If you have any questions for our guest speakers (Greatland Gold, Helium One and Poolbeg Pharma), please submit here.
I was making two different points that were largely unrelated.
The second point on Unilever having regional hubs refers to regions of the world, like West Africa's based outside Lagos, Nigeria. Very big factories, lots of capital invested, requiring continuous supply of raw materials ,then the movement of finished goods to countries in the region.
You are right the UK market is small in terms of importance to Unilever. The link between the two points is that UK was part of the EU region, and now is not which is diminishing its importance to Unilever and is forcing changes to the way UK is supplied, no doubt adding costs.
From a purely commercial perspective, Brexit has forced changes to assumptions in long term plans, and will add costs to products sent here. Unilever has a huge presence in the far east, including China, as well as globally and is unlikely to see any benefits from any new Trading Agreements Brexit may bring.
That's my opinion, not Unilever's
our politicians who drove Brexit knew the consequences. Redwood, through Charles Stanley, advised clients to shift investments overseas, and Rees Mogg's Somerset Capital moved its office to Dublin. They wanted to shift the power from Europe to themselves. Power is what politicians crave.
Having worked for Unilever, if they manage their logistics well, and they should, they will be able to raise prices to cover inflation as they have strong brands. This applies to developing as well as developed countries. So for me the real question is managing the disruption to supplies of raw materials and equipment linked to shipping problems. Their factories are now Regional, not national and depend on continuous supply, given the large volumes produced
When a director leaves for truly personal reasons, and it's his decision, a date in the future is given as his date of departure.
When a Director is pushed out, the Company must agree a suitable sum with him to leave, unless its gross misconduct, when he is sacked.
The term "for personal reasons" can be part of the negotiated agreement.
I agree superbarnet. Peel referred to the whole site, not Powerhouse (I think) when they referred to 2023. We are in their hands, except that now the SPV is up and running, we should be given accurate dates since it's a Peel man that is leading it.
Additionally once the Powerhouse plant is commissioned, it could introduce waste (like old tyres) to show a working plant to customers, before Peel's whole site is operational.
In the meantime we can complain to FCA about Tim Yeo's misleading statements which created a false market price for the shares. Additionally, had he issued the 2023 date a week prior to the AGM, he might have been voted off. The question is proving when he knew, but it's likely it was shortly after the Peel announcement a few months ago, as he should have queried it with them, since it differed to his own statement.
As a retired exporter I agree. But Dave Ryan was an engineer, who must have received bad advice.
The problem is Peel is selling the concept of a "total waste solution", focussed on recycling when possible with the remainder turned into hydrogen, to power waste lorries.
PHE could have been stand alone for tyres, (I believe) or in countries where bin collections don't exist, a solution for waste plastic.
That's how it is. Negative information leads to market makers dropping the price whilst looking for buyers. They agree price with them, but will keep pushing down price to sellers to increase their own profits. First clue of change is when more buyers come in and spread then widens, as is happening now.
Can't agree more. And the Whites, who hold a lot more shares, will be well down and may even be buying on the side as i write. Peel and the whites and Yeo will want the share to rise, and am convinced they will now be doing everything possible to get this done.
I am holding
I suspect that Peel will not be able to operate the recycling plants on Protos until ours is operational. Otherwise they will be paying for waste to be carted off. So it's in Peel's interest to get our site completed as soon as possible, and the plant running.
Their representative, Ian Crockford, is contractually responsible for getting the buildings put up, and will shortly know when that should be. But Powerhouse will be responsible for then building, running and testing the machinery. Ian Crockford won't know when that will be. That will come from Powerhouse engineers.
it wouldn't surprise me if the building is ready by Q2 2022, and that Peel has allowed for the whole site to be running by 2023, including our plant. All machinery in all the buildings will have to be operational for the site to work. It's possible, that as part of the commissioning of our plant, that waste plastic will be brought in. This would be sufficient to test it and show it to potential buyers. That could be before the whole site is operational. So lots of dates and planning for Tim to give us
It's clear Ian Crockford is controlling the project, and now that he is on seat things should start to happen. He will appoint the contractor, who will advise on his start date. Hopefully all the project design work is already completed in-house. Ian will also be responsible for the procurement of all non-engineering materials. The contractor probably has completion dates within his contract, so once Ian knows when he will start, he should be able to advise us also of both start and finish. dates
The RNS was interesting because it lays out the information an accountant would ask for before making an investment. I think the aim is to show the cost and returns expected from Ivory Coast. This will interest any Company already mining there, as it will add to their scale, with possibly some cost savings. This will allow interested parties to contact Centamin and possibly make offers for the whole Ivory Coast business. I don't see any value in Batie.
As for the price decline, It wouldn't surprise me to see Black Rock increase their shareholding this week, alongside a short plus CFD buy at 115p
ITM down on morgan stanley downgrade due to their profit share scheme with Linde, reducing flows.
Sunday Times reported heavy lobbying by oil majors who want to provide grey or brown hydrogen, which they say is currently cheaper than green. In any case there is insufficient excess power from wind and solar for additional hydrogen, and there is no evidence that the Government is pressurising SSE et al for more farms. In fact SSE has said that it will start building windfarms overseas. All this suggests Government isn't that interested in green hydrogen yet, unlike EU and US.
It strikes me that Peel want to be able to show local authorities how waste will be sifted with eventually plastic being converted into hydrogen. So the site will contain various pieces of plant with ours being the last stage in the process.
So Peel is selling a complete green model. It might have been better if PHE had issued shares and built their own plant in isolation. Waste plastic could have been brought in.
Forgive me if this has already been posted but In Australia, Wildlife Energy also produces hydrogen from waste plastic using their moving injection horizontal gasification process. They have a pilot plant working and have received a grant from the Queensland Government to help fund a full-sized plant. If this is up and running before Powerhouse, we could have serious competition, especially in the Far East and possibly other countries depending on when their plant starts up.
My understanding is that Protos will be built two months sooner, bringing forward third party reviews, by the investment parties to be introduced. This should also bring forward sales.
PHE will need project engineers to plan the installations to meet clients' specs. There will be room for a future development engineer, to improve or increase the size of the equipment. But I can understand why he might not be interested in either
Forecast section in RNS points to min. 400k ozs and AISC including all planned capex at max $1250/oz. Based on gold at $1800/oz, gives Revenues of $720 million and costs of $500 million, profit $220 million with 50% for us.
This compares with $300 million this year, with just over $150 million for us.
My fag packet worst case scenario from before suggested 4th quarter Profit $14 million, and AISC at $1540 which appears to be good. Profit for 2020 should be just below $300 million.
Bust based on 2021 projected production and AISC figures in RNS, that will fall to $200 million next year, about 15% better than 2019 figure (assuming POG at $1850). Price end 2019 was 100p-120p