Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. 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.
An interesting article which mentions INFA although the main thrust of the article is investment in Scotland. https://magazine.dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2021/07/02/scotland-absent-from-uks-industrial-party/
To put in 650k for a 27 million pound contract with the ability to upsize the contract and also win additional new business is pretty good economics. You might want to refresh your first lessons on marginal economic theory.
You have been an LTH and was part of a near defunct company like I was. If you can show me a 9mm quid revenue that this company has ever made, I am happy to eat my hat. Yes, it is insufficient currently and much more needs to be done. I don't see the BoD sitting around and doing nothing.
It doesn't matter whether you think I am clever or big or small Spud, it's your view, rightly or wrongly. Time will tell.
Pokerchips From Cenkos
The contract will involve the creation of c290 jobs with a blend of permanent new hires and sub-contracted labour InfraStrata will be paid monthly progress payments in arrears. With the visibility created by the £26.5m nine-month Saipem contract (commencing in July)
Does anyone know how long the Saipem Phase I contract is due to take ?
....in so much as to attempt to pencil-in when any possoble Phase II ( £42m) could be forthcoming
And infa's track record of delivering original buisness is?
They had to buy the Scottish Yard to "win" Saipem contract ffs.
Droderick I have my suspicions who you are and, if I'm correct, it isn't big and it isn't clever.....
Triumph's comments appear to be a reaction to comments made privately by Infra, which suggest that Infra didnt have sufficient confidence in Triumph and Triumph commented publicly, to suggest the same..
Clearly private conversations are part of the NDA and it seems unlikely JW will get into any kind of tit-for-tat situation in which he wont want to break the NDA by having to reveal such discussion content..just as Truimph declined to
The March Team meeting appears on the surface to have been of little use and Truimph may well in the end have just been p*ssed off that the inevitable decision was not communicated formally until the end stages of the LoI timescale..
The private final conversation led to Triumph decision to cancel the LoI whilst Infra's chose to be more diplomatic in their public comment to merely say it was now off the table...without publicly stating the concerns they no doubt made privately with Triumph..
Truimph wanting to publicly suggest they had a good reason to cancel as much as Infra had to just let the LoI expire
I dont see any further comment coming myself...
Time to move on...
There are pretty much 4 outcomes to an LoI:
1. It turns into a contract
2. It terminates before expiry
3. It is mutually extended
4. It expires or lapses
It is interesting to see Dipsy batting so heavily for Triumph. Does anyone here know what their track record is of actually delivering anything? Amongst all the LoIs announced on their website, surely they should be going gangbusters when they have actually delivered something tangible.
So far, let me check.....zero.
Think this article is a little bit more than the other cut and paste job of TSS's statement.
"Offshore Engineer has reached out to Infrastrata, seeking comment on Triumphs claims and accusations.
The Infrastrata CEO John Wood told Offshore Engineer the company was reviewing Triumph's announcement and would release a statement if required."
Difficult to tell if they had already cancelled the LoI before the RNS or their statement of cancellation was a reaction to the RNS. Makes big difference, imo.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/triumph-subsea-terminates-offshore-wind-488881
Droderick
"I especially use the word "lapse" because on 30 June, either a binding contract is executed or the LoI just dies a natural death"
Where do you get the info from about LOI "just dies a natural death"?
The only public information I can find is from the LOI RNS last December (13 days prior to a placing) which states
"Whilst both parties intend on executing a contract to build the vessels by the end of June 2021, it should be noted that this LoI currently does not provide for any binding obligations on either party at this point and should not, therefore, be construed to be a binding fabrication / build contract."
The detail in your posts is admirable but having invested in dozens of AIM companies over twenty years in my view the current Triumph debacle has to be explained, rapidly.
Credibility, trust and prompt justification of decisions is imperative. Reduced.
dawski378; I have reached out to some friends in the industry. You don't need classed drawings for a quotaion, class drawings come well down the track, especially since some shipyards need to submit different detailed drawings to class for approval as they may use different equipment compared to another yard. So even 'serial' class drawings need to be resubmitted for class approval. What you need for a quotation is the specifications, vessel GA and makers list. Once the yard has that information; then they do the pricing; then the parties negotiate on the price and get to the point of signing a contract. During the negotiation for the contract price then there could also be stipulations on either side for POF, POF for the Buyer and POF for Builder. Any of the very large vessel brokers will tell you that the Buyer, no matter who they are, or how big they are, or how big a bank account they have, can actually raise funds / allocate funds for a vessel build without a quotation and build schedule. The duration of the build schedule and the quotation also verify to the if the project would be viable. So in saying that if the LOI signed with Triumph stated a price and schedule and then this VROM came in much higher and much longer then of course no financiers would touch it. How could Triumph move without a firm price and schedule?
Also I did not see anywhere about Triumph actually had a charter with a U.K. Plc. Where is this information..
I also could not agree more with you. We are so lucky to have Valhalla14 on our side as he certainly is a font of all knowledge.. I can only but imagine that all of those years as an Offshore Rigger account for a lot of real life experiences. To have the powers and ability that has to be able to call the Croatian yard and find out all the details of Triumph are incredible, It must be an amazing ability as surely the yard would not just release that information to anyone. But I would imagine all those years of dragging knuckles on the back would make you one smart RIGGER.
Teletubbies and we know what the BBC did to them. They got banned and sacked.
Good find Stokey
Have a good weekend all
This might be of interest to some of you or not as the case may be
https://www.northernirelandchamber.com/2021/07/01/ni-chamber-governments-ability-move-speed-key-success-future-ni-energy-strategy/
For those of you were all the money raised is going here is part of the answer https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6816748751248486403-yaW6
wonder why the director's have bought shares !!hmmm, tick tock tick tock ,see you all next week gl if youve still held onto those shares guys !!:)
What JW says he does, usually. He said there would be maiden revenues and there was, says there will be cash break-even and I believe there will be, and if he says no placing for another 12 months I believe it, unless something unexpected comes up.
Trouble is Stokey the cash flow forecast would have been based on winning a far larger amount of work than we currently have done, in my opinion.
I still maintain the volume of work we currently have must be bleeding us each month across our 4 sites. It is one beast now in terms of overheads and capital payments due, let alone investing and allowing cash flow for bigger projects.
We need big news, pronto or can see this sinking to seriously low depths to a point it will just completely fall apart. I'm less than 50% confident at the moment, and seeing the lousy director buys isn't doing anything to help reverse that
Have heard much the same from many different companies over the years but they still raised cash regardless of statements....never say never in this game
Valhalla14 In relation to your 15.32 post at the last roadshow JW indicated that there would not be another raise for at least 12 months. I would remind you before you dismiss that comment that he would have a better idea on likely income over the next 12 months.
Following the director share purchase it looks like there won't be any significant contracts delivered for the time being.
If there was anything close to being signed JW would have been inside and unable to purchase shares.
It wasn't worth him buying a paltry amount of shares as it won't restore confidence . It just signals that the wait for some large contracts is set to continue
I'm well aware of that RazorShultz.....however servicing these contracts takes a lot of cash flow so I would not rule it out
There has already been a placing Valhalla, I'm not sure if there will be another one so soon
Director buys.....could not make it up
On Monday we have Defence Questions and one of the questions from Kevan Jones is Whether the procurement costs for the proposed national flagship will be drawn from his Department's existing budget allocation.
On Tuesday we have BETS and one of the questions from Stephen Crabb • What steps his Department is taking to support the marine renewables sector
Thanks dawski378 - For that clear narrative & hopefully that will end the Triumph saga and based on your other comments hopefully some positive news soon.I have reverted back to 'Hold' & will see how things settle down.
It sure is !! Hi,Folks,I am the old Dawski37 being one of the original shareholders and a LTH -just had trouble with logging in today ( thought that I had been banned for one moment .)
I just had to post today as Droderick really does hit the mark in many instances and Valhalla4's experience in these matters has to be respected fully.
I have been in touch with the BOD, really to make sure that we did not end up with an interminable public spat here which is not what we want with Azura now by our Quayside and Saipem rolling.
As I understand matters a little better the approach was first made by Triumph in 2020 and the BOD viewed the technical specifications and it all looked good on paper.
There was representations allegedly of two long term charters for both vessels with a major U.K. Plc which would be the mechanism for financing the project
Triumph issued the L.O.I. not H&W .There has been no sign of the charters nor any class approved drawings for H&W to work on.
Now to the point >>>> I fully endorse the BOD's view that resources and time cannot be spent on deals that look good initially but then don't have any chance of materialising .
Business deals come and go ( Barrow !!) and a Non-Binding LOI really is only the starting point of communication .It requires further work and DD and if in that process the outcome is not investment worthy then it should be rightly dropped .
Which it has,so end of !!
Be fully assured that I believe that your BOD are working successfully on a number of potential deals for all yards in the various sectors that we are in. Whatever some posters may say the BOD are not responsible for the shenanigans of N.I.politics/Daera and they have rightfully led the Company away from the Island M though there is still potential there.
Enough -----storm in a teacup ..lay to rest and move on ...Enjoy photo shots of the beautiful British ship Azura under the cranes,soon to come !!!