Member Info for observer842

Indeed @Mullins. There is mention of $2B investment in the local press which if each 20ktpa is circa $400m indicates 100ktpa ambitions, meaning our JV would certainly be required sooner and in greater quantity. But DYOR...

Nice to see the news getting reported more locally @EV_Bull. Did you see the propagation of the $600m error... $462m/0.7 = $660m right? ;-)

Indeed @EV_Bull, nicely conservative and noting this is fair value, rather than DCF NPV valuation... :-)))

https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group/PLC/investors/annual-reporting/2013/annual-report2012.pdf
===[
In December 2012 the Group agreed the sale of its 70% interest in the Amapá iron ore system. The net assets have been reclassified to held for sale and recognised at fair value less costs to sell. This resulted in a loss being recognised of $404 million.
]===

That write down corresponds to the reduction from $866m to $462m here:

"Heads of Terms to Acquire Interest in former Anglo American Iron Ore Mine, Amapá, NE Brazil" (21 May 2019)
http://irservices.netbuilder.com/ir/cadence/newsArticle.php?ST=REM&id=2790390
===[
Prior to its sale in 2012 Anglo American valued it's 70% stake in Amapá Project at US$866 million (100% 1.2 billion) it impaired the asset in its 2012 Annual Accounts to US$ 462 million (100% US$ 660 million[6]
]===

LoL. Page 183, or search for 462...

@EV_Bull. It's $660m, not $600m, an error @Kiran occasionally makes...

Page 462:
https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group/PLC/investors/annual-reporting/2013/annual-report2012.pdf

30p might be about right for now. Who knows? Some holders seem happy to sell around this price, some buyers seem happy to buy around this price. However, if enough holders believe it will go down then they may be able to get a quick trade if there is sufficient pressure downwards by those like minded. BUT, it's possible there is now sufficient buying pressure to subvert this. We've got the classic AIM threat (LoL) of imminent news likely doubling, perhaps even tripling or more this share price. Who knows? It'll be interesting to watch though, firmly sat on my hands. Oh, and what a poker face @Kiran. ;-)

It could be tomorrow, Friday, next week, next month, perhaps not even this year. It's worrying how long I've waiting patiently for news on some stocks! Every day could be the day. But it isn't. Until the day it is - perhaps even inter-day for added suspense!

Ob.

Continuing to rise... :-)))

http://www.custeel.com/en/csi.jsp
===[
Date Seaborne index 62% Fe fines Seaborne index 65% Fe concentrates premium Seaborne index 65% Fe fines Seaborne index 65% Fe pellets premium
2021-04-07 172.50 9.00 202.00 64.30
2021-04-06 170.50 9.00 198.70 64.30
2021-04-02 166.50 7.80 196.50 64.30
2021-04-01 166.50 7.80 196.50 64.30
2021-03-31 164.50 7.50 194.20 59.80
]===

Makes you wonder if the deal will be announced once all interested parties are fully loaded here. But surely such things don't happen. Ever. Surely? LoL. I'm jesting of course... ;-)

@tomcat we shipped 45,947,253t

Indeed @tomcat...

LoL @Cause. I suspect he was wondering if it was market sensitive information so decided to answer generally. What's your take? ;-)

TP (C): 2,6,10. NLLH (U) 9,10,15. Not updated for a few days so could be dated...

(just updated)

"FASTMARKETS MB LITHIUM HYDROXIDE MONOHYDRATE: MIN 56.5% LIOH2O BATTERY GRADE, SPOT PRICES CIF CHINA, JAPAN & KOREA, $/KG)"
https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Metals/Minor-metals/Lithium-prices
===[
(MIDPOINT)

DATE PRICE (US$ PER KILOGRAM)
01 April 2021 11.75
25 March 2021 11.50
18 March 2021 11.50
11 March 2021 10.50
]===

http://www.custeel.com/en/csi.jsp
===[
Date Seaborne index 62% Fe fines Seaborne index 65% Fe concentrates premium Seaborne index 65% Fe fines Seaborne index 65% Fe pellets premium
2021-04-06 170.50 9.00 198.70 64.30
2021-04-02 166.50 7.80 196.50 64.30
2021-04-01 166.50 7.80 196.50 64.30
2021-03-31 164.50 7.50 194.20 59.80
]===

Futures too:

http://www.dce.com.cn/webquote/futures_quote_en.jsp?varietyid=I

:-)))

@jimb The same point came up on the EMH board a few weeks ago and I dug this old interview up where I possibly heard it first:

http://midasletter.com/2017/02/podcast-global-lithiums-joe-lowry-opines-lithium-americas-corp-tesla-inc-volkswagen-albemarle-corp-orocobre-ltd/
===[
Joe Lowry: Well, let’s define terms. You know, I use the term battery quality, because there really isn’t – first of all, you don’t need what truly is high purity lithium carbonate or lithium hydroxide, to make a battery. You do need a certain set of criteria to be met, but it’s really the juniors that have probably done the biggest disservice by talking about oh, we’re going to do 99.9 carbonate – it doesn’t matter. There is a certain spec, let’s just call it 99.5, but actually, the most important thing is the stability of the impurities, not whether it’s 99.5 or 99.4 or 99.6.
]===

It's the impurity that matters, not the purity. But be careful to explain what you mean by that! LoL. ;-)

@EV_Bull thanks for contributing. I too would have thought the 58% price would be less than the 62% price, but I thought I'd present what the numbers say given that particular take on the values in the first two columns of the JRP. It could be that there is something about the 58% that makes it more valuable than the 62%? Maybe rather than use the long term conservative prices as they may have done for the 62% and 65%, they used something more realistic? We don't know. Perhaps there was a calculator malfunction? If the prices today for the 58% are lower than the 62% then my estimate of $250m might be reduced by $10-15m at a guess.

Ob.

@tomcat - what you say is my understanding of what is in the JRP. However, what is clear to me is that with near certainty this will not be what was agreed with the secured banks in practice. They will likely want to be paid earlier, some of which will very likely in my opinion be from the stock pile cash flow. But this has yet to be disclosed. Hopefully that's clearer! ;-)

LoL. What was the question again? @tomcat I believe is referring to the DIP C ($85m project debt) repayments, I was referring to the secured creditors (the banks). There is provision for the secured creditors in the JRP, but this is under negotiation and has yet to be disclosed.

Page 20 might be of interest for the different types in Amapa

https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group/PLC/media/presentations/2012pres/global_iron_ore.pdf

@Olderandwiser. This hasn't been disclosed.