Conroy Gold & Natural Re... Share Discussion Threads

[newprom] 16/8/2016 12:52

CGNR have overpromised,true.But if the Prof had underpromised ,how far would the company have gone.It would not exist.Probably better for the shareholders,admittedly.I think we are in a much better risk to reward scenario now.We are hoping for great news soon and things to look forward to.All shares are risky and this is more risky than most.But shares have a fair value and this valuation is certainly not a fair valuation with so much upside possible.That is why MTR,who have a great record of value creation,are investing

[4marlin] 16/8/2016 12:32

There are companies out there that under-promise and over-deliver.
CGNR is utterly consistant in doing the complete opposite.

[newprom] 16/8/2016 12:22

MTR are in it to make a profit.They have literally hundreds of options and yet they have chosen this.Could it be they are very confident of multibagging their stake.What a great time to invest,its such a pity for you that you invested at the completely wrong time.But please don't be be bitter,just wish every shareholder the best of fortune.You will feel much better for it!

[craffert] 16/8/2016 11:06

newprom may I remind you that I got out of this doggie, so I didn't make a donation at all (more luck than judgement I might add), but everyone who has ever been a long term holder here has been a donor, including you.

New investors and prospective investors may fail to appreciate that a very large chunk of all that money raised over the years has ended up on SG&A (Directors pockets) rather than exploration and development. I don't buy the argument that the company has anything material yet, nor that the gold industry is actively looking for nuggets like this. Even after 19 years, what CGNR have found to date barely moves the needle for any mid/top tier gold miner, as is reflected in the CGNR market cap today.

I can only assume that MTR have invested because they will make things happen if the PRC doesn't, and may force a deal with another explorer with deeper pockets (eg) Dalradian. If MTR do force his hand, he will walk and take other board members with him. That could become a brilliant entry point, as it was at Arcon after PRC got off the ship and left it to T O'Reilly.

[newprom] 16/8/2016 09:26

Craffert.Anybody investing now has a debt of gratititude to the early investors such as yourself, without your investment this company would not be where it is today.The company today has a proven resource ,with drilling underway and regular results being reported.We have a rising goldprice and the gold industry is actively looking for what cgnr has,gold in the ground at a very low entry level in a safe jurisdiction.I would imagine that is why MTR has invested.Lets face it Craffert you invested at the wrong time when cgnr was a bad investment and now things look completely different.But I think I should make a point of thanking you for your early investment,it is appreciated.Without your donation this company would not be where it is today.Thank you.

[craffert] 15/8/2016 23:12

Biased because this thing listed 19 years ago....seriously....and after almost 2 decades of jam tomorrow, the outlook is still a jam tomorrow story. Is there a listed explorer anywhere on the planet which has spent 19 years looking for gold but not mined a single ounce? The bulls will point to the survival record but at huge cost to equity investors with the market cap decimated.

MetalTiger are the latest greatest hope - whilst I hope they drive the Board to achieve real tangible progress, I a am reminded of Pageant, Bruce Rowan,T1ps Gold Fund, Webb, Yorkville, Kenglo One. One last throw of the dice.

[newprom] 15/8/2016 12:32

Mineng has always shown integrity and honesty and it is worth taking his opinion into consideration.Craffert and cynical are obviously totally biased,this is not the case with Mineng.

[mineng] 15/8/2016 09:22

Kev
You are entitled to your opinion.
Mine still stands.

In case you missed this example in your research, (I choose it because it isn't far geographically from CGNR) :-



Illustrative section :


This release contains most of the important information and the sections permit the true width to be estimated for each vein. It includes these Notes.

"Notes
-- True widths vary depending on the vein zone intersected but generally
average 85% of the down hole interval
-- Intercepts are calculated using samples greater than or equal to 2.0g/t
Au, and contain no more than 1.0 m of internal dilution
-- Generally, only those mineralized intercepts exceeding 10 gram-metres
have been included in the table. Accordingly, there are ten drill holes
that are not listed in the above table even though they typically
intercepted the projected veins."

This is an example of a company that conforms IMHO.
It is also a very successful explorer. Could there be a relationship?

I know true width is not a specific requirement of the AIM code (even though it is of the other codes I gave you) but material information is.

You cannot reasonably assess hydrothermal vein deposits without true width information or the ability to calculate that. I thought that was obvious but apparently not so. If it is not I suggest you measure the diagonal on a piece of A4 paper and compare it with the width.

Here is a European code that would apply to members of the sign up institutions. I haven't seen it referred to often, the CIM code and JORC I gave you earlier being more frequently used.


Page 10 :-
"If true widths of mineralisation are not reported, an appropriate qualification must be included in the public report."

I cast no aspersions regarding the person authorising the release. I do not know him. I have read his bio and that reads well.
I did have a look to see if his organisation was recognised in the Pan European code but couldn't see it. It may be umbrellared in some way. Page 58, Appendix 5 gives a list of those regulatory organisations recognised by PERC.

Regarding the reason for deleting my posts : I gave you them. If you think that is stupid that is your opinion.

[4marlin] 13/8/2016 11:27

I look forward to Kev´s reply.
So far, I have found no reason to be skeptical of mineng.

[mineng] 13/8/2016 09:01

Kev
Happy to accept constructive criticism.
Please point out what I have said that is incorrect.

[kevjones2] 11/8/2016 20:09

Still investigating here!!

[kevjones2] 10/8/2016 20:52

Thanks a million for the reply, Mineng.

I appreciate the link about the rules of business and maybe I wasn't clear about which things I'm not qualified to write about. I'm qualified enough regarding business and market laws etc and I take your point that if CGNR are releasing info that should already been released and/or have withheld info etc, then they are not in compliance. That's all true IF what you're saying about mining and presentation of mining RNSs (gold obviously) is correct.

When I mentioned about providing sources I was thinking more about providing sources/links to something about the standards documents/reports themselves should maintain. You often refer to the 'vein' issue and the size thereof, which you assert should always be in any self-respecting gold mining report but has not been in CGNRs (I think that was the item missing anyway). Surely the competent person who puts his name and/or openly approves the more detailed mining data is breaking the law at worst or, at best, ruining his own or his company's reputation.

Why would someone do that? Why has he or the company who signed off on these data reports not been challenged by the authorities? Let me know (no hurry) what your thoughts are if you get a chance.

For now, as I'm rather busy until tomorrow afternoon (got an unexpected hour or two off) I'll have a look at successful gold mining companies and see what their reports look like as compared to CGNRs. I'll also try to find out who else this guy/company approves mining reports for. Thanks again.

[kevjones2] 04/8/2016 23:38

I posted this on LSE too. The thread title was "Last effort....

...on my part to try to get CGNR longterm holders to actually do something other than watch the bod reduce the value of each of our holdings pretty much on a six monthly basis (if we were lucky enough to get updates every six months in the past). Every few months that pass the value of our holdings become smaller and smaller while the bod's wages have NEVER been negatively affected. I understand that certain 'loyalists' (who must be losing a fortune) won't agree that this is a load of nonsense. I even get that one or two will try to get this post removed. I have, and will not, say anything libellous about CGNR but the facts speak for themselves.

MTR invest in shyte companies which are usually on their last legs. I get their idea and think it's a good idea to take risks with numerous companies that are going nowhere BUT MIGHT end up being a multi-bagger. With enough risks they might succeed and good luck to them but don't think they invested here because they saw something wonderful.

The now departed rampers have made their money and good luck to them too. They didn't play fairly or honestly but karma will eventually be a female dog. (One in particular might visit now and then to validate his ramping bs but that's only because he has other bbs to exploit. Trust me, I've experienced him elsewhere.)

I suggest lths email the bod and MTR directly (the CGNR contact area on their website is completely and utterly useless and, as usual, ignored. Ringing CGNR's office has resulted (when I eventually got an answer) in an arrogant, hostile response to me in the past - maybe that's changed but I doubt it. Emailing them directly has also led to pompous arrogance. I posted their replies here 12/18 months ago and not one lth found anything wrong with CGNR's contemptuous reply to my polite enquiries. Bottom line is this: find a way of contacting them personally via email at least.

I'm losing around 85% of my investment so I don't expect anything and that's fine with me but I simply refuse to stand by and watch others be sucked in to a company that proudly refuses to offer a timeline
/forecast/prediction of anything at all, as long as its bod (a close knit FAMILY in some cases) continues to be paid handsomely.

I offer no email addies or phone numbers. If you give a toss find them yourselves. Otherwise let the milking continue."

I left in the typos.

[bageo] 03/8/2016 20:51

Strange release - veins are normally obvious so you would assay just the vein - but conroy report fixed lengths mostly of 1.5m. Compare to Connemera.

[goldeneye5] 03/8/2016 20:24

I share your pain Kevjones2, the market will only take note when there is a partner on the scene here. Potential partners are watching Clay Lake not Clontibret. I know Rio require 3m oz before they are interested. Conroy appears to have a good idea of the geology in the area, so I am wondering how much drilling will be necessary to prove up Clay Lake and how much money?1st drill result was excellent. The economics of Clay Lake will be about bulk and tonnage which is fine for low grade, however the grade may turn out to be a lot better than originally expected. CGNR should have drilled this long ago when they first began to realise it's possible scale. In my view major mining companies are more interested in Clay Lake now than they are with Clontibret now. If results continue as good as today's, I think a major will make a move rather than wait it out and risk loosing out. Of course there is no guarantee the good results will continue, but you get the feeling Conroy knows Clay lake is the jewel in the crown.Money needed to keep the drill going!