Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Mr del929,
Based on your posting earlier it appears the EUA board have changed their views of a sale from being "very hopeful of sale this year" back in the summer to just "hopeful" now.
I know the wording in the RNS are very carefully written based on all earlier released information and statements.
It would give more confidence (or maybe not) if this COMPANY could give a general statement on WHY this sale is appearing to most of the outside of the board-room world as such a limp lettuce. They can do this.
Mr Eish,
If the COMPANY holds up to what they propose and become a 250kozpa operator with revenues in the order of 500m$ and profits after tax of 100m$ paying dividends of 30% of PAT - then there is little to stop the MCAP reaching (20x dividends) = $600m.
The spanners for the SP is - how much the shares gets diluted on the way to pay for all this or if debt increases / Au price drops.
Will have to wait a few years to see - but shall monitor.
Nice to see the drop from last week now fully recuperated.
Mr Rocka999,
I understand it is the charging temperature that is critical (the discharge or operating temperature is less of a factor).
From my understanding:
lower temperatures (whilst charging and discharging) reduces the performance of the battery whilst operating at those conditions - and then under normal conditions the battery will revert back in accordance with the life status for the battery. Lithium based batteries cannot be practically charged below 0degC as current needs to be small (so central heated garage maybe required) .
Elevated temperatures (often defined as +40degC) I am led to believe charging batteries at elevated temperatures may result in a possible irreversible reduction on battery storage/capacity. From reviewing some specs (Lithium laptop battery and others) this could be up to 20% of the total storage capacity. The other point I have noticed from certain specs - this behaviour could result not from multiple charges at the elevated temperature - but from a single charge or just a few charges at the elevated temperature.
In comparison to petrol fuel cars - consider the following:
In winter - consider the car has changed to a smaller fuel tank and you use a narrower fuel hose to fill it !
In very hot summer - consider dropping a few bricks into your fuel tank and they can never be removed.
My thoughts are - main concern would be the irreversible drop on charge capacity from charging at elevated temperatures. Even for a climate like uk - it actually reached 40degC the other year - then everyone will also need air-con units in their garages during overnight charging. Please don't ask what to do if not got garage!
I attached the following link - which I think has lots of the points mentioned. It be a nice little research project this - as there are so many devices now with batteries.
https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-410-charging-at-high-and-low-temperatures
Mr Del929,
The only question I ever thought to raise with the BOD was if CS could address the point raised during the AGM which was not addressed - see my earlier posting copied below.
Taken from the AGM transcript:
"The question here about the shareholders who invested at 26p. I don't know the status of our current shareholder lists. Perhaps I should know, but I didn't find out before this meeting."
QUESTION : Could the BOD now obligingly inform shareholders if the entity that invested at 26p still hold their share certificates and, if not could the BOD inform when they sold. In addition - if they still hold - have they increased their holding.
". . . A offer will likely come in Q1, and we will need to take it or go out of business.. . . "
if you are the buyer - these are the best negotiating times - especially when dealing with Russians. Good luck.
As Rory Breaker said, ". . It was yesterday I said three and a half grand and today is today, if I am not mistaken. I'll take it tomorrow for half price. "
And - I think they have 14 days to notify Companies house!!
Mr Stonk,
You may find the suggestion/question of Mr Byrne's employment within EUA is a direct consequence of his name missing on the most recent RNS whilst he is present on all other RNS in the past (well all I have seen).
I am sure it is just a slip-error of EUA board whilst compiling the RNS.
Please do not confuse de-ramping with observation.
" . . It's looking very good.. . ."
a 25% drop directly after a corporate update is just what the doctor ordered.
Mr Mizman,
your statement - " . . End of the war, end of Ukraine aid and end of sanctions is on the horizon . . "
Do you think the sanctions will end when the war ends ?
I would not be surprised if some jurisdictions mainly UK, EU (and possibly others) keep sanctions on RF for decades - at least until they have provided a fiscal balance to the damage they have caused directly at all levels of Ukrainian life.
It is obvious to many that today's RNS is not exactly a paving to a nice future for shareholders.
In general - it indicates (and I suggest most agree):
- asset sale is not happening within the BOD hopeful time slot
- cash will run out in 3 months even if company operates (as it has been) on life support
This clarification from EUA and general agreement of the above two items has, in effect, UNIFIFED shareholders and posters on this website.
Only real solution which the COMPANY has at its control now (especially after greasing all it's shareholders with this "new" information today) is one or both of the following (one many may suggest is highly inevitable):
- dilution of shares later in February to raise monies (possibly at considerable lower SP than today due to circumstances)
- some asset sale made just to ensure company survives (not dividend paying asset sale - just for utility-bill and salary paying)
The COMPANY needs to be in a much better financial position to progress further with any major or meaningful asset sale (if there are still buyers) - otherwise any potential buyer can just let the clock tick and buy for scraps at midnight.
It does look like Mr Byrne may already be a casualty of the current operations status - but maybe its an error slip in the RNS from EUA.
Even the words they using appears to actually be void of hope:
they were Very Hopeful
they now Remain Hopeful
On news reports - if they ever say they "remain hopeful" of a good outcome - you know its not gonna be a nice ending.
Also no time-period stated now for their hope.
Only conclusion - further from sale now than back in September.
Assume the BOD added this snippet in the RNS to keep some occupied for the next 3 months - scurrying for information on the glory of Hong Kong.
Hibernation for everyone else - especially anyone associated with WK - nice long sleep.
Mr CheshireLad,
Your explanation looks good - and if it is reality - I am sure the COMPANY would use similar terminology.
Mr Auson,
Who knows ? It be nice for the BOD to let us know.
If the COMPANY is still very hopeful for sale conclusion before end of year - suggest they say they see "SOME visibility" of the sale.
As they have not stated ANYTHING - many would assume not much going on - and - suggest the COMAPNY no longer "very hopeful" for completion of sale this year - and maybe keep their investors informed and propose a later date for THEIR hope (as suggested in title) IF they still see a sale happening.
I suggest (if applicable) this happens now - cause I think SP will drop considerably if stated later.
For me - it looks like the EXPECTATION of approx 30 days of grace or ". . before end of year. . ", is enough for a 30% rise. If the COMPANY could provide 3 months of confidence I am sure lots more happy here.
RNS :
"While the Group has made progress in reaching contractual settlements and unwinding working capital, given delays in securing advance payment guarantees, it no longer expects to receive these advances before the year-end"
Also, the words " . . . made progress. . . . ", are probably not as reassuring to some as it is to others,
MCAP £115.
Mr johnychainlocker,
most media reports I search for keep on saying its cause of the fall in oil price. that's what I find a little strange.
Mr Redheadedrager,
You are 100% correct in debt. I am sure others will agree.
MCAP £111m
2 days ago MCAP £156m.
Understand FTSE Small Cap lower limit is considered around £50m - so above that.
Suggest dept (and dept alone) and not oil price is causing the increase in shorts and therefore non-confidence in share price.
Whatever - the shorters have won here this week - question is - will they win next week as well?