Member Info for Pecten11

could a geo (if we have one reading) back up my thought that the core drilling planned (compared to the previous RC) will give a more accurate representation of the depths/density of the kimberlitic indicators found, as the RC would be less subtle/mix up the samples within each section?

Would core drilling likely be of the same 6 inch diameter as the RC?

i know this has been posted https://twitter.com/BotswanaDiamond/status/1381498492586188801
but interesting to note the use of plural - drill sites -

I know its not exactly a tsunami, but interesting nudge up in volume over the last week or so. - shows how such little volume can move the SP - hopefully the vast majority of the flippers (the 500k and 1 mill sells over the last 6 weeks) from the last placing are now gone

God help us, if the herd ever arrived !!

Gug - whatever today's RNS, I suggest a doctor

Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others

Sandy - in which case I would have thought the Q&A would have been an ideal place to spoon feed the answer.

Anyway...

Would be good to release an RNS with drilling plans / schedule / targets.
Twitter posts generally will only reach the converted unless some of you have massive following

Sorry - that should gave read - are not related parties

Sandy- indeed two sons - that’s why I used the plural!
Both must be over 18 as they had become directors and shareholders of APMG - thus qualifying for Vast shares.
WRT to where they live - fair point but still wondered whether they would have been covered under the related parties - one of the reasons I asked the Q

If they are related parties it should have been an easy Q to answer

Johnny, that was another Q that has been ignored via Investor Meet Q&A as to whether VAST considered the sons holdings to be covered under PDMR

I would suggest that if their appointments are considered worthy of an RNS (and imo, are long overdue), then they must have significant 'managerial responsibilities '

Piker - not just directors
EU MAR was amended in December 2019 such that when a person discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMR) notifies a dealing in shares to an issuer, the issuer will have two business days to disclose the dealing to the market from the date of notification (rather than the notification by the PDMR to the issuer and the disclosure by the issuer to the market having to be made within the same three days of the dealing). This amendment to EU MAR is effective from 1 January 2021. As this is after the Brexit transition period is scheduled to end, this change would not be automatically incorporated into UK law. The Bill ensures that this change will apply in the UK from 1 January 2021.

The Bill also clarifies that issuers and any person acting on their behalf or on their account are all required to maintain an insider list when in possession of inside information.

According to MAR, the official verbatim definition of a PDMR is a:

“‘person discharging managerial responsibilities’ means a person within an issuer, an emission allowance market participant or another entity referred to in Article 19(10), who is:

(a) a member of the administrative, management or supervisory body of that entity; or

(b) a senior executive who is not a member of the bodies referred to in point (a), who has regular access to inside information relating directly or indirectly to that entity and power to take managerial decisions affecting the future developments and business prospects of that entity;”

Or a closely related person
person discharging managerial responsibilities’ means a person within an issuer, an emission allowance market participant or another entity referred to in Article 19(10), who is:

(a) a member of the administrative, management or supervisory body of that entity; or

(b) a senior executive who is not a member of the bodies referred to in point (a), who has regular access to inside information relating directly or indirectly to that entity and power to take managerial decisions affecting the future developments and business prospects of that entity;” (MAR Article 3(1.25))

This refers to any person employed by an issuer who holds managerial responsibilities that provide insight into trades, financial instruments, and insider information.

Since managerial personnel have the capacity to use this information to illegally gain an advantage over the market, MAR strictly regulates the protocols to prevent PDMR market abuse.

What is a closely associated person?
As defined by MAR:
“‘person closely associated’ means:

(a) a spouse, or a partner considered to be equivalent to a spouse in accordance with national law;
(b) a dependent child, in accordance with national law;
(c) a relative who has shared the same household for at least one year on the date of the transaction concerned; or
(d) a legal person, trust or partnership, the managerial responsibilities of which are discharged by a person

Closer to a quarter rather than a third

Good paying down of debt in Q1
Very good continuance of H&S safety record
Next 3Q will average between 15k and 17k ounces, so obviously being slowed by illegal miners / Covid

the key will be how much this warning from the last set of quarterlies has been realized in reduced grade.

'Delays in the resettlement of the illegal miners allowing access to Stages 3 and 4 of the Project site has required in changes to the Company's mining schedule. These delays have affected the 2021 head grade with high grade material from Stage 3 being pushed to the 2022 mining schedule. The incremental cutback has resulted in the need to create a new access road to Stages 3 and 4 from the Company's Tuds waste area and behind the east wall. The Company expects to have this access road completed during Q1 2021 and access to the higher grade ore by end Q4 2021.'

Sandy: indeed.
whether the question is considered impertinent or not, the avoidance of it is worse than an answer you may not agree with

In theory I would say yes, under PDMR.

i notice that a question I asked via Investor Meet that wasn't answered re whether the holdings (or lack of) of CH, AH and PF reflected their confidence in the company
Wasn't the only Q not answered

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC351831/

thought it had peacful for too long...

please explain what current legal standing Anglo Saxon law has??
or is that phrase just designed to make your posts credible?

That's good news - always better to hear things direct . Stay safe
Out of curiosity, which vaccines(s) are being delivered? Is their an anti-vac conspiracy campaign on local social media?

Sandy - thanks for the replies
It's much more constructive when you can actually debate a point than most of 'going to the moon' / 'sinking without trace' comments - unknown motives, is I think a good way of putting it.

Btw - though I dont know what it is, and I doubt you'd reveal it on there- good luck with your business.
What's the Covid situation like atm in Bucharest/Romania