Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video here.
Hi Rodster, just spotted your post whilst glancing at Safe having a moan!
Yes I reduced my holding over a long period.
Main reason was losing money on HUR (Hurricane Energy) which was a real knock. I could not risk taking a hit here in that same way with such a large holding so had to diversify.
I also left my job last October so now living on my BT pension and some other savings.
It is difficult trying to say positive things to folks on a day like this. That trade earlier at .1653p made no sense and almost seemed intended to knock confidence. I still have a decent holding here and will keep that until things hopefully turn round here.
All the best to folks here....
comeonsres2. Appreciate the respectful tone of your reply.
Yes agree we just have seemed to constantly slip dates on our expectations up to this point.
By end of May though we should have;
1. Some news on the Pozz testing and that is a big fingers crossed thing that it works well in real life jobs!
2. The drilling in Australia should be done and whilst we will probably be awaiting assays we should know how the core looks.
3. The Perlite re-processing will be done soon so that will be resent to the Customers and I hope we will have news of that.
4. Possible news on Clayton JV
I would recommend you find an hour to listen to the Webinar if you can spare the tim.
As 1Investor just pointed out there were a number of things in there that are positive including the increase in pricing of Perlite (20% I recall) and also as he says the comment about the NE Zone probably being re-prioritized after the Main Zone. Even if we are off to a slow start offtake wise it is clear that Patrick does expect us to be selling this stuff sometime!
All the best anyway and enjoy your Sunday.
Safe I respectfully disagree with you. My support is neither blind nor unsubstantiated.
I lobbied Patrick for a Q&A opportunity and I believe this led to the recent Webinar.
If folks are not satisfied with the info given in that Webinar then so be it, they can choose to hold or sell based on their views although lets face it selling any number of shares in the last number of months is nigh on impossible!
I have been clear that I have been unhappy with some things and wrote privately to Patrick about this. However on balance believe that our best opportunity is to give Patrick more time to get offtakes over the line.
I am sure Patrick is very well aware of the disquiet from many shareholders and will be re-doubling his efforts to add value to the SP. I really do think things will look differently here in the next two to three months. Tell you what, lets see where we are by the end of May and we can review this conversation then - I will schedule a reminder for myself Safe to check in on Sunday 30th May!
Enjoy the weekend all - been watching the Players Championship (Golf) and looking forward to the final round tonight.
Oh and great result yesterday in the Rugby (I am English but my beloved is the Dubliner)
Guys, I won’t be supporting any EGM or ‘no confidence’ votes in Patrick.
I am frustrated at lack of SP progress and the recent Perlite processing error.
However there is progress with permit achievement for CS, ongoing trials and also on the Precious metals projects. I am therefore willing to patient with my reduced holding for some time longer.
Can I though nail one myth that Patrick only gets paid in shares for his work at Sunrise. If people care to read the results statements you will see that we have a management services agreement (MSA) with Tertiary to pay for our (Sunrise’s) share of all the staff, admin costs. This payment is lumped into the figure you see as Admin costs each year, I am no accountant but believe these are Capitalised costs.
It is hard to work out how much of the Admin Costs is related to the MSA but if you care to look into the info below it seems to me that one element of the MSA is a charge for Patrick’s services as Executive Chairman at £80K approx for the last 12 months.
In addition Patrick and the other Directors (technically the only employees of Sunrise) also get paid Directors fees and it is these fees that Patrick takes as shares and believe he mentioned this in the recent interview. I see ‘no’ evidence that he is taking the £80K wage (per the MSA) as shares. In simple terms I believe Tertiary pay all the bills including Patrick’s wage and charge back to Sunrise for their share of this. It could be (I don’t check Tertiary’s accounts) that Patrick also gets paid for his work at Tertiary.
Final Results RNS;
https://www.sunriseresourcesplc.com/downloads/sunrise-resources-plc-rns-final-results-11-december-2020.pdf
>Page 4<
Organisation Overview
The Group’s business is directed by the Board and is managed by the Executive Chairman. The Company has a Management Services Agreement with Tertiary Minerals plc (“Tertiary”) which was the original parent of the Company. Under this cost sharing agreement Tertiary provides all of the Company’s administration and technical services, including the technical and management services of the Executive Chairman, at cost.
>Page 24<
Check the consolidated income statement for year to 30th Sept 2020, admin costs shown as £298,980
>Page 35 – Note 4 Directors’ Emoluments
See this paragraph.
Patrick Cheetham is also a director of Tertiary Minerals plc and under the terms of the Management Services Agreement (see Note 5) a total of £80,121, including Employers National Insurance Contributions, was charged to the Company for his services during the year (2019: £76,773). These services are provided at cost.
Jonny, take a look on the SRES website under other projects and you will see they are listed as available for JV.
Precious / Base Metal Projects (Available for Joint Venture)
Sundance Gold Project, Nevada
Bay State Silver Project, Nevada
Clayton Silver Project, Nevada
Stonewall Gold Project, Nevada
Newark Gold Project, Nevada
Garfield Copper-Gold Project, Nevada
Baker's Gold Project, Australia
Am no expert but think Clayton could be open pit, would not see enough money in Silver (with small amount of gold) justifying block cave - doubt it would be viable.
I imagine PC will want a JV partner to earn in a % based on spending on more drilling up to a certain spend amount.
RNS just out - seems very promising;
Highlights:
· Recovered core from a 7.92m mineralised interval graded 303 g/t (8.84 ounces/ton) silver and 0.2 g/t gold (from 82.30m down hole, 1.98m of no core recovery in this interval).
· Includes 4.27m interval grading 408 g/t (11.89 ounces/ton) silver and 0.23 g/t gold from 83.82m depth.
· 84% higher silver grade in hole 20CLDD001 compared to twinned 1980s-hole CL-15 which reported 7.62m grading 165 g/t silver (4.8 ounces/ton) and 0.4 g/t gold.
· Mineralised interval contains sulphide bearing vein quartz and quartz breccia over the down hole drilled interval of 7.92m from 82.3m depth (true thickness - as yet unknown).
1investor - thanks and generally agree with you wider point that this issue can be resolved and there are lots of positives still.
SGD - thanks and some good questions from you there - nice and straightforward.
Horlety - You said;
"More likely our crushing and screening contractor is overwhelmed with the orders from the regular customers"
My understanding is that most of the expanders who we are dealing with are being serviced by a single upstream provider who has their own Perlite mine and will have no doubt their own crush/screen equipment.
How busy Kimball are IMHO is not linked to how busy the Perlite expanders are. The kit we are hiring is general mining equipment and not Perlite specific. I just guess Kimball are busy full stop.
Many moons ago PC told us the driver/enabler to us supplying to multiple expanders is that this last remaining Perlite supplier to these multiple expanders is setting up their own downstream expanding Operations so would be in competition with them.
I would love to know more about the state of play in this regard. Is their existing supplier still willing to supply them or not? If they were still willing to supply then you might question why the expanders would wish to switch to us as a supplier of their Perlite. If their current supplier is planning to stop supplying them have they given notice of that?
I would love Patrick to provide a current status update in this regard because whilst I accept these expanders are pretty busy right now they don't seem in any hurry to test our product!
Thanks 987 for the compliment and hope you are well....
If I can hog the floor for a little minute longer please.
One other observation I would make is this.
In Tuesday’s RNS Patrick said;
“The supply of a coarser particle size can be resolved with small adjustments to the crushing and screening process but in this case only 100 tons of material was available for processing and there was insufficient opportunity to optimise the crusher and screen settings”
He then says;
“The Company is now working with its crushing and screening contractor to modify the processing circuit to achieve a coarser product for further trials. The contractor has indicated that a process plant should be available for late March/early April. A larger bulk sample, 200 tons of raw perlite, is already on hand for this work”
These statements seem to be a little at odds with each other where one minute we just need small adjustments and then talk about modifying the processing circuit and a date that is at least 4 weeks hence.
I have worked out for some time that this test processing kit was not setup at our CS site. In fact I believe it was setup at the location of our mining contractor – the guys who dug the Pozz and Perlite bulk samples for us. A reasonable deduction is that the Perlite processing kit was taken away from the Contractor site (by Kimball I guess) after that 100 ton was processed and now we have to wait for another month for them to deliver similar kit back to site.
So once again we are back to waiting and it feels this could have been avoided. I repeat again my frustration whilst still holding a reduced number of shares here. I really hope that PC puts his best foot forward in the webinar next week and injects some enthusiasm to rally us shareholders or I will consider selling my remaining holding.
Thanks 987 for the compliment and hope you are well....
If I can hog the floor for a little minute longer please.
One other observation I would make is this. In Tuesday’s RNS Patrick said this;
“The supply of a coarser particle size can be resolved with small adjustments to the crushing and screening process but in this case only 100 tons of material was available for processing and there was insufficient opportunity to optimise the crusher and screen settings”
He then says this;
“The Company is now working with its crushing and screening contractor to modify the processing circuit to achieve a coarser product for further trials. The contractor has indicated that a process plant should be available for late March/early April. A larger bulk sample, 200 tons of raw perlite, is already on hand for this work”
These statements seem to be a little at odds with each other where one minute we talk of small adjustments and then talk about modifying the processing circuit and a date that is at least 4 weeks hence.
I have worked out for some time that this test processing kit was not setup at our CS site. In fact I believe it was setup at the location of our mining contractor – the guys who dug the test samples for us. A reasonable deduction is that the kit was taken away from site (by Kimball I guess) after that 100 ton was processed and now we have to wait for another month for them to deliver similar kit back to site.
I am currently invested in other Companies that seem to achieve so much in short time periods but everything here takes ages. I repeat again my frustration whilst still holding a reduced number of shares. I really hope that PC puts his best foot forward in the webinar next week and injects some enthusiasm to rally us shareholders.
Hi Safe,
Good to hear that you plan to take a more pragmatic approach to understanding developments at Sunrise. You also said this;
“I did not see any suggestion in the RNS that the appointed contractor had messed up”
Ok from the 27th October RNS PC said;
A. “The Company has recently contracted Kimball Equipment Company of Reno, Nevada to supply and operate a mobile crushing and screening plant to process a 100-ton bulk sample of raw perlite from the Company's CS Project”
B. “The plant will comprise a crusher, high frequency screens and associated conveyors and will be a basic version of the plant that is proposed for the initial production facility”
C. “The perlite bulk sample will be processed into two separate size-grades of horticultural raw perlite. Interest in a new source of raw perlite has been very strong and material will initially be sent to five potential customers who will expand the raw perlite in their commercial facilities. Plans to supply additional customers are in progress”
It is clear what Sunrise expected in terms of the Contractor processing the raw material and providing 2 different grade sizes.
In Tuesday’s RNS we had this info;
“The Company's testing and analysis shows that during the crushing and screening process carried out by the Company's contractor the screens operated inefficiently resulting in over-crushing of the perlite and the inclusion of too much fine perlite in the products and that this is likely to have adversely affected the quality of the expanded product. The supply of a coarser particle size can be resolved with small adjustments to the crushing and screening process but in this case only 100 tons of material was available for processing and there was insufficient opportunity to optimise the crusher and screen settings”
It seems clear to me that whomever operated the crush/screen plant (presumably Kimball) did not have the settings quite right. We probably did have in the samples some Perlite at the correct size. But due to screens not being set/working correctly it seems like some over crushing happened and some finer material got through the processing. It is a bit like the cat litter we use at home, there are typically large granules but also some much finer ones.
My issue is whether SRES had anyone overseeing the processing to check the produced material looked correct. It feels to me that the Contractor knew things were not quite right but sent the stuff out anyway,
Safe, another point. I believe in the past that you have complained at Sunrise sending out Pozz and Perlite samples free of charge. Perhaps you will now look at things in a slightly different light. This customer spent time and effort/cost (heating our samples would not be cheap) testing what we supplied and it presumably cannot be used or is sub standard. If we had charged for this material I think the customer would be mightily cheesed off.
GLA
Totty, the 100 ton of perlite was sent to 5 customers per 27th Oct RNS;
100-ton bulk sample of perlite to be processed at the end of this week..
· Approx. 20-30 tons of coarse horticultural grade raw perlite to be split between five different customers across the USA for expansion testing.
Totty, no the 500ton sample was for Pozz. That is just a case of dig and deliver, the Cement Company will grind it and they will do that end March as per RNS today.
The sample that got messed up was the 100 ton sample which I think we mined a little while ago.
We have mined a 200 ton sample since and I don't believe they have processed (crush / screen) that yet but no doubt they will be to fix the problem.
I do hope many folks here raise questions when Patrick provides the details and I hope he will group them and respond to all even if for some he says; 'sorry can't answer that for commercial reasons'
Mmm, what to say about this RNS!
For Pozz whilst disappointing I accept the delay in the CRMC processing the bulk sample. When I recently contacted the Company with queries it was pointed out to me that it is not a trivial matter for big Companies like these to switch off their normal process flow to test new stuff.
The fact they want to test the product on a large scale is the positive although we would all have hoped for a quicker timescale. The additional testing we did with the sub sample sounds promising.
Perlite is the disappointment for me. I would love to know who did not do their job properly – was it Kimball who I believe were to supply and operate the crushers/screening kit. It seems from the RNS wording that they knew things were not right;
“The supply of a coarser particle size can be resolved with small adjustments to the crushing and screening process but in this case only 100 tons of material was available for processing and there was insufficient opportunity to optimise the crusher and screen settings”.
With benefit of hindsight we should have taken a bigger sample than the 100 tons so they could mess around with the settings and get it right first time? Did we have anyone representing SRES to check things before we went to the expense of sending out the material? We supplied good stuff previously so we should know what good looks like! I guess it all proves previous comments from PC that these are performance materials and we did not get it quite right this time at least for one potential Customer.
I am pleased at the opportunity of the webinar / presentation and chance to raise questions and believe my recent letter flagging disappointment at a lack of clear option for raising questions at the AGM was a catalyst in this. I will be starting to think of pertinent questions and wondering how many will get responded to with; 'sorry can't answer that due to commercial sensitivity etc'
Question 1 for me is ok we can't know the CRMC name yet but if our 498 ton sample is crushed and trialled on real life jobs (and assuming they love the product) how much of the forecast 100k tons per year initial Pozz production might we expect them to order?
Question 2 – are we dealing with more than once CRMC and if so what stage are we at with any others?
At least it was good the RNS ended with positive news ref Baker’s drilling, we can only hope something goes our way for once!