Member Info for Markyess

The dilution is a big deal. However, so is the market potential. The fertiliser market is said to be currently in the region of $1.1m with a 10 year rising projection to $2.5bn. The growth plan appears to be to target 2% rising 14% of that market. We are apparently holding a superior quality to most available on the market.

Plans are plans, they're usually redundant 20 minutes after finishing them, but this opportunity certainly has the potential to more than cover its dilution.

It is the metaphoric 'bird in the hand' whilst we wait for that 'one in the bush' in Togo to materialise.

I have no concerns about the opportunity in Togo emerging at some point in the near future. Do I think there's been some game playing and posturing by Gnassingbe? More than likely. This opportunity bolsters us against any gamesmanship and brinkmanship from those quarters and I bet that Russell has already been in contact to give Gnassingbe a glimpse of our hand so he's aware we're not sat holding a busted flush.

On top of the loan funding, I think the provision of industry expertise was key.

I think I’d deducted the initial loan already provided by DR and RL, and focused in on the additional facility. Bit of a miscalc on my part. Apologies for any confusion.

Just checking - we have all clocked the point that we get 51% of this project for providing a loan facility of $1.7m?

We get the $1.7m back.

Fairly normal - more with Private Limited companies than Public listed. Director loans are common place. I'm 100% certain the original Warrawoona tenements were funded this way.

To my earlier point - RL and DR could easily have packaged this up in a different business structure if they would have so wished (as they could have with Calidus)- but, from their own mouths in November, they feel obligated to try and look after the investors who backed them in Ferrex/Keras.

Posted by Recovery Stock on ADVFN - his projections would generate a project NPV of £11m at current exchange rates, based on 51% ownership.

"My back of the fag packet calcs give the whole thing an unrisked NPV of $28m, assuming a linear ramp up to full production in year 5, no change in selling price and linear ramp down in costs using 8% discount and only the first 15 years, as much more than that does not add much when the discount gets to that level and I know I will be pushing up daisies long before it reaches its 60 year LOM. We own 51% of that so not as good at Togo, but still more than the fully diluted whole KRS MCap."

Unless we can find an EV battery producer with a factory staffed exclusively with potheads!

I'm with you - lots of research to do on this one.

It took me a number of weeks to get comfortable with the Warrawoona play initially and I had at least a base understanding of gold.

I think Grants Patch involved no up front costs due to the tolling model and I'm pretty certain the initial Warrawoona tenements were funded by director loans, similar to Phase 1 of the new initiative? I might trawl back through the RNS history this weekend if I have to hide from the blazing sunshine.

I believe the low levels of profit in Year 1 of the new initiative are predominantly caused due to repayment of start up costs? And as a result of conservative start up projections? Again, I can't be certain, there's a lot of reading to do.

Just since it's been raised - I would imagine at current gold prices, the Grants Patch Tributes still retained by Calidus would probably generate some decent positive cash flow now!

I can both understand and appreciate the reticence. The gold tributes were a disaster - but they were actually a totally different model. We were in essence positioned as toll miners/turnkey operators and our operating costs (plus royalties) did not allow us to turn a profit.

We will be part/controlling interest owners of this new venture. Turnkey miner costs are known and stable, and we take a share in the profits within an established market.

I still need to get comfortable with the mineral market and the economics of the project - but the operating model is a completely different ball game to the Grants Patch gold.

Let's also not forget - although Grants Patch didn't make us money - we categorically would not have landed the Calidus play without it.

That's true Jim, but it is only half the story - yes, the dilution is heavy - but if it returns a project of equivalent value (and growth potential) then we're no worse off - or indeed better off - with the diversification and the risk mitigation that brings, immediate cash flow, and access to a new geographic market of opportunities.

It's definitely worth pointing out at this time that - as with Calidus - the major shareholders could easily have pushed this opportunity through a different company structure. They have chosen to manage it through Keras - which chimes with the sentiment both RL and DR stated to me in November, that they are passionately committed to earn value for the shareholders of Keras who placed so much faith in them.

I think it gives us a legitimate position of leverage with Togo - a, 'this could have been you, what are you waiting for?' statement.

It also de-risks us significantly for as long as we have the dither and delay in West Africa. If there was any 'power play' efforts going on from the Togolese government, that has now been removed from them.

You watch. The Togolese license will be signed off next week now.... (go on, go on)

Yes Chirpy, frustrating that it's happening with us at such a paltry mcap.

I can only assume it was an offer, at a time, that was too good to refuse.

The phosphate market is not one I'm familiar with, so I'll need to bring myself up to speed with the economics.

At the moment, I'm a bit shell shocked at the levels of dilution. I hope it pays itself back.

I can't leave this BB alone for 5 minutes without you lot causing trouble, can I?

Wow - that RNS is going to take an awful lot of digesting. New project, mineral diversification, enormous equity raises and dilution, immediate production. I'm sure I've missed something.

I'm equally experiencing some challenges on the ISA front. My Calidus holding is well in excess of an annual ISA entitlement, so using a 'bed and ISA' type principle wouldn't work for me. I am also not happy at the suggestion I might need to take them out of the 'shelter' of an ISA in certificate form and risk Capital Gains exposure.

Given some of the timelines for movement can be around 8 - 12 weeks (?) I am not sold on the notion of my current share holding being sold off, with a rebuy taking place in the new platform - potentially after game changing news.

I guess for now, I'm back to leaving them in my Halifax account until there is a corporate event. Which is also not an ideal proposition.

I agree with Oil. Had we not listed the gold asset on the ASX, I suspect we'd no longer be holding anything of value.

Hi folks, I know a few on here have gone through the process of an ISA transfer for their Calidus holding. I'm now inclined to do the same - although I generally intended to wait for a Corporate Action, I missed out on an attractive opportunity as a result of having zero ability to sell even a small percentage via Halifax.

For those that have - how do the transfer work? Is it like a double CREST transfer? Into certificate and then back into a nominated account? I guess what I'm after understanding, is it a pure volumetric shift? I.e. if you have 1,000 in the source account, the full 1,000 will be received in the target account? Are there any fees/losses incurred?

Happy birthday Diggit! Hopefully these shares will proffer up both a comfortable and early retirement for you!