Member Info for OilNovice

0.32 / 0.37 currently.

So, we've had a great start to 2024.

I wanted to try and summarise the likely news flow over the coming months:

1. BCM results from 639 samples + 68 QAQC samples collected at Mbe - due late January

2. At Senala, a renewal for a further three year term has been submitted with approval awaiting

3. The remaining 4 Eastern CLP licences - looking for project-level financing (including restructuring of Canadian Bank offer)

4. Two-year licence extension at Wapouzé and change of use to Limestone is still awaiting approval

5. Once new Wapouzé licence received, looking to secure an industrial minerals partner to develop the Wapouzé project through to exploitation

6. Engaging with parties on the lithium anomalism previously identified within the Ndom licence (also part of the Eastern CLP) and the adjacent Gamboukou licence

7. At the Faré prospect, Managem will not be completing any more work. The Options Agreement expires on 17 February 2024. Managem own 60% with the option to pay c.$2.3m for additional 10%. Oriole are looking at either JV with Managem or sale - I would estimate Oriole's 40% interest at Senala is worth c.$9.2m.

8. Legacy assets e.g. Turkey royalties.

With ORR MCAP at c.£11m (c.$14m), the news flow has potentially to significantly move the sp.

Also, most of this news is likely coming in Q1 2024.

Exciting times indeed.

I think Nesnoor may be feeling positive after yesterday's presentation...

Hi Bella

Good points.

I wonder how much sway the doctors (and hospitals) have over pharma on drug treatments - this is what I’m trying to figure out.

Should the trial data be as good as expected, another ARM type bidding war would be great.

It really is an exciting time for Avacta.

Thank you for your replies.

I appreciate it. Apologies if I'm being a burden to some on this board - I had the crazy idea that BBs were for discussion...

Particular thanks to Benharper, Moneysponge regarding the patent issue facing pharma. And on using medicines that may be toxic otherwise... Makes a lot of sense.

GingetheWinge - it will be interesting to see the efficacy data to know whether higher doses actually make any difference in tumour reduction. Preliminary results are positive.

Ha!

Nobody has really been able to answer my initial question, but there have been some good information and other points of view. Thanks.

Hi GingetheWinge - I agree with you and you have a good definition of Pre | precision 'using novel delivery of an EXISTING drug to IMPROVE toxicity profile and widen the therapeutic index'. But does that mean compared to direct Dox, an AVA6000 patient would receive less Dox?

Obviously the efficacy and tumour impact data is to be released soon.

Just going back to my original question, a pharma company is driven by profit. So if less drug is used and no drugs for side effects are needed anymore, what advantage does the pharma company get with Pre | cision?

It's a bit of a paradox as the potential clinical benefits (potential quicker treatment, no side effects, etc.) and operational benefits (lower bed usage, less care needed, etc.) to a hospital are massive; BUT, what is the business case to a pharma company?? It's all very interesting, and I'm hoping it all plays out positively!

Thanks for the replies, well the informed replies. I like to think we can have a reasoned discussion on here...

The efficacy data will be interesting.

Moneysponge - it will be important to get clarity on whether patients need more Dox and for longer - if efficacy is better and tumours respond well, maybe there will be less Dox dosing rounds as treatment? I don't know...

Thornogson / Wyndrum - I wonder even if no better efficacy, would the reduced chemo effects be of interest, like you say with BP, as there is clearly a market for battling chemo side effects.

nursesteve - agree. If tumour shrinkage is reported, this would clearly be a great outcome clinically - but, the question would be can a pharma company maximise profits - I believe LovableLumax hit it on the head with the TAM being so large that (ideally) it would be the treatment of choice for hospitals and therefore, achieve a larger market share??

Although I am very confident in the AVA6000 trial showing positive outcomes, and potential M&A interest, I have this one niggling issue in my mind... Having many friends in the pharma space, I have asked them their thoughts and the replies are interesting:

- Pharma business models (and M&A decision) are about profit and/or market dominance not better care, therefore:

- Does the Pre | cision Platform bring more profit to pharma compared to the standalone drug - NO as you will likely need less drug and fewer doses??

- Does the platform bring market share - MAYBE as hospitals will not need to cater for side effects and can free up beds, increase efficiency of care giving??

- Taking the above on board - what market has money for M&A and where is Pre | cision more applicable - US / ASIA has the money, but can it make the pharma companies profit??

I believe this is the key paradoxical question - hospitals will want to use Pre | cision, but can pharma make enough profit compared to standalone drug sales (not using Pre | cision)?

I'm torn!

Tygra - the last day of May was a high volume day - 104m shares traded...
We all thought it was index rebalancing.
May have also been shorts closing out.
If I remember right, share price rose c.10% to 8.5p (but eventually closed at 7.1p on UT).

If there are indeed far fewer shorts, hopefully the sp can rise with volume once again...

My guess - margin calls
Every man and his dog is deleveraging.
The creditors want their money back!!!

I've asked around my network of financial / legal eagles in the city to understand the potential reasons / outcomes - these are LIKELY reasons for EUA suspension:
- AIM Rule 1: loss of NOMAD
- AIM Rule 19: unable to publish audited accounts before deadline
- AIM Rule 15: any disposal resulting in a "fundamental change of business"
- Suspension due to Sanctions

It is interesting that they have not stated the reason for suspension in the RNS - as others have said, this could mean it is 'market sensitive'. But may just be sloppy RNS writing...

Time will tell.

But has recovered slightly.
I wonder how long Putin will let this continue - or if he even cares.

Prayers with all people impacted.

They say that modern wars are financial wars... if so, Russia will want this to end quickly.

It's a mixed RNS.
Forward looking strategy / guidance is very positive.
Revenues were poor and below estimates. But with good reasoning i.e. social media ban (rather than lack of interest).
Let's see how the market reacts...

My musings:
Kola Nickel sold off - maybe to Tesla
Kola Hydrogen sold off - to Japanese
Kola PGM retained as EUA v2.0

Bridgedogg1 - my 2 cents...
Many have said it before, the general gold mining sector is out of favour right now. It was bullish from mid-2018 to mid-2020 but has since started to deflate... I think in general the sector is down c.25% from peak.
Because of this, I believe there just isn't enough money from the IIs and funds being put into gold miners. The sentiment just isn't there at this time.

The short term trend of this share (and others like it) is now reliant on news flow and/or rumour.

Longer term, there will be another gold mining cycle of investment/interest and ORR should do well if the results are as good as we believe.

I actually find these downcycles are a great time to identify the better micro/small caps - those that perform well or hold their value during these periods tend to outperform in bull runs.

Ginandmilk - why would you want to pay off your mortgage? In an inflationary world - some argue imminent hyperinflation - you are better off borrowing as much as possible.
Why?
Because as the world inflates, the value of the £ decreases and your purchasing power decreases.
Ergo, over the next years, the £ you are using to pay your mortgage are worth less than the original debt.

Obviously, this depends on your personal financial circumstance, age, etc...

Anyway, back to EUA...

1eyeopen - the DD will have been undertaken by "Company A", at their own cost.
The DD will likely have cost them £millions.
I doubt Company A would just give this to another rival company.

Hello
I've just spoken to a friend who is in international M&A working in the City and asked about what this RNS means... here's his thoughts:
1. As EUA is a publicly listed company on a regulated market, there is scrutiny around any RNS released. Therefore, this information should be taken as true and the wording nuances are important
2. "Successfully" completing due diligence is a good sign. His experience is that 19/20 companies that complete DD successfully go on to complete the acquisition
3. His thoughts on the process - the FSP was likely the marketing piece to gather interest from the market. Interested parties would then give indicative informal offers and would have to show credibility. The reason for stopping the FSP was likely because there was a "Proposal from the Credible Party" in May which was likely the start of an exclusivity arrangement whereby the potential "Buyer" could have exclusive access to all sensitive information. The exclusivity was necessary to justify the "Buyer" spending £xm's on due diligence.
4. The next stage (now) will be the "Buyer" chipping away at the sale price using the conclusions of their DD. Until a sale price is agreed. It's anyone's guess where this offer will be...
5. In terms of timelines, he believes an offer from the "Buyer" should come within 8 weeks max (including informing the market by RNS). Completing the acquisition will obviously take far longer.

Hope this is useful.

We should bear in mind that ORR only own 9.21% of TSD so while these results are very good, we are a small % holder of an exploration company. Unless TSD becomes the next GGP, this holding is, as Time Livesey states, "no longer material to the group"...

We need our own prospects to have these kind of results!