Alba Mineral Resources Share Discussion Threads

[graylyn1] 16/8/2020 15:58

Latest presentation from ALBA

[graylyn1] 16/8/2020 15:36

Clogau Strategy

The Board has determined that the Clogau Gold Project remains a key focus of the Company’s business moving forward, principally for the following reasons:

There is significant existing underground development in place across five connected mine areas at Clogau, which development would cost many millions of pounds to put in place at today’s prices.
The commercial potential of Clogau is significant, and is underpinned by a number of factors: the fact that historic production was from very high-grade pods, and that we believe there to be real potential to discover unexploited high-grade pods; the fact that Welsh gold typically attracts a significant premium over normal gold spot rates; and the rally in the price of gold in the second half of 2019 and into the start of 2020, which can only help with the economics for restarting mining for gold at Clogau.
There is great potential to discover new economic gold resources within the wider Clogau licence area, as illustrated by the 10 new gold anomalies that we have so far discovered across the Dolgellau Gold Belt.

read full article.............

[johncasey] 15/8/2020 14:31

Poseidon bubble
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
founded 1969; 51 years ago
Headquarters Subiaco, Australia
Website hxxp://poseidon-nickel.com.au
The Poseidon bubble was a stock market bubble in which the price of Australian mining shares soared in late 1969, then crashed in early 1970. It was triggered by the discovery by Poseidon Nickel of the early indications of a promising nickel deposit in September 1969.

In the late 1960s, nickel was in high demand due to the Vietnam War,[1] but there was a shortage of supply due to industrial action against the major Canadian supplier Inco. These factors pushed the price of nickel to record levels, peaking at around £7,000/ton (£113,000 in 2018 adjusted for inflation)[2] on the London market early in November 1969.[3] In September 1969, the mineral exploration company Poseidon NL made a major nickel discovery at Mount Windarra 22 kilometres (14 mi) northwest of Laverton, Western Australia. In early September its shares, which had been trading at $0.80, began rising on insider trading (which was not illegal at the time). On 1 October, Poseidon announced that drilling had struck 40 metres of ore averaging 3.56% nickel and the share price immediately rose until Poseidon shares were trading at $12.30. After that, very little further information came to light but the price continued to climb on speculation. At one point, a UK broker suggested a value of up to $382 a share.[4][3]

The price of Poseidon shares quickly became too high for many investors, so some turned to stocks in other companies exploring near Windarra, and eventually other nickel mining stocks in general. As the price of mining shares grew, new companies were listed by promoters hoping to cash in. From October to December 1969 the ASX All Mining index rose by 44%. Mining stocks peaked in January 1970, then immediately crashed. Poseidon shares peaked at an intraday high of $280 in February 1970, and fell rapidly thereafter.[3]

By the time Poseidon actually started producing nickel, the price of nickel had fallen. Also, the nickel ore was of a lower grade than originally thought and extraction costs were higher. Profits from the mine were not sufficient to keep Poseidon afloat and it went into receivership in 1974. The company was delisted from the stock exchange in 1976. Western Mining then took over management of the mine, operating it until 1991. Mining ceased at Mount Windarra in 1989, and at South Windarra in 1991.[5] Mount Windarra produced 5.3 million tonnes of ore grading 1.5% nickel during the life of the mine.[6][3]

In 1974, the Rae Committee handed down its report on the Poseidon bubble, which documented numerous cases of improper trade practices. It recommended a number of changes to the regulation of stock markets, which ultimately led to Australia's national companies and securities legislation.[7]

[johncasey] 15/8/2020 14:29

Imagine if the Queen and Charlie boy invest in Alba..loyal subjects will follow suit and before you know it Posiedon mk2

[johncasey] 15/8/2020 14:25

news is spreading fast...new gold rush heading for snowdonia

[johncasey] 15/8/2020 14:08

Yes folks all big oak trees start from tiny acorns and Alba is no exception..this little baby is in the right sector and right location at the right time,just needs the right marketing of welsh gold and this share will make Greatlands look like a blip on the computersphere..trust me maestro is never wrong...monday should see the herd arrive in force so buckle up and prepare for the ride of your life!

[johncasey] 15/8/2020 06:53

i see lieing scouse doc holiday at it again...i wonder who pulls his strings

[johncasey] 14/8/2020 17:00

might pan for some myself

[demking1] 14/8/2020 16:19

Im sure I found gold there last week. Kept it so will get it tested.

[garykc] 14/8/2020 13:05

New word, "nuggety"

[uknighted] 11/8/2020 22:39

Thanks for not getting personal Temmujin!

[johncasey] 09/8/2020 18:42

YEAH so what..its relevant now..assay results out this month

[uknighted] 09/8/2020 18:37

Above article August 2018.

[uknighted] 09/8/2020 18:36

Above article August 2018.

[25wbh] 05/8/2020 08:05

Gold price surges to over $2022 dollar an oz

Means we don't have to find too much to make huge profit, and its o our doorstep

[johncasey] 04/8/2020 02:33

Dunsfold drilling plans to be decided again after refusal ruled “invalid”;
BY RUTH HAYHURST ON AUGUST 3, 2020 • ( 10 COMMENTS )
200629 Dunsfold meeting
Members of Surrey County Council’s first virtual planning meeting refuse plans to drill at Dunsfold, 29 June 2020. Photo: Surrey County Council webcast

The decision to refuse planning permission for oil and gas exploration near the Surrey village of Dunsfold has been ruled invalid following problems during a “remote” council meeting.

Five weeks ago, councillors voted by six votes to five against plans by UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) to drill and test vertical and sidetrack wells, overruling the recommendation of council planning officers.

The meeting was the first remote session of the committee, where members took part by video link from home.

The live feed of the meeting repeatedly dropped out and one member of the committee could not be heard.

The application will now be brought back to a future meeting of the planning committee – probably on 17 September – to be decided again

In correspondence today, the council’s monitoring officer, Paul Evans, said there was:

“a significant likelihood that the irregularities arising from the technical difficulties at the meeting on 29 June 2020 render the resolution to refuse invalid and would render any notice of refusal unlawful.

“The most appropriate and fairest course of action is to take the application back to committee. This is what the Council has decided to do.”

Mr Evans added:

“In the circumstances the Council will in due course resubmit the application to the Planning and Regulatory Committee to be redetermined afresh with full entitlement given to members of the public and the applicant to make or remake their statements orally and with full provision for debate by members.”

A spokesperson for UKOG said:

“We welcome the chance to restate why the low-impact Loxley project is of material local and national economic importance, is fully compliant with Net Zero, and presents minimal local business, local highway and environmental impacts.

“We trust that the 17 September re-run will result in a decision fully commensurate with the facts presented, natural law and fair democratic process.”

A spokesperson for Protect Dunsfold, which opposes UKOG’s plans, said:

“Obviously we would prefer that this decision had stood but it is clear from the statement issued by Surrey that this has been referred back on legal advice because of technical problems on the day.

“We have every reason to expect that the Committee reaches the same decision for the same planning policy reasons when it is referred back to Committee and we see no reason why it shouldn’t do so.”

200513 View from site to High Billinghurst Farm 2
View from the proposed site towards High Billinghurst Farm. Photo: High Billinghurst Farm

Investigation
UK Oil & Gas plc complained to the council that there had been deficiencies in the decision-making process at the meeting and asked for the application to be redetermined. DrillOrDrop understands there were also complaints from members of the public.

The complaints included:

The live stream of the meeting dropped out
Part of a speech by a councillor in favour of the plans may not have been heard by participants
A councillor speaking in favour may not have been heard by another councillor who was “waiting in the lobby” to access the meeting
A councillor could not be heard and had to use hand gestures and the private chat function to register his vote. He also appeared to be away from this screen at one point during the meeting.
Some councillors were helped by people who were not members of the committee
On some of these complaints, the council’s barrister concluded the meeting may have breached regulations:

“these were issues of greater concern, particularly given the close vote by which the resolution was passed.”

Surrey’s planning procedures require committee members to decline to vote unless they were present when an item was discussed. Under the remote meeting regulations, members are not deemed to be present unless they could hear and be heard.

The barrister said:

“There were times during the consideration of the application at the meeting when members would not be considered to be in attendance as a matter of law.”

One councillor may also have been deterred from seeking the opportunity to speak because of problems with the technology.

The barrister concluded:

“there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations.”

Other issues raised in complaints were “not necessarily fatal on their own”, the barrister said, but “would not help the impression that would be received if the matter went to Court”.

These included:

Lack of a summary of the salient points of the debate before the decision
Occasions where other household members appeared on screen with councillors, leading to potential suspicion of inappropriate influence from people not attending the meeting
Councillors used a private chat function to pass messages to each other during the meeting
The barrister said:

“Whilst it may well be the case that family members were simply assisting with the technology, there is the risk of a perception of unfairness.”

The investigation dismissed complaints that specific councillors breached the council’s code of conduct and planning protocols. The barrister concluded:

“All issues raised were due to the meeting being undertaken remotely with members being at home in the proximity to other household members to assist in the use of IT equipment or due to technical errors with equipment.

“This was a new experience for members and it is appropriate that if members found themselves in a position where it could appear there were alleged breaches of the code/protocol, that these be addressed with further training in how remote meetings must be conducted rather than any formal investigation.”;

[johncasey] 04/8/2020 02:31

Dunsfold drilling plans to be decided again after refusal ruled “invalid”;
BY RUTH HAYHURST ON AUGUST 3, 2020 • ( 10 COMMENTS )
200629 Dunsfold meeting
Members of Surrey County Council’s first virtual planning meeting refuse plans to drill at Dunsfold, 29 June 2020. Photo: Surrey County Council webcast

The decision to refuse planning permission for oil and gas exploration near the Surrey village of Dunsfold has been ruled invalid following problems during a “remote” council meeting.

Five weeks ago, councillors voted by six votes to five against plans by UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) to drill and test vertical and sidetrack wells, overruling the recommendation of council planning officers.

The meeting was the first remote session of the committee, where members took part by video link from home.

The live feed of the meeting repeatedly dropped out and one member of the committee could not be heard.

The application will now be brought back to a future meeting of the planning committee – probably on 17 September – to be decided again

In correspondence today, the council’s monitoring officer, Paul Evans, said there was:

“a significant likelihood that the irregularities arising from the technical difficulties at the meeting on 29 June 2020 render the resolution to refuse invalid and would render any notice of refusal unlawful.

“The most appropriate and fairest course of action is to take the application back to committee. This is what the Council has decided to do.”

Mr Evans added:

“In the circumstances the Council will in due course resubmit the application to the Planning and Regulatory Committee to be redetermined afresh with full entitlement given to members of the public and the applicant to make or remake their statements orally and with full provision for debate by members.”

A spokesperson for UKOG said:

“We welcome the chance to restate why the low-impact Loxley project is of material local and national economic importance, is fully compliant with Net Zero, and presents minimal local business, local highway and environmental impacts.

“We trust that the 17 September re-run will result in a decision fully commensurate with the facts presented, natural law and fair democratic process.”

A spokesperson for Protect Dunsfold, which opposes UKOG’s plans, said:

“Obviously we would prefer that this decision had stood but it is clear from the statement issued by Surrey that this has been referred back on legal advice because of technical problems on the day.

“We have every reason to expect that the Committee reaches the same decision for the same planning policy reasons when it is referred back to Committee and we see no reason why it shouldn’t do so.”

200513 View from site to High Billinghurst Farm 2
View from the proposed site towards High Billinghurst Farm. Photo: High Billinghurst Farm

Investigation
UK Oil & Gas plc complained to the council that there had been deficiencies in the decision-making process at the meeting and asked for the application to be redetermined. DrillOrDrop understands there were also complaints from members of the public.

The complaints included:

The live stream of the meeting dropped out
Part of a speech by a councillor in favour of the plans may not have been heard by participants
A councillor speaking in favour may not have been heard by another councillor who was “waiting in the lobby” to access the meeting
A councillor could not be heard and had to use hand gestures and the private chat function to register his vote. He also appeared to be away from this screen at one point during the meeting.
Some councillors were helped by people who were not members of the committee
On some of these complaints, the council’s barrister concluded the meeting may have breached regulations:

“these were issues of greater concern, particularly given the close vote by which the resolution was passed.”

Surrey’s planning procedures require committee members to decline to vote unless they were present when an item was discussed. Under the remote meeting regulations, members are not deemed to be present unless they could hear and be heard.

The barrister said:

“There were times during the consideration of the application at the meeting when members would not be considered to be in attendance as a matter of law.”

One councillor may also have been deterred from seeking the opportunity to speak because of problems with the technology.

The barrister concluded:

“there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations.”

Other issues raised in complaints were “not necessarily fatal on their own”, the barrister said, but “would not help the impression that would be received if the matter went to Court”.

These included:

Lack of a summary of the salient points of the debate before the decision
Occasions where other household members appeared on screen with councillors, leading to potential suspicion of inappropriate influence from people not attending the meeting
Councillors used a private chat function to pass messages to each other during the meeting
The barrister said:

“Whilst it may well be the case that family members were simply assisting with the technology, there is the risk of a perception of unfairness.”

The investigation dismissed complaints that specific councillors breached the council’s code of conduct and planning protocols. The barrister concluded:

“All issues raised were due to the meeting being undertaken remotely with members being at home in the proximity to other household members to assist in the use of IT equipment or due to technical errors with equipment.

“This was a new experience for members and it is appropriate that if members found themselves in a position where it could appear there were alleged breaches of the code/protocol, that these be addressed with further training in how remote meetings must be conducted rather than any formal investigation.”;

[uknighted] 03/8/2020 17:08

RNS

RNS Number : 8520U

Alba Mineral Resources PLC

03 August 2020

Alba Mineral Resources plc

("Alba" or "the Company")

Share Placing

Alba Mineral Resources plc (AIM: ALBA) is pleased to announce that it has raised GBP450,000 (before expenses) through the issue of 692,307,692 new ordinary shares at a price of 0.065 pence per ordinary share (the "Placing"), conditional on the admission of such new ordinary shares to trading on AIM ("Admission").

Share warrants will also be issued to each subscriber in the Placing, with one warrant to be issued for every two shares subscribed for, for a total of 346,153,846 warrants.

The warrants will have an exercise price of 0.13p per share and an expiration date of 24 months from the date of issue. The warrants will also be subject to an accelerator provision, such that if at any time during the 24 month duration of the warrants the 10-day volume-weighted average price (VWAP) of Alba ordinary shares exceeds 0.26p per share, the Company may give warrant holders notice to exercise their warrants within 10 business days following the Company's notice and to pay the exercise price in full within 15 business days following the Company's notice, failing which the warrants will automatically expire.

The warrants will not be traded on any exchange and will otherwise be issued subject to the terms and conditions set out in a warrant instrument to be executed by the Company.

[lanty33] 28/7/2020 18:13

About7 years ago?