Member Info for DRB83

Clown,

What you're missing is the increase in the Chrome benefit.

For every ounce of PGM we produce we generate $4088 (because of the by product). For us to generate that $4088 we incurred costs of $2860 giving us a profit of $1228 per Oz. If we didn't have the by product we would generate $1586 for a cost of $731 giving us a profit of only $855. So the by product generates us $373 profit. Leon could show this separately but the internal management team have concluded that as the Chrome process wouldn't exist without the PGM process he has included the benefits within the PGM cost per Oz. It's a pretty standard way of accounting for by products. Like I said before. Leon hasn't hidden anything. The table clearly shows that PGM processing costs have reduced by 14% possibly as a result of the improved efficiencies of the new plant, and transport costs have increased significantly by 96% most definitely to do with fuel. It's all there for you to interpret how you want but yes the net cost of a Oz of PGM has reduced by 34% overall largely due to plant efficiencies and and increase in the Chrome sales price.

Onwards and upwards for now.

Thanks Northern. Don't suppose you remember where you saw that?

7.5k tonnes of the Northern strategy is targeted to be operational by Apr-Jun23. The other 7.5k tonnes 6 months later.

Eastern Limb - need to know if it's economical. Transport costs were $3m in H2. What's going to happen to fuel prices? Is there somewhere nearby we can convert into a process plant or do we need to build from scratch. What's the payback. If transport costs reduce the payback of the project increases. This all takes time. We want him to make the right decision and not rush into the wrong one.

$200m is no earlier than FY24 and most likely FY25. We have to be realistic

Do we know if Cobalt will be processed as part of the Northern Strategy?

Clown, as for the JV. I assume at the time (3 years ago) it was a major positive as it helped expand the business quickly and whilst we had to share the profits something is better than nothing. Clearly Leon would have known that giving 40% away was not as good as giving nothing but why would he say that back then. At the time it was a step forward. Now we are moving forward again by bringing it all in house and keeping the profits so in comparison to now the 40% give away was a bad deal but you don't ever compare to the future as that is an unknown. You can only compare to where you've come from.

When I got my first 2 bed house it was a step up from living at home so I was buzzing. I never thought, this is a dump. I was proud to have my own pad. Looking back now comparing it to my 3 bed, my 2 bed was tiny and run down. In a few years I may look back and say my 3 bed was not as good as this 5 bed.

You don't **** off what you have comparing it to what you want to have in 3 years. That's just childish.

Clown, Leon is hardly hiding it. All the information is there if you wanted to split it out yourself. Maybe it's because the 2 processes are intertwined and neither would operate as efficiently without the other.

It doesn't really matter where you allocate the upside of the chrome. Either take it out of the PGM numbers and report a nice profit on Chrome or leave it in PGM and offset the PGM processing costs with the upside of the Chrome. It depends what internal management want to monitor. Leon is clearly seeing this as a by product of the PGM process and as therefore opted to include the benefit as part of the PGM numbers. You have to consider that the last set of numbers was heavily muddied by the downtime of Inyoni. It's now fully operational and I suspect it is generating somewhere around $1500 per Oz earnings.

From RNS:
Early results from the new Inyoni operations have outperformed expectations with a 34% reduction in PGM unit cost compared with the six-month period ending December 2021, as the facility benefits from significantly increased operational footprint and increased contribution from chrome production.

Obviously as part of the new build, efficiencies will have been built in. The hard bits done now from a PGM viewpoint. Just need to keep the cogs turning and I believe we'll get 48-50k Oz in FY23.

Eventually fuel prices will recede and basket price will rise and earnings will multiply.

From interims:

"Project Lechwe, which forms the first link in the integrated Northern Refining Strategy, is the Company's second
planned copper processing facility in Zambia and final pilot runs are under way to confirm the design work. Project
Lechwe targets to reach the production of 7 500 copper units per annum by the second quarter of calendar 2023.
The Northern Refining Strategy currently targets the production of an additional 15 000 tonnes of copper but offers
the potential to be significantly expanded based on the sheer size of opportunities offered in copper and cobalt
recovery from waste in Zambia. Jubilee's recognised brand in process excellence together with its in-country track
record, places the Company in a commanding position to capitalise on these opportunities.

It would be prudent to discount the above for FY23 figures but worth keeping a note that if the plan is to reach its full capacity of 625t per month by Apr-June then it's likely we'll see some benefit in the full year numbers. It may be optimistic but even 1000t is potentially worth $3-4m then add any Cobalt on top. It all adds up.

If that is the case seis that means the step up in performance for the next set of numbers will be greater. If of the 21k ounces a similar 6k Oz were only partially processed and sold off dirt cheap dragging down the overall basket price then come the next update the Oz should be around 24k oz at a much higher basket price of say $2k. Assuming all other costs and revenues stay the same you could add $400 onto the $1228 earning ls per Oz from H2. That's

24000 x $1628 = $39m earnings
Vs $26m from H2.
50% increase and we don't need to do anything extra to achieve this. Just keep the plant running.

This also doesn't account for any efficiency improvements with the Chrome which I'm sure they're will be. If PGM has been effected in H2 then Chrome will have been too.

Livestock, Please share the fact as I'm pretty certain it's never been mentioned for production starting December. In the beginning Bill was saying 12-18 months. But even then the best case has always been Q1.

By all means, expect December but you'll be disappointed. I'll be over the moon with March being prudent Q2 is probably more realistic.

Livestock, can't find anything written that specifically states Q1 but I can find several statements of '2023' or 'early 2023'. I think the Q1 was spoken by Bill several times in interviews or presentations.

UKtrader, yes I did think that could be a scenario where it could work. Low volume and someone lands a huge buy on the book that is a little lower than the current ask. The MM's are obliged to follow the demand and there be no guarantees that the buyer would want to buy any higher so rather than the MM's lifting the price and being left with a load of shares they can't shift they drop the price instead until they get enough sells to fill the order. Could work.

If this was the case I would expect it to be really difficult to put a large test buy order in as it would just compound the problem for the MM's. Has anyone tried sticking in a large buy order say 10m shares.

Aldebaran, Receivables increased in the period by £1.5m to £4.3m. in there I am assuming is the £1.3m tax credit (received in July). So £3m of receivables left.

Yep, I'm expecting podcast results around the 18th. Fingers crossed they show some improvement on the last lot. Hope the new shows make the top 100.

Shovel ready Q1 2023 does not mean Dec/Jan. You would be wise to assume March23.

Max, not sure about this MM's holding the price back to fill an order logic. Fair enough if it's over an hour or so but several days. Surely the MM's have to charge more if someone wants in in huge quantities and the MM's have to go get the stock. That way MM's can lift the price encouraging others to sell thereby allowing the order to be filled in the same day. Or the MM's decline the trade and ask for smaller quantities which can be filled quicker.

It's basic supply and demand. If someone is demanding shares that aren't available then as Market makers they have to make them available. Hence, increase price.

I may be being naive so let's see if any large kippers land

Apologies, got my deepverge and ncyt mixed up.

Awesome, so it's a self inflicted spread of a virus that was banished from Europe almost 20 years ago. Oh, and if you do develop symptoms there roughly the same as both covid and MPX. Anyone for a Virusplex. It's one test and it just tells you what you have. No method of elimination required. This time next year Rodders we'll be biwyionairres.

Yep, missed that Billy. 10kt it is.

What is the expectations around admin costs?

Seis, I'm relatively new here. Your calcs are helpful and it would be good to see your revised numbers following this morning's update.

You got the PGM profit per ounce spot on except the actuals included the Chrome credit. I think your PGM forecast of $57m is achievable but including the Chrome for FY23.

I don't think copper will max out like you have forecast. The target is 3700t in H1 so I'm assuming 9000 FY. Based on what £4k per tonne earnings $36m could be achieved best case.

Not sure if it's prudent to assume zero production costs on Cobalt. Also, it's clear that production hasn't started yet so target tonnes could be significantly reduced. Say 500k tonnes at $40k PT earnings puts it at $20m for FY23.

Therefore total operational earnings forecast for FY23 is
PGM $57m
Copper $36m
Cobalt $20m
Total $113m

But I'd be interested to see your revised numbers.

Of course they are Aldebaran. I prefer to challenge my investments to make sure I spot any potential pitfalls before I get too heavily involved. Some people get too attached and respond with a barrage of personal insults as if they're in the school playground. It happens all the time LSE.

Apparently, the only risk here is being taken private which would obviously only be signed off if it's at a great premium to the current SP. So for anyone buying in today there is absolutely no risk with this AIM investment whatsoever. Apparently I'm the one in La La Land.

I think Share4 calls it a SO analysis not a SWOT analysis. He does the strengths and opportunities and if anyone mentions a weakness or threat he says 'SO' and cracks on.

I did hear that. It's quite clear. 99.9% of investors who do their research will understand what it means. I'd love to buy shares but I can't afford to. Not sure how that translates into 'i don't have any shares'

There is no logic behind BBG lieing about NOT having shares. You've heard something, misunderstood it and then come on here to have a rather embarrassing emotional rant about it.

It's 4 months ago. We discussed it at the time and we were all cringing with his response and thanks to you I've just had to cringe all the way through it again.

This conversation should have been a non starter so I'm certainly not going to carry it on any longer.