Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full 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.
I think the stark truth is no one knows what is going on, and really, why should we. Its a waiting game in which anything could happen. Those that don't like it are very vocal, but they know where the door is (or should have avoided coming in that door in the first place). Try Bitcoin. At least there is no-one to blame when things are not going the way way you think they should.
Hasn't CB even stated this himself? - Something like 'If I were AA I would put in an offer before the data is released'
Okay, so based on what you've stated; information of a material nature, possibly disusing a valuations in the billions of dollars, would be passed onto AA for them to peruse at their leisure. All before a release if that information to the public and entering into any buy-out negotiations.
It's still my opinion that the BR proposed valuations have to be released via RNS first.
I would suggest following the official release of 'material information' negations between parties can be kept confidential and fall in line with 'MAR 1.2 of the FCA Handbook'.
We have seen this on previous occasions with other companies. Notably with Cornerstone making an offer to SOLG following the release of a resource update.
Hi Steve do you have an opinion as to why they have maybe held off on increasing the Initial recovery rate at RC instead going to updated JORC and decision to mine?
Could it suggest further, that the idea you reported back from the AGM (reading between the lines) that seemed to be, to get the AA decision out the way whilst the resource was sub 2mt, to get a ‘no’ from them. Could having an inferior IRR potentially give more an idea that maybe AA are (unofficially) not interested?
Thanks Steve. That filled a little gap in my understanding and confirmed my hunch that there can be, and may well be, things going on between those 'in the know'. Let's hope there is!
According to AIM rules:
"An AIM company must issue notification without delay of any new developments which are not public knowledge which, if made public, would be likely to lead to a significant movement in the price of its AIM securities. By way of example, this may include matters concerning a change in:
— its financial condition;
— its sphere of activity;
— the performance of its business; or
— its expectation of its performance."
However...
"an AIM company may delay notifying information under this rule if it is an impending development or a matter in the course of negotiation provided such information is kept confidential. The AIM company must ensure it has in place, in accordance with rule 31, effective procedures and controls designed to ensure the confidentiality of such information to minimise the risk of a leak."
Anyone involved in negotiations, or anyone with 'material' information not available to the market, would be subject to a blackout order that prevents them trading. I have been under such a blackout order many times.
Exactly, you own 1m shares in AA and you find out, prior to an RNS, that AA will dilute to buy BR. You'll sell short term if you can get away with it.
Flip side, you own 20m shares in XTR and you find BR is not commercial. You're gonna sell if your not on the board and your sales are not directly monitored.
Or indeed employees of XTR's PR company, their accountants, any number of external but involved organisations. Companies do not operate in a vacuum. They work with other companies. C'est la vie.
Yes, but AA and representatives who are involved in meetings and presentations will know the value of RC/BR before the market does.
There's nothing to stop those individuals 'in the know' buying or selling shares in AA or XTR.
Insider trading? I don't think selling a company, lock stock and barrel, is the same as buying some shares on the cheap if you have insider info that there is news imminent that will send the share price higher.
AA have first refusal. All the other mining companies will have to wait their turn. And there are no PIs competing for the purchase of the entire company (as this is what Colin Bird has said will be sold, not 80% as stated as a lower base in the AA agreement).
Well that is really my underlying question.
Assume you are a technology company and it is public knowledge that you are putting a lot of R&D effort into an amazing new processor, not yet proven. Would you be within your rights to share your progress privately with Apple as you progress to perfecting it? And should you have great success with this goal, demonstrate it to Apple and announce this success publicly on the same day Apple announces it has bought the technology from you, or even your company, to underpin the next 10 years of iPhones?
I hope you can see the parallel. How granular is the announcing of 'market moving information'. When does market moving information become that, and who decides?
Is XTR entitled to keep schtum until their 'preferred buyer' has agreed that what they have is worth buying? I would say that there is rather a lot of precedent for that.
ZM, I doubt very much AA would, officially, be privy to such info. Wouldn't that, effectively, breach insider trading rules.
Well laid out post ZM. I would agree is likely AA will be privy to the financial model supporting the pit concept once it is designed before the market is shown details. I think the question is, when to now time the release of JORC resource statements. They are expected to be finished anytime now to into November. Maybe this timeframe is for the conceptual study to be completed too?
The company that will design the pit will need the (rc) JORC to complete their work along with xtract completing the financial evaluation aspect. Other than that it’s down to guesswork still as to when the party starts. With the market maybe having an influence on that.
It was thinking of the timescales required to update, or recreate, the conceptual pit model that led me to the previous post.
I have no doubt this model is complicated, but it will be a computerised model and the many inputs will have largely been known for some time. Very little new data (the last of the assays) has had to be waited for.
Therefore my assumption is that the updated conceptual pit model is already completed, the Decision to Mine could be published at any time, but the the 'end of October, early November' comments from Colin Bird are allowing time for discussions with AA.
I am intigued to know what the process is. Is XTR obligated to share the Decision to Mine report with the market concurrently with sharing it with potential buyers (i.e. AA at this stage)? Or can negotiations take place away from public scrutiny? I am wondering if the first we hear of the D2M might be accompanied by an offer (or decline to offer) from AA.
What is the real news? The Decision to Mine? ... which in fact means decision that the mine would be economical to mine, not a statement that the owner (XTR) has decided to go ahead and mine it themselves).
Or is the real news that AA has offered to buy back ProspectOre, and therefore all of its assets, for 'X' amount.
My uninformed 'gut' feeling is that a rerated SP following a public announcement of the D2M would not really influence negotiations as AA will make their own mind up what the asset is worth to them and also what they believe XTR will accept for it.
Similarly I cannot reasonably accept that XTR will wait to publicly annound the D2M and then pick up the phone to enter into talks with AA. Given that AA have this contractual 'first dibs' privilege (I feel this almost puts them in the position of a business partner) I am assuming that there is nothing underhand about sharing all data with them in advance of formerly publishing the D2M.
I don't know if this is the case, but my guess is that representatives of the majority of shares in XTR could sit around a table, so the deal could, and maybe should, be thrashed out in private.
Any thoughts out there?
Do we have an estimate on when negotiations have started or roughly about to start, time is dragging on give us our money!
>> I was under the impression that ProspectOre is an Australian subsidiary of XTR , with the asset being the project not the company
XTR bought ProspectOre in 2020, along with the licences. The original buyback agreement was in 2017 between AA and ProspectOre and we inherited that along with ProspectOre. If we sell, it makes sense to sell the company that owns everything (ProspectOre) rather than the individual assets.
johnswan1 - We can lower the cut-off because copper prices, and more efficient mining techniques, mean dirt that would previously have been overburden waste, is now pay dirt. To say it makes no difference to the value is simply not true.
And when you reduce the cut-off the estimate for contained copper isn't based on a random opinion or belief... it is maths. Reducing the cut-off to 0.15%, based on the existing JORC, gives us just shy of 0.5mt of Cu Eq. We more than double the resource without include anything discovered by the drill holes of phases 1 & 2!
AA were interest enough in Bushranger (despite deciding to prioritise other targets) to put in a buy-back clause and at the time the grades where hardly any higher and the price of copper a fraction of what it now is and will be for decades to come. Even if they are not interested, another major will be and it is nailed on the feelers have been out a long time now testing potential market appetite.
Forget the claims coming out of CB's mouth and instead collate and plot the results from the drill holes and assays yourself. It is possible to get a decent idea of how much has been added without relying on 'belief' of 'feelings'.
Not sure why you believe the grades are extremely low, many are in line with the average of around .26Cu mined at Cadia. Typical porphyry grades for the Lachlan belt. The original 71mt was made up of mainly the higher grade part of the resource. The numerous infill drills will have added to the 71mt before any of the extensions. It was highly unlikely that the extensions to the outer margins of RC would return grades as high anyway. So it is ‘not’ just the drilling outside the initial 71mt that increases the resource. So I’m sure we have certainly way more than doubled the Copper content as you say , whereas the resource is estimated to be 500mt, dependant on the cut off used. Let’s just wait and see the updated conceptual study. This will be more relevant now than the updated and initial resource estimates. Unless of course you are looking for an earlier exit?
To add, yes there have been some extensions, but at extremely low grades relative to the initial discovery.
Highly unlikely AA will be interested, Bird said it himself. Steve, how much was the license worth with the original resource? Look what we paid for it. Reducing the cut off to add to the resource will not add value to the project. IMO we *may* have doubled the resource from what it started at, but I’m not convinced that will make it valuable enough to make it worthwhile, certainly not good enough for my money to have been tied up here and at a 5p-ish average.
Certainly not a dreamer JS. My evaluation is from past RNS’s first and foremost, interview comments and plain common sense. You must think the management team are clueless.
Why are you still going on about 2mt! It’s unimportant now with the decision to mine. You are delusional if you honestly think that even after a third phase, which isn’t happening btw, 2mt will still not be met. I believe you just imagine it in your head so it must be true. Do some basic research at least.
Johnswan1 - Just lowering the cut off at Racecourse and using the existing JORC, takes us to approx 0.5mt. We’ve had drill results confirming large extensions in all directions since and I personally don’t get why you think we’ll be lucky to get 1mt… it literally doesn’t add up.
And why does it matter if there are separate mines at Ascot and Racecourse? They can still use the same processing plant and they’d be literally right next door to each other. Both discoveries are within the same licence that the buy back clause relates to (so is Footrot) and it all counts towards the 2mt trigger point.
I’m with Andrew… if we didn’t have enough to make a sale at a decent price, we’d be doing a phase 3 to get it. Also worth noting that the guys on the ground in Oz know and socialise with the AA guys and will definitely be having informal discussions. I think they will have a good idea what AA think too.
There is every reason to be confident despite the frustration of the many missed deadlines.
Howezap you are a complete dreamer. CB still believes there is 2MT in the license, but imho Xtract will never get close to doing that and to me it doesn’t even feel as though a phase 3 would be enough to get us there. My guess is around 1MT but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was less than that. We also know that you can’t combine the resource of Racecourse and Ascot to get a single mine.