Member Info for BigBiteNow

@Ihadanideaonce I don't disagree.

I do think theory is the wrong word though I note where you are coming from on this. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that the majority of these additional 4 wells are going to hit oil. It is more about how much.

In the interims presentation the company signalled that the 3 well programme at CP0-5 had 5.1 MMBO net to AMER. The conservative reality is that Indico alone has delivered some 6.8 MMBO of 2P reserves, and these

"1P and 2P volumes assume conservative production parameters and also assumes that at Indico the Oil Water Contact ("OWC") of the structure exactly coincides with the Lowest Known Oil ("LKO") defined by logs and in-situ sampling and pressure tests in Indico-1X."

It is clear that the Lowest Known Oil is lower than the current lowest drill point, so certainly more to come there.

It is highly likely that Calao and Pavo-Real will come in and if they go on to hit the "mean" average reserves, then I read that as being another 8.5 MMBO net to AMER.

That's over 15MMBO net to AMER against total 2P reserves as of 31.12.2017 of 20.7MMBO. That a 75% increase from a position some 12 months ago, from just the first 3 wells and we are talking "conservative."

I welcome further thoughts on this.

In the 2nd Jan update JW stated the following ;

"We have no doubt that further flow improvements may be achieved during LTT, as well as improvements to surface facilities in order to optimise production from the well."

It is interesting to note that even before the LTT has begun the well has increased from the initial 4,530 bopd to 5,130 bopd. I make that a 13% improvement in 3 weeks.

Whatsmore the estimates for the recoverable resources at both Calao and Indico-pavo have increased since the 2nd Jan update. See below.

Calao
2nd Jan - Between 2 and 7 MMBO
22nd Jan - Between 2 and 9.8 MMBO

More importantly
Pavo-Real (Now Indico Pavo)
2nd Jan - Between 2 and 23 MMBO
22nd Jan - Between 2 and 45 MMBO

The Pavo- Real drill is now described as being in the "combined Indico-Pavo prospect area" as opposed to "in this prospect" but that to me would surely double up on the declared Indico 2P reserves (effectively 22MMBO + 23MMBO), which doesn't sound correct.

What is clear though is that the analysis points to the greater quantities of oil being north west (Pavo) of Indico rather than south west (Calao). At least that is the expectation, although the company also states ;

"Given the potential for combination trapping, the Company believes potential resources may be significantly higher at both Calao-1 and Pavo Real-1."

All in all it looks very much like the total play is being played down and that what we are being told is the minimum expectation and not what will highly likely take place.

Also if Calao does come in significantly larger than anticipated in the figures above, then the whole play just got much bigger because of that north west expectation.

Musings aside this is looking very good indeed.

If it looks like lion, walks like a lion, roars like a lion, then its a lion.

Its not about when the SP rises but the fact it is going to rise, which in this game we play is enough.

I would like to add that the one niggling issue was the production at Platanillo and now that is settled, there is very little to hold this back given that the next spud is still on for January, which rapidly coming to a close.

The update does indeed confirm what the throughput to the OBA pipeline were during the period, but it was clear from the calculations that i posted last week that the figures did not confirm actual production.

The commentary from Nick Harrison was the company's position and he did say that the difference was attributed to royalty barrels, which has turned out to be the case.

That aside i very much like the talk of the third rig because what it does if nothing else is confirm that the second rig is a goer. When one considers the size of the find, it makes perfect sense to take advantage of the situation with what is fairly easy low cost expansion.

The 5,426 bopd hides one or two problems over at Platanillo, which could do with be ironed out, but it looks very much like being the lowest case scenario upon which to build up production. I remain a little dubious as to the company's ability to get Put-8 off the ground in H1, given the reliance they have on other parties. So that particular play is very much a bonus for me right now. However, i am equally very encouraged by the Put 9 update and those 6 wells starting in Q3. With Occidental involved I feel the update is far more believable.

Year of 10,000 bopd should be an absolute minimum but with 3 rigs on the go plus some success at Put 9, close to 15,000 bopd is reachable.

The company's strategy for the last few years has been a target of 20,000 bopd by the end of 2019. They may end up being a lot closer to this than many LTHs could ever have dreamed about, even as recently as this time last year. What a turn around.

@Richken Thank you for the heads up. I have checked the SP Angel report and see no date reference. I will assume it is as of 18.01.2019, which they have provided previously.

If so then the FeV price has eased very slightly since the previous week (mid price then $78 v $77.25 this week), which may be down to weaker prices in China encouraging more export to external markets.

Taking the mid price range of $77.25 per kg, makes the BMN Q1 average after 7 weeks circa $82.20 per kg, which is roughly $4 higher than the 2018 year average and smack bang in the middle of my anticipated $80-85 expected price range.

Apologies the actual full H2 figure should have been £65.4m. Apologies for any confusion caused. Time for lunch I feel.

So having said all of that and given we are now fast approaching the first major news of the year, here's a reminder of why I think BMN remains so undervalued.

The Q4 update will deliver the strongest set of results that BMN has ever experienced.

As late as 9th Nov the company revised its full year guidance for 2018. That was nearly 6 weeks into a 13 week cycle and came off the back of 2 previous downgrades. Therefore, for me it is rock solid and dependable.

The company has stated that actual realised vanadium prices consistently run 1 month prior to production. By using the average vanadium price i calculated an average h1 price of $61,500. BMN achieved $60,800. At 99% accuracy the same calculation is worthy of continuing.

Q4 average prices came in at $112.40 per kg. Even employing a mean average 'sold' production of 725 mtv, we would see EBITDA come in at $58m (at 100% Vametco basis) when employing the same operating cost as stated in H1. With an average exchange rate of $1.30, that would equate to £44.6m.

Q3 was the weak link and on paper slightly more complicated.

Costs were higher at ZAR 297 (H1 ZAR 248) but the exchange rate was lower at ZAR 14.1 (H1 ZAR 248). So the production cost (not operating cost) was $21,000 during this quarter, compared to $20,150 in H1.

However, the Q4 top end production cost guidance was ZAR 255. We know that the exchange rate remained at circa ZAR 14.1, so the result is a production cost of $18,100 on greater production.

That is a $2,000 per mtv swing from H1 and at 725 mtv equates to $1.45m. Q3 counters this somewhat with a 584 mtv x $850 = $496,400 swing the other way. All in all though the gain is nearly $1m.

But if we park that and say it is buffer, we can return to the actual achieved figures and continue to base them on the actual H1 operating cost as communicated in the Q2 Operational Update RNS from 22nd August.

So in my view the £44.6m is valid.

The average price for Q3 was $78.70 per kg. At 584 mtv and employing that H1 operating cost we will see EBITDA come in at $27m, which equates to £20.75m.

That delivers a total of £62.4m in EBITDA for H2 on a 100% basis when Vametco sold at least 725 mtv in Q4 2018.

Thoughts wise I would add this.

I think the top end of the guidance is very much on and may even be exceeded. The latest guidance was certainly in my opinion safe, driven by the previously 2 failures.

Actual sales are of course different to production but for every argument that says the figure could be lower, there is one for it actually being higher.

Vametco results won't demonstrate what the company has been up to elsewhere but there will go a long way to demonstrating what BMN is about before it's potential is factored in.

£62.5m in H2 EBITDA will sail BMN very close to the £100m full year mark, which for demonstrates a valuation significantly north of where we are today. So I expect a reaction if my figures are indeed close.

@Knuttie The exuberant desire to tell this story naturally allows detraction to breed, but it is in my view a healthy thing given the risks involved in investing. At this stage of BMN's development it is for me unnecessary but understandable, but one must realise that not everyone was here at the start, not everyone understands every angle or corner of the BMN story, and everyday that originality is gradually diluted further.

The next set of news items may well deliver the transformation that is signposted but it isn't necessary for it to happen immediately. That is for me key here. We are not chasing success. Success is here, it has already found us. Now its about just how great it will it be and how will we get there.

That is why I focus so heavily on the vanadium price because it's wonderfully stubborn desire to remain above $70 is highly likely the biggest news we will receive this year. Price is after all as good as god in these parts.

Prices above that range allows existing producers of vanadium to reap the greatest benefits from this period of supply deficit, and of those on that short list, BMN has the most to offer. Price one way or another will deliver all the other elements to this story and right now it is at a level that is more than enough to satisfy all existing shareholders, in time.

So whilst the company has stated that the JSE listing will come in Q1 2019, and that I expect it to trigger the major element of the planned investment from the company, (that being the $100m figure banded about by Mrs Edeh) the expected solid Q4 update along with a progressive production guidance for 2019, delivering added cost savings, will be in itself be significant enough to support much of that exuberant behaviour I am sure.

However, everything points to big change coming this quarter and the release of a new plan, a plan that pushes beyond the phase 3 changes at Vametco, and it is a plan that will indeed be transformational, whatever it costs to get there.

Such a delivery makes perfect sense for a company that will want to demonstrate its future capabilities prior to moving into a 2nd quarter that will be all about Bushveld Energy and that BESS project.

(2 of 2)

With thus far limited further news being available from the company, I can only employ the data that I currently have access to. Of that the two latest offerings are the most important.

Chika Edeh stated this on 29th November 2018 ;

“There is a growing demand in the [Bushveld] story from South African investors,” Edeh continued, “and a lot of cash in South Africa. We find investors want to deploy that in key stories and Bushveld is one of those."

“We have had a number of institutional investors wanting to take a position in Bushveld but to do so we have to be listed on the JSE.”

FM in his end of year message said this ;

"Listing on the JSE will give South African capital exposure to the Bushveld’s story while broadening the Company’s access to capital to facilitate its ambitious growth plans and enhance its profile further in the global capital markets."

The information is limited but with what is being signposted as broad interest across the SA markets, I can't help but feel that a funding raise upon admission is the simplest way to allow a broad spectrum of SA investors access to the BMN story. A debt financing package in my view would be specifically aimed at certain investors and would limit the scope and not answer the desire the company is showing in making this a broader SA story. Of course that could all just a show and the real reason be centred around specific investors but that isn't for me how FM and Co work. They are proud of this SA story and have shown a willingness to be fair along the way, so I think they will want to get as many SA investors involved as possible, so I am back to that fund raise again.

The company has ambitious plans and wants to move to secure a substantial part of the expanding vanadium market. The move to 10,000 mtv would make BMN the largest vanadium producer in the world. That's a very big SA story and one that needs to be on the JSE and needs to be available to the money that matters in SA. To achieve that growth BMN needs SA business, regulators and government on board. The ability to own a piece of the story that would then unfold goes a long way to gaining that overall support.

So in whatever form the fund raise comes, becasue it is certainly coming (and lets be clear this is just my view point based on very limited available data), one should perhaps avoid focusing in on the actual upfront dilutive elements etc and concentrate more on the bigger picture and the fact that this company conducts its business in SA, not in London.

As always, I expect FM and Co to be focusing on the long game not the short, because as has been proven time and again here, that is what delivers the greatest returns when one has the patience to allow it.

(1 of 2)

@Sanchez599 You may well be right and perhaps I am being a little conservative with my figures or indeed narrow minded with my approach to future financing. However, please do not confuse a desire to test conservative cases with my beliefs on capabilities and actual outcomes.

At this stage of BMN's development I feel it is better to test and analyse conservative outcomes because they demonstrate the value that is still to play out and the size of the free carry elements that exists. That in itself sets up the strength of the percentage play on future outcomes. After all this company is trading at close to £500m, which comes with expectations.

By constantly talking up extended pricing and production scenarios, we set ourselves up to fail, even if the final outcome still turns out to be stronger than the market is currently giving BMN credit for. Much remains possible but as the events of 2018 have shown us, the reality may not be quite so strong as is often written here. By testing lower case scenarios here, I know just how much wriggle room remains, which is key to me at this stage of my investment.

I am and remain a strong supporter of debt instruments as the way forward. For those that remember I was adament that said instruments were available once BMN took a controlling stake in Vametco in December 2017. However, for whatever reason the company did not exploit this and instead raised funds on the capital markets becasue they wanted the added experience that those particular investors brought with them. Yes there is talk of at least one of those investors fleeing the coup, but they clearly weren't the key element of that particular cash raise. That raise has in part allowed the SP to rise some 250% from where it was prior to that point in time, so the evidence says to me I have no reason to fear any further raise moving forward becasue this BOD is demonstrating that it is good at what it does. This is further enhanced when I think back to what the last raise was about, which such apparently limited goals declared on the surface.

The next finance raise in whatever form the company decides to deliver it, is focused on far greater developments, so if anything i am chomping at the bit to see it, because it is in my view the gamechanger.

Good morning all, whilst the Lemur project is a legacy project, there is value in it and none of us should be complacent just because the Vanadium platform is performing so strongly right now.

For an insight as to where the project is heading one must look no further than the company website.

"In March 2017, the company finalized an MOU with Power China/Sinohydro to cooperate on a technical and potentially, financial basis.

Under the terms of the MOU, Sinohydro will be the Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) partner.

The MOU will also give the two companies the opportunity to explore debt financing and equity participation options with Power China as well as other Chinese Funders"

Sinohydro will be building the project and it is intended that PowerChina will take a stake. If Lemur is to be floated then the perfect time to introduce an equity stake for Power China would be through new shares being issued ina newly floated Lemur.

Hence my view that the initial valuation will be fairly low becasue the project needs to allow for said cash raises.

The project expects to achieve financial close by the end of 2019 but intends to start construction during 2019. The mine element CAPEX of the build at Scoping stage, was circa $12m. Perhaps that is where the investment will be focused as PowerChina comes on board, prior to the more sizeable finance raise for the power plant.

I say all this because my gut is that all of this is going to play out very soon becaue of 2 reasons.

1. There are a number of deadlines that were signposted for end of 2018 and indeed earlier, which appear to be being drawn out. That lends itself to an end game move in my view.

2. BMN has always shown a desire top get this project to a point that it delivered fair value to existing shareholders. However, the BOD will be aware that with the energy element of the business expected to make significant progress in 2019, interest from newer greener orientated investors will grow and Lemur doesn't sit well within that space. That lends itself to cutting the business loose as early as possible in 2019, so that BMN can play more on its greener credentials.

That's what I would be doing if the progress was there to allow it, which with the two BFSs capable of being completed by now, certainly should be possible.

Existing shareholders may not end up loving the initial final outcome for Lemur but as a stand alone business, it has the ability to deliver a good return over the next 2-3 years. If of course it is the sort of business one would like to be involved in.

https://www.bushveldminerals.com/lemur-resources-to-develop-coal-fired-power-station-in-south-western-madagascar/

@Niles To be clear I am not attempting to antagonise you or anyone else here, i am an investor seeking debate and that is exactly what this is. It is difficult to convey all thinking through the words we post. Often thoughts range wider that what we are able to clearly say, so forgive me if I have misguided you with my thinking.

I have not been here 3 years and but i have been invested here before. I recognise that previously communications were an issue. My comment was not all encompassing, it was based on your own comment regarding the quarterly update only. Yes the data shows that throughput reduced around about the time of the change to quarterlies, but that announcement also came just 8 days after the appointment of Elodie Grant Goodey, whose CV reads like that of an oil E&P communications guru. If nothing else that offers a counter argument to your feared assumption.

It is also important not to mix up previous performance with current, something which can be challenging when one's hard earned is put under consistent pressure by lack of progress and missed timelines.

I never said I wasn't concerned, i said from the analysis of the data the problem has not yet been proven but even if it was, in the context of the greater picture the current valuation is too low. Thus at the very minimum I can afford to wait and see what the company says. If this was trading at 18p without the Indico-1 discovery and the OXY deal, then my position may well be far different.

You stated "if it's not going down the OBA, after we have had an agreed increased capacity I have to conclude the production is very similar to the OBA through put, no?"

Well you assume that agreed capacity means guaranteed capacity. Previous monthly production updates demonstrate that production can be very different to OBA throughput. Take the 4th April 2018 as an example.

"Average daily production was 6,476.5 barrels of oil ("bopd") during the Period."

"Average daily throughput was 5,544.8Â BO during the Period."

That si over 900 bopd difference for a full month.

If we look at the broader picture then we see that in 2017 the average production was 4,857 bopd but OBA througput was just 4,440 bopd with a peak delivery of 10,127 bopd. Again, that's 150,000 barrels of oil difference.

Minimum agreed capacity for the OBA with Petroamazonas then was 5,000 bopd.

At the very least this evidence makes me question the validity of your assumption that the OBA throughout is automatically the same as production. Yes throughput is running much lower than the newly agreed minimum capacity, but that doesn't automatically say that the problem is with Platanillo or that Petroamazonas are playing fair.

Throw in the previous 8th June 2018 1,000 bopd production drop, which the company didn't shy away from,and came well before the company had strong news to counter its affects, I have to at the very least keep an open mind backed by the value support that OXY and CP0 give me.

@Niles I'm sorry but I am not guessing. I am employing the evidence that you have provided in order to reduce the posssibilities and analyse the risk.

The main concern was that Platanillo production had substantially reduced.

The data on the website when compared to the production reports from the company, clearly demonstrates that the data on the website is OBA pipeline throughput only. If it were production then the figures are not accurate and thus the validity of the data must be questioned. It cannot be both. Therefore, to insinuate that there is a production problem is incorrect at this juncture.

It remaisn on the table but this whole debate was started by the posting of that website. Yes the question of why OBA throughput is looking substantially lower needs to be answered, but at the very same time the data does not guarantee that thee is a problem at AMER's end.

We await the quarterly update but it is not late and so communication is not poor.

But i repeat what i said earlier, the company just upped it production by roughly the amount of oil this data is showing the OBA throughput is reduced by, with just 1 new well at CP0-5

So the company is a 5,000 bopd low cost oil producer with access to what is looking like one of the largest oil discoveries in Columbia. 18-20p simply does not cut it even with this production question out there. What it may do is provide a temporary buying opportunity, that is all.

I do find this browbeating of posters rather distasteful, particularly given the strength of the position that LTHs here find themselves in. This isn't 2015/16. There is no need to be so defensive. If some visitors here cannot see the opportunity then that is their right and in my opinion their loss, and comments that are not to one's taste should be simply ignored.

Those that have succeeded and are continuing to succeed with this investment, should do so with grace and should not allow this very important idea sharing environment to descend to a level where the majority no longer wishes to take part. If that means rising above and/or turning the other cheek, then so be it. Does it really matter?

Nobody has the right to tell others that they should not be here or that their opinion is not allowed to be aired. What they do have the right to do is to counter those arguments with intelligent investment related knowledge, or failing that simply ignore them.

Policing a BB will only ever lead to more contributors losing out than it should have.

That is my opinion only, which i have the right to share and you all have the right to ignore, that's the beauty of all this.

@Megan1 How you approach you investments is entirely up to you, but in my opinion such a broad brush anlysis and comparison is dangerous and will lead to poor decision making. One has to take the merits, actions and facts of each company on an individual basis.

I simply do not see any 'big hype' with AMER, if anything the majority of shareholders lean towards the its too good to be true stable driven by years of disappointment here. At circa 20-30 posts a day here, one would be forgiven for thinking that the majority of the investing world is ignoring the achievements that AMER has made these last few months.

What is taking place here is a standard correction driven by a substantial initial rise, which allowed some traders and investors who had belief in the 10-11p range, plus some rather exhausted LTHs, to exit with a very tidy profit/and or reduced loss. That's investing, that's how it works. A combination of different minded investors coming together to set the tone for each company's valuation.

This is all about the fundamentals and that is where the focus should be, not on a 10-12% retrace. Although the retrace will be adding to the strength of the next push north because it is taking the stock out of overbought territory in preparation and support of, that next rise.

The only concern I had with this investment was the oil price. The move by the Saudis has for the time being guaranteed oil above $60, which is absolutely fine given the low cost base AMER has. That gives the company ample ammunition to drive its expansion based on what it has already found, nevermind what is still in the ground waiting to be opened up.

The retrace may not be over, we may see another 10%, who knows, but if like me you are a LTH, then it is of little relevance because the next heavily signposted events at CP0-5 will drive it to new highs, because the oil discovery there dominates this story, not the natural ebb and flows of the SP we see today.

I wish you well whatever your reasons for being here may be.

The March production figures (released 4th April 2017) show the following ;

"Average daily production was 4,345 barrels of oil per day ("bopd") during the Period.

Peak daily production was 4,381 bopd during the Period.

Average daily throughput was 4,180 bopd during the Period.

Peak daily throughput was 4,808 bopd during the Period."

On the website there are 20 days from a possible 31 recorded with an average 4,170 bopd. Of the 11 days that are missing 8 of the days fall within a period where production remained very steady at between 4,000 and 4,250 bopd, so would highly likely have been similar and thus would ahve had little affect on the 4,170 average.

2 more days 24.03 and 25.03 sit between production of 4,100 and 4,300, so again would highly likely be similar and thus not influence the average by very much.

That leaves 1 day (30.03) which sits in a period of increased production between 4,600 and 4,800 bopd. However, even taking the average (4,700), that is still only 500 extra barrels of oil to be shared out amongst 31 days, so circa 16 barrels per day increase.

Therefore, a number around about 4,150 to 4,200 bopd is a worthwhile assumption against AMER reported average production of 4,345 bopd. So again we are coming up short on the website.

Furthermore, AMER production peaked at 4,381 bopd that month but the website states that on 31.03.2017 Amerisur produced 4,806 bopd. Amerisur reported peak throughput at 4,808 bopd that month.

That points very strongly to the data being throughput related and not Amerisur production related. There may well be a problem with the OBA capacity but the data on that website is NOT pointing to a production proble at this time.

Yes storage capacity is in question but is manageable given there are other options available (trucking) to the company. That may mean temporary increases in costs but surely if the capacity problem is external to AMER, there must be recourse because the minimum capacity is contract driven.

The answers that Mr Harrison gave Moneylender regarding the government taking oil from the well head when they want, does hold water given the above evidence and should be considered equal to that of problems with the OBA pipeline, until such time that further evidence is made available.

To be clear though the figures on the website, be they genuine or not, point towards being OBA throughput related and not AMER production, and that is the key take away for me.

@Niles I'm sorry but that conclusion does not sit right with me.

The OBA was operational in October 2016 with initial rates of 1,500 bopd per day and guaranteed right to throughput of upto 5,000 bopd.

The RNS that I have quoted from March 2017 was the first monthly production update and took place 4 months later.

In there the company clearly states the following ;

"Average daily production was 4,262 barrels of oil per day ("bopd") during the Period.

Peak daily production was 4,337 bopd during the Period.

Average daily throughput was 3,554 bopd during the Period.

Peak daily throughput was 4,011 bopd during the Period."

A second analysis of the website in question delivers actual production at circa 3,275 bopd from 12 days recorded
(first analysis was broad brush) but as I stated earlier, even employing the 4,337 bopd peak production for the remaining 16 days, the average production still only comes in at circa 3,880 bopd.

That's over 380 bopd less than Amer reported. However, the figure is more in line with the average throughput stated above although the conclusion would be assumed rather than proven.

What is clear though is that the trucking of oil is irrelevant because the peak throughput is stated as 4,011 bopd, which is higher than the highest achievable average production as stated by the website in question. So it very much appears to have nothing to do with the trucking oil because higher capacity was there in February 2017.

Now it may well be that AMER were trucking oil anyway (doubtful given what I have just said but lets run with it anyway), but if they were then they could be again, which brings back into play the production v throughput question. If they weren't doing so back in February 2017, which the available throughput evidence points in part towards, then even back then at least 700 bopd of storage capacity existed because that's exactly what the February production update demonstrates.

So at the very least the details on the website are questionable and are throughput related only. If they are full production, which i am back to doubting, then they aren't in line with what the company reported at the time. so there are discrepancies, which requre further analysis.

@Orackle there is absolutely no question of the strength of the investment case here. It is merely about the process required to achieve the return. Centre to that is patience. Oil wells do not get drilled overnight, it takes time. Whilst we wait market dynamics will play out and retraces after strong movements north will take place, but they are irrelevant so long as the fundamentals hold true.

Some may choose to jump ship whilst there is a lull, that is their prerogative. When I find a company which such well signposted upside, I choose to build a large stake, monitor and wait.

That's where I've experienced the vast majority of my success. Two years or so on this trajectory will deliver substantial returns here, all it requires is that patience.

Thank you for the link. I have just had a brief review of Feb 2017 and noted the following;

The website appears to only record weekdays. There are only 12 days recorded for February 2017, so we are missing 8 working days.

1 day of the 12 available has zero production (apologies the wording does point to production it seems). Thus the average production for the month comes in at circa 3,200 bopd. American is their monthly production report stated production ran at an average of 4,262 bopd with peak production of 4,337 bopd.

Given the figures available, even if production ran at the peak figure of 4,337 bopd for the other 16 days of the month (which is highly unlikely), the average production figure still wouldn't reach the 4,262 bopd figure.

So my initial first pass does not support a conclusion that the figures on the website are correct. When I get a little more time I will test other months further.