focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
On my LSE screen the RNS is not showing, so other than I assume lvl2 traders and us, and those that have time to keep up with tweets. I am not sure that we can rely on reading the market reaction at this stage.
Just for a purely hypothetical scenario,
Company x offers £100 / t for 1 million t
Company y offers £140t to buy the entire tenement.
Company x is a straight transaction
Company y triggers the performance clause and we have to know how much we need to pay windfield in order to calculate the best deal.
There is no trigger atm, however in any negotiations ie aa, Mr v pointed out it’s best to know how much we will have to pay windfield in order to calculate accurately the bottom line.
Hence the comment on 3 rd august RNs “the company continues to negotiate with windfield on agreed valuation basis for this payment”
windfield are not renegotiating, due to terms of the contract for han**** we have to pay a performance fee, based on uplift value. the contract did not as far as we know specify how this was to be calculated, therefore a value between the original value for unknown dirt and the current value with dso needs to be determined. hope this is what you were asking.
Dickie
It’s not the private investors here that sent the price down, it was the few days after the RNs where share volume was 150 million, 200 million etc. this was not private investors but larger holders and I am sure they don’t take advice from this bb
Mr v
I have spent a lot of time looking at this and agree that it is controversial, however i believe the 3 rd august to be the true interpretation, this is further clarified by the awarding of shares to Alwyn and Troy for the successful negotiation.
Either the contract has been clarified/ changed recently or the 24th august RNs was mistyped..
@max
whatever happens the payment has to be made. unfortunately it’s a very bad deal that takes a considerable portion of the value from han****.
it’s possibly another reason for the share price fall after it was clarified in the 3rd august rns
@ chris
yes it does look like a poor deal, but the uplift value is undefined therefore up for negotiation. also after 60 months from date of contract it is no longer valid.
that’s why the bod is looking at other tenements and possibly why the are not conserving money by solely focusing on han****., hopefully lithium is a new possibility that may send us in another direction .
i am not de ramping but trying to see reality. gla
most of our frustration is that we have a good dso on the ground, right in front of us, and we all thought no problem just grab it and ship. the delays grow longer.
my thoughts are the stumbling block and silence from the board are due to one now obvious clause, the performance payment.
bear with me and a very basic analogy, and may well not truly reflect how this will play out.
han**** 9.1 m/t less 10% we don’t own = 8.19m/t
then we have the performance payment payable when the decision to mine is made ie before any income. this in very basic terms is 50% of the uplift value.
8.19 less 50% = 4.095m/t at current or future prices is this currently worthwhile.
the decisions that are still unclear, how to value the uplift, how to pay the uplift, do we sell somewhere else to fund, do we mine elsewhere ie until the performance payment is no longer valid - it’s valid only for 60 months, then we keep all.
the board cannot at this point say we are mining as then we will be paying.
i think this clause is very clever and designed to be a win win for one person.
as i said this is very basic analogy but designed to put forth some of my thoughts.
Firstly Dickie ,Rod no longer works for us he quit on 30th June.
Yes I am concerned re the selling price and hope alien has a very prosperous future.
After spending all day yesterday going thru RNS one by one and the new presentation, I have come to the conclusion that BOD have given most of the information we are seeking, In regards to the future direction, something, that may be a little unclear, even to them at present. As, I can make out several options for alien going forward, hence possibly their reluctance to do interviews.
I don’t believe the stumbling block is with the Knac approval it may already be approved or delayed by a new process, but have no evidence that there is a problem.
Re the selling price decline, someone or a number of large investors dumped shares, who or why we don’t know, and we may never. This triggered stop losses, and the bod announcement and the placing did more damage, followed possibly by capitulation by some, following the delay announcement. Currently we have a strange situation of more buys than sells but the selling price remains low?
As for our funding, at present we have enough to keep going, I feel a decision will be forthcoming at some stage in the next two months as to our direction, and the funding options going forward depend on the route taken.
Changing board again, although I am not happy, this would just destabilise further, so we must wait and see.
Just my thoughts and interpretation of the info we have GLA.
Maybe clarification is needed in another RNs, unless its in writing then the later version may still apply.
I am not suggesting you are not telling the truth but it does leave room for future investors to make a good or a bad decision depending on which RNs they believe.