Member Info for Markyess

Half year results for period end Dec 2022 haven't been reported yet, due this month.

Regardless of anything else, a half yearly report is due this month.

Even worse when you consider that the company acknowledged its recent pattern of poor comms and stated it was going to do better.

Togo need to play this very carefully. They are going to be in receipt of Corporation, Sales and Employment taxes on the operation, AND free carry entitling them to a portion of profits AND beneficiary via a defined ESG programme, on profits.

Keras is also already committed to utilising a Togolese turnkey operator, fully employing Togolese resources.

If they try to salt this operation even further in their favour before granting the license, they may demonstrate the opposite of their broadcast intent of appealing to international investment.

personsfirstname@kerasplc.com

Anywhere between £15m - £23m based on current sales growth projections, and formally assessing resource reserves against an acceptable mining code.

That number could go up considerably when we start to move into carbon credits.

What is a little reassuring is that for Togo to still be realistically in play *in any capacity* (from duress sale, through fully owner operated, even to International Arbitration) and this company be deemed worth only £3m on the market is utterly bonkers.

And that's before you consider a 100% owned, 60 year mine life, rock phosphate operation in a 'friendly' jurisdiction!

Either 'project' alone is worth far more than £3m.

I'm intending to send Russell a 'concerned investor' type email tomorrow - my earliest opportunity.

If you happen to hear anything in the meantime (and you are able to) please keep us updated.

At least the article on Togo First refers to us by name, rather than flatly denying our involvement.

I agree completely. A notional single digit £m figure for 'reimbursement of our expenses/inconvenience', for project tenements with an NPV of a few hundred million would be galling at best, closer to down right offensive.

I fear it's the likely route, wipe our hands, and fully inject the proceeds into Diamond Creek, against the acquisition costs of the full project.

I really hope I'm wrong.

My thoughts exactly, Jim. Given the size of the Nayega and Ogaro prospects, proven resource and ease of extraction - the projects' NPVs are significant, and we should be duly recompensed for them after our 12 years of investment and patience.

Imagine where we could have been today if the extraction licenses were granted even 3 years ago (after the Ministerial decree) let alone if they'd been issued a decade ago.

Yep. Very much reads like Keras are being managed out in favour of 'the Council of Ministers on Wednesday adopted a draft decree which provides for the creation of the Togolese Manganese Company (STM)'.

Even refers to 'our' site with no mention of us other than 'international mining companies have shown interest'. No mention of our sunk investment, commitment or our October 2019 ministerial decree.

Think we'd have a walk over case to obtain compensation, so long as we have the financial stamina to engage it.

It's all encompassing insomuch as it includes non mining, operational costs, e.g. back office staff etc as well as digging, processing costs. It doesn't include capital costs or costs of servicing debts (balance sheet).

There are often balance sheet incentives (such as tax offsets for capital investment) that a company can benefit from, outside of project profitability, so it's not all bad news.

AISC tends to be project level, whereas the balance sheet costs (often) are Corporation level, and shareable across multiple projects, and so do not lead to a true assessment of project profitability/feasibility.

Hope that makes sense.

AISC is focused on ops expenses and doesn't consider balance sheet. Debt would be serviced out of margin.

Had the BoD given FUR a Board position for their money, this would be an entirely different conversation and I would 100% agree with you.

But they didn't.

I accept 'legitimate' criticism of the BoD, Jim.

Accepting investment from a group that want no influence and whose money has come from legal legitimate means is not an error of judgment.

It's FUR/AXCAP's business if they generated their money by gambling/crypto, not the BoD's. It's AXCAP/FUR's decision that they chose to gamble it further by investing it in Keras.

I guarantee there are individual investors in Keras (and plenty of other companies) whose money has come from nefarious means, and Keras/the BoD can't do a thing about that, either.

This isn't genuine criticism of the board as there is literally nothing that they have done wrong. This is shaking a fist at a cloud.

Besides, if any party had rights to feel aggrieved at their investment, I'd suggest it'd be FUR.

Their money allowed us to survive, they had the expectation of equity growth and returns (given no influence).

We got what we wanted. Cash injection without influence and survival.

They're just another (albeit large) investor.

It depends whether our Board wanted their money or their advice.

The absence of an FUR member on the BoD gives a decent indication.

It is always worth remembering that as much as FUR are a cornerstone investor - that is all they are. They do not have representation on the BoD, they are just a large shareholder.

There would be some share price risk if, as a result of their own financial difficulty, they were forced to sell their holding - although, at our current MCAP (and the fact they are cornerstone) I would anticipate it would be a managed exit and you'd likely see DR, RL, GS and BM acquire sizable portions, with the rest 'managed' into the market as AXCAPs was.

In short - not something that I am concerned with. So long as we see positive Ops and Sales progress in the near term.

NB. as a very low cost company that's almost entirely run out of the United States, I reckon for the foreseeable future, we should all expect to see as many 'late day' RNS as opening of market RNS.