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.
Believe this will come out of blue.
Though not keeping my eyes glued to RNS notification.
Lucky, please God no, not the buy back clause. I get the impression Colin also not that interested in Manica either - gives it one line then moves on. Development has been coming for years, it's going to fund future exploration yes, but it's not a company maker.
Chris, end of the year is probably quite a good time frame. Maybe I should be more patient but Colin gave us a timeframe and here we are, end of June with nothing remotely looking like a model update etc. The wait continues...
Iceberg
Good catch.
Found this news article in the website
"Lots has been happening at Hetherington. Since our last edition of the Hetherington Post, we have had the privilege of becoming the custodian of Mining Title Services (MTS), which is now part of the Hetherington Group, welcoming a number of new clients and continuing the great work diligently carried out by Bob Harrison over the past 53 years."
The following statement gives an indication on the increasing M&A or asset acquisition in Oz
"Reflecting Australia’s increasing appeal to overseas investors, I recently joined the Board of Barker Henley Global, to advise on the acquisition of mines in Australia and internationally, across all commodity groups."
Lucky, you might be right re adjustments over the coming months. I can’t think of a single mine that’s gone into production perfectly as planned and hit the max button. In todays climate though, even a small placing is hard to get away, thank goodness we don’t need one. Tbh I would be happy with 50% of the projected revenue it’s still plenty to get on with things.
Just imo
Re the hetherington change I do agree that the new outfit looks a lot more professional, bigger and so will have more staff with wider skills !
Hetherington brought the other company out after it’s founder died. I think it’s a just tidying up of the ownerships. Sorry. Good spot though.
It may be good enough for the new comers but not for the LTH. Show me the bar of gold in my hand.
And I won't be surprised if In a few months time the revenue is not as expected because the plant needs adjusting due to unforseen circumstances......
Where's the jorc that was due in January?
Small bone for Ben...
There's been a development on NSW Titles Management System.
We have a new agent for all the licences including EL5574.
The new agent is Hetheringtons who replace Mining Titlrs Services Pty Ltd.
New ones seem to have a more comprehensive set of services and these also include Due Diligence and VALMIN reporting...
- Due diligence for tenure acquisition
- VALMIN compliant reports for prospectuses
- Independent Tenement overview reports
New website https://hetherington.net.au/
Old agent http://www.amts.com.au/
Re manica. The Canadian exchange tsx is much hotter on compliance than aim. If empress say that it’s entered pre prediction and this means it’s started processing ore then it’s really happened, no ifs, not buts, no coconut’s.
It’s good enough for me!
What about some jorc predictions? Want some more of them? Mine still has some possibility of coming true, I said September a long long time ago.
Steve, it's not impatience. It's talking about the same old !@#£ time and time again. We have talked about all of that already.
You want to talk about manica?!!!!
We have been talking of manica for 5 years and every time we talk about it, it nearly in production.....it still isn't now! It's now pre production lol
I also think it’s nice to have a break occasionally. It would be a fake pumpers board if we continually had loads of 10-20p predictions. There are loads of boards like that.
Also we have held well considering the commodities market. There has been some savage share prices and we’ve seen low volume, not much selling and even today, some nice buys.
It won’t be long and we have something, next couple of days!
>> no new news, nothing new to talk about etc....
We had excellent Manica results less than a week ago that pretty much de-risked the stock and secured our financial future. Maybe you could talk about that?
We had 32m at 0.92 g/t at Ascot a month ago, which completely changed the nature of our second porphyry. We are continuing to drill Ascot, putting more holes in RC and a couple into Footrot. Maybe that is worthy of conversation?
The Telegram board seems to find plenty to talk about, although that is maybe because it is so easy to post graphics and other material in chat. The dissatisfaction here seemed to be more about impatience than a lack of content.
I have no idea what that April/May indication was supposed to achieve. Most of us questioned it immediately when it was mentioned but I still don’t even know what that was alluding to? Deal? No. End of drilling campaign? No. Racecourse model update? No. All most of us continue to ask for is just some degree of management if expectations. My latest timeframe is now end of year to hopefully get a decent indication of that total package we would be looking to sell, and to whom.
Ben, I think everyone is just a bit deflated! The storm was supposed to be April/May possibly at a push, June. Now we don't know how long we have to wait, no new news, nothing new to talk about etc....
Unless someone wants to start a new chat about the AA buy back clause lmao hahaha
Not going to lie - I prefer this place when it doesn't resemble a graveyard. At least it's not like vast which actually is one.
Come on Colin - throw us a bone so we can have a chat. Couple of drills fired into footrot? Couple of banging assays? Copper production at Eureka? Information on that copper mine you keep mentioning but no info on the website? Even a few warrants being taken up would trigger some sort of discussion.
I get the feeling we are in the calm before the storm. Big news to come, I just can't stand the wait...
Jamesiecake,
My own NPV calc, based upon 5million USD profit this year, 10million profit 2023 followed by a 3% increase year on year until 2027, but adding in the following factors.
5% inflation
8% Discounted Rate
Gives an NPV of 39million USD
And share price contribution around 3.2p at todays USD/GBP exchange rate.... so roughly in line with your numbers.
Sorry.... I thought you meant cost to produce the dfs.
My mistake.
Have a confession to make, if you can recall on a number of occasions Colin has referred to comments on the bulletin board, such as, ‘you will never sell anything without a measured resource!’ Stating how wrong that is, …..yeah….. well that was down to me! at a time when I was trying to understand the intensity required of infill drilling to establish a measured resource. To be fair I wasn’t actually wrong, I just did not fully understand at that time, the evolution of a discovery and at what point the project would get taken onto to the next level. It’s been a steep learning curve!
Whoever takes bushranger on, if the decision is, to take it toward production, then a fair degree of the resource ‘will’ have to be further infilled to establish a measured resource so it can be converted to proven from a probable resource to satisfy requirements of their own full feasibility study which will need to be done, for the project then to be able to go into ‘detailed’ mine planning and engineering and toward their due diligence to justify spending a billion or so on infrastructure and production facilities.
Hence why I refer to, ‘all xtract need to do is show a starter project, that will give a level of confidence to a buyer that the project is viable and can be taken to the next level. Basically, the concept and data pack that Xtract are putting together is still quite rudimentary in relative terms to what will be required eventually, and given that Colin has stated previously that even a pre feasibility study is not a prerequisite to a sale, supports that notion.
A saleable asset package is looking very achievable and I share theicebergs opinion that xtract are putting together one that will hopefully be ‘too good for them to turn down’.
Hi Joeman
Apologies I don’t understand what you are saying??
The direct cash cost I took from the DFS is the operating costs etc e.g. no capex. The figure I used came from the 2017 DFS so to account for increases in fuel/labour etc I increased this by 20% (appreciate its finger in the air on my part). Not sure why this should be left out or you think it’s been paid twice?
My only mention of capex was the acquisition cost which I believe might offer a tax shield against future profits e.g. via depreciation/amortisation (for simplicity I didn’t include this in my calculation)
Cheers
James
You are right Lucky, no guarantees of money spent being value added. Point I was trying to make was that the value killer in AIM is the threat of dilution. With the Manica money that threat goes away..... plus the exploration pace increases at other locations such as Eureka.
Jamesiescakes....I understand putting the DFS costs into the spreadsheet if it was paid for out of debt that we now hold on account, but was this not paid for by shareholders and dilution at the time? In that case you leave it out. Otherwise shareholders are paying for it twice. Once when they bought the shares and secondly through a lower NPV value.
If you remove all CAPEX, add 8% discounting but also increased Revenue and cost of production by 3 or 4% each year that would be more realistic.
Really good question Flipper56, with the scale anticipated of a reworked conceptual pit, the bigger it is the deeper it will be, to eventually gain easier access to any deeper porphyry when open pit is depleted in 20+/- years that will then only carry its own OpEx as all production facilities and infrastructure would have been paid for.
The significance of the high grade gold at ascot in particular is prime example of this, the plan to test for shallow high grade that will help pay off CapEx in initial stage of mine ( it’s looking like Ascot will too, be initial open cut mine, separate to Racecourse ) They will be also testing at depth. If extensive would have huge implications for the project if xtract can show potential life of mine can be extended beyond open pittable resource.
Xtract just need to show a starter project for Racecourse that shows a potential economic resource that has the ability to recover its CapEx in a reasonable time. (Hence the plan to target the shallow high grade at Racecourse for this purpose ) They have no intent to mine Bushranger themselves, or work it in any partnered venture. A decision to mine will also trigger the buy back agreement if they show the concept, with relevant studies, that includes scoping for utilities and infrastructure, rudimental mine planning to show how it will be cut, positioning of production facilities and capability, that will potentially service both mines, along with the supporting financial studies that will give that economic evaluation.
Why is bushranger so difficult to value?
There is a clear lack of any real resource building or estimating news from racecourse in particular, that leaves no clues as to the real size of the resource to be able to make any estimations. Crude calculations on Racecourse have ranged from 1.4 to 2+mtCuEq. With assay results still outstanding, met results and IP survey for Ascot, in particular. It’s really difficult for investors as well as I would imagine, any third parties also, to know just how big bushranger is at present up to an initial resource estimate.
Even the line in the RNS stating they have the tonnage and grades to justify a rework of conceptual pit is open to interpretation, if looked at from a glass half empty standpoint ;-)
It does make any open offers from Anglo before the 2mtCuEq is announced doubtful, If that even is a consideration by them as they would realistically want the project de-risked before any consideration in my opinion. With the covert nature of resource building there is just no way of telling how much resource has been realised to make a measured offer.
So with the company not “plastering what they have over the front page of the daily mail,” it’s a necessary evil, but, it is at the detriment of the market cap for now and I’m sure most informed investors are understanding of this and how unlikely it is now that any further raises will be required.
The only other situation, is where there is an attempt of a buyout of the whole company. May point toward why any mention of, or further exploration of Eureka IOCG theory has not occurred yet. The evidenjce is strong and the potential is huge there, a possible mid tier company maker that for now seems to have been sidelined, maybe to be kept under wraps even, that is until, there is at least income from production firstly. On another note, it again points to the confidence there must be in bushranger, for it to be a very saleable asset if there is no inclination yet to set aside a budget of any kind to further test for IOCG at Eureka!
There is justification short term for throwing everything at bushranger to get it sold quicker.
Very confident and relaxed, am certainly more excited than anxious.
Wouldn't the long term plan be to develop an underground mine ?
Joeman, the problem is spending the profits on exploration doesn't guarantee shareholder value. That's why the SP doesn't move. That's probably why the SP might only move up a small amount when revenue starts coming in.
If we keep spending all our money on the next big thing, when will we see a return?
Colin is very wealthy, this is a fun treasure hunt for him.
I think I should have made it a bit clearer I inflated the 2017 DFS costs of 556 by 20% to 667, I didn’t apply 20% inflation thereafter e.g. I used a constant direct cash cost of 667/oz in my calculation!
I had in my head that the alluvials would last till the end of next year, however maybe CB said that in 2021….I’ll double check my notes however end of the day the impact would be quite small.
Agree that we are unlikely to see any cash from Manica or others as it will be used on BR/other potential projects. However obviously as I wasn’t including BR in the valuation it didn’t make sense to me to incorporate the drilling expenditures.
BizzyLizzy, I agree with you that the market is assigning 1-2p for Manica and the rest to BR. However in my view and based on my numbers it should be more like 3.5-4p for Manica and the rest and hopefully this difference will be reflected in SP once Manica starts proving its cash flows to the market.
Cheers
James