Member Info for Zan_TM

Maybe I'm not wired correctly, I dunno, but I do believe RM/The company didn't tell the truth at all times and yet still fall into camp 2. For me I guess my reasons for not wanting venegence even though I am aware they have mislead me largely comes down to the fact I think almost every company does that to its shareholders and therefore I'm invested to (hopefully) make money, not a new friend out of the CEO.

End of the day, for us shareholders the CEOs job, in terms of what we will deam to be a success is judged on the SP increase they provide us. In that case, currently, the CEO and BOD are failing, however, improvements can occur and if they do and this holding makes me money, honestly I couldn't care less what lies the CEO told on route (to an extent).

If a CEO was honest all the time, I doubt many companies would survive. Sometimes bad news is best hidden if you can sort it before it becomes company killing news.

Success and failure are different sides of the same coin to me. Fine lines.

If the funding hadn't of fallen through from OCIM RM would have still been treated like a King here, even though the same mislead truthes had been told prior to that funding.

I'm not saying it's right and if you brought in because of an RNS or CEO interview as I've said before, you have the right to be angry, maybe seek a claim etc, I totally get that so not trying to take away from that.

For me GCAT was and is a small cap and thus I always had it down as massively risky, I still think it is so it could go under, which I can accept, or it could go on to provide me with a decent return.

Not trying to take away from your disbelief but the problem with production figures is that in order to upgrade many items, you have to shut down a lot of the plant. This creates a lopsided view in some respects.

Q2, Q3, Q4 2022 were always going to be low production figure quarters and work was ongoing and that work wouldn't result in a linear set of production outcomes.

Once the work is completed then yes, you would expect a more clear increase in figures.

For me, those figures weren't unexpected or a let down, now Q1, Q2, Q3 2023, they might be let downs as we were informed back in H1 22, that by then we would be producing 2k a month (approx).

Its become evident that the company didn't have the funds to hit those targets, so the lesson should be around communicating that to its shareholders in a timely manner and how to manage the books a bit better. Vim Rutha looks like it could be great, other targets do too, but maybe a lesson here is don't use expenditure on side shoots until Killi Hill is at or close to target.

Walk before run.

Following on from your last point, I think you have two camps here.

1 camp has sold out and lost money, in some cases a lot of money. Nothing we say or do can change that or make that situation any better. For them, any lies or believed to be lies will naturally increase the sense of injustice at play and so I totally get if you feel mislead, you are going to want something done about that. As a mere PI investor here, I wish I could help that I really do, but I can't.

Then you have the 2nd camp who still hold or have just bought in. I am in that still hold camp and while I too am angry about how GCAT has gone about certain things, I'm also aware my anger will have zero use towards us achieving our gosls here. Rightly imo, as you say, hitting production targets, getting funding, learning from previous mistakes and constantly aiming to improve is what will drive future positive results and so setting aside my personal feelings, moving towards progress appears not only logical from an operational point if view but also from a financial one.

The last RNS was imo only a step in the right direction. It wasn't perfect and didn't give full details as I may have liked, but there was a more honest (dare I say that) aire about it with several "fess ups" if you will.

Elegantly written JC.

I think it's a tricky time right now with comms. Bit of a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Not removing blame from Robbie for that as very much self created and of course as CEO the buck correctly stops and falls at his door, however, if he interviews before any concrete news is sorted, he will be in the firing line for saying stuff which might not come true, but by staying hush, he is ignoring valid shareholder concerns.

I do think shareholders deserve an honest few anwsers to some things, such as why CLN wasn't reported at time and why details around re-payments are light, along with current finances etc, however, when the timing is best for that, I'm unsure. It could easily do more damage than good right now.

I get a lot wont like that as they want blood, which is understandable really.

@Adam, yes, sorry, the mining license (as they have exploration one already).

Mali ministry of mines closed all new submissions to and for Gold mining license at end of Nov until further notice. Why? That's unknown really. Lots of guesses mind from just getting house in order through to the fact that they are looking to set up a national gold mining corp so maybe around that through to Wagner Group maybe looking over which plots they want in exchange for there help just as they did elsewhere like in Sudan. Who knows really. However, Cora can't submit its application to mine until they re-open.

They could re-open tomorrow or in 12 months plus. Total unknown to us at this point. Cora also confirmed this affects our application to me in an email when I asked them.

@Legal, yes still a decent figure needed to hit full funded to production stage. Up in the air the route which will be taken but its not uncommon for that large part to be done via the formation of a new subsidery company.

Yes I think looking at the figures Lionhead have done slightly less than antcipated, although not massively less. I believe top of my head the more recent term sheet upgrade had PI's being able to partake in 8mil of funding, which now reads 10 mil. Plus some slight differences on this packages breakdown, although it doesn't look miles off, but I would have to work out in more detail to say for certain.

Imp I think you may have missed the significance of the date they used...April 1st...

Pretty much my view too Washers. Its an infrastructure project and everything always takes ages on them no matter how much money is available. Always loads of hoops to jump through.

Back pocket and done.

In the grand scheme of things this temp SP shuffle isn't mega. Oracle has no source of income and is the minor party in pretty much every deal it has going on so it's to be expected that dilution etc will take place along the way. The upside here to me is Oracle doesn't need a massive stake in any of its project for the economics to work out very well given the companies current low Mcap.

It's okay Washers, this didn't happen right as I do recall being put in my box for suggesting placings will occur on route, just like a few did, including you.

Positive news here is almost always followed by placing RNS. If you were untrusting you would think that was done by design.

Still, it was expected and was always going to be part of the process here. Won't be the last either imo.

Not all negative though, slowly jigsaw pieces are falling into place.

Agreed Starbright. Short term, the equity part at discount (which we already knew it would be at) will take a quick toll, plus until license is sorted, I'm sure that will keep a level of uncertainty in the air, however, make no mistake, getting that inital block of funding, given the uncertainty right now is massive news.

It allows the project to start and hopefully that other funding Bert mentioned for rest of project will come in over next few months.

Great to see some of the total required funding come in mainly via the termsheet and CLN's although some equity to.

A little light on plant detail but I'm expecting that to follow once everything is approved towards the end of Feb.

Given Mali is still not issueing out gold mining license, I'm nicely suprised to see the 19 mil USD announced and arranged now.

A great start to me.

Things are messy enough Suggin's lol so they and you def wouldn't want me involved. I'd blow the lot on a giant turnip in the country

As a note Suggins, the SOI is now higher than then and thus 20% is roughly 375,000,000. That 20% rule used to be 10% but they amended during Covid I think, however, there is still some guidelines. Notably 10% can be used for whatever needed but the other 10% has to be used for aquisistions of capital investments. So as an example Tanzania addition previously.

As a secondary note, if the company was declared as capital hungry at IPO, and I don't know if it was or not, so would need to check, it can raise up to 75% if it can make the business case for it.

Yea it's the Lith plays in Canada

Thank you Apro, much appreciated. That was my understanding too but I have seen several posts suggesting we are making decent money, but without the AISC, I don't see how that can be worked out.

Doesn't mean we aren't making enough to get by, but it does mean we don't know.

That's good news Suggins, thanks for updating. Lets hope it's the start of something. Could do with a bit of positive news here.

On a side note, as a holder myself, for all those who post challenging questions which don't fit the standard echo chamber viewpoint, I know you all get a lot of stick, but I for one appreciate the posts as I learn a lot from the questions as they push me to find answers to them, more prob than I do from blind faith echo chamber points. I'm sure I'm not the only one like that either. So please don't let those who can't handle a different point of view bring you down.

Somerset, where did you see the AISC per mined Oz for previous quarters?

I've looked over old RNS's and can't see any mention of it, although might have missed.

I can see a reference of what the AISC is expected tp be once production hits 24k, but thats not the same as what the AISC would be when its lower.

@Jersey.

I had a quick scan of Q1/Q2 updates and the financials but couldn't see any AISC figures which related to current production levels.

I did note it says they employ 496 staff and I appreciate that regardless of output, in some areas you still need the same number of employees present, but I would be suprised if they needed 496 staff when production was so low? I am guessing some of those staff were construction workers working on the heap leach plans etc and some on the road drilling, which could be scaled back if needed?

Jersey, yes you are correct wages will come into AISC.

The main unknown right now is what that AISC is at. Could be the figure you mentioned, could be lower, but I would expect its more likely higher.

Economics of scale and all that. We know expected AISC at 24k per year prod rates, but at say the 3k you used as an example, I can't see it being close to that AISC level. I'd guess more around 1450 ish? Is there an RNS from Q1 or Q2 reports which showed AISC then when we were producing about the same as now (there or there abouts) as that might help us tell?

Only you can decide if you think its going to give you a 30 times return, but given the info out there as it stands, that feels a little punchy to me.

However, as I'm sure you will know, like any junior, its all down to what that drill bit finds, so you can research as much as you want, but to achieve 30 times still requires a bit of luck as the drills have to find enough product to justify that return and impossible to predict what future, not yet planned, drill campaigns will return.

Naturally, you still want the company positioned as best as possible to maximise returns if those drills do prove good.

FRG, as mentioned, has the funding to keep drilling and get to DFS (if RICCA takes up each stage accordingly as per funding DFS).

What will the MRE be by DFS? How at this point can anyone tell? Impossible. However, at least it has a route and funds to find out, which is more than a lot of its peers (same early stage peers, not fully funded to production ones).

Of course, that funding has come at a cost in terms of % given away, but that maths is for you to do.

30 times, who knows, 5 times, I'd say with a little luck theres a lot higher chance. For me, 5 times return is s great result and great start, might not be for you. Each to their own right. No right and wrong answer to that.

Still got to achieve that 5 times though so I'm not count chickens just yet

Potential for another packaged together IPO sign out in a while anyone?

Would seem to fit the model and allow explore funds to be drawn in via the IPO.