Member Info for observer842

@Bannor - take a read of 5.1.5 R: this is where it explains that under certain circumstance the 6%, 7%, 8% and 9% thresholds don't need to be reported. My take is from what I have read there and from elsewhere that KDNC reporting officers would fall under that category due to being classed as investment managers. That would mean we would have to report when crossing the 3%, 4%, 5%, 10%, 11%, 12% and each 1% threshold thereafter up to 100%. All IMHO - perhaps one for @Kiran to answer at the webinar?

Seems like it was as I thought: a large trade went through at 0.053p for 13,440,999 - likely a buy given I couldn't buy but could sell loads! Perhaps someone's confidence buoyed on the news we still have a marketing director, and he is getting the word out ;-) @maidit308. �10m would be nice, but a couple of mill more likely!

Wow that is great news for both them and us - I hope shipping the concentrate pans out for them: makes our 100% project adjoining theirs all that more viable. ;-)

or 8% ;-) "Sonora Project in Mexico" (06 April 2018) http://irservices.netbuilder.com/ir/cadence/newsArticle.php?ST=REM&id=2412597 === Cadence holds approximately 8% of Bacanora's equity. === I now think that is most likely as it is the most recent

According to the latest March presentation: http://www.cadenceminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Corporate-Presentation-KDNC-March-2018.pdf we have 9% of BCN. The information on the web page at: http://www.cadenceminerals.com/projects/sonora-lithium-project/ hasn't been updated since the NextView deal fell through. We would have owned 7% had that gone through. Having said that, I suspect we don't need to report holding changes between 5 and 10% so who knows exactly what we have, although I think 9% is most likely. Anyone know any better?

(keep up the good research @news!). In terms of in-ground value of LCE, I started to figure out what could be deduced from the NextView - LIthium X deal, but then discovered I'd been beaten to it: "Lithium X Acquisition: What It Means To Junior Argentine Lithium Explorers" (Jan.22.18) https://seekingalpha.com/article/4139153-lithium-x-acquisition-means-junior-argentine-lithium-explorers === Lithium X takeover price reflects 1% value for in-ground lithium resources; a valuation which can be applied to other advanced lithium explorers. ... The acquisition price represents 1% of market price, or $130 / T LCE brine could be implied against other lithium exploration companies === So the $200/t estimate earlier isn't too bad! But what about if we sold our in-ground LCE at $130/t: 1.5Mt LCE * $130/t = $200m Now that is a very realistic, some will no doubt say conservative, valuation IMHO. In terms of price per KDNC share currently in issue: $200m = �140m / 7,851,440,338 = 1.8p All we need now is for the demand to materialise (or expectation of it!) and the buyers will start to scramble to secure their supplies. Valuation too low? I'm sure @tomcat will be happy to state something a little larger ;-) The $200m to $300m could then be used to help our other projects (EMH!) to production. ;-) Of course the sale may not come for some time so IMHO until then we need the new plan to deliver cash flow ASAP. I note by starting work on San Luis before the permits have been granted, our BoD are taking a bit of a gamble. Just hope it pays off! Ob.

OK @tomcat, let's consider the range $200/t to $2,000/t for in-ground values of LCE. That means for each 1Mt (20 years @37.5ktpa @75% recovery) of in-ground LCE which is sold or utilised from our JV, KDNC would be expected to receive: 30% * 1,000,000t * ($200 to $2,000) = $60m to $600m For reference in the feasibility study BCN are planning on mining 0.82Mt LCE in total and the total JORC resource (measured, indicated and inferred) is around 10-11 times that (and there is significant potential to grow this by another order of magnitude, considering just 7km of the 160km strike has been drilled out to JORC resource standard - the vast majority of the remainder is on our JV areas.). I make the market cap of BCN to be currently around $170m, so by some measure one estimate of the current in-ground value of LCE for a project of this type, size, stage and likelihood is simply: $170m / 0.82Mt = $200/t LCE This is the value the market *currently* seems willing to give to a soft rock project which has just passed the feasibility stage, but has yet to achieve funding. In practice that $200/t LCE in-ground value is probably a little high as BCN is more than a bit of JORC'd land: for example they have a pilot plant and European assets too, and massive potential to increase that output, but I'd say it is probably OK for these purposes, and once clay has proven itself at scale, almost certainly too low. If the lithium demand pans out as some are anticipating, then be it $60m, $600m, $6B, or $60B, we've got a lot going for us! I know the $6B and $60B are a bit rampy - those are derived from @tomcat's figures and additional optimistic discoveries along strike! ;-) I'd say one reasonable scenario might be that our circa 1.5Mt JORC'd LCE resource (over half of which is classed as reserve) is let go at the in-ground value of $200/t. I think most here would be happy if we let Mexilit go for $300m (1.5Mt * $200) as that would still leave us Megalit ;-) And before I get lambasted for being too rampy or not rampy enough - the figures are there: choose which ones suit you and come up with your own sale price: $300m *feels* about right to me for Mexilit. At this time. Any takers!? ;-) Ob.

@antelope "I almost had a heart attack." I could tell so thought I'd go figure ;-)

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/E861:GR 0.32 EUROS = 0.51 AUD

@Peer_is_amazing It's very suspicious that we are unable to buy even below the EMS, but I note it's very easy to sell in huge chunks above it! Probably means a large buy order is being filled in the 0.05 to 0.06p range. I was tempted to fill or kill a buy but couldn't bring myself to do it, even with a limit. I've got enough (I keep telling myself) but admit I'd have bought a few more at 0.05-0.06p if they would have let me today... ;-)

@Bannor "Plus they haven't listed all the shareholders that make up that 63.1% anyway as the totals of those shown are ~ 3% light". You made me check! ;-) I make 63.0%, and they say 63.1%. Rounding error I presume?

Don't forget to notify when you get over 3% ;-) Talking of which, the 63.1% at: http://www.cadenceminerals.com/investors/share-information/ is the sum of the holders who have notified above 3%, whereas the 46.2% (% of Securities not in Public Hands) is the sum of those holders who hold above 5% plus that held by related parties not on that list (e.g. director holdings) I remember scratching my head over that several months ago so thought I'd shed some light... @Kiran, you should mention on the web page how you define the % of securities not in public hands. Note for BCN they use 3% and 10%.

Looks like Nick does still work for us after all, and that we are indeed in collaboration with the CIBSE. ;-) Did anyone get to see the presentation last week? "TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM 2018 Stretching the Envelope Techniques, applications and technologies for healthy and productive environments" (12-13 April 2018) https://www.cibse.org/getmedia/4255a345-a7f2-4240-bc09-0946bf0abcbf/9772%E2%80%A2Technical-Symposium-brochure_WEB6.pdf.aspx === 4.3 Nick Stevenson - Inspirit Energy Review of micro-CHP technology for commercial and residential buildings === Since there has been no trades since then I presume either NDA's were signed or more likely nothing particularly inspiring was said about the company itself. Surely if sensitive information was divulged it should be published on our website via an RNS, and if not sensitive, it should be published on the website via a tweet or the like... Sigh. Either way I'm slightly reassured! But not sufficiently so to up my buying rate without seeing the presentation for myself. ;-) Ob.

Anyone got evidence from recent sales, fund raising, etc for in-ground LCE value so we might be able to estimate a range, and ultimately an in-ground value to our Sonora JV reserve + resource. I'm guessing somewhere in the range $100 to $1,000 per tonne, but I haven't got time to narrow this down today...

In terms of practicalities of any tolling agreement one straightforward arrangement would be for the company that owns the JV (mexilit) to be considered the miner bearing all costs of that side of the operation, and BCN the toll miller of the material sold to it from the JV company, which it would then process and sell for whatever mark up. I presume (and have a vague memory someone once said, @Dallas?) we were for that option, and BCN for the in-ground option, and now? It sure is complicated. @Bannor: one aspect to the gamble you lament so much was clearly an attempt to prevent the JV's being devalued (there were other aspects...). We won that aspect then, despite the unforeseen problems with arranging the CLN (does nothing ever go right for us!?) but may have subsequently lost it. i.e. it's possible the JV's could be worth considerably less to us now subsequent to the re-domicile, despite us likely voting in favour of it. Is that enough doom and gloom for you @Spadger? ;-) I think we deserve an answer to the question of the JV's good or bad. @Kiran? Ob.

Unfortunately @addicknt we PI's are in the dark on those arrangements. Well I am at least. So in short I don't know! As you know, one of the reasons given for blocking the original attempt at re-domicile was because it wasn't clear to our BoD how the JV's would be subsequently treated. It's probably quite clear to our BoD now, but we haven't been told. There are of course many ways in which the JV's could be treated. Three that come to mind are: 1. We contribute prorate to the CapEx of the project (and OpEx etc) and receive 30% of the proceeds of sales from LCE originating from the JV's 2. We come to a toll mining arrangement 3. We are paid some in ground value on a prorate per tonne mined from our JV's. If we had the necessary funds and or backing then 1 is probably best. That doesn't look very likely from here - although admittedly given only a small percentage is *currently* scheduled to be mined from our JV, we might *only* be required to contribute 10 or so million. With a potential return several times that someone might be interested in helping - or perhaps we might exit Yangibana and help ourselves? Either way the market is pretty much discounting option 1 at the moment. Option 2. Here is an interesting article about toll mining (I know you probably know this!): "A Mining Investor�s Guide to Toll Milling in Peru" (MAY 21, 2015) http://blog.ceo.ca/2015/05/21/a-mining-investors-guide-to-toll-milling-in-peru/ === What is Toll Milling? Toll milling has likely existed as long as there has been mining. The concept is straightforward: someone buys ore from a miner, processes it and (hopefully) makes a profit by selling the finished product. It can be done with nearly any metal, but gold is the most common. This means that today, if a toll miller can assay, purchase, process and transport ore at a cost of $1,000 per ounce and sell it for $1,200 per ounce he�s making a $200 (20%) profit. === So in this arrangement, BCN would be considered to be the toll miller, and we would be considered to be the miner. Who knows how much profit KDNC would make on each tonne attributable to us? Though it would likely be less than option 1 as we are pretty much over a barrel, and of course the miller/miner distinction is not so clear, in fact likely quite complicated and the arrangement could be very different to standard. So what about option 3? The in-ground value per tonne of an uneconomical project is 0 and up to whatever someone else would be willing to pay for it for economical projects. Here are a couple of useful links: http://microcap.co/how-to-value-a-mining-company-part-i-gold/ http://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2015-06-03/The-Real-Value-of-Gold-in-the-Ground.html For Sonora it's currently quite low per tonne of reserve, but no doubt it'll increase as production becomes more of a certainty! ;-) Ob.

You're hard work at times @Frankie ;-) But I do like a challenge if you don't mind me rising to one that is! ;-) The reason our share once went over 2p, despite the listed assets being only worth a fraction of that at the time is that there was a hope and an expectation, driven by hype from certain quarters that our 30% JV in Sonora might be sold, or if not sold, mined first. Since the publication of the Sonora PFS and subsequently the feasibility study it has become clear that is no longer the expectation. Additionally, since the publication of the Yangibana FS we are led to believe that our JV's have also been sidelined in Australia for around a decade. Those are the "facts" as I see them. I'd have been out of here by now if that was that. However, the way I see it is if Sonora make it to production then given my personal expectation of lithium demand growth over the next 5-10 years then I would say that there is no way on this Earth that only 35ktpa of LCE will be produced from Sonora over the next 20 years as planned in the FS. And when that mining rate increases (as it nearly did with NextView!), part of that increase, if not all, will be coming from our 30% JV areas. Additionally if Yangibana make it to production, and assuming we haven't sold out by then, if Yangibana West is mined (HAS's 100%), then in my mind it is a near certainty that Yangibana North will be too (our 30% JV) - so we have unaccounted for value there too - in time. Until those future times we need cash. San Luis is that vehicle with shorter development timelines to cash flow than our other assets. Remember: circumstances change; plans change accordingly. This seems like a good plan to meet the change in circumstances. Now where are those permits!? ;-) Ob.

I never said they were a good BoD @Banner ;-) I just said what a good BoD would do. As it happens given all that is public knowledge, I probably would have made not too dissimilar decisions to them, and I tend not to bash myself up if I take a measured decision whose consequences turn out to have poor ramifications. Rather ironically I believe the root of our problem was a rapidly rising LCE price: good for BCN, bad for KDNC as it meant we lost the big T due to being unable to fund *that* project... Of course this too might turn out not to be so bad for KDNC if you believe the current round of EM doom-saying ;-) @Frankie - I'm not sure how I can spell it out to you any clearer, other than the 100% asset in Greenland, San Luis, is really the only other asset which we have any say. Yangibana? No, our 30% JV has been sidelined. Sonora? No, the vast majority of our 30% JV's have been sidelined. Leogang? Perhaps, but we only own 10% so wouldn't be expected to contribute much and CLY is currently in no state to progress that with significant pace (if at all). As for MMS, AOU, CLY, NMX, LGC? We are just shareholders. Admittedly we might get called to contribute funds, but there is very little we can do to help these, other than corporate knowledge and contacts. I'd say EMH is the only company we are invested in where we might actually be needed, but what use are we if we haven't the ability to do that when the time comes? In terms of getting money out of EMH (other than a share sale!) it'll be many years before dividends are paid, unless of course we are talking about a sale ;-) I'm very weary of counting chickens before they are hatched, but I see projects under the new plan, San Luis being the first, as a route for us to near cash flow to help sustain, and even profit us whilst allowing us to bide our time on our 30% and 100% JV's, and stand our own in future cash calls for the listed companies. It feels like a very good plan to me. And yes @Bannor. It is a worry to me that the San Luis chick may never hatch due to permits stalling indefinitely. What a relief that will be to hear the little fellow chirping away hopefully one day soon! ;-) Ob.

LoL @Bannor. Aside from sharing research, I'd say one of the other main reasons for discussion on here is to attempt to persuade each other of our points of view. Imagine if through discourse the vast majority of shareholders were persuaded to believe that San Luis was a fools errand? I'd certainly expect our BoD to listen to our collective concerns, and make an effort to persuade us otherwise if we were unable to persuade them. A good BoD would listen. A good BoD would change if they saw the light. As it happens, it's @Frankie I thought I'd try to convince San Luis is a good plan as she is currently most vocal against it, you seem to have mellowed - until I hit a nerve ;-) In terms of earn in requirements, take a read of the RNS: "Acquisition of up to 100% of Hard Rock Lithium Prospects in Argentina" (11 December 2017) http://irservices.netbuilder.com/ir/cadence/newsArticle.php?ST=REM&id=2310536 === On grant of the exploration permits Cadence will acquire up to 49% by spending �1.1m on exploration and drilling, and by issuing �0.4 million of new ordinary shares in Cadence to The Vendors. === It's a minimum fixed cost we need to spend to acquire up to 49%. We may of course choose to spend more than this if we think it is worth the investment, or we may knock one or both of the assets on the head before we even reach 49%. As I said, it is our choice along the way. Additionally, once we've reached 49%, analysed the results, and ideally produced a JORC'd maiden resource, at that time we'll decide if it is worth issuing the additional number of shares in KDNC as outlined in the agreement (480,769,231 and 192,307,692) to take us to 100% ownership in 1 or both of the assets. For example, if by some miracle our share price is such that these shares are worth �20m, then our BoD should only take us to 100% if they expect the additional value of owning 100% to us to be worth over �20m on certain timescales. @Frankie, does that make sense? @Bannor. I'm very mindful of the CLN deadlines, but as you know, at least one of them should have been payed off by then. I doubt it needs saying, but I'll say it anyway: I'm always open to be persuaded to your point of view, it's much appreciated! ;-) Ob.

@news. It took me a while, but I finally got my bearings - the various links I provided helped a lot: take a read back through my postings. Google Earth combined with the licence map is a good place to start: https://tinyurl.com/yccnrp6q