Member Info for observer842

Questions is will @Kiran pick up on this, and if so, when will we be told? I'm sure he's very busy at the moment! :-)))

Now planning on mining Yangibana North/West from year 1 (previously year 7). Optimistically since they haven't split this up into two areas/phases it might even suggest our 30% is from the start of the project - they'd have split it up to demonstrate it wasn't otherwise IMHO :-))))

Compare with figure 2: (4 November 2019)

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02168801-6A953625?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

Thanks @Bannor. Did you see figure 8!?

Good point about the larger vessels. I suppose another argument for mine after rail is without a mine there is no need for a private port. LoL. Obviously in practice we'll start on everything simultaneously, or slightly offset.

Indeed @EV. Clearly it's going to come down to a cost benefit analysis of the order. $61.0m for port reconstruction could potentially be self funded, rather than through equity/debt, now we know the public port can ship at a decent rate, but what (relative) cost?

If it were me the order would be rail, mine, private port. Reason being the public port has demonstrated and appears to be now planning it can ship the equivalent of 3.3Mtpa peak (45kt every 5 days) from pier 2, so it's probably more important we start rehabilitating the mine than the private port. IMHO.

They seem to be working on 45kt of ore every 5 days on pier 2. That's quite impressive. 4 DEV + 2 U in August. Clearly it's preliminary and I'll be quite surprised if they manage 6 from that pier in that time, but it's certainly a good sign. RNS first thing tomorrow or after hours? ;-)

Indeed @EV. Might be prudent to make a start on rehabilitating the railway to get the ore that is already processed at the mine to the public port! $4.5m was it? ;-)

Turns out being able to ship ore from both piers is a big deal. Full steam ahead! ;-)

Am I reading this correctly @EV? 7 DEV ships now scheduled to depart with ore in August! With more to follow in September :-)))

Indeed @EV. It's not called a "final settlement" for nothing. ;-)

Indeed @EV, as this implies that $9m of the new $10m is for DEV to do with as they please (within reason I'm sure!), whereas I'd previously hypothesised that due to lack of detail in the courts it was likely to stay on the balance sheet.

===[
The net profit from the sale of the iron ore will be used primarily for commissioning studies, capital projects and working capital. As per the First Permission, 10% of the net profits will be reserved for payment against the amounts owed to the secured bank lenders ("Bank Creditors").
]===

Although it isn't crystal clear what that first sentence is referring to - it could be in relation to the first $9m net, with the use of the second $9m net undisclosed in the RNS.

@EV. I'd love to know @Kiran's definition of "soon" and how it relates to "imminent". LoL. Presumably the 15 day update in the courts we are waiting for is unlikely to be the big one if this is true: "at the time of writing, the final settlement is currently with the Bank Creditors for comment and/or approval.".

Good observation @EV! I missed that. So our BoD really do have no excuse to update us first thing Monday. Even if they feel the deal is so close to being announced, perhaps later that day, they really should update with this (IMHO) material change. I'd LoL if they don't update us and the market goes into a buying frenzy and they are then forced to RNS that there is no additional $10m and the court watching speculation is mistaken. LoL. Fingers crossed it is what it appears to be! ;-)

It occurred to me that this news might not be relayed to our BoD until Monday morning meaning an RNS might not be forthcoming until later in the day or Tuesday. It wouldn't be the first time we've learnt news from the courts before reading it in an RNS... or the second, or the third...

The opposite of a curveball is a screwball apparently. You're welcome. LoL.

I've been bracing for a curve ball out of the blue, but this feels quite the opposite, whatever the opposite of a curve ball is! ;-)

Anyone remain convinced this is the original $10m and not a new one? Or was it only me? LoL. I'm quite excited now as it feels likely as you hypothesised: the 4 named ships where booked for the new net $10m (possibly only 3 needed for DEV and 1 for Gerald), with the fallback that all 4 could be used for Gerald if the judge failed to agree this measure, or the deal hadn't completed in time. So that's hopefully another $10m realised within 2-3 weeks :-)))

If we are aligned and as close to completion as we are led to believe it will be quite telling if the banks decide to appeal this $10m. Though thinking about it, so long as the $9m doesn't actually go anywhere what have they to lose? In fact it's in their interests shipping continues either way whilst iron ore prices are high, and the funds aren't used for anything. Yes, additional authorisation to spend the money would likely be required IMHO.