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.
Watched the video. Hope to heavens it's not another Savannah where, in reality, we're actually years away from earnings. It's SL where the lethargic license squatter risk looms large, and I think we've seen some SL suspicion about CMET previously when they took their licenses away. Of course, it was corruption but when you dont progress you leave yourselves open to such flank moves. Also, these are after all standard construction minerals that are not in short supply and I think as such they're struggling to excite commitment to the big risks like jv/build etc... The port lease and port quality could be a risk too and, like a previous poster said, we're half way through the leases now and years away from earnings. I'm an LTH and staying put with a modest holding but I'm not expecting fireworks anytime soon from this BOD, especially GM who, on this showing came across as a bit dopey in my view. I've had high hopes for my holding here but I don't like companies that over promise and under achieve. Hoping for more positive news but in the absence of, its a 3 to 5 year hold for me now. Bottom drawer with Savannah.
And here's the problem with a lot of people who invest in miners.
It's NEVER short term and the average cycle from discovery to production is 1w years.
Ggp have progressed their haveiron deposit in super quick time due to the fact they got a j.v and still they are not quite at the ore body , and that has also now been around 6 years.
I'm hopefully not here for production, I'm here till my exit point is matched. But I'm also aware dfs pfs and all the other studies are needed and can add value.
Our risk reward is just getting in early enough hoping for another ggp where we can multi bag , most juniors will not get their or be taken over like baconora , that's the harsh reality
12 years even
Max 18-20 months to production from here, by which time the value must reflect the NPV. How is that anywhere near 12 years. Has this board been taken over by shorters? Doesn't make any sense to be talking down CMET on the eve of signing a JV that will unlock 20 years of mining. I must be an idiot as I'm struggling to reconcile the interview with the sells and negativity. Any other views on this?
It was a bad interview - period. Were it otherwise, it wouldn't have resulted in a mini sell off, and quite a few negatives and concerns being expressed on here. The biggest for me are:
- a sense of Sheffield being in control and dictating, and being in no hurry. Moving the project at a pace that suits them
- the whole thing being contingent on a number of factors rather than de-risking production upfront. Those factors to include resource expansion, PFS, and FID.
- as a result, production being moved back to late 2025/early 2026?
- CEO has effectively said the upside will be given away as well.
Of course, we have to wait to see what the deal actually is, and not pre-judge or pre-determine it, but I'm not feeling as confident that it will be the exciting re-rate deal, or the timescales we have been expecting. But all imho and let's see what RNS lands. Happy to be proven wrong.
A very dogmatic reply Legalwolf, is there any room for an alternative point of view? In answer to your concerns giving my alternative view.
- Sheffield will be partners, with a 190mA$ market cap, giving us access to capital and clout, in exchange for providing money, mining, market experience. It de-risks the project for me, and I am happy to share the spoils to get it to production.
-Sheffield are an ASX stock so have to do things by the book, with good long term personal relationships in play.
-production moved back slightly, but with a new strategic partner with fresh experienced eyes on the project, hardly surprising.
-plenty of upside which we will have 50%.I am happy to share to reduce the risk. I am relieved that we still have the licences and have come through two years of worry, so have lower expectations than when I first started to invest. The return I am expecting is still multiples of the current share price.
We can agree that all will be revealed with details of the contract. I do not expect a massive rerate, just a steady rise with positive news. I am happy to wait until 2026, and expect inflation to have had a positive effect on the value of sales. I am waiting patiently for the dividends to start!
Sebo, you asked for views.
The Friday interview reminded me of a World War 2 motto- " Lose lips sinks ships"
Some of the info divulged in the interview re: PFS, dates being pushed back, reference to the 10 % , being aggressive etc. should have been released with the
agreement RNS, that we are anticipating and not via interview, IMO.
Investors in AIM do not like uncertainty, and this is what the interview did, particularly around, what does 50% mean? So the more nervous/ unclear decided to sell a few off, until clarity is restored.
IMO, GM forgot who this interview was aimed at, and it became a fireside discussion between two mineral sands experts, and the clarity that was in the first Crux interview, that is needed by investors, was lost.
Perhaps, GM had become over familiar with what he meant by 50% and didn't provide the granularity when needed.
Basically it appears the project timescales have been pushed out to provide time to meet Sheffields requirements of PFS, upgraded resource etc. because we will be doing things their way.
Only a few days, hopefully until full details released.
Regarding sp, hate to put a downer on things, but on release of news, if it breaks 6.5 p I'll be surprised. This is because, a JV has been in the pipeline a while, and won't be received like a bolt out of the blue, and the sp will have the inevitable pull back just like Kod and Arcm on their JV news, IMO.
Not trolling here, just honest opinion.
Thanks for your views. I think that the JV is worth more than a rise to 6.5p. There was awful uncertainty last year, LB deal folded and then a long wait to get to the current deal. I think that a 50% JV is worth a 10 p for starters. The interview should have come after the RNS with the deal details. I think that the way he spoke was a little confusing as you say. Investors need black on white. RNS tomorrow? We shall see what happens, I hope for a decent and well deserved rise in the SP.
Here’s a thought - do you think the interview was meant to calm , and has now been over interpreted?! The logic being to prevent a spike?