Member Info for Pdub

YTSS that was the whole point of my post. Put simply many LTH were significantly underwater but are now enjoying significant paper profit. I expect the same will be true for those buying in the 25p to 28p range over the next year or so.

Just my opinion of course.

Headancer I sympathise with you that your investment has reduced in value (temporarily in my opinion.

However don't think for one minute that LTHs have not been in the same boat as you. Those like myself buying in October 2013 onwards would have paid between 3 to 7p with many averaging in the range 4 to 5p. If you check out the sp graph on a platform such as HL you will see what then followed:

https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/b/bushveld-minerals-ltd-npv/share-charts

From May 2014 to around March 2017 the sp fell and remained below 4p for most of that time. My average was originally just over 4p so I was underwater for about 2 1/2 years !!! For six months in 2016 the sp was below 2p and I was 50% + down. However I was then able to acquire more shares at that point and reduce my average significantly. It seemed to me that the company CEO and fundamentals hadn't changed so too good an opportunity to miss. 18 months or so later and boy am I glad that I did.

It doesn't take too much imagination to see the parallel with the current sp retrace, except of course that the retrace is only about 25% and hopefully will be very short lived. The difference being of course that we now own 59% of Vametco and that plant is making a very large profit per ton produced

I fully expect those currently underwater to be able to look back in a year or so and be very grateful that they held those shares. This retrace is likely to be but a distant memory. Even the conservative Mr Meyer is expecting 30p, and if his recent targets are anything to go by that should be within 3 months.

Any opinions expressed above are purely my own and should not be taken as investment advice. DYOR.

Regards. Pdub.

Excellent research Endion. Very interesting background info.

I hope and expect that the workforce will get a settlement that is both sustainable and fair to them, the community and the company.

Regards. Pdub.

Waynesmith I couldn't agree more. At times this has to be one of the worst bb s on LSE.

Pboo is free to post anything he likes within LSE rules. In the absence of useful info coming from the company I am interested in the photos. I will decide how useful they are to me. Not you lot. If folks don't like them ignore them. But please stop the childish posting.

Also congratulations Alfa holding 3rd place on Top Recommended.

BMN in 4th place Hot Chat Topics.

Might turn a few heads our way.

Bb has been a great read this morning and special thanks to Alfa.

Also nice to see BMN back on the LSE Risers list.

And of course 14 x bagger. Though those that bought in then may indeed brag about it.haha.

Sorry. Obvious error "... from November 2016"

McMuff even at 21.50p that is a 14 x bragger from November 2018! A fantastic investment performance for many LTHs. Not much consolation if you bought in at 27p but if your own views of the future are correct then the recent investors will also do very well here too. Certainly something that I firmly believe.

I would strongly argue that BMN as a company has done the very opposite of your statement "... time and time again BMN under performs it's true potential". They have made astonishly good progress on their projects, in particular Vametco. Must be the envy of most AIM CEOs.

I agree with some of your frustrations but things need to be kept in perspective!

Regards. Pdub.

Alfa in fairness to McMuff, a poster who I most certainly have not always agreed with, he posted the following on 02 August 2018:

"For the record I haven't sold anything. Selling won't change a thing, this is only going one way. Next"

It is true that McMuff's posts can come across as rather negative. However within many of his posts there are positive statements about the long term prospects. I sense that like many of us McMuff gets frustrated with the PR and sp movements but expresses those frustrations more than most on this bb and perhaps with less focus on the positives than some of us would prefer. That is his right!

I hope we will all continue to respect those we disagree with. Makes the bb so much more informative.

McMuff I apologise in advance if I have misrepresented your words. Certainly not my intention.

Regards. Pdub.

Dav3J I think we are in general agreement about the need to improve PR!

On a more positive note I would imagine that we all agree that the issues under discussion today are nothing more than a temporary blip and that the future looks great for BMN and its shareholders.

Regards. Pdub.

A small point for some perhaps but for me hugely important!

Today there has been some interesting debate with different views exchanged. BUT no one has been abusive or disrespectful or launched an attack on another poster rather than focussing on the point under discussion.

BRILLIANT! The BMN bb at its very best in allowing and encouraging free debate. Long may it stay this way.

SOTRR not sure that I can answer your point without pure speculation. Thus I will use a couple of facts.

Every Q update since BMN became financially involved with Vametco has had Revenue and Ebitda figures except Q1 2018.

Q2 2017 Q update contained Revenue and Ebitda figures for the six months of H1. Q2 2018 Q update contained Revenue and Ebitda for the six months of H1. Thus this recent update followed the exact same pattern on financials as the same Q2 update for 2017. Not for me to tell others what to make of that!

Now a little speculation. I remember that after Q1 2018 update there was some negativity and disappointment around the fact that the update contained no financial info on Revenue and Ebitda, unlike previous updates. Is it possible that the company took this on board and in the Q2 2018 update returned to the previous practice of including financial data? In the absence of a direct conversation with the BoD on this it is impossible for me (or anyone else here?) to give a definitive answer.

It is what it is I guess. It will be apparent by now that I am not a great fan of conspiracy theories unless there is more than circumstantial evidence to back them up!

Regards. Pdub.

Dav3J I can assure you that the Q2 Vametco update was not a case of "... they suddenly found time to write up and release this update" !!! I doubt very much that the timing had anything to do with pi emails. Remember those emails were sent because some pi's believed the update was already "late" ( though of course there never has been a release target date to define late by).

This update contained numerous strands and was technically detailed. Pulling all that info together and checking etc takes time. If any info was delayed in delivery that would also hold up the publication date. Q3 2017 update was released 51 days after end of Q, and Q2 2018 update was released 53 days after end of Q. No great difference, other than this one contained important financial info and of course disappointing news concerning production numbers. I would imagine they took great care to get this one right!

I never doubted that the update was coming as Fortune had informed us this was the plan and each previous quarter had indeed had a separate update.

My concern is to do with the strategy of using Q updates as almost the only channel to release info about our highly profitable operation at Vametco. This is not playing the AIM sentiment game effectively in my opinion.

I also believe that these long multi-part updates exceed the concentration limits of some AIM participants and no doubt some find the amount of technical detail hard to understand and retain. In my opinion that update could have and should have been broken up into a number of separate RNSs. For example the Brits drill results should have been announced separately, which is the practice of most other miners that I have invested in. That gives investors the time to focus on that one area of operation and digest the info. Perhaps equally important the flow of RNSs keeps BMN's name in the limelight. Not very one of these RNSs would raise sp but it might support the sp so that major news would push sp up from a higher base.

So in summary I see nothing devious or underhand about the publication date of the update, but I do have an issue with the whole strategy of relying on complex quarterly updates alone. The market needs timely RNSs in between Q updates where relevant.

All of the above is just my opinion and I recognise that others will have different perspectives on the issues raised.

Regards. Pdub.

Sanchez you may me correct, although I don't see the frustration that you refer to in that email.

I suggest an alternative assessment.

This email is more detailed than the usual response (or lack of) from the company. Perhaps they have realised that:

a) pi's hold a significant % of shares in BMN and that the share price drop after the RNS was in part due to pi's selling. We need to be taken seriously and that includes communicating with us.

b) they noted the negative response to Chika's last email and decided this time to provide a proper response to YTSS' enquiry.

If either or both of the above points are correct I would be very pleased as PR needs improvement.

As for the content of the email I am glad to see that they are actively addressing those factors that impacted on production at the plant, although I would imagine that most of us would expect nothing less from a company of the quality of BMN.

I hope that we do not have to wait a further three months to receive official updates. Perhaps BMN will release RNSs as appropriate to keep market informed of progress and to rebuild confidence prior to next quarterly update. However that is just my opinion and not sure that anyone will be much interested.

Regards. Pdub.

Nice summary Nick. A very positive outlook for the sp.

Thanks for the replies Alfa and Gambit. Appreciated.

I think Brits is very important to Vametco. It is the continuation of the geology along strike and will therefore significantly extend potential mine life. It also presents a new source of weathered rock within 20 - 30 m of surface which should reduce extraction and crushing costs. I wonder if operations at Brits will also give the potential to more easily increase supply of ore to the plant should there be further expansions beyond the projected Phase 3 target of 5000 + mtV.

All very exciting.

The latest Vametco customer data I could find is for 2016 so quite likely to different now. However as follows:

USA 50%
Europe 21%
RoW 9%
SA 7%
China 7%
RoW 6%

Data taken from Vametco acquisition presentation Dec 2017 slide 12. Link below:

http://www.bushveldminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Bushveld-Minerals-acquisition-of-Bushveld-Vametco-Limited7241.pdf

I would like to think this is Vametco / BMN working hard to get production back on track towards the 3750 mtV pa. I would also accept that that conclusion is something of a leap of faith. Time will tell.

Of course it may simply be that the U.S. is now taking a larger share of Vametco product, particularly with our ties to UET and that recent grant from the U.S. to Bushveld Energy.

Regards. Pdub

Alfa correct me if I am wrong but isn't that just revenue from shipments to the U.S? If my memory is correct is the U.S. the destination for about 50% of Vametco product annually? Food for thought!

Big thank you to Paludina for provided these shipment updates.

Regards. Pdub.

Alfa I don't think that is what people are saying. I certainly have not focussed on the amount. It is the involvement and support of the US that needs to be flagged up - and yes that is big, whatever the MC of BMN.

I agree that we don't need spoonfeeding every step of the way. However we do need positive info to be reported to the market in a timely fashion.

Anyway whatever point it is that I am stumbling around with it is completely dwarfed by the large profits that Vametco is making and set to grow through H2 in my opinion. And as a long term holder I am very very happy with that.

Regards. Pdub.