Member Info for lootgaloot

Speaking of gold, this early RNS mentions possibility of gold at Big One...

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CCZ/copper-and-new-gold-mineralisation-at-big-one-li0fcvi9jjey4ra.html

I assume the assay results will include the presence (or lack of) gold?

We can only hope that we are so near to getting the accurate lab assay results that they thought it pointless to release the estimated result. Whatever the result, I can't blame management; what's in the ground is in the ground. However, I do wish they would refrain from describing every update as 'outstanding result' or 'hit the sweet spot'. Clearly the market thinks differently.

Only 9 working days till Christmas break. We may have to wait for new year to get the assay results.

@aprogerson very much agree this will take longer than 6 months to mature. My point, which I could have made a bit clearer, was that we are due a 'gap up' based purely on copper spot price. The rising price of copper since CCZ was listed in UK hasn't been reflected in share price. I think some positive drilling results over the next 6 months combined with the rising price of copper could get us to > 5p.

Longer term, if the Arya anomaly is indeed copper, parc1 on the advfn forum is calculating £9.5 billion in the ground. I'm not getting ahead of myself and I generally dislike these back of a fag packet calculations; however, I don't think I am being unrealistic to say that 5p is possible in six months time solely on the back of positive assay results from the current 'big one' drilling. In fact, I'd say I'm being conservative.

Of course this all depends on mineralisation and depth of the remaining 28 holes.

That makes sense. Amber may also feel that they are overweight on ALM given that they had to accumulate shares in order to restructure the board. Disappointing because one of the attractive features of ALM was that a high percent of shares were thought to be held by institutions. We shall see if CA continue to sell and also the effect of the C-Band auction over the coming weeks.

To be fair, Ranger has shown a greater commitment to the discussion than all the rampy-"this is going to the moon"-morons.

No sign of the big seller today. Still don't believe they are legit sells, think it's more between market makers. I've added more today so fingers crossed. Otherwise, there's a big seller out there who knows more about next weeks auction than I do.

Copper rising but CCZ seem stuck in a rut. We need to be producing to get the benefit of higher copper prices.

I'm also in ANTO which has risen 50% since CCZ listed; solely on the back of rising copper prices. So I'd say if/when CCZ are producing we should gap up 50% pretty sharpish not to mention the news driven rise that would come from going from a prospector through to a producer. We could be twice the current share price by April/May; perhaps more.

The good days are gone? I must have missed them. They fly by so fast.

I don't think I can stand another week of that bedwetter Miagi. Er, I mean the highly experienced trader Miagi.

Seems likely but they are assigned 'O' for ordinary trade.

Three big trades at the end of the day but I'm not convinced they are sells as they are executed at a higher price than much smaller sells around the same time. I generally resist market maker conspiracy theories but in this case it does look like a cheeky 'tree shake' ahead of the C-band auctions next week. Question is, how much do I believe that and am I brave enough to pick up a few more when the market opens in the morning.

100,000 shares. The last of the big spenders.

Something not right here; -6.5% while the rest of my portfolio is booming.

"Because SpotOn is not providing the funds so there would be no point in asking."

Correct in more ways than one.

Lift off?

habit?

Thanks British_Mike, I'll have a look on the website when I get time this evening. I normally avoid miners but I've tended to drift into them recently. ANTO has proved to be a great copper play for me, now we just need CCZ to come good as well.

For me, the positive to come out of yesterday's results is that The Big One is indeed commercial. While the mineralisation levels may not be as high as investors had hoped, it appears Castillo are upbeat that the project remains on track.

Having had time to digest the news I'm a bit more positive than yesterday. Of course it would have been nice to match the previous assay results but it's more important that the project is running to plan. I believe shareholders will make money on this even before we begin Ayra. It would have been nice to have a bagger and then a free carry on Ayra but I don't think that will happen now.

However, I have to agree with you that if the next set of results are similarly low then it would be time to reappraise. My only concern now is that the latest set of results came from a location close to the historical mine. I'd have thought that this region would have yielded higher results? But mining a lottery really (which is why I normally steer clear).

I'm not too worried at this stage. I'm focused on the fact that the project is still commercial and we are still on track.

I think what I find most annoying is that today's RNS could have come straight out of the O'Reilly playbook. I genuinely thought Linn was a break from the past. A real shame.

Hi British_Mike; Is it too optimistic to suggest that the initial drill results came from central locations most likely to yield the greatest mineralisation while the latest drills were on more peripheral locations or at least selected to ‘map’ the resource rather than ‘prove’ it?

I ask because the two sets of data seem quite different. I’d expect two sets of data from random drill locations to be quite similar. If I was a statistician I would call the data bimodal and suggest there was a bias in data collection between the initial and the latest campaign.

My point is; if the latest results came from drill locations chosen to gain an understanding of the geology rather than to hit the optimum mineralisation then perhaps the data isn’t too bad after all. Perhaps it represents the lower bound of the overall data?

I’m not ramping, or even trying to put a positive gloss on disappointing results; it’s a genuine question. I have no knowledge of mining but it seems common sense that once you have proven the potential, your next drilling campaign would look at more speculative locations on the periphery.