Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
PS - without the Utah asset, we'd not have successfully raised Ā£1m.
We do know projections of Opex and projected profitability in the Corporate Presentations. Yes, of course these aren't proven.
What will be proven - as we're a company in production, is the half yearly and yearly statements - one of which is due by the end of this month. If you were expecting more frequent updates on sales, then I'd question your prior investment experience/history.
Of course, these will be loss making in year 1 (as projected) however, it will demonstrate sales and revenue to compare to the projections in the Corporate Presentation.
Since you love trading in worst case scenarios, let's assume that the Utah phosphate project only lasts for 10 years. It still allows us to survive as an organisation.
Again, taking a worst case, non real life analogy (as Utah is cash generative):
How long would you last financially if you're running costs are Ā£20,000 a year and you have zero income?
How much longer would you last if your running costs are Ā£30,000 a year and you have Ā£25,000 income?
Utah prevents us going bankrupt.
We'd never know how unimpressed you'd be if we didn't take on the Utah project as we'd no longer have a BB to discuss yet another liquidated explorer.
The Ā£1m was not raised for costs of legal arbitration. There was a reason given for the raise in the RNS.
It's a calculator, so the inputs are variable. I doubt very much this would take hundreds of hours or more of legal time as the case -as we know it - is as clear cut as can be.
That said and as I mentioned, we raised Ā£1 million, 6 months ago. Ample funds to secure arbitration and the best use of it I can see in the short term.
So why was close to Ā£1 million raised if you think we have short-term profit potential, particularly as Utah already had a prestripped area with production drilling information representing 2 Ā½ years of planned production? That raising, 6 months ago, resulted in another 1.3 billion shares worth of dilution. Neither of those outcomes collaborate your comments here.
60 + years? " Keras deems the deposit to have considerable upside potential and states that the potential open pit resource (non code-compliant) could support a mine life in excess of 60 years. " Potential. Could. Non-code compliant.
You once again take these potentialities and present them as proven.
We don't know what the unit opex actually will be or is, nor do we know the unit selling price for this years hoped for 10,000t in sales. We don't even yet know how much the previous Yr 1 7.500t brought in. Indeed, the sales plan and margin/revenues remain notably absent from company releases.
Excuse me if I remain unimpressed.
Thanks for sharing the arbitration costs, JIm, it supports my point. Almost $1m - that's not chip change for a junior/explorer with no income.
It's a bit easier for a company with in production with 60 years of income to leverage.
The Govt is not the problem. The President is. Minister's can be as nice as they wish and promise anything, but when we are reliant on the President and the President only to approve the license, then the rest of Togo's governance is redundant. Minster's obtain and retain their positions by appeasing the President, not by ruffling his feathers. That's how Dictatorship's work.
What 'statement of fact' do you ever therefore expect to see?
Iāve never āburnt my bridgesā in any of my business career, sadly now defunct!
However, you can never tell who or what links could transpire in any future opportunities that a company would get involved with!
So whilst it sounds plausible to want some legal action, Iād prefer we stick it out, till we have a statement of fact from the Togolese government!
We can then move forward, in a stronger position, for any likely claims for compensation!
PC
Jim - share price projections have literally nothing to do with self sufficiency. Self sufficiency is the ability to cover your running costs from operatonal profits, or the ability to leverage future cash flows / asset values.
Keras running costs are pretty low, but they are not going to be delivered from a 'propsective' Manganese mine. We were bleeding out.
Utah is in production NOW. It has a 60+ year mine life. It is positive future cash flow, and an asset that can be leveraged. Moreover, we have acquired a controlling interest for a loan that will be fully repaid. We will have cash flow from the loan repayments in the short term, some small profit in the short term, but 60 years of income against which we can leverage.
That the total value of the project may only be valued at Ā£14m still represents a doubling of our capital asset value from today - but that is not as important as guaranteed cash flow at sufficient levels to keep the lights on - and maybe a little bit more for shareholder returns. Utah guarantees our future WITHOUT the need for further dilution OR going bankrupt.
There would not have been any other project that could start operating as quickly. Acquiring a flashy new gold, silver or lithium project at this juncture may have given a short term MCAP pump, but it would have been on no foundations - no cash flow, drill bit and exploration costs and therefore a catalyst for corporate insolvency.
As for 'difficulty' of arbitration, I'll refer you to actual legal opinion on the matter, not BB one's.
https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/mining-arbitrations/
And potential costs
https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/icsid-arbitration-cost-calculator-2/
Considering Shard allocates a sp value of only 0.21 for Utah, when do you propose we'd be 'self-sufficient' enough for that then?
The BOD paid for specialised legal advice previously on the Nayega tenure. I'd suggest the recent Ā£1 million raised would be best spent on going toward arbitration (what else are they doing with it?) as there's literally no complexity now to such a claim and it's the best investment that could be made for a return. The Govt had intimated approval for 7 years. We've jumped through every hoop requested. They approved bulk sampling and issued a decree on the licensing award coming up to 3 years ago. The Pres continues to withhold his approval. Nothing legally difficult in arguing or proving that.
If there's some other legal reason why this isn't going forward then as I and others have asked for - we should be told what it is.
As much as I have some sympathy with Jim's assertion we push for international arbitration or industrial appeal - those kinds of corporate legal actions do come with a sizable price tag.
IF that's the course of action we have to pursue, I would assume it will be handled when we are more self sufficient via the Utah cash flow.
As much as there's some dissent on Utah from some folks on ADVFN, I reckon there would be more dissent had we just liquidated the company and waved goodbye to our investment in its entirety.
No can do Chirps, Jimās in Warrawoona with his cork hat and didgeridoo.
Can't we send JimBL out there ?
Will be concluded, one way or the other, pretty speedily!