Email Facebook Twitter

Member Info for JDwag

Send a private message to JDwag

Member Since: Mon, 16th Jan 2012

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 5,666
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 53

Last Posted: Today 12:21

Post Distribution over the last 30 days

Today 12:21

Are you referring to this?

�Following several disputes between Ongopolo Mining Limited (OML), the Namibian subsidiary of Weatherly, and LogiMan (the Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) contractor responsible for the Tschudi plant construction) arising from LogiMan's work on the Tschudi plant, the Company anticipates that arbitration proceedings will likely arise to determine those disputes. The Company will provide further updates on this as appropriate.�

Not a labour dispute, almost certainly a dispute related to construction �defects� which have come to light during the operation of the mine. Mediation / Dispute Resolution / Arbitration is very common in Engineering / Construction to resolve disputes between Clients / Contractors when they can�t agree on either the defect or the costs of that defect and what the compensation amounts should be, Mediation / Dispute Resolution / Arbitration are written into Engineering / Construction Contracts to avoid court cases and make the arbiters ruling binding. The way this is termed in the RNS �arising from LogiMan's work on the Tschudi plant� I would bet a couple of quid that construction defects have come to light during the operational phase of the mine and these had to be rectified, I imagine WTI are demanding some compensation from Logiman as a result, hence the dispute. Might amount to a good amount if WTI are arguing it has impacted the C1 Costs possible? All conjecture on my part thought.

Mon 15:08

Probably, but the key point is water ingress to mining pits is not a new phenomena, it's an age old problem and it can be dealt with using the appropriate expertise. It will be dealt with, the cost and what will be left for us PIs is the bigger issue IMHO.

Going through the RNS a few times over the weekend I actually found some nuggets of optimism in there, if they are to be believed (you can all insert your own expletive here) then to get back to nameplate at 17,000 tonne for the July 16-June 17 from December 2016 to June 2017 they'll have to produce at some 1550 tonnes per month for those 7 months (all approx of course) if they can do that (if if if) and get the C1 Costs back to the $3700 range I see no need to be slashing my wrists just yet, and if it drops into the 20s from here I might even manage a top up or two.

Mon 14:34

Don't know about mining specific, but I am an engineer in the built environment by back ground and it is a common issue when building large buildings in and around water tables that has basements going through the water table, a common technique used widely in Lindon for example is to freeze the surrounding strata by injecting rods (run from percent generators) at the required intervals then dropping the temp, it provides a barrier around the basement and slows the water ingress markedly, what water is left is collected in channels which is diverted to a sump and pumped out, there are also techniques with gels and chemicals that can be pumped into the Strata to create a barrier also for the same effect, it can be done, it just depends how much cost that will take, BTW there was always water ingress envisaged here, just not that much, so there will be a fix, but there will be a cost too.

Reading the RNS they obviously have a plan in place, because the also seem to have a cost to it as well, from my fag packet calculations it would appear that after December when the water 'fix' is fully implemented that C1 Costs will be approximately $3700 or so, a few extra hundred dollars per tonne on the price of Cu will do us the world of good.

I personally however cannot see Tranche B being stuck to, it will need revisited again, but considering the real value of the $8.5m on the books at the end of 2015 (adding all monies, inventories and tax owed up) the $5.6m they made in Q1 (approx) and the $850k or so they made from Q2 I can see Tranches C and D being paid on schedule in 2016, that will leave Tranche B to be rescheduled yet again IMHO.

Fri 13:08

In 2016?

I'll still say they will (but not massively confident). On the basis that they must have had this problem in view late May when they renegotiated the Tranche B repayments and in the RNS they made it clear they hadn't changed the dates of the Tranche C and D payments.

Fri 09:01

Of course it's impossible at this point to know how much the water ingress issue are impacting our C1 Costs, like Funds I suspect when all of this is resolved we will go back to the $3500 figure, still much to be hopeful of (despite this shocker) Copper will eventually rise and I still expect some gain to be had long term in the USD V NAB, of course even after this news it's worth remembering that even with the water issues impacting on C1 Costsand tonnage way off, that they still turned $850k or so positive cash flow, at least it adds to the pile and not detract.

Orion must be looking at the BFS and wondering if it was worth the paper it was written on. Fortunately for us they are in this to the bitter end.

Fri 07:12

Yet more pain, honestly when will it end here. Now we know why the Tranche B payment where deferred!

Also, no clues on 20k production and not a dickie on cash reserves.

Thu 12:10

Good Article, this is just the latest dent in Chile’s Cu Output, their H1 2016 figures where way off guidance and I don’t believe for a second their full 2016 can be even closely met at 5.74m tonnes, H2 2016 figures would have to raise by some 50% over and above the H1 figures to make their full 2016 guidance, no chance IMHO. If they continue to have problems I suspect (as the ICSG Report highlights) we may well be in deficit of Cu long before the average consensus.

We just need WTI to keep their end up, and ill give them to the end of July before i'm worried on the quarterly update front.

Wed 19:39

Seems good news, bit by bit it seems the surplus is slowly becoming a deficit:

'According to preliminary ICSG data, the refined copper market for April 2016 (excluding the adjustment for changes in China’s bonded stocks) showed an apparent production deficit of around 110,000 metric tonnes (t) mainly due to strong Chinese apparent refined copper demand. When making seasonal adjustments for world refined production and usage, April showed a production deficit of about 32, 000 t. The refined copper balance for the first four months of 2016, including revisions to data previously presented, indicates a production deficit of around 119,000 t (and a seasonally adjusted deficit of about 129,000 t). This compares with a production surplus of around 13,000 t (a seasonally adjusted surplus of about 12,000 t) for the same period of 2015.'

Wed 10:06

In stuff professionally and personally, that is why my posting has dropped off, although not completely, I still post over on my other AIM holding WTI too.

But, I now post there much more often for the very reason that has reared its head today, there are one or two posters on here who seem to have taken a bizarre interest in me and life is to short quite frankly.

Wed 08:53

O&W, yes, what is clear to me is that SEPCO have clearly been incredibly difficult to deal with, the delays to this project, the original IBFS, the $3m that never materialised?

I truly believe that LC is trying to 'strip' SEPCO of any part in this project piece by piece.

This doesn't effect the IBFS as these are all Indepedent reports, etc.

It will effect FC however, you can't get to FC without and O&M and EPC in place (100%), as I say, it may take longer (but will be more beneficial)


Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days

Member Login

Forgotten your password?


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!

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.