Was reading the article below recently.
Does anyone know how much it is costing the Aje field partners (AJEP) to transport oil now, and what ADME Energy's share of the cost is?
What ARE AJEP currently using to transport the oil?
Are all the costs of transporting the oil nowadays, plus extraction and production costs from the well(s), safely below the value of the oil?
Are there any up-to-date estimates out, or available, of how many months or years of crude oil production from the existing well(s) might be recoverable?
Wall Street Journal: Oil Shipping Costs Soar to Highest Levels in 11 Years
Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) email (excerpt) on Keras's proposed Calidus share distribution:
[Start quote] "When will I be able to trade my shares on the Australian Stock Market?
You will be able to trade your shares on the Australian Stock Market once they have been successfully transferred into our HSBC Account. This process will begin on 29 November 2019 and may take a NUMBER OF WEEKS to complete, although we will work to ensure the transfer is concluded as quickly as possible." [End quote] [Capitals my emphasis]
How many weeks is "a number of weeks"?
Seems extraordinarily vague, imprecise and uncertain to me, and doesn't fill me with confidence.
So - in so far as it is currently proposed, planned and anticipated by HL - someone who may want to sell their Calidus share allocation, who happens to be a Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) client wont:
a) be able to do so for "a number of weeks" until;
b) "they have been successfully transferred into...[Hargreaves Lansdown's global custodian] HSBC Account?
What if the HL client wants (or urgently needs) to sell some or all of their Calidus during that "number of weeks" period?
If such an HL client is forced to take a metaphorical 'back seat in the queue' (when compared to holders of Keras shares with other brokers receiving their proposed Calidus distribution more speedily and timeously) I imagine some - perhaps many - HL clients may be very disgruntled, unhappy and displeased.
Particularly if they end up having to sit and watch an offer price (that they may have wanted to sell at) come and go, sitting on the sidelines...waiting for Hargreaves Lansdown's proposed, planned and anticipated "number of weeks"...
To avoid the AUD$200 DS Vickers broker fee, I would have thought HL should be improving their customer service by looking into grouping individual customer sell orders of Calidus shares into blocs.
Re, estimated post demerger, post distribution, I noticed that too.
As you say, HL said in their email:
"It is expected that the combined value of your Keras Resources plc and Calidus Resources Ltd shares immediately following the Demerger will be broadly the same as the value of your Keras Resources plc shares immediately before the Demerger. "
However, the nearest I can find in terms of near 'official' post demerger, post distribution estimated (but not guaranteed) possible values is in KR's 27 August 2019 corporate presentation on their website:
This is from page 12:
Keras holds 723,750,000 fully paid CAI
Ordinary Shares valued at c.£13.33m
? Keras intends to distribute its Calidus
shareholding pro-rata to its
shareholders, with the distribution
expected by the end of 2019, through a
capital reduction and demerger process
Shareholder with 1m KRS shares
? 1,000,000 KRS Shares: £4,750
Post Demerger Value
? 1,000,000 KRS Shares: £2,556*
? 316,168 CAI Shares: £5,649
? Total Value: £8,204
Assumes that KRS will trade at 50% of its NPV. Currently KRS trading at 53% discount to its NAV. Full valuation calculation in Appendix 2
Why would what Hargreaves Lansdown said about estimated, anticipated, possible value of holdings of Keras and Calidus in the immediate aftermath of the demerger and distribution be so different?
I see there is another apparent discrepancy in Hargreaves Lansdown's (HL) [supposedly corrected] email today.
"What is happening?
Keras Resources plc has announced proposals of a Demerger whereby the Company intends to distribute its shareholding in Calidus Resources Ltd to Keras Shareholders. Eligible Keras Resources plc Shareholders will receive 1 Calidus Resources Ltd share for every 3.44229 Keras Resources plc shares they hold on the qualifying date, expected to be the close of business on 25 November 2019."
By 'qualifying date' HL presumably mean 'record date', which is the term Keras use.
However, Keras Resources (KR) say:
"Intention to demerge entire 723,750,000 shareholding of Calidus Shares held by Keras, and to distribute them to the Eligible Shareholders (currently anticipated to be those on the register at 6.00 p.m. on 19 November 2019)"
So HL give 25th November as the 'qualifying date' (whatever they mean exactly by 'qualifying date'). But KR give the 19th November as the EXPECTED 'record date'.
In KR's RNS, within the 'Expected Timetable of Principal Events', they say:
"Expected date of High Court hearing to confirm the Demerger Reduction 19 November"
"Expected Record Date
6.00pm on the Business
Day of the High Court
order for the Demerger Reduction."
* The Record Date is expected to be on or about 19 November 2019 and the Company will notify the firm date by Regulatory Information System prior to the Demerger becoming effective."
Oh dear! Certainly doesn't sound like choosing Eskom was a good idea at all. Perhaps they chose Eskom because they were cheaper? Companies in trouble sometimes cut their prices to the bone. If so, that may have been a bit of a bad gamble, especially for Firestone Diamonds at this time.
Sometimes low cost can come at a high price.
"South Africa is pushing coal producers to cut prices to help save Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd., the debt-stricken power utility that threatens to unravel the country’s finances."
PS I wonder how many kilowatts an hour it it take to run the Liqhobong mine? And how many generators they would need to do so? Are there even generators in existence with the power capacity to run a big mine complex? And, if so, who might have any, and how long and how much would it take to deliver them and set them up? What fuel would they require and how much would that cost?
I wonder if the Liqhobong mine already has some back up generators? Do they/did they have enough?
Seems to me there may have been a bit of an oversight there in contingency planning. Your average householder knows to keep some candles as back up in case of a power problems. So many people would expect a company with Firestone's responsibilities would have had something in place in case of power problems.
It would have been good to hear about the planned maintenance at the hydro thingymyjig in advance before it happened.
I wonder if management could have anticipated the power problems with the electricity supply?
I wonder what the exact technical and electrical difficulties are?
Something to do with amps, voltage levels, ac or dc?
Why the difficulty when changing supplier?
Domestic, residential customers in UK changing administratively from company 'x' to company 'y' don't seem to commonly experience what Firestone Diamonds have?
Will the problems Firestone are having just turn out to be a brief flash in the pan, or something more long-lasting, structural and systemic?
I appreciate the frankness in a number of their recent RNS's.
I wonder what current (and future potential value?) these major investors are seeing in the Company and why they are holding such large stakes?
At the moment it feels as if the only 'brilliant' bright spots and 'crystals' being produced are the finer, large carat diamonds, once polished.
Talking of polish, I see some shares are being 'polished' up again, following the second sizable drop in recent weeks.
"The Company announces a production disruption at its 75% owned Liqhobong Mine in Lesotho due to intermittent power supply. The Liqhobong Mine is supplied electricity from the Muela Hydropower Station (MHS) which is owned by the Lesotho Electricity Company (LEC) and which forms part of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project Phase 1 Katse Dam.
The MHS commenced a two month maintenance shutdown on 1 October at which time ongoing supply was to be provided by Eskom, South Africa's power utility company. Since then, the mine experienced unexpected voltage fluctuations that caused the drives of the plant equipment to trip and as a result, operations have been severely disrupted. Management is addressing the issue urgently with the LEC and Eskom, and will provide further updates in due course."
The power problems and production disruption, it seems to me, are very unfortunate, convergent events; happening, as they have, in the run up to voting on resolutions at an upcoming General Meeting which - if passed - could see the percentage shares of the Company (and potential influence and control?) of two major shareholders increase significantly.
I see, in information publicised elsewhere by Firestone Diamonds, that 25% of the Liqhobong Mine is owned by the Government of Lesotho.
I wonder if the Government of Lesotho have any influence and/control over the Muela Hydropower Station/Lesotho Electricity Company/South Africa's Eskom?
Perhaps Firestone Diamonds may wish to consider investigating and asking whether it is possible for the two month long maintenance programme that commenced on 1 October at Muela Hydropower Station
(which I just learned about for the first time in today's RNS!) can be suspended?
"The Proposed Restructuring constitutes a fundamental disposal under Rule 15 of the AIM Rules and is subject to shareholder approval. In order to effect the Proposed Restructuring, Motif Bio will need to raise sufficient capital through the Proposed Capital Raise, which would be managed by Motif Bio's joint broker SP Angel. An announcement will be made in due course providing further details on the Proposed Capital Raise and, if successful, a circular shall be posted to shareholders setting out full details of the Proposed Restructuring and Proposed Capital Raise.
If the Proposed Capital Raise is successful, it is expected that SP Angel, Motif Bio's joint broker, shall become nominated adviser (Nomad) effective upon the close of business on 2 October 2019. Peel Hunt LLP, Motif Bio's current Nomad, has given notice of its resignation as Nomad, to be effective as at the close of business on 2 October 2019, unless extended" [End quote]
"As noted in the 2018 annual report, Celadon Mining, an investment the Company made in 2011, has predicted a liquidity event for this November. The Board will keep the market informed of what we learn, though, as we have explained previously, we have no oversight over the sale process including the identity of the purported buyer.
The Board then expects to put the Company's remaining assets up for auction with an announcement identifying those assets and the auction procedures to be made toward the end of the year. Following the completion of the auction process the Board expects to call a shareholder meeting to determine the future direction of the Company. Further details will be provided in due course."
I wonder what the "future direction" of the Company might be?
Whatever it may be, after the saga of recent years a number of members of the Board of Directors may have acquired some useful business restructuring/business turnaround, detection & research and (forensic?) accounting skills...
I can't remember ever seeing any other company present a dividend/distribution, that includes an unnecessary, mistaken or superfluous TWO extra zeros to the right of a decimal point before, thus making the dividend/distribution appear - apparently wrongly - a 100 times smaller in the Capital Distribution RNS than presented in today's Interim unaudited Results RNS. See below.
That said, I personally am really pleased about today's news, especially when I compare Origo's recent (i.e. past few months) share price with the 0.117 US cents a share dividend/distribution!
" [Note] 22 Subsequent events
After the reporting date, on 26 September 2019, the following dividends were proposed by the Board of directors.
$0.00117 per Ordinary Share totalling $419,734
$0.02947 per Preference Share totalling $1,679,790
The ex-dividend date will be 3 October 2019 and the Associated Record Date will be 4 October 2019. The Group will aim to pay the dividend on or around 31 October 2019.
The dividends have not been recognised as liabilities and there are no tax consequences."
Capital Distribution RNS:
"Origo Partners Plc announces a return of capital of approximately US$2.1 million to shareholders of record as at 4 October 2019 with payment to be made on or around 31 October 2019. Pursuant to the Company's Articles of Association, eighty per cent of that amount will be distributed to the holders of the Company's redeemable preference shares at 0.02947 cents per redeemable preference share and twenty per cent of that amount will be distributed to the holders of the Company's ordinary shares at 0.00117 cents per ordinary share."
If Origo intended to say they planned to distribute US$0.00117 they should have said that.
Fact is, they said 0.00117 cents.
The correct figure is 0.117 cents (US).
That is 100x larger than what they said.
"Origo Partners Plc announces a return of capital of approximately US$2.1 million to shareholders of record as at 4 October 2019 with payment to be made on or around 31 October 2019. Pursuant to the Company's Articles of Association, eighty per cent of that amount will be distributed to the holders of the Company's redeemable preference shares at 0.02947 cents per redeemable preference share and twenty per cent of that amount will be distributed to the holders of the Company's ordinary shares at 0.00117 cents per ordinary share.". [End quote]
However, from my calculations:
US$2,100,000 = 210,000,000 US Cents
20% of that for Ordinary shareholders is 42,000,000 US Cents
42,000,000 US Cents divided by 358,746,814 (the number of ordinary shares Origo state on their website as being in issue) actually gives a figure of 0.1170742104 US Cents per ordinary share.
Rounded down, that's 0.117 US Cents per ordinary share.