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.
So, civil input in your mind = accusing me of making up conspiracy theories?
Sir, that's about as civil as MrBond & Mizolgit's animosity filled rants towards me.
However, for those LTH's who simply want to understand what's going on at Centamin I will explain what DASUT's latest post has wrong.
This is the second time DASUT posted misleading figures concerning the waste moving contract which should raise the question if he's misleading on purpose.
Here are several extracts from Centamin's latest Q1 2023 report:
Rebuilds, underground transition and other sustaining capex $10mil
Sustaining element of waste stripping capitalised $15mil
Sustaining expenditure capitalised $26mil
Contract waste stripping capitalised $21mil
Note the first item of $10million - it references the underground transition. That actually occurred in February of 2022 which is 15 months ago. Yet, the expense is 'capitalized' in Q1 2023. Thus it's not when that $10 million was spent, it's simply for accounting purposes.
Similarly, the last item on the list referring to contract waste stripping doesn't mean the only monies spent during Q1 was $21 million - indeed - it is just a portion of the spend to date capitalized for accounting purposes in Q1 2023. And even that sets aside the question of sustaining vs non-sustaining which is separated as well.
It seems DASUT either doesn't understand how this accounting works or would rather everyone believe the waste contract is a great bargain and shareholders should just take his word for it.
Not to be rude but DASUT also indicated he didn't get an invitation to vote at the AGM - which if he didn't attend in person would typically be done electronically. How it's possible to own shares in a company and not know how to vote is beyond me.
If I wanted to be uncivilized I might say DASUT's continued posting of misleading cost per ton calculations is 'conspiracy theory' as well.
https://im-mining.com/2022/02/08/centamins-sukari-underground-gold-operation-transitioning-owner-operator-mining/
PS
For Centamin shareholder wanting to see the Capital contract (which admittedly doesn't share cost per unit of volume as it's subject to change) it can be found here:
https://www.capdrill.com/media/investors/Announcements/CAPD_Launch-Announcement-RNS_20201202_Final_Website.pdf
What I find strange Cowichan, is that we have been repeatedly & authoritatively told by many posters that the waste stripping program is a result of previous management not clearing the waste they should have cleared as part of previous gold mined.
If the above were true, how then is Centamin capitalising a large portion of the expenditure and also deeming a significant portion of the expenditure as non-sustaining capital. Even a basic knowledge of accounting standards clearly shows the two scenarios cannot co-exist.
Maybe it is a conspiracy or maybe it is simply that the current management consistently fail to provide proper disclosure of material financial information in relation to their strategies & treat the hard earned capital reserves accumulated by previous management as a fund to be thrown about willy nilly without any clear justification of the benefits of such largesse.
I have no problem with waste movement, part of the game, but I have a large problem with major expenditure programs being entered into without proper explanation. Management should remember that it is shareholders money they are spending not their own & treat it accordingly, if they need to spend it to further operational efficiency by all means spend it but have the decency & propriety to explain the benefits of the expenditure.
This is the cause of our diabolical share price, the market quite rightly hates uncertainty as it reflects risk, whilst their remains no clearly defined strategy to nor benefits of the huge expenditure involved in the waste stripping program the market will continue to treat it as sunk costs no matter what fun & games are played on the balance sheet.
One can only hope that there exists a real, well though out & beneficial plan to the strategy, that way shareholders will end up being rewarded eventually through exploitation of what is & always has been a quality resource. If not we may find ourselves sh*t out of luck for wont of a better term :)
Thanks Cowichan but you still don't provide an answer to my question, more deflections. Where does the $100 million plus come from? If we can agree this number I will be shouting as loud as you from my soap box but I can't get close to this number being over what it would cost Centamin to do the work themselves.
Simple maths say $235 million divided by 120 million = $1.96 and $260 million divided by 120m = 2.17 per tonne BUT this is for two contracts. A 4 year waste movement and a drill and blast 15 month extension.
The Capital $21million capitalised in 1st qtr and 10.9 million tonnes moved is $1.92 this gets closer to the cost per tonne of the lower number if maybe we extract albeit a guesstimate the cost of the drill and blast contract.
OK there is a couple of maybe's that the capitalisation might not refer to the same period.
So do we trust the Centamin accounting practices given it is for a three month period and several weeks after the period ended, I would hope that they will have had enough time to provide accurate numbers for something you agree in fact advise is calculated monthly and I would think auditors will have a say in the numbers provided.
DASUT
Financial auditing is done once a year by the outside auditors - not monthly or quarterly as you imagine.
Regardless, auditors won't question how much profit Centamin cares to pay a contractor, now would they??
I'm working off numbers I've been given and I'll do the math real simple for you to follow.
Capital works on a 'cost plus' method, which means.
$200 million 'cost' to Capital
+
$100 million 'profit' to Capital
=
$300 million Centamin eventually pays to Capital over 4 years
That's the upper end of the original $235 to $259 million estimate plus 16% inflation ($259,000,000 x 16%= 41,440,000 = $300 million)
And that's a MIMIMUM estimate for Capital's PROFIT as there is NO hard 'cap' in the contract. It is all subject to negotiation as you've read for yourself (if indeed you bothered to read it)
Anyways people are tired of our bickering clogging up their chat board and most don't seem to care what amount of hyper profit Centamin pays a contractor - yourself included.
Cowichan sorry I can't agree with your numbers so as I said before lets call it a day and agree to differ.
Dasut unfortunately you will not be allowed to call it a day,I tried that.
At the end of the day a Contract was agreed and signed,
With time in mind.
It cannot be changed without default ,so the wholl discussion is pointless .
The cost will more than likely be covered by selling the product at a higher price and increased production..
I am sure we will all read some more blurb.
Not long back we were told that the mine had not the resources .
Really ?
If not ,I will be surprised
Who provided the figures he used. A boiler house contract maybe.
Sawaris END mining were mentioned , " Running rings around Centamin".
With its President refusing to face charges of fraud in African countries including bribery .of government officials tells the quality of its President ,and company.
Another mentioned often is Bristow, Barrick gold.
Take your pick .
They are the favorites of that person who provokes .
Strange .And furthermore insults investors in this company.
A thouroughly detestable person, arn ·t you ,not that you care as long as you get paid your pittance. :-)