Member Info for Daisan

The end of an era. If this news had been announced before the concert party started buying, they probably would have had to pay a lot more for their shares! Now it is just a blip as he had become a marginal figure.

HeresHopin, I don't believe that there is disagreement here. I think that Barrick's report is just reflecting the underlying agreement rather than indicating that it will be larger (I suspect that it will but not enormously so). This is not tax and I don't think that either of the parties consider it so. This is reparation for perceived historical wrongs associated with the original agreement. The immediate need is for some way forward to generating revenue. Whether that is through gold concentrate exports or local processing in some way is less important although obviously with differing levels of difficulty. However, the concern is that the complete solution will not be known for several months yet and in the meantime the share price will just be buffeted by the winds of sentiment.

It beggars belief that the management is considered not to be operating in concert and just goes to show what a nonsense financial regulation is at this level. I think currently that it is probably worth forgetting the value of licences, etc. as they are very much secondary in importance to the current assets and the licences are not great anyway. Last time I looked, and I confess that it is a while ago but given the pace that OVG moves probably still current, the gold asset was small beer and I would be surprised if there was a lot of interest in it. The idea that management would take this over is sound. They could make practically a 100% return overnight just by making a 15p offer. However, what would really transform this is the injection of a decent quality gold asset (or some trendy metal) whilst leaving �10m+ in current assets to exploit it. That would be transformational and longer term result in much further price increases. Given the progress by these guys over the last few years you would have to say a buyout is more likely than an asset injection but most likely is the status quo. I look forward to seeing what comes out of the AGM with interest but without any particular expectation.

Looks like VRFBs are gaining traction. Good for both producers of the energy storage devices themselves and the Vanadium producers. Not sure whether this has been posted here but could hardly be more bullish for everyone concerned with energy storage, whether grid level or otherwise: http://reneweconomy.com.au/graphs-day-wind-fast-solar-faster-batteries-fastest-68311/#sthash.Pi2WGUdL.uxfs

rbrand, I agree that this is a Tanzanian article but that is the interesting part. The deal as suggested there is less draconian than feared as a result of the statements made by the Tanzanian official when he was talking about 50% of revenue. It could be that he wasn't clear about the difference between profit and revenue. I have been surprised at the number of people who seem not to. Whilst this deal on the face of it is not that great for Acacia (and other Tanzanian miners), it is far from the wipe out that may feared. But the market clearly wants to know the details before jumping either way and in the meantime the share price is drifting as the more nervous decide that they don't want to stick around and risk it.

I forgot to mention that the link was courtesy of MB60 on the SHG board.

MB60, I have posted the link on the ACA board if you wish to follow their reaction.

Posted on the SHG board: http://dailynews.co.tz/index.php/home-news/53681-fair-mining-sector-era-dawns Crucially talks about profits rather than revenues.

Interesting - thanks for posting. The more I read about Barrick's operations in Tanzania, the more I get the impression that there has been an awful agreement in place and the less savoury the practices appear to have been. You have to sympathise with the feeling generated in the local authorities. Of most significance here is the word 'profit' rather than 'revenue'. A massive difference and effectively means that ACA will be paying 50% tax. That is high but not unworkable. Without tax breaks it will limit investment in Tanzania but at least it will be a known entity rather than the continued uncertainty.

I believe that there is still confusion over the details of the deal owing to some comments made by one of the Tanzanian officials. What is needed is a firm statement of the details of the deal via an ACA RNS. At that point we can all form a better informed view of the likely impact on Shanta. This is why I am waiting for confirmation before investing further. Yesterday was more of a gamble!

Who knows? But there has been a small amount of buying this morning which seems to have shifted the price again. I suspect that the 2 �3k buys were actually just one. LSE seems to have a few problems recently with double reporting. I have even seen a whole chunk of trades in succession reported twice. The time stamps are usually a good indicator.

Olderandwiser, A very good comment. Sadly there are a number of people on these boards (and Twitter) who couldn't give a flying fig about anyone else.

I wouldn't read anything into what TBTT says. He is a shorter and just seeks to create doubt by making sound bite comments. There is usually very little to back them up. Best ignored. Of course you should treat the opposites (rampers) in exactly the same way if there is no supporting argument. Most companies have positives and negatives. Up to the individual to decide which argument is the most persuasive.

Just posted this on the Acacia board but I feel that it is highly relevant here: If the details of the deal are anything like that stated in the press this morning then it is nowhere near as bad as has been speculated: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/19/acacia-mining-shares-surge-barrick-strikes-deal-tanzania/ The sharing of economic benefits would be via 16% of a JV that would hold the gold mines plus royalties and taxes. This is very far from the '50% of revenues' as stated by a Tanzanian government official and is actually less problematic than the current legislative framework in place in SA for example.

If the details of the deal are anything like that stated in the press this morning then it is nowhere near as bad as has been speculated: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/19/acacia-mining-shares-surge-barrick-strikes-deal-tanzania/ The sharing of economic benefits would be via 16% of a JV that would hold the gold mines plus royalties and taxes. This is very far from the '50% of revenues' as stated by a Tanzanian government official and is actually less problematic than the current legislative framework in place in SA for example.

I already commented on the news! I take it that you aren't considered the life and soul of a party are you?

Well, allthatguff, I thought I would lighten your post since, judging by your posting history, you seem to enjoy being the purveyor of doom around the place! And being Shanta investors we are all too used to doom.

Fortunately we are not in the "ninibg" industry!

I think that report suggests a difference with the Barrick viewpoint. I have watched the videos with the Barrick chairman and the statement was that "economic benefits generated by Acacia�s operations would be shared with Tanzania on a 50/50 basis going forward". Now, this is very different to a 50% share of the revenues, something also that mentions nothing about costs, taxation, etc. So what the actual situation is remains unclear but we should find out soon enough what the proposed deal is as ACA should be reporting on this tomorrow (a late night for them one suspects). From a personal perspective, I can't reconcile a 16% stake in the mines and a 50% share of revenue. What does that mean? Sharing should also include all the costs in this case. For new miners they would also like to see them being able to recover their own costs before sharing anything otherwise nobody is going to invest in Tanzania (I know, that is the point of your comment).

Having just had a look through the production figures over the last few quarters, I think that there may be some justification to be optimistic about Q4 production numbers. My reasoning is this, the amount of underground ore mined in September was nearly half of that mined for the whole of Q3 at 37k tonnes. Assuming that this can be maintained, that would be 111k tonnes of higher grade material to be processed. If we take a conservative 155k tonnes of ore to be processed this would leave about 44k tonnes of lower grade ROM ore (@ 1.6g/t). Now, the unknown here is the grade of the underground ore but let's be conservative and leave it at the same grade (5.83g/t) as achieved in Q3 (bearing in mind this was impacted by lower grade ore that they have indicated has been mitigated). This would give production of 20.9k oz which would be just short of the 80k oz indicated. Their re-stipulation of 80k oz target at this stage should give reasonable confidence that they will actually hit at least 21.7k oz. However, if the lower grade ore has been mitigated, we could be looking at a grade of 7g/t or more for the underground ore (it was 7.41g/t in Q2). At 7g/t production could come in at over 24k oz whilst at 7.41g/t it could be 26k oz. I confess that I would be happy enough with 20.9k oz, expect 21.7k oz as Shanta have been pretty good at delivering to production targets but would not be too surprised should we achieve more than 22k oz which would be a pretty good performance by anyone's standards and would put the company on a firm road to cash generatin and deleveraging.