Member Info for OrangeMoon

AGEOS

Posted in: OMI

Posts: 925

PEPAS update11 Feb 2025 16:55

(Note: shortened for clarity - original text intact)

"However, for what it may be worth, PEP021 & 22, the two high grade holes, which triggered the recent SP interest, were drilled in the same vertical plane as the previously reported PEP014 which intersected 75m @ 5.57 g/t. The 107m @ 6.22 g/t from PEP021 and the 76m @ 7.24 g/t from PEP022 were therefore consistent with the prior assay and add nothing to the previously calculated ore tonnage and simply reinforce the average grade value of 6g/t used to calculate the Au resource for the two high grade 50m3 blocks which are the core of the 7-blocks enclosing the whole of the PEPAS 1 mineralised prospect. The calculations summarised in my 05.01.25 post, of “the 7 blocks incorporate a maximum potential resource [at PEPAS 1] of 1,925,000 tonnes at 2.2sp.g, which with 5 blocks averaging c3g/t Au and 2 blocks at c6g/t gives a total indicated resource of 262,914oz Au.” therefore remains unchanged."

- Note the more recent date - (11.02.25)

- This was on page 1 of AGEOS history.

- He would have refined it more should he have had all the data IMO.

Terry,

As much as I dislike (and usually filter out) most of the nonsense posters on here, I think it shows weakness to run away from any conservative or contrarian views, including those from posters like Element. I see no real harm in his posts, as I'm confident with my position here.

I'm not a weak investor, so I'm happy to take some of his points on-board and then offer strong rebuttals when needed. That approach is far more useful for people reading along than simply calling him a w*nker and leaving it at that.

@Jerryspaniel

To be 100% honest, there are a lot of great posters here who bring real wealth of information and different perspectives worth exploring.

Dr. Remington, Legalwolf, Ageos, and other pro-OMI voices here are worth following—these are just a few standouts among many.

As you know, Element often shares strong technical perspectives. I appreciate the technical side myself but see more value in stepping back for the bigger picture and focusing on the key areas that need our attention most right now: 'Key milestones' rather than 'mill head grades' or 'ETF flows' (other areas where Element excels). That said, his geology models could certainly be of interest to many, even if just for discussion or comparison. I won't hold his initial intentions against him here—he'll be onboard soon enough.

Regardless of how much gets posted on both sides of the argument with respect to 'speculation' (not the hard data), we will only know what's truly in the ground when the drill bit does the talking.

OMI is just getting started—with one of the strongest cash balances it’s ever had to support the ramp-up in exploration and development ahead.

I’ll aim to keep my own posts high-level, but just know that the underlying research goes much deeper than what typically gets posted publicly.

Yesterday I posted a 'simple' analysis of what is driving OMI's current market cap based on the available 'data'.

Simply put:

Pepas 200k oz high-grade Au (>5 g/t)

+

APTA 500k oz high-grade Au (>5 g/t) — (low-grade material was deliberately excluded)** Still to be MRE'd.

= In-ground value at spot gold price ($5,000/oz) of ~$3.5 billion.

Using a standard risk-adjusted metric of 3%, that gives a valuation of roughly £100M (ignoring exchange-rate effects for simplicity).

This is based on ~700k oz @ 5 g/t Au — a conservative estimate.

This wasn't AI-generated. If you didn't understand this basic high-level investment case, it only highlights how poorly researched your position is in general.

I don't suffer fools — whether they're overly bullish or overly bearish. That's why I put people like Maxvelocity in the green bin (along with other spammers and non-contributors), and why I'm happy to debate with Element. These debates may not always be 100% correct, but they can ignite thoughtful discussion among others watching from different perspectives.

Focusing on the technicalities of initial capex costs (tolling, milling, metallurgy, permits, etc.) isn't my personal priority at this stage. It's worth considering in general, and I'm happy to discuss it.

The main points that bulls are focusing is the fact we have a $14M war chest to explore our already highly prospective assets — and prove up more ounces of gold. That would dramatically improve all the metrics around initial capex if we hit. The key near-term catalysts are:

1) Hitting Pepas North (or South) - A drill is turning right now, and we could see a decent intercept at any moment. In my opinion, this has massive potential to re-rate the market cap back above 40p, as it would validate Brad's concept and build ounces within our exploration plan.

2) APTA MRE (hopefully an expansion)

This should solidify the existing data and potentially deliver more ounces.

3) El Pantano - What we currently have looks like a massive mineralised system — going by the 'company off-spin' comments from Louis and our previous investor presentations.

4) El Cedro maiden drilling

5) La Virgincita mapping / sampling / drilling

(This area actually looks the most lucrative in my view — and in the view of many others.)

These five points are the main drivers right now and give OMI its multi-bag potential — well before any Pepas production comes online.

Legal - The point I'm trying to drive is to get away from the emotional responses and provide a reasoned counter argument. It might not be worth some people's time, but I belive the more information, the better. I disagree with Element on many aspects, he has admited that he omited APTA and our further potential from his original analysis... but it doesn't mean that his contextual posts should be dismissed. These boards shouldn't be a shouting match. I filter most users that de-ramp with no context after some time, but when genuine discussions can happen, I'm happy to engage.

We've all conducted thorough due diligence on the company, based on the current data, and incorporated a solid risk/reward assessment for our speculative prospects.

It was clear to me from the start that when Element first joined the discussion, his analysis was heavily concentrated on Pepas alone, without fully considering the broader company and licenses. Now that he's incorporated APTA into his view, even he appears to recognize the synergies across the license that make the overall economics more compelling. Although still tries to push the single asset capex option at this time.

Element — I understand your concern about the initial capex for Pepas. Tolling arrangements, potential mill construction, metallurgy compatibility etc, but these can all be leveraged across multiple projects on the same license - Synergies.

You're point of inital capex costs only comes into the calculations after the following has been proven or not:

- Discovery of additional Pepas-style deposits (which seems likely)

- An initial MRE at APTA, or further expansion

Each of these developments could significantly reduce the effective initial capex burden of a single project.

That said, even based on the current data for Pepas and APTA as they stand today, the company's market cap appears to fairly reflect a standard exploration-stage risk/reward profile — without factoring in any of the significant upside potential still ahead.

We're all confident that this is just the beginning of the ramp-up phase. As the year progresses, there will be far more to discuss than just the standalone capex for Pepas.

**Appologies if it reads a bit course, the last part should have been:

**In the most simplified way - the information that he has provided more recently aligns with that longer term view, Capex investment could be $40M dollars to build a rough plantation, which unlocks (through further staged Capex) 500-800kOz Au (plus credits)... Therefore even at todays 100M Mcap we have the economics to unlock $2.5B - $4.0B ($5000 spot not accounting for OPEX, Taxation, etc) of underground value - with our current projects. So let's put a 10% profit high risk ratio on that... $250M-$400M value here.

Even implying a more risk adjusted framing of 3-7% underscores OMI valuation at or above it's current Mcap.

"Every now and then, if you do the hard work, you find something special." Correct - IMO it's right here.

Even implying a more risk adjusted framing of 3-7% underscores OMI valuation at or above it's current Mcap.

"Every now and then, if you do the hard work, you find something special." Correct - IMO it's right here.

Element has been analysing our current data... It's clear that he is not a fan of our board or perhaps OMI as a whole, but let's stick to the facts:

We emplored him to look at OMI with the known data - that is, our drilling data. For which we only currently have Pepas MRE and assays from APTA - That's fine. He is actually doing a good job at it from a conservative basis and looking longer term, as most of us are doing here, can see OMI returning a substantial investment to shareholders - again, with 'current data'.

But alas - we are an exploration company! The data is great for underlying value, a point at which even the banks could provide support of the SP but it's not why most of us are here...

Note: There isn't any value added within this analysis of our current cash balance for exploration or the potential that most see here within our other prospects... and if Pepas and APTA were our sole projects, we may even be hitting a more lassonde curve based graph with our SP.

Here is a rough holistic view, using current data, and a longer term view, using current ounces in High-Grade Zones prioritised for minimal-capex (phased) development:

Focusing only on material that supports selective mining (high-grade cores/pods, >~3–4.5 g/t cut-off for UG, much higher head grades in practice):

Pepas (open-pit starter): ~201 koz Indicated (all high-grade, shallow). This alone could support a small 250 ktpa operation for 3–5 years at very low cost.

APTA (2–3 small UG satellites): Element1's back-of-envelope implies APTA adds the bulk of potential — combined Pepas + APTA ~15–16 Mt for ~850 koz recoverable (plus Zn/Ag credits). He has stated risk weighted - but seeing as he is conservative over all, let's use it in our calculation.

After Pepas' defined 219 koz, this points to ~600–700 koz conceptual high-grade at APTA (selective pods only).

Realistic Oz per small UG mine (targeting individual pods): 80–250 koz each at mined head grades of 8–15+ g/t Au (common for selective narrow-vein/pod mining in Mid-Cauca).

Total for 2–3 mines: 300–600+ koz supplemental high-grade feed.

Overall high-grade inventory picture (prioritised, minimal capex):

~500–800+ koz Au (Pepas 201 koz open-pit + APTA UG pods 300–600 koz).

This is all on the same license, 10 km apart, with shared base camp/infra at APTA. One central plant (e.g. at Pepas or APTA camp) processes everything — truck ore from the UG satellites.

Pepas cash-flow funds APTA UG development at US$20–50 M each.

In the most simplified way - the information that he has provided more recently aligns with that longer term view, Capex investment could be $40M dollars to build a rough plantation, which unlocks (through further staged Capex) 500-800kOz Au (plus credits)... Therefore even at todays 100M Mcap we have the economics to unlock $2.5B - $4.0B ($5000 spot not accounting for OPEX, Taxation, etc) of underground value - with our current projects. So let's put a 10% profit high risk

No one likes to have their stocks talked down—that's a fact.

It triggers strong emotions and can cloud our judgment about our original investment. In these moments, we don't think clearly, we become vulnerable, and we're generally at our weakest.

The hourly, daily, and weekly charts all feed into these emotional swings, which are amplified by red days—especially in the wild west of the AIM market, where we often see more red days in terms of frequency (even during an overall uptrend, thanks to shallower pullbacks and bigger green-day moves).

The market excels at exploiting this weakness—it's worth reading up on trading psychology to build your defenses.

It's wise to step back and reassess once the emotions have subsided. This is what separates average investors from the rest: reducing the role of emotion.

Reading Element's post offers good insights, IMO. I completely understand why many here might read this part and immediately disagree—perhaps lashing out with emotional name-calling or trying to dismiss it entirely. But if that's you, then the following information will be even more important to digest. Take a step back, and you'll see what I see. I'll explain (my opinion) of a more holistic view in the following post.

Element1 - Firstly, thank you for taking the time to properly assess what we 'currently' have at APTA.

However, by your own admission, this is the first time you've delved deeper into the company's additional prospects. That confirms two things:

1) You hadn't done thorough research on the company before your initial post on the Pepas MRE - as we had all originally suspected.

2) All your previous posts (and future) carry this underlying bias/disregard. 'Tainted' - if you like.

It is what it is. You give with one hand and take away with the other.

That said, it's useful to have your fresh analysis on APTA—we can compare it against Ageo's model (amongst others) and see whose view holds up once OMI delivers the actual MRE. I see it took you all of about 10 minutes... But you're right, it will be a nightmare for the specialists with the correct software models...

Your comment about Newmont walking away because it was a "nightmare to mine"—come on, behave! 😂 I found it amusing, though. A good laugh never hurts. For anyone unfamiliar: strategic mine planning often targets these discrete high-grade zones first. It's standard practice in selectivity and operational realities—GGP did exactly this when they took over Telfer to boost their initial numbers.

Anyway, this is a solid start. As numerous other Geos and the OMI team have noted, APTA looks like a limb off something larger. Further drilling and expansion (especially deeper) should hopefully grow these numbers significantly. For my risk assessment, I'd put it at around 50% - balanced.

As part of my own risk model, I initially discounted APTA's historical data to a much lower ounce count, but even after assessing this, I am still very much invested, heavily.

You seemed surprised by the high grades when you first analysed them at APTA... and there will be more to come. Seems like OMI is worth digging into after all.

Looking forward to your further analysis APTA, on Pepas-North/Surrounding, El Cedro, El Pantano, La Virgincita - after they are assayed - obviously now that you are acknowledging... 'It's not just Pepas'.

We are making progress.

Just to expand on that before it gets misconstrued…

OMI has a clear plan and strategy for self-funded exploration via Pepas and positive FCF (with perhaps more Pepas projects in the future). Even if Pepas alone doesn't deliver company-making profits, as Brad stated — it's a great starter.

They've laid it all out. Now it's up to the community/investors to decide whether they believe OMI truly has the potential to succeed… and personally, I think the current ~$100M market cap already suggests the market believes they can.

Hi Element – let's be real: what are exploration companies if not built on hope?

Hope is speculation, and speculation is exactly why we're all here in the first place. There are countless exploration names out there with no clear path to positive cash flow — yet they still carry meaningful market caps.

Your technicals matter, and they'll matter even more down the road, but right now (in my view) they're not the main driver. The real value inflection will likely come later this year once more meaningful data hits. Including that of the hope that we hit Pepas North/Surrounding, APTA MRE/Expansion, El Cedro, La virginceta and El Pantano.

We can always assign a higher risk premium to that 'hope' component. It is certainly not 0 and it's not 100... It's somewhere in-between.

Element,

I'm sure you understand the principle of "let's not walk before we can run." I shouldn't need to break it down for you but I'll give it one last shot.

We are an exploration company that has only just delivered a maiden MRE on roughly 10% of our conservative speculated underground potential. We've only recently achieved our first major milestone with the Pepas MRE, which is a key step on the road to our broader strategy.

The reason many here challenge your views (technical or otherwise)—and why it may feel like you're pushing uphill—is that your analysis deliberately omits several additional aspects of the company. That's a big mistake.

While you continue to argue that this single asset appears uneconomical and push a Lassonde curve 'theory' it would be wiser to wait for more data to emerge before declaring the outcome prematurely. OMI is a serious company with significant in-ground potential yet to be discovered and the funding to back it. It positioned itself long before the current gold bull run began unlike many other exploration plays.

What we're seeing now is likely a mindset shift in valuation after years of being overlooked—especially when you consider the substantial high-grade gold (including those chunky nuggets) underground at APTA. Many are looking to take up longer-term positions, noting the growing institutional interest.

It's all about synergies in Anzá. I won't dive into our other assets in detail (you can take your own time to review them), but they contribute far more to the overall market cap potential than your current assessment reflects. Each one of your points can be easily counteracted with minimal knowledge of the company or the broader area/region.

Amazing interview by Brad yesterday/last night (depending on where you are in the world), which paints a clear picture of why many here believe OMI will become a future mining company (the classic 1-1000 ratio) with a price tag in the billions, not millions. We're positioned well on the Mid-Cauca gold belt—and it's looking increasingly shiny with each drill bit that enters the ground.

In essence, for anyone who doesn't want to read that absolute essay i've just posted: Toll milling is the preferred option.

The suggestion that toll milling is "not an option" is far from the truth — in fact, it mainly comes down to recovery efficiency.

Worst case, toll milling reduces efficiency by about 10%… not the "completely incompatible" opinion that's sometimes suggested. And can be easily offset due the likelihood of a further deposit in the area being found.

Agray – I encountered this scenario when reviewing Element1's technical posts on milling, but after running some calculations, I still view third-party toll milling as the primary option for Pepas. I'll show why here:

The challenge with more generic/local third-party facilities is that they operate at coarser grinds around 120 microns P80.

The Pepas ore—high-grade at 5.46 g/t Au—will likely require finer grinding to around 70 microns for optimal liberation and recovery.

However, facilities like Aris Mining's Maria Dama plant at Segovia (up to ~120 km away) - which is the one I used to show the normal trucking distance in this region - use a grinding circuit capable of finer sizes, with reports indicating final grinds around 80–106 microns. This makes it far more compatible than the coarser 'local' toll mills.

To quantify the impact - the recovery comparison, based on metallurgical studies for similar gold ores shows:

Using an 80-micron grind (P80) instead of the optimal 70 microns typically results in only slightly reduced gold liberation and overall recovery. For free-milling or similar ores, the difference in this narrow range (70–80 microns) is 'often minimal or negligible', as recovery tends to plateau once sufficient liberation is achieved.

Tests on various gold concentrates, for example, show stable recoveries of 95–97% with no significant impact across 73–197 microns P80.

At a coarser 120-micron grind, the loss could be much higher—likely 5–10% in recovery (potentially up to 10% at the upper end). This is precisely why trucking farther to a better-suited mill like Segovia makes economic sense, especially given the high grade and reasonable transport costs (~US$20–40/t).

If only a 120-micron local mill were available, a 10% top-end recovery hit would still make toll milling viable compared to building our own flotation plant from the start.

That said, we also need to factor in Brad and Louis's confidence in discovering a satellite deposit— including the research which suggests a 70–80% likelihood. If that materializes, it would strongly justify constructing our own flotation mill to handle multiple deposits 'more' efficiently. Which is why I think Louis suggested it - It just doesn't fit the 'public data' narrative previously peddled.

Therefore in summary, the technical risk from suboptimal milling (e.g., minor recovery losses at 80 microns) seems low enough that third-party tolling remains a highly practical and efficient near-term path— compaired with the capex costs of building our own flotation mine. Until any new deposits are found.

A floatation mine would make sense if we discover more Pepas style deposits- and with Brad and Louis expecting to find more of these, that's perhaphs why Louis suggested it being an 'option'.

With the public data available on Pepas, it supports toll milling in every scenario to begin with as part of the strategy, unless ofcourse they are aware of something that we are not.

Which is a high probability IMO.

Having a clear plan and strategy is important for every company, but it's relatively rare in mining exploration especially due to short-term funding challenges—whether during the exploration phase or when trying to get the damn stuff out of the ground.

OMI has a strategy in place, and we're actively progressing toward key milestones right now (Pepas MRE, APTA MRE, El Pantano exploration, etc.).

The additional bonus to this strategy is the high probability—70–80% for satellites and 60–70% for a feeder—to be found in the Pepas North area. This has always been one of my personal favorite for one reason or another. Soon, we'll be seeing 5-day turnaround assays from this zone. We all know what this will do for the confidence and valuation of the company.

Indications so far at Pepas North:

Channel sampling (rock chip and continuous trench samples) has been key to delineating surface mineralization, with a focus on saprolite exposures. Results show a coherent anomalous trend expanding northward from Pepas, with clear high-grade potential:

February 2025 (Initial Follow-Up): A 105m continuous channel sample, taken ~200m north of the nearest Pepas drilling, returned 1.15 g/t Au overall, including multiple 1m intervals >5 g/t Au. This is at the southern edge of the "Pepas 2" anomalous area, over 200m beyond the then-current drilling limits.

April 2025 (Expanded Sampling): A 49m channel, located 20m east-downslope in dense vegetation, averaged 2.59 g/t Au, including a 10m subsection at 6.93 g/t Au. The peak 1m sample hit 27.23 g/t Au—the highest surface value recorded to date. This expanded the high-grade anomalous zone laterally by ~50–100m.

Ongoing mapping is targeting western and northern exposures for fresh rock and saprolite. These channel lengths (49–105m) suggest a broad, near-surface halo similar to Pepas' margins, with spot highs implying underlying veined feeders. Analysts have noted that this supports a "stacked" or offset system rather than a single deposit.

Pepas North shows strong potential for a satellite deposit or extension, with an estimated ~70–80% likelihood based on surface data and strong analogs in the Mid-Cauca belt (e.g., Buriticá's multiple veins).

While Brad keeps cooking in the background, we're getting closer and closer to the valuation that long-term and institutional holders see as the real potential here.

Even in the short term, if you're trading, it's just as exciting to be involved—thanks to the multiple project exploration scenarios that help subdue (or sidestep) the classic single-project Lassonde Curve rollercoaster.

As much as I like to read I to seingreds imaginary trading scenarios and fill up the board with guff and ego, a small reminder as to why we are all here:

-Fully funded until 2027. $15m to throw at exploration.

-MRE for high grade from surface, Pepas, now in the bag - 1.14 Mt at 5.46 g/t Au in Indicated classification for 201,000 ounces of contained gold.

-Looking to fast track Pepas to production. Via tolling. A mere £15m capex. Now in development stage.

-Exploration potential around Pepas, more Pepas style shallow high grade deposits expected to be found. Reconnaissance drilling commencing soon.

-Apta deposit close to MRE, requires a small amount of drilling. 1-2m oz. 5g/t+. Drilling expected Q1/Q2 2026.

-El Cedro target, 1.5km2 Porphyry. High grade at surface samples. Drilling coming soon. Q1 2026.

-NEW! La Virginceta target now unlocked. 6km2 Porphyry. Thought to be the source to the whole of Anza. Q1/Q2- Mapping / sampling?

-El Pantano, Argentina. Drill rig turning. Assays due anytime. Visible Silver in the cores. Au also apparently present.

An absolute huge exploration potential here as the company pivots towards developer / producer.

(Credits to Dr Remington)

His analysis presents an extremely conservative, Pepas-only scenario that relies on economies-of-scale arguments to influence sentiment. It overlooks proven potential at APTA (on the same license) and underestimates our board's execution track record. Claims that management has been unfair to shareholders are categorically false: the share price performance over the past two years reflects broader market perceptions, while Brad and Louis continue to advance the plan with discipline.

We have a clear strategy and remain on track to deliver it. As a long-time investor in this sector, I am open to discussing every aspect—positive or negative—in detail, particularly in areas outside my core expertise. Constructive dialogue strengthens understanding and conviction for all involved.

Mr. Element1, I invite you to revisit these points in a few months once the APTA MRE is released. To demonstrate my conviction, I added £40,000 to my position on Thursday—putting my money where my mouth is. Time will tell who is right.

[Part 3]

Element1's comparison to Kaiser Reef Ltd is also misleading. Henty gold mine was acquired last year for approximately $22 million USD and operates successfully at current gold prices around $5,000/oz. Yet he selectively applies spot pricing to favor established producers while dismissing the possibility of sustained or higher prices when valuing our project. He further ignores key risks: an all-in sustaining cost (AISC) around $3,000/oz, underground mining, grades roughly half of ours and limited exploration upside. The comparison therefore, is apples and pears.

Regarding Greatland Gold (GGP), element1 correctly notes its £280 million market cap at one point. However, the narrative is far from a flawless "unicorn" story. Shaun Day deserves significant credit for its success. At the time of this valuation, the gold price was roughly half today's level, Havieron's financing path was uncertain, and Newmont's potential sale of Telfer posed risks to ore processing access. Had Telfer gone to a major uninterested in processing Havieron ore, Greatland would have faced serious challenges. Moreover, a substantial portion of GGP's current value stems from debt-financed acquisition and a consolidation that adjusted the equivalent historical share price to around 28p—broadly consistent with a single-project play on the Lassonde curve, adjusted for the gold price surge and post-COVID market dynamics.

If Element1 were to adhere strictly to the facts—applying consistent pricing assumptions, recognizing our substantial exploration potential, factoring in the forthcoming APTA MRE, acknowledging our proof-of-concept mining approach, and noting that our 2026 exploration and development budget is only about one-third of GGP's despite a much smaller market cap—he might adopt a more balanced view.

Regrettably, this does not align with his persistently bearish narrative, which was also reflected in his limited shareholding.

[Part 2]