Member Info for hxulcolrdoh

PDUB only said there were excuses for the failure to deliver.

This is no comfort unless there are no future excuses.

Yes! IF the operations are run correctly!

However In 2021 the production has
a) been static @ 3,600 mtV
b) the unit cost has risen from $29 kg/V -> $39.74

Both metrics imply that the company is poorly run operationally. The question is 'is this just a blip?'

Jimbo66 - economics 101 ...

Producing something for $39.74 that you can sell for $29.24 is a sure way to lose money.

And yes PDub there have been excuses and there have been explanations ..

But what is required is a CEO who delivers results - not excuses and explanations for why the results have failed to be delivered. As you stated there have been recent improvements. These need to be sustained.

Fortune seems to be good with information and strategy - but maybe he is not good operationally. This is not a problem if he bolsters the team with people who are. It is a problem if he doesn't.

I get the attractions of BMN - but it is going nowhere unless it does a lot better operationally. Let us hope the past is not a guide to the future.

Thanks MonkeyTom and others.

I've generally had a favourable view of Fortune M. But maybe he is too nice ? Maybe he needs to appoint someone who is operationally excellent and will kick ar5e - and if not may FM is the wrong person to run the company.

I am invested. I am down. I am revisiting BMN from the point of view that we have reached the bottom and it is upward and onward from here. I do think BMN should be doing A LOT better. The numbers are getting better but DON'T yet say they have got their act together. The jury is still out.

I was looking at the interim results ( https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BMN/interim-results-for-six-months-ended-30-june-2021-7r6cegjzhedis1w.html )

On the one hand they are operating in a sector that is on the up and they have big plans to ramp up production ...

But the reality is they just about might maintain 2020 covid impacted production of 3,600 mtV and the costs of production have BALLOONED (it would be cheaper to produce less at these numbers)

Vametco total sustaining US$/kgV 2021-$38.3, 2020-$23.1 66% increase
Vanchem total sustaining US$/kgV 2021-$38.2, 2020-$26.3 45% increase

I am doubting if this company is run well enough to take advantage of their favourable market ?

Am I wrong ?

Hi STOK - I don't see daddy Pengilly listed for GEMD's major shareholders.

Does he have an alter ego / alias ?

I'm not an accountant but I would have thought that any historical write offs recorded to retained profits had no negative impact of on future earnings.

They might have a positive effect w.r.t taxable expenses.

Currently GEMD have total assets of $414m, total liabilities of $167m ie NET ASSETS of $247m.

Further they ended their last quarter with $10.8m of net cash
- excluding $37.3m September tender proceeds received after Period end.
- excluding 2 large unsold diamonds ($12-15m?)

The current valuation is barking mad

Unfortunately as someone said earlier TUI has turned into a blast furnace for burning cash.

Covid at this point is 'endemic'. It will NOT wash over the population like a wave and we are done with it. Having escaped from the lab in Wuhan it is here forever - alongside the common cold and flu. Doubtless over a few years it will attenuate and become less of a problem but it is not going away. We need to come to terms with this and move on.

Today : Bruce Cleaver, CEO of De Beers Group, said: "As the diamond sector prepares for the key holiday season and US consumer demand for diamond jewellery continues to perform strongly"

Expecting it to be pleasant reading

In the improbable event that NCCL does not crash and burn before delivering a CP project - I will assume that the universe has simply caved it to CF73's sheer will power.

I wonder if the EPC announcement was some sort of box being ticked with a view to shutting stable doors before the horse bolted ?

ie we reached this point in the process before the Xi annoucement and therefore NCCL is not covered by that announcement ?

It might explain the otherwise crass timing w.r.t. placement ?

I thought the EPC contract was meaningless - my dog (probably more credit worthy than NCCL) could sign an EPC contract with CMEC. I was thinking there was/is no value in it. Nobody would be fulfilling any contract as zero funds exist.

Maybe the timing was someone shutting the stable door before the horse bolted - in which case it would be a positive ?

NCCL/CMEC should at the very least clarify the position to projects under consideration.

China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation last year – more than three times what was brought on line globally.

The purpose of the transmission line is simply to extend the grid from the Matambo substation.

Its build is not predicated on the development of any new power sources. The Matambo substation already has a number of power sources primarily the Cahora Bassa dam.

The power line would do NCCL's case no harm - but to say power line = NCCL C2P would be like adding 2+2 to get 2,147,483,647 and typical of the sloppy wishful thinking that has put a lot of NCCL shareholders where they are.

In the absence of any commentary/plan/explanation for anything 'sensitive negotiations' is CF73's 'safe place' explanation for everything.

It has sustained him for a very long time through thick and thin. It has taken on a life of it's own in this board. I wouldn't give much credence.

If an EPC is issued to CMEC who issues it ?

At this point I have tried and completely failed to grasp what it supposed to happen if things went to plan never mind the rats nest of 'what ifs' should it not.

I've tried revisiting the July 2019 "Ncondezi signs JDA with CMEC and GE"

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NCCL/18m-agreed-cmec-accelerated-development-budget-xq30342w3duh8s9.html

and the Nov 2020 "$1.8m Agreed CMEC Accelerated Development Budget"

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NCCL/18m-agreed-cmec-accelerated-development-budget-xq30342w3duh8s9.html

The later for example includes some "be careful what you wish for" content eg
o Ncondezi will pledge shares in its wholly owned Mozambican subsidiary that holds the power project ("PowerCo").
o The number of shares pledged will be equivalent to the amount funded by CMEC, divided by the nominal value per share of PowerCo's shares
o The total nominal value of all PowerCo's shares is US$15.7m, so assuming CMEC funds the full US$1.8m, Ncondezi would need to pledge approximately 11% of its shares in PowerCo to CMEC

A $1.8m development budget predicated on a pledge of shares to the same value could be toxic at current market cap.

It is going to take a smarter bear than me to unravel the Gordian Knot. Thankfully I don't have to. Some day with hindsight I will say "ah yes that was the game". For now I haven't a clue what it is. Fascinating

The half year results would make decent full year results for most companies.

We have good revenue, good profit and appreciable net cash.

Currently very undervalued IMO. Happy to sit on it until the penny drops with investors elsewhere.

At this point it appears that NCCL are technically in breach of the terms of their mining concession. If so potentially the concession could be revoked and reassigned.

The concession was granted on this day the 28th of August 2013. Concession terms require that a mine be in production within 8 years of the date of its issue. No mine is in production.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NCCL/ncondezi-energy-granted-coal-mining-concession-wd46l2ngwxwwrsl.html

The legislation states that a concession 'may be revoked' where there is non compliance.

Presumably if considerable work had been undertaken and a mine was just about to be commissioned discretion would apply. Where nothing has happened other than the concession holder has tried to flip the concession to a 3rd party for a profit and the mine exists only on the drawing board what would the judgement would be ?

The economics of a power/coal project would not be enhanced by a pay day for NCCL shareholders. NCCL would not bring capital to the project. NCCL would not bring technical or operational expertise to the project. If NCCL were to get an invitation to a power/coal project party (if there is one) it will only be because they have something that others don’t have/need. The only thing that fits this description is a mining concession. In this critical area NCCL may potentially have succeeded in making themselves dispensable.

Given the circumstances it is essential that NCCL provide proof that they have the forbearance of the Mozambique authorities and in this case state what revised extra ordinary obligations/ timetables/ review procedures have been agreed with the Mozambique authorities.