Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

LOT lotus resources limited

10.3%

17.5¢

[email protected]/t gold, page-6

First 6 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
christophe

16,629 Posts.

681

05/06/17

20:01

Post #: 25109607
Share

Originally posted by JAL43 ↑

The Riva story was a carefully crafted from the start. The vendors and the key stakeholders believe they have made all the necessary disclosures and forward looking statements that if they are challenged in court it will be a buyer beware defence where they will point out these disclosures.

However it could be argued that their reporting is not to the standards required of the Professional Body that represents the Competent Person (a Competent Person is the appropriately qualified individual belonging to a professional body that signs off on the technical material in a ASX report. The Competent Person is responsible for the accurate reporting of this information).

Let me explain:

Where there is no obvious signs of the target mineralisation in a drill hole they completed a company will often carry out composite sampling (that is sampling at much longer intervals then what would be considered appropriate to carry out resource calculations for the target commodity). The reasons are that it is saves a lot a time and money on laboratory, labour and transport costs while making sure that there is no unidentified mineralisation that has been missed by the logging. If there are any anomalism in the composites the company will go back and resample those drill holes at an appropriate interval that can be used for resource calculations.

As composites are really just a quick and dirty check to make sure there is no unforeseen mineralisation they are not collected using the same quality assurance (QAQC) as a sample intended to be used in resource calculations.

So where a company gets good results in a composite it will go back and resample at the proper interval for a resource calculation using full QAQC procedures and these samples are then also considered JORC compliant because the QAQC procedures have been applied (the original composite samples are not JORC compliant). A Competent Person would then consider the 1 m samples as having precedence over the composites. This is also consistent with the JORC code where the resample intervals have precedence over the composite samples when calculating a resource.

Consider this example:

Company A has a gold project and goes out and drills some RC holes. As the Company is unsure where and how the gold maybe forming it decides to initially carry out 5 m composite samples down hole (a small sample is taken from each 1 m interval and composited into 1 sample that represents a 5 m interval down hole).

The Company then receives the results and there is an interval of 20 m @ 4.5 g/t gold (4 consecutive 5 m samples down hole have assayed for significant gold) and they go back and resample at 1 m interval using proper QAQC procedures so that they can be used in future resource calculations (and also so they can be reported as JORC compliant assays). The 1 m samples comeback with 2 m @ 6 g/t gold because there was some cross contamination between samples when the compositing was being conducted (not an unusual occurrence). While technically it is still a good intersection is not as "market worthy" as the 20 m @ 4.5 g/t gold composite assay.

Now what if Company A needed to carry out a capital raising and knows that the composite interval will have far more interest than the 1 m samples. The Company then makes the decision to only quote the composite interval in all its promotional material and bury the 1 m sampling in the back. This is exactly what Riva did.

Normally in this situation Company A would not find a Competent Person prepared to sign off on such reporting because it does not meet the reporting standards of the JORC code and/or their professional body, not to mention the morality of deliberate obfuscation of the results.

Most Competent Persons would not even allow the mention of the composite samples under any circumstances where there has been resampling completed and would not sign off if they were mentioned. However for some Competent Persons it would still be reasonable to mention them as part of a "theory" but only if it was reported clearly and only if the 1m samples have been given first and greater emphasis. How much money or share price gain do you think Riva would have got if they had instead used the more accurate technical reporting of:

"Historical drilling at Tabac did not intersect any cobalt or gold, however, the Company believes there could be cobalt because of the discrepancy between the original 10 m composite results and the subsequent 1m follow-up results for the following reasons:"

This is correctly giving the 1m results the first and most emphasis at all times.

The reasons why Competent Person should not report it that way is obvious, what stops any company claiming that they have theory based on some spurious assays in an earlier drilling programme where there was more accurate work completed later that showed otherwise and then not clearly articulating that work first and foremost every time they talk about that project. Investors rely on the Competent Person to provide a technically balanced opinion in all announcements and clearly that is not .

Constantly headlining the composite results (not at least without qualification statements everytime) as Riva done would not be considered balanced technical reporting by the vast majority of Competent Persons. In fact a fully informed Competent Person may consider it misleading. If instead they highlighted the geology setting or some other technical aspect of the project that didn't include the use of the composite assay results that would be different. But then they would not have got the same share price appreciation or interest in capital raisings.

If a complaint is made to the ASX in writing they will follow-up it up by making some initial checks. They may not take it any further but there is enough obfuscation of the historical results for them to probably seek further clarification. The most likely outcome though is that they change the way they do things in the future rather than hold anyone at Riva accountable.

The second action would be to check who the Competent Person is and find out which professional body they are a member of (either AuSIMM or AIG) and submit in writing a complaint and they will review the reporting as well. However the only action they can take is only with the Competent Person directly but if they do take action then that could help the ASX to take action as well.

Expand

I couldn't agree with that post anymore!

Absolutely spot on and I would say there is a lot more to it as well. But of course you have to be careful what you say on here.

Initially after being excited about the project I contacted some people in the area to discuss the assay issues and was told pretty definitely what had gone on as has been published by FEC and later in more detail by this company. There simply was nothing there after the 1m samples were done under quality assurance assaying. There really wasn't too much else to say except for the possibilities of how the composite samples may have been affected.

After that I knew where I stood and most credible geos in the area had it seems formed that opinion also. So I was surprised to see so much money raised on the back of these dodgy samples and such a high MC reached and no drilling happening despite first stating that it would happen in December of last year.

I have seen a few brokers make an absolute killing out of this and most likely they were not holding last Friday. Yet a lot of people have lost a lot too. It doesn't sit right with me.

Out of interest has anyone lodged a complaint with the asx?

I have never been a shareholder so it may not be as productive for me to lodge anything but would be interested to know if anyone else is or can't be bothered?

RIR Price at posting: 0.5¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
2 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

Monday's HotCopper trends: Boss guidance, Botanix quarterly | July 28

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 019 – Dreaming of the 9,000s

BOE

Boss tanks -42% after quietly flagging 'potential challenges' for Honeymoon

ASX Market Close: New week sees local bourse snaps 2-day losing streak | July 28

Clarity confidence – and share price – up on bumper $203M institutional placement

First 6 Last

Add to My Watchlist

What is My Watchlist?

A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.

(20min delay)
Last 17.5¢		Change -0.020(10.3%)		Mkt cap ! $415.0M

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
19.0¢	19.0¢	17.0¢	$2.685M	15.03M

Buyers (Bids)

No.	Vol.	Price($)
53	2408607	17.0¢

Sellers (Offers)

Price($)	Vol.	No.
17.5¢	940811	4

View Market Depth

No.	Vol.	Price($)
50	2376707	0.170
48	1902304	0.165
36	1677388	0.160
21	971069	0.155
18	1133548	0.150

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.175	940811	4
0.180	2348921	7
0.185	2141333	17
0.190	1097142	6
0.195	1110642	9

Last trade - 16.19pm 28/07/2025 (20 minute delay)

LOT (ASX) Chart