We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
OBS/ 15days out of posting or around that time then you pop up with new ramping instructions, done you feel guilty trying to hood wink new investors"to invest in this pyramid , the truth of the matter of profits around 2007 is bunkem and you no it. all three companies sold ore for good money but show me the three companies from 2007 that did make a profit and l will show you every one that made a huge loss in the hundreds of millions " if you have not got the info check the audit of the three company's that you say made a profit , l beg to differ with you post at 14.50 satuday
And double wow. Futures back over $80/t (62% Fe) out until March 2021 according to CME Group. LoL. I think I need a lie down.
I should really have used the un-rounded values and rounded the answer... that's what a bit of excitement does to my calculator! :-)
(481 - 171) / 4.8 = $65/t
Now if we could arrive at a similar answer from a different angle that would make my day.
@tomcat. I wrote this on 20 Jan 20:
===[
It's a good thought @tomcat, although I'm now fairly convinced that in 2011 the Amapa project shipped 4.8Mt of iron ore grossing revenue from these sales of US$481m leading to an operating profit on the project of $171m, which implies their OpEx was of the order of $300m a little over twice our estimate and probably explicable by the USD:BRL changing very much in our favour from 1.67 to around 4.
]===
That's an OpEx of 300/4.8 = $62.5/t. wow. USD to BRL now at 4.39. Must. Contain. My. Excitement. :-)
Ob.
Or not
Indeed it was an interesting week on the Amapa front @tomcat! Presumably you are following the links I shared recently and a while back. Got any others worth sharing? Iron ore futures over the next year have pulled back on virus concerns the past few weeks, but the USD:BRL is moving increasingly in our favour so I'm still confident Amapa's a company maker should we get to 20% and then to 27% ownership. Meanwhile it looks like it'll be back of the sofa for February too for the CLN repayment. News soon? The day after tomorrow perhaps? ;-)
It's so he knows how to ask correctly if they do caldeirada in Nandos.
@TC: is that because
Bruno Fernandes completed his transfer to Manchester United on Thursday and the Portugal midfielder can't wait to get started at his new club. COYR
what an interesting week that was... so glad i’ve learned how to read portuguese...
Looks to me that @Kiran is doing exactly what he said he was doing: finalising agreements with the banks!
I'm soooo tempted to make a rush for my target holding, but I won't until the news is concrete, don't be greedy now Ob - unless of course another investment/gamble comes up trumps and must be de-risked. :-)
looks that way... what you making of the latest entry today then... re: transfer of shares... no appeal against authorisation for transfer of shares and agreement with the banking union...
That's a great spot @tomcat! I've learnt a lot more today from reading the relevant parts of their relevant annual reports, as I'm sure you have - searching on Amapa! The most revealing to me is in their 2011 annual report where they determined using a discounted cash flow model valid end of that year that their $498.6m investment in Amapa to date was not impaired - believing the project was still worth what they had spent on it, $1.7B on a 100% basis. As you know, the project economics appear to have improved considerably since then (after a considerable dip were both Amapa and Cliffs impaired their investments), mostly relating to reduced OpEx due to the significantly strengthening dollar against the Real, but also because of robust iron ore prices and strong pellet premiums.
I've officially now done far too much research on a project I own 0% of. LoL! Fingers crossed for news soon! If you've been keeping an eye on that link I posted you'll have noticed the various court cases are rumbling on. ;-)
Ob.
amongst other things i think... http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/c/NYSE_CLF_2009.pdf ...
It's a good thought @tomcat, although I'm now fairly convinced that in 2011 the Amapa project shipped 4.8Mt of iron ore grossing revenue from these sales of US$481m leading to an operating profit on the project of $171m, which implies their OpEx was of the order of $300m a little over twice our estimate and probably explicable by the USD:BRL changing very much in our favour from 1.67 to around 4. But perhaps not, perhaps some of the revenue was justifiably capitalised into project infrastructure or the like in that year - I've not looked that closely at the accounts. I don't know. But what I do know is that I know a lot more today than I did yesterday! :-)
capitalised revenue... ;)
Crikey Obs it sure is a continual learning curve.....but you really are on the case :)
"The Platform for Cooperation on Tax" (2017)
https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/tc-info-gaps-prices-of-minerals.pdf
===[
Box: Published Prices and Contract Prices
In the financial press, the iron ore price is frequently quoted as referring to a dry tonne of iron ore fines containing 62 percent iron (“fe”) delivered by sea to Qingdao port in northern China.
However contracts are frequently concluded using different price metrics, such as US cents per metric tonne unit (mtu) of ferrous content. Concentrates for example are frequently priced on this basis. This means conversions may be required to compare such contracts with published “iron ore” prices.
Take as an example, a contract for 50,000 tonnes of concentrate with 64 percent iron, priced at 70.31c/mtu also going to Qingdao on the same delivery terms.
After converting the price to dollars, it is adjusted by the Fe content: 0.7031*64 = $45/tonne (since in this case there are 64 units of iron in each 100 units of the concentrate). Depending on how it is expressed in the contract, this may be the price per tonne including moisture (“wet” tonne). To compare against the published dry metric tonne price, the price needs to be adjusted to remove the weight of moisture. Continuing with the example, For example, if the shipment had 8 percent moisture, the price is adjusted as: $45*0.92 = $41.4 per dry tonne.
For the purposes of freight, wet tonnes are the relevant metric since this is the weight that must be physically transported (ArcelorMittal, 2016).
]===
Something to watch out for!
Ob.
Surely this isn't a coincidence:
Computed revenues of 4.8Mt * $160/t = $768m in 2011
Stated revenues of US$481m in 2011.
$481m / $768m = 62.6%
Surely the stated $160/t isn't based on average iron ore prices if it were 100%Fe/t? Meaning that because they were shipping something in the 60-65% concentration range what they actually achieve per tonne is more like $100/t?
Surely not. Anyone got insight?
I've finally (!) found what I believe are definitive figures:
https://www.anglopacificgroup.com/royalties-old/
===[
Amapá
The Group has a 1% life of mine GRR on all iron ore and other non-precious minerals produced from the Amapá Iron Ore System (‘Amapá’) in northern Brazil. Amapá consists of the mine in Pedra Branca do Amapári and the port in Santana, which are linked by a railway. Amapá’s recorded revenue in 2012 was US$327m and US$481m in 2011, based upon production volumes of 6.1Mt and 4.8Mt, respectively
]===
and once you find it in one place it's easier to find elsewhere:
https://www.anglopacificgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2013-Annual-Report.pdf
===[
Amapá
The Group has a 1% life of mine GRR on all iron ore and other non-precious minerals produced from the Amapá Iron Ore System (‘Amapá’) in northern Brazil. Amapá consists of the mine in Pedra Branca do Amapári and the port in Santana, which are linked by a railway. Amapá’s recorded revenue in 2012 was US$327m and US$481m in 2011, based upon production volumes of 6.1Mt and 4.8Mt, respectively. The mine produces a mix of sinter feed, pellet feed and spiral concentrates.
]===
Note that that annual report is different to the ones we've been posting on here to date.
https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group/PLC/investors/annual-reporting/2014/annual-report2013.pdf
So the question becomes why only $481m? Indicates to me that they only realised a sale price of $100/t - perhaps from an old futures contract? More head scratching required! LoL :-)
Ob.
I've got a head-scratcher.
We know from RNS's and now our website that:
https://www.cadenceminerals.com/projects/amapa-iron/
===[
During its operation the mine generated an annual operating profit of up to US$171 million (100%)
]===
And this comes from the 2011 annual report at:
https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group/PLC/investors/annual-reporting/2012/aa-annual-report-2011.pdf
===[
The Amapá operation contributed an
operating profit of $120 million for the
year, compared with an operating profit
of $16 million in 2010, reflecting a strong
production performance and continued
cost containment during a period of elevated
prices. Production in 2011 totalled 4.8 Mt,
a 20% increase over the previous year.
]===
I was trying to determine what their operating costs were at the time for Amapa when the USD to BRL averaged 1.67 (it's now 4.18!), when I discovered this:
"Investing in Royalties" (March 2013)
https://www.anglopacificgroup.com/pdf/130301%20-%20Anglo%20Pacific%20Group%20Presentation.pdf
===[
Amapá Iron Ore – Continuing good progress
Production of approx 6.1mt of pellet and sinter feed in 2012 (2011: 5.1mt)
Royalty revenues of £2.2m (2011: £2.7m)
1% GRR royalty
]===
The 1% Gross Royalty Revenue implies that the revenue of the project in 2011 was £270m and using an approximate average exchange rate in 2011 of GBP:USD of 1.6 results in $432m. All good so far - apart from 5.1Mt isn't quite the same as the 4.8Mt stated in the annual report. I'll assume the annual report is correct.
However, the 2011 annual report also states:
===[
2011 average price iron ore: $158/t (Average price represents average iron ore (South Africa) export price achieved.)
2011 average price Iron ore: $160/t (FOB Australia)
]===
I've looked at different sources and the price of 62%Fe in 2011 is fairly consistent with these figures.
So the head-scratcher is why was the apparent gross revenue for 2011 $432m, when it should have been more like:
4.8Mt * $160/t = $768m?
Ob