Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
Given these developments its likely best he doesn't.
I wonder if there's anyone out there who has the balls to take this CEO role on now.
Very important that there's no more resignations - although Gawthorpe has gone his skill sets are covered largely by the remaining team. However, anymore departures and that's a clear signal the ship will likely sink.
What a difference a day makes. ATB
Sierra Rutile Limited, was the company they worked at together.
John Sisay is reportedly the owner/operator of the Tschudi. Matchless operations in Africa. Niel was John's (John was CEO) marketing director for a previous mining company in Africa.
He was due to speak as TW representative. There has been no update as of yet as to who might speak in place of him. As he is no longer an employee i can't see him attending.
I wonder if Neil will be attending the UK Mining Conference in Cornwall on the 12th and 13th of June 2024 (next week). He was supposed to be a guest speaker. Goodness me.
Looking back through Niels profile he has history with Mining in Namibia. Considering the current state of the copper industry I could see it as being a no brainer for him.
Estate Agents don't appear to be expecting a glut. No Indication this is the start of a trend.
I for one will be holding. ATB
This is the cast of characters running the show at Hemerdon.
https://www.tungstenwest.com/board-of-directors
It might be worthwhile having a look on FB, X and Linkedin etc to see if anyone else has put their house up for sale or is looking to pastures new.
ATB
Yes I would agree. If this is the case it's perhaps more positive than it otherwise might be. Maybe it indicates that he has been looking for an out for a while. Putting the house up for sale suggests he'd secured an offer elsewhere on or before the 12th and todays resignation perhaps indicates the house sale is agreed. If you're happy in your job you stick around - clearly he wasn't happy enough to stay. That doesn't mean the project is unworkable. If the house sale came through in August he would have resigned then and the permit would have be secured.
Its still very unsettling he's dropped out like this, but its looking perhaps to be a personal decision rather than a project viability issue. We'll know soon enough, though. ATB
Niel also reposted a previous message on X 2days ago that he was looking forward to seeing Tschudi, Otjihase and Matchless back in production. They are copper mining in Africa. It would appear that he knows the set up and they are hopping to restart imminently. It could well be that he is off to sunnier climes.
He was talking up the excellent opportunities available in Africa around the time the house went up for sale. Could be wrong but this looks like it has been in the pipeline for some time.
That is an excellent find, New5. It looks like he's just closed on the sale. Wasn't there an FB post recently where he was talking about the best opportunities in Africa - or was that someone else?
Vis - thanks for the market overview - interesting observations and I think you're spot on.
There's clearly something at issue with TWL, however I don't think it is finance or at least not entirely finance. Finance is a pressure but not insurmountable. I think the project is sufficiently worthy (given the points you mention) to attract the finance to make the project work, because it has: the CLN holders. TWL are short on cash but the CLN holders are solid on this mine. Those guy's are going to get frazzled if this goes T.U. so they are in it to win it.
Therefore, the strongest candidates in my mind are either:
- The EA (as mentioned in an earlier post) , who as part of their review might have sent something back which is so unworkable he's thrown in the towel (the most likely option IMO); or
- His renumeration (much less likely); or
- Both.
- Being frustrated with the EA conduct and all these delays doesn't cut it as a valid reason as we are nearly home regards the permit, literally just a couple of weeks.
- Politics could be driving this but I think he's likely tough enough to ride that out, although the current situation does resemble a large middle finger to all parties concerned; or
- He could have been head hunted, but you'd expect something in the announcement to reflect that.
Not knowing is an uncertainty which is going to create a lot of price volatility, that's for certain. Lets hope that TWL are able to quickly recruit someone with the calibre to get this through to the H2 financing round and Jan 2025.
ATB
Evening Croissant, Don't know if this is at all relevant but on Niels face book page it appears that he put his house up for sale on the 12th may.
We could do with a bit of sleuthing to find out what motivated that. Terrible timing though whatever the cause. ATB
The two leading hopefuls in the quoted mining sector in the South West, Cornish Metals Inc and now Tungsten West have both lost their CEOs within three months of one another. CUSN has an interim CEO as does TUN as of today.
Good leadership is in short supply.
There appears to be an anomaly in the market for these two shares. The value of the assets they hold is way above their market caps. The outlook for the metals they produce is extremely promising (see the link below to MT's discussion), Both companies are close (around 2 years) away from production - a short time in mine development terms. Both have world class deposits. It is the provision of finance which is proving difficult to obtain.
Who has the finance? The big mining companies with established operations and cash flow. All that is needed now is for one of them to buy the various companies in the SW assemble them under one umbrella with one set of good management and then provide them with the finance they need to complete the final hurdle before production.
I would be very surprised if one or more large mining companies are not now looking at the the SW with a view to consolidating the activities. The loss of another CEO can only make this more likely.
It could be that Tungsten West is having problems recieving permit, but I see no insiders selling at the moment, so maybe it could be that Tungsten West won't be able to afford the wages of CEO in the upcoming year, to make the financial situation look slightly better, the CEO had to resign to make the financial statement look better? Anyone knows if Neil holds any equity of Tungsten West? If he does, the second guess might be more likely as the gain in price of shares might be more than the wages he could recieve.
Good morning all.
Propinquity on the SML board posted this excellent interview with Mark Thompson. It relates to the outlook for tin- the second most important component in the hoped for TUN revenues.
If you do nothing else with your investments today, listen to this. Seldom do you hear such a well informed person talking about the tin market. Thanks to Propinquity.
Https://www.voxmarkets.co.uk/articles/q-a-with-mark-thompson-the-king-of-tin-bb16dc6/
Morning, Vis. Hope you're well. The point you make relates to the potentially "specious" bullet point 2 from my
prior public consultation review. My concern is one of a "first come first served" attitude which might be adopted by the EA. If TWL adds LFN which interacts with another operator who is already producing LFN (which is acknowledged as being present in their excellent report) and the LFN superposes to create a localised problem, the EA could well lay that problem at the feet of TWL; as it's their noise which caused the superposition, not the other operator who was there first.
For those reading this and not quite following - imagine a single pebble thrown into a pond. Circular ripples are created that diminish in height with distance. Now imagine two pebbles thrown into the pond. Ripples are created on the surface of the pond which interact. Ripples have a peek and a trough in cross section. Sound waves behave in the same manner. In some places a trough meets a peek and they cancel - no sound. Elsewhere a peek meets a peek and they add to a much larger peek - more sound. Interacting waves create an interference pattern - standard stuff. So if TWL creates LFN and it interacts with the existing LFN field, areas around the facility may experience sound wave superposition giving rise to a localised LFN problems. This could be a gap in the TWL analysis.
Vis, the mechanism for resolution appears to be monitoring which will enable TWL to take responsibility or lay the blame elsewhere. As the TWL SLT appear to be a reputable and responsible group, I'd suggest they'd approach these issues in that manner and deal with any mess they make. They already have an LFN map at the various receptors and know their own signal profile. If the background LFN field changes by the addition of new equipment, that will be visible to the TWL monitoring grid. The fly in the ointment which you point out is that should another local operator add further noise (audible or LFN) does that cut into the TWL allowance? My educated guess would be that other operators will also be answerable to the EA, and ultimately the planning and approval process must take account of these far field interactions (exactly like we are witnessing here and now) because if you were to stack many facilities in close proximity the background noise levels would be permanently elevated to excessive levels. So, other operators may well find that they have to shroud their noise profiles if they want a variation to their MPF permits which creates additional noise.
Ultimately, if the economic imperative out weights the local community objections that's when CPOs are used to allow economic growth and expansion whilst sparing people surrounding these activities from their (sometimes) unavoidable consequences.
ATB
Good morning Croissant and Lovely Boy
Great post Croissant - thanks. A question arises in my mind which is if noise is detected at a receptor of +5-10 decibels
how does anyone know which of the various quarries / mines in the area it comes from? Perhaps the noise results from a combination of the output from several of them. Are all of them going to be required to shut down if noise exceeds +10?
One wonders what difference existing quarrying activities make at noise receptors when they start work ?
GLA
Vii
Section 5 of the Draft Decision Document [EPR/AP3203ML/A001] details the critical issue of sound pollution (audible and LNF) from the site and its management using BAT. (As an aside there's mention in there of an AFC to correct for night time conditions, which I'd previously flagged as a potential gap in the Noise Impact Assessment, Aug 23 - which is great.)
The most pressing issue raised by the SPPC and I quote "The PC would prefer to see the permit making reference to the operation of the processing facility ceasing until suitable mitigation has been implemented to address the LFN problem."
There appears to be a mechanism for this already in place.....
DDD Section 5.1.1. p20/73 states "We have determined that the results of the noise assessment indicate potential adverse impacts, but not significant adverse impacts. Adverse impacts are only permissible if the site is working to Best Available Techniques (BAT) to minimise operational sound emissions which we consider will be the case here."
(FYI: At the sound receptors, on top of background levels: adverse impacts, means +5dB; significant adverse impacts means +10dB)
DDD Section 5.1.8 p23/73 states "Emissions from the activities shall be free from noise and vibration at levels likely to cause pollution outside the site, as perceived by an authorised officer of the Environment Agency, unless the operator has used appropriate measures,..." it continues "This level of noise means that noise pollution is being (or is likely to be) caused at a receptor. Your duty is to use appropriate measures to prevent or, where that is not practicable, minimise noise. You are not in breach if you are using appropriate measures. But you will need to rigorously demonstrate that you are using appropriate measures."
To paraphrase, the EA are expecting that there will be noise intrusion in the surrounding area due to site operations but provided that the site noise is being managed as per the NMP the company will not be in breach. Up to 5dB increase is expected (OK), between 5-10dB could be an issue - monitor (trigger), if noise levels increase by 10dB or more - that is an issue which will require attention (action).
DDD p22-3/73 BAT include "A NMP is in place to confirm the following details: ....
details of the actions they will take, contingencies, and responsibilities, when problems arise, including expected actions resulting from exceptional circumstances or where serious pollution may occur."
Now there is indeed a document, "Noise Management Plan for Minerals Processing
Facility" V6 dated Oct 2023 which addresses these matters directly. The "Response procedure" Section 4.4.11 - 4.4.13 (p41-2/43) details possible shut down scenarios and restart if exceedance occurs.
In short, it looks to me that the permit can be issued as the proviso that the NMP must detail actions to be taken where serious pollution occurs (+10dB) including process shutdown is already in place.
ATB :)
Back in Blighty?? Hope you had a nice time. ATB
Thanks for putting this list together croissant. Appreciate it. Primary concern seems to be dust which is fairly easy and cheap to mitigate and monitor.
ATB LB
Long time lurker and investor but first post!
Just wondering if anyone had an inkling about the date of potential announcement of approval/rejection. Need to be be either put out of my misery or feel joyful lol
Good morning Croissant.
I have looked through the published responses, interesting that 19 appeared in the final 24hrs. I think your interpretation is pretty spot on although i feel Issue 2 is a specious argument and has no bearing on the outcome here (I may be wrong).
The number of responses could be much higher so we are still waiting for any formal decision first from EA then TW. lets hope patience pays off. ATB