Member Info for HeidHoncho

The below are excerpts from the December RNS regarding NCM wishing to proceed with acquiring an additional 5%.

“ Newcrest has issued a notice to Greatland informing it that Newcrest would like to begin the process under the joint venture agreement to seek to agree the option exercise price in the period to mid-February 2022.

Under the joint venture agreement, if the option exercise price cannot be agreed by this date, each party is thereafter required to notify the other of its assessment of fair market value. If both parties' assessments are within 10% of each other, the option exercise price will be the average of those assessments. If both parties' assessments are not within 10% of each other, the parties will proceed to independent expert determination, with the expert being required to determine which of the values nominated by the parties is to be the fair market value.”

Given that the option exercise period of “mid February” has now arguably passed, then surely we must now have entered the “assessment of fair market value” phase, given that the “ if the option exercise price cannot be agreed by this date” has now arguably passed.

I note that no timescale has been identified by which each respective parties assessments require to be made but I cannot assume that it is open ended, and that there would be an as yet unidentified duration that this process requires completed by.

If we are indeed now out with the originally defined period during which an option exercise price was to be agreed (mid February), and we have now entered the process whereby each respective party must advise each other of their respective assessment of the fair market value, then I would opine that this inability to reach an agreement by the prescribed “mid February” is price sensitive information, and as such GGP are obligated under company law to appraise their shareholders of this by means of RNS, irrespective of any assumed/intimated potential “gagging order”/NDA that NCM may believe that they have in place that would prevent GGP from taking the lead in making an announcement.

Just a thought.

Given the statements made in EV’s post, a potential hypothetical and simplistic view on the debt to be replayed could be perceived (note, I said perceived, and not assumed) to be as follows.

Original debt of US$231 million, consisting of US$135 million of secured debt (original credit facility), the balance being assumed (as no other debt has been identified as being secured) to be unsecured debt of US$96 million.

I highly doubt that the level of haircut that each party (secured/unsecured) had to accept for the debt outstanding to them will necessarily be the same (though within each of the two respective parties it may be), but for the sake of this hypothetical example let us presume that it was.
Therefore, for the purpose of this hypothetical calculation, given that an average haircut across all debt being circa 55% (original debt being US$231 million, debt now being US$103 million), then we can presume that of the now outstanding debt of US$103 million that circa US$60 million of that is secured debt, and circa US$43 million is unsecured debt.

The secured debt is to be repaid over 2 years, and the unsecured debt is to be repaid over 9 years.

Hence, in the first year the JV has to repay circa US$35 million ($30m secured, $5m unsecured), in the second year has to repay circa US$35 million ($30m secured, $5m unsecured), and for years 3 through 9 at circa US$5 million per year.

I suppose the question you need answer for yourself is, and given that the existing stockpile of ore can be sold during the period that it takes to get the mine running operationally and generating cash flow, do you feel that the JV can sell sufficient volumes of the existing stockpile of ore per annum to service that debt.

Just thought that the above may be something for us each to ponder individually when weighing up whether we choose to buy/hold/sell.

Thank you for confirming that.

Let us advance this hypothetical discussions forward a few months then, if you will.

Let us disregard for the moment the potential that a consolidation could occur to reduce the substantial number of shares that would now be in issue, as the process of consolidation, or not, does not impact the resulting effect.

Circa 800 million shares currently exist, circa 700 million shares being issued at the end of Jan, circa 4.3 billion conditional placing shares, and 2 billion conditional open offer shares, that would equate to circa 7.8 billion shares would then be in issue.

That in itself would mean that existing shareholders would only hold shares in circa 23% (circa 1.8 billion of circa 7.8 billion) of the company they held 100% (circa 800 million of 800 million) in only a mere 2 days ago.

Let us take another small step forward, and consider the AGM later this year.
It is not uncommon for companies at an AGM to request the authority to potentially issue 100% of the existing number of shares throughout the following year.
Were that to be granted, much as it had previously been approved by shareholders in May, then it is not inconceivable in there being circa 15.6 billion shares (or an equivalent number of post consolidation shares) in issue by the end of this year.

And if it was conducted by means of a standard placing to institutions, and there being no open offer element, then the currently existing shareholders would have circa 1.8 billion of 15.6 billion shares).

Culminating in the space of less than 12 months, that the company that they previously held 100% of (circa 800 million of 800 million) they then only held a little over 11.5% (circa 1.8 billion of 15.6 billion shares) in.

That’s quite a big haircut for shareholders to accept don’t you think.

Hypothetically speaking you understand.

Other than it being uncommercial to do so, and the lack of an infrastructure (be that an LNG plant, or the installation of thousands of miles of pipe to transport it overland and sea requiring the approval of over a dozen nations).

Do you mean those reasons ?

Thank you for that correction.

Does that also mean that the 691 million placing shares that are issued on the 31st January also be eligible to vote on whether the additional circa 6 Billion currently conditional placing shares get approved ?

If so, then why even have a vote, as wouldn’t these 691 million votes would be sufficient to prevent the vote to defeat the approval of the additional 6 Billion shares from being issued.

797 million shares currently in issue, with an open offer ratio of 1.34 placing shares available for holders of every existing share, would equate to a maximum number of shares being offered under the open offer being 1.068 billion.

That’s even if every existing shareholder took up the entirety of their allocation in the open offer, which would never happen.

But let us hypothesise for a moment that they did, with an open offer share price of 0.1p that would only generate a smidgen over £1 million, and not be anywhere close to equating to the “up to £2 million” that they are intimating could be raised under the open offer.

Isn’t it time that someone removed the smoke and mirrors that the BoD furnished, from this house built from a pack of playing cards ?

It may just be my reading of the groundswell of opinion apparent on here, but I am beginning to feel that I’m the only LTH that would rather we retain our 30% JV holding in the Sonora asset.

I bought into the REM/KDNC story on the back of the Sonora asset, and to a lesser extent the potential in the HAS asset.

And as potentially beneficial the EMH shareholding, and the Amapa JV, may have on the ultimate share price it was/is not the primary reason that I held, and continued increasing, my initial investment into REM.

I continue in the belief that investments in Li based companies will be the key to financial gain in the future, so we’re we to sell off the Sonora JV for a proverbial song (we each have our own opinion of it’s worth) merely to further an interest in primarily Fe asset would likely have me re-evaluate a continued investment in KDNC.

I appreciate that it’s different strokes for different folks, or horses for courses, call it what you will, but if we are apparently transitioning into a primarily mixed ore based (though arguably currently Fe focused) investment vehicle, then I feel we have the potential to miss what was our original golden egg, that being the burgeoning Li market.

All of the above IMHO obviously.

nomlungu, exactly the point I was intimating in my earlier post of 13:00, but I purposefully just set the seed of thought rather than identify why I found the phraseology utilised as being an intriguing insight.

I feel that people are sometimes better served by identifying themselves where the trail of breadcrumbs lead, as then it becomes then not only my opinion but then becomes their opinion also.

Likewise, I felt that the long stop date was included to indicate that we (Val) are not to be messed about, and were we to feel that the American entity weren’t “walking the walk” and meeting their commitment, then we would/could just pull the rug from out under their feet were it to be in our ultimate best interests (i.e. removing any potential exclusivity, and seeking other parties to replace them).

IMHO

in the interview with Suzy, don’t you think ?

“long stop date”

IMHO

Just a thought, but as we know 41 million shares is a gnats pube from being exactly 5%.

There is the potential I suppose that over the recent days/weeks that Calculus Capital had offloaded circa 0.56%, and in doing so (i.e. not breached their reporting requirement as they had not breached 5%) not required to publish a TR1 at that point.

Latterly, or more likely in parallel, negotiated the sale of their remaining 5% with another entity.

Hence, my expectation is when a TR1 is issued concerning this trade of 41 million shares, that we will find out that it was Calculus Capital, and that they now have a zero holding.

Not that it really matters that much as to which of our existing major shareholders that sold the 41 million shares, but if I was pushed for an answer on which entity had sold them then CC is where my money would be.

IMHO obviously.

BOJO, too late I’m afraid, as the booster “of choice” up my neck of the woods has already been determined to be Moderna, with Pfizer as a fall back (AZ is considered unsuitable as a booster).

Personally, I am AZ AZ MO vaccinated.

Quetta, “ honest traders” ?

From that which I have witnessed, over many years, is that statement that you chose to utilise is, generally speaking, a bit of an oxymoron isn’t it ?

Smithy, “ Why should my kids futures be screwed up to pay to protect old people,”

But surely, being as these “old people” you refer to have already paid their “dues” (i.e. paid taxes into “the system” for 50 years or more), maybe they have more right to receive medical protection, given that you have chosen to bring up the subject of the monetary cost of providing what is “arguably” deemed to currently be an “adequate” level of health protection.

“health protection” is more encompassing than merely the costs to provide medical remediation, it also covers the costs of whatever sociological protection measures that may be deemed “appropriate” to bring suitably robust preventative measures into play to prevent a collapse of our medical resources as might likely be witnessed through letting a virus run unchecked throughout the population.
It is a commonly accepted philosophy that “prevention is better than cure”.

Or perhaps I have misunderstood the crux of your argument, and the underlying message that you are putting across is that in a civilised society the ethics of providing an equal level of protection to all is inherently wrong, and it should be primarily based on a “survival of the fittest” basis ?

So perhaps you can clarify your stance, are you promoting a “civilised society” philosophy, or are you promoting that the human race would be best suited to regressing and adopting a “law of the jungle” philosophy ?

Eastward, unfortunately, for you, you are wrong.

You can only input £20k per annum into an ISA, but the value held in the ISA can accumulate to a figure in the 100’s of thousands.

IMHO, if the statement in Latino’s post “ it will publish its interim results for the six months ended 30 June 2021, no later than 31 October 2021.” is from a verifiable announcement made by the company then they would be deficient were they to wait to publish the results until Monday.

The critical words in the statement are “will” and “no later than”.

“will” being a commitment made that they need to stand by, otherwise credibility in their word is lost, and “no later than” being a deadline that the results are “published” prior to Monday.

So, IMHO if the statement can be verified to have been made by the company then credibility in the BoD’s word will be decimated were they not to meet their commitment.

“ … under the sales and marketing agreement Hurricane has in place with BP, the sale of Lancaster crude is priced at the average of either the first or last five days of the month of lifting (at the buyer's option).”

In 2020 the cost associated with the associated refinery purchase cost, BP’s marketing fee, freight and other necessary costs incurred by BP in transporting Lancaster crude to it’s ultimate destination (assuming tanker uplift logistics costs), was $2.90 per barrel discount to the contractual Brent price.
“the remaining discount to the contractual Brent price was $2.9/bbl (2019: $3.1/bbl), representing the discount or premium offered by the refinery purchasing the crude, BP's marketing fee, and freight and other necessary costs incurred by BP in transporting Lancaster crude to its ultimate destination.”

Above details are obtained from previous RNS’s.

But it isn’t an “order” is it.

It was merely a “projection” of the revenue that “may” be generated, it was not portrayed as an irrevocable order with a value of £17 million, if it had been a contractual order with a guaranteed value of £17 million you can be certain that it would have been detailed in that manner.

Additionally, there is no time period associated with that “projected” revenue detailed in the RNS.

Is it £17 million in a year, a “projected” £17 million over 2 years, 3 years, or more ?

IMHO, obviously.

RG27, in point of fact the RNS detailing the data that I posted did not occur well over a year ago, it was released less than 3 months ago, as it was released on the 25th May this year.

It was remiss of me not to give due recognition for the source document when I initially posted earlier.

Like I stated, the information is all there for anybody there interested enough to conduct their own investigation, so as to corroborate the information and to base their decisions/judgements on verifiable data, and not merely take the word of a nameless BB poster such as myself.

As much as there are advantages to the utilisation of BB’s there are also potentially many disadvantages in doing so, especially to new investors and unwary investors.
I promote the ethos “DYOR” as the principle manner to protect the value of an investment, and never to merely accept the word of a poster on a BB, as there are a number of disingenuous posters who post on BB’s who do so in a manner so as to protect their investment and not the investment of those that are their readership.
IMHO, obviously.

“ … under the sales and marketing agreement Hurricane has in place with BP, the sale of Lancaster crude is priced at the average of either the first or last five days of the month of lifting (at the buyer's option).”

In 2020 the cost associated with the associated refinery purchase cost, BP’s marketing fee, freight and other necessary costs incurred by BP in transporting Lancaster crude to it’s ultimate destination (assuming tanker uplift logistics costs), was $2.90 per barrel discount to the contractual Brent price.
“the remaining discount to the contractual Brent price was $2.9/bbl (2019: $3.1/bbl), representing the discount or premium offered by the refinery purchasing the crude, BP's marketing fee, and freight and other necessary costs incurred by BP in transporting Lancaster crude to its ultimate destination.”

It’s all detailed in previous RNS’s if anyone can be bothered to look.

“ In June 2020, Hurricane hedged a portion of its forecast production for the second half of 2020. A total of 1.8 million barrels (equivalent to c.10,000 bopd), was hedged through the purchase of put options with an average strike price of $35/bbl (Dated Brent). The average strike price of $35/bbl represented a floor for the hedged volumes with Hurricane retaining any upside in oil prices above this level. The cost of acquiring the put options was $3.4 million”