Member Info for Legalwolf

Not a bad shout that on Molopo, given KAV's previous work and interest in the project. I'm also not expecting the results to be great, but let's see. Certainly PJ is not ramping Molopo, as much as he was pre-drilling, and they are almost finished there as well.
More generally, I have wondered whether there are any comparisons and/or read across between Molopo conductors and the KSZ conductors, but this is based on nothing more sophisticated than they are in the same country, as opposed to looking at the geology and the exploration methods used by both companies.

CT - it's not so much a case of calling the bottom, but more a case of expectancy based on newsflow, where I think BT has moved the goalposts, or kicked the can down the road, in terms of imminence of JV and drilling B1, which were the near term events that made me consider averaging down in the first place.

I’m underwater albeit but not with a particularly large position. I can easily average down and was considering doing so, as I usually scale in anyway. However, now I am left wondering why put more in here just right now, when any hopes/confidence of share price moving news in the NEAR term have receded following that interview - those hopes being based on current drilling, possible JV news and/or drilling of B1 following Molopo?
If that is overly pessimistic, happy to be told why with specifics. Like I said, not an academic question as actively considering whether or not to put more in. This is an example of the before and after following that interview in terms of sentiment albeit just mine.

Am I reading it correctly. Only 2000 metres of drilling? Where’s that going to get us and will it put a meaningful dent into the project? I’ve previously commented about ‘scratch the surface’ type exploration being presented as something significant and is this another example of that?
Or am I being overly critical here? I know resources are limited but I was hoping for more drilling than this. All imo

With AIM stocks in particular, either of these is a reason for buying in. With ECR I am still trying to figure out which category applies for me?

I suppose there’s a difference between investing in a project because you genuinely feel it will be a discovery, or because you believe enough of the market will like the story enough to buy into it, thereby riding on that wave of optimism (or naivety).

As soon as you read 'CresWick JV', you know the situation is not great. It's often like a last cry on the ECR battlefield for the bulls/believers here (and I say that without any intention to be disparaging or cause offense). IMO, the 'CresWick JV' must be one of the longest running myths/ramps/hopes on AIM. It's been spoken about for quite a few years now. Therefore, I would have thought that any company that is/was seriously interested in doing a CresWick JV has had ample opportunity to strike a deal with ECR. The explanation/excuse for lack of JV in recent times has been the licence situation. Well that is now sorted, but still no mention of JV, or previously interested parties coming back to the table?
Therefore, I can't help but think that the 'CresWick JV' was a yarn spun by CB, masterfully at times, and to maximum effect. By stark contrast, is AH even mentioning it, and has it appeared in a RNS since he took over the company? If not, what does that tell us, and why are we still mentioning it if ECR itself is not? (Happy to be corrected if they are talking it up?)
I don't think any CresWick JV is happening in advance of the next drill. And then it will depend on whether they hit gold in sufficient amounts to attract a JV partner. Therefore, this is no different to any other junior gold project that has commercial potential, and places ECR is not better or different a position to any other junior. That is my view, until or unless AH tells us otherwise.

Listened to the interview. I'm afraid I also found it a rather uninspiring pitch, not really what you want at the start of the year, and in marked contrast to the 'year of discovery' pitch for last year. I think BT is just waffling his way from one interview to the next now, trying to come up with exciting things to say, or what he thinks the market wants to hear, and the result is obfuscation, mixed, confusing and inconsistent messaging . For example, I didn't hear much follow up to the pre Xmas optimism about 'a JV in the new year'. Is that still on the cards? Similarly, he indicated that they would return to KSZ once the Rigs had finished at Molopo? Yet its now changed to 'needing to do more work at KSZ to ensure they get it right'. Usually he loses no opportunity to lead with and laud KAV's expertise and innovative methods, and did so again with this interview. But suddenly when it comes to explaining the B1 drilling position, the narrative reverts to 'we are a small company and need to be extra careful'. I echo what others have said, what exactly have they been doing since the last drill at B1? And they have already told us they narrowly missed the conductor(s), so why is a narrow miss now needing another 12 plus months to retarget? And how is this overall tardiness consistent with the 'we must drill B1, it's a priority for us' messaging ever since the first campaign?
The stuff about the KCB was also confusing and uninspiring. Even the interviewer had to ask/check at the end whether the current drilling is actually aimed at finding any mineralisation! Tbh, I was thinking the same. And the fact
that BT had to correct that impression and confirm they are, just made it sound all the more unconvincing. It was also frustrating, alarming even, to listen to yet another example of how the company's exploration thesis (which they arrived at after several months/year of "innovative" work), has then changed as soon as they have started drilling. Yes, this might be a reflection of the complex projects that they have, and how exploration works, but hasn't this now happened across all three projects? And how much confidence does it then leave you when it comes to their pre drilling work?
I know there is probably a bit of a reaction and rant in the above, and frustration coming through, but I really was hoping for better and more, based on his previous interviews. I hope his next interview is more concrete/committal and revives confidence and optimism (for me at least). All imo

Very little has been externally verified. When months ago people were lauding the fact that GCAT would be setting up its own lab and would therefore be able to process results faster, I was very much thinking the opposite and made the point on here, that I would much rather prefer results to come from an external lab. Under the current regime, it is preferable that key information, fact and figures are externally verified imo.
One of the questions that I would also like addressed from any internal review or external investigation is whether any member of the BOD has ever received any kind of introduction, or other type of fees, for acquisitions and loans that the company has undertaken. Alternatively, prior knowledge, association or dealings with said lenders/third parties. All imo

I suspect it will be a YES man type of appointment. It has happened very quickly without a proper selection process. They have not brought in someone to uncover any shenanigans. Internal Review is more a PR thing and to deflect attention and try to give a veneer of responsibility. I cant see RM going anywhere as he runs the show. His father is a NED. Tells its own story that. According to RNS they are still seeking a listing in Nairobi. Makes you wonder what the motivations are for this? All imo and dyor

Thanks APR and ID78 - understood.

ID78 - I agree, a top bb this with some super posters, who helped me navigate the MANY questions that GCAT has thrown at us (and continues to throw at us). It's a real shame we weren't able to enjoy the promised good times together as well, and this has turned out to be more multi-blagger than multi-bagger, as we had hoped. And I am very sorry to read about the losses made by lth on here. I hope they are able to recoup them.
Yes, I've taken a lot of stick at various stages, going right back to February/March in fact, but stuck to my guns (literally and kept firing them when required). I am very cautious and like to challenge the consensus and question everything, repeatedly if needs be. After all, its my hard earned money on the line. So it can make me a negative poster by default. But I see the REAL value in these bb (as a research and decision making tool for me) as going through the negatives and the elephants in the room. If discussing these negatives with valued posters helps me overcome my concerns, then it gives me more confidence in my investment. But if these other invested and respected posters can't allay the concerns, then maybe that's telling me something different about the investment? Anyway, that's my logic and been my experience/approach to bb. (BTW - I can be positive as well - who was making the 1.3p by Xmas predictions on here? Me!)
I agree we shouldn't ever base decisions on what a stranger tells us on a bb, but we are human, and WILL be influenced by others, to varying degrees. Otherwise, why are we here in the first place? So I do 'listen' to others on bb, albeit cautiously rather than starry eyed. But I always try to remember that our portfolios and circs are different, as is our risk tolerance and risk management. Trek is a good example, unlike most others I suspect, he managed to recoup his losses here very quickly, so he can maybe take on and handle more risk, and handle the consequences of that risk, if/when it materialises. That's the danger of aligning yourself with even experienced and respected posters - because they might well be better or more experienced/able swimmers than you if the party ends and the boat goes under, as if often does on these speculative stocks.
Anyway, back to GCAT - who knows if this can/will rise from the ashes and restore its lost potential? And which of us will still be here to see that. I remain out as too many uncertainties just right now.

AJ doesn't come across well, and has been rather wishy washy, whenever I have heard him, and not inspiring in confidence. Sometimes you wonder whether he even realises that he is working for a junior gold explorer, that has limited time and resources, and its only objective (and hence his objective) is to make a discovery. I know he isn't full time and has other gigs. Sometimes you can be forgiven for thinking that he's just doing PhD research, or field work in Victoria, and will be submitting a well overdue academic thesis or paper about Baileston and CresWick.
But I do think there was a time when maybe even CB wasn't best pleased with him? Because if I recall correctly, CB brought in another geologist and then appointed her as ECR's Chief Geologist, above AJ (or was it the other way round). Whatever happened to her?
Anyway, its AJ at the helm for now, but surely he needs to deliver some noteworthy drilling results from the next campaign that he puts together for ECR, or be held accountable if they again disappoint. All imo

ID78/APR - for those of us (such as myself) who aren't as well versed or adept in such matters, could I just ask whether any of these 'anomalies' or points you have been discussing with the production data, in any way raise any concerns or questions mark in your minds, about the size of the resource at Kilimapesa Hill? If you recall, until the upgraded MRE came out in July 2022, we were discussing on here whether they had enough gold at KH in the measured category.
Does of any of what has followed since, in terms of actual production achieved, re-open or revisit the issue of actual mineable gold in the Hill?
Or is this simply about plant efficiencies and operation?

Lots of questions and although the interviews have maybe done more harm than good in recent times, I think now is the time for GCAT to front up and do another Stockbox interview. If they are confident in sorting out the funding, as per the RNS, then come out and tell us more about why. Furthermore, the market needs an update on the current mine operations, current finances, the publication of the Prospectus, etc. Now is not the time to go MIA, but to front up and show some responsibility, accountability and consideration imo. If they now go quiet, it will just make matters worse, feed the uncertainty, increase the anxiety and the rumour mill, etc.
Stockbox interview needed imo?

I don't disagree with that P1D. The few times I have heard him, I have been impressed, and his approach is very different (to put it politely) to that of his predecessor. I also think AS is pretty straight up as well. Imagine what AH could have done with the circa £4 million that ECR had only two years ago?

What puzzles me is that they had circa 6 months of negotiation, reviewing data and due diligence with OCIM. Why did 'security of loan' become an issue right at the very end, and after the RNS went out? How did they ever reach an agreement in the first place, if they hadn't agreed the loan security - that's not a late in the day type of issue, but very much a central issue, you would think?
The other thing is that RM said OCIM raised the loan security issue on 16 December, so why did he then tell Stockbox that he foresaw no issues with the funding on 22 December. And why did Philoro not allow the drawdown by 31 December, if OCIM only pulled out on 9/10 January. Again, that doesn't make sense now.
As I have said before, this looks like another example of lack of transparency and openness with the market to me? Jumped the gun by announcing not one, but two funding deals, presented them as "secured" when they were clearly anything but. And again, as I posted on here at the time (and took some stick for raising it), the Philaro funding was clearly contingent and aligned/conditional with the OCIM funding, yet it was portrayed as unconditional and also a done deal.
When you add this to things like the failure to tell the market about CLNs x 2, misleading comments about production, and etc, at what point does it go from just being incompetence, or over exuberance, to more of an unjustifiable pattern of misleading the market? All imo

Not writing off the gold projects here Mentalmax, but just making the point that if ECR were to now start talking more about lithium in the future (based on little of substance?) whilst having all these gold projects (and with disappointing drill results on some of them to date), it would risk coming across as lacking confidence in those projects, and trying to jump on a different more in vogue bandwagon. Without something substantial to back the lithium talk, how convincing/desperate would it look? That was the point I was making.
With limited finances and sentiment tiring, they need to focus on the project they think has the best chance of making a discovery. Maybe even get external geological expertise to review this for them. And then attack that project with both drills, and drill 1000s of metres, to try to confirm definitively whether or not they have a commercial discovery. At the moment, they seem to just do more limited 'scratch the surface' type drilling programmes, with a few holes here and there, and then make us wait another 12 months or so before returning to the same project to do the next 'scratch the surface' drilling programme (e.g. Blue Moon and CresWick). This all makes it seem more lifestyle, than going for that discovery. If they do opt for CresWick, then I will be looking very closely at the proposed size of the drilling programme to see if its another 'scratch the surface' drag it on, or a proper attempt to do something significant for shareholders. All imo

I think the biggest tells that something might have happened, are the Chair/Advisers leaving and citing these issues AND the company initiating its own review. Why have they suddenly decided to do this and then put it in a RNS when things are already bad enough? It's an odd time to be announcing governance concerns and conducting a review, without there having been some kind of prompt. IF people have been contacting the FCA, you would think it would prompt some kind of response from them. Furthermore, the company is seeking prospectus approval, so again, the FCA will be going through that process you would have thought.
If RM does give any interviews right now, it would be good if he could clear this up, or provide an update on the Prospectus (and what the new share capital will be under it)? All imo

Finally, some good news!