of the three possible types of licence the first two-the Special Exploration Licence for N and E Greenland lasting 3 years and the Exploration Licence for 5 years are dearer in required spend to keep the licence per year especially the latter. The most likely seems to be the Prospecting Licence for 5 years for N Greenland without any obligation to spend..
I notice also that trades have begun appearing on ISDX again, which was not the case when I first began tracking. I have added the few extra trades there to my figures but it doesn't change the overall outcome at this stage.
Looks like a new lowest VWAP is being established today with the salvo of trades around 0.999. Today's VWAP stands at 0.099933 as far as I can make it (pls check for yourself). If this remains the case then it will become one of the 3 lowest VWAPs so far in the 15 trading day period I am currently tracking.
In the short term, the number of projects can be increased but basically that increases the gamble though at first it might appear it helps the odds of a sale. The problem is each project needs serviced and developed before selling.Ideally you'd have one project being developed soon after another being sold ,with some of the cash profits getting put back in there. Now- something Maggy has discussed plenty-when the periodic YA injection comes around,is that going into company-future vital development work, or paying the company overheads ? In that case you are running to stay still in fact as per on a treadmill in a gym. When the M.Cap. has dropped to the present £2.25m it is hard to drop the overheads down accordingly unless you look at the London office, salaries, etc.Even with a project like Greenland you've still got annual fees to pay for the blocks surely ? That shows how hard getting overheads lower can be.
Not only do we need to sell something but for the model to succeed it. Needs to be sold at a profit,Even if el limon is sold it will be at a large loss to us.obviously it is needs to be sold at a loss because it was a reckless buy in the first place and something needs to go to keep this ship afloat because fundraising is only going to get harder the lower the share price goes as well sentiment.
Yes, I think people forget that our whole business model is based upon us identifying an asset, proving that asset up and then selling it on for profit.
It's not a case of it being great if we could sell something, it's a case of we NEED to sell something in order for the business model to be successful, otherwise as a company we have completely failed.
At the moment we are obviously failing and this needs to change rapidly otherwise we are screwed !!!
Even when sales do make a profit, there is still the fundamental requirement that you need to be completing sales frequently enough to cover the company expenditure/overheads. Disgruntled posters often state that AB is failing to sell assets. Apologists often state that he HAS made good sales/deals in the past (e.g. Jupiter). There is truth in both camps but the underlying issue is that the company needs to make ENOUGH deals OFTEN enough to cover the regular outgoings.
again back to the RRR method with projects-acquire-develop-sell. For this to work- 1. development costs not too high 2. not too many projects 3. high sell prices 4. low acquiral costs With Greenland the development/ acquiral costs were higher- the project has not sold. Each non-sold deal puts more pressure on the others.. There is always added to that, the basic cost of running the business, overheads to keep the company in existence.
When you are trying to value this company my advice would be value the assets and then work out the salaries and administrative costs for the next 4 years. In my opinion you can forget about el Limon bringing anything more than a quick sp spike, I would expect as it has taken so much longer than expected to finalise that the monetary gain has already been spent. I sold at 0.19 with a thought of buying in later, but even at a 50% discount I feel no reason to buy back in. Just my irrelevant opinion
mcgart, I used to think along those lines as well, regarding the mcap. However nowadays I wonder what actually makes up the £2.25 million that we are currently valued.
Kenya and IC are little more than licences, Greenland appears worthless in the current climate and that only leaves JMS and RSL as the value contributors.
We obviously still have Colombia, however if we use that against our outstanding Bond and other debts then really we don't have much headroom.
The big thing for me is that AB MUST add value in in Kenya or IC and turn these assets into more than simply licences, otherwise we are caught in this continual spiral of issuing more and more shares just to keep the lights on and pay AB and friends their salaries.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.