Member Info for Rocktapper

Hi SeisNav, apologies for having missed those Twitter posts and repeating what you've done. I totally agree with what you're saying here.

Could be a whole host of reasons - e.g. logistics, access, in addition to geological reasons. You have to start somewhere! I'm sure there will be perfectly acceptable reasons...it's still within the concept of early-stage exploration afterall.

Yes, I could have phrased that better but its because it's not clear to me exactly why they mention the Nb:Sc ratio specifically in the RNS. It may be to do with what the mineralisation and mineral associations (and alteration) are in this location and they could be at (slight) variance with the other deposits. Overall though, I wasn't referring to potential for other styles of mineralisation. It's all Zambian NW Domes style sedimentary-hosted copper.

When all these maps are placed geographically (invitation to SeisNav here!), one can compare the Cu:Sc ratio maps for Sentinel versus the Arc licences.
Cheyeza strike length (NE-SW) = 4.6km; approx. x approx. 1000 m width. The east-west extension (not drill tested fully) = 3.5 km.

The targeting of Cheyeza by drilling could continue for another 3.5 km to the SW. That trend broadly follows the redox horizon between the Lower Roan and basement as shown by the geological map.
The other key comparison is the number (and size) of Cu:Sc anomalies on the ARC licence area compared to the Sentinel areas (Although still bear in mind the differing use of the colour scale bars):
Fwiji: approx. 3 km x 1.5 km
Lumbeta: approx. 2.5 km x 1 km + 3.5 km x 1 km
Muswema: approx. 5.5 km x 1.5 km
Kazozu: approx. 2 km x 500 m
Chihidi: approx. 2 km x 1 km
I have to say that based on the Cu:Sc ratio, the Musewema target looks to be the most consistent and longest and so it’ll be interesting to see the results of the drilling there.
So if there was any doubt over the number and scale of the anomalies, there shouldn’t be!

Turning back to Zambia. I thought it might be helpful to reinforce the issue of the copper anomalies highlighted by the use of the Cu : Sc ratio as a tool for defining the exploration targets and to compare the ARC map of the Cu : Sc ratio for their licences with those of FQM’s Sentinel deposit and how the Cu : Sc ratio did a very good job of defining the Sentinel pit outline.
The ‘original’ paper on the issue (with David Wood as a co-author) can be downloaded via the link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315804896_Using_Multi-Element_Geochemistry_to_Map_Multiple_Components_of_a_Mineral_System_Case_Study_from_a_Sediment_Hosted_Cu-Ni_Camp_NW_Province_Zambia
Figure 7 in this paper is the most illustrative as it shows how the Cu:Sc ratio highlights the copper enrichment and depletion for the Sentinel licences. The paper discusses how copper-enriched samples can be defined where the Cu: Sc is greater than about 2 – 2.5.
The Sentinel deposit was identified by a Cu:Sc soil anomaly of >8. Figure 7 shows just how well the Cu:Sc ratio > 8 defined the eventual pit outline - pretty impressive.
Hence, if we turn to the map in ARCM’s January presentation on page 12. This shows ARCM’s reprocessed soil geochemistry analyses and the Cu:Sc ratio. Note at Cheyeza, values greater than around 4.45 are being used to define the anomalies. In the p12 ratio map, the line spacing is 1 km and the distance between samples is 500m in most cases.
The puzzling part is the area identified as the NW-SE striking 4 km x 1 km anomaly in the 25/10 RNS. This has slightly lower Cu:Sc ratios (yellows on the p12 figure) but is reported as cross-cutting the regional geological strike. Last Monday’s RNS mentions this and describes the samples having a relatively high Nb:Sc ratio. This could be related to the source rocks, alteration or the mineralisation being of a different nature to that found elsewhere.
My query is: does ARCM think this NW-SE ‘structure’ which cuts the apparent strike in the region is a ‘feeder structure’ to the original mineralisation? By that I mean that does it represent a route through which oxidised fluids have flowed before hitting the ‘reducing’ stratigraphies where copper etc. sulphides could be deposited. However, as the paper mentions (p7), Sentinel and Enterprise represent the ‘only two known locations of reduced rock inside the regional footprint of the oxidised hydrothermal system’. Therefore, alternatively, does ARC consider that the anomaly at Fwiji may also represent reduced rock inside the regional footprint of the oxidised hydrothermal system (although this is less well defined by the Arc sampling than is defined by the FQM work). Arc could perhaps spell this out more clearly if this is the case, as it has the potential to add value through further scientific comparisons with Sentinel.
>>> continued >>>

Ella, reading the RNS from Kopore, although there is a difference in the wording between the two companies' RNS statements when Kopore say they have a free carry, they mean that they will not have to pay a contribution towards the annual US$200 k exploration costs that ARC will be commiting to. If they were, Arc's commitment would be US$ 200k and Kopore's would be US$66.6k based on the 75:25.
From Arc's point of view, they only have to commit to US$200k per annum. Kopore don't have to commit to US$66.6k but Arc don't necessarily need to report that.
Again, I think you are overthinking this or looking for issues that aren't necessarily there in this case.
In fairness though, I was beginning to think Arc have been falling into a 'coma' but perhaps the majority of the BoD's time has been spent on getting this deal across the line over recent weeks?
My post on Zambia to follow shortly...

Cunning. Sorry to hear that shocker. I have been so critical here too because like you say, it's taking years to get out of the hole. However, I do have to try and find positives in this otherwise it's just despair! I've seen other considerable turnarounds (GP being one which I missed out on) so have to still maintain hope here that one day, I'll at least break even. I hope the same for you too.

how LC and the BoD still manage to raise such sums of money (although I guess giving a warrant away with each share is probably some incentive). Staggering really considering very little seems to get across the line and what does, gets hived off.
Nevertheless, the news of a raising means there is still life in the canine quadruped yet.

I'm still trying to figure out what the new strategy of 'sustainable' or 'renewable' energy is but I increasingly am believing that there may be a 'cunning plan'. The tie up with Eqtec may be more significant than we think. Firstly, Eqtec have nearly 8.6 billion shares in issue and a Market Cap of £118 million. So there is hope yet for Kibo with its 2.9 billion shares in issue and that the MC / SP may increase to more respectable levels.

Secondly, Kibo could use its exposure to Tanzania, Botswana and Mozambique as further leverage for bringing in the Eqtec technology to these and surrounding countries. Eqtec have around 17 projects but all are either in the UK, US or Europe but none in Africa.

There's no indication yet of whether there is any synergy between the tie-up Kibo have with IGES in South Africa and that of Eqtec. But Kibo will have to be quick to push things forward in the African countries because there are already waste-to-energy projects established.
Again, a positve progress update / report addressing these points would be a nice addition to the RNS thread here. I'm still over £30k down!

Yes, OK. So they are saying that if there is a continuous (length- weighted average) grade of 0.2% over 3 m or more then it is reported. In the second statement, if there are zones of mineralisation and sections (samples) within the zone assay less than 0.2% Cu then if their length is less than 3 m, their assay values (and lengths ) will be included in the overall width and grade calculation for that zone. There's nothing untoward or 'sinister' in what they are stating.

The 4.3 m will be made up of a number of samples, each with there length and Cu grade. The reporting of the 4.3m at 0.59% Cu is a length-weighted average of the grades encountered within each sample making up the total interval. They don't really need to break it down further in this case. Note 2 below Table 1 shows how they are defining their sections of mineralisation based on grade and separation: Reported intervals are calculated for zones assaying > 0.2% Cu and more than 3m in length.

Those two intervals of 1% were within the 4.3 m interval. The overall 4.3 m interval averages out at 0.59%. They further subdivide it "including 1.8m @ 0.8% Cu or 3.3m @ 0.7%" but within those are the two intervals of 1%.

Ella, the RNS does give intercepts! They are in Table 1. ARCM are not obliged to give the azimuth of the hole and its angle of dangle. It would help though when assessing whether the intersection might be a true or apparent thickness.
I think you're missing the point of the exercise. I agree the RNS was lacking in detail but this drill hole was perhaps testing a theory or for the extension of the Cheyeza mineralisation and perhaps they decided for speed (or cost) not to do core orientations for this hole so haven't reported anything. They state the hole is downhole thickness at the bottom of table 1 and so these may not be true thicknesses (again, they'd need more drilling, oriented core or to be absolutely sure they were drilling perpendicular to the dip of the stratigraphy for that.
My interpretation of this RNS was that they wanted someone to go: Oh look, they're drilling in an area 4000 x 1000 m and have mineralisation 4.3 m thick at 0.6% Cu. If we assume the density of the material is around 2.7 (for the sake of argument as its unweathered rock) then we're looking at around 278 k tonnes of contained copper in the area of the anomaly (if the anomaly proves to represent anywhere near the area of copper mineralisation at depth). Of course, it's not going to be as straightforward as that!
I'll follow up with some more comments in due course.

at the prices paid in the first half hour or so this morning. Some buyers were really taken for a spin by the MMs. Hopefully from Friday (if not before), they'll see their money back and then some.

Anyone interested can check out the planning documents for the EQTEC Billingham project and follow the planning process through the Stockton-on-Tees planning portal:
https://www.developmentmanagement.stockton.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MWI28JPK36000
You'll also need to check out variation applications 16/0195/VARY and 20/2620/VARY.
The location of the planned project and the planning permissions with their conditions are very clear.
I do have to wonder how Kibo are going to fund the construction of the project following the intial investment debt it will occur on buying in to the 54.5% of the SPV which will be created to take the thing forward. Surely that won't be another Kibo spin-off too?

I'm going to take back my earlier comment regarding aiming high and shooting low. Have just been looking at the EQTEC website to get more detailed information about the Billingham project and as has no doubt been noted, EQTEC have clearly got the use of their technology down pat. The Billingham site is centred on coordinates long (W) -1.2743, lat (N) 54.5881 which can be found on Google Earth. The site is around 6.3 hectares or 16 acres so is quite big.
There's more information about the projects on the EQTEC site: https://eqtec.com/waste-gasification-and-power-plant-billingham-stockton-on-tees-county-durham-uk/

I think what the BoD really need to do is spell out to us the whole timeframe for this venture and what the anticipated project economics are beyond the £3million price of entry. It would also be useful to have an update on progress on selling off the African projects. There used to be shareholder updates but they seem to have gone by the wayside (along with the project timelines) so perhaps we're due one - particularly if the due diligence for the funding of the Billingham JV with EQTEC is near completion.

Agree. It's all 'aim high, shoot low'!

In other words, what's published on the website is out-of-date and no longer reflects recent developments (although they do refer those interested to the RNS service).
In respect of timelines though which go along with that 'strategy', not one ever seems to have been met! Now apparently we have to wait for another 12-18 months to see if anything will come of the latestest 'strategy'. I keep on challenging the BoD to prove us sceptics wrong!

Along the way, the vision appears to have blurred and become distorted. The KIBO strategy appears to be not to have a strategy - or at least anything that's fixed! The only strategy that appears to have manifested itself over the what seems like an eternity is to start to achieve something with a project and then hive it off.
All strategies are the result of having a vision and as Mailgirl1 and others have said, it relies on a timeline to achieve the vision.
This is the current strategy presented to interested parties on the front page of the Kibo website:
"Kibo Energy PLC is a multi-asset energy development company positioned to address acute power deficits in Sub-Saharan Africa and the UK. This diversified asset portfolio provides numerous value generative opportunities for investors.
The Strategic Aim is to consolidate Kibo as a significant regional broad-spectrum energy developer of sustainable power solutions, integrating Clean Fossil Fuel Technology, Renewable Generation Technology and Energy Storage Technology
Continued project development and delivery focused on accelerated integration with and ultimate transition from clean fossil fuel technology to renewable technology solutions whilst technology development to enable accelerated integration with and ultimate transition from clean fossil fuel technology to renewable technology solutions.
The focus of effort is to advance certain well-developed assets to early production as a high priority, to be followed by longer-term development assets. Fossil fuel reliant energy assets designs will be enhanced with clean burning and renewable technology, with the intention to migrate all existing and new assets to more sustainable energy sources in the medium to long term.
In this regard, Kibo is developing two thermal power projects, the Benga Independent Power Project (“Benga”) in Mozambique and the Mabesekwa Coal Independent Power Project (“Mabesekwa”) in Botswana, in addition to developing the market for the advanced Mbeya Coal to Power Project in Tanzania (“Mbeya”). By progressing these projects in parallel, Kibo intends to leverage economies of scale and timing and utilise its existing stakeholder relationships – technical, financial, and governmental – to efficiently expedite project development.
Additionally, Kibo holds a 55% interest in MAST Energy Developments Plc , a LSE listed (Standard List) company targeting the development and operation of flexible power plants to service the Reserve Power generation market in the UK and a 25.37% interest in in Katoro Gold Plc, an AIM listed company with a gold development project in South Africa and gold and battery metal projects in Tanzania.
The Company benefits from its robust and experienced international blue-chip partnership network across its project portfolio, which includes: SEPCO-III (China), General Electric (USA), Lesedi Generation Consultants (South Africa), Minxcon Consulting (South Africa), ABSA Group Limited

It's another deflection from the fact they are making slow or no progress on the other fronts...

The ARCM licences are located within the Mwinilunga District of the North Western Province in Zambia.
Kasenseli gold mine is apparently about 64 km to the WNW of Fwiji (can be found on Google).