Member Info for Daisan

Interesting isn't it? The suggestion is that the people who are likely to provide the final $5m are known and they are having to do a bit of arm twisting. Paying a 25% premium may not be palatable to them. There was a slight variation to this one with an indication of significant further exploration. I wonder whether this is a clarification message to potential investors. All this aside, it can't be ignored that the fund raise has not yet been completed successfully. Considering that they are looking for a further fundraise in Q2 this is a concern, although that should be on the back of the BFS which is a significant difference.

It is difficult to give too much credence to this report. Just to point out one aspect of it, the Steelmin method of valuation is erroneous in the extreme and if they use this to value assets they really are on a highway to penury. Nobody uses a multiplier on EBITDA. For a capital intensive operation (which this is) EBITDA is a poor mechanism for working out company valuations. In fact, EBITDA is a metric that should be used very cautiously for any industry. I make no judgement as to the value of Steelmin in this, just the method of ascertaining that valuation.

There are two things I actually don't like about this company (actually, there are a few but two main ones). The first is the ownership structure - I am not particularly comfortable with one entity owning well over 50%. The second is the fact that it is a recommended stock by TW and he is one of the worst stock pickers I have come across. So even though I consider this is to be one of the most undervalued gold miners on the market I would urge people to look out for the TW affect!

On the contrary, Eskom has been discussed extensively on and off so the situation is well understood. Nobody looks at SA with rose coloured spectacles but there is certainly some optimism currently that this has some opportunity to change. I agree that a successful VRFB industry helps both RED and BMN which is why I find this internecine conflict bemusing. Clearly owning the IP is desirable for a technology business but BMN is primarily a mining business and should not attempt to become a technology business. BMN's market value is driven by its extensive mineral assets rather than IP. I suspect that this is why it was described as 'irrelevant'. Nevertheless, BMN clearly felt that the situation was such that promoting and reselling a solution was the right way to go to expand their market, hence the development of BE. Significant margins for BMN come from the provision of electrolyte. I also suspect that they will earn a reselling margin from the hardware although this is likely to be small. Whatever the precise numbers, they will certainly benefit from a strong VRFB market.

If SA took direct control they would still be faced with the same decisions that Eskom have been faced with - the challenges over the next few years will not go away and it would actually be very much more expensive to do nothing than to progress. Nuclear looks like it is unlikely whereas the likelihood of an emphasis on renewables and commensurate energy storage look has increased with the new regime. I think that we are all aware that the country and Eskom are far from where everybody would hope them to be. I am sure that I am not unique in hesitating to invest in the country which is why companies like BMN do not necessarily react to good news in the way that you may expect them to do so. However, there is some reason for optimism that the situation may improve on the back of the changes currently taking place. At the end of the day, investment decisions are a process of pros and cons. I have never come across an investment where everything was positive! Geopolitics has been the most problematic area of Bushveld's fundamentals but I have some reason for hope that this may improve in the future although this is certainly not going to happen overnight. Anyway, we appear to be discussing the wrong company on the wrong board so I will leave it here. Good luck with your investments.

Well, I believe that a statement has been made that if Eskom does not get its act together then it will be taken into direct state control. Eskom generates 40% of all Africa's electricity (that is Africa rather than South Africa). Do you honestly think it would be allowed to go under?

The parlous financial position of Eskom and the extensive corruption is well understood and has been discussed at length but the focus has shifted to the changes there in recent months to address the situation. Whilst they would find it difficult to access financial markets independently owing to this, the changes and then likelihood of government guarantee should ensure that it doesn't go under. I don't think that it is an exaggeration to suggest that Eskom is too big to fail in South Africa. As for Bushveld Energy, I believe that it would be very beneficial if this was successful but for Bushveld it is not imperative. A successful VRFB industry would ensure that demand for Vanadium in the future would be stronger than now and would likely result in a higher 'plateau' price. Vanadium prices tend to spike and plateau, so a higher plateau would result in improved profits for Bushveld in the medium term. However, there are some interesting dynamics at play. Spike too high on the back of steel demand/Chinese rebar standard changes and the VRFB industry growth is likely to be impacted which nobody really wants even though the short term impact on Bushveld's profitability would be huge. In the short term, however, it is difficult to see anything other than short term strength in Vanadium prices even though at some point this will lead to increased mine production (but we are talking several years for this). The ideal for Bushveld is a gentle rise that doesn't stop VRFB adoption but doesn't encourage rapid development of alternatives.

This is very significant news and should provide them with sufficient capital to increase production to the next level. The nature of the financing is just about as good as it can get for shareholders and the fact that it is secured on the assets should not be much of an issue considering one shareholder owns a majority and is unlikely to sit by and watch while a mere holder of bonds takes their company away should they be unable to pay. The denomination could work well for the company although having debt in one currency and revenue in another implies that they will have to hedge unless they are pretty confident the tenge isnheading south against the dollar. Of course, if the dollar falls there is likely to be upwards pressure on the price of gold which effectively acts as it's own hedge. History suggests that the tenge devalues against the dollar periodically. Unfortunately the finance has been some time in coming. As they are already behind the curve in their production profile, it will be interesting to see in the coming months how they perform against plan but all in all, this is a very positive step.

Grahambarnes, ODONNELL has stated that she is looking to buy at 3p so I think we can expect regular negative comments until either she is successful or gives up.

Hopefully you are not going to get involved in the BMN v RED bun fight currently ongoing! It flares up every few days and does nobody any good. I just steer clear until it quietens down.

Whilst the headlines are zinc and copper, I would also keep an eye on the silver grades. They are pretty impressive for this type of deposit and will provide very significant credits when it comes to the feasibility of the project. I am expecting precious metals to perform well over the next few years with silver outperforming gold. If this pans out then the grades we are hitting could constitute the basis for development in their own right (I have seen many silver deposits spawn mines in the past with grades of 100g/t).

I think that this is indicative of a general trend rather than suggesting an interest from Glencore. The current state of ARS is unlikely to attract the likes of Glencore YET. However, progress on Beutong is likely the driver behind this kind of interest. I tend to view Beutong and KSK separately and could well imagine Beutong at some stage being sold to a major - it has all the attributes that would attract a major whereas KSK is considerably more complex. Majors tend to like bulk volume, relatively simple projects where X capital in = Y profit out. Beutong fits this bill very well but needs further exploration, firming up of resources and a feasibility programme. At that stage I have no doubt that a major will be interested. Earlier if the results of the drilling are suitably eye catching (see Cascabel).

If you open a two year chart on ARS you will see it happening twice before in that time frame. It is called forming a base. It occurs on an awful lot of shares so not sure why you should be puzzled.

The way things stand, Beutong looks like the most obvious asset that a major would be interested in as it is a high volume asset. Up to now this has not been the focus but with the licence award it has clearly become a focus. Should the drilling unveil more large copper intersections and prove up that east and west are indeed connected, I think that there is a very good chance that a major will become interested in this asset in the same way that interest was forthcoming for Cascabel. At this point I would really prefer that they JV'd Beutong to production or even sell it. Then the focus can switch back to KSK where I believe there is substantially more to find and which I think is more amenable to bringing into production with a local partner. Selling Beutong outright would ensure that this is pretty much funded as Beutong will likely attract some pretty strong offers.

ODONNELL, I like the way that you combined a complaint about perceived sexism with a subtle de-ramp! If your statement about he/she was aimed at my post, it is because I know the poster is male.

I agree that this will put a cap on any potential buying. At the moment I suspect that there is a background seller which is forcing the price down. A poster on another board has indicated that he bought at just above the bid so transactions today may not be straightforward in determining whether they are buys or sells. We did have a 100% rise from 3p-6p at a time when the situation in Tanzania was known so it is possible that operational news may be welcomed positively despite the current geopolitical risk. Also remember that Shanta does not operate under the same mining agreement as Acacia so has not been subject to the same sanctions.

This is pretty normal AIM activity. Share prices can rise several hundred percent and fall fifty in a short period. It doesn't necessarily break the trend. The volume is very small at the moment which indicates a lack of buying rather than strong selling. Shanta needs a few quarters of falling debt and capex to establish a trend. In addition, news on the VAT front and mining 'policies' from the Tanzanian Government would establish some stability. Get these together with a rising gold price and the share price should see substantial gains. As it is the valuation is low for what is a 80k oz low cost producer.

GrahamBarnes, Most likely you saw the pre-market bid/offer spread which is not necessarily indicative of the opening prices. Quite often the offer will be raised and/or the bid lowered before opening. They are adjusted back to 'normal' on opening.

Interesting pablo2. A couple of points. Firstly, the stated number of ounces here are reserves whereas we have revised the resources. Reserves are usually only a fraction of resources so I suspect that we don't currently have more good than them. Secondly, I think 'yes', the revision at $1500/oz was done precisely to increase the resource. The pit shell at $1500 would encompass lower grade material, hence also the reason for the lower cutoff grade. Chaarat has a substantial deposit and I honestly believe that this could be a 20m+ oz ore body ultimately but I do believe that the latest changes were made to rectify a misleading situation and to soften the blow they shifted the parameters somewhat.

Plenty of opportunity to release news as it comes. These are just the first results of the latest drilling programme at BKZ and as they come we should get more evidence of the continuity between BKZ/BKM.