Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
"Good" is relative, and your evaluation of this stock, or any other, can vary depending on how you structure your portfolio and your risk appetite.
At the moment, the company generates no revenue so when you buy it, you're buying a story. Evaluating a story is a whole different kettle of fish to just looking at P/E ratio and divident history for revenue-generating companies. Some people like it and/or are good at it, and they sometimes find a big-time winner when it's still in its infancy, others prefere sticking to mature companies and playing it safer.
@Tonyh1975 Also, one cannot be "accused" of nationalistic views, simply because holding such views is not a crime. Nationalism is not a dirty word, it's one of many available point of views on how countries should be run.
Back to INFA though, there sure is added pressure now to get the construction up and running as soon as possible. That recent acquisition will only deliver assumed benefits if the works are started, until then it's just a money drain.
Interesting to see what the markets will make of that. INFA is certainly taking on a lot more risk now, for a potentially bigger reward in the future, and markets are usually risk-awerse.
GSA could be signed today (or maybe even have been signed already) but announced at a later date. Maybe they want to give updates in 2-week intervals.
@Nobby31
Can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I sold some time ago and haven't re-purchased yet is that I can see tremendous short-time upside in precious metals miners (and that's where my money has been for a while), while I'm not expecting anything earth-shaking to happen here in until November at least - a view only reinforced by today's pointless NR. At the moment my plan is to start gradually building my position when I see metals rally petering out. If I still had any shares left, I'd be selling them to further increase my PMs position.
If I'm wrong and there's flurry of SP-moving news in October, then so be it. I'll possibly buy back at a higher price or just file that one under "missed opportunities".
Cold weather might be good, bad or neutral for INFA, but basing your investment decisions on weather report in Daily Record surely must be bad news for anyone's portfolio ;)
Jokes aside, though, the only good news for INFA would be delivery of any of major milestones. Project updates (like the last one) are slightly negative, as you only release one if you've got nothing material to report. Any other noise is neutral at best, probably even negative for the same reason. Marine licence. Funding. New chairman. FID. Nothing else matters. "Final Scientific Beam Trawl Report", while probably required, is not a milestone.
I agree that it might increase the unit price, but that's not how INFA makes (or is planning to make) money. They are not producers.
My knowledge on the subject is obviously limited, but common sense dictates that every unit of gas produced in the world is, at any point in time, either being used, transported or stored. Therefore, the less gass there is in total in the system, the lower the need for storage, all else being equal.
@Snowman100
Why would that be good news? It's a bit like saying that gold mines getting closed or reducing production is good for bullion vaults, or that less cars being produced is good for parking operators. Surely, the opposite should be true?
I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this update as a major negative news, otherwise I'd be really worried about myself - or maybe about other posters!
What I dislike the most is moving the deadlines yet again, sometimes in a very stealthy manner.
EU grant that was supposed to be recovered "in 8 weeks" 8 weeks ago is now scheduled for "later this year", without a sniff of explaination.
Careeres page, initially scheduled for May/June is nowhere to be seen and doesn't get mentioned anymore.
I think everyone had every right to expect new Chariman and the funding deal to have been announced by now.
And don't even get me started on FID "by the end of H1".
Yes, some of those delay could have been for good reason, but only the board truly knows what those reasons were. All the market can see is a worrying pattern of missed dealines and continous delays, sometimes presented in a very stealthy manner.
The project might be good but the execution leaves a lot to be desired and communication is beyond amateurish.
@ban4118
Thanks, that's very interesting info. I hope INFA has a plan for putting that money to good use, as that would be a LOT of cash to be sitting on for a company with £10m market cap.
"the cash back alone is expected to be circa £14-20m"
I've seen people saying something along this line a few times before, but I'm not sure it's entire accurate. Not only is there a huge difference between £14mil and £20mil (and I'm not sure where that latter figure is coming from to be honest), but I also don't think there was a definitve statement in any of the RNS that cost would be recovered in cash. What would INFA do with that cash anyway? It's in company's best interest to retain as much equity in the project as possible, so I'd rather expect the costs to be recovered that way/
@tidd83
Cost recovery should be part of funding deal. There's no reason why the offtaker (essentially a consumer in this setup) should participate in past or future construction costs.
Also, be aware that past costs may not necessarily be recovered in cash. Instead it might be reflected in the equity split between Infa and the funding provider.
@Setanta1
At the end of the interview JW is pressed for answers about funding negotiations, and he says that after the Term Sheet was agreed with Vitol, he sent it to both parties they are negotiating funding with. If we take that statement at face value, it effectively means that Vitos is not one of those parties. Having said that, it could have been be a smokescreen but we can only make assumptions based on what we know.
It looks like they now have an interesting choice between going for equity/loan split or taking full equity funding. Each comes with pros and cons. Full equity funding means there's no financing cost to bear BUT you retain much less of the equity. I think in the long run preserving as much of equity as you possibly can is paramount, as long as you're convinced you can meet your loan payments.
From the interview it's rather clear that Vitol is neither of the two parties negotiating the financing deal. JW (who can now have my firstborn) stated that he had sent the Term Sheet to those parties to evaluate. Wouldn't have to do it with Vitol now, would he?If they decided to join the fray as yet another interested party, taking the overall count up to three, then its great but so far there's been no mention of that.
Come on now, there's absolutely no need for that.
If I was happy to dip my toe at 0.82 last week then I should be extatic to be able to back up the truck at the same price today.
I can understand the reasons for SP staying surpressed but for me the biggest issue was with milestones getting postponed time and time again, and it looks like the first one has just been achieved, so I don't mind front-running the wider market and going in big.
A solid news release is desperately needed, as more and more posters here are getting passive-aggressive towards anyone who doesn't repeat the mantra of "everything is awesome, blue chip company, funding secured, JW can have my firstborn". I, for one, am very happy that Leesadee provides a contrarian point of view, same as I was happy with Mitch's contributions.
Luckily, all it takes is one announcement and we'll all be friends again :P
I took some profits from the gold mini-rally and took a stake with INFA again. My timing was, as always, impeccable and I'm already -10% after just a few days. This stock is a cruel mistress indeed :)
What I think is worth keeping in mind is that the environmental impact from brine discharge would only play a part during construction. It's not like a factory that pumps chemicals into nearby river as a part of it's continuing operations. Once construction is over, so is the brine discharge and any marine life impacted will have a chance to recover.I'm happy to see that you guys caught some break after that disastrous begginning of May.
I'm sorry but I simply cannot accept a "delay for good reasons" explaination. My issue isn't about reasons at all, there are always wonderful reasons for every slip-up. It's about misleading communication.
1. You don't go from "We remain committed to FID by the end of H1 2019" to "FID somewhere in Q4" in a span of a month without something newsworthy happening in between.
2. Delaying a key milestone is a news in itself. It deserves to be communicated via proper channels, not mentioned casually at a meeting where no material news were supposed to be delivered.
I'm OK with waiting for things that deserve to be waited for, but I'll never accept the feeling that I'm being deceived. I've seen it way too many times in junior mining sector, it's an ever-growing disease there. My confidence in the board is seriously dented and the alarm bells are ringing.
I wish you guys all the best and I hope it multibags for you, but at the moment I'm not comfortable holding those shares, therefore I'm out. I might come back when I finally see the board walking the walk.
@aunty Are you sure about that? Personally, I would find that very disappointing and quite suspicious, after they recommitted to FID in H1 just a month ago.