Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Listen in @ 25:55
**************************************/articles/live-company-group-bigblu-broadband-rockfire-resources-botswana-diamonds-and-malcy-d1e7825/
Sounds like Marange JV still on :)
That's ok, it's not going to be huge and the directors funded the last placing. I agree that 20tpa is a huge amount and appears to only be scratching the surface of the deposit. It will be interesting to see how extensive the deposit is once the bulk sampling starts and the drill results are announced. I'm curious to know if they have found any alluvial deposits.
Bring on the Thorny River license and hopefully news of Maibwe/Sunland! Production starts in May and presumably we will get some more drill results before then too!
Vast is a coiled spring? I think you might be referring to a Slinky, because it only seems to go down...
Does he own a boat?
Google Zimbabwe and see what the news says...
I'm sorry if I was being a bit pedantic earlier Castaway, I know you mean well and I can see that you genuinely believe in Vast, so good luck to you too.
That's ok :)
I thought you were spot on with both points. I'm annoyed at AP but even more annoyed at myself as I naively assumed that with all of the investments Vast was making in Blueberry, Zagra, Marange, Eureka etc the cash situation was being managed and sensible decisions were being made.
A fair point ORT. I can't deny that I have been monumentally stupid. However I can only base my investment decisions on the information given to me by the company. Unfortunately being young I am having to learn how AIM investing works the hard way, as I'm sure many experienced investors have also done with other investments in the past.
You are right ORT but it's a big ask to put one's faith back in the company given their track record, especially when we know they have defaulted on their debt payments, currently have no financing in place and are about to sell their only profitable producing mine.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take"
A great analogy, but until we get further news it is hard to know if we are playing Basketball or Russian Roulette...
Yes I am quoting from an RNS which details factual information about the contract and has been passed by a Nomad. I haven't seen the actual prepayment agreement but I have read the other charge documents on companies house which seem to imply Mercuria know what they are doing with contracts.
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=VAST&ArticleCode=xveefw5a&ArticleHeadline=Shareholder_QA_Document
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05414325/filing-history
You are quoting from a CEO doing a podcast. Again, if you would like to point me to an RNS that says Mercuria defaulted on the terms of the agreement then I would be happy to be corrected.
Dodge you are making some good points but be careful not to mix assumptions in with facts. All we know is that
1) The charge over all Romanian assets never happened before Mercuria pulled the plug
2) Vast defaulted on it's SSGI debt
3) Management had decreased ore deliveries to Mercuria due to lack of capex (something AP heavily criticised RP for)
4) Mercuria were faced with the prospect of loaning an additional $5.5m to a company which was happy to find money to spend on other speculative projects but didn't have the money to pay back another creditor on time as per the joint agreement and invested relatively little of the original $4m loan into improving it's Romanian operations.
Now Vast has been forced to bring a third creditor in the mix. What an absurd situation
I meant to say you should know better, but please feel free to correct me if I missed an RNS saying Mercuria defaulted anywhere.
Castaway, you can't criticise Dodge for not having a basis in reality when making up facts yourself!
"they were contractually obliged to do the pre finance offtake for BP - which they defaulted on"
Where is the evidence that Mercuria:
a) were contractually obliged to do the pre finance offtake
b) defaulted on the agreement?
The only fact that I am aware of is that Vast were contractually obliged to pay SSGI by December to release the 50% security over Sinarom, which was contractually supposed to be re-charged to Mercuria. This didn't happen and someone with your knowledge of the company should
"Charge over all Romanian assets to be released on 31 December 2018, or earlier, following repayment of a further US$1.5 million to SSGI and Romanian assets re-charged to Mercuria"
If you are referring to the contract then logically it is Vast that has not fully met the conditions of the agreement:
"Funds to be drawn down US$4 million on or before 5 March 2018 ("Tranche A") and up to US$5.5 million on 1 July 2018 (or subsequently as required) ("Tranche B") subject to Vast Resources PLC meeting pre-agreed conditions."
"Drawdown of Tranche B is subject, in addition to customary due diligence and agreement of documentation, to a technical and financial due diligence on Manaila and Baita Plai and the completion of a Baita Plai plant investment plan validating the business of that mine. Tranche B would be secured on the Romanian assets of the Company."
Sounds like the only defaulting going on here is by Vast on it's contractual obligations to SSGI.
Sandy I agree but to be honest as much as I wanted to disagree with him, most of the points he raises seem reasonable based on past performance if you ignore some of the added opinions. The problem I think is the selective quoting of mostly negative facts 90% of the time. There is no nuance in his argument or countenance that perhaps AP might be able to pull off BP and Marange, even if it costs us some assets along the way. Equally this annoys me when posters do the same and ignore the major crisis Vast is in, so I was pleased to see how you and Lee approach the matter with a more balanced view.
Actually Fantasy I have been through your list and I have to agree with many of the things you say.
I don't approve of calling AP a very poor CEO as I think he still has an opportunity to deliver on some of his promises made in relation to Blueberry, BP and Marange, which if successful could ultimately make him a good CEO, despite all of the problems. We also shouldn't forget that AP brought many of these assets into the company.
I think it's just more helpful to argue each point as and when they appear on the board. Compiling a big long list just comes across as spiteful and is easy to dismiss.
We have also discussed many of the issues repeatedly so it is equally a bit tiring hearing the same points over and over again, just as it is tiresome hearing about how awesome the diamonds will be and, judging by the sound of some lesser-researched posters, you would think getting a prepayment finance agreement was something you simply buy off the shelf. In truth it is a complicated potentially four way negotiation with huge amounts of internal and external loans, revenue mortgages and complex security arrangements with multiple creditors spanning multiple companies.
I personally don't doubt the revenue generating potential of BP or Marange, but the financial situation is incredibly difficult to sort out so I am quite happy sitting this one out until it is all sorted because for me the risk of these negotiations failing or being delayed could be catastrophic to the company.
Fantasy can I just request that you get a bit more creative with your posts?
You make the same points over and over again so it would be refreshing to have some variation. You actually end up undermining yourself and you never use any evidence to back up your claims. It's annoying because it discredits the valid concerns that others are raising. If your objective is to lower the share price then I think you would help your cause a bit more with less repetition and more reasoned arguments rather than just stating nothing but your opinion over and over again. I can understand holders letting off some steam and being annoyed but you seem to be fighting tooth and nail to talk the company down every single day.
Top post Lee. A great summary of where we are and I commend you on your reliance on facts vs opinion.
Lots of good points being raised by all but lets be careful to make the distinction between our own point of view and actual history. Whilst it is possible for Vast to go bust if it cannot secure cash flow, I think it is a bit of a reach to claim that we are at this point because Vast can raise money through placings and is clearly reaching some sort of agreement with SSGI to get rid of the debt. The truth is we don’t have enough information in the public domain to make an honest assessment. If Vast can get rid of SSGI and secure offtake or debt from elsewhere then everything will be ok. However this might prove difficult or the company might run out of cash waiting for financing or due to SSGI repayments. So as I have said before, your money is very much at risk until financing is sorted. I appreciate that Sandy has some views on this kind of warning but as someone who got caught out before I can see a real danger of people being caught out again by the constant talk of multibagging and mindless unqualified optimism based on hope. Certainly we accept the risks involved when investing in AIM but equally some of the lesser experienced investors can get burned and we all have to earn our stripes somewhere. The diamond RNS’s are positive but this is Zimbabwe. The economy is screwed and Zanu PF are corrupt so it is far from certain that an AIM tiddler in financial distress will be given the right to mine, regardless of what AP claims. Until there is machinary on the ground I think we should be a little more cautious in our optimism. Everyone is free to believe what they want but if we decide to overlook any negatives or risk here then we do our fellow investors a great disservice. Some might not share that view because they were clever enough to sell in the 60’s. Those that didn’t are understandably annoyed and bitter. Equally we shouldn’t claim that the company is a lost cause. It’s in an incredibly difficult position but it has some painful options it can choose from to get out of this mess. I suspect many of the bitter ones are like myself and actually believe in the assets and potential of Vast if they can get through this difficult period, we just don’t want to be run through the mangle again.
As for corruption claims I think that is also a bit far fetched. I’m annoyed at AP and the disasterous situation we have ended up in, but he has a lot of incentives to keep Vast going and I’m sure will fight tooth and nail to make Vast a success. His redemption will lie in getting BP into production and hopefully diamonds at Marange (although I would understand if this doesn’t come off due to the difficult operating environment).
So I look forward to the continued debate, lets just try not to make it too personal eh?
I was annoyed at AP casually suggesting Pickstone wouldn’t deliver any value to shareholders for years to come. That being the case then why the hell has Vast spent the last few years glorifying an asset of inconsequential value? This is completely dishonest. Likewise admitting that Eureka is just a liability because they failed to secure funding. It was a very polite meeting but at the end of the day the board have screwed up and have yet to show any real remorse or acknowledgement for their mistakes. Even the general headroom was lied about suggesting that they have no specific purpose in mind when clearly the company needs cash.
If Vast delivers diamonds then maybe Andrew can be forgiven but we can’t escape the fact that Manaila and Pickstone Peerless have been misrepresented and presented as great producing assets only to be dismissed in recent months.
Vast has spent the last two years putting lipstick on pigs and now it cannot afford the lipstick.