Member Info for PaulFG

I love Sarah Lowther, she is probably the best interviewer in this space unlike all the other YOUTUBE love-ins.

@blakieboy ah okay yes - through that into the mix too.

Been watching this for a while, my background is in Oil & Gas so I know a little something about the concept and I like how the CEO talks in probabilities, something you don't see much of in other natural resources exploration companies. I think we're currently talking about a 41% probability of a commercial find.
But of course if EME can't drill they can't find. As I see it the options are:
1. Warrants exercised at 12p, I can't see that happening at this level given a 41% probability chance of success. If share price moves up warrants are 'in the money' that changes, a share dilution and probably a lot of the shares being sold at or anything above 12p (price cap);
2. A Placing to raise the funds - this is likely to result in a massive share dilution given the $$$ they have to raise. Where the price would go in the interim after the raise and before the drill results I don't know, but likely to be volatile.
3. A JV which results in a reduced eventual % in any successful field for EME obviously will have an impact on price, but probably more the future price.

I don't know what the route will be, wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of combination. If there is a share dilution or a JV these may impact the SP negatively, at least short term. BUT until they have raised the funds there will be no drilling, If you're of a mind this will definitely happen (you know, you have one of those crystal balls) then perhaps you're just seeing upside either way.
Personally, I am waiting to see if and how the funds are raised this at least gets me to the 41% probability of a discovery, without the funds clearly the probability is MUCH less.

Enthusiastic chat this morning with James Campbell on Stockbox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J52ujxFIGkc

@Hallowed: "PIs buying in now in the absence of knowing the drill funding...should not be investing here IMO."

Agreed.

I'm not a shareholder in Base Resources but I'm always interested to hear what they have to say about the wider market. The opening chapters of this interview are of interest here, although later the interviewer goes a little off-piste as he does, n'er the less just interesting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG-541qB8TI&t=610s .

Interestingly I think it was Cannacord that recently raised it's target on Base from 35p to 50p, this not only reflects Base's assets but the rising value and demand for those assets in the marketplace. Also interested to hear how laid-back the CEO is about funding their new $700m capex requirement project. Attach that to CMET's $35m requirement and you can see why MF ain't too concerned.

Back to CMET I think the upcoming drilling results are pretty important to extend the life of this company (17mt ain't that huge compared to other mineral sands miners) and that will attract longer term investors that look for dividend yields etc. Where the tests are performed I'm not that concerned as long as the process is as efficient and reliable as possible.

Yes I assumed GSMB would see the process through If that is so and hopefully there's no backlog it could be a quick process.

All n all, LW, things might start to move fairly quickly.

Okay let's look ahead to what is likely (fingers crossed) to be information overload for us in the remaining 15 trading days of October:
1. Podcast with Sarah Lowther, TMS;
2. 1-2-1 Mining Investment EMEA Online conference;
3. Conclusion of the current drilling program in the Southern Licence. (Unsure when we can expect to hear the results but I wouldn't have thought too much later.)
4. Dare I say it, a final resolution around the EIA?

Then the AGM is on November 4th.

Looks like a very informative and , hopefully, exciting three weeks ahead.

DRJJ, "Let’s be honest capital metals whole business plan is picking up and moving sands, so why is dredging a small port a major issue."

Love that.

Our products really benefit from strong global macro factors and as we already know specifically Chinese demand .
China is now aggressively embarking on a Common Prosperity goal, narrowing the wealth gaps in society. Probably not great news for the luxury sector in the short term as one of the main objectives will be to widen the middle class.
And we all know a big thing with any middle class is owning your own home.
Hello mineral sands market and continued strong demand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58784315.amp

LW - in principle I don't disagree. But a functional nearby port with a sands separation factory does add significant value to the economics of the project. Now whether these benefits are wiped out by the dredging costs I simply don't know. Hopefully the development coast analysis will determine this.

The Director's Statement in the accounts did 'highlight' this under the second listed risk:

"ii) Exploration, evaluation and development risk
Mineral resources are estimates and no assurance can be given that any particular grade or tonnage will be realised or that they will be converted into reserves or result in a commercially mineable deposit which can be legally and economically exploited. As a result of these uncertainties, there can be no assurance that mineral resources defined by the Group's exploration and evaluation programmes will result in profitable commercial mining operations.

The commercial viability of mineral deposits of the kind located and believed to be located at the EMP area is dependent upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the market price of the component heavy minerals, the quality, size, grade and other attributes of the deposits and the proximity to, and availability of, infrastructure necessary to develop, exploit and transport minerals on a commercial scale.

The EMP benefits from close proximity to the Oluvil port, which the Group has determined will be the optimal route for production to be transported from the EMP to global customers. For the Group to use this port, it will require dredging and the receipt of necessary permits and authorisation, which cannot be guaranteed as forthcoming."

But I guess it's the old adage a picture's worth a thousand words.

MY Confidence in Frayne is a little dented too, BUT now that he is aware of shareholder concerns he has two opportunities this month (1-2-1 Mining Investment Conference & TMS Podcast) to address them - if he doesn't I'm afraid my confidence in the man is a little more dented.

THAT SAID I didn't invest based on those photos of the port and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have accurately assessed the cost to dredge (although I think 'excavate' would be a more accurate term) the port so that it's usable for the purpose stated.

Within the next few months we have many value points - the sooner MF clears up this point the less of a drag it'll be on any SP rises. I trust a man of his experience understands this.

Will be interesting to see what is in the presentation at the 121 Mining Investment conference next week.

So I had a reply, of sorts, acknowledging Google maps shows a more recent photo but they made the Nomad aware of the situation in their admission documents and the sand build up is normal in that area and that they always stated dredging would be necessary. Dredging was always part of their operational plan and they're fully aware of the current level of sand in the port

Mind you nothing about how the image in the corporate presentation from January is about 5 years old! Hardly surprising.
I have to say I'm not completely satisfied but IF they have included PRESENT DAY dredging costs in their operational plan then ok.

She doesn't strike me the sort that allows interviewees just come on for an 'Hello Magazine' type interview. She generally gets to it - as you saw with CHF, much better quality interviewer than some other guys that are basically pushing their own books and let the interviewee off anything difficult.
Hopefully, MF will be as straightforward as he usually is and clears up everything - even if SL doesn't get to it he knows now what's concerning shareholders so a measure of the CEO would be if he voluntarily goes there regardless of the questions he's posed.
Let's see...

reads that way doesn't it

yes lets see if there is any response from MF or James Leahy.

Meantime, remember from note 13 in the accounts:
"The Group is in the final stages of the EIA process for the First IML Application and the Company has completed all the necessary workstreams. The Group anticipates the CCD approving the EIA in Q4 2021. An approved EIA is required by the GSMB in order to approve the First IML Application for the Project, which the Directors expect to receive by the end of Q4 2021."
We wait.

LW yeah I wondered he same thing but we're arguing in the dark. No point us getting bent out of shape with each other. The company have to make clear their plans.
One thing is certain if they plan to to return to the market for funds there will be questions, if they plan to sign offtake agreements there will be lots of questions.
ONE thing COVID has raised with all companies is the security of the SUPPLY CHAIN and it's now a major risk for most companies - certainly so with offtakers.

I don't think that cost per ton for freight is insignificant at all. Value of the in-situ resource is $40pt (admittedly before mining and processing). Don't forget they are planning to build sands separation factory at the port to add significant value.
Not to mention unless a long term solution is found for that port it looks as though it'll need dredging on an ongoing basis.