Member Info for pickedpeck

Robbie, there is a massive difference between the retail price of Welsh gold and the price that would be paid ex mine. It's uttey naive to think Clogau mine gold would sell for millions a kilo, it's just never going to happen. I think it may command a premium, but we are talking at the outside 50% on mkt value, more likely less.

Making daft assertions like that can undermine other things you write. Keep it real.

You will notice the prices of these pieces of jewellery which are leveraging the hell out of Welshness are approximately the same price as similar pieces which dont.

https://www.clogau.co.uk/

In fairness they are talking about extracting fines from the waste tip. Fines don't need crushing, they just need gravity separation to concentrate before refining.

Mined rock will need crushing.

Concentrator capacity helps cost analysis. 1.5t per hour, one guy to run the digger/loader, one guy to run the concentrator, one guy to supervise both and stop them bunking off or dodging safety issues. Add in some power and maintenance costs, and then the refining charges. £100 a ton may be a bit low.

Its worth doing, but no one is getting a significant return on investment from the waste tip.

The waste tip RNS from 2022 is worth a read back to back with this morning's typo riddled effort.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ALBA/clogau-st-david8217s-waste-tip-update-l5bop2np4t5j0wy.html

Very excitable language, I'd say more so in the 2022 version with its 1000g / ton claims.

Let's be generous and say 10g/ton through the whole 4000 tons of waste (which is ridiculously tiny by the way).

4000 x 10g = 40,000g or 40kg of gold.

1kg of gold is £60,000 ish currently, and yes I appreciate there may be a premium for Welsh gold.

40 x £60k is a maximum revenue potential of £2.4m.

Drop the gold content to 5g per ton as in this morning's RNS and you get to £1.2m.

Then there is the cost of mining and processing. We don't know that, but if they took the three men one dog and a tractor approach, plus outsourcing actual refining then it's likely in the range of £100 per ton.

So roughly speaking the waste tip could yield as much as £2m income, or as little as £800k.

Its better than what we have now, but in the scale of things, not very much at all.

That's why my BS detector has gone off this morning. This could all be matter of fact and not use the excitable language in the RNS. It's not a massive exciting development, it's a few quid on the side of the main event at best.

Buying assets at a low EBITDA multiple, and selling them on at a higher multiple is not bad business.

Someone here was complaining about decline 23 to 24 YoY, the acquisitions and disposals (subject to the EGM) boost attributable production whilst reducing overall debt. Again, not bad business.

I do wonder if the problem here is not the strategy, but the speed giving the impression of slight if hand. It looks to me like they are being nimble not duplicitous.

Why is everyone so wound up on here, is it something about DEC that attracts angry people? 90% of the posts are in some way rude or abusive, hardly any discuss the company.

Can we just act civilised. I don't usually use the filter as it's good to hear contrary views, but this has become ridiculous.

'The Company recorded exit rate production in March 2024 of 742 MMcfepd (124 Mboepd) and delivered 1Q24 average net daily production of 723 MMcfepd (121 Mboepd). Diversified's average production for the quarter reflects the exceptionally shallow decline profile of its assets, with average production for the period representing an effectively 0% change in volumes(a) compared to the 4Q23 average of 725 MMcfepd (121 Mboepd), adjusted for the recent divestiture of assets associated with the previously announced ABSVII Asset Sale transaction.'

What exactly are you wanting them to say more than that about production?

Here is one disposal announcement :

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/DEC/diversified-closes-value-enhancing-asset-sale-qgg9dbcx9ilfl40.html

And here is an acquisition :

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/DEC/results-acquisition-and-capital-allocation-update-o5dt70v0k5r095l.html

'... approximately a 400% increase from when Diversified acquired the facility.'

Surely worth having.

The point about Black Bear is not the acquisition, it's the performance improvement. Again, why the negative spin? They are 100% correct in announcing operational performance improvements that are material to operating performance and revenue.

No need to spin George, you're doing just fine on that front. Like Jim you're not taking account of any disposals or acquisitions are you? Raw figures are not like for like and you know that, why message it that way?

Jim800 - they did tell you. There was a disposal and acquisitions in year, you are just comparing figures 12 months apart without taking account of all the announcements in between.

I think it's important to look at the accounts for what they are. Key point for me are:

- 0% on a continuation basis decline. Blimey, how?

- EBITDA and net cash generation in the period excellent. Cashb

is king, long live cash.

- Loss after non-cash valuation and derivative adjustments. Hardly surprising given continued spot price valuations, creates camouflage for the cash generation though.

- Forward hedging lower priced and less volume than I would have hoped for, but a lot better than spot or 24-25 futures. Bit of a hmm this one, needs thinking about.

All in decent results, nothing to set the world on fire which is the best outcome for all of you ask me.

The the Black Bear announcement comes from left field and looks to be an additional source of revenue generation. Interesting no one here seems to have mentioned or thought about it much. Who is not in favour of increased margin? No? Oh well.

I said two days of 3% rises or falls after a flat period would stop the buy back. That's the illustration. Sorry if you missed that.

Again an illustration for the point, just saying it doesn't take much of a consistent move to break that 5% barrier.

Bigger question for me is why is it there in the first place, and why resume at the same level when surely more cash is available on an annualised basis.

No george, I wasn't a futures trader, but I have been a professional mathematician.

Lets do some sums.

Five flat days 1000p . Five day average = 1000p.

Day six price rises to 1030p. PREVIOUS five day average is still 1000p

Day seven price rises to 1061p. PREVIOUS five day average is ((1000x4)+1030)/5 = 1006p

1061/1006 = 1.054, or a 5.4% increase vs the PREVIOUS five day average. Buy back stops.

No. I am saying that they have only committed a quarter of what they would have previously paid out in one quarter of dividend. That's redirecting cash, and the net outflow is halved compared to paying the previous dividend.

They should not have four quarters of dividend cash at hand to give a quarter of out in a lump sum.

On the shifts, yep, we have seen shifts up and down that would stop it. It doesnt' take as much as you might think. Flat and then two days of +/-3% will stop the buy backs for a day.

George,

You're agreeing with me on the cash flow. I think what they have done is handed over one quarter of one quarter's former dividend budget, not the full annual budget. Previously they were doing this as a management team opportunistically when they had some cash, but the divi was also full fat then.

I think they are spreading the quarterly budget over a FY buy back program, but I agree they may not be.

For exmple, lets say in round numbers they used to pay out $40m a quarter in dividend,.The divi has been cut to roughly 25% of that or $10m, then the buy back allocation is also $10m, and $20m now goes to debt paydown, reserves, Rusty's piggy bank or wherever.

Each quarter should see an increment to the BB program or $10m or so allocated budget as the former divi pot is generated.

Yes I know the round numbers are wrong, its an illustration not an audited set of accounts.

We have seen more than 5% shifts up and down in the last couple of weeks which inevitably pause the BB program. Its a tight set of boundaries and I am not sure why its there or what it is meant to achieve.

I doubt it. The text of the terms is in Resolution 17 of the AGM Notes

Diversified has today entered into an engagement with Peel Hunt LLP ("Peel Hunt") pursuant to an engagement letter under which the Company has issued an irrevocable instruction providing Peel Hunt with the authority to repurchase Ordinary Shares in the Company subject to certain agreed parameters...

17.2

to a maximum number of Shares with an aggregate nominal value of up to £951,368 (amounting to 4,756,842 Shares as at the date of the Notice) representing 10% of the current issued share capital of the Company, such amount to be reduced by the nominal amount of any Shares purchased pursuant to the authority in Resolution 18; by the condition that the Company does not pay less (exclusive of expenses) for each Share than the nominal value of such Share and the maximum price which may be paid for a Share (exclusive of expenses) is the higher of:

17.2.1 5% over the average market value of the Shares for the five Business Days immediately preceding the date on which the Company agrees to buy the Shares concerned, based on the share price published in the Daily Official List of the London Stock Exchange plc;

and

17.2.2 an amount equal to the higher of the price of the last independent trade and the highest current independent purchase bid at the time on the trading venue where the purchase is carried out,

I am making the assumption that the approval from the AGM is the only way the above terms would have been imposed on PH buy back. What's not obvious to me is why f they have to miss a day or three don't they start trying to catch up? Surely if they have given irrevocable authority then they must have handed over the cash at the time too, its not like PH are going to be buying on credit.