The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
MrN, no apology necessary, we are all in the same boat and looking for a good outcome. Discussion is healthy. HD - We should be jumpy, this is a relatively high risk play and Colin Bird has gone all in with copper plays across his portfolio of companies - seems to be coming good thus far. GLA.
Datacheck. Much appreciated, your summary was very succinct. I have also been back to re-read the SZ sale RNS and the SZ Jorc RNS and concluded that Colin Bird's numbers are near enough the mark on a 'best case' scenario. Best case, of course, depends on multiple variables such as the minig company actually delivering, licence conditions (use of explosives, working hours etc), production rate, Zinc content and price...... I greatly look forward to this receipt stream coming on line as I think it makes a fundamental difference to the company decision making process if overhead costs are covered by an income stream v's constantly watching the money run out til the next cash raise.
I was also reading up on Sandfire to get a feel for their ambition in the space and for how GLR licences compare to their current operations. Your comment on the scale of PL40 was quite enlightening.
I think the SZ decision temporarily delays GLR's market cap apprecciation, but we might not have to wait long if an inkling of the KCB results grabs a hold. Again thank you for the pointer.
There is a big difference between $30k per month (as calculated by contributers here), rebutted by Colin Bird, and $150k to $300k purported by the same, as the receipts expected from the Star Zinc project. I remain hugely skeptical that GLR will begin to receive Colin's figure within, say, the next 10 months. However, if it happens then I fully agree that SZ fulfills its role as a catylst to greater things.
Did anyone close the gap in terms of the (mis)information on the Star Zinc deal that caused this confusion? That Colin says otherwise is not really enough. The difference in expectation is significant and totally changes the outlook for the development and monetizing of KCB and possibly the other projects. I know this has already been discussed, but I have missed a satisfactory explanation. GLA
Hi MrN. I think you put it best yourself - Sandfire's ASX application to issue shares is anomalous with the numbers issuesd by GLR. However, (unless one is also a Sandfire shareholder) how they arrange their affairs is no business of mine or GLR until such time as they fail to meet the conditions of the agreements. Consequently I think it is unneccessary to hit on the GLR Board of Directors for answers, corrections, apologies, whatever other criticisms....when it is not even known if the Sandfire application related wholly, partly or not at all, to their agreements with GLR. (Sandfire have plenty of irons in the fire in the KCB) As a heads up, though your findings were interesting, but I found your postulations a bit of a stretch and well outside the scope of any mandate GLR has to its shareholders. I fully understood your points, I didn't agree with them. I didn't bring SZ into the conversation because it raises all sorts of other problems yet to be satisfactorily addressed by the company. Last November I re-invested in GLR on the promise of monetisation of SZ. One wet fish slap to the face later and I am happy to stay for the extraordinary potential of the KCB licences and in that context the disposal of SZ , followed possibly by Glenover and Ferber, I believe, makes GLR much more attractivee a target for the sort of deal Sandfire did with MOD, once CB gets some drill results from the retained licences.
My apologies to HD and you and everyone on the bulletin board if you read my opinion as a 'hit'. I promise you I am no more qualified than anyone else here to express anything other than a (supporting or dissenting) alternative opinion, depending on the reader's own stand point. Thank you for taking the trouble to reply. GLA.
HD. You are absolutely right re wrong person, sorry. Working with too small a screen. I totally agree re Starzinc and how it played out, but it was fairly obvious from the 'not pursuing the mining licence' notice that some alternative deal was likely, but you also have to accept that the Board are bound to keep mum until the t's are crossed etc. It is not just our confidentiality and due diligence, but the other party's too.
My original post was really to bring attention to aspersions being cast on the Board re the Sandfire deal (and demands for clarification, correction and/or apology) without good cause. I am not aware of any material change to the Sandfire deal as far as is understood by GLR, and as such I think it undermines the standing of the company. However, if it all turns into another Birdie ****fest (Concordia, Chepica and so on) I will only have myself to blame. Fingers crossed. GLTA.
Sorry . Refresh problem!!
To HD, with respect:
These BB’s provide the ability to express views and share information …..you have a right to do that . [ Agreed, but not all information is useful information. And I do not regard my opinion as being of greater or lesser value to anyone else’s. Had I reread my post I would have added ‘integrity and competence to ‘questioning’ at the beginning of the post as I did at the end.]
As I previously posted , the impact of all this could be less consideration than we expected and all of the 3M dollars in SFR shares rather than part in cash . [Unfounded speculation and hypothesis with respect to the agreement as understood by GLR, Sandfire’s internal affairs are their own]
personally I would have been surprised to have received US$’s [Really, would you prefer to be paid in a different currency and carry the FX exposure )
The deal COULD have changed [Then again it MIGHT NOT have.]
It is the responsibility of the Directors to keep shareholders informed in a timely and accurate manner . This is clearly not happening . [ On the contrary they have done exactly that re the RNS dated 26th January, do you have evidence that GLR are aware the terms of the deal have changed]
The currency error should not happen [What currency error? Sandfire conduct their ‘housekeeping’ in AUD, but the deal presented to GLR shareholders is expressed in USD, which would be quite normal in the commodity space.]
it is both embarrassing and impacts confidence and credibility , particularly after the SZ affair
[ Aspersion being cast directly on GLR’s Board with no evidence to support it.]
SFR have to submit a reason …..So if they have overstated the number of shares to use any excess for other reasons , they are misleading the ASX and their shareholders . [Is that a qualified legal opinion with refence to the terms and conditions of the ASX, I personally have no knowledge of the reporting requirements of the ASX, but given the size of the box on the form they are not looking for minute detail, see Ella10’s comment, thanks]
This doesn’t need “ brushing out of the way. [Fair enough, but it is not pertinent to GLR until and unless the terms of the agreement are not met by one party or the other]
we should have an explanation and formal correction . [Only if there is a material change to the agreement]
Personally I would like confidence to grow in GLR and for the KCB plan to play out over time. I understand that confidence in the board sometimes has its challenges, but trust is required at some level unless material evidence discredits them, otherwise why would anyone invest… It is the responsibility of the GLR Board to uphold their side of any deals and to hold their partners to the ‘terms’ of those deals, NOT to the ‘manner’ in which the partner chooses to execute them. But then this is just my humble opinion and you are free to disagree with me as I am with you.
To HD, with respect:
These BB’s provide the ability to express views and share information …..you have a right to do that . [ Agreed, but not all information is useful information. And I do not regard my opinion as being of greater or lesser value to anyone else’s. Had I reread my post I would have added ‘integrity and competence to ‘questioning’ at the beginning of the post as I did at the end.]
As I previously posted , the impact of all this could be less consideration than we expected and all of the 3M dollars in SFR shares rather than part in cash . [Unfounded speculation and hypothesis with respect to the agreement as understood by GLR, Sandfire’s internal affairs are their own]
personally I would have been surprised to have received US$’s [Really, would you prefer to be paid in a different currency and carry the FX exposure )
The deal COULD have changed [Then again it MIGHT NOT have.]
It is the responsibility of the Directors to keep shareholders informed in a timely and accurate manner . This is clearly not happening . [ On the contrary they have done exactly that re the RNS dated 26th January, do you have evidence that GLR are aware the terms of the deal have changed]
The currency error should not happen [What currency error? Sandfire conduct their ‘housekeeping’ in AUD, but the deal presented to GLR shareholders is expressed in USD, which would be quite normal in the commodity space.]
it is both embarrassing and impacts confidence and credibility , particularly after the SZ affair
[ Aspersion being cast directly on GLR’s Board with no evidence to support it.]
SFR have to submit a reason …..So if they have overstated the number of shares to use any excess for other reasons , they are misleading the ASX and their shareholders . [Is that a qualified legal opinion with refence to the terms and conditions of the ASX, I personally have no knowledge of the reporting requirements of the ASX, but given the size of the box on the form they are not looking for minute detail, see Ella10’s comment, thanks]
This doesn’t need “ brushing out of the way. [Fair enough, but it is not pertinent to GLR until and unless the terms of the agreement are not met by one party or the other]
we should have an explanation and formal correction . [Only if there is a material change to the agreement]
Personally I would like confidence to grow in GLR and for the KCB plan to play out over time. I understand that confidence in the board sometimes has its challenges, but trust is required at some level unless material evidence discredits them, otherwise why would anyone invest… It is the responsibility of the GLR Board to uphold their side of any deals and to hold their partners to the ‘terms’ of those deals, NOT to the ‘manner’ in which the partner chooses to execute them. But then this is just my humble opinion and you are free to disagree with me as I am with you.
Please stop with the questioning of the GLR over the SFR deal. GLR have laid out the deal quite plainly, and there is no reason to question its accuracy from GLR's side, but if there has been a mistake it will out. However, the manner in which SFR arrange their shares for transfer is entirely their business. Only they know how many shares they need in treasury to cover their obligations (eg. to pay GLR, and a host of other purposes -options, directors deals, whatever). SLR have applied for more than they need to satisfy GLR. The only variable on the settlement date is the FX, and No the AUD is not worth more than the USD. By all means raise your questions with Sandfire, but there is no excuse (currently) to question the integrety or competence od GLR in this matter. Peace. Thank you.
EricDraven: By default all BMR holders are JLP holders to rhe tune of 45million shares. And your knowledge of the Kabwe story adds value to this BB.
A terrific deal for JLP does not have to mean BMR have been shafted. If JLP does well BMR will also benefit and the value of that 12.5% stake or royalty is unknown until Leon dellivers some project numbers. It is clear that the proposed spend for development to production is in targeting $15million which gives some context to expected revenues.
Hernic has proved that JLP can design, construct and commission plant infrastructure, of that scale, to budget and time. However, the let down has been in the extended timelines ramping up to nameplate throughput and metals recovery. Consequently,when the numbers are published, they will have to be heavily discounted and their effect in the accounts will probably be up to 2 years later than suggested.
I was also impressed by the underlying swagger of Leon through the webcast. It really does seem that he believes JLP has entered a new era, and he has upped his game to match. I hope he does not lose sight of his skills at project level, though.
Much patience still required, however, my fantasy sp target of 28p two years ago has now been decimated to 7p given the doubling of shares in issue and delivery of only 25% of revenues promised. But that is just reality kicking in. GLA
Thanks for the replies. I think some of the articles are confusing the two towns or at least sharing library pictures. I am not aware that the Black Mountain issues are affecting the Kabwe tailings, although pollution at Kabwe is a recognised problem. I have not heard mention of cobalt at Kabwe, but it is mentioned as a constituent of the Black Moutain dump. I mention this because JLP recently said it was exploring cobalt target(s) in Zambia. Whilst Kitwe would be a very high profile project for JLP to tackle, I think the difficulties of dealing with the hoards of unskilled miners (Jerabos) and the Zambian authoities' requirement for local employment as part of the solution, would be way outside JLP's modus operandi and comfort zone. Who knows, either side might be dangling carrots here. GLA
Can someone clarify.
Kitwe and Kabwe are some 200 km apart.
The more recent Jerabos Black mountain deaths were at Kitwe, where the government granted 10% of the deposits to the local miners.
Are the BMR Kabwe tailings also called Black Mountain? Does the local community have a share of the Kabwe deposits? And does BMR have anything to do with the Kitwe site?
I think I understand the situation, but was wondering if others had better information. Thank you.
It was understood. Amazing how MnrVanZyl, Jonathon1970 and Sharetrooper121 share such distinctive writing styles. Have to say though they were right about 2.5p, sadly. Actual discussion is not an option, but I'm sure the tirade will crush the BB again. Roll on September. Cheers
Listed in RNS of 20th May 2016. DYOR.
JLP's commitment to Zambia goes beyond Kabwe -see reference to offices and technical center in last RNS.
Even at a 1 to 1 share offer for BMR, that values the tailings at £1 per tonne. JLP pays £3.13 per tonne for Platcro, so the question is whether the Zinc Lead and Vanadium are equivalent, or better, in value than 2.7gms of Platinum. Potentially it would be a very good deal for JLP, given certain caveats. Namely a guarantee for licence transfer from ZG, disposal or declaration of Blue Star interests and approval of Riverfort for the project capital.
Even then Kabwe would only represent 15-20% of JLP's current market cap.
In conclusion I do not think that JLP is over exposed to Kabwe either in the current arrangement or if a takeover became necessary. The biggest problem is the current uncertainty surrounding the JV, relations with ZG, financial metrics of the project and skeletons in the (BMR) cupboard.
From today's RNS it is clear the ZG meeting has not taken place (and is not formally scheduled). BMR have a lot of ground ot cover between now and the 7th August if they are to stay afloat.
Work and funding of the Zinc circuit by JLP shows a commitment to the project but is not the same as signing the JV agreement. If BMR have been failing to meet the JV conditions, then this is currently playing in JLP's favour. The alternative is that JLP is playing BMR big time, but all's fair in love and war or dof eat dog.
Everything about BMR's future, today, is speculation. But, other than walking away, I don't see that any outcome is unfavourable for JLP.
DYOR
Hi Rosewall
LC has repeatedly indicated that JLP is physically active at Kabwe. However, I think it is also clear that phase 1 is leach pads and 'construction' referred to is most probably preparations for that that and. not the oft touted (BMR) 'plant'.
Point 2. I couldn't agree more. GLR is not currently a fit for JLP's business model. I am sure that CB intends keep hold of his major shareholding there, even as he dilutes to take Star Zinc closer to development and even production one day - it is very much his comfort zone.
Dreish and Meyer. I wish you well on your venture. I hope you have time to enjoy a beer at the Clova Hotel (stunning setting). Assuming you are approaching from that direction it is a very pleasant walk from the hotel to the point where you have ta fairly steep climb through the forestry. When you clear the tree line you are into Corrie Fee, which is a most extraordinary landscape ( I hope you find it awesome too). After that there is a fairly steep open hill section up to the point from which both Dreish and Meyer are accessable and the walk between the two is then relatively easy. After that it is of course all down hill ! Not especially technically challenging, but it sounds like you are getting well prepared for the adventure. Good luck.
ZG meeting may happen, may not. Blue Star may turn up (for $50k attendance allowance) may not, JLP may report, may not. Cynicism 1, Positive SP movement 0. A positive progress and project green light RNS would be nice, but is not guaranteed and banking on one this week is unwise. The shenanigans with BMR are far from over. But companies in distress has been where JLP's opportunities have come from. Separately, re. DCM progress: Work on the Platinum recovery circuit has yet to start. All attention so far is on the fine chrome improvements. At this stage I would expect Platcro/Northam platinum to come on line first. Hopefully followed shortly after by DCM (Q2/3 2019 perhaps). So for now JLP only has Hernic revenues as net contribution to profits with 'attributable' earnings of about £1.25m per quarter. There is not much of that left after corporate overheads, but the accounts won't come out until November. In that context I would not rule out further share placings for JLP. Because, I doubt JLP have money in the bank to kickstart Kabwe after all the expenditure at DCM, and I doubt the BMR project meets the criteria (security wise at this stage) for the $50m project loan facility. Hopefully I am wrong on both counts. Probably over pessimistic on time frame, but more realistic on company track record. " 'Progress', Captain - but not as we know it" - What Spock didn't say. As usual, DYOR.
Many thanks Klueloss. I think your reply more eloquently illustrates the problem of different narratives from the parties involved. I would guess GLR were a little sloppy in their company name references back in August. It is no surprise nothing shows in the year end accounts, since BMR did not receive the Star Zinc licence frtom Bushbuck until February this year and it seems the intent is to transfer it to the new JV company (whatever they name it) in due course. It also suggests that GLR and BMR have yet to formalise their JV company despite the monies having been paid. The concern raised by this topic, for me, was whether or not there was a potential for competing claims between JLP and GLR in the event of a BMR default, in respect of the assets or share distribution of EPL. I am satisfied, in principle, that GLR's interests are in a subset of EPL and there is not a conflict with EPL still wholly owned by BMR, but I accept that others might read it differently. I am not keen on the suggestion of a JLP/GLR merger. I think it unlikely in the context of Colin Bird's personal interests and in conflict with JLP's current business plan. A long time ago I thought CB should amalgamate all his companies to achieve his midcap ambition. However, I think they now look like chips on a roulette table, scattered interests but only one needs to win for CB to claim his crown.
and to Klueloss Just my current understanding but things do not always pan out as announced, I possibly looked back too far, however, --- from GLR rns 31st August 2017 "Galileo is pleased to announce that on 31 August 2017 the Company entered into a binding term sheet ("Term Sheet") with BMR Group plc ("BMR") whereby it has agreed conditionally, to advance to BMR, $591,600 (at an interest rate of 12% per annum) , which is intended to be used for the purpose of completing the exercise of an option to acquire the Star Zinc project in Zambia ("Zinc Project") through a joint venture (the "Joint Venture") to be established with BMR. Â Â The Term Sheet stipulates that Galileo will subscribe for a 51% equity stake in the Joint Venture through a newly created special purpose vehicle, to be named Enviro Mining Limited, which will be financed by the cancellation of the aforementioned $591,600 loan." However the 4th October rns talks of Enviro Zambia, which I presume is the holding company prior to the JV announcement to set up of Enviro Mining Ltd. And, yes, I think the confusion is deliberate. It may be that EML has yet to be set up, which would be totally consistent with BMR's admin track record. But Enviro Zambia and Enviro Processing can not be the same entity or the security held by JLP would be invalid.- or are they? (Also reference the BMR rns from 5th Septemberrecording the acquistion of Star Zinc from Bushbuck (BRL) and licence transfer to Enviro Zambia) although the tranfer did not take place until: Finally from 23rd February this year: "ZMC formally transfers the Licence from BRL to BMR's subsidiary Enviro Processing Limited ("EPL")" and "Subject to ZMC approval, the Star Zinc licence to be transferred to a joint venture company to be owned 85% by Galileo and 15% by BMR." I think there is some reporting conflation between Star Zinc and Kabwe licences and the holding entities thereof. Happy to be corrected with more up to date references, but in most respect we are all technically correct.. Many thanks DYOR as usual.
GLR-Star Zinc-BMR share interests in the JV company EML (Enviro mining) JLP-Kabwe-BMR share interests in Kabwe Operations Company. JLP have a security over EPL (Enviro Processing) against it's financing/loans to BMR/Kabwe Operations Co. EPL, which holds the Kabwe licences, is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMR (and JPL is a BMR shareholder). Your comments on the BMR board looked a little unclear on the above. Hope it helps.GLA