Member Info for Markyess

No, let's not. Feel free to ignore my posts if you choose, but I will continue to post my reflected and considered thoughts on what you post.

I note you've decided to completely disregard the suggestion that we were Utah or Bust in your insistence it was a poor investment.

My personal position is pretty irrelevant to the sheer fact that the Utah project was an eminently sensible investment that any sensible junior explorer would have taken. Survive or die is a no brainer decision. A cash generator AND the repayment of your initial investment.

Who knows what I'm saying in fictional alternative universe land. Due to the actual real world success of Calidus, I could now afford for Keras to go bust like most explorers and juniors do, and still depart with a significant return on my investment - however, I am eternally grateful that the chances of that are significantly mitigated thanks to the Utah investment decision.

PS - without the Utah asset, we'd not have successfully raised £1m.

We do know projections of Opex and projected profitability in the Corporate Presentations. Yes, of course these aren't proven.

What will be proven - as we're a company in production, is the half yearly and yearly statements - one of which is due by the end of this month. If you were expecting more frequent updates on sales, then I'd question your prior investment experience/history.

Of course, these will be loss making in year 1 (as projected) however, it will demonstrate sales and revenue to compare to the projections in the Corporate Presentation.

Since you love trading in worst case scenarios, let's assume that the Utah phosphate project only lasts for 10 years. It still allows us to survive as an organisation.

Again, taking a worst case, non real life analogy (as Utah is cash generative):

How long would you last financially if you're running costs are £20,000 a year and you have zero income?
How much longer would you last if your running costs are £30,000 a year and you have £25,000 income?

Utah prevents us going bankrupt.

We'd never know how unimpressed you'd be if we didn't take on the Utah project as we'd no longer have a BB to discuss yet another liquidated explorer.

The £1m was not raised for costs of legal arbitration. There was a reason given for the raise in the RNS.

Thanks for sharing the arbitration costs, JIm, it supports my point. Almost $1m - that's not chip change for a junior/explorer with no income.

It's a bit easier for a company with in production with 60 years of income to leverage.

Jim - share price projections have literally nothing to do with self sufficiency. Self sufficiency is the ability to cover your running costs from operatonal profits, or the ability to leverage future cash flows / asset values.

Keras running costs are pretty low, but they are not going to be delivered from a 'propsective' Manganese mine. We were bleeding out.

Utah is in production NOW. It has a 60+ year mine life. It is positive future cash flow, and an asset that can be leveraged. Moreover, we have acquired a controlling interest for a loan that will be fully repaid. We will have cash flow from the loan repayments in the short term, some small profit in the short term, but 60 years of income against which we can leverage.

That the total value of the project may only be valued at £14m still represents a doubling of our capital asset value from today - but that is not as important as guaranteed cash flow at sufficient levels to keep the lights on - and maybe a little bit more for shareholder returns. Utah guarantees our future WITHOUT the need for further dilution OR going bankrupt.

There would not have been any other project that could start operating as quickly. Acquiring a flashy new gold, silver or lithium project at this juncture may have given a short term MCAP pump, but it would have been on no foundations - no cash flow, drill bit and exploration costs and therefore a catalyst for corporate insolvency.

As much as I have some sympathy with Jim's assertion we push for international arbitration or industrial appeal - those kinds of corporate legal actions do come with a sizable price tag.

IF that's the course of action we have to pursue, I would assume it will be handled when we are more self sufficient via the Utah cash flow.

As much as there's some dissent on Utah from some folks on ADVFN, I reckon there would be more dissent had we just liquidated the company and waved goodbye to our investment in its entirety.

Maybe I've just got too salty after being in here nearly 10 years. I took the tweets / retweets for what they were, points of interest about a potential market trend for a mineral in which we have a potential interest.

I took it as a precursor for nothing, but I love the hope, expectation and imagination some of you have!

It's a huge growth sector - all the more reason it remains in our best interests not to poison the well and get too heavy handed with the Togolese government.

I should have refreshed my screen before posting, PC beat me to it!

Momo2058, welcome aboard.

FYI the company has been in production and selling for a while now.

The commissioning of our own plant removes the need for a third party processing contract we were using to satisfy sales orders. It allows us to reduce costs and have better control over our processing.

Since the company is in Production, primary updates on extraction and sales will be in half yearly and yearly reports. I believe we're due one at the end of this month.

What we do know already from RNS is:

1. We were capable of extracting 50% more material than plan in last extraction season
2. Sales for 2021 are on target
3. Despite a delay to commissioning our own processing plant, we were able to meet Sales Orders through a third party processing contract

I wouldn't expect newsflow form Utah to be much more significant now, outside of the statutory reports, barring an exceptional activity.

Were they options? Looks more like 'bed and ISA' type movements between different wrappers, with some additional volume purchases to give a net increase in holding, rather than a small reduction? Just a consolidation of tax position, rather than reinforcing his holding.

It'd be nice to think it was a precursor to some big news - but more likely, it was just a consolidation exercise to make his tax position more efficient. And fair play to him on that.

And that's where the excitement ended ...

It's a toughy, Simon. If Calidus hadn't reaped the reward (and growing) that it has, I'd definitely be looking at making the money I have here work for me elsewhere, and returning at a later point.

The trouble is, the Togo situation feels like one of those where, the moment you opt to chase a return in another pool, the license will land! I'm happy to leave it be, because (and only because) the Calidus project means I can afford to for now.

Agree CC - for some of us PI's who have made our return from Calidus, Keras remains a bonus. For RL who actually 'mortgaged' a lot of his Calidus ex specie dividend on the Keras portfolio, it is catergorically NOT a bonus.

I am grateful we have the Utah project. It won't be a get rich quick project (give it 3-5 years), but it keeps us safe, secure and in the game for the returns Togo can provide.

Feel your pain. Trouble is, how much more can they realistically say? It's clearly a volatile jurisdiction, and we know the project could be worth a few hundred million quid to us.

What is abundantly clear from RNS is that the obstacles are outside of the knowledge of the company. So do we lob rocks at the key decision maker and risk losing the project altogether?

I bought in just after IPO. My first purchase was for my nephew as he was born, a company to grow up with him.

He turns 10 in July, so that's how long I've been in. He's just about starting to take an interest, obviously he's more interested in gold than fertiliser and the weird M word, but he wonders when he can sack someone...