Member Info for hxulcolrdoh

Hi Freedom4Uall,

The YE 2024 accounts assets included

"Mineral right $201.75m"

"Mining assets $475.684m" which in turn included

- "Included in mining assets and infrastructure are projects under construction of US$168.6 million"

- "Included in additions to mining assets and infrastructure are ADDITIONS to the deferred stripping asset of US$65.8 million"

Note 11 of the 2025 interim's states

"Included in additions to mining assets and infrastructure are ADDITIONS to the deferred stripping asset of US$11.6 million"

As the notes only talks about ADDITIONS to the deferred stripping asset I'm confused about what the 'deferred stripping asset actually is. I would interpret an addition of US$11.6 as add this to the US$65.8 million" which should be added to whatever that was added to. So I would have thought it was a big number but presumably the big hole is now dug / provides access to resource and going forward can be depreciated/amortized over time.

Further I am unclear as to which site the 'deferred stripping asset' relates to Tharisa or Karo or a mixture?

The 'mineral right' addition (page 19 + note 11) to the balance sheet popped up in the 2022 accounts following the farm in to KMH ( https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/THS/exercise-of-farm-in-option-karo-pgm-project-pv8xtiaqa5v4fgk.html ) along with a note

"The first-time consolidation of Karo Mining Holdings at 31 March 2022 resulted in the recognition of US$201.8 million in assets related to the mineral right of the Karo Platinum Project."

I don't know where it magically came from. It has not changed since then. Like other things on the balance sheet such as the deferred stripping that you mentioned if you were an 80's style asset stripper you'd have to question the real value.

On KMH costs the company seems to make it difficult to follow these (see post of 1 Sep 2025 14:10 for an estimate). In YE Sept 2023 for example $65m was funneled into KMH. Looking at the Balance Sheet or Cash Flows I don't know how you'd figure this out. The detail is buried elsewhere in small print/footnotes.

The capitalising of borrowing costs for something under construction I think would be normal (I'm not an accountant).

Watched the committee meeting.

IMO a lot of vacuous arm waving. Based on that exchange I'd judge that the Financial Chaos Authority will keep this running for quite some time.

What I'd particularly like to see the Financial Chaos Authority do is categorize claims. Those in bucket A (X%) will be subject to this treatment, those in bucket B (Y%) will be subject to this treatment, those in bucket C (Z%) will be subject to this treatment etc. I think this would help a lot with clarity.

Meeting link

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/fecd1d32-de87-46ee-b388-0236910824f9

Agree oil prices are generally set internationally. Oil travels.

Gas doesn't. Something like 25% of UK gas imports are in the form of LNG. Importing LNG as a substitute for local gas is moronic. It is considerably more expensive and has a considerably higher carbon footprint (if you care about that).

Further even though piped gas imports from Norway (and oil generally) might be of a similar cost and carbon footprint to those from the North sea it is still moronic to filling the coffers of Norway's sovereign wealth fund when you could be filling those of the UK.

Page 10 depreciation $31,582 = Page 29 depreciation $29,553 (depreciation related to sales) + page 30 depreciation $2,026 (depreciation unrelated to sales)

It is reasonable to include in assets things such as deferred stripping, mines under construction with a view to depreciating/amortizing the costs over time. From an accounting point of view it is useful for example to label digging big expensive hole as an asset that over the life of the mine becomes less valuable. From another point of view one could ask the question does it have any value if the mine is not operational. I'd rather have an excavator on the balance sheet that a hole that had been dug with an excavator.

Clifford will happily pay himself £1m pa to keep this farce running as long as conceivably possible.

Not a lot TBH.

There will probably be a Q3 trading statement in early November and fingers crossed Rachel from accounts doesn't do anything stupid when trying to fill her black hole.

I doubt if Red Ed gives a rats behind how damaging his policies are. Given that he knows best he'd be even less interested in having a conversation about it.

He'd make a good new deputy leader for the labour party.

At that rate it should only take a year and a half odd to rustle up $2.6bn ( provided they cancel all other spending)

Well said that man!

Actually the bond raise was first trailed back at the end of July

https://www.cnbcafrica.com/media/7753702687216/4trn-power-debt-nigeria-gencos-await-bond-programme-/

So in theory the cheque is 'in the post'.

Hi komakino ,

it seems that shares can be 'subscribed' for during a suspension (though it requires an act of faith from the subscriber)

During the Dec-2022 -> Mar 2025 suspension the new Non-Executive Director and Chair Designate, Mr Joseph Pagop Noupoué subscribed for 6,095,726 new ordinary shares in the capital of the Company

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SAVE/directorpdmr-shareholding-hi0qcormjym033o.html

Admittedly he did not get his hands on them until

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SAVE/fundraising-and-restoration-to-trading-wj8bufexgu1rbuo.html

This includes "Application has also been made for the 6,095,726 new Ordinary Shares that were issued as noted in the Company's 21 April 2023 RNS, which were not admitted to trading on AIM at the time due to the Company's then suspension from trading."

I accept your point.

It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The equity subscriber clearly wants a clean bill of health from the auditor on the 'Going Concern' front and the reassurance that any shares subscribed for are tradeable.

I'd guess AK will have told them that they have nothing to worry about. If so then this has cut no ice.

On the 4th of March the company stated that one of the fund raise participants would settle up for 138,977,614 shares ($9.7m / 8.5% dilution) "by not later than 4 September 2025".

This is now delayed

"the final tranche of 138,977,614 Subscription Shares, which was due to be issued by close of business today, is now expected to be issued no later than 10 business days after the restoration to trading on AIM"

I agree that Ecora has an attractive NAV.

However the NAV is largely revenue streams and unfortunately by the time revenue streams are put through 'the machine' only a fraction of it comes out the other side.

The company has been going for quite some time with unremarkable success. I'm not sure what the catalyst for change would be. Just an opinion.

He will presumably be explaining this ?

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/49088/documents/258841/default/

I don't think the apple fell far from the tree as far the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is concerned - so I can't see him having much concern for industry.

Randomly looked up his dad described as "one of the best known academic Marxists of his generation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Miliband

"Mining revenue without the mining" - how does this translate into practice for Ecora

- Revenue from year to year is generally all over the place.

- Profit from year to year is generally all over the place.

- Dividend yield is rubbish

- risks haven't been eliminated just changed and amplified.

Compare with a large diversified miner such RIO

- Largely predictable revenue

- Largely predictable profits

- much much better dividend yield

- risks exist but are more within the companies control and overall much better managed than at Ecora

My first thought when hearing the "Mining revenue without the mining" pitch was a vision of someone with a spreadsheet deciding where to allocate funds and a company with minimal overheads. Instead Ecora's administration overheads are quite substantial.

Overall the company seems like a job creation exercise for management funded by the gullible.