The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Should be expecting updated reserves statement soon. The November announcement suggested by end of Q1, so overdue. Q1 results will likely be end of the momth.
That should imply that the wall issue is fixed. Otherwise they would have to announce that the expectation has not been met. Expecting an update on resource post exploration results in the next few weeks - that should be more interesting. Previously said by end of Q1.
@mozzie: even FSJ predicted the drill results this week - didn’t take a genius to work it out (sorry FSJ - soft target!), it has been pretty well flagged. Also expecting updated mine plan within the next month or so. Also, who said Aberdeen were done buying?
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/HUM/13988226.html
I thought it was before the end of Q1
Pleased with that. Everything in line with expectation, with top end achievement on gold and a signal that on track for 120k this year (assuming no further wet season issues). Looking forward to LOM extension and for the gold price to add some icing to the cake. Well done HUM.
Cora have completed a fund raise for c.£550k at 5p. HUM have not participated, so are diluted to 28%.
@IWantThatOne: agree that there are positives to be taken. However, don’t read anything into what sellside analysts say on calls to management. Overall I would judge the announcement as “neutral going on positive” though.
These weren’t institutional investors, they were small cap brokers. They asked a mixture of decent and bland questions, with little depth. They missed some important questions around AISC, range of outcome on $800, whether includes cost of barge during 2019, impact on drilling, likely recovery of BH cash etc... all reasonable questions in the context of this morning’s announcement.
I guess it’s not surprising given Dan’s ability to vent frustrating at difficult / leading PI questions - but they’re a small cap, what do they expect? On the positive side however: - RCF is in addition to the debt drawn for the ball mill - Not forecasting to use the RCF, but is to provide contingency headroom should downside case eventuate (that’s prudent, but I wonder how close they get to needing it?) - Expect to be back on track next year with top end guidance not too far off previous plan. - However, Sean’s answers did leave some hanging doubts particularly around the KW plan...
The investor call was a mix of reassuring and deeply frustrating. On the latter, it was clearly stage managed to allow the (well behaved) analysts to ask their questions but to not allow any left-field questions from PIs. That means they had no intention to cover: drilling update, Bunker Hill fiasco, breakdown of remediation cost, better understanding of $800 AISC next year etc. That’s frustrating...
Issues / questions: - how much headroom on working capital? - what happens if the RCF is not available from Coris? - what is the adjusted mining plan? - when are we getting a drilling update?
@Strider4: the numbers you state are cash flow figures, not what P&L. Speculater’s point is that the mine was still profitable at P&L level based on gold price being higher than AISC. That’s obviously helpful, though only if cash does not go backwards more significantly due to unwind of working capital and repayment of debt. The latter should be manageable, the former is the concern given £33m position at interims. That will now be lower as set out in update (I assume that was added to reassure it’s not been ****ed on BH) but to what extent does it stay at this sort of level as a result continued production? How much is down to cash already out for drilling and the ball mill? Questions still to be answered, but not sure it’s as clear cut as assuming same cash flow run rate for Q4 as Q3.
Not offering a conference call to explain and show some contrition for the BH fiasco is really annoying. They set the precedent so they should stick with it. They had better get to the bottom of the wall / bridge issues and offer a call to explain themselves.
The ASIC is a natural consequence of the reduced production covering the same overhead and the additional apportionment of cost on ball mill, drilling as well as higher diesel costs in this oil environment. The missing c.11k oz puts an extra c.£2.4m to be covered by the remaining c.22k oz of production in addition to its normal cost. I don’t think this is that surprising. Somewhat unhelpful to publish a cash figure as at yesterday but then show all other figures at end of Q3. Suggests to me that they don’t want shareholders seeing the current level of cash burn as the trade creditor balance from 30 June continues to unwind. The $3.5m unwind in Q3 is a signal of that. However, the balance at June was only $33m, and continued operations will derive a level of working capital stability. Of course this all demonstrates why a share buyback / dividend would be premature, but also emphasises the folly of BunkerHill - “looks promising...decided not to pursue” - is that the project or our $2m?!
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/HUM/13843284.html
Would be a bit weird if a CEO to say otherwise!
Maybe they’ve discovered the power of alchemy and can turn lead into gold?
@Goldenbull: Bunkerhill is not a goldmine.
@FSJ: I agree with all of the positive points you make, however, while a relatively small amount in the context of production, it’s the signal this sends. You cannot on one hand refuse to pay your shareholders, dismissing it as too early, while on the other using your cash on off-piste investments that are outwith most shareholders’ view of Hummingbirds strategy as a West African gold producer. If it sticks to that, finances CORA as appropriate and extends LOM, we’ll see a very good return from here.