Member Info for sicilian_kan

Hi Nolupus, isn't the risk at SNG that further positive vaccine news (Oxford) will just make the price go at SNG crash one more time. After all the Oxford vaccine is much better if it works (can be stored at fridge temperatures, only one dose required, 1/10th of the price, many more doses ordered). Whatever the medium term prospects, there is a significant chance of a further significant short term hit.

As for IMM, just a matter of waiting a little longer. I'm confident an SPA will be agreed. You can see how confident and aggressive Avion have been with their request for conditional approval pre-Phase 3! So it is no surprise, in light of the same, that there are discussions to be had over the SPA. Not long to wait now. I'm confident an SPA will be given. We just have to await the terms that are being negotiated.

As ever, DYOR all.

It could actually be very positive. One further trial based upon a better trial structure / clinical endpoint would be a massive positive here. But it is clear that there have been discussions and consideration has been needed and whether that is what is happening or can be achieved is clearly up in the air.

P.S. Am not saying the SPA will not be successful, just that there are clearly matters that have had to be considered.

What can we deduce from the delay, not all of which is likely to be COVID related:

1. If it was an outright rejection from the FDA, that would likely have happened by now
2. The delay in my view could be caused by:
a. the SPA application being based upon a trial structure / endpoint criteria not previously run before in a lupus trial; and the FDA has had to consider this with external experts; and / or
b. there have been requests for further information regarding the previous P3 data in the analysis as to whether one or two more trials will suffice, i.e. the extent to which the previous trial data can be relied upon.

Any thoughts welcome.

Hi UI, yes I have a decent holding here. Happy to discuss further if you PM me on advfn.

Suggesting that nothing is getting approved is as ridiculous as asserting that the delays are because the FDA has concerns about IMM's application.

The evidence is that some, not all, staff have been redeployed to deal with COVID. There is no suggestion that non-COVID FDA departments are shut down.

The application will be dealt with, just slower than the 45 days that have already passed.

Anyone who suggests when it is dealt with is just guessing. It could be tomorrow. It could be next week, next month or later. We just have to see. But if you want to be in the stock for the decision, well, you have to be in, and to guarantee that you have to be in now.

From yesterday:

"The sudden influx of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related trials work at the FDA has required judiciously pulling resources from various departments at the agency to support those efforts"

"“We have had to make sure that we were able to work across silos to move staff across divisions,” Stein said. “We have lots of folks in divisions that weren’t directly affected by COVID-19 therapeutic work moving to divisions to support the…regulatory review work.”"

https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/view/fda-reshuffles-priorities-to-meet-covid-19-trial-demand

leas, I think if we get the SPA we should be somewhere in the 20-30p region. It means Phase III can start which is a game changer here.

Most importantly, whilst an SPA can be obtained, the question is which SPA. Will it be an SPA requiring just one further Phase III trial - using the already finished trial as the other supporting data? Or will the FDA require two new trials if the protocol is changing significantly?

If it is the former, there is every reason for it to be game on for the share price.

According to Angle last night, they are targeting the end of next month to make the FDA application. Can you really not wait 5.5 weeks??

Very significant news at the Angle presentation tonight. Angle are considering a NASDAQ listing application next year. Described by Newland as a "tremendous opportunity". Initial preparations made with the ADRT. The financial year end was recently changed to US year end to assist. No decision yet, but considering making an application next year. Newland noted the big valuation differential in the US and the capital available, plus the knowledge of US investors re FDA process. The impact of a US listing on the share price would be substantial.

From Citi: “On its own Havieron could scrape in at a tier two asset but that's only until the plus-5.4gpt gold equivalent inventory is depleted.“

esduk, you are wrong.

A good point. The thing is though that with the 1:1 warrants issued to SVS placees at 12.5p, there is no incentive for SVS placees to hold long. The risk free warrants can give the upside here if things lift off. So whatever WSG does to try an mitigate this with a webinar, I cannot see it stopping SVS placees from selling, either now or in subsequent weeks.

SVS clients get their WSG shares back on 22 – 23 July 2020. They have been without their shares for nearly a year. They will hold substantial amounts of WSG shares as SVS went into administration on 5 August 2019, the same day that £1m WSG placing shares were admitted to the market. These will be predominantly SVS held. In my view, there will be a lot of selling throughout July, not only once the shares are released, but also with forward selling by some.

Thanks Chartbuster - calcs much appreciated

It does look like GH has cashed some in. The cost of the option exercise and the tax does not appear to add up to the amount sold.

Hi Paddy, thanks for the response. I used your March calculations as (1) those were the those were the calculations that constituted our discussions and differences at the time; and (2) it makes the points I made in my post last night.

Re why Hannam and I have different valuations with similar volumes I will come back to later this weekend. I must do other things now.

ATB too.

P.S. The reference to 84m tonnes is said in context. My post last night referred to your previous estimate of 82.3m tonnes. The 84m appeared in your subsequent post. The difference is neither here nor there.

Hi Paddy, our discussion was back in March not May, and you said back then 82,320,000 tonnes.

On 20 March, you tweeted the following and put the link to your measurements in the tweet on this board https://twitter.com/paddygall1/status/1241011889548726273?s=20

This was your work as you said when posting the link "I've been contemplating the high-grade zone of mineralisation for a while and tried to come up with a way to roughly measure this area. This is what I came up with -"

The calculations on the link then said:

"Ok lets's look at the "high grade" sulphide zone that Newcrest (Mike Nossal) have admitted that they have now gotten good at predicting...

...So now we have these 2 measurements we can work out a volume and then a tonnage for the high grade area...

...Volume . 42,000m2 x 700m = 29,400,000m3
...Mass . 29,400,000m3 x 2.8 (specific gravity) . 82,320,000 tonnes

Now we know this is just the high grade zone and if you look at the isometric drawing there are intersections @ 6,7,8 g/t all the way up to 22g/2...

...Remeber this is just the high-grade zone and not considering the breccia zone or any of the potential to the NW or at depth"

You then had a chart confirming the mass (tonnes) as 82,320,000. I accept there were qualifications but this was the figure you came up with.

There was then a table based on the 82,320,000 figure. The figure you input was 18.8m oz gold equivalent (18,843,314) for 6g/t and 0.8% copper. You also gave figures for 1-5 g/t.

So I'm at a loss as to why you think today that you "definitely never said there was 84M tons" or that you "didn't specify an average grade that you should use over this area either".

Hi Paddy, hope you are well. You may recall we had differing views on the volume of high grade rock at Havieron. You in your Twitter postings said 82.3m tonnes. I on the other hand had 21.9m tonnes [7.83m m3 x 2.8 specific gravity]. We had a discussion on here about the size of the high grade zone, you conceded some of my points but still thought amongst other matters that the length I used should have been doubled.

Take a look back now at the Hannam report that came out this week. If you use the figures they provide, you will see that they estimate something in the region of 20.4-21.6m tonnes of high grade rock - a number that I find reassuringly familiar and exceedingly close to my own.

If there is only 20-21m tonnes of high grade rock, then all the other maths on your tweet was wildly out. Figures you gave such as 18.8m tonnes of gold equivalent for 6g/t + 0.8% copper, based solely on the high grade zone identified to date just do not appear to be anywhere close to being accurate.

The purpose of this post is two-fold. First, and this sentence is not directed at you paddy in any way - you have been a gentleman throughout even if we have disagreed, but there are many on here who have been abusive towards those who do not blindly follow the more extreme calculations. Rational discussion should never be drowned out (though do not think that I have any faith in a change). Second, it is time that realism took place on this board and that realistic numbers are used.

Calculations as follows. On the released drill results, they say 4.4m oz of high grade material, grading 6.7 grams per tonne gold [copper referred to separately]. 4.4m oz * 31.1034768 = 136,855,297.9 grams of gold. 136,855,297.9 grams divided by 6.7g/t gives 20,426,164 tonnes of rock. You can reach the same approximate figure from the copper figures they give. 130,000 tonnes of 0.6% copper gives 21,666,667 tonnes of rock [130,000/0.006]. The difference being the rounding but somewhere between 20.4m and 21.6m tonnes of rock appears to be their estimate.