Member Info for Reserved

PaulFG - thanks for posting a very useful piece.

Too many false dawns for me. If I start to hope that matters will improve, I remind myself of the following statement in the 21/03/24 RNS:

"Final preparations are underway to commence both Aircore and Sonic rig drilling programmes in April 2024."

I don't see how there can be any confidence in maintaining the FID target date when there are land access issues to resolved, drilling needs to be undertaken and assay results obtained.

Also, the RNS is silent on the question of dredging below the water table, which must have a major impact on the project economics.

Up 30% - have I missed something?

Having just listened to the interview, I was disappointed, but not surprised, about the message.

In JO's interview on 16/10/24, he said the PEA was expected in early December and the information would be used to support their application for EU Strategic Project Status (applications were to be submitted in January); he intimated that the Special Project Status projects will be adjudicated by the end of Q1 2025. I found this remark strange since the August 2024 application decisions will not be made until until circa March 2025; it will be remarkable if the EU can also adjudicate the January applications.

Personally, I now have no faith in the management team for what I perceive as a lack of transparency and poor communication.

For anyone interested in reading the recently published article about EpiSwitch®® NST, here is a link:

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/3/521

To undertake the acidisation of Flathead, HEX will need to use hydrofluric acid because it comprises quartzite. Securing a permit to use HF will requires approval from multiple agencies and take several months. DM advised that they will leave Flathead until Q3 when grouse restrictions are over, but they will also consider other options that may include drilling 2km to the west.

DM also advised that the use of HF in winter is not cost effective, so combined with the start of the grouse season (nesting), there is no immediate opportunity to develop Flathead.

Molybdenum has also been included in China’s export restrictions, which makes the following extract from 28/01/25 RNS assume potentially greater significance:

“§ Significant copper (Cu) and molybdenum (Mo) mineralisation identified within an outcropping mineralised hydrothermal breccia zone at the Porphyry South Target.”

Very disappointing given all the suggestions of funding , including grants, from multiple sources.

No reference to funding for the DFS.

Looking for positives; the Strategic Project Status announcements should be due in March. Does anyone know what that could mean in terms of grants?

Bonkers - on behalf of frustrated shareholders, thank you for your efforts.

The company appear to have missed the point of this statement on their Investor Relations page:

"CML has an active investor relations policy and aims to provide quality, timely and effective communication to its investors."

Barry - I posted the following on 13/09/24; I believe the points I made are still valid. The Ondine SP has recovered following a placing and the commencement of a FDA phase 3 trial and an investment from HCA. For OBD, some serious validation / partnering is required.

"I have been following the decline of OBD over the last 6 months with a high degree of disappointment (I retain a small holding in case something positive materialises).

Since I had some time available today, I decided to relisten to the 17/01/24 webinar covering the 2023 results. What struck me was the view from JB that OBD’s products are so good why doesn’t everyone want them at the price OBD want to charge. I may be over-simplifying things, but I asked myself 3 questions:

• Are CIRT and PSE effective products that are better than the competition?

• Is the message about the quality / efficacy of the product being conveyed to the people that matter?

• Is the price per test competitive?

If the answer to the first 2 question is yes, perhaps the actual cost of the tests and a 90% margin makes them unattractive.

I am also invested in Ondine (which is currently not performing as well as I would like) and it is partnering with a Teaching NHS Trust and the York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC) to evaluate the effectiveness of their product. If OBD had adopted a better ‘value for money’ approach, validated by a third party, would better progress have been made?"

The 15/11/24 RNS included the following statement:

"In the event that the Company concludes the ongoing discussions with a major U.S. healthcare group regarding a potential investment of up to US$4 million (£3.1 million) the Company's expected cash runway would be into Q1 2027."

It is reasonable to conclude the major US healthcare group is HCA.

Today's RNS states:

"With the addition of this new investment, the Company expects its cash runway to extend into early Q4 2025."

Even allowing for the Canadian investors $3m, I don't see how the cash runway will extend to Q1 2027. Notwithstanding, this point, I remain very positive about the long term prospects and potential revenues, especially with the commencement of the Phase 3 trial and Mölnlycke's involvement . Let's not forget, the York Health Economics Consortium study could progress a wider use of Steriwave in the NHS.

Since the phase 3 trial is being conducted in conjunction with HCA, I interpret this as a solid endorsement for OBI.

The RNS notes that the planned investment from a Canadian investor has not been completed; the HCA investment will therefore fill any potential funding gap. The RNS also confirms that the cash runway extends into early Q4 2025 and OBI remains optimistic about settling the $3m placement with the Canadian private investor.

With Mölnlycke Health Care as a partner, the rate of sales will hopefully increase, thereby helping the cash runway.

In terms of potential, the Edison note from 15/05/23 (link below) provides information on the potential market value; in the US there approximately 40,000,000 major surgeries per annum. In June 2024 the margin on each Steriwave application was noted to be approximately CAD$40, but this is likely to be lower now taking account of Mölnlycke’s involvement. Clearly, securing FDA approval opens up the possibility of significant revenues, even without taking account of the rest of the world.

The only significant nasal disinfection competition I was aware of was Destiny Pharma, but they failed to secure funding for their phase 3 trial and administrators were appointed last year.

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/proprietary-platform-testing-standard-of-care/32309/

It will be good to see this translated into project financing and progress, and ultimately the share price.

An interesting post; does this mean he will soon have something positive to say about Ingomar, and / or is he developing a methodology to help identify prospective hydrogen targets?

Nookie - there are multiple irons in the fire, but nothing has been reported as being secured.

Bennyhillrockz

Re your point about gas flows, which I asked you about on 17/01/24, are you referring to Hussar or Winter?

Bennyhillrockz

Are you referring to Hussar or Winter?

Maybe the results of the UK health economics study (hopefully with a very positive outcome) will be available soon.

The other possibility that occurs to me is the impact Mölnlycke® may be having:

"Mölnlycke® will incorporate Steriwave as a key product in its infection control portfolio, enhancing its product offerings with a focus on preventing HAIs and reducing AMR. Distribution will commence in the UK in Q4 2024, followed by expansion into the EU and Middle East regions in 2025, leveraging Mölnlycke's extensive market presence to ultimately broaden the impact of this innovative technology on a global scale. Mölnlycke will spearhead sales and marketing efforts across the UK, EU, and Middle East."

An extract from the RNS "...the Directors believe the Group is well positioned to grow the business...". Given the paltry number of sales, they haven't set the bar very high with this statement.

The partnerships they refer to appear to lack substance. I will be delighted if they can pull a rabbit out of the hat, but I have my doubts.

I am sure everyone has examples of shares where the SP doesn't seem to reflect the potential of the assets. Two examples of shares that I hold are GGP and BRES. In the case of those holdings, I have decided to regard them as long term investments. Potential may not be a sufficiently strong criterium; I have held some shares where the quality and attitude of the management team have resulted in significant disappointment.

As far as PLSR is concerned, the indications are that there may be an exceptional asset. As far as the management team is concerned, they appear to have a plan and are executing it so I will continue to hold and if the SP stays at current levels, I will probably add more. However, one has to accept that PLSR is still at the exploration stage so there is a significant level of risk until reserves are proven.

From a communication perspective, I am comfortable with the number / content of the interviews that I have seen to date.