Galantas Gold Share Discussion Threads

[pelgis] 06/3/2019 15:42

There dosen't really appear to be much happening on the ground....

[panagos] 06/3/2019 15:13

Grade is king here.
We only need to find some decent size and this is a 5 bagger from here at least.

[buywell3] 28/2/2019 01:49

No I would not invest

But you have indicated at 5p you might

[augustusgloop] 27/2/2019 23:25

The only reason for arguing about the history - is because the management have thought it wise to not give any indications about the future economics of the mine.

Would you invest in a car plant - if the company didn't tell you:
How many cars they would produce?
The cost of production?
Profitability forecasts?
A decent time line for production?

Without any economic forecasts of mine production and costs -- any investment here is purely speculative.

You may not require such details for a miner that was years away from production - but GAL are implying that production is imminent!

They must have such forecasts - but don't want to show them to you!

[mineng] 27/2/2019 15:42

Troggy
I do my own research and from that I believe you are incorrect re Elkins and Kerr. Mining on Kerr was superficial (see 2014 report).
Elkins is/was not within the planning permit and not mined. I just checked the current OSNI aerial photo and that confirms it.

I think the release I quoted and the other releases around that time were clear. I understand the southern-most part of the pit was full as was the designated waste storage space outside the pit. GAL said so in several releases and I recall the aerial photos at the time appeared to back that up.

It is clear they have not had an easy ride. No doubt they may have other hurdles but from the last release look like they are getting into the groove with planning difficulties behind them. I do agree that the project and resource knowledge is getting better.

[troggy1969] 27/2/2019 13:08

What is in a press release and reality can be very different. The void for waste rock and back filling started in 2010 and I think Kearny finished in 2012.
The issue for rock disposal may have come with the addition of Elkins and Kerr which should have added significant extra oz's. The 75,000oz estimate was only from Kearny!!

Do you own research. I believe the project and resource knowledge is getting better but the project has had a very suspect past.

[mineng] 27/2/2019 12:40

troggy
I guess you hadn't seen the q1 2013 release. No place for Waste rock...….

"Production from Kearney became totally restricted from the second half of 2012 as a result of the surplus rock stockpile on the site reaching capacity levels. This surplus rock was due to be transported from the site in 2012 with the Omagh mine having completed construction of public road improvements at its own cost to comply with the conditions of the planning consent. However, following a judicial review brought by a private individual on the grounds of procedural failings by Planning Service, the planning consent was quashed with the surplus rock remaining on site."

Waste rock shouldn't be an issue with the underground mine.

[troggy1969] 26/2/2019 19:42

Which part of the pit didn't go to the maximum allowed depth by planning? There wasn't any issues with waste rock once fully open, as the pit progressed north it was tipped back in the south and the pit went north until the ore ran out due to a fault.
The data was from 2005 so 75,000oz should have been sold if the reserve estimation was correct. Further drilling would have improved the knowledge and therefore reserve.

[mineng] 26/2/2019 19:24

troggy
I guess you assume the pit had full extraction, which in normal circumstances would have been a reasonable assumption. However it was not fully extracted because of the excess waste rock being an issue (if I remember correctly).
I don't know what date report you are quoting from but I suspect those reserve / resources were calculated before at least the two most recent drilling programs, which will have added data.

[troggy1969] 26/2/2019 16:24

From the original report

'On the Kearney deposit, which is the initial focus of mine development, the Company’s current resource statement notes: (i) proven ore reserves of 181,480 tonnes at a grade of 7.36 grams of gold per tonne; (ii) probable ore reserves of 185,830 tonnes at a grade of 7.68 grams of gold per tonne; plus (iii) an indicated
resource of 1,183,680 tonnes at a grade of 7.02 grams of gold per tonne. These reserves and resources were calculated using a cut-off grade of 1.0 gram of gold per tonne and a cut-off width of 0.5 meters. The reserves lie within the “Kearney Pit” currently being developed. The indicated resource extends from the bottom of the pit presently planned at 37 meters vertical depth to a depth of 137 meters, below which depth the deposit remains open. Note that the reserves and resources outlined above are undergoing review the results of which, nearing completion, will replace the current resource statement and that review could affect the quantities and/or grades previously calculated'.

If we use the proven and probable Kearney pit should have produced just under 90,000oz and with a 85% recovery over 75,000oz of gold sales.

[troggy1969] 26/2/2019 16:10

mineng,
I tend to agree with you but the track record isn't good. Look at the measured Kearny open pit reserve and what was actually achieved.

[mineng] 26/2/2019 12:35

Troggy
In my experience, measured and indicated are used together for the start-up metric you suggest. Particularly so for high grade narrow vein deposits.

This is explained in the 43-101 report.

[augustusgloop] 21/2/2019 09:53

He probably knows a little bit more about Galantas as well - since shareholders have been told next to nothing!

He has probably seen the projections = inside information.

Also just because he buys in - doesn't mean that you should.
He will get prior access to further information and access to any cheap shares in further placings.
And could make loans to the company.

Plus he may make many small bets - with the understanding that 90% will not pay off.
But he is first in line to load up on the ones that do.

[panagos] 21/2/2019 09:42

Guess the Canadian Hall of fame 2018 Inductee knows a little bit more about mining than augustus poop...

hxxps://www.mininghalloffame.ca/ross-j-beaty-2

[troggy1969] 21/2/2019 09:25

Bageo,

What is unusual is when you start mining without enough measured resource to cover your costs. Mining is expensive compared to drilling and modelling.

The proper way to do this would be drill enough meters to have a 5 year plan with timings and payback for the measured resource, raise capital, build infrastructure and start mining. You would then have a schedule to benchmark the project against and move more reserve from indicated to measured from cheaper underground drilling (less meters required)

At the moment it seems they are digging a hole to see where it leads. They don't have the required infrastructure (conveyors/paste plant/personnel for 3 shifts)which all cost money but, without doing it properly the cost per oz is far higher than any predictions. As a consequence they will continue to pull on the cash in the bank and deplete the minable oz.

[augustusgloop] 21/2/2019 09:06

bageo

What is unusual = there is no prediction of the timeline for production and profitability.

The Q3 update gave an historical perspective but gave no clue as to:

when production would properly start.
How many ounces to expect in the next 6 months.
How many ounces to expect in the next 12 months.
What running rate production is expected.

This is really basic - essential information!

How can anybody put a value on the mine without this?

The mine will clearly be worth much if they are going to achieve break even in 3 months compared to 3 years.
But there is nothing that indicates which of these would be closest to the truth.

[bageo] 21/2/2019 06:33

The total resource is far larger and they will have additionaldata from intersecting the veins underground. They haven't done a formal resource calculation for a few years hence the low measured but high inferred resources numbers.

This isn't an unusually approach for an ug mine.

[buywell3] 21/2/2019 06:04

30,000 oz is that all ?

I can't see any upside re costs of machinery/setting up costs of meeting all safety requirements for such a tiny micro operation

This is not a gold mine that should be listed, it is a small time family type operation with a well off backer.

Needs to be 300,000 oz at least

[augustusgloop] 20/2/2019 23:59

The margin will be far less than £500 per ounce.

The resource is not a worry.
It is the costs where there is absolutely zero visibility.

The management will have their forecasts - but they choose not to share them with lowly shareholders.

[troggy1969] 20/2/2019 16:22

But we do have a problem, £10 million investment required and a margin of £500/oz requires 20,000oz's to payback .... the measured resource is 30,000oz, a little skinny.
Really need to bring some more of the indicated to measured.

[troggy1969] 20/2/2019 15:27

Does anyone know if the paste plant is operational, critical part of the support and development for stopes to achieve good recovery with a top down approach.

[troggy1969] 20/2/2019 15:22

Edit
That should have been 370950N to 371250N, each block represents 50m!!

[troggy1969] 20/2/2019 15:16

Mineng,

If you look at the NI 43-101 report from 2014, Page 128, Fig 49 shows the long section of the proposed underground Kearney development. Runs from 370750N to 371250N but steps north underground so gives around 150m of strike.
There could be additional upside but this isn't currently planned.

Bageo,

Cash costs for operation are stated at around £500/oz assuming the £10M infrastructure development. Without the conveyors and others installed, operating costs will be higher. In theory it works with the current gold price around £1000/Au but needs the investment to start efficient mining, good management and an experienced mining team.

[mineng] 20/2/2019 14:59

Troggy
From the 2014 report, Kearney looks drilled around 850m north to south and Joshua looks drilled about 600m north to south.

Pelgis
Did you take any photos on your recent visit?