Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. 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.
Https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/bushveld_minerals/news/rns/story/xpd5kjx/export
Does anyone know what was invested by BMN in Vanchem, just to turn the knife on how cheap this is being disposed and the shell of a company being left with the debt mountain
I can't see that circular with responsss on the link on the website, or anywhere else for that matter...maybe it'll get uploaded shortly.
@pb940.
Accept it, or else.
With SPR, Acacia, Orion and the directors holdings, that equates to over 630 million votes. Over 25%,
Kamran Sattars 75 million holding, and questions, will be insignificant. Although i do agree with his stance.
Unfortunately Vanchem has to go, to keep the lights on. It is spelt out on more than one occasion in the RNS.
How odd that Orion have agreed to restructure their loan, as part of the Vanchem disposal. And, if i've read this correctly, provide a further $10 million. I stand to be corrected on this.
On V prices. We are getting close to the 360 day 0%, which is where we want to be. When, if, this turns green, hopefully within the next couple of months, Vametco can start making us money again.
Fingers crossed. But if SPR, Orion and Acacia see a future profit for vanadium, through Vanchem, then i will have to take some sort of positive from that.
I don’t think there’s any option but to accept and even then theres no guarantee but without it then it’s over bar any pickings left over
'On V prices. We are getting close to the 360 day 0%, which is where we want to be. When, if, this turns green, hopefully within the next couple of months, Vametco can start making us money again.'
____________________
All the 360 day chart is doing is comparing against the same point exactly one year bfeore. In 2023 V peaked in late March then fell sharply to a new lower level through May to August and then fell again to a new lower level in September and then again in December. So as the year goes on that 360 day chart will highly likely show some up as green but it will eventually this year be comparing not against a time when V was $40/kgV (March), not $32/kgV (May through August) but when it was $25/kgV.
So
As things stand it looks like V in US is still at/around the 12 month lows but in Europe and China it's off the bottom and showing signs of potentially heading towards $30/kgV.
What seems to have been missed by those that think that there is no option but to accept this shoddy deal is that it does not add any upfront cash to the original 50% deal. Thus it does nothing to shore up the company, but gives away another 50% of Vanchem on the hope that SPR will pay out, when it has not even done so properly over the last 6 months.
That is totally wrong, at least when you compare what BMN looks like without it and what it looks like with it
Scenario 1 - no deal agreed. BMN is out of cash now and likely have halted operations already, especially as many creditors have balances that are 'long overdue' at Vanchem.
Scenario 2 - Deal. As part of the agreement $3m was received as an advance on May 3rd, a further $5m will be received at the end of May and a further $5m-$8m will be loaned as an advance to Vanchem to pay long overdue creditors and therefore keep the plant in operation - loans that BMN won't have to payback as part of this deal.
i think most would agree that there's a tangible difference between not operating and operating, even if the latter will lead to the former in time, minus 50% Vanchem, if V doesn't recover.
The question that some seem to be asking or at least want explained by Craig is 'how does administration compare with this deal?' - Craig has stated/ implied numerous times in IMCs that administration would in most cases by the worst case scenario but has never specifically answered the above question.
If they limp on 'operating', they are still losing money on every V/kg they produce.
They burn cash either way, don't think downing tools and going into administration would just freeze things as they are. They owe interest on $105m of debt, staff at the plants will need to be kept on a retainer or otherwise the whole operation would take too much time and money to ramp back up again, the long overdue creditors would need to be paid, some modest maintenance work would need to be undertaken etc etc
Then there's this: ''Additionally, the Company is in discussions with Orion pursuant to which Orion has indicated, on a non-binding basis, that it will, subject to certain conditions (including completion of the Vanchem Disposal), provide further funding to the Group by matching the additional funds paid by SPR on a $ for $ basis up to a maximum of US$10 million. Further details are set out on paragraph 5 of this letter.''
Their major creditors ^^^ don't seem to think just eroding away in administration is the best chance of ever seeing their capital either.