Member Info for moneyhawk

Guidance of sorts is given on targeted production and/or design processing capacity once projects are ramped up to full production. But they leave the financials for investor guest work. Need to be careful on some of the guess work though, especially when CB/LC only refer to capacity, there's a big difference between design capacity and actual production (i.e. the plants aren't going be running continuously at full capacity). The other area for caution is that we're producing concentrate PGMs rather than pure metal. Some of the guesstimates we often see are based on us producing at capacity and receiving revenue for pure metal.

The shard broker note is probably the most reliable guess, but now out of date with production for this half (which is going to be affected by the lockdowns), time scales for projects ramping up and commodity prices.

But we are in a strong growth phase, and so even with the Covid19 problems, we can probably still expect to see this half outperform the same half from last year with our biggest earners now being allowed to start up again.

Agree Rosewall. I'd rather see us get Kabwe up and running first and then use the profits from that for another acquisition, even if it means we will have to pay more than at the moment. Cash could start getting a bit tight if CB is allowed to go off on a spending spree.

But all depends on just what it is and how distressed the seller is I guess. Could be something they're looking at that won't involve a large outlay and be of benefit to one of out existing operations. Could be some tailings piles close by to Windsor, Inyoni or Kabwe going very cheap?

21.50 - The problem with the that icewine 1 update you’ve mentioned, (which said the results confirm the sweet spot), is that Icewine 2 proved it to be wrong after 2 years of failed attempts. Turns out what was thought to be the ‘sweet spot’ was actually solid bitumen rather than oil.

Have to laugh really, first we find some solid hydrocarbons, and now some gaseous hydrocarbons. Somewhere in the middle must be the liquid we’re looking for.

But the concern now has to be will the market believe it if we have actually found the sweet spot of the HRZ. DW will have to provide some decent evidence of it and why this is different to Icewine1. Would be great if it comes good, not sure if we can expect it from this drill though, the location was chosen mainly for the conventional prospects.

I'm doubtful the deal we had with PMO would have allowed them to sit on the acreage without any commitments for further expenditure. Maybe they would have been able to do that, but we don't know the full terms of the deal.

Its more likely the case that if they had retained 60% they would then be obligated to pay 60% of the costs for any further work already agreed (i.e the horizontal drill from charlie 1, the 2-3 additional wells in 2022, plus the additional costs for testing the condensate gas for charlie 1). There has been no indication that the further worked planned was optional, the only optional parts of the deal looked to be PMO taking over as operator and farming in to Area B or C

I suspect that PMO had made the decision to withdraw from Charlie 1 before the drill had finished and any results were available.

See their Trading Update of 13th March:
"Discussions are already underway regarding the Group's ability to reduce its 2020 capex programme. Initial analysis suggests that at least $100m of savings and deferrals is achievable with potential for further reductions. Assuming a $100m reduction in planned 2020 capex and $35/bbl oil price for the remainder of the year, the Group would expect to be broadly cash flow neutral in 2020."
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PMO/trading-update-l2rtdj65kp82cx2.html

Its not hard to see why an Alaskan prospect outside of their comfort zone would be one the the first capex reductions identified. The results we had just gave them the reason they were looking for.

Although DW saying yesterday that the results compare favourably to pre-drill expectations is a bit much imo. Obviously the results don't compare favorably to those expectations, or DW had very different expectations to the rest of us.

I've cancelled my subscription, not paying anymore for a website that doesn't work reliably.

O/T - This website just seems to be getting worse, first time this morning I've been able to get on. Canceled my subscription now, don't mind paying a small amount to see live prices, but only if it works.

Back on topic, I'm wondering if the delays here are due to waiting on GLR to finalise their deal to take the parts of BMRs subsidiaries we didn't want, which is very relevant to our option to acquire 100% of EML (BMRs subsidiary that held/holds the kabwe licence). Despite previous statements from CB/GLR, its clear now that they hadn't finalised the deal and its still going on. Always though it was a bit suspicous that CB was alledgely telling people at investors meetings that the star zinc licence had been applied for, but the RNSs didn't.

But going by yesterdays 'news', this all looks to be going ahead and we should maybe expect an update of our own shortly to confirm we have the Kabwe small scale mining licence in our own hands rather than BMRs hands.

Jammer, yes doesn’t really seem to be anything new here. It’s a deal first announced about 18 months ago, and still subject to regulatory approval so still isn’t complete.

But BMR have tweeted some extra ‘news’ today that ties in to all of this, looks like we’re close to tying up loose ends with the Kabwe licence:
“BMR is pleased to have concluded the restructure with Galileo Resources PLC (“Galileo”), as announced earlier today by Galileo, further to the agreement reached in 2018. It also facilitates the agreement with Jubilee Metals Group PLC (“Jubilee”)...
...for the establishment of the royalty interest in the Kabwe project which is expected to be realised shortly, following the approval of the Zambian Ministry of Mines which has been sought by Jubilee.“

15.02 - Trade receivables? Are you on the right board?

I don't quite get how GLRs news translates for us/star zinc. They don't have a mining licence for star zinc and there isn't any mention of how this is going. They say the 'deal' with BMR eliminates the need to transfer the Star Zinc exploration licence, but this isn't the mining licence that they are supposedly applying for.

Could it be that GLR needed to have full ownership over the exploration licence to make that application for the mining licence, and now there won't be any other holdups? But I'm not clear on how this means they'll now be in a position to finalise off-take agreements with us if they still don't have the mining licence.

Or, perhaps of more relevance is the focus they've put on Kash*tu? Going straight for Kash*tu would make more sense, a lot closer to Kabwe and it has vanadium, so would seem to be more compatible overall in a climate of lower commodity prices.

I believe the map just shows who’s identified as the operator of leases, not the ownership. Take Prudhoe Bay, marked as BP. They are the operator, but don’t have the largest WI.

But uncertain why it’s all ready been amended to show PMO as the operator. I thought the deal was only giving PMO the option to become operator on success, and 88e would remain operator until PMO exercised that option.

Did the seismic analysis get it wrong? We seem to have hit liquid hydrocarbons where the analysis pointed us to. Don’t know if it’s really possible to tell the difference between liquid condensate gas and oil without drilling it to see what it is.

Easy to look for something to blame, but doesn’t seem to be much wrong here other than what we wanted wasn’t in the ground.

Would be ironic if its the HRZ results from Charlie1 that end up saving us after leaving it parked to one side while we've been exploring for conventional. Won't make any difference to this BB though, there'll still be people calling for DWs head for not going straight for Icewine 3 and wasting money on conventional, while others will say he's played a blinder by getting PMO to pay for it. lol

Been looking back at the Icewine 1 newsflow for an idea of when we might get some HRZ news. Drilling there finished 24 Dec 15, with first update 20 Jan 16, going though to April 16 for a revised resource statement.

The Charlie 1 RNS has given virtually no detail on the HRZ when compared to Icewine 1, or even compared to the conventional targets at Charlie 1. i.e. no indication of gas readings or hydrocarbon shows. But then this isn't what PMO paid for, so perhaps not surprising there's no detail yet.

So we're still non the wiser as to what the HRZ looks like at this location, but DWs guidance of analysis over the next few months fits with previous analysis for HRZ samples.

OK, so all the discussion on the FTSE isn't hugely relevant to JLP.

However, has anyone else noticed that the FTSE chart and the JLP chart are almost identical for the past month? 3 month chart is also surprisingly similar. i.e. we're moving in line with the market as a whole.

So perhaps is not completely irrelevant to us.

12.11 - yes it has been overlooked. When it supposed to be an appraisal well flow testing an existing oil discovery, the only things that really matter are that no flow test is being carried out and the FO partner has walked away due to it not meeting expectations.

Need more detail on it to really make an informed decision, could take some time for that, but hopefully the team is working flat out to provide this.

11.51 - TAPS runs right through the middle of our acreage

9.50 - Thanks Kip, so we've got the whole acreage to put back on the table without any complications of diluted ownership. That would certainly be good news and hopefully DW will be clarifying further soon.

Just been looking at Exxons website, they describe gas condensate as "a high-quality hydrocarbon similar to kerosene or diesel." And its transported via TAPS. So some glimmer of hope that its not as bad as first seems, still some potential, just a different type of liquid hydrocarbon than the oil we were expecting, and not something PMO is interested in.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Locations/United-States/Alaska/ExxonMobil-Point-Thomson-reservoir

And a bit more on Condenstates

https://www.mckinseyenergyinsights.com/resources/refinery-reference-desk/condensate/

Agree with that, the RNS has rather left us in limbo with no idea what the forward plan is now. Some clarification on this would be good.

Also clarification on whether or not PMO have any WI in Area A now. Can't find a definitive answer looking back through the RNSs and presentations. Only clear part on the deal is that PMO had the option to take over as operator on successful completion of the agreed work program. So we're still the operator, whether or not the work program is complete, they've not taken the option.

But the RNSs have also been written in a way that suggests PMO receive 60% WI by paying for the drill. Would have expected that to also be conditional on completion of the work program, but its not clear. As most who have been around for a while will know, Farmout Contracts are long and complicated, hence I think clarification on this is required before we can assume we've reverted to full ownership of whatever has been discovered.

Anyone know what happens to PMOs 60% share in Area A? Announced that they’re exiting the project, but would this mean:
A. they’re not taking up the option to take over as operator, (but still keep the 60% share) or
B. They don’t get the 60% because the agreed work program hasn’t been completed?