Member Info for BritishPeculeum

Solid results for six months ending 30th June 2025, and a 20% increase in the interim dividend:

“M.P. Evans, a producer of sustainable Indonesian palm oil, announces its unaudited interim results for the six months ended 30 June 2025.

HIGHLIGHTS

· 13% increase in mill-gate CPO price - 2025 US$868 per tonne, 2024 US$771 per tonne

· Significantly better crop mix with Group's own crop 8% higher

· 3% reduction in total crop processed - 2025 - 737,700 tonnes, 2024 - 759,700 tonnes

· 2% reduction in total crude palm oil production - 2025 - 172,800 tonnes, 2024 - 177,000 tonnes

· 10% increase in certified sustainable CPO production - 2025 - 131,300 tonnes, 2024 119,500 tonnes

· 3% decrease in cost of Group palm product - 2025 US$446 per tonne, 2024 US$458 per tonne

· 50% increase in operating profit - 2025 US$62.2 million, 2024 US$41.6 million

· 60% increase in earnings per share - 2025 - 71.7 pence, 2024 - 44.9 pence

· 20% increase in interim dividend per share - 2025 - 18 pence, 2024 - 15 pence

· Strong net cash surplus - 2025 net cash US$70.5 million, 2024 - net debt US$7.3 million

M.P. Evans chairman, Peter Hadsley-Chaplin, commented: "The Group has continued to make excellent strategic progress in the first half of 2025. We are benefiting from the move to a greater proportion of production coming from our own harvest, and results have been further enhanced by the strong commodity-price environment. As we move into the second half of the year, the Group has added a further 3,000 planted hectares to its portfolio, and both CPO and PK prices remain robust."

A presentation for analysts will be held today at 9.30am at the offices of Hudson Sandler at 25 Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6AE.

15 September 2025”

Isas, possibly not updated it if changes are afoot?

Ridgeld maybe. Some form of Revolving Credit Facility may be the way to go, a facility that has the flexibility of being drawn down in whole or part, if or when it is needed.

MTSparky and OhDearAlan - let’s hope so, although personally, I’m not holding my breath!! Have a good weekend in the meantime.

Fair point ElectricLion.

The market however is institutions, board members, analysts, shareholders, where everyone’s view is rolled in to the mix. I’ve seen it before where a company has kept rolling out the good news, and yet the market fails to respond in the way that one would expect, that is consistent with the news. If there’s something not quite right in the model, and the market has doubts about it, then that’s when we might see weakness in the sp, as I believe we are seeing and have been seeing with MTL since it peaked mid-July at 16p.

I agree that it’s the prerogative of the Board to plot its path, and I’ve seen the positive response of a re-rate, when the Board has delivered what it said it would, contrary to the more common sentiment of “the market”. I’ve also seen blood on the floor at the odd AGM, and in sp pull back, where the Board’s strategy wasn’t aligned with the wider view of “the market”.

In answer to your point that the Board should obtain funding when they need it; in an ideal world, that would be true. The world in which MTL lives however is a highly complex, dynamic mining exploration and development field located on opposite sides of the world in time zones 14 hours apart, where it is reliant upon one income stream at this point in time and is exposed to a whole raft of contingencies at any given point. It’s for that reason why I would argue that we do need a raise now, as cover for headroom gaps and contingencies.

An unpopular opinion it might be, but it is as it is, just an opinion.

Punter: Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

I have heard DB say that La India is fundable out of cash, but I have not heard him say that about Dupax or Abra.

Cuckold… it’s unlikely that my word, or indeed anyone else’s on these boards will have any bearing on the sp of MTL. I’m happy at 9p because I believe in the project long term and its opportunity. I also believe that obtaining funding for any potential or perceived headroom gaps in the project would demonstrate to the market that MTL is sustainable and credibly deliverable. At the moment, I believe the sp reflects the market’s sentiment that is asking new and relevant questions of MTL that tests that credibility.

Even if the Dupax drilling comes back really positive, and the sp spikes, it still leaves the same question unanswered: “given the risks on the ground with MTL, how deliverable is this model from cashflow?”

Thanks Punter and Freefaller.

Punter, I get that that is the plan, but there’s a lot of ifs buts and maybes along the way from where we are, and for MTL to put all of its faith on one income stream to finish on a constant, and another one to get built-out and started on a constant, that is a big ask, and all I am saying is that the market always looks at these scenarios from a worst case perspective. If the market thinking is that somewhere on the critical path of all of that plus Dupax development plus Abra appraisal and development starting in Q1 2026, that there might be gaps in the headroom required to keep all the plates spinning at the same time, then the market will react accordingly. That’s just what I am sensing, and quite honestly, I think in fairly short timescale, the sp would respond favourably to the news of additional funding to fill any potential or perceived headroom gaps in any case.

Freefaller, I also take on board your point that Artisanal mining in mining concessions is an issue the world over. This recent particular incident is one that defers the income to a later stage. The issue as the market sees it however, is that it is the only income stream for MTL, and a wake-up call to the question: “given the risks on the ground with MTL, how deliverable is this model from cashflow?”

Mr Smith I’m hoping that the economics of Dupax will be understood by the end of 2025, not 2026. Even so, I still believe that despite what DB says, the market will want to see more headroom allowed in the capitalisation of La India and Dupax, particularly with unexpected artisan miner influences arising through to the last knockings of Runruno suddenly coming from nowhere, and any potential unexpected construction delays at La India. The market doesn’t care how special a CEO DB is, but the market knows even DB can’t manage matters like weather, global supply issues, political issues in-country…

I am aware that DB said that La India was fundable out of cash generated from Runruno but I am not aware of him saying the same about Dupax and Abra.

Surrey is that in an RNS? I must’ve missed that one.

GLA

Lots of unknowns with MTL before it gets to a stage of supporting a sustainable dividend.

Before that, and in fairly short order, I would expect to see further dilution, and I would say that the market will want to see that also, to ensure that the development of La India, Dupax and Abra, is sustainable and deliverable, in the context of the risks and uncertainty that the company currently faces.

The facts:

1. MTL is dependent on an end-of-life concession, with unexpected operational issues arising.

2. La India is yet to be built, and is reliant upon no significant construction delays to dovetail the start of production with the end of operations at Runruno to be funded solely out of cash generated by Runruno.

3. In the meantime, it is not yet known whether Dupax is a commercial possibility, and if it is, what capital is required to get and keep it there.

4. Abra is even further away in terms of the development cycle. Again, it’s commercial feasibility and the capital required to get it there is still to be established.

From the market’s perspective, to deliver all of that development off the back of a single income stream from an end-of-life asset, that is encountering unexpected production difficulties, it’s hardly surprising that the share price is on the slide. What I believe we are currently seeing is the market’s perception of the risk exposure of the venture without further capitalisation, and the market’s knowledge of MTL on-the-raise, and IMHO that is what is currently being priced-in.

Enter stage left: new boys Panmure Liberum, with a book in hand…

And before the vitriol starts about me deramping, I’m long on MTL, averaging just over 9p per share. For me, a raise by the Company at probably something in the order of 7-8p is and would be welcome at this time, with so much potential news to come regarding Dupax, La India and Abra, the sp will soon recover, and give those of us that believe in MTL as a long-term investment the opportunity to average down/top-up, whatever you will.

AIMHO

DYOR

GLA

MTSparky I agree that it doesn’t look great at all regarding the mystery investor, but there might be good reason for that. The investor might currently have a contractual obligation to the board of a third party until a date in the future.

We just don’t know and this requires a huge amount of faith and patience on PXC’s investors’ part, but I am sure this investor really does exist. The main reason I say this is the fact that Jason Riley, CEO of ExGen Resources Inc. (TSXV: EXG) the company that has a 20% carried interest in Konnex Inc. the holding company that owns the land and associated mineral interests at Empire Mine, is also a Non-Exec Director of PXC. It’s highly doubtful that he would be complicit in PXC pulling a spoof investor out of thin air just to spin this out for the sake of it. Why would he want to do that? It’s possibly the reason why he does retain a seat on the Board to ensure that such doesn’t happen.

Furthermore, on 13th August 2025, EXG entered into a Letter of Intent to merge with MTB Metals Inc, and if I am reading the signs correctly, the timing of the merger deal is contingent on the funding dropping into place for PXC on Empire.

I might be wrong on this, but I would not be surprised to see PXC acquiring EXG’s 20% in Konnex, in consideration for a cash, shares and net smelter royalty agreement, in order to take full control of the Empire project. As I see it, it’s the only way that Empire is fundable, and I would say that it’s highly likely to be one of the conditions that needs to be satisfied at closing for the PXC funding deal to proceed.

It would not surprise me that that is what the delay is all about… pulling all the parties together to make that happen.

AIMHO.

GLA

Red666 - how do you know they’re from the US?

The identity of the investor means nothing to the SP. His/her signature on the bond funding is what I think we are all that interested in.

GLA.

Freedom4Uall, I’m back… and then again, maybe not!

So, in Q1 2025 Heidelberg Materials acquired Eastern US focused cement operator, Giant Cement Holdings Inc at a valuation of 10x forward EBITDA, according to analyst Davy. East Coast US, arguably a more saturated market than central KZ, on the flip-side arguably a hedge against US tariffs by Heidelberg in a market which prior to the Giant acquisition it had a significantly smaller market share (c14%) than it did in KZ (2024: c35%). So it is possible that it paid a premium for Giant driven by impending tariffs.

However…

If we were to assume 10 x forward EBITDA, based crudely on EBITDA for the current year being in line with last year’s actual EBITDA of $7.5m (2023: $12.4m) then on a comparable basis, we might be somewhere in the order of $75m, which at current exchange rate equates to 25.36p per share. So yes, we are going to be there or thereabouts whichever way you skin the cat.

As a further hedge, I’m now long on ExGen Resources Inc. (TSXV Ticker: EXG) the Company that owns the 20% carried interest in Empire, the thinking being that if things go “Pete Tong” here with PXC, EXG will still hold its 20% stake in Konnex, which is the holding company for Empire. The revised 2024 “Carry Agreement” between PXC and EXG will still stand, which, as I see it, provides PXC (or successor of PXC’s 80% interest in Konnex) with the obligation to agree the terms of the funding of Empire with EXG before being able to proceed (a) with the funding, and therefore (b) with the construction of the open pit. If how it is described in the RNS is how it is in the contract, EXG is in a strong position to negotiate hard with PXC (or its successor) to extract significant value out of Empire even before a lb of copper has been extracted.

If I am on the right track with this school of thought, I would say that negotiations between PXC and EXG is most likely the reason why this funding deal has not yet been closed.

Isas similarly, I got suckered in last year when they got the bond agreed with NIU, so not quite as long suffering as you, but equally found myself seriously underwater.

Likewise I have taken the opportunity to average down, but I am massively overweight here now as a result, and still underwater!!!

I hope for you, me and all of the other mugs that got hooked in here, that there is a silver, gold and copper lining to this rather grey murky cloud…

Freedom4Uall… maybe.

When you consider the geography of Kazakhstan and the location of STCM’s operations (Central) in relation to the geographical location of its competitors, it’s easy to see the benefits that an acquisition of STCM would bring in their consolidation of market share in the country.

The two obvious ones would be Heidelberg Materials and International Cement Group (ICG) who both have grown their market share in the KZ market through acquisition of existing operations in the country, but all of their operations are on the periphery of the country. STCM has a 13% market share, all coming from a plant in the central location in KZ.

Add into the mix the introduction of Chinese investment into the KZ market: Sinoma Cement is building a brand new 1.3m tonne per annum capacity in Aktobe in the West of KZ, which will be in full operation in 2027. But Sinoma has said that it has plans for further expansion projects into Kazakhstan. And this is just one Chinese company. The delivery of China’s “Belt and Road” expansion strategy could see more investment into the KZ cement market in very short order, which could change market dynamics and the need for consolidation from existing players in the market. STCM’s investment in transitioning to dry cement lines and upgrading the facility, is exactly what it needed to do to stay relevant and saleable in the marketplace. It has done the things that Heidelberg and ICG have done with their legacy plants, so as I see it, IMHO, STCM has placed itself well for acquisition.

If that is the case, those valuation figures may look a little bit on the light side.

AIMHO

Hoping you got in for some of those cheap shares at 2.7p Isas. Things are suddenly moving on up… is there life in this dog??

Adw189

the copper price didn’t collapse, it just corrected itself at the end of July 2025 from a previous hike that had come about as a consequence of the then impending prospect of 50% tariffs to be imposed by the US on copper imports to the US. When Trump withdrew tariffs on certain forms of copper to include:

Raw forms of copper: which include copper ore, concentrates, and mattes.

Refined copper: includes anode and cathode material.

Copper scrap: Waste and reclaimed copper.

That is when the price corrected itself. I wouldn’t say it was a collapse, because all other things remaining equal, world copper supply and demand factors either side of that reversal decision by Trump on 30th July 2025 essentially remained the same. If anything, the price of copper has improved since Trump’s reversal on 30th July 2025.

PXC are reported to have entered in a non-binding letter of intent with a mystery ‘US-based investor’ to provide funding for the commercialisation of the Empire mine of $75m in corporate copper bonds.

There is seemingly no backstop date, the management has gone silent on the matter, with nothing further to say unless or until a decision has been reached by the parties. In the meantime, PXC has taken on further dilution to fund its immediate cash burn requirements.

So I’d be more inclined to say the reason for the collapse in the PXC sp over recent times is more as a result of uncertainty over the funding of the Empire Mine, not due to the change in the copper price.

GLA

Agreed Jacktrade, it does not make any comment of when ARA will be mobilising to site, the timing of the tender process, the rig procurement or drilling. It’s out of AEX’s hands and over to ARA (APT) to do it in their own time. We don’t know whether the PURA consent triggers performance obligations on ARA to deliver the scale-up in a certain timescale. I hope that there are, but wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t. Otherwise I think Charles Santos would have stated this in the RNS. Nonetheless it’s progress, and it’s communication of progress. I’m just grateful for that.