Member Info for RightOn

good evening djryan, I hope you do not mind, but I have a small but important correction. The process of leeching you describe is defined in Britannica as "the application of a living leech to the skin in order to initiate blood flow or deplete blood from a localized area of the body". I did not know we were involved in the medical business, and always thought we were in gold mining, where the process is leaching. Sorry, but it hurt my eyes each time I saw the error.

Sparky, you wrote “the Chairman was on a ramping webinar and declared the company know they have a 300m deep sulphide system. This was then ramped to death” This is really ridiculous. You are attacking the data and the man when you have no basis. First, Marcus did explain that this was a very rough estimate which had not been signed off by any geologist or independent consultant. He was merely trying to show the “generalist investor” in the simplest possible terms, what could be there if they managed to get the exploration right. There was no ramping involved. I explained this to you, and still you won’t let go. Then you suggest that he is lying about the 300 metres. As you know he cannot respond directly to that accusation, so it is really unfair. I spoke to him, and he says the evidence is in plain sight of everyone. Take a look at the Presentation and slide 39, 3rd bullet point, and which shows the depth of the historic workings – 1,100 feet, so more than 300m. In fact, the Cossack tunnel went down to 1,600 foot. Plus we have historical records of old stopes and workings at depths of 300 metres into the sulphide stratum, and some of these can be seen on the PXC site. The present holes are probing the region just below known workings and going even deeper into the sulphide zone. The above are facts, so how can you say he suggested this, as if he were creating something out of nothing? I have explained to you previously that one hole means nothing in the wider picture, and you should place this together with all the other holes previously drilled, and previous mines, as above, and here the overall picture shows a fantastic resource. Remember that Marcus was being conservative with his calculations, taking much smaller numbers than those known to account for this being an estimate. He took 3 kms for the length for example, when we know it to be 5kms long at least. You overlooked to say that. Please do note that Marcus was trying to give an IDEA for the potential, and nothing more. The overall message is that you buy today into the highly attractive oxide open pit mine, which pays back in under a year, and have as a bonus the deep sulphides, which have not been priced into any analysts report yet. The statement by Marcus was 100% correct, and I suggest you be more careful with your choice of words next time.

For luger. Take out the spaces (LSE will not post the address unless modified in some way)

hTTps://t . m e /joinchat/I5hNdxg-LUTkNvtljGWq1A

My friend Sparky, I am not your slave. On this board we respond to polite exchanges. Indeed, I find this one of the friendliest and supportive boards on LSE. If you are unable to do your own research, and want others to assist you, a little politeness does not come amiss. That I have chaired webinars does not make me an expert. I have a little more time today, so on this occasion I will help you.

Looking at the sulphides, we must remember that the historic mines in Empire were all after the sulphides, as they were unable to recover from oxides in those days. The shafts dropped down through the oxide zone into the upper level of the primary sulphide zone. The mines ranged over a depth of about 1,000 feet (this can be easily seen from documents), and the Cossack Tunnel was 1600 foot down, and was the main work face, I believe, when the mine closed. Hardman also report “of the drill holes drilled to date, several have intersected the deeper sulphide zone. The intersections range from 1.2% Cu to 11.4% Cu, and from near-surface intersections to more than 100m depth”.

I have not spent too long on this, but hope I have produced sufficient information to support an attempt at a back of the envelope calculation. I hope that this helps you.

where is your 6-8% which was never used? Please pick your data carefully, and do not extrapolate the whole mine from one hole on the edge of the pit. You are asking to describe a whole person from a finger nail.

Sparky, please excuse a relatively short answer, for I am very busy these days. You have misinterpreted the data. Sp28 has corrected you, and yet you repeated your error. I made strong verbatim notes of that webinar, and can relate back word for word. His words were "As for grade, when the mine closed it was mining 6-8% copper, but let us call this 0.5%, (a very simplistic calculation)". So, the 6-8% was mentioned in passing and not to be used as any basis. He preceded those words by saying “What I am about to say is not backed up or signed off, but is stated to give you an idea of the size.”

Please put things into proportion, and do not use these for any scientific argument of fact. In recent times I have seen several times you grab at one detail and extrapolate it without reason . One such comment recently concerned your statement about Red Star and the need for additional equity, where I had to clear your smokescreen. Could I ask that you be more careful with your choice of words, suggesting a fact where no fact exists.

We are all very enthusiastic for PXC, and I guess you like me were disappointed with the fall back this week. But I suggest you look for reasons elsewhere.

Clarification in re-reading. The interview with Marcus has been posted on the company youtube channel.

Morning Sparky. Good question. You may have missed that we held "Meet the Director" with Chairman Marcus Edwards-Jones, which has been posted on the YouTube site. That's worth a watch, and the highlights have been put out on Twitter. I have heard of plans (not yet confirmed) that the company are indeed planning to produce interviews to follow RNS's, to explain the details. I personally feel that would be useful, as I find the RNS's sometimes too technical, although it has been explained to me that this is the legal format. I am pushing to hold a Webinar in September, but for obvious reasons the company are keen to wait till the big news is in from the results. So, the news will continue, but we're going in the right direction, I feel.

Another reason I'm glad to be in Idaho....

https://www.mining.com/web/copper-royalty-bill-clears-another-hurdle-in-chile/?utm_source=Copper_Digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MNG-DIGESTS&utm_content=copper-royalty-bill-clears-another-hurdle-in-chile

JeffLewis, I am planning on attending. However you should note that the website notice for the AGM on the company website differs from the RNS, with a more negative tone. In any case, I offer a warning, that if you are with HL or any similar platform, you need to make sure that the company can see your holding, for otherwise you are grouped together as "HL". If they look for your share ownership, they may not find you, so you need to get in touch with your platform. Plus if you don't intent attending, you should vote in advance. The motions are in the notice on the website again.

Here's why we love Idaho USA!
hTTps://www.mining.com/centerra-units-file-motion-seeking-1m-a-day-in-penalties-against-kyrgyzstan-govt/?utm_source=Precous_Metals_Digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MNG-DIGESTS&utm_content=centerra-units-file-motion-seeking-1m-a-day-in-penalties-against-kyrgyzstan-govt

I presume that everyone has seen the notice of the AGM (dated 26th August). I thought I would point out the website version is slightly expanded, and includes the motions, including the ability to issue 50% more shares. https://www.goldstoneresources.com/documents/GoldStone%20AGM%20Circular%202021.pdf

Hi Trek. The question was asked during the AGM, and specifically "What is the attitude of the board to raising finance for our projects through equity"? The answer given was as follows:
"the company intends financing the construction through debt. One way we are considering is to offer redeemable shares as indicated in the motions. This is not considered as an equity raise, as the issue is considered akin to a loan, with interest being offered, and are redeemable but not convertible"

Subsequent to this, I have myself spoken with directors, and each time they say that the shares would be issued as debt, carrying an interest rate, and would not be convertible into equity. So, this is in no way dilution.

Look back to the motions (carried) in the AGM, and you will see it written there.

Good luck to you too!!

Good evening Trek. I need to offer a couple of clarifications. First, the Oxides in the Empire Open Pit mine lie near the surface, and so are best accessed via an open pit. Second, the sulphides in Red Star (rich but relatively narrow silver/lead vein) are best accessed via an underground mine. It's horses for courses. So additional money will not help progress or give greater optionality. Second, the company is talking of the best option may be through the issue of non dilutive preference shares, and which can be repaid very fast. Their impact on the long term should be negligible.

I think that the board have examined all these issues pretty well, and are delivering an excellent solution, managing to deliver long term shareholder benefits, whilst maintaining control on the projects. They see no need to have any further equity raise for the foreseeable future, and I for one believe they are doing a pretty good job.

Good morning Sparky, and I accept that you are not knocking PXC, but your conclusions are very different to those from the Board. Any statements which suggest there is a need for further equity raise have the potential impact of undermining the good intentions of the Board, and thereby deramping, albeit that I understand you are not doing this on purpose.

I agree that if the results from the present and future surveys at Red Star and its extensions (please note these last 3 words), led to a vastly improved resource, we would most likely not be able to afford that today from present capital and ability to finance. Now let me explain where we differ, and I believe this is crucial.

“Red Star” is a relatively small canyon, which sits on patented land (as does most of the Empire Mine). This is a historic right, which gives certain privileges, including most importantly the right to ownership of the subsoil. The rich silver/lead vein(s) identified in Red Star could therefore be fast tracked into production through a low cost underground mine, and which do not require the sometimes lengthy processes involving federal government. This project would be eminently financeable and without the need to raise any further equity.

Meanwhile the territory ranging from the top of Red Star canyon, “the extensions” going all the way up to Horseshow and possibly Whiteknob, is not patented, and so would be subject to additional scrutiny. There is little doubt that this would be converted to a mine in the course of time, but it would take much more investment in determining the size of the resource before that happened, and would require substantially more capital for exploitation (we are in agreement on that point as well).

So we are in agreement on most points Sparky, but not on the scope of the Red Star project, which would remain a relatively small-scale starter project. But having got that up and running, like the Empire Open Pit mine, that could finance the development work for the larger projects downstream. With the above conclusions in mind, and which have been stated by the Board (but which I guess you missed), you can see that the starter projects remain small, and eminently financeable. And this is just how the BoD are designing the growth of this company. And Richard Wilkins can not exclude never to raise equity, as we can never totally predict the future. Who expected the pandemic for example? But he did say that he would not be raising additional equity barring unforeseen circumstances which I think covers this pretty well.

I repeat once again, these projects are being developed in a manner where the company remains in control, and where we do not raise any more equity, for the foreseeable future. Statements which contradict this, are in my opinion, at best missing the point, and in some cases deramping, by introducing the suspicion of more equity raise, which is no where on the horizon.

Sparky. Short answer. Yes. My response based on many discussions with directors.

Mr Sparky, I'm disappointed with you. You weren't paying attention in class. Empire and Red Star are relatively low cost mines which are within touching distance (Empire Open Pit already has it's resource, and Red Star will not need much effort) and can be easily financed, whilst Navarre Creek will need a lot more exploration and assessment before it could be considered for any commercialisation. Conclusion: Empire and Red Star will be developed without additional equity, as is being planned. Navarre Creek will be placed to be commercialised when the early mines are throwing off cash, and still then equity raise is unlikely, but it's far too early to say.

I agree Trek. Both of the recent RNS's came out of nothing, and were unexpected. When the real news does arrive, it again risks arriving suddenly, and may catch people out. The next one may be the sulphide analyses, or the EMS results. But the company are delivering the summer of news as they promised.

And I think we can presume that they would have focussed on the more prospective parts, so this is not a strict 50% increase in resources, but has the potential to be much more. What an exciting ride we're having!

Sorry, this may come up as double posted, as LSE is playing up a little for me

To add a little more detail, I had a quick call to one of the directors to understand what this means for the company, and he said:

"the company is quite honoured to have BNY Mellon offering to sponsor an ADR program for us. They are the market leaders and operate over 700 DR programs for some of the world’s biggest non-US companies. This is big company stuff and presumably shows that they believe that they can make decent money from this, which in turn means the program ought to be successful. It perhaps would not be unreasonable to assume that within 12 months 30% of our shares might trade as ADRs on OTCQX. If that is the case, then 30% of the company is going to be bought up from shares trading on AIM. Impact on share price? Who knows? Positive I would think."

That sounds fantastic news for us holders, doesn’t it. And with more news to come on the EM surveys, with the drilling at Red Star, Navarre Creek and the Empire deep sulphides this share is looking very good to continue to ride high.