PYX Resources: Achieving volume and diversification milestones. Watch the video here.
I'm also confused as to why everyone else can second guess what Glencore are thinking as long as it's positive, but when I show evidence in the FT, AFR and Reuters in the last two years of Glasenberg saying Glencore do not develop greenfield sites it's desperate?
My Glencore point wasn't even a big one! I thought it was accepted that Glencore weren't going to develop this!
MinorMiner - I'm surprised you don't understand the difference between shareholders and management.
Jumelles drive Zanaga forward correct. Jumelles report to Glencore also correct.
However, the Jumelles operational team is the ZIOC team. Glencore are not involved in the day-to-day operations. Unsure why that's so hard to understand tbh
Anyway, I assume you have got what you wanted which was to drive my post off the top of the board without actually addressing any of the points raised in it.
C'est la vie
Sorry - new to this
https://ww w.afr.com/business/mining/glencores-ivan-glasenberg-dismisses-hunter-valley-coal-consolidation-fears-20180221-h0wgpl
https://ww w.ft.com/content/f8e6a00e-05aa-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
https://ww w.reuters.com/article/us-glencore-agm-m-a/glencore-looking-to-expand-agriculture-business-ceo-idUSKBN18K18A
Guys - please...
https://www.reuters.com/article/glencore-agm-ma/glencore-says-would-prefer-to-grow-business-through-acquisitions-idUSL4N1IQ3JG
https://www.ft.com/content/f8e6a00e-05aa-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
https://www.afr.com/business/mining/glencores-ivan-glasenberg-dismisses-hunter-valley-coal-consolidation-fears-20180221-h0wgpl
All within the last two years. All saying Glasenberg does not develop greenfield sites.
MinorMiner - if you can tell me who sits in on the operating meetings of Jumelles then I will take that opinion seriously.
Until then, let me tell you that ZIOC drive the Jumelles work forward and Glencore take a completely back seat.
@MinorMiner ha - as OliverJames has said it's an allusion to to day job, which could well involve insights...
However, in the words of the man himself regarding the Zanaga project "You know my feelings on greenfield projects so I don't know if it's going to happen in my life"
Granted, back in 2015 in a much worse iron ore environment, but still fairly summarises Glencore's opinion on it...
Sure @shaun86 - no problem.
That's exactly the point - ZIOC have had to go to steel mills and laboratories because this has never been done on a commercial scale before. It could well work, and I hope it does, but I'm merely pointing out that at scale, this would be an entirely new concept for the mining industry.
Re. Jumelles - Glencore's whole involvement is a legacy from Mick Davis at XStrata. Xstrata bought the first option for $50m back in October 2009, financed the feasibility study and exercised the 50%+1 call in Feb 2011. Glencore then took responsibility post merger in 2013.
Thanks
Hi guys,
I thought it might be helpful to provide a clear-eyed view of where we stand at the moment. Please don't just accuse me of deramping - I am invested, I want this to go to the moon as well but there are too many instances on here of people raising valid points and just being immediately shot down for "deramping" - it's complete nonsense.
Some points below:
1) Glencore are not intending to, will not and never intend to buy out our stake to develop this / flip this. I can tell you this for a fact. Not a share purchase, not a cash purchase, nothing. Post Xstrata's investment, Zanaga is now a free option for them in the event that ZIOC manage to successfully develop it. Yes pellet premiums (will come to that shortly) are at an all-time high, but lots can happen in the years between now and the mine being fully operational - Ivan Glasenberg has stated several times on the record that he has a complete aversion to greenfield sites and Glencore will not develop them, this continues to be the case.
2) New deepsea mineral port at Pointe Indienne. I think it is safe to say we were all hoping that fully financed port news would be coming out of the FOCAC and it is a big disappointment that it didn't. To now try and portray the signing of the SEZ as the port being signed off is disingenuous at best and outright deceptive at worst. The new deepsea mineral port is not at within the SEZ at Pointe Noire (as I'm sure the posters know), but some kilometres north at Pointe Indienne. I cannot find any confirmation at all that financing for the new port was even discussed - this remains a massive hurdle to the development of the mine.
3) Cold pelletisation process. My understanding is that the company are hoping to use the same pelletisation process as proposed at the Ambershaw Metallics mine in Canada. This is a very small mine of 185mT vs our 6.9bt. They have not even started commercial production yet. This technology has not been used on a mass scale at any mine in the world. I would love for this to work as well, but putting all our hopes into an untested commercial prospect at such a large scale, feels optimistic to me.
4) Financing in general. Glencore will not finance this. Off-take agreements are extraordinarily complicated (not saying it can't be done). No one will agree to financing until infrastructure is in place. Hence we are back going round in circles.
I'm sure a lot of the research here is very much appreciated, but all these continued posts about pellet prices and generic Congolese minister meetings with Chinese companies really is a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.
This is an amazing resource here and I understand that people are very heavily invested, but let's please try and not add 2 + 2 to make 5.
Thanks all and apologies for the long post!