Member Info for Cranleigh

Myo, TS stated in his opening remarks that the company were "very pleased with the quality and nature of their distribution partners".

A little rebuff to Alphaville?!

Who would you rather have as customer - a large, stable, slow-moving organisation perhaps with something to lose through Poly4 cannibalising sales of their existing products, or a smaller, hungry, entrepreneurial entity with a "disruptive" mindset and to whom Poly4 represents a huge upside opportunity?

I know which I'd prefer - and that is also why I think the partner in Brazil sounds like a good choice, especially as many of the big distributors there have tie-up with our fertilising producing competitors.

And do not discount how extensive are the experience and contacts of our Chairman and CEO in China from the Fortescue days.... a great asset in selecting partners.

I have to agree with Bellers on this one (great choice of name btw).

In addition to an update today and a further one tomorrow, ahead of presumably Friday’s quarterly update, conference call and Interim Results, I think we should have a lot more information conveyed “live”, such as streaming of all Board and management meetings, TorP and Stage 2 negotiations (preferably with opportunity for shareholders to input their comments, bright ideas and helpful suggestions), webcams at each site and on the relevant boring machines with metres of advance displayed.

Come on Sirius, get your shareholder information programme really into swing. Unless you have anything better to do?

Myo, I have always considered the ramp-up curve to 10mtpa to be modest. With the volume of TorPs we now have, and consistently encouraging crop trials, demand might well be growing faster than that ramp-up suggests.

Once the production shaft is fitted out and the lift capacity and tunnel capacity are fully available, the constraint on increasing capacity faster appears (to this non-miner) to be the purchase of Continuous Mining machines. I don't think those are long lead-time items, and could therefore be purchased earlier than the graph shows (two in 2022, two in 2023)….and assuming they are effective, further ones instead of/in addition to Drill & Blast?

And as you say, if the whole curve can anyhow be shifted 6 months forward, that EBITDA is likely fully to offset the potential $4-600m extra cash requirement recently announced.

Where do we draw the line, PAAA? That sounds to me like special pleading and excuse-making.

Personally, I would draw it where there is no indicated saliency of the point being made in terms of its actual or potential impact on SXX.

Last weekend was filled with mere polemic, slanging match etc...

I think you would be hard pushed to point to one "B" post that highlighted implications for SXX from no deal, various types of deal etc.

And the weekend the same rules apply as during the week - there is no such thing as "fight club", however much some might like there to be.

Among the dross there were some IMHO interesting and helpful posts (eg Milothe3rd, Sunday 11:08). But you needed a pitchfork and a lot of patience to find any such.

Admin rather than that charmer Idi Amin!

I think we all voluntarily agreed to accept the rules for posting here.

Nothing to do with “free speech”, Alan, just a gesture by Amin to try and keep the board “on topic” - and a welcome one at that.

I agree, Holycheese - hardly complicated, and a deal with many positives:
- good slug of volume
- better pricing potential than previous deals
- partnering with a smaller, hungry player who will have much to gain (and little to lose) from Poly4 success in its markets
- 30% and Board seat reinforce the share of mind we will have, and give SXX access to how our customer’s customers think and behave in reaction to our new product - potentially useful information in other markets
- few shares issued and may be non-dilutive depending on earnings of our partner

True Scotty, I’d overlooked that aspect - well done, Gina!

She’d rank after the ?$3bn lenders, Scotty....

"Shelling out $250m on a whim..." I'm referring to the fact that she has clearly waived the condition in her original, very well-thought out and profitable (for her) deal, whereby she wouldn't shell out any cash at all until, among other things, she was satisfied that finance was in place to build 10mtpa capacity.

She won't IMHO have done that on a whim, but on the back of evidence from SXX that satisfied her that the finance WILL be in place.

Proving your point about discussion, if you will...but also proving you wrong on this (to me, PAAA and others) salient point!

I don’t think Gina would waive that condition and shell out $250m on a whim....

“Cranleigh can post wrong stuff...”

Look at the 25 April 2017 Prospectus, Andy, page 216: “Drawdown of the royalty purchase amount ... is conditional upon, inter alia: Hancock receiving comfort that sufficient funding is in place and valid to fund a production capacity of 10mtpa”.

As I see it, she has waived the condition in the original agreement that Stage 2 be fully in place before she parts with any cash.

What does that say about the confidence of her and SXX that it will be?!

Back up we go....

Back up we go....

And she’s at the table to help facilitate, not least in her interests, a non-dilutive or minimally dilutive solution to the financing gap.

Placing, what placing?

RTFRNS

It sounds from the RNS and yesterday’s conference call as if CF is persuaded he can’t get senior debt of more than $3bn, perhaps following discussions with HMT and the “new” 50:50 guidance on commercial vs guaranteed debt.

If that is so, I would hope the company seek the maximum possible of the remaining $4-600m via completion finance; it may be costly in commitment fees, but should be non-dilutive and interest only incurred if and when some of the contingency it is designed to cover is drawn down, so at the end of the build.

Say they were able to get half of the requirement via that method, no need to encumber ourselves with the competitive considerations around a fertiliser or customer as strategic partner...and prospectively no dilution with subordinated bonds for the balance. Or, worst case, only very minor dilution with equity or more of those lovely CBs.

Quite. I was just wanting to do some maths to rebut the “size of a ruler” impression that the diameter change was negligible.