The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
If you dare to question the merit of poly4 itself you might find all your posts get removed.
Any comment on market demand and pricing really hits a nerve.
It seems now some of my less challenging posts have been reinstated on my history
GK certainly talked his own book, but to be fair, he was pretty transparent with his trades and position and he was probably more honest than many on this board about his position. When he was selling i thought he went quiet, probably concentrating on trading. He knew there where plenty of novices that he could profit from.
He was very positive about the prospects here and I don't blame for that misjudgement. I had alot of batter with him on iii about the agronomics and trials, his ego did not allow him to listen, hey ho, we all have our failings.
Scotman
What do you expect from the review, any chance that MOP and salt with their known revenue and demand, may come to the fore. Planners would have to accept a change surely
Scotman
ICL believe in the product because their MOP resource is mined out after 50 years.
At least they recognise that it is basically a sulphur fertiliser and as such is for the crops active growth season and the need to blend with the major plant nutrients such as phosphate and nitrogen to make usable compounds and blends for the mass market.
Sirius do not have any offtake deals with a manufacturer, other than Cibra which they were forced to buy, this shows how interested the main players are in polyhalite.
All or most of Sirius trials use a blended fertiliser and yet they have only managed to do deals with brokers of straight fertiliser with no manufacturing capacity who are only in it for a margin.
The world will survive without poly4
GK
Traded this well, based on high levels of research and understanding of the risks.
I reckon he got over confident though and fatally believed in poly4 to be a product that would make a difference to agriculture going forward. Far to much belief in chloride free potash's value, likely market demand and far too much belief in the company's trial results and marketing.
Unfortunately the bankers and governments level of research demands due diligence that involves asking industry for verification
Scim reading, so if you put in 4.5 times as much sulphur a 12 per cent yield is value.
Maybe,/ maybe not
Alan
You honestly believe everything the company tells you?
We have forward orders in place for over 14 million tons per year cost of extraction £30.00 sale price $150 a ton so we have the most efficient mine, with the worlds largest deposit of poly and 100 years life .
Unfortunately this is not funded because of revenue risk.
If you have been misled, it is over the value of poly4 as a direct fertiliser. IMO
Relatively easy to mislead in trial reports.
Where are the statistical levels of confidence?
How many trials have been published in a scientific journal?
I agree any post that mentions the share price, now or in the past or future is worthless.
All you can hope is that posts are honest with no agenda.
But that is not going to happen.
My posts were honest and an attempt to redress the balance of truth around the product.
I understand why that was unexceptable and my history is hidden.
But the game plays out in the end.
It just seems to me that the investors here were not playing on a level playing field
Sheps8
Did the well regulated, by posters reporting anyone who dared challenge the fundamentals of the project before the recent collapse do any Laths any favours?
The artificial pumping of the sp brought about by controlling sentiment and getting posts and posters removed only helped the traders who were not brain washed to profit.
The company, the brokers and the believers on here put far to much spin on the truth.
Polysulphate/Poly4 is still a niche high sulphur fertiliser that has some use in compounds and blends.
ICL get it with their full range of products like potash plus, these jokers are clueless
Cautious on revenue risk as well.
Not everyone has been blinded by the ramping and paid for trials of poly4
Dog Star...very astute observation, and absolutely correct.
Perhaps that's where the misleading of investors really commenced.
.....
Raising populations, food shortages, anything that city types away from the real world worry about, it's the story.
Misleading is probably an understatement but RNSs have been pretty truthful if not limited in detail.
Never much info or pricing on offtakes for example.
The game plan seems to be to progress as fast as possible and hope that others join the ride.
Unfortunately bankers and government are failing to play ball
Gazzza123
This company, or it least the current CEO, clearly set out signing up some quality potash resources.
To differentiate from ICL back in the day, it went for polyhalite initially to convert into SOP.
Unfortunately this proved uneconomic and they took a punt and choose to try and promote a market for polyhalite as a way to prove a national importance for planning approval.
As you know, rock hard, insoluble, low potash content and a mineral of last resort for miners or farmers
Lots of trials, lots of selective reporting, very little soil science from a team of corporates with little fertilizer or agricultural grounding
It was wrong at the time on many levels, if investing wasn't hard enough
This is independent research. The analyst
who has prepared this research is not
aware of Shore Capital Stockbrokers
Limited and/or another member of the
Shore Capital group (“Shore Capital”)
having a relationship with the company
covered in this research report and/or a
conflict of interest which is likely to impair
the objectivity of the research and this
report should accordingly be viewed as
independent.
Buy
Current price 19.0p
Mining
United Kingdom
Sirius Minerals^
Funding to germinate a fertiliser juggernaut
Sirius Minerals completed a Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) on its
paradigm-shifting North Yorkshire polyhalite project in England in March
2016. The DFS results were essentially in line with our expectations,
projecting a high-volume (20Mtpa), low-opex (c.US$27/t), long-life (50 years,
but we believe there to be potential for >100 years) operation with
prodigious cash generation, high margins and attractive returns. Key
planning permits were received unchallenged in 2015, so the focus now is
on raising the requisite construction funds with which to germinate this
embryonic fertiliser giant – and given its myriad strengths, we do not
expect this to prove overly problematic. While an investment in Sirius will
become progressively de-risked as the company advances towards
production, we believe that it already offers a more robust, lower-risk
investment with the prospect of better returns than typical of its peers. We
reiterate our BUY recommendation and Risked NPV of 50p/share.
Significant re-rating can be expected after Stage 1 financing: Sirius is
intending to raise construction funding in two risk-matched stages in order to
minimise the overall financing cost. Stage 1 (US$1.63bn) would be raised via a
combination of equity and structured debt; Stage 2 (US$1.93bn) would take the
form of project finance or a high-yield bond. If all goes to plan, there should be no
further need to raise equity after Stage 1. Dilution would no longer be an issue,
and we believe the resulting improved clarity on potential equity returns could
trigger a significant re-rating.
Excellent debt and interest cover should entice debt providers: Our model
projects prodigious cash generation at impressive margins. Even if production is
capped at a sub-optimal 15Mtpa, the average EBITDA margin would still be attractive
at 77.7%, and debt and interest coverage would remain excellent (EBITDA/Interest
would exceed 2.0x by 2023F; net debt/EBITDA would fall below 3.5x by 2025F).
Such financial resilience should prove enticing to debt providers, we believe.
Sensitivities suggest ample upside, relatively limited downside: In our ‘base-
case’ scenario, post-tax 2016 NPV10% is £4.5bn (104p/share fully diluted [FD]).
Our sensitivity analyses suggest ample opportunities for upside to this valuation,
whereas downsi
PAAA
It would to me that the retail investors take numbers given to them as set in stone.
In reality it is highly unlikely that nameplate capacity is reached on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis to match DFS projections. Has any miner?
Product demand will always be seasonal too and will need time for our industry to adopt
The revenue risk becomes quite clear if you drop the volumes sold to a not insignificant level such as 5 MT annually with prices to compete with MOP.
As you say the pi's are blind to this scenario, I suspect that the IPA and bankers are not.
I hope the review adds some MOP and salt to the plan. The planners would have to accept and this project might get completed
PAAA
It's revenue risk that killed this project, that is hard for the company to admit.
The lack of demand from any compounder or blender of fertiliser tells you how impractical incorporating low grade potash into mainstream manufactured products really is
Forget roads, why not mine real potash rather than that quarter strength stuff
The major problem is revenue risk.
Poly4 has been pumped by the company to the degree that no one other than the industry and those who consult with them questions it's validity.
Not much you can do as a posters if anything you put up gets deleted or your history is removed is there..
This board served only the traders
For a start, POLY4 has been through some degree of testing, but it is not commercially proven.
Indeed crop trials deliver the results the funder demands