Member Info for Pecten11

Seperate question, not desperate question ffs. Bloody autocorrect

In the podcasts the three good increase referred to was profitability at Manaila. I was ask8ng a desperate question wrt to Pickstone

AP suggested in one of the podcasts that the sulphide plant at PP had been fully commissioned and would be/ is in (will need to relisten) in operation . Just double checking - can we run both the oxide and sulphide extraction simultaneously? Does that mean we should expect volume (maybe initial drag period?) and grades to improve? I think the sulphide grades were expected to be higher? Anyone got any idea what difference this is likely to make to total gold production?

Jeffa, not the plant (as in mining plant), the increase in productivity would repay the cost of the initial terms of the lease for the new trucking/dumping units within 3 months (yes 500k). That sort if ROI means it will go ahead, even though it wasn't previously budgeted for

Apologies if already posted - brief mention by Malcy saying good news about refinancing of YA, not much else https://audioboom.com/posts/6891701-vast-resources-vast-ncondezi-energy-nccl-dukemount-capital-dke-block-energy-bloe-and-malcy

Another interview https://audioboom.com/posts/6891701-vast-resources-vast-ncondezi-energy-nccl-dukemount-capital-dke-block-energy-bloe-and-malcy

I appreciate that, but that's playing a bit loose with numbers . I know the increase in copper price and the increased tonnage at Manaila would more than compensate anyway, but that was a bit too casual imo

Hang on a minute, even using imperial ounces, doesn't 'just over 50kg a month' suggest that production from PP has declined? Using imperirisl ounces last Q, would suggest production of just under 60kg per month doesn't it?

Thanks for the reply - do you know if the figs in the quarterly production report for PP are in troy ounce or imperial ounces of gold? With AP saying it's producing over 50Kg of gold a month at the mo, it makes a tidy difference

Castaways, but that doesn't make sense to me though is AP says not doing placing at this level and basically the resolution is there so VAST can take advantage of any opportunities - sounds like deals in Zim post July. All good but surely the opportunity 're the trucking fleet is now so that doesntbseem to totally square that circle. Thoughts?

https://www.share-talk.com/share-news/andrew-prelea-ceo-of-vast-resources-plc-aimvast-rns-update-11th-june-2018/

In a perverse way, the good thing about the RNS, is the the number of posts it's generated, showing the interest in Vast. On the other hand, considering the number of shares in issue, the actual number of different posters is actually quite small. Does this suggest that most shares are in fairly sticky hands so haven't reacted too negatively today? I know, quite an extrapolation

FTB spot on. Not saying this is good news, short term, however, compare this to most AIM companies and there would at best be a very vague reason of why the money was needed with a classic general administration statement. This is broken down with valid business reasons, not keeping the lights on money

Tsbs, they do say acceptance is the first stage of cure!! Lol

'As announced on 8 May 2018 in the Quarterly Production Summary and Operations Update, following catching up with waste stripping, grade and performance have now significantly improved.' ' This should enable us to increase production at MPM by 50% without any commensurate increase in overheads and also at a lower direct mining/transport cost per tonne of ore mined, and thus materially increasing profitability until the new process plant is completed. ' To suggest the 50% production increase suggests two things, why wasn't this improvement to the trucking fleet looked at before and can the plant cope with the extra ore ? The answer must be that the increase in grades uncovered must be pretty significant to make this a new option going forward

The fact that this wasn't announced as a conditional placing at an already agreed price of ??p per share, strongly suggests to me that news will be incoming prior to the meeting that will involve a stated cost.

Can't find his ae#e from his elbow imo

Solar, are you doubting our cheesie Oracle?? Actually, a cheesie Oracle kinda sounds tasty - mmmm

Mole fair point 're EBRD, was just trying to think who it could be.. And yes, I'm a Muppet, forgetting the crucial point that the economics from T45 and Dino2 are suggesting the well cost payback in 6-8 months, so radically changes that risk / reward ratio

The more I think about the deal and I accept the point 're it being financing rather than farm in, the more I think the money has to be from something like the EBRD. Why? Because based on Devex's maths below, which invent checked I get the impression he's a sharper pencil than I 'The deal. Assume Niko delivers in line with the economic model � so $30 million over 10 years. So we get the upfront funding totally free of charge, and no shareholder risk. After payback we (FRR) get $18.9 million and the investor gets $8.1 million. The investor � over the 10 years � makes a good return but has of course has provided the capital and taken the risk. But on one well only' So why would a commercial company make an investment into the high risk o&g sector for a relatively poor total return considering that risk.? Tie that in to the RNS stating the money was coming from an unrelated institutional investor and imo, that could well be something EBRD, to help progress in Georgia energy independence