Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
". . at the World Trade Center in Moscow. . "
Is it legal to use the words "World Trade" and "Moscow" in the same sentence? I am sure some laws or sanctions are being broken here.
With regards to last weekend stuff being discussed here - it was nice to see some effort being put in by some of the posters - and I think that thought is typically summarised by Mr Spikeyj contributions but also by others. Its always good to see other opinions evaluated & justified & quantified - irrespective of agreeing or disagreeing.
Well done - and you know who.
Mr bobbybingo,
You make some good points - and maybe things work out well with the DFS with respect to mineral grades - and it would add some value back to the SP I am sure.
I do not think the DFS will be issued before an agreed sale price is presented to shareholders. Maybe all this information is presented on the same day - if so would then allow shareholders to make proper decision at vote.
Mr bobbybingo,
Rather than disagree with you, I shall make suggestion to Amur which also had a early feasibility study showing NPV of $333m. The company later sold the asset for $35m.
Please consider this - and let us know if it influences your predictions between 20p and 40p.
thank you
Mr bobbybingo,
You stated ". . . i dont think the sale will be at a high price but hopefully its north of 20p. . . ",
Please note: your 20p is a 8x increase on todays SP. May I therefore ask what a high price is for you if a 8x increase in SP is not considered high price ??
". . .current operations don’t include mining/ exploring / selling our stored concentrate. . . "
Not my words - but if above is true - then what are the current operations?
Selling the mining assets ? that's been ongoing for 3 years+ maybe longer
Not communicating with shareholders ? I think they busy doing this - maybe nearly full time - and are experts now I think!!
My view - if they put less effort in "not communicating with shareholders" and focus this "effort" onto the asset sale - then they will make sale next week.
Mr Tygra,
Your statements:
" . . all is not well sanctions wise. . . "
". . . because they CAN'T. . . "
are similar to the conclusions I have arrive at to understand the situation - and have been applicable for a long time.
Please note - the COMPANY have stated they ;
" . . .remains satisfied that its current operations are not prohibited under US, UK or EU sanctions rules. . . ".
Originally - the COMPANY stated the sanctions do not affect operations - now it is that they are not "prohibited" or in simple terms - they are not illegal. Its not good when a company is just "satisfied" that it's operations are not illegal.
I am sure some members of the BOD are very hopeful they are not conducting illicit activities.
EUA are an exploration & mining - if they cannot do either - then sanctions ARE affecting their operations. If they dont sell the product - then maybe they are "satisfied" they are not breaking laws!!!
Sanctions are here to stay - this COMPANY need to address this - if they cannot operate - then where will the revenues come from ??
I think the main reason for Rosgeo concerns - nobody wants to put capital into their country if there is any alternative elsewhere in the world.
Russia has made investing in Russia so risky - why bother when you can still have a flutter on an outsider in the 3.20 at Redcar today.
One point direct to Mr Mac (but others may contribute as always) - if the conflict does end this year - how many decades do you think it will be before the EU & UK start considering reducing sanctions ?
My thoughts - I think some of us shall be still driving hydrogen powered cars but many will be using the teleport by the time the sanctions are lifted.
Also - if you don't know yet - the technology for teleport uses shed loads of palladium and platinum.
Mr Peleliu and others,
CMCL did state in the Corporate Presentation 2023 (page 14) that the peak funding for Bilboes is $250m based on the actual FS on which CMCL purchased the mine. CMCL then stated that they will be looking at completing their own FS based on a phased development to minimise the initial capital investment and reduce need for third party funding.
Note : The company is currently running around $40m pre-tax profits.
I would like to think they can get a level of phased production from Bilboes using 3/4 years of internal cashflows plus (say) $70m external funding : making up hopefully $150m - which I would like to consider in calculations enough to get the Bilboes mine running to at least 50% capacity - and then over the following few years increase to 100% capacity through internal cash flows from Bilboes balance sheet only.
This is speculation and is my opinion based on assumptions on an unembellished model as the original FS is not available (if it is then please - someone please make link to document) and I am hoping the COMPANY makes available certain items from their own FS when complete.
An additional item - the COMPANY still maintains 75-80K oz for the year. If the company can balance books and pay dividends on production of 75k, then with the new shaft adding more reliability - and based on the 21.7koz production for the last quarter - if this can be maintained over the year then it will add 11.8koz, or extra revenue of around $18m, above what they planned to run the company including dividends & CAPEX investment.
I suspect certain financial decisions shall already be made by the COMPANY before shareholders have visibility of the FS.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/caledonia-explores-funding-options-build-zimbabwes-biggest-gold-mine-2023-10-19/
Cannot spend much time looking at all this - pity Tillywhiz not here today cause he knows all the stuff to look at - but I suggest the amount of buys (even the ones that may look like sales) could make this turn blue later today as I am sure the amount of available shares in the kitty is dropping very quickly.
" . . . what say you?"
They have already said - with their silence over the last 2 years apart from legal required statements to adhere with LSE/AIM rules.
Why am I interested in NAV - well it is maybe what the RF may dictate or suggest as maximum asset sale for EUA.
I suggest this will be bottom for EUA - if goes below NAV then possible buy point.
Aubery,
It is the decline since mid September (from 3p) that I have no reason for and is of interest - and it is so apparent to any LSE user - just click on the charts and set to 1 month or 3 months.
That's why I suggest - is it an attempt for SP to equalise with NAV.
The other decline we all know about.
Just for information, other PGM miners are down 5%
THS down 5% today - MCAP now £180m with net cash of +£100m : means company is actually valued at £80m.
Again - I need to correct myself.
Yesterday I stated
"The rate at which the EUA SP has declined over the last few weeks if extrapolated, means NAV is equalised in approximately 4 weeks time"
Looking at the SP now, I suggest this equalisation between SP and NAV shall be achieved within 2 weeks not 4 weeks.
I have a few replies to the questions raised towards me yesterday:
Mr SteJStej, The recent SP decline started around mid-late September (where it was approx 3p) and had already fallen to 2.45p at 5 October - so I would not put it on any issues within the middle east - however I am sure the issues there will make any SP recovery harder.
Mr Iknownuffin & Mr Fatlad, The Actual EUA NAV is listed in the accounts and you can see in the LSE website under EUA Fundamentals - but I suspect you already know this.
As for Projected NAV which is based on speculation (using assumptions and lots of things - and open to differing opinions) probably easier to look at NPV for the assets - but it is not NAV for EUA as EUA cannot claim ownership of minerals until after they are mined - and it is all speculative anyway (which accountants don't like but brokers and equity research companies LOV).
Here we can make reference to everyone's favourite report by our friends at ACF!! because many here are familiar with it. In their updated report dated 6 Sep 2021 - they had Implied MCAP of £2.9b - however I (and others) raised the issue that their calculations appear to have during 2023 - 2026, revenues of $2.6b, $2.8b, $3b & $3.4b, which appears very strange for a mining asset still under exploration studies at the time (sept 2021) and without DFS or mining licence or any procurement activities for mining equipment in progress or LOI for construction contractors issued . . etc.. . etc. As a lot of the NPV on the ACF valuation is based on revenues in these first few magical years of operation then for this (and other reasons), I did take the ACF valuation with the same pinch of salt I have with my chips - and rather use other realistic models/calc (this is my opinion - others will differ). I would have considered 4 or 5 years for planning, procurement and construction and another 2 or 3 years minimum for commissioning to 100% operational. Anyone reviewing the ACF report nowadays - possibly also take into account lower metal prices, apply higher CAPEX for inflation and higher CAPEX due to sanctions & possibly longer build programs (also due to sanctions).
Other projected NPV - from WA report on NKT - indicated the NKT NPV of $1.6b based on Nov 2021 prices at discount 8.33%. Again - their report is 100% their view. I have always thought 8.33% is a low discount to apply in the jurisdiction of Russia - but is my opinion. When apply different discounts into a model of the WA NKT data - it goes negative at 22% onwards (still using the higher metal price). Amalgamating a drop in metal price with a higher discount than that used by WA (higher than 8.33%) it is not long until you become negative and on the wrong side of the accountants who are the BOSS and always need to say YES.
Sorry to long!
The decline in the EUA share price over the last few weeks appear to be caused for no apparent reason (no issued RNS or major change of position within the RF).
So maybe the decline is to align share price with NAV of the company.
The rate at which the EUA SP has declined over the last few weeks if extrapolated, means NAV is equalised in approximately 4 weeks time.
Some of the companies operating in Russia, when their assets are sold, are valued at approximately the NAV by the RF.
Others don't even get that.
Mr Porsche,
I am sure some of the BOD wish they did sell some shares - however you know what happen when everyone's friend Alexei Churakov sold !!
Mr Cat,
I am sure you are just having a whiz and that you would never let posters on a website dictate your investment position.
There are a few things I would like to say from my experience being here:
1) When I read through all the historic RNS for the last 8 years from CMCL and then compare to what actually happened - I find the BOD are as truthful as possible - and I have not read anything to believe they have ever given information which can/maybe considered not accurate or can be mis-interpreted.
2) This share discussion here maybe a little civilised compared to other stock discussions you are involved in - however I am sure it wont stop you investing if you so wish.
3) Main issue I do have with CMCL to date is that unfortunately, they have had a few on-site fatalities over the last two years - which I know are a huge concern for the company and I am sure measures are actively being taken to address and improve the safety records.
4)One other point on the share discussion - there are very few posters here - and the ones that post post infrequently. If more energetic eager posters here then maybe we get more visibility on the day-to-day events at the mine - such as number of trucks delivering ore, how the rains affect the mine each day etc etc. As you know - even on EUA we often see visibility of the amount of stripping etc. I search for information and it is limited - could do with contact living near Blanket mine - however the company is still good at updating LSE with progress.
As an additional bit of information - looking at the Corporate Presentation 2023 (Slide 14) The COMPANY provide table of Gold Price v NPV for Bilboes.
Au $1320/oz, NPV(10%) $126.9m : Au $1500/oz, NPV(10%) $225.2m : Au $1650/oz, NPV(10%) $323.3m
If you then extrapolate and apply this to recent gold price :
Au $1881/oz, NPV(10%) $474.3m (today's price)
Au $2000/oz, NPV(10%) $552.2m
Mr L stated in July that he believe they still get to 80K.
This company provides gold and and the BOD provides honesty - nice to have in todays life (especially the honesty).