Member Info for Pecten11

You tease! I understand your disinclination but it doesn't stop me being interested! And actually if there problems were not really about the asset that would remove one of my concerns

Sandy 'Again, though, I don't doubt (personally) that the mine life is there. This is just record-keeping as the company moves forward from historic data to mining now.'

Well yes and no - yes, if they are mining in the right place - no, if they are missing the ore body (cos they just think its 'there'

Sandy re'drilling the ar$e ouf it@
Yeah I get that, and in some ways, I agree that just mining rather than the extra time and cost of drilling holes makes sense - with a caveat - Mineral Mining went bust when trying to produce a multi concentrate - was that because of commodity prices or grades/costs not being what was expected? Could more holes have been appropriate risk management because of the history?
But that doesn't excuse AP for repeatedly and deliberately 'over-egging' the pudding re the actual resource.

I said a few times, when Craig published his original production guidance, that if those numbers were hit (would imply that mining reality was justifying the known data) that VAST would be OK. But for due to 'various operational issues' that didnt happen - was one of them actual ore grade? We dont know - thats why a better JORC would be useful

Mole - a suggestion re the booking of reserves (or not)
Under the exploration license, would FRR have been able to book reserves at all. My belief was that the declaration of commerciality would have resolved this - but as far as I'm aware that was never granted by GOGC??

GaiasK - would it not also be true to say that as the current JORC only supports a 3-4 mine life that NAV figure shoud be more heavily discounted?

GaiasK - thanks for trying to use Sandy's base and then utilizing the new mine plan.

Question to both - Sandy used a 40% discount to NAV (whether right or wrong, I agree that seems to be the ballpark discount prevalent for resource companies), however, the NAV figure used is based on a JORC that only has indicated and inferred resources (no measured, obviously therefore no resources) - by definition, that suggests a lower confidence, so shouldn't that NAV figure be further reduced for that reason?
Would genuinely like to hear reasoned argument on this, as it should apply to the wider resource market.

Yes, it has been a personal bugbear, when AP/VAST have repeatedly quoted a measured, indicated, inferred figure or now on the bottom of RNS saying a JORC compliant Reserves and Resources report.
Just state the facts rather than trying to imply something that isn't, at the moment , justified

The drilling this year is only 5 holes (total around 1600m) - in my opinion, that feels insufficient to improve the confidence of the JORC - Thoughts?

Sandy, that's well thought through and if a valuation had been approached from another way based on the Letter to Shareholders when VAST acquired APMG (valuation done by VASTs own NEDs) that would have implied a valuation of around
£19.4M
Even if you add a third for the increase in copper prices, that would give £25.8 M, or about 12p a share

Now if VAST can prove that they can profitably and consistently produce a reasonable quantity of copper concentrate that valuation will undoubtedly improve - but at the moment that's still an IF.

Sam - an answer to your challenge (rofl !!) could be Pembridge Resources - but like VAST, it not quite that simple

Sam, I have, just wanted to see if you had, or if you were just posting fancy, rampy numbers with nothing to back them up

Sam - why?
What metrics justify that valuation?

Mick, surely that's a 39 foot long boat on both sides.......

Happy birthday

Mr008 'The Atlas death spiral that vast investors are most worried about will not happen.'

As Sam has verified with VAST, they have no knowledge or say in when ATLAS may elect to convert some or all of the outstanding bonds.
You write as statements of fact, rather than just your opinion, which is a potentially dangerously misleading way of expressing yourself imo

MU345 'Copper sitting at circa $10,300/t and rising exponentially'
It looks like all of Q2, Q3 and part of Q4 copper production will be sold at the West Face hedged $7700 price ((which 12 months ago would have looked good)

Mark, if you only have a short term pecker, there are pills that can help with that
https://onlinedoctor.lloydspharmacy.com/uk/erectile-dysfunction

MarkSidley, what's wrong. Something must have dented your confidence.
You used to try and CONvince others that the SP would go up tenfold, now your target is for it to double

Antharry, wow - those must have been tough times - well done for getting through
Yeah, anonymity can be a useful tool - splurge if you ever need to

Sam, Antharry has never, to my knowledge, disclosed where he is based - so millionaire is in reality, a meaningless term without context

Squuezy, I could do with a laugh. Care to break down those forecast numbers year by year??

Danny, your shares are (roughly) worth the same as they were yesterday- less shares, higher value per share.
However, if you bought them ages back, then, yes, they'll almost certainly be worth less than when you bought them

Kp- Sam and Firwood probably think that's a rampy comment......

Mr008 - "The price decline since April 28 is not because MM sells"

I agree, its due to private investors selling....

Not the MM bogey-monsters - infamy, infamy - they've all got it in for me