Member Info for PaulFG

Yes I thought it was generally a better interview than the Proactive one - definitely more forward looking and hints given to tying in what we now know (visible gold) to what we expect from the forthcoming drill results and what that means for exploration going forward.

I would expect MF to say something it he thinks it's unlikely that the EIA is going to be passed by or very shortly after the end of the month.
I think there may be a bit of transitional thinking here as the company has been private for the best part of five years with just a few very shareholders that have probably allowed MF get on with it without too much interference. What the BoD needs to realise is that there is now a much wider, public shareholder base. This is not an excuse for the 'apparent' lack of communication from the BoD but they need to realise, quickly, they are running a listed company now.

All that said, personally, I am not concerned. MF will be aware of his Governance and the need to update on any fundamental change in the prospects of the business. This is drifting on a lack of news, imo.

FTS: "Assuming HR3 as noted on the twitter feed is correct and should not read HR4 (Cherry Tree) then it appears we are back up at HR3 looking at the Anticline."
Yes I noticed that on the tweet and wondered if it as a typo. If not they finished up at Cherry Tree it was pretty sharp like. Also I thought MIDAS was required to drill at Creswick in a locale too narrow for the existing drill rig to access.

Very interesting...

In fairness, there's bugger all Brad can do if everything is stuck in Peru - it's just the times we live in. Apart from maybe sending the cores to another lab in another country for analysis - but then there's a cost and delay to that option too...

Perhaps someone read the complaints on the board about lack of communication from the company. An unexpected tweet appeared just hours ago: https://twitter.com/MetalsCapital/status/1404354979448733698

Unfortunately, it's a macro level article about commodities in general, and nothing about CMET specifically.

I've almost half written off Senala short term, because of Tim's comments on the possible fun and games he expects iamgold to play.
For me Cameroon is crucial so that we can outlast any of those fun and games and for Cameroon itself obviously.

So the Good News is I finally got my SIPP provider to add OMI to their platform, I had it in my ISA already.

Bad news is I won't be adding to my SIPP, for the moment, until I see how low this goes...

Excellent intell DRJJ

https://capitalmetals.com/news-media/
I know it's going back a bit, but on this particular podcast with Total Market Solutions' Sarah Lowther, MF goes into a lot of detail about the level of commitment and the 2 years they put into the preparation for the ESG EIA requirements. I don't have any concerns around this.

"this is going to drift lower until the BOD release some news to let us know they are actually progressing with this project"...

I think we're drifting into the overly dramatic here. There is NOTHING to suggest the project is not progressing. We are at a stage where the company must wait for the Sir Lanka authorities to move forward.

as you say, Daveb, good to get a reply. Had emailed Sam Quinn sometime ago, but nothing rec'd. In fairness James replied within 10 mins of reading my email.

Exactly, JF, there isn't much they can say.

But the fact that they replied means that they don't see a negative impact to the business from the shipping disaster, tick.

ON the EIA they're right it's out of their hands now (which we all know) and they remain engaged. And I wasn't concerned about it anyway - I just thought, since I'm emailing...

But as I watched the selling and reducing SP, I wondered if the market was pricing in pollution impacts from the situation off Columbo - CMET would not have replied if they envisaged an impact as this would have materially impacted our business and would have required an RNS.

Had a reply from James Leahy, essentially:
1. They're monitoring the shipping disaster, no current impact and they don't envisage any impact as our operations our considerably distant;
2. On the EIA - as expected it's out of their hands but both the local office and BOD remain actively engaged with the relevant authorities to expedite the process as soon as possible.

So as expected re the EIA, but I am more relaxed that they don't envisage any impact to our business from the shipping disaster on the Western coast.

Thought a change of thread title was in order, Strandline Resources had enough PR yesterday. lol

I know a number of you expressed interest in contacting the company yesterday. I have joined the group, not that I'm too concerned over the EIA but it was regarding the Shipping disaster off the Eastern coastline - which I think AIRBORNE first raised here.
Terrible reports on the news media, especially around the billions of plastic pellets dumped into the sea. Given the way this disaster has unfolded I think the company should make an announcement.
Personally, I don't thing it will impact our onshore licences but I know we've applied for some offshore ones too. If this disaster is likely to have a material impact on any of our business activities they should make that announcement or at least announce that there's no current impact and they don't currently envisage one.
I've also asked for an update re the EIA process, but as this is ongoing I don't really expect anything earth-shattering.

I've used the following email addresses (I've intuitively constructed MF's address from the other two):
> Michael Frayne - Michael.Frayne@capitalmetals.com
> Sam Quinn ( Corporate Manager & Company Secretary ) - sam.quinn@capitalmetals.com
> James Leahy (PR & Investor Relations) - james.leahy@capitalmetals.com

I know all three emails have gotten through to the company and await replies.

Twitter activity is not something I'd trade off, I'm sure you wouldn't either. There's nothing fundamentally price altering they could tweet before they've notified the market.

Perhaps they're just busy negotiating those offtake agreements... haha

No harm adapting the 'wait and see' approach. Rather trade off fact than supposition.

As long as there is no hint that we may not pass the EIA stage I'm happy.

I agree Lucky - if nothing else with all the activity within ECR we will have resolution faster.
I think the big guys are keen to replace depleting resources and they seem to have lost the knack for exploration (recent results from CEY were pretty bad IMHO) so the best and perhaps most efficient path for them is to keep an eye on junior explorers, which we all know they do, so anything remarkable is likely to produce immediate attention - newspapers can aid that.

TS - yes I agree, would be good that have that one to complete the jigsaw - but even that one its onw won't shift things - unless it leads to a JV bidding war (he said, hopefully. lol). But there is hot competition to getting it.

totally agree Lucky -how many companies have issued RNS's recently around new presentations, or identified structures, or corporate acquisitions of entities that haven't drilled, or even licences - they've all failed to sustainably shift their SP upwards.

We need nothing less than hard results from 'truth machines' - investors are growing up in this sector and dodgy CEO's had better realise it!

Personally, I love when there are 'perceived' delays that lead to investor frustration and activity - they present great investment opportunities.