Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Oh yeah it's definitely a different resource to the artisan miners, I just think they want optimum positioning of all their sources in relation to their modules.
Sorry if I've not come over right, barely slept last night due to ill baby then other child bursting in at 6.30am, like they do!
Also, that's to say nothing of confirming logistics for the locations selected, utility supply etc etc. The location is NOT the thing to screw up on so fine with them taking their time as long as it results in the right decisions being made.
Gray1, I would have thought the reason it takes time for the locations is that they will want at least 3 things first beofre putting shovels in the ground:
1. Small miners secured near to the places they are going to put the modules (which requires due diligence on the miners and process of buying into them)
2. Surface rock copper % confirmed in the areas they have provisionally selected so they have sight of how long the module can realistically operate in that location for
3. Preparing presentations etc and getting IRH to sign off
None of those things will be quick
Just a gentle reminder to please be civil guys.....we were doing so well over the last couple of days and the bickering and sniping and piling on has returned again.....can we nip it in the bud and park any pettyness this evening now and return to proper discussion?
I think I get it now.....I've looked into the small miners a bit and here's my thoughts. Please any experts correct me if I'm wrong.
Mikie, it says in the last project update that they are buying controlling interests in the mining operations. It's still a partnership type operation but one where Jubes hold the controlling interest/power. It's interesting as it also talks about capacity, and clearly the IRH deal will provide enough capacity for, as it's stated, 'at least 4 Roan size modules'
So if that's the case it looks like it's very much a repeat of the Chrome operation expansion, where at the start it's joint venture stuff in the main being produced with IRH where we get a cut, but as we spend the $ we are making from this to buy these small mining operations and their reefs/dumps that they are aiming to buy in locations close to the modules we build, we will increase the % amount of Copper that we own from ground, through processing and refining, to the point of sale.
Look at the Chrome margins over the last year to see what happens when our % of self made product increases towards and beyond the amount of fixed toll processing for other people.
If they can expand at a similar rate to Chrome, i.e. from virtually nowhere to 2m tonnes in 4 years, then sky is the limit. Buuuut, with the added cash they will have from Chrome being available to either expand Chrome or Copper depending on where the most money lies without tapping shareholders or having to wait between building modules.....the speed and scale could be quite astounding.
I kept saying on here that given margins for using your own material it would make sense for us to get into that for Copper as well as the IRH deal....well looks like the IRH deal is the security and base cost provider for us to do just that with these small miners.
If this is totally common sense and known to everyone already and I'm a numpty that didn't see just what this small miner business was about till now then sorry. It's just been a lightbulb for me.
Sure, agree entirely. Basically though it's all good in that area unless Jubes do something monumentally ridiculous.
Like I said last night....come on Roan, that's the one that's the prood in the pudding that we need to see.
Also, in the interests of balance I'd say that there is probably a break clause around strategy and location of units, i.e. if Jubes produce a plan that makes no f*cking sense either logistically or financially IRH will be able to walk away with just costs to date incurred and break the partnership. For negative doomsayers that's probably the one to worry about. Unlikely to happen though as Jubes are the advisory experts here and IRH just the money men along for the ride.
Thanks Gray1....agree with the next step there :
"As per the agreement with IRH, Jubilee is undertaking a detailed resource definition to confirm the material reclamation strategy and location of the targeted processing units."
Also, that will be billable work to IRH so it has kicked off.
Frog, a binding framework is a contract. It's bigger than that though, it's a framework for multiple contracts and establishes the basic ground rules for them, meaning that contracts/agreements can then be spaffed out super fast later as all the key details are pre-agreed in the overarching framework. If IRH exercised their right to progress with the waste rock deal (they did) then it is legally binding, there is nothing more to sign as everything is covered in the framework, it's done....my question to you would be what do you think the next steps would be?
For me it's green light has been given, Jubes now start billable work. If you don't think the same then what do you think is inbetween where we are now and work getting underway? Again, this is how I see/understand things so I might be wrong just interested to know alternatives.
Ugh it posted before I pressed enter. As I was saying, they signed a binding FRAMEWORK which is an outline for a specific contract or group of contracts which establishes responsibilities, cost agreements etc etc. That's the bit that was inked months ago that WH Ireland refer to. Next is due diligence, which is where if Jubes weren't up to snuff IRH would have walked away. They didn't, they chose to exercise their rights within the framework for the waste rock project. So, that means they are signed up, it's underway. There will be break clauses for if Jubes can't/don't deliver, sure, but they are signed up to this project, and if it's a proper framework then potentially others later on down the line. At least, that's my experience and understanding of such things, appreciate different people and different countries do/understand things differently.
I agree entirely with everything you wrote there Kalan....except the bit about the IRH contract. I'm with Gotreal on that, they have signed it. I work in an industry where we deal with contracts like this all the time.....they signed a binding FRAMEWORK
'Ard, chatgpt doesn’t have an opinion as such it just spits out information using large language models/machine learning.'
I realise that dude, it was a happy anthropomorphism. I always call Claude by it's (his) name for example, if you know that LLM. I work in IT and I used these since day one and work for a consultancy which wants to be an AI Evangalist to big gov entities.
Mardei,
'whom got reals m,any faces bullied off the board disgracefully and seemed to take a sick pleasure when another share Bushy had fell. They were like a pack of dogs.'
So that's a dig at Gotreal, but also a dig at several other regular posting members, around 5 actually including myself, who he falsely claims are sock puppet accounts for Gotreal. It's attacking with inflammatory language and repeating false claims, both of which are likely to engender an annoyed response.
It would be analogous to me saying something like (and btw I don't believe this in the slightest, I've merely reversed the comments and implicated the more negatively disposed posters)
Look at Kalan, Gray1 and Heroric, all supporting each other suddenly when 2 of them allegedly don't even have a position. They are like a pack of dogs attacking anyone who disagrees with them, disgracefully hounding others with abuse. They are all the same person anyway just promoting their endless pathetic deramping attempts.
If I put that would it be inflammatory? Yes. Would they likely respond and argue? Yes, of course. Is it true? No. That's the issue with what Heroric just posted.
I guess I just don't understand why people can't be unemotional and objective and accurate with facts. To me that's not hard, it's basics. As has been said although this might be an unofficial shop window for a share, I think fundamentals and macroeconomics are the drivers for SP along with RNS for short term changes. Someone posting either long or short based commentary on here will do precisely buttkiss. Arguments are fine as long it's fact based as it can tease a lot of good info out and give other view points. Nobody wants the fibs, misstatements, and ad hominem stuff though. Is it so hard to be sensible?
Herororoic, can you do me a favour and step back for a minute and read your last post and recognise it was inflammatory and likely to cause reaction and argument? We're talking about trying to stop all that and have proper discussions and there you are lighting fires again. Discuss the share please, all you want, but let's not relitigate or try to settle scores from months or years ago. Can you do that?