Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Why have you ignored the PV9 uplift Poacher?
Another 2m shares - mad not to at this price imho.
Still a very low mcap too all things considered.
My understanding of the wed agreement is that we invest it for them. We are privy to the results and if we like them then we are also able to invest in drilling activity on that zone. We're not obliged to, but if we are privy to results and information then if it makes sense to invest then invest surely?
I would add however that more dilution and at such a low level has left me seething.
This says subsequent wells which are in addition surely? The wording is any additional wells, not obligatory additional wells.
Where does it say MAGP is 'obliged to co- fund wells' ?
Wasn't me! Was hoping to have got a few more of these at these prices but funds do not allow atm. All the best guys. I had a feeling that consolidation would drag us down. But we've been at 0.05 before and we'll come out the other side. Rita seems to have indicated there was an issue with the agreement that has now been resolved so hopefully we'll start to get value back soon.
What's with the 1.4m mineral lease write off?
Sorry smidsy not GD!
All I'm getting is graphs GD!
Morning folks. What dates are we saying H1 2016 are? I assume not any period in the 18 month period to 31 Jan 2016. Are we talking 1 Feb 16 to 31 July 16? Again I'm not sure because usually I thought companies described the half in relation to when the year end. I would personally describe 1 Feb 16 to 31 July 16 as H1 2017 because that's a 6 month period that is part of the accounting year ending in 2017. I'm a bit confused. Also does the growth and revenue mentioned in the RNS represent certain sections of the company or all the company? Thanks guys. All help gratefully accepted! I bought a lot more at 0.12 4 weeks or so ago in a bid to average down because this mcap is silly. It was an interesting discussion about the receivable.whilst I certainly think that this point will have been included on the letter of rep that accompanies the signed audit report, there's no reason to assume it won't be repaid. Another point in favour of this argument is that if it wasn't receivable then there would need to be a provision made in the accounts. Due to the small profit, almost any provision would have converted the profit to a loss which is a material adjustment regardless of how trivial the value being provided for. The auditors will have been well aware of this I'm sure.
A really encouraging number of voters though. Should in theory bode well for next week.
The 142k loss is the holding company only, whereas the 2k profit is the group performance as a whole. The group position is of course more important as it removes any intra group transactions. Hope that helps.
If it makes you feel better I had to get the calculator out 😉
769m shares not 769k. I still think it's fair to extrapolate so let's go at least 0.4p. Remember that's a minimum too. I'm not so sure we can then say 29% = 0.4p and extrapolate up for company value, though having said that why not? If that wasn't a fair approach then presumably WED would have requested more shares...... Over 30% and they'd have had to make an offer though.
0.2p I think Mr E.
I've been pondering the numbers whilst making play doh cookies with my youngest. The pilot project saw 500k invested and the benefit to magp was 200k. 75k in revenue and 127k in PV9 uplift. Crudely then every 500k invested seems to be worth at least 200k in combined value. WED has a minimum to invest of 10m so that's 20 times. 20 times 200k is 4m. That as far as I can tell is the minimum. 769m shares issued is the equivalent of 769k value albeit in pounds and above is in dollars. Seems like good business to me. Effectively sold 29% of the business for at least additional value of 4m. Is that right? Back to play doh.....
Mr E - i guess use this as a start point ref additional value but dobt forget the added bonus of extra PV9 value. 'For comparison using the pilot project as a benchmark, to equal the new well inventory that Magnolia could secure under the minimum capital contribution in the Agreement, we calculate Magnolia would have had to raise approximately US$2,500,000 in new equity. On top of this we will receive cash fees along the way.'
I think more pressing is whether or not these shares can be used to vote in the meeting. Am I worrying for nothing? Logic would suggest that they can vote right?! I'm just conscious that there was a deadline I believe for holdings and therefore voting rights.