Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
.... like history. On google and in the Public Domain for all to see. DYOR but you might find this link interesting and worth a read, or reread:- http://www.gcmplc.com/sites/default/files/2017-09/Asia_Energy_19th_MineSite.pdf .
Note the NPV figure on page four, US$2.3 billion.
Yes IP, I asked the question and James Hobson, Finance Director, said the appointment of a Nomad was in hand and he was confident it would be made within the timescale. He also added that it was better to take a little more time to appoint one of quality. I was reassured by that answer.
…. organisations.
Obviously the election is very close and the result and follow on from it will be of importance, whoever wins, and will take a short while to settle in prior to the proposal with 28th February timescale being submitted to the GoB.
This is my understanding and interpretation of proceedings and discussions and I hope it assists in obtaining a feel for what many unfortunately missed. IMHO it remains very positive and we need to continue to be patient and await for news to drop, when its ready. Whatever the speed and depth of progress, 2019 would seem to be a very pivotal year for GCM.
Sorry for the delay in writing up my observations of the AGM after getting home. I had been looking forward to meeting Bees and some of the others posting on here but was disappointed not to.
I did get into the AGM early and before the mayhem outside moved up a gear. It was a “cosy” meeting and I was assured that the company had taken sufficient action to enable a quorum. It was pitiful that the venue hosts were ill prepared and researched, as they had been informed to expect protestors. The directors apologised for the disruption and expressed their disappointment that legitimate shareholders had been denied access, including shareholder protesters who had attended in previous years to voice their concerns. The demonstration had served no useful purpose but to deny meaningful discussion with, and feedback from, shareholders.
Michael Tang offered his apologies as he was still busy with negotiations. The proceedings were left to Gary Lye and James Hobson to officiate. Resolutions were passed on a show of hands plus 32 million proxies, of which at least 99% were in favour.
A question was asked regarding the likelyhood of the company buying back its shares. The reply was that the procedure is merely a renewal of the existing resolution last year, with minor amendments, and which expires/renews annually. It is there to provide an option for the company but there are no intentions at present to exercise it.
In response to a further question, CGGC are still very much involved and there are ongoing discussions with other interested parties in development of the coal mine. The directors were reminded of the request at last year’s AGM for more frequent updates on local issues and matters of interest to shareholders. JH responded by saying there were many companies that issue Rns’s on frequent minor news feeds, GCM’s directors preferred to react to more meaningful news events even if this meant with lesser frequency.
The question of Dyani Corporation’s legitimacy was raised but it was said that our auditors were required to sign-off accounts with due diligence and this had been satisfied. Without Dyani the element of progress to date would not have been achieved.
Regarding the outstanding Nomad appointment, JH was confident this would be achieved within the time frame required.
GL pointed out that regarding company value, not only had coal prices greatly increased from years ago but the Mwh of energy that can now be extracted from each tonne of coal, using the latest technology, has also improved substantially. Initially the project relied upon some partial external demand for its product whilst Bangladesh was establishing and extending its own energy demand priorities. This is no longer the case and all production will be required to meet the country’s growing demand. Since the reported problems at Barapukuria earlier this year, closer cooperation has been requested by their management and now exists between the two org
Absolutely GP. Election on 30th, JDA announcement by 31st, there never would have been time to let the dust settle, let alone to know the full result before making the JDA announcement. If there has been a wink or a nod then the Chinese want certainty, and value GCM higher after Hasina's re election, and a lot higher after the GL. The election hurdle has to be dealt with before either side can, or is willing to, commit to value as it reduces the provisos.
The Rns announcing the MOU, setting out the projected timeframe of concluding the JDA , was released on 27th November. The election date was announced more than two weeks previously and amended only four days later from 23rd to 30th December.
I had thought the JDA date was too closely set to the election date and it makes sence to give a little more time, whatever the explanation.
Sharebel, perhaps your trade went through on NEX. See this link:- https://www.nexexchange.com/company-all-latest-trades?isin=GB00B00KV284&listingtypeid=PLSU
GP, You are too quick off the mark to condemn. You are absolutely right, we own the license, that is not in question or the point I was making. It is the future equity interests and ownership of the overall project that the JDA refers to. E.g. We own the mine and PowerChina put up finance for the powerplant = 100%. How much of the overall "new" company that the equity holdings, with a greater Market Cap, will we own? Answer this and we have a value placed upon our holding. Choose to consider my post how you wish, you don't have to be a genius to see what I'm suggesting.
Ricky/GP; Your references to the short term nature and where we are heading regarding OWNERSHIP may be known as soon as when/if full details of the JDA are published. I’ve just read, yet again, the 27th November RNS reference to the MoU and JDA. There are three particularly important timing indicator references to FUTURE OWNERSHIP under “The principal terms of the MOU”. These are:
(1) “Activities towards development are identified as being investment, planning, approval, FINANCING, OWNERSHIP, design, construction and operation of the proposed mine and power plants; “
(2) “The EQUITY HOLDINGS of the coal mine and power plants generating 4,000MW shall be agreed in a future Joint Development Agreement;”
(3) “The MOU sets out a projected time frame of concluding a Joint Development Agreement with the parties by 31 DECEMBER 2018.”
The PowerChina Mou and proposed JDA 4000MW scheme do, of course, not encompass CGGC and I’d be interested to hear an announcement as to how they and their 2000MW scheme are to dovetail into the overall 6000MW scheme and ownership. Perhaps this will be made clearer when the JDA update is announced or at/following the AGM on 28th December.
Agreed, but politicians say what suits them at the time. I don't see Hasina being any different. Without the mine what's the point in siting power stations at Phulbari? I don't believe the huge Chinese investment will be rejected, especially if she is re-elected, as seems probable.
GP; See the full AGM Notice on the Company website, (including a resolution to authorise the Company to make own share purchases) :- http://www.gcmplc.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/2018-agm-notice.pdf
Dhaka, Sept 14 (UNB) – Parliament on Thursday passed the ‘Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Bill, 2017’ raising the compensation against land value by three times.
http://old.unb.com.bd/bangladesh-news/Bill-to-raise-land-acquisition-compensation-by-3-times-passed/50994
GP; Thanks for recycling the 2005 Cazenove report on Asia Energy/GCM. I recall reading it sometime back but almost incredulous to be reminded of the quality of the project and the actual price the share was trading at that time. Even more so when reading the projected NAV’s and the reference on page 16 that says… “would put Asia Energy firmly in the FTSE100”. The number of shares now in issue have almost doubled but then the price of coal has more than doubled compared to that quoted in the report.
Looking back, I wonder what those analysts credited with producing the report over 13 years ago would make of the current situation, i.e. David Butler, Michael Rawlinson, Tiffany Essex and Chongghee Peh.
The report contains lots of references and comments and is well worth reading again, or even for the first time, for those that haven’t previously come across it. Particularly pertinent at this time with the election fast approaching is the comment on page 12:- “The potential impact of the Phulbari mine on both the local and national economy is material and the company has received high level support from the government. We would not envisage this changing under any ruling party interested in improving the quality of life in the country.“
JohnHenry,
I thought the question in your posts at 14.20 and 14.27 today, regarding what's happened re the CGGC agreement, raised an interesting point. I've no knowledge of what the current situation is but assume they are working simitaneously, as nothing to the contrary has been reported. From looking back over recent RNS announcements the main references to CGGC are as summarised below.
21/03/2018 RNS
"We are delighted to finalise this EPC framework agreement with CGGC, which is to build the proposed 2,000MW mine-mouth thermal power plant provided that consent is obtained from the Government of Bangladesh and upon a definitive EPC agreement being negotiated.”
02/07/2018 RNS
·     CGGC has been awarded the right to engineer, procure, construct, and commission ("EPC") the proposed Power Plant, subject to a definitive EPC contract;
·     CGGC shall assist the Company in pursuing the necessary approvals from the Bangladesh authorities for development of both the proposed coal mine and Power Plant.
26/10/2018 RNS
** The MOU and framework agreements have already been achieved in respect to Power plant group 1, where the strategic partner is CGGC
06/11/2018 RNS
These power plants are in addition to the existing 2,000MW power plant proposal with China Gezhouba Group International Engineering Co Ltd ("CGGC") which GCM reported in its announcement on 14 July 2017.
Measurement of progress with CGGC depends and hinges upon the two salient reference points of obtaining a definitive EPC contract and pursuing and obtaining the necessary consents and approvals from the Government of Bangladesh. Presumably this is where forces will, hopefully, be joined with PowerChina in submitting a formal proposal to the Government of Bangladesh by 28 February 2019. Until there are further specific references or updates regarding CGGC your question largely remains unanswered but the ducks seem to be lining up!.