Member Info for observer842

Just closed another 2-3% up :-))

Marmite. Leave it at that.

Just closed 2-3% up. :-)

You can have that one on me @jimb2. @SClarke66, if you are for real: we've got this covered - take a read of our corporate presentation for the design of the dam and also 14 April 2020 RNS which states what part of the realised $10m net is for: "...and to start maintenance and monitoring of the current tailing dam facilities (~ US$ 6 m) ..."

Indeed, could go much higher! ;-)

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/iron-ore

Click:All.

Why are you using the 62% price @tomcat? The vast majority of what we will be selling is 65% ;-)

LoL. At current iron ore prices I'd say into the billions. :-)

Last time there was a "Conclusions for Decision", the decision came the same day. Given that the date of this was yesterday, I'd say it's very likely the decision will be made today, as the subject says: imminently...

"07/05/2020 Conclusions for Decision"

Good questions @Daceon. As you say, any answer would be speculative! Here is my speculation:

1. I think the nature of this share, and many shares on AIM is that when the re-rate comes, it'll be part of a spike, i.e. we'll spike up from this share price, to a certain point, and then draw back to a new higher level. However, it's quite possible, and I've seen this on several occasions on AIM, and indeed on here many years ago, that the first pull back is way off the mark, and that another spike follows to even greater highs a few days or weeks later without any additional news of substance, just sentiment. Look at June and July 2014 for an example on this share.

2. As it happens the JRP says we can take our 20% ownership at anytime. However, we choose not to until we are confident that the project has been sufficiently de-risked that it is likely to come to fruition. Before we claim our 20% we can pull out taking our $2.5m in escrow with us. We appear to be imminently close to this point - the last major precondition is settlement with the secured (over project assets) creditors (the banks), and we should by all rights hear news on this next week, Monday morning even, given the end of June schedule for a ruling on this. As to what the new mkt cap might be? That's pretty much up to us. The collective us. Current and future shareholders and day traders. I'd personally hope to see £25-50m in response to one of or all of the following news points related to Amapa (news related to other projects might come too!): 20% ownership, 27% ownership, first shipment of iron ore.

No doubt others will have other views. That £25-50m is me trying to be realistic as I can be, but if you know AIM it could lose its mind and send the share price over £1 much sooner than it really should! IMHO...

Ob.

Welcome @Daceon. Got any questions you've been itching to ask!?

Cheers @tomcat! Think I'll hold off reading that until we get confirmation of our 20% - I've already done far too much research on a project we currently hold a 0% interest in. LoL. Do share anything of interest though!

It's unlike me to state something without a link! ;-) Earlier I said: "There has been talk about doubling the mining rate, and of course there are resources to shore up into reserves which would naturally extend the LOM."

Here are the links:

"Amapá iron mine to resume operations in 2021" (3 Sep 2019)
https://www.pressreader.com/brazil/valor-economico/20190903/281827170443994
===[
The mine has a reserve of 251 million tons of iron ore and in the first year of operation is expected to produce 5.3 million tonnes. In a second moment, according to with Sodré, could be expanded to 11 million tonnes.
]===

I found that quote from a post of mine dated "13 Sep 2019", but the link doesn't work any more. However I've been able to find it in google's cache of another article which translates a bit more coherently as:

===[
The mine has a reserve of 251 million tons of iron ore and in the first year of operation is expected to produce 5.3 million tons. In a second step, according to Sodré, it could be expanded to 11 million tons."
]===

From our June presentation:

https://www.cadenceminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Corporate-Presentation-KDNC-JUN-2020-PUBLIC.pdf
===[
The total historic mineral resource contains an estimated 348 million tonnes (“Mt”) of ore @ 38.9% iron content (“Fe”).
]===

If all that 348Mt@38.9% were converted to and shipped as 65% Fe, that would be around 208Mt.

At 5.3Mt/yr that would be a LOM of approximately 40 years. And 19 years @11Mt/yr. :-)))

Ob.

Indeed, no matter how we try to spin it, it seems that in fact we are in agreement ;-)

I completely agree @Bannor. It's just that I believe what me and @tomcat think is the case is significantly more likely from what I've read.

@Bannor, thanks for clarifying and you could be right. It's possible I've made an incorrect connection related to the 30% discount from the following sources:

"Amapá Iron Ore Project Given Court Approval to Commence Iron Ore Shipments" (14 April 2020)
http://irservices.netbuilder.com/ir/cadence/newsArticle.php?ST=REM&id=311428203156429223
===[
In addition, the Court has requested that the secured bank creditors reach an agreement with the JV Partners and DEV within 60 days or the Court might rule on the annulment of the Bank Liens and consider the banks as unsecured creditors. As unsecured creditors, the bank's credit will be subject to restructuring plan limits and discounts and be paid from free cash flow from DEV, which may be over fifteen years.
]===

and

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t_2GNdDBpqXrb9UszfuVFa63N6s_lHIA/view
===[
4.5. Unsecured Creditors. Unsecured creditors you will receive your credits according to the following conditions:
4.5.1. Seventy percent (70%) of each creditor's claims chirographic will be paid in full in accordance with the
following condition:
4.5.1.1. Each claim belonging to creditors it will be discounted with thirty percent (30%)
]===

But it does look to me that if the courts rule the banks as unsecured creditors they will be in the same boat as other unsecured creditors and will be obliged to take the haircut (use of the word "discounts" in our RNS)

They had an offer on the table which, presumably, would have been more advantageous to them than defaulting to unsecured creditors. It looks like they couldn't take advantage of that offer because they couldn't reach agreement with themselves...

@Bannor: "so I don't think any 'haircut' is part of amortization as such" I think in this context amortization could mean a write down of the secured credit, as it becomes unsecured, by 30%, as envisaged by the JRP - you seemed to suggest by the bit I quoted that this wasn't the case. It doesn't matter either way - in practice if they become unsecured creditors the JRP has the answers. ;-)

I think you are right @tomcat. It was @Bannor's questioning of the use of the word amortisation which made me go back to the Portuguese and forget it was referring to the past anyway at that point. LoL. Fingers crossed! :-)

Indeed @Bannor - that is what I was hinting at when I used the word current ;-). There has been talk about doubling the mining rate, and of course there are resources to shore up into reserves which would naturally extend the LOM.

Of course it may have been cancelled subsequent to that as noted by @Cause and @tomcat in the main case we are following...