If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
My apologies DP, it has moved, it is down 2.5%
Todays post on RBW and Techmet, "TechMet, which is backed by the DFC, will take out an option to acquire a direct equity stake in Phalaborwa, where Rainbow is processing gypsum from dumps to produce some of the most important rare earth metals.", This is an Option!!!!!, and you are saying it is comfired funding, yet the SP hasn't moved..... get your own facts right before casting aspersions on others
It would help if you were very careful what you say. i was there and have a transcript of the proceedings. I have no problem using my real name as I do elsewhere. i authorised it from my own notes.
SP/DP, the only fact here is that your comments are irrelevant. i pass on information that is believed to be, and is correct at the time it is disseminated. What readers do with that information and how they use it to inform the decisions they make is entirely up to them. i have had to put up with you taking every opportunity to snipe at opinions on Pensana that are made on just about every platform you can find. even poisoning the Hive, which, until you started spouting, I saw as an interesting and well-curated platform. I could do an in-depth critique of the US investment in RBW that you pertain to and the potential dilution that it could entail which explains the lack of movement on the SP. but I don't, because I have no shareholding and consequently no interest. Although, unlike you, I wish all the shareholders well with their investment, As the growth potential for NdPr is expected to be 20KT a year by 2030, the green transition will need all the Ndpr they can get.
SP/DP I don't care whether you believe me or not, I was physically there
They have agreement for the offtake with a Japanese buyer. However, they will not be signing any formal documents with them until the finance terms are in place. This is because the agreement is 2 way, with an obligation from the buyer to take but also for PRE to supply. The agreement is CAP and Floor on pricing, with a take or pay obligation on volumes from the buyer . The 3 part structured finance agreement will be signed and in place early in Q1 , the ASWF equity portion being accessible immediately with draw down from the ABSA and Multi lateral development bank being permitted once CPs such as the off-take agreement have been satisfied. The same off-taker is taking the MREC from Longonjo as for the Oxide from Saltend. The contract converting from one to the other when the product comes available.
Earthworks and civil works are just different phases of a construction project and subject to the same engineering as any other stage of the project. As the engineering has only just been completed, the earthworks can't have started before hand. The previous comment clearly referred to earthworks in respect of the construction camp. The civil works involve pouring concrete driving piles. This can't be done until the earthworks are done. For me there is no ambiguity or open to Interpretation.
Earthworks is pert of the construction phase. Presentation has construction starting in December (assuming both the 6 months duration and May completion for Earthworks are correct)
Spike501, i think that is a little naive. if they hadn't stepped down, the 3 shareholders had the required votes to fire them. They also have the required votes to impose an interim executive team which they have done. the cornerstone investors have taken over total control of the board and therefore the company. Paul Smith is definitely a Glencore-acceptable shoo-in. from the company's perspective, this development is positive. I'm not sure from a PI
As pointed out, over 50% of the shareholders must agree for directors to be sacked and replaced. As there was no EGM called, all three cornerstone investors (including Orion) must have worked together to create the required shareholding vote. Other than that, there are several options open to them. So, there is no point in speculating.
Calculating. Until news on financing comes through nothing is happening.
On the plus side no reason to sell, and every reason to hold. If the RNS are accepted at face value. the DD (both commercial and technical) will be signed off and "REPORTED ON" before the year end.
Are Earther, Essentially 100% capital allowances, ie not added to the balance sheet. ie 250 million * 25% = $62.5 million of tax credits!!!, certainty assists big time when considering the affordability of any debt repayments
Publican, it's not negative either, it just re-iterates what has been said in the RNS. which is what it should do.
HeresHopin, according to the covenants, the bank has no obligation to provide any more funding. But in my experience, they tend toward pragmatism when protecting a 200 million investment already made. I wasnt suggesting that they would continue the funding of construction, but if there was a likelihood of them getting their money back, a trickle feed may be agreed to maintain the already installed kit and safety considerations. To be clear, this is entirely at the bank's discretion.
NIW, the RNS did say that, but I'm sure the bank will allow limited release of funds for care and maintenance pending discussions. It's in their interest to keep the project on track, even if progress is in stasis for a while.
They wouldn't automatically get the previous debt arrangement. A new one would need to be negotiated and the old settled in full (or whatever they agreed on). Or they woud have to make an all cash offer, including the outstanding liabilities, which would include the already drawn down portion of the debt faculty and and any costs assosciates with it.
Bibente, why are you name calling, this is a discussion forum.. Firstly I agree it is a standard set up. I also agree that if a HOLDCO goes into administration, the OPCOs can continue to operate for as long as the agreements continue to function. So i actually agree with your points, but it doesnt make the points i make any less valid. None of these companies are set up as a separate legal entities purely as a protection in the case of insolvency, although that is one of the considerations, but also for practical considerations that are outlined in my previous.
Bibente, the reason why there is a legally separate entity to the holding company is because it has to comply with a totally different legal jurisdiction with different fiscal regulations that need to be ringfekced within the jurisdiction within which it operates. Of the owner goes into liquidation the asset is sold
Beneto, it might be a legally separate entity. But it has an owner, in this case it is Horozonte, which is an asset that needs to be liquidated
MV01, usually a share issue would be based on the total number of shares. ie HZM case with approx 250 mill, a further 750 mill would be issued (at 30p, this would raise $225 M) and would amount to a 75% dilution. Not ideal. It would also need an EGM to authorise the additional shares. it has been suggested that some equity in the operating company could be sold, as HZM own 100% of the equity, up to 49% could be sold to raise additional capital without losing operation control. this would reduce attributable cashflow to this project, but would leave the other assets intact. or even a rights issue and a partial asset sale to reduce the solution. The point being that administration is a last resort for all parties. if the lenders beleive that there is a realistic chance of the a solution being found, they will release a limited out of funds to continue on a care and maintenance basis, as it is in their best interests to do so.