. And if none land, then it is doldrums!
Super critical quarters coming up for ECR, which will settle all of the debates. Gotta be in it to win it... or lose it:-) All imo and DYOR

I don't know the format of these events, but I would hope that the presentations will be useful in:
1) Confirming and presenting to the audience on the basis of planned Q3 drilling.
2) General updates that 'all is going well and to plan' and specifically around farmout and Rig.
3) If there is Q&A, then doubtless the questions will cover these areas.
4) If recorded and available for us to watch, then offering us the usual clues, cues and signs, for us body language experts on here to decipher, interpret (or should that be misinterpret?) and discuss :-)

Okay chaps, points 'well' made. Do you need to go on at each other like this - as it clear that neither of you is listening to or influencing the other. We had a lot of this with rxdav/tamer, and now that the former is gone, it isn't a void that needs filling.
Can't we be spared such stuff on this bb, even for a few weeks. Pretty please? (And with all due respect to the fact that you are entitled to post what you like and the rest of us can filter).

I think that strategy would be in keeping with your username, if that helps :-)

JP2000 - have they now taken that decision? I thought they were going to wait for Ditau assay results (expected later this month) before deciding which project to drill first. The tweets show preparations at both KSZ and Ditau.