Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video 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.
Nice one Mumbles
Re the EIA, the September 2020 shareholder release, states that the Wet and dry season baseline studies have been completed and submitted to the Angolan Authorities. I haven’t delved through the rest of the announcements to ascertain whether there are any issues with it.
The mining license and the terms associated with it was awarded in April last year
https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/27-April-2020-President-Approves-Mining-Title-for-Longonjo-Rare-Earths-Project.pdf
To the best of my knowledge - YES
Sorry guys, slip up while typing - Rudimentary question LTH - does PRE have EIA and ML for their Angolan asset?
Cheers.
Thanks for the response, China. Down-ramping was of course not the aim of the post - rather, the aim was to clarify the pricing assumptions included in the NPV and to review how they stack-up against available external benchmarks. I'm sure other shareholders are doing the same, as will be anyone looking to fund the company.
In summary, the price in the NPV appears to be 'high' (and 40% higher than the Adamas 2030 price). Re. validating that assumption, the most interesting point, that I've mentioned a few times and you also referenced, is the price premium that could be secured through ESG compliance.
Attempting to think-through that aspect: currently, wind turbines use magnets made in China (ESG-non-compliant). What impact would the availability of ESG-compliant magnets have on this situation? If we ran short of ESG-compliant magnets, would we stop the wind farm project? Unlikely (due to precedent, and the overriding imperative to build the wind farm) - instead we'd use China magnets, and potentially require an 'offset' premium to reflect the difference in ESG standards. This would set the ESG premium as a specific amount, admitting China into the supply pool, from where they would be able to compete on the base price (only the ESG premium would remain constant). As such, I'm not sure if ESG compliance will confer much of a sustainable 'net' price advantage. Very interested to hear others' thoughts on how this might work.
Also on the competition front, it would be interesting to understand how governments will look to protect their new non-China sources from Chinese competition (assuming that China will be likely to aggressively compete against any new entrants, on price in particular, potentially to a terminal degree). If I've understood the history correctly, Lynas had to rely on the (admittedly self-interested) benevolence of strategically-minded Japanese manufacturers to avoid going out of business over the last decade or so. Who would be Pensana's protector?
To answer your other points:
Re. exchanges - the most reliable source of pricing actuals will be Lynas results. I believe Lynas actuals correlate most closely with SMM, so I take the latter to be representative of current price. I'm not clear why different exchanges would show materially different prices - presumably any difference would be arbitraged-out (CN-NY shipping costs are negligible per kg of oxide) - I suspect any difference reflects the small size of the market and that, within this, the smaller exchanges are perhaps not representative of a true market price - happy to be corrected if there is another explanation.
Re. Lynas costs, fair enough, will have to read-up more on this, although the point was more to explain, in part, how Lynas were able to survive at the lower price point of the last few years.
All competing or supporting views welcome.
Rudimentary question LTH - does PEN have EIA and ML for their Angolan asset?
Cheers.
Charlie boy, Arn't you forgetting that Lynas is moving to Kalgoorlie ? One of the most expensive towns in Australia to operate in, The cost of Labor, consumables, electricity, water, fuel, transport will be several times higher than in Malaysia, And they still have to build their plant and convince the locals that the dumps don't present a health hazard.
Then you are quoting SMM pricing, with no ESG costed in and definitely on the nose with USA/EU consumers, NY pricing is considerably higher and once Pensana start producing the LME will be operating an Independent Exchange.
Lynas OPEX is only going to get higher, their strip ratio is increasing, While Pensana has not even started 'Optimizing" its Operations ~ I have not started up a mine yet where considerable cost savings have not been identified during commissioning and the first year of operation.
If I were you I would be worrying about Lynas, If Amanda sees Pensana as being such serious competition that she has to organize a bunch of armatures to down ramp the opposition, she must be feeling insecure ?
Approximated NPVs in different pricing scenarios (ten year life at 8% discount rate):
- Average price Q3-18 to Q2-21, ($39/kg), NPV = $(1.0)bn, £(3.00) per share
price source: Lynas actuals. Lynas is better positioned to operate at these levels given their lower opex rate - Pensana opex rate forecast to be 50% higher than that of Lynas (Pensana at $22/kg treo)
- Current price (~$68/kg), NPV = nil
price source: SMM metal website
- Apply Adamas 2030 price to all years ($100/kg), NPV = $1.0bn, £3.00 per share
price source: slide 10 of the Pensana Investor Presentation
- Estimated assumption used in business plan, average of all years ($140/kg), NPV = $2.3bn, £6.50 per share
price source: inference from data provided in business plan. Best available validation using values provided: $550m Revenue (av. first five years) * 0.91 (NdPr share of rev from PFS) / 4500 (est av. production in first five years) = $111/kg; likely be to slightly higher (~$120-140/kg) given that production within the initial years may be below the 4500 nameplate capacity, and NdPr share of revenue could also be higher.
Could price elevate to the levels seemingly used in the business plan? In a supercycle (etc.) and with price differentiation, this certainly could be possible, but remains a significant unknown. We should be aware of both the expectation of significant upward movement apparently embedded in the published NPV, and the associated impact on NPV if these levels are not achieved.
Welcome other views as always.