We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
GGP jv a success you say? Well its sp has 'only' doubled since having announced the jv. Other exploration companies did (many) multiples of that. KAV sp fivefold in the same time period. Ask people on the ggp board if they are happy. Its simple you give away the upside. Once we find massive sulphides we don't need a partner I would only enter a deal after a resource definition because, ageed, we are not miners. Look at osino resources over in Namibia they have about double our ev and drilling out a gold deposit with 8 drills looking to add more. Without a jv partner. Is that turbocharged enough?
Hard to understand why most people here seem to get so excited about a jv for a bit of downside protection whilst giving up a lot of upside, control over newsflow, potential for bidding war etc
If it is all so scary why not sell some kav and buy blue chips. Shows total lack of conviction imo
You could be right but in general there is a positive correlation between copper/nickel percentage and PGM grade in these systems. At these depths it would have to be higher % sulphide imo ie at least matrix or semi massive. But as I said it is great as proof of concept even though the concept is different from what they initially thought (karoo vs Proterozoic)
I think you are right but they do not explicitly say the entire 50m interval is mineralized. It does say that disseminated chalcopyrite is found. That generally means up to 5% sulphide but could also be <1%. Say it is 1%. Chalcopyrite contains 35% copper. If the entire 50m contains disseminated chalcopyrite that means 50m @ .35% copper (and counting). That is decent as proof of concept although uneconomical in itself due to depth
Hi f79
Please feel free to forward my post to ben. Personally I see my post more as concerns and difference of opinion with ben rather than questions. For clarification, i referred to use of kav funds not pow funds. I can see my recent post may come off as negative but I can assure it is nothing else but concerns from a long term holder who still believes in the ksz
Thanks for sharing d220
For me these statements from ben are very concerning
Spending 100k of money that is supposed to go into the ground he deems not material
He does not know when the warrants expire (2022)
He says the decision to excercise is in the public domain which is not true.
How can you speak of distributing balance sheet risk by spending 100k to excercise out of the money warrants in a volatile expl co in which we already own 6m shares?
Why do we need exposure to pow in the first place? We are an exploration company not an investment firm. I can buy pow shares myself if i desire. Warrant term is one year not 2. A gentlemen agreement at the expense of kav shareholders.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/POW/exercise-of-warrants-and-warrant-update-it3m8prvwihosmn.html
Exactly legalwolf the thing is massive sulphides are clearly visually identifiable and he has said before that would be a reportable event. What he needs to understand that in this case reporting the absence of massive sulphides is equally important for investors. You can not say the one is definitive and the other is not. Remember the chart with the different siemens readings and what it could be explained by? He didn't have to publish that and it clearly shows 3000 siemens suggests massive sulphides. I am not asking for a lot but just give us a lithology of what was identified visually in the hole.