Member Info for Urbanracer

Hi Bingo,

I am not sure of this (so huge apols if I am in error) but understood that, in respect of 13, the following was the case:

The 100.9 intersect includes the 36 @ 4.1 and the 162.3 intersect includes the 10.2 @ 2.5 and the 15.3 @ 2.2.

I think assay results often show the average for a particular intersect with details of higher grade zones within that intersect if relevant. The final 146.1 @ 0.93 was reported as just that.

Regards

UR

Mads,

I get your views. We all do. Let’s just say that past performance is not necessarily an indicator of what the future may hold. Sorry but I am positive about this share now and have invested (you may say gambled) with more hard earned cash.

We have all got our views and, unlike politicians, can remain civil in the face of disagreement. I just wish we could focus on LND and what is being discovered rather than keep harping back to Patagonia Gold. The two are, in my opinion, entirely different.

I say be positive Mads and curry night will follow.

Regards. UR

Mads,

Me and a mate (also invested) discuss this point endlessly it seems. I first bought into LND in early 2010 when it was, as you say, mainly a nickel company. I am sure no one needs reminding what price the shares traded at around that period and into 2011.

I have a feeling that this quarter is going to be significant for the company. Gold prices seem to be steadying around 1500 and nickel prices have risen steadily during recent months. I am expecting a resource revision to around 1.4. I just hope the step out drills towards Lamaune are positive. If they are, well Mads, I honestly think we can be positive too.

Roll on next update.

UR

Jersey,

Absolutely spot on. I also keep trying to make the point but clearly a number disagree.

Cheers

UR

Owlo,

Read and digest please.

Should have vs Should of
The phrase should have indicates a missed obligation or opportunity in the past. In informal speech, it is contracted to should’ve, not "should of."

Y. You should have (should’ve) called me!
N. You should of called me!

Y. I should have (should’ve) known you were lying.
N. I should of known you were lying.

Y. Tom and Pauline are so selfish, they should have (should’ve) been there for you.
N. Tom and Pauline are so selfish, they should of been there for you.

Should have should never be written "should of." However, the latter does exist: when should is followed by an expression that begins with of.

You should, of course, compare prices.
Past: You should, of course, have compared prices.

He should, of his own will, do the right thing.
Past: He should, of his own will, have done the right thing.

Hope this assists.

Regards

UR

Thanks Sicilian,

Just wanted to chat it through as the subject gets alluded to quite often.

Sicilian,

Totally disagree but appreciate your views.

Cheers.

Prospector,

No misunderstanding here; your response is exactly how I see it.

Obliged.

UR

SK

My point is that the Ggp board has never publically indicated a desire to be taken over. Quite the reverse in fact.

As such, any takeover bid must surely be hostile. Mechanisms can be brought into play to try and prevent this, but if successful there would clearly be significant tension between Ggp’s management and that of the acquirer. GH etc would leave, and the future benefits to majors of having Ggp carrying on its exploration and development work would be forever lost.

Why would Newcrest, a company with whom GH has developed a fantastic working relationship do this for short term benefits only?

Maybe I am being naive.

UR

MS,

I had given that some thought and accept it is a possibility. My thoughts, however, were that most if not all majors already have their own exploration wings which act in accordance with their boards own Boards specific directions.

It seems to me that it is better for Ggp to continue their (now) tried and tested approach which is clearly proving successful. Surely this independence is critical to their success which is perhaps more beneficial to a prospective purchaser in the long term.

Time, as you say, will tell.

Regards.

UR

Cheers Stuart.

Gents,

Regarding takeover conjecture, please could I throw a couple of points into the ring.

1. Are we talking about friendly or hostile here. It is apparent to me that GH is forging good relationships with other mining companies; not necessarily just Newcrest. Do you recall the ‘not at this time’ comment by Newmont. The Ggp board also are likely to have a good relationship with Rio. As such, any move from these companies would likely be friendly would it not.

2. If a hostile move is made, who is it likely to be, and there are a number of defense mechanisms that can be employed.

3. This suggests that any move IF one was to come would be from one of the above companies. If so, why? Ggp are, in my view, doing an unbelievable job in their position as an exploration company. As such, the major companies must surely want them in play to continue searching for the next Havieron (be it BH, FT, even from one of the many anomalies in EG). If that was the case, and the move was cost effective for the acquiring company, would not a vertical merger be relevant so as to keep Ggp in action as an exploration wing of the acquiring company. Hands would obviously be tied.

4. My view, however, is this. (I am by no means well versed in this topic). Ggp’s strategic aims are to grow SH value by acquiring targets and then proving up the same ( alone or x JV) to the point where the individual project ( or others if such have been offered as first refusal to a JV partner) becomes attractive to that company (or other co) and an agreement to sell is reached. This ensures that the acquiring company obtain only the projects they want (and not in areas in which they have no interest as would happen in a full acquisition case) and also leaves Ggp doing the sterling work in identifying and developing new projects. I have not read anything that indicates that the Ggp board are looking to be bought out but plenty that makes clear they intend growing as a hugely successful and independent concern.

I fervently hope Ggp are not taken over. I believe shareholders will be best served by Ggp continuing as an independent company and doing what they do best. Just look at what they have achieved with Havieron and who knows what else is to come.

UR

Mads,

I think we all agree that LND were in talks at the beginning of the year. I think we can also agree that the outcome of those talks were uncertain but I tend to think it was more of the ‘not just now but keep going LND and we will talk some more in due course’. We don’t know if the talks related to buyout or JV but both options may have been on the table.

For me it’s simple. LND has to press on alone up to a point (hopefully) where they have proved up a gold resource (and Potential) to an amount that finally satisfies the other company. At that point we could expect an offer.

How long it may take we don’t know but until that point is reached LND will have to fundraise. They simply can’t stop now and who would want that.As long as they keep hitting the good stuff (and not dust)the time taken and associated costs will be kept to a minimum.

I’m in this until the questions are finally answered.

UR

Now then gents,

Mads you certainly called it right on Monday as a result of the sells. I am also now tending to agree with you that a JV is looking less and less likely.

As for the same old bit I have slightly differing views. From a personal perspective I want an end game to this. (As I suspect do BH etc). This may be taking a simplistic view but if a suitable partner is not in the wings then surely at this stage they have no option but to carry on building the resource to the point at which they become attractive as a buy out. If that is the case then LND have no choice but to continue with their strategy.

The positives are the price of gold and the likelihood of it remaining at the 1500 (or even above) threshold allied to the fact that they are still hitting mineralisation.

An interesting point for me is that there have been 3 fundings now this year; do we attribute this to bad planning (I say not) or the fact that they are drilling more metres ( both holes and depth) than originally planned?

Regards all.

UR

Your finger must be worn out News!

Who the heck is Pang and what has he done?

Ta

UR

Gervaise,

Fantastic results for you and your team. What a discovery.

UR

Today’s Proactive article

Landore Resources completes deposit expanding drill campaign.

Landore Resources Ltd (LON:LND) told investors it has completed a 24-hole drill campaign at the BAM gold project, at the Junior Lake property in Ontario, Canada.
A total of 3,966 metres were drilled in the campaign which was designed to advance BAM's inferred gold resource so it can be included into an upgraded resource estimate and a preliminary economic assessment. These items are planned for completion in the fourth quarter.
Drilling successfully intersected gold mineralisation at similar widths to the other areas of the BAM deposit.
The company additionally completed 10 diamond drill holes, amounting to 1,407 metres, along strike of BAM and this has extended the mineralised zone by 500 metres.
BAM now spans some 3,600 metres of strike, Landore noted.
Further drilling is now being considered for the fourth quarter, with the aim to further extend the known BAM zone. Two 'deep' holes are also anticipated to test potential continuity of the gold mineralisation beneath the current BAM deposit.

· Drilling has successfully intersected gold mineralisation of similar widths and grade to the existing BAM Gold Deposit with multiple instances of visible gold ("VG").

Morning Dirkus,

Agree. 3600 m of strike is significant. Grades remain broadly in line with previous reports and strike open to East , West and dd. This should allow the jorc to reach the 1.4 mark with great further potential. Be good to see an interview with BH or RP today.

UR