Open Orphan pharma spin-out Poolbeg Pharma present at London South East's October live event. Watch the full video here.
Thanks leprechuan, you seem to have the same suspicion. But if this is right and the drilling hasn't started should we expect an RNS to say when the holes are started? Or is that taking Colin's remark on this matter a little too legalistically?
Hope I'm not going to be cancelled for asking this, but did anyone else think it was a little strange that the RNS yesterday used a rather strange form of wording , quote ' The next series of drill holes are advancing well' and then goes on to mention the purpose of one hole. Do people think this means the two next holes have actually started drilling? Or that perhaps that 'preparations' for the new series are advancing well?, but there is no definite implication that both (or perhaps any) hole in the series has started?
Until we know, we will all probably feel a little uneasy. I do think though something (hopefully good news) might be going on. A revised model, or negotiations have been opened with AA both seem possibilities on the positive side. It seems unlikey there is really bad news coming soon because like others I think we would have been getting a different vibe from Colin. But I've been wrong before ....
CE, I bought a few shares in BZT a week or so ago and dispite an almost 10% bid offer spread when I bought I could now sell them for a 20% gain. In fact I should probably have sold a tranche of my xtr sharesand invested them in BZT. Unfortunately althougb I have a huge number of BZT shares , they are not worth nuch in financial terms. Perhaps when BZT SP is where XTR Sp is now, they be worth a few bob!
I expressed a mild concern about this yesterday. If the holes were really finished at the time of the last BR RNS (13 Oct- saying 'The Phase 2 Racecourse drilling programme is ongoing and to date ***15*** diamond drill holes have been completed for over 10,000 metres drilled. ' my asterisks.) then what is the delay? They probably need a couple of days (more if holes are longer?) to inspect the drill cores and identify where there is trace or moderate mineralisation etc which they usually include in the RNS, but this long? Are they doing something more? Is there something new/significant that they need to double check before reporting? Or is it bad news they want to only give us when they have some good news (maybe some assay results? ) to mix in and so sweeten the pill? I hope I am getting nervous unnecessarily, but I feel there is probably a some reason for the delay of the reporting on the hole completion (not the assay result which are only expected about now anyway). Until we know that reason we can only speculate whether it is good or bad news. Ho-hum, I suppose we will know soon enough. GLA
So does that mean we can't realistically sell to anyone apart from AA until June 2023 or AA get almost havre the value?. Any sale might take a year to agree but still no point in approaching anyone other than AA prior to (say roughly) June next year? All this discussion is also making me wonder whether the previous sales mentioned by Colin were sales of mines which had inferred, indicated or confirmed JORC resources and whether their sale/purchase values were on the same basis as we might sell BR. Perhaps it is all apples and pears. A lot to think about. Maybe even a very large inferred JORC resource may have to be sold for much less than the figure we (well maybe I) was hoping for!
Thanks Steve, I vaguely remember now someone (maybe even you) posted something similar on the Board some time ago, but I often need to encounter something twice for information to sinks in, (sorry if I have made you repeat a previous post). So in the placing document for phase 2 drilling it said/says ... ' This (the funds for phase 2) will assist the Company in achieving its objective of expanding the current JORC (2012) compliant Inferred Mineral Resource of 71Mt @ 0.44% Cu and 0.064g/t Au to a deposit greater than approximately 2 million tonnes of contained Cu equivalent (e.g. 450Mt @ 0.45% Cu equivalent). Maybe I'm reading too much into this but that seems to suggest that they expect to meet the necessary 2Mt contained copper necessary for triggering the buy back by the end of the phase 2 drilling (giving time for assay results etc to come in) . I know this is not exactly what is said but it seems to imply it. So do really think we need all that drilling that people were talking about on the Board a few weeks ago? I hope not.
Thanks jwoz and Shorn. Link didn't work but it was easy to find when I knew where to look, so thanks both of you. The holes shown only seem to be a sample though as I notice there is a hole numbered 31 but a lot fewer holes than that in the list on page 7. Perhaps these were the only holes that added substantially to the resource. I also remember someone said on the Board (I think) that AA drilled much shorter holes than we are currently doing. All makes me wonder just how much more drilling we need to do to get a 'JORC compliant' resource of 2mT contained copper! I am thinking I might have overestimated the amount of drilling we need to complete in order to achieve our first target.
Does anyone have a reference to anywhere which shows how many holes of what length AA had to drill for the 'current' JORC? Does what AA did for 'their' JORC give us a standard by which we might estimate the number of holes/ amount of drilling we need to do to get a new JORC?
Not sure, don't forget AA had realistic (from their viewpoint) reasons to expect us never to reach the buyback clause conditions. They thought they were probably selling us a 'high probability dud'. They probably thought: Lets just let them insert an 80% only buyback, after all it won't happen anyway. Even if they get 2MT contained copper it will be marginal and there are other better options for us to mine. I don't think AA even vaguely considered the possibility that they were selling one of the biggest potential copper mines in the world for a song. Colin/prospect played a blinder.
I also think Colin has publically set the expectation of an RNS when we start and finish each hole + an RNS on assay results. If he changes from that public policy he is in danger of affecting the SP. No information given when information has been promised might imply something has gone wrong etc, so I don't think he could move to monthly (or maybe even weekly) reporting without clarifying this ... in an RNS. Holding an RNS back for a day or two to allow more info to arrive and so issue one rather than two RNSs shouldn't be an issue. Perhaps that is what is happening now. I don't know but I think I might now be an RNS junkie suffering withdrawl symptoms.
Lack of news here seems a little unexpected given some of us thought the last RNS 'suggested' those last two holes has just been finished at the time of the previous RNS release (because of the stated number of 'holes completed' although they were not mentioned specifically!) So will the next RNS just be another in the sequence, or does the delay indicate the next RNS may have greater significance and hold a surprise for good or bad?
Whilst I don't want Colin to sell too cheaply, I think some of us at least would be happy (maybe) to sell based on 5-6mT plua contained copper leaving some for AA to 'find'. Trying to get all the copper (e.g. Footrot as well) fully identified before a sale would probably take too long. Anyway Australia might object when we ask for permits to drill in the centre of Camberra!
News, that all sounds a bit fishy to me . It was in the 28 Sept RNS that we were told: ' Phase 2 drilling programme at Racecourse continues with BRDD-21-020 and BRDD-21-021 underway. So the message was 28thSept was the start (give or take a day or two) of these holes not there finish, unless someone is suggesting they are purposely delaying info on each hole start and finish by over a week. Could the poster possibly just misread the 28 Sept RNS. I'm sure there is a slight delay in the system but I am dubious about it being that long. I expect we will see the hole 20 and 21 finish RNS on Monday or Tuesday,but we will have to wait and see.
Cyberiachas your quote 'In terms of price, I heard Colin muse about 25p or 30p sale price and then, in his words, people might say after a couple of whiskeys, something like 45p'
If Colin is playing poker very little reliance should be placed on this. In fact if he really believes the anomolies have as much Cu as the open pit these numbers seem a little low. Also it will need to go through an independent assessment so Colin's current estimates may not mean much. It may yet be revised (up or down) significantly based on assay results and further drill holes and on how much copper we find or don't find.. He could even be tempting AA to make a bid so it can be ruled out and so start a bidding war. They are so many things that could be going on, I think we need to be careful what we take as the probably final figure(s).
Shortly? Anyone been following Colin long enough to be able to interpret his use of this timeword into ordinary English? End 2021? End 2022? later? Presumably it comes after imminent, but is longer or shorter than 'soon'?
Is there also an unintentional message that outside potential investors may have got i.e. It sounds like it will take a long time proving up this 3mT contained copper so I don't think I need to get on the bus just yet'?