Member Info for mammon

Hello everyone, I was last on here some time ago discussing Drakelands (nee Hermerdon Ball) from a geological perspective, mentioning in particular the soft nature of the rock and the arsenic issue. These have been known about for decades. It seems to me that we can all agree that something has gone badly wrong with the equipment ordered and supplied. What I find revealing is the fact that there has been no mention of any possible legal claim that Wolf might have against the suppliers aside from the noise/vibration issue. Indeed it gave me a wry chuckle to read that the company now intends to introduce and presumably pay for a ''pre-production facility''!!! It must therefore be concluded that the specification supplied to the equipment manufacturer was very far from up to the mark. I am afraid that this smacks of very poor management/negligence and the buck must stop at the highest level. I feel rather sorry for those who have inherited this mess and are trying to put things right. It does seem like an awfully uphill battle.

I blame those horrible market makers! Funny if it wasn't so tragic.

I think you will find gravity seperates out the heavy metals whereas a final magnetic cycle seperates weakly magnetic tungsten ore from non-magnetic tin ore.

Thank you Bigminnow I think that you and I are on the same page here, except maybe you read my post a little too literally (?). I think that it should have been obvious to anyone that an off the shelf package that functions well on hard rock granite in China would not be suitable here. Clarke et al. should have been on top of this. I think that people's reluctance to leave their homes in sunny Perth for the rigours of Dartmoor were indeed a contributory factor in this debacle. To an extent I blame the BOD too, where we have experienced mining men too. Key question can the jaws of the crusher(s) be adjusted to the Mohr's hardness of the feed. If not, why not? Any legal case will surely hinge on the spec. supplied to the machinery suppliers. If no case ensues you can be sure that this was severely lacking.

May I repeat an earlier message of mine: I agree to an extent. Type Drakelands mine into Google maps and go to satellite view. Move 200 m to your north east and there is a dirty great china clay (aka Kaolin) mine. Zoom out another 300 m to your north and there is another. Remember your A level geography, or possibly first year geology, and think of granite weathering to china clay. Now this might have been a surprise, in the absence of serious fieldwork, to RC and all those hard-rock Australian gold miners. However, it bloody well shouldn't have been.

Thanks for the replies guys. First I have to tell you that I am not a shorter of this stock, I only wish that I was; although things might get complicated should we get a delisting. Second, particularly with the latest RNS in mind, I trust that you now agree that this company has been appallingly handled and that there has indeed been a systemic failure of responsible senior management and I venture to say board members. This must raise questions on all of this company’s activities including those with potentially adverse environmental impacts. I know Hemerdon (now Drakelands) reasonably well from a mineralogical point of view. Hydrated ferric arsenate (aka scorodite) is a commonly encountered phase. I think that as people who I take to be interested in mining/geology you will find this link interesting: https://www.mindat.org/locentry-9913.html I trust that the EA is indeed on the ball at this site not only with aeolian (wind) emissions, but also questions of water quality.

In view of the abysmal management performance of this mine replete with systemic failure how confident can we be that the envisaged 4 kg per day of arsenic bi-product is being handled in a safe way? http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/print-version/sps-supplies-water-treatment-system-for-the-worlds-4th-largest-tungsten-site-2016-04-18

I agree to an extent. Type Drakelands mine into Google maps and go to satellite view. Move 200 m to your north east and there is a dirty great china clay (aka Kaolin) mine. Zoom out another 300 m to your north and there is another. Remember your A level geography, or possibly first year geology, and think of granite weathering to china clay. Now this might have been a surprise, in the absence of serious fieldwork, to RC and all those hard-rock Australian gold miners. However, it bloody well shouldn't have been.

And then there was this; ''In March 2014, prior to Ormonde's funding agreement with Oaktree, Ormonde signed a tungsten concentrate offtake agreement with Noble Resources International Pte., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Noble Group Limited, a global market-leading commodities supply-chain manager of energy products, metals, minerals & ores and agricultural products. This agreement was structured to provide for purchase of 100% of the tungsten concentrate produced from the Barruecopardo open pit mine during its initial five years of operation. Ormonde is currently in discussions with Noble in relation to modifications to this offtake agreement. While there is nothing to suggest an agreement cannot be reached, Ormonde and Noble have the option to terminate the existing agreement should such modifications not be mutually acceptable. The Oaktree funding package for Barruecopardo is not in any way conditional on any offtake arrangements.'' Could it be that the BoD entered into an agreement with Noble which did not have a fixed contracted price and Noble are now backing out following the tungsten price decline? Surely not...................

On the fundraising, I agree that the pit as it stands appears fully funded. Perhaps you have forgotten however, that up until recently there was much talk of a gold and a base metal project. Here is Kerr on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op0fe5K8BfI http://www.minesite.com/2011/04/07/ormonde-unlocks-the-value-of-its-spanish-gold-assets-while-the-rise-in-tungsten-bodes-well-for-barruecopardo/ http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/11628610.html That was where the fundraising comment came in. In our sexy gold and base metal deposits (how much are they valued at now). However, also bear in mind that we are told that we are funded for the proposed current open cast pit. We have not been told that we are funded for underground extensions or indeed deposits in the vicinity. I do appreciate that the processing plant will hopefully be in situ, but there will be substantial additional commissioning costs for these projects.

Don't despair spindok. Orm still has that marvellous gold deposit and base metal thingy in its locker. Now they must be worth all of 1p per share. That means the Kerr and the those nice Americans have left us with around 1/2 p value in our world class tungsten pit. And dont forget that the board are guaranteed a million a year to run this for us. I wonder how much of that will go to furher proving those gold reserves? I feel a fund raisng coming on...............anyone want to chip in................................no I thought not.

Oh and that potato farmer will likely be a long-term shareholder just like Gerald Ronson, Tony the animal Parnes etc. were going to be in Guinness. Weren’t that lot found guilty of one charge of conspiracy, two of false accounting, and one of theft?

@ granto, it is the 'commercial rate' of the pawnbroker - 12.5 % per year - to be paid back in full within 5 years. It is this high rate which ensures that Oaktree have a safety net should the tungsten price stay where it is/fall. It is a great deal for them and a pretty good one for the management too. As for the Orm shareholders………………………………………… Well done on finding the reverse management payment to Oaktree. That one was well and truly buried in the document. Funny that Orm didn't mention it when they announced the payment going the other way. Funny, but not surprising, par for the course I think.

Oaktree not Almonty

My views are: 1) Small shareholders have a chance to sway this matter. Hence, Orm's broker (Davey) racing to place the Tiberius shares in friendly hands. 2) The BoD's stake is really very small indeed, even by AIM standards, They have everything to gain and little to lose by running their mutual back-scratching management scheme with Almonty. 3) I have a long-standing holding in the Pru-M&G Recovery Fund. If the Pru-M&G back this, in my view, rip-off scheme that will be going. Good to have a little Orm capital losses to offset any CGT gains thanks (not) to these machinations. Here’s hoping that those big investors do the decent thing.

Thought that you guys would find this interesting: Significant Shareholders The Company has been informed that in addition to the interests of the Directors (see below), at 31 January 2015 the following shareholders own 3% or more in the issued share capital of the Company. See News for any recent changes. Tiberius Asset Management: 6.43% M&G Investment Management: 5.98% Rathbone Brothers PLC: 5.45% JP Morgan Asset Management: 3.23% Director Holdings The Directors' holdings at 21 August 2014 are: Michael Donoghue: 0.76% John Carroll: 0.46% Kerr Anderson: 0.22% Stephen Nicol: 0.04%

As I have posted before the Oaktree deal is in my opinion a rip off. I bought my shares through H-L who said that they would pass on my no vote. I assume that other stockbrokers too have the same facility, depending on how your shares are held. Personally I would rather 'do all my money' than bend over for that lot.

Firstly, cashflow is most definitely not profit, still less dividends. I have gleaned this from the cashflow forecast on Orm’s website – it is likely the best info we have: At a tungsten price of $250 per ton cashflow = 13 million euros At a tungsten price of $350 per ton cashflow = 29 million euros We now know we have to service the 12 % debt (5.9 million euros) which must come off both figures At a tungsten price of $250 per ton cashflow now = 7.1 million euros At a tungsten price of $350 per ton cashflow now = 23.1 million euros We now know we have to repay the capital within 5 years which must come off both figures. Loan amount = $55 million = 48.5 million Euros. Let’s be conservative and say allowing for reducing interest we should allow for $9 million euros for each of the next five years. Hence cashflow now becomes: At a tungsten price of $250 per ton cashflow now = MINUS 1.9 million euros At a tungsten price of $350 per ton cashflow now = 16.1 million euros 30 % of this equates to At a tungsten price of $250 per ton cashflow now = MINUS 0.6 million euros At a tungsten price of $350 per ton cashflow now = 4.8 million euros Current shares in issue = 473 million (Orm website). Therefore cashflow per share = ~~ 0.01 Euros at a price of $350 per ton. Note: 1) The first five years of the mine are likely to be the most profitable, given the open-cast process and targeting of high grades. 2) Underground mining will require more capital and of higher cost. 3) Cashflow is not profit, still less dividends 4) We are dependent on the largesse of Oaktree and Kerr et al. on the dividend front. 5) The shareholders who financed the seemingly never-ending exploration programme, mine planning and permission granting have been left out in the cold, whereas our self-described buyer of distressed assets has done spectacularly well and our BoD has likewise done OK too.

Good question. My view is that from a purely pragmatic view your best bet is to sell today in the market. However, if you do not wish to do this there comes a point where one just feels that one should say no, despite the financial cost. Moreover, you never know and a NO vote could flush out a cash buyer. Oaktree has struck such a **** taking deal that a rejection might just lead to an alternative and better offer. In any event I don't like being shafted! in my view the BoD with its post-deal arrangements has done this every bit as much as Oaktree. It would give a small amount of satisfaction to bring these down, even if it costs.

Further if you hold the shares through a stockbroker such as Hargraeves Landsdown, just give them a ring and they will pass your vote on fotr you. You should say the words ''not in agreement''.