Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
I think I've been plugging that last line for some time.
Oldslow
I do not disagree the scale is certainly huge.....I just see nonpointbin extrapolating it higher.
As I said quantity is no longer an issue.
Drilling to define the resource is part of the story here, my point was that trying to extrapolate value is pointless when dealing with an unproven mineral.
#EEE are clearly confident that will be non problem. The wider market and mining community, appear to be unconvinced, so a larger resource may not yield a higher valuation, at least not at this stage.
"can we take this one step further at this stage and put any sort of value to this 3 billion tonnes of titanium rich ore?"
No. It's still in the ground. Processing route unproven. Quantity is no longer an issue.
We dont know what form of deal will be struck, but the RNS refers to potential JV, FO, or sale, rather than off take.
Q3, should say.
Ofvtheres one small pre revenue miner where you dont have to worry about dilution, its this one.
Fo by q2 sees to that.
Negativity welcome tho. It challenges us all to think.
So, all is now clear.
It does vindicate those expressing doubts previously tho.
The Express, hardly a go to source for geopolitics.
Still , Kazakhstan is not a Tier 1 jurisdiction, and its something to consider. But Ye Gods, Earl, your deramping and Cross posting is blatantly off the scale here.
Fundamentals are great. Political risk is there, that's why it's cheap. Dont bet the farm, but there are returns on offer here
EoA seems to have quite a transparent agenda.
5p target for me by weekend.
After that, look fwd to FO news by July, a deal could see significantly more value by Q3, double figs quite possible imho.
I have tended to the cautious side in recent markets, and am in any case not usually prone to exuberance, nor given to ramping.
But current mcap still seems much too low for what's on offer here, so 5p post presentation is perfectly possible, imho, mb even a tad more.
Comparing Mumbles no of likes to your own mb a statistic worth pondering.
None of us " know where this is heading"
Many think they do. Stock movements are not predictable, and anyone who thinks they "know" is, frankly, misguided, or worse.
All opinions are welcome, especially negative ones, because they are the ones that should make us think, examine our convictions, and constantly reassess our views.
Oh, ffs, Cevod, why have you conjured the baboon back again?
KPIs not lips
I quote your post above, the better to relate my reply to the points raised.
1 Your dismissive tone is misplaced (do some of you not read RNS?).
This was debated a few days ago, and I and others made the point that throughout the RNS onky Cu/Au is mentioned, in l in para that set out lips that trigger shares issues to Century, ON THOSE METS ONLY.. There is your ambiguity specific mention of Cu/Au, none of any other metals. That is a little odd.
So no, "Enpire's RNS's are impressively detailed ut it seems this work is wasted on some of you". Indeed,so.
2." Ask yourself some questions", etc
Quite. It would indeed be astonishing if a professional BoD hD overlooked such a basic point, a d this is almost certainly a flaw in the RNS,which is merely a summary of the full agreement.
But it should be clarified, bcos at the moment information inthe public domain is a.biguous.
All this was soberly debated a few days back, .
4kandkes wrote
'The Pitfield licence is NOT ambiguousToday 09:59
This morning I have read "...it would be helpful if EEE put to bed the ambiguity from that old RNS re rights to minerals other than Cu/Au."
Where is the ambiguity? Do some of you not read RNS's? Empire and Century went looking for Cu/Au and in doing so found an upside-down mountain of Ti. (btw, previous Cu mine workings at Pitfield suggest there is still Cu to be found)
If mineral sands had been found (they were not) then we would be having a different conversation. Mineral sands are unambiguously the property of Century only. This is stated in the 06 April 2022 RNS.
Where is it written that Empire has no rights to minerals other than Cu/Au? Empire's RNS's are impressively detailed but it seems that this work is wasted on some of you.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EEE/acquisition-of-highly-prospective-cu-au-projects-c4gpxmzm6bikj63.html
Ask yourselves some questions. Maybe start with...
- Would respected and highly skilled professionals be leaving high paid jobs elsewhere to join Empire if the licence was ambiguous? These people are not dummies.
- Would Empire be mothballing and abandoning other Aussie projects if they didn't have Ti rights at Pitfield?
- If copper explorers find cobalt, does that invalidate their licences?
- Ditto if gold explorers find silver?
Not only do many AIM investors not read but seemingly they don't think either."
Why post that on a thread about acid?