Member Info for Rocktapper

Latest information available for the number of mining leases in Ireland is presented up to 30th June 2017: 10 extant State Mining Leases; 6 extant State Mining Licences and 611 extant Prospecting Licences Check http://www.mineralsireland.ie/LegislationFeesAndPolicy/SixMonthlyReports.htm and http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/CCAEdoclaid210817_124126.pdf for the details. I accept and apologise that that sentence was a nonsense but it wasn't really to do with the point I was trying to make. I hope the above answers your question.

I was comparing the strategy for potential generation of funds, issuing of warrants etc., future JVs etc. and not the geological / mining provinces or types of deposit / styles of mineralisation (Conroy / this part of Ireland - shear zone at / near a contact between Silurian and Ordovician rocks; GGP/ Western Australia - Proterozoic and Archaen Greenstone belts). I agree to compare the latter would be incorrect. Whilst the number of mines in Ireland is steadily growing, obviously on area size alone, they will never be comparable. However, it's fair play to think the fact that as GH is now involved with both companies, it allows for some comparison on a possible business strategy!

If you want some form of clue as to how this may play out strategically, look at the history in terms of fund raising, issue of warrants, eventual market capital / increase in share price (and payback for some parties) of Greatland Gold since PJ and GH became involved. Substitute Ireland for Australia and 'Clontibret' for 'Ernest Giles' and see if this doesn't fit the plan...!

Mine just did...

I hope they are actually going to do something for those options - i.e. add value by proving up calcatru and improving output. Share price is currently 50% of what I and many others bought in at....

Perhaps a further metric needs to be applied - i.e. the duration spent by each visitor on the site. Longer durations will perhaps indicate possible service take-up. Potential customers visiting the site is one thing. Them actually paying for services is why we still stick with this....

To highlight some of the �madness� of the junior explorers� valuations on AIM, compare GGP with OTC: Both have gold projects but GGP has much less drilling. GGP have gold and copper-cobalt and possibly a base metal VMS target. All across a relatively safe jurisdiction (Australia). GGP has no defined resources of any note. Current GGP market value �55 million (mainly based on the hope that Newmont will invest / JV in Ernest Giles). On the other hand, OTC currently has access to an equivalent of around 49.9% of an inferred resource of over 1 million oz gold, hopefully to increase to around 70% ownership. It holds positions (c. 14%) in Zamsort (copper-cobalt), 18% in Andiamo (gold / copper / zinc) and 100% of Sturec (gold) - the latter of course has over 1 million oz equivalent of gold (if only they could get local approvals and / or a JV going). OTC current market cap around a �mere� �7.5 million (allowing for the block shares about to be granted and today�s SP, less if you don�t). Even if you allow for the difference in the risks of the jurisdictions the two companies are operating in (Australia vs. Africa and Eastern Europe), the valuations are severely skewed and don�t reflect reality. Now with a revived BOD in place, surely it's time to see some proper upward movement in the OTC SP?

Obviously they have a good idea of where they want the share price to head and what they are going to do to achieve that (presumably by selling or JV-ing Sturec and their interest in Andiamo for a start?). Getting in cheap whilst they still can?! One can only hope they can get this dog to bark and bite!

It would be nice if the MOS share price was up there with that of STR!! The BOD here really need to get their finger out and make some form of announcement regarding progress and accounts etc. What little liquidity there is around is going elsewhere....

A couple of months ago, I did a real rough back-of-the-envelope calculation regarding the NPV of the Casa project and its value to OTC with its 45% involvement. It ran at 13p per share. With the recent dilution, that's down to about 8p per share. But I was also very conservative on my estimation of resources that would be counted as reserves. So this is where we should be heading now....

I agree with all of that but also, if a company is listed on more than one exchange including a foreign exchange (foreign to the UK) then when investors buy their shares, they attract a 1% 'stamp' duty /tax. If the company is listed on AIM solely, there is currently no tax to pay on purchases of its shares. The additional costs of stamp in a transaction can put off investors looking for 'Value For Money'. Not that you'll get the 'VFM' with CGNR but perhaps this is also a reason?!

I am somewhat surprised that Mr O'Sullivan had apparently not picked up on potential issues relating to the appointment of new directors in the company's constitution, given his apparent liking for going to court. Although I suspect most (PI) shareholders were happy with the removal of the first six directors, I am not convinced they will be quite so comfortable removing the remaining three which includes the Prof. who founded the company. Although Gervaise Heddle has done well in helping turn Greatland Gold around, so far, I would like to know what Mr. O'Sullivan's credentials are for running a junior exploration company and furthermore, taking that exploration company through to the development and mining phases. Does anybody know more?!

6 are to remove 6 current directors. 3 are to put Heddle, Johnson and O'Sullivan in place. Current bod urging shareholders to vote against (obviously). Common sense and a desire for change suggests vote FOR!!! My thoughts re Prof Conroy are that a similar thing might happen as for Andrew Bell at Greatland. Eventually he was pushed out. Then there will be a further board change. Things start to move, including financing. It seems to be a proven M.O.

PS thx for the tip on Jarvis.

That reduction in shares was a killer for everybody and of no use to anyone. It left me with an average of 114p and I have reluctantly since had to average down to get my holding's average value to within even a whiff of the current share price...i.e. I need about 53p now! Am totally sick of the blarney from the BOD here and the total lack of progress when things are starting to pick up in the mining / exploration industry. I am voting 'FOR' on all 9 of the Resolutions and I hope that Heddle et. al get control and hopefully start kicking things into shape. No doubt though there'll be strong opposition from the incumbents....

You can instruct the Share Dealing account to vote on your behalf. It's apparently possible with Selftrade and I have just sent the necessary information.

Gervaise Heddle seems to be doing a good job of turning around the fortunes of GGP. How long does it take the BOD of CGNR to seek advice regarding the requisition of a General Meeting? Just another example of how poorly investors are served by the BOD of CGNR and why the proposed removal of the list of current directors should be voted to go ahead should Heddle succeed in getting his GM.

By the looks of it, it appears to be a targeting of the mainly Non-Executive Directors (who will still be drawing some form of salary). It may be more difficult to remove Prof. Conroy. Besides, the company owes him money. I imagine this is probably a staged approach....

This could be very good news if there is success in removing the current directors. Gervaise Heddle has actually made significant headway in turning things around at GGP (and through his earlier involvement, so has Paul Johnson). I was sceptical of this at first but it is proving fruitful. Anything to get CGNR moving and actually get some funding and proper work on the ground and progress towards actually developing a mine or two would be a good thing. The way shareholders have been treated here has been shocking and so it is about time things changed.

They don't want to buy larger blocks because it would push the price up too quickly and they'll end up paying proportionally more for the remaining shares they are after.