Member Info for Markyess

I'm not yet at the point of writing off Togo, Prop, but I'm certainly with you in my gratitude at having a diversified play.

I'm not sure Utah in and of itself is company making, but given how we've benefited from Calidus, I retain faith in the company being able to pivot and generate shareholder value.

FWIW and only a suggestion, but I had raised the notion recently that talk of the government's 10% free carry had gone quiet in formal company RNS, with reference explicitly to our 85% ownership.

I wonder if that 10% 'direct' government ownership, could now be deemed contentious and is in process of being replaced with 5% ownership via the new Togo Invest Quango?

I can't see that giving up yet another 5% would be regarded as practical nor acceptable - unless it's more than offset by Keras Plc increasing their management fee of 17.5% to something considerably higher.

Look forward to hearing the responses from DR and RL - or better still, if they were to release something into the public domain, a video interview or equivalent.

Togo's rainy season finishes in October, so that one won't stack up.

I have most probably missed something, but from an SGM/Keras perspective, is the over riding position still not 'license pending being granted by the Togolese government' - whether the Togolese government has actions to fulfill on its side of the fence (including 'eviction' of a prior license holder that has not fulfilled its end of the bargain) is not strictly the business of Keras to report? I'd imagine there are additional lines of bureaucracy incumbent on Togo's duties to issue the permit, but the crux of it remains, they need to issue the permit?

It is worth a follow up with RL or DR, but I would assume that a Presidential decree (in a dictatorial government) would supplant other lapsed agreements?

What's more of - let's say, 'interest' - to me, is the extent of the terms, caveats and environmental conditions on the exploitation agreement that I would hazard a guess have become more onerous under new mining covenants and a desire to look after local interests. The fact that MM seemed to have ridden roughshod over their obligations may have made the constraints and hurdles on finalising the permit for Keras a more protracted conversation, with the Togolese government perhaps rightly and diligently seeking more assurances and guarantees that we would not in turn be derelict of our duties in return for extraction rights.

Whatever way you slice and dice it - we're still waiting for the Togolese government to finalise our permit - which remains on message with what we've been told to date?

Certainly an interesting find Jim, and gives a foundation to ask some questions to the BoD.

Also - to be clear, I bloody love Jim. He'll be the first person I buy a beer for when we meet up for the celebrations.

Debate is important, challenge is important and I am hugely respectful of the input that Jim brings to the table. He asks important questions and encourages far deeper thought than we'd have otherwise.

It matters because you're complaining on a BB about the information the company releases based on market prices - newsflash, they won't. They have acted by revising their mining operating model, and diversifying into a different mineral play. You have speculated on Manganese price being a reason for the delay - that's your opinion, it doesn't mean it's accurate, nor that it would be the type of news that any company would report to market even if it was factual.

Yes I did release some prior calcs based on $5. I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I still believe that our average sale price DMTU is going to be far closer to $4.50 irrespective of the average 'steel market' Mn DMTU price.

However, if I were to put any calculations in the public domain today, I'd still use the 'steel market' prices as a basis to reflect a conservative position, and project from that accordingly. I.e. forward positions would probably be closer to $4 for estimate purposes - regardless of my expectations stated above - that's upside.

That's a market factor that is incumbent on YOU to be on top of, it's not strictly for the company to spoon feed it - FWIW do you not think that the reason the board have moved the mining model to a turnkey operator (so that production can be turned off and on, with minimal residual cost) may not have been a proactive decision based on this volatility?

Don't forget, the price on the Jupiter site is the flat rate for use in steel production, where lower grade products can be leveraged and switched in and out based on the ready supplies - our price is likely to be more stable and driven by EV market and stable , higher priced, call of agreements, whereby lower grade products can't be swapped in.

If we're on a new playing field since March, it's certainly a new field since August 2019....

I remain frustrated, I remain keen to see news, but I'm also pragmatic in looking at the bigger picture and reviewing precisely what we may (or may not) have control over.

The government's changed, we're having very clear, very public meetings with the new government, in parallel, we seem to be making good headway on the things that certainly ARE in our control (Ogaro pit work, water bores for Phase 2). It all boils down to whether you think the Board are operating in good faith or not - given how much skin they have in the game, I can't see a positive outcome for them from lying or telling half truths on this matter. I can see that maybe I (as well as many others) may have overestimated our importance to Togo in the past, but at least we're seeing some positive steps forward, here and now, with the current (and relevant) decision makers. Maybe you feel there's some kind of nefarious agenda going on - but I can't see it, nor how any one would benefit from it.

It's about playing the cards you're dealt the best you can. I don't like the speed of the game, but I can understand why it is how it is and that I can't do anything about it.

But if you interpret the RNS output from the company as being the straightest and clearest messages that they can give, based on their understanding and control of the situation - what more could they tell you?

I genuinely don't believe they have the control over the situation you feel they should have, and I feel there has been a certain degree of overestimating how big and influential our particular project is in the overall Togo Industry portfolio.

Again, you still seem to be failing to draw a line between that which Keras has control of and that which it doesn't.

The change of government was in no way influenced by Keras - it happened, we had no influence and I'd imagine, outside of knowing a change was due at some point, absolutely no idea on the timeline.

We're 8 months on from March. The goalposts haven't just moved, we're on a new field.

I accept that there has just been a full rebuild of government and that the company is putting clear tangible effort into moving things forward. That's progress.

I'm realistic and objective that it doesn't happen overnight and there's literally no value baying on the internet to release the hounds on the BoD at this juncture. My blood pressure is high enough without geeing it up further with pointless, misplaced anger

Yep. 'Weeks' would still be the near term. Otherwise they'd have used 'imminent'.

As I said before, your assertion of deliberate misleading / ramping wouldn't hold much sway in an FCA complaint, so I think 'over egging' is a fair statement! :-)

A bit of overegging there, Jim - you assert that Keras would be holding far more cards than they do. Stating that they were heading to Togo infers progress, at no point have they given any hints, strong or otherwise of actual completion - the opposite, the language used has all hinted at a process. We may have read deeper into it - but I'm pretty certain that wouldn't hold up too well in a case with the FCA!

No, it is only wishful thought and hopeful speculation from PI's and BB members that have remotely alluded (hoped) to the permit being secured in these visits.

I tend to agree, all formal news out of the company has alluded to steps in a process. As frustrating as that is after years of false dawns and statements that have felt like promises, it is what it is. We're closer than we've ever been - but that doesn't strictly mean its receipt is imminent.

FWIW I'm certain that we'll get it - the timeline may still be weeks - but that's better than months.

Due to mineral content, there is in essence 35 chargeable DMTU per tonne, Jim. There are 100 DMTU in a tonne, but we are running at a Manganese content of 35% (not the 38% I mentioned in my earlier numbers)

I agree with your numbers, broadly, PC - although anticipate that we'll be able to command a price/DMTU at closer to $2-$2.50 profit/DMTU given the silico manganese content.

I'm up to my b*llocks in this play (and Calidus), CC. I've had to do an awful lot of reading. :-)

Haven't made as much headway into the Phosphate play as yet, though....

Just to qualify my point on pricing - if we have an offtake agreement on silico manganese, if the 'average' manganese price falls through the floor, an EV producer couldn't simply swap us out for a cheaper Mn product, as the silicate levels are critical for them - hence price per DMTU we can command is higher and more stable than the lower 'quality' South African Mn that can only be used in steel production.

At $3.20, yes.

Mn pricing is a bit more complex though - that's average grade pricing to the steel industry. Given our product is a higher grade silico manganese, with usability in EV rather than steel processing, we can negotiate higher value offtake agreements.

Doesn't hurt to base assumptions on the low level 'market average' though. Leave upside on the table.