Member Info for DRB83

Artemis could just sell their share and inject the cash into their other projects. I'm not familiar with Artemis cash float but didn't think they were an Investor. Anyone got any thoughts?

16p per annum dividend would do me the world of good.

Just to be clear Dribbles. I think we are all agreed that the pandemic will end at some point, we always knew it would. Covid however will never be over just as flu will never be over.

I believe you were saying the pandemic was over before Omicron even arrived. 70 days later and we're hitting 12000 deaths a day globally. Maybe you need to read up on the definition of what over actually means. No need to respond, Ive moved on from your ramblings.

It's what the market thinks.

Yes HC, excited about the transition from covid to non covid. Covid will always bring us some revenue in but the sooner the ratio swings in favour of non covid the better. Whilst obviously keeping total sales no lower than £60m is key.

Most covid stocks getting battered today again. Ncyt blue. Is the market waking up to the fact that we're actually making cash.

RNS expected by Feb 11th confirming the 30% acquisition of the Platina share in the JV. Is this just a formality now?

So digging a little deeper. Brockman Mining have 2 major projects in Hammersley. The Sirius has a resource of 124mt and is a small part of the 2nd largest project which has 300mt+ altogether at approx 60% Fe. Not bad. The largest project has over 1bt but at a much lower grade with a large chunk in the 30,s% Fe.

They have already JV'd with someone 50/50 who are loaning Brockman A$800m to fund their share of the capex. Wow. Their hoping to shift at least 25mt per annum just from the largest project I think.

Looks as though they are hitting it big all at once hence the huge capex requirement hence the need for a JV.

Much prefer our way of mobile mining units that unlocks cash to fund the exploration of the other ridges thereby being self sufficient.

Fenix went one way, Brockman went the other. I prefer the Fenix/Ufo way. Brockman will be competing with us for the space at Port Hedland so will be interesting to see how they develop.

May have the maths wrong but it looks as though MIN paid RHI $400m cash + 0.75% royalties for 328mt of iron ore. That 0.75% on all 820mt @ $100 per tonne would be worth another $600m over the life of the mine.

So $1bn overall for 328mt. Goes to show what we could have with Hammersley. $1bn is sweet but if we have 300mt in Hammersley and mine it at a rate of say 10mt pa. At a profit of say $50 per tonne. That's $0.5bn profit per annum for 30 years.

Happy to keep hold of Hammersley and mine the **** out of it. Keep your $400m cash upfront.

Brockman mining ltd have 124mt and a mcap of just £268m. Am I missing something? Seems light.

So what can we expect come the end of this month:

1. Co-prep launch
2. Update on Self test Antigen LFT
3. Update on Next gen antibody test
4. Update on Aspergillosis test panel
5. Care home trial results
6. Update on Hiberplex
7. Update on 10 min PCR test
8. IT-IS instrument upgrade
9. Update on any new products they are working on that we have yet to hear anything about

Plenty to tell us about.

Just flicking back through the RNS log and I can see we have had 3 R&D updates in the last 12 months. Feb21, Apr21 and Sep21. Yes, it's approaching 5 months since the last update. The update in Feb21 had 9 yes 9 individual updates within it. Can we expect something similar in a few weeks time? It's been 5 months so I'd expect a few. I'll pull out a few of the updates that referenced where further updates would be due in H221 which has now already gone.

1. Development of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification COVID-19 test

Further to the announcement on 16 November 2020, the Company has completed early studies using its loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technology with its q16 and q32 instrument platforms and open LAMP platforms and demonstrated encouraging initial results. Novacyt continues to evaluate the ongoing opportunity for LAMP testing and will launch its technology subject to demand.

2. Development of a new test panel to detect aspergillosis fungal infections

Aspergillosis is an infection caused by aspergillus fungus common in immune compromised patients4, and more recently has been associated with co-infection in patients with SARS-CoV-25 infections and COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis6. The infection is associated with long-term ventilation of patients. Outside of SARS-CoV-2 infections, aspergillosis also remains a potentially serious respiratory infection, affecting ~5 million patients worldwide7.

Novacyt's new multiplex PCR assay panel will detect all five major aspergillus sub-types and will run on the Company's q32 instruments, as well as open platforms. Novacyt expects to begin validation studies soon, with the potential to launch during H2 2021.

Once launched, the new assay panel will be the second product in the Company's COVID-19+ portfolio, following the launch of the Winterplex™ multiplex assay panel in August 2020. This launch is also in line with Novacyt's strategy to expand its portfolio of clinical use, respiratory diagnostic products.

3. Successful completion of clinical trial with Queen Mary University of London

Further to the announcement on 16 November 2020, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has completed the clinical trial using the Company's rapid testing platforms for COVID-19 in care homes. Upon completion, over 4,500 samples and subsequent results have been recorded. The data analysis is now underway, and the results are expected to be reported in H2 2021.

The DHSC Technical Validation Group reported the successful completion of the in-service validation of PROmate™

PROmate™ is the only direct-to-PCR assay with TVG validation and reiterates the Group's position at the forefront of PCR technology.

This bottom one may prove to be important come the 28th February.

The bod don't really have to do anything from a business perspective to achieve the first bag (£3.30). Just wake the market up by telling us what you've been up to. Remember we are hugely undervalued at £1.65. We could get back to £3.30 just by TA alone.

The 2nd bag (£4.95) could come easily with the strategy update. A bit more meat on the bones and some understanding around what we're doing with £100m cash. The bod clearly believe that £4.60 is achievable this year.

A 3rd bag (£6.60) could happen on a gap up following a favourable dispute resolution. Sounds more and more to me like the purchase manager at DHSC royally messed up and now they're trying to shirk all responsibility. It's hard to fathom a dispute when you've already accepted several deliveries and made several payments.

From there, the implementation of DA's strategy should see alot of lth's claw their higher averages back. If the market sees ncyt making a steady £100m revenue and £25-30m PAT then that in my book more than justifies the £7.77 minimum.

This may be perceived as a ramp but what is critically important is that it has substance, logic and meaning. Not your typical one line thin air ramp/deramp. It's your call if you agree or disagree. Just my opinion.

I'm not sure the LTIP is the right format to be rewarding employees. I'd much prefer the individual teams to be given more specific targets and KPI's to hit. The SP is too generic of a target. The R&D team can pull out all of the stops and deliver 50+ great products in the year but the sales team flounder around and just don't deliver the sales. The SP would be adversely impacted by the reduced sales which is to no fault of the R&D team or any other team.

I much more prefer an internal bonus structure that is unique to each department within the business. Im sure DA will have included such a thing in his strategy.

30% per annum

So what is DHSC's argument for them to dispute the entire contract.

Did we demonstrate the product and process properly in a NHS lab or did we just show them it working in a perfectly ran lab with fully trained staff who are already familiar with the process.

Did we offer a trial period? If so, I presume they were happy as they signed the contract. If not then that is poor on both parts.

Could it simply be that the DHSC (right hand) didn't know what the NHS (left hand) was doing and now they've thrown their teddy out shirking all responsibility.

Who stood to benefit from the supply being terminated? Who did the NHS start using. Was it a company owned by a mate of mate of a MP maybe. I don't know but nothing would surprise me.

I hope we find out soon.

Having said that, my scenario wouldn't result in the entire contract revenue being in dispute. They must have seen the product and processes before committing to such a huge order. They were happy. They signed the contract. They took receipt of £129m worth of product. At this point GM would be forgiven for thinking that the DHSC are happy and going ahead to secure as much of the materials as possible, as he did.

Maybe, part of the problem is with the DHSC internal controls processes. I don't believe the communication channels are as efficient as they should be and it took several weeks for the issues to reach the right people within the DHSC. By which point, GM has cracked on and secured the supplies for the remainder of the contract or at least until the end of January21. I also recall reading an article where the gov basically told the NHS to stop whining and get on with the process.

We were clearly in uncharted waters and didn't want to risk our supply to the contract so GM bought what he could for Exsig despite knowing the launch of PROmate (a much simpler method than Exsig) was just around the corner. The instruction from the gov was that demand would be through the roof so imo GM couldn't afford to hold off buying Exsig supplies and start ramping up PROmate before it had even been launched so he did the sensible thing and secured the Exsig supply.

I can't really see a version of events where the DHSC have strong grounds in this dispute. I'm trying but struggling. Can anyone else?

Thanks for your inputs guys.

I understand the DHSC stance of wanting PROmate as a replacement for Exsig hence the large sales in Q1 but that would only work once you have used all existing supplies of Exsig. Then as long as it's agreed you switch to Promote under the same contract terms but maybe a different pricing structure.

Did GM get ahead of himself and buy in materials for the entire contract instead of a few weeks in advance. Therefore, when DHSC come forward with their issues and want to switch it out for our new PROmate GM says "no problem, but you'll have to use the 6 months supply of Exsig first". DHSC say "why did you buy so much upfront, that wasn't agreed and that's your problem. We want PROmate now"

We have written £30m stock off. We made about 80% margin on that contract. That's £150m of sales held in stock. That's close to being the rest of the contract. Did GM make a booboo.

Why didn't we have these problems with the 1st contract? Was that a different product?

Wasn't the remit under GM that they had no desire to leave EuroNext. We have a different captain now who may just have a different opinion on the matter.

I think the bod will have a keen eye on the SP from here on out. The target is £4.60 By YE. They won't want to run it close imo so they'll be very chatty going forward and I hope to see a very positive outlooking DA. They set the guidance last week, now it's all about smashing it. I think it was purposefully set low using the uncertainties of covid as a perfect smoke screen. I expect to see an increase to guidance in the April as part of the FY accounts RNS. Before that as Larry eluded to, we can expect.

R&D update Inc Co-prep
CTDA update (NHS use PROmate and apparently really like it and have hundreds of Q machines sat there so I'm not sure what the DHSC stand to gain from not approving PROmate. Having said that, it could happen.
Update on LFT's

That would be a minimum expectation