Member Info for johnpwh

Wow. A 2 month 2 day delayed reply!
I agree with you, am guessing a potentially stimulated housing market and benign regulation. Lets hope for more upwards movement

They expect to receive but forewarning that if not granted the rules say would have to abandon. Seems just to be flagging the risk, but I am just an office worker from Telford. What do I know

I thought that but reads as if its just the rules they, and other oilies, operate by. It seems that its not in the companys control, so shouldn't read negatively on HUR

To be honest, if Corbyn wins the election there wont be much trading on Friday - everyone will be legging it to the ports to leave the country.

Does seem odd that the SP is the same as December 2017 with all that has happened in the intervening period!
As long as this non perched water concern (rumour) doesn't get confirmed in the next RNS this has to be very undervalued.
Could do with an off take too. Navion Oceania is bobbing about in Lerwick. Is that for Lancaster?

Thanks DC

Even worse!!

Chablard
I didn't ask for inside information. I asked whether there has been (public) information released recently to support the massive amount of gloom that has suddenly pervaded this and other boards, because if there has been I may have missed it. All I was asking was for help in that instance.

Not understanding the maths here. And I've got 2 degrees in the subject.
If we assume equal production is obtained from two wells, the product then aggregated into a single accumulation.
If Well 1 produces with 8% water and the Well 2 is 0% then the aggregated 'pool' is 4%.
If Well 1 produces with 16% water and the Well 2 is 0% then the aggregated 'pool' is 8%
If Well 1 produces with 8% water and the Well 2 is 8% then the aggregated 'pool' is again 8%, not 16%.
If there is 16% in the 'pooled' oil then there is a problem I would have thought - hence my earlier question before I buy more HUR shares from my earnings as a geriatric rent boy.
Has there been any actual data from any source on water production in the last 3 months or is this all mischief making by deramping rogues?

Ash
Great post. Duly ticked up and surprised not a load more support. Don't think questioning this deal is very popular.
I agree with what you say, I am probably a bit more anti than you but similar ideas - Red Rabbit should not be part of the deal, there should be a separate JV for Salinbas. We are about to gain significant cashflow from the current JV at RR (from which we benefit 51% not 23.5%) so are not desperate.
Its not as if the Salinbas deal knocks your socks off if, as you and I suspect, construction at Salinbas will be a loan to the JV not purely financed by the New Partner. Then they will have a 53% interest of a (prospective) 2.7 million oz deposit for $13m (call it 10m quid). Nice work if you can get it. And that's without the considerable sweetener at RR thrown in.
For me AAU would still be investable if I were not already, but is not in my view as investable as it was. Bid price currently 2.15p, down to a similar level prior to pre MoU announcement levels, so I am not selling at the moment.

Depends how undervalued you feel AAU was before the MoU was announced and your definition of a significant % of assets I suppose!

I am a frequent though not constant visitor to this board (hence being a tad behind the curve, I haven't the time to read hundreds of posts). I have held a reasonably substantial holding for as log as my withered brain can recall. I do think that this board has become a not particularly attractive place to visit of recent days/weeks due to all the sniping and name calling.
Can everyone call a truce please, if only because its the season of sodding goodwill to all chaps/chapesses?

Biffa
I am behind the curve here, where has this 16% figure come from? Can you provide a link?
I am/was/maybe thinking of taking advantage of the current SP but don't want to wander to my doom blindfolded.
Ta

The only observation I would make would be that the impression I got from the Proactive/BRR interviews ( I may be wrong) is that the 'windfall' special dividend will be a proportion of the $5 paid for the 17% interest in Salinbas. There was no implication that any of the Red Rabbit 'windfall' of $25m will be used for special divi. The over 50% loss of interest in Red Rabbit revenues will limit the ability to pay a regular dividend in future imo, at least until Tavsan is in the mix.

<32p. Has the oil WoS disappeared or something? Gets worse

What is deid?
I tend not to take any notice of peeps who cant spell, even on a Sunday

Van
...but I'm pretty sure the words "Ariana will be free-carried on further associated costs with the development of the Salinbas Project" are not that ambiguous'
I think they are ambiguous. You mention earlier in the same post that you thought the new company would use debt to finance the c£50m debt to build the mine. Fair enough if the loan is made by them outside the JV, although that could backfire on us if that loan is somehow secured against the Salinbas assets. However given that the development will be by the 'new' JV whose ownership structure will already have been established long before the construction loan is needed, how do you know that the loan will not be made by the JV itself? If it is then, in the same way that AAU presentations of the past have often said that the AAU was debt free at TopCo level (even though at the time the AAU/Proccea JV did have debt) then the same could be argued that taking of debt in the JV is technically not infringing the statement of 'free carry' of costs for AAU, at least at company level. The Salinbas construction debt could be in the JV company, in which AAU is a just a minority shareholder.
I have reviewed again the RNS, the BRR interview, the Proactive interview and the 30 minute Proactive Mining Finance conference footage and this point has not been clarified to my satisfaction - all I have seen, on several occasions, is the that the new partner will put in $5 + $8m for 53% of Salinabas plus that they will 'Organise' finance. There is ambiguity, believe me I want to be wrong but investors here should make sure we go all go into this with eyes open, not with fingers crossed that we have understood correctly.

Someone, I honestly can't be sure who, implied in a post that the BOD had assured him that there was an 'open chequebook' from the new partner to effectively carry AAU to production in Salinbas. That isn't what the RNS says in my opinion, it mentions the $5m, the $8m and that the new partner will 'organise' finance. What does 'organise' mean? Something as fundamental to the deal as an open chequebook would surely have been emphasised in DrS' interviews with BBR and/or Proactive. Yes the former 2 figures we re-iterated but where was the message about an open chequebook? The omission of an explicit message about that is very troubling to me.

Equally Van I think the salient points are there! Yes they may twiddle round the edges but the percentages, and probably sums mentions are, I would have thought, set in stone. Most on the two boards are in support and will no doubt advocate support. I don't think anyone will take any advice from little old me.
As for Proccea, interest in Salinbas prior to the deal = 0%. Interest in this already 1m oz deposit post deal = 23.5%. As they say, what's not to like.

Van
I acknowledge that, but to be fair they (particularly Ivrindi) are a small part of the portfolio. And since there is little alternative to their inclusion into the JV due to a lack of processing options then they are effectively nailed on as part of the deal anyway.
I never have been keen on this fixed 3 x costs basis for Kizilcukur as you know, less so now the retention of including it in the JV leaves AAU with only 23.5% of the ceded asset. I don't want to bang on but do the maths yourself - 50,000 ounce management target at Kizilcukur which seems now to be realistic given the rich veins found, $1000 per oz bottom line profit (say), approx. $1.5m costs to date. I know who I think does best out its inclusion in the 'new' JV structure. Also don't forget that the 3 x inclusion basis costs AAU because it comes from JV funds, not solely from the other partner(s) - in other words to add insult to injury Ariana are making a substantial contribution to the 3x costs it receives! Sounds a bit like the EU...…...
I used to think Andrew at Proactive looked too young and smooth to be a good interviewer. I was wrong, unlike BBR he probed the wisdom of handing a controlling interest to an unknown new party in a deal that leaves the establish partners with a minority interest even when combined. He also directly asked why W Turkey was being included, why this deal wasn't confined to NE Turkey only. To be honest I found Dr S' answers much less assured or convincing than usual, he waffled a bit in my opinion.
I ask that the shareholders oppose this deal and encourage instead a new JV covering NE Turkey only. Yes we lose the $25M but gain a much higher cash flow annually for 10 years + from W Turkey to fund exploration and to cover a regular dividend. Its worth bearing in mind that Dr S has stated that only 15 – 20% of this area has been explored. The potential is huge and AAU can keep 51% not 23.5% of it.
On a different tack I have realised just how difficult it is managing your investment in a company as small as this. Liquidity is next to nothing. Not only do we see a bid/offer spread bordering on the insane, but if you sell even a modest amount then small investors like us move the share price by maybe 5%. And use all the liquidity in the market. Now I obviously don't like this deal but respect that you and most others do, but suppose a piece of news came that was universally disliked by all investors. it would be no good scrambling to the exit believe me. That is another reason why I want to (eventually) limit my exposure to below the levels I have now. I am way above where I was when you, me and Paul280i shared that enjoyable meal in summer!