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.
Good time to buy for the bounce. Up from here.
"Anyone notice they didn't say how many stopes open or being worked on?"
They said in the call - between 1 and 2 at the moment. Mining plan will deliver 6 by year end.
@peterdee: the 673t was down becuase it was not "milled". It was, however, "mined". The mill has the capacity to mill that ore so the guidance is unchanged. The 673t figure hit me as well, but I now understand why guidance has not changed.
Mining skills are in high demand and NL isn't necessarily where everyone wants to work. High turnover in a competitive skills market is to be expected.
They have employed a contractor to develop Block 6 635 of the LFZ - that is the 635 metre level, which is below the existing mine bottom - its going to take time to get there.
This is the Canadian National award in Metal Mine Safety, awarded to one mine each year, as you can see Ming Mine has won it twice in the last 5 years - that is no mean feat in a country with as many mines as Canada.
https://www.cim.org/awards/john-t-ryan-safety-trophies/national-trophy-for-metal-mines/
Monkey, sorry you are barking up the wrong tree completely, safety in mining in the UK, Europe, Australia, America and Canada is absolutely paramount - there are no shortcuts taken.
Rockfalls are the norm in open stopes, as such nobody is allowed to enter an open stope, so there is no risk to safety there.
Mining is a nightmare for recruitment when the industry is booming, as people are put off for several reasons: -
1. Job Security - if the metal prices collapse they are at risk
2. A lot of people don't like the idea of working underground.
3. Perception - your post is a perfect example.
It’s Tim.sanford@dodgelitecoin.com
Peterdee. I read those comments as being from a CEO who is erring on the side of caution, who is positive yet realistic, a lot of work still to do to achieve the production targets, but the work needed to make the mine profitable is actually on going not just in the planning. As Cornish says, mining is a risky business, but it seems the CEO is doing as much as he can to minimise them. Recruiting the right people with the right skills and obtaining sufficient funding to meet his objectives is a very good start. Cheers
were tim sanford email ?
@monkeyD, they did address stopes yesterday:
"Risk in this context relates to the optionality around mining locations which has been limited to just one through most of this year. This will be mitigated with mine development providing access to multiple stoping locations by the end of 2021. The mine development contract that has commenced is an important part of this mitigation."
@Peterdee
"The figures I read (from RMM’s public statements) were that as of 31 March they still had 3022 tonnes of copper sales to deliver this year. In 2Q21 they produced 673 tonnes (down from 876 tonnes in 1Q21) leaving 2349 outstanding sales to deliver this year. It would seem miraculous if they could produce that much in the last two quarters of this year."
This misses the fact that they are ramping up production to have 6 stopes complete by the end of the year, so you can expect them to reproduce more copper than they did in Q2. Don't forget that they were producing from one stope in Q2 due to a stope collapse. Q3 figures will be interesting for sure. I figure we'll get those in October.
@peterdee
No problems.
Re your statement >>What you say makes sense if the buyer of the hedge agrees to take less than they bought at the forward price<<
They haven't bought it. It's eff ctively a futures contract that say RMM will see uoto x amount of produced copper, at the pre determined hedge price. We get paid at port at that hedged price.
It covers the risk to the financial supporters of RMM in the event copper pricing fell, but the buyer a secured supply price and in this case one better than the current price.
We don't owe. So to clarify as far as I'm aware it's simply a futures contract to buy x amount of copper at x price in the future. After which RMM can sell at the prevailing copper price (which is much higher now)
Atb
@peterdee
Re your coemt >>Does RMM have free copper to sell over and above what they have sold forwards? Might they even need to buy to meet their forward sales commitments? <<
My understanding and view (happy to stand corrected) is that in order to arrange the first lot of funding to establish the turnaround plan, RMM effectively had to hedge the price at which they sell their produced copper.
The hedge price to my knowledge was equal to the copper price at the time the hedge was arranged, which was fine, as it mitigated the risk of a drop in commodity prices for those lending etc.
However, as we know and expected, the copper price continued to rise above the hedge. So while it's still profitable for RMM, they won't capitalise on the above hedge price until they meet the hedge quota.
I don't believe they have 'sold forward' in the sense you're implying. They are paid a set amount when loaded at the port I believe based on expected copper / gold recovery etc.
So no they won't need to buy copper to sell lower; they just can't sell there own production at the above hedge price until they have met the minimum detailed within the hedge arrangement.
Hope that makes sense
I'm heavily underwater here like many others and have reviewed it in great detail, in order to decide whether or not I should pull the pin on my investment here. I've decided to CONTINUE HOLDING. I will consider adding after good news on the plan.
My Rationale:
- I believe in healthy long-term copper prices.
- Ming has extraordinary grades of copper.
- Rambler is financed for the turn-around.
- While performance has been poor so far, I'm positive about the medium<-->long-term outlook. In 6-12m time, with EV's continuing to gain traction and with the mine plan progressing, I believe this will recover.
- In the event that they get bought out, I see the assets providing a buffer to the current share price. From what I see, Little Deer alone more than support the share price.
Good luck!
I rarely post. I use boards to gauge sentiment rather than to contribute.