Email Facebook Twitter

EXCLUSIVE: Alastair Smith, Avacta Group CEO gives an Operational Update

Amur Minerals Share Price (AMC)

Share Price Information for Amur Minerals (AMC)

Share Price: 4.01Bid: 4.02Ask: 4.50Change: -0.29 (-6.74%)Faller - Amur Minerals
Spread: 0.48Spread as %: 11.94%Open: 4.01High: 4.01Low: 4.01Yesterday’s Close: 4.30

Amur Minerals Corporation Ord Npv

Amur Minerals is listed in the FTSE AIM All-Share
Amur Minerals is part of the Mining sector

Share Price SpacerPrice
Share Price SpacerBid
Share Price SpacerAsk
Share Price SpacerChange
Share Price SpacerVolume
Share Price SpacerOpen
Share Price SpacerHigh
Share Price SpacerLow
Share Price SpacerClose
Share Price SpacerCurrency

Currency Issue Country Shares in Issue Market Capitalisation Market Size
GBX GB 671.67m £28.88m 50,000

52 Week High 9.40 52 Week High Date 26-SEP-2017
52 Week Low 3.00 52 Week Low Date 27-JUN-2018

# Trades Vol. Sold Vol. Bought PE Ratio Earnings Dividend Yield
10 432,078 364,372 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trade Prc

Trade Type:

Trade Type:

Trade Type:

View more Amur Minerals trades >>

Directors Deals for Amur Minerals (AMC)
Trade DateActionNotifierPriceCurrencyAmountHolding
Trade Notifier Information for Amur Minerals Corporation NPV
Robert William Schafer held the position of Non-Executive Chairman at Amur Minerals Corporation NPV at the time of this trade.
 Robert William Schafer
Trade Notifier Information for Amur Minerals Corporation NPV
Robin Jay Young held the position of CEO at Amur Minerals Corporation NPV at the time of this trade.
 Robin Jay Young
Trade Notifier Information for Amur Minerals Corporation NPV
Brian Charles Savage held the position of Non-Executive Director at Amur Minerals Corporation NPV at the time of this trade.
 Brian Charles Savage
View more Amur Minerals directors dealings >>

Posts: 140
Opinion:No Opinion
RE: Differential
Today 17:06
And that valuation differential is why I find it so hard to understand the lack of a current Public NPV etc. I don’t think publishing now would in any way detract from the value enhancing news we get with the drilling updates and any other future value enhancing information. In fact it all appears to me to be rather gilding the lily .... and I don’t buy it!

Having a public NPV would also keep any jackals at bay, If indeed there are any.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the partner we have been negotiating with wants in at the current price, not the post NPV price. And it’s hit a delay. Hence Randy Lewis’ disappearance at the EEF, the delay in “significant news” reaching us and and non confirmation of the Media Week.

I am confident however that the guys will be working hard at whatever’s delaying progress. A little info though would be welcome.
Posts: 551
Opinion:No Opinion
Today 16:56
Hi JoeBass,

I will restrict my comments to the HG zone at IKEN, all the rest whilst very good news, is going to be peripheral to the published economics IMO as I don't see anything other than a 15 yr LOM based on recent comments about the ML term. This appears to be the NPV 'limiting factor' even though in reality LOM will go on much longer. So all this extra tonnage is only relevant in so far as it allows optimisation of the mine plan, and the HG Zone at IKEN is the most important area in this task IMO.

Although at this stage I would ask some questions of RY:
1] is there any trade-off study to assess a higher processing rate than 6mtpa?
2] or is this limited by the difficulty in financing the extra capex?
3] If that is the case then has he considered designing in the option to expand production later in the mine life?

By the way that's one of the key reasons why I no longer support my $1.9b NPV estimate, the assumption used has become flawed by RY having this 'limiting factor' of 15yrs regardless of anything else.

Estimated uplift in tonnage from this IIHG:

Existing = 14.6mt at a thickness of 0.16sq km, that tells us the specific gravity number is 3.0t/sqm
160,000 sqm x 30.4m thickness x 3.0t/sqm specific gravity = 14,592,000t

Apply that to the revised numbers:
290,000 sqm x 30.9m x 3.0 = 26,883,000 ie 26.8mt (83% uplift in line with RY comments)

That's a significant uplift and the total should support 4 years of production at 6mtpa.

You could follow that additional tonnage through and get an uplift in revenue of $1.19b, but not all of this will flow through to EBITDA because RY talks about supplanting lower value production in the mine plan so that limiting factor comes into play again, some metal somewhere along the KM trend is going to be left in the ground in terms of the 15yr NPV plan and so we need to focus on the additional revenue vs what could be supplanted:

IIHG 26.8mt:
@ 0.91% Ni = 243,880t x MET 81.3% = 198,274t x TS payability 70% = 138,791t x metal price $16,530 = $2.294b
@ 0.25% Cu = 67,000t x MET 91% = 60,970t x TS payability 50% = 30,485t x metal price $6,612 = $201m
Total revenue = $2.495b

MKF (assume same 26.8mt is supplanted):
@ 0.78% Ni = 209,040t x MET 80.6% = 168,486t x TS payability 70% = 117,940t x metal price $16,530 = $1.949b
@ 0.22% Cu = 58,960t x MET 83.8% = 49,408t x TS payability 50% = 24,704t x metal price $6,612 = $163m
Total revenue = $2.112b

This is only a pure revenue assessment (using undiluted grades) when differences in mining cost would also need to be considered, but I don't view these as material when viewed against the $382m revenue benefit of mining at IIHG rather than MKF. So it's a no brainer IMO. RY also talks about this benefit in the RNS, which makes his previous verbal comment about starting mining at MKF completely baffling...time for the PFS.

What is your assessment in terms of the impact on economics?

Posts: 5,816
Opinion:No Opinion
RE: Differential
Today 16:37
Hi Brookieboy69

I would assume that the 50% to NPV would apply once funding is secured so that risk as you quite rightly mention would be removed. I dare say the others may knock a bit off depending on the political issues at the time and how magnified they are but that's a difficult one to guage and down to personal opinion at this stage I suppose.

Personally I agree with Sasa in that whichever way I look at this 4p (£26m m/cap) has to be a lot lower than what it will become once road/funding are sorted.
Posts: 206
Opinion:No Opinion
RE: just to relieve the gloom
Today 16:34
Hi speedy - Norilsk's main criterion was 1% Ni grade as a minimum to consider and several million tons of it, ideally.

Well, I'd say that we're just about there on the first requirement and 1.5m - 2m tons of the scarcer stuff we have (sulphides) is getting into the ball park, too. Also, being a 'domestic' asset for them and relatively close to China, etc., must add to our appeal - have always felt that they might well be a contender if we can meet their yardsticks...

Being the world's No1 Nickel producer and with AMC on their doorstep, any approach would likely assume RF approval, so it would just be a matter of price on acquisition if they're interested and even at £1 ps (well under $1bn) would be 'small beer' for them, of course.

With the right stuff we have increasingly in demand, why not?... Just my view - sasa.
Posts: 282
Opinion:No Opinion
Media Event
Today 16:28
The fact that the drilling results have not been followed by the usual RY podcast after good results suggests to me that
other news is imminent, with the Media Event to follow
View more share chat for Amur Minerals (AMC) >>

Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at
FREE Member Services
- Setup a personalised Watchlist and Virtual Portfolio.
- Gain access to LIVE real-time Regulatory News (RNS).
- View more Trades, Directors' Deals, and Broker Ratings.
Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at

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.