Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. Watch the video here.
Hi CHRI5P - I think once Denarius announce the results of their RI we could all do with a comprehensive update on their plans between now and the MLA. Good to see that this little flicker in the SP has got people talking again though.
The deadline is 31st July so they have another five clear months to complete the MLA. Whether the PEA will contain only EUZ work 2020-22 or additional field work by Denarius in 2023 is debatable but I can't see them committing to spending £4m on Toral and then not getting the paperwork in on time. Frankly, even if an extension was required would the Junta kick us and Denarius off the licence after all the progress made coupled with Denarius' investment commitments to the region and other parts of Spain? I would argue, of course not.
Aucs sorry been busy. It's all a bit hypothetical really as I said earlier we need to know more about the enlarged mining area. Supposing it is just Antonina, how can we value that? Well it closed in 1983 as uneconomic - sounds like bad news until you consider that it was because of zinc being at historic lows. Also I assume it's analogous to Toral being a stones throw away so if that is the case the high mineralisation will be deep so likely still there. We can also bring new technology to bear that wasn't around in the 1970's like the ore sorting. Are there opportunities to reprocess the tailings? So many questions but I think some are looking too far ahead considering our valuation at 20%. There is a heck of a lot of work to be done to the tune of $4m before we even go down to 49% .
Well they're trying hard on Twitter. To be honest I'm very sceptical about a bid coming in for EUZ as things stand because valuing the company accurately is impossible until we know what the enlarged mining district actually is and what it might hold.
CHRI5P just a thought, I had been assuming that Denarius would progress one drill at a time but with the funding there is nothing to stop them sticking three rigs up there if they can get them. That might mean something like six weeks drilling, assays have generally been about a month and JORC reports just over a month. Perhaps it isn't unfeasible for the DD drills to go into the PEA but in any case as mentioned the other day the completed work since 2020 means the PEA will be greatly enhanced. Just for starters the indicated resource has almost doubled going from 3.8 to 7Mt. I guess the CAPEX will have soared along with everything else but against that they reckon the ore sorting means they will plan on a smaller concentrator plant so maybe swings and roundabouts.
I was told the DD drills are not just marking our homework as it were but will be designed to grow the resource. Basically both parties will benefit from them (assuming they hit mineralisation). My question would be whether they can be completed and the technical report work done in time for the PEA and MLA.
CHRI5P - Denarius were going to complete their due diligence drills before updating the PEA. Unless they have started I can't see how they can complete the holes, assay and JORC for the PEA all in time for the MLA deadline in July. Still as you say the new PEA will certainly be more impressive than the 2020 version even without the DD drills, given all that has happened since. Off the top of my head two resource upgrades, completed metallurgy, completed hydrology, additional geotech plus the impact of ore sorting.
Possibly Pisc, also wondered if the Nomad may want rates fully stabilised before announcing. Someone mentioned a Nomad change the other day, but I can't find anything in the RNS's. Anybody know how long we've had Spark Advisory Partners?
Yes it should reaffirm their credibility. I'd also like to see Aris participating as that should indirectly be an endorsement for Toral. They were likely one of the standby guarantors for the RI. Bit of interest in EUZ today I see!
I might have caused some of this confusion over the 500m. WR-B01 ST has been drilled 500m away from JKT-01Z but also in a presentation somewhere it is mentioned that the horizontal section was also 500m at JKT-01Z. It's supposed to be the same well design so I would have thought they were planning on a similar length with WR-B01 ST. If they are still drilling that would mean they have been on the horizontal section for over a month. Comparing the timescales they had finished testing at JKT-01Z by now and were on full production so the facts are that WR-B01 ST is taking a lot longer, why that is the case is more open to speculation.
Have to agree, if you provide regular interesting Tweets from the site all well and good but if they suddenly stop for the best part of a month (coupled with no regulated announcements) then questions will inevitably be asked. Bit naive from the Company and if this forum is anything to go by some are getting spooked. It might mean absolutely nothing but they should really have updated the market by now, if something is going badly so be it, everyone knows that nothing is nailed on with O&G exploration and will be prepared for it. As things stand though all outcomes are still in play, frustrating though.
That is one of the things that I find encouraging. Why accelerate Project 1 development if the current well is casting doubt over the concept? IMO wouldn't they have to go back to an appraisal well to test an alternative approach to production if that was the case. Undoubtedly they have taken the opportunity to feather their own nests in the process but wasn't it ever thus.
Scrodingerscat I don't disagree with any of your logic but had a slightly different take, assuming they have data to indicate what sort of result to expect (which seems likely after all this time) and looking at the market. 1. It's likely to be a complete failure but there hasn't been a leak, 2. It's likely to be a roaring success but there hasn't been a leak 3. It's going to contribute to our production but far from knocking the ball out of the park. Knowing that O&G is notoriously leaky I'm leaning towards No. 3. Also partly because of this: "The Loan Facility will allow Block to accelerate its Project I development programme, with the aim of increasing near-term cashflows, without the need for dilutive financing". If WR-B01st was a failure to the extent that it shakes confidence in the concept and well designs of Project I would they be concentrating the loan in this area? Therefore I don't think the loan suggests that WR-B01st won't produce but perhaps unlikely to be a complete game changer on revenues hence the Directors taking the opportunity to make a very safe and self serving loan to the company. Disagreement more than welcome if it comes with a little thought :)
That's how I would see it also. The reason you have to sell and buy back into the ISA is because it is a tax wrapper so any profits........ (remember those?)....... on the stock outside the ISA becomes exposed to CGTax.