Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
I too have had 22/6 firmly in my mind. If ASC has gone to the wire in delivering the FS, it will need to be written up for a RNS so that may take a day or two. Equally, if ASC have failed it may take a little while to agree and set out further extension terms. Cannot believe ASC was earlier referring to accelerating its delivery to April or May! Seems to cast some doubts on ASC's capabilities.
All: Indeed, some interesting and well argued views here. No question asked about addressing the failures to update shareholders following missed "deadlines/indications"; if one was asked, at least TP did not select it. I had anticipated more questions. Nonetheless, there was a clear invitation to follow up with further questions so perhaps some of those with strong views would do that in addition to what they air here?
I also had a call from TP beforehand and they are due to ring back after. Guess some of you the same? Another opportunity to put across whatever really bugs you...
Finally, some were expecting a bounce in the sp post webinar. Worth recapping that nothing will change significantly until the Paradox prospects are clearer and probably in production. At least we have a new timetable indication for 36-2.
Sunshine, Ascendant may not be good at hitting dates but it has chosen, as I recall, to advance the date of publishing the Feasibility Study from a June deadline to end April. Whilst we know that Study will not include the newest drilling results, one can but hope it might still mark a turning point for wider interest for MAFL. Only a month or so to find out?!
Setanta, while you list negatives, those are to varying degrees balanced by many positives, all unexpected (from my viewpoint). And no one has mentioned recently the well-publicised delays/shortages in equipment and labour across oil and many other industries over the last 1+ year. Others can produce a full list of positives no doubt, such as: purchase of additional acreage; purchase for a modest sum of gas processing plant and pipelines; forward sale of production, locking in higher oil price; purchase of share in more Willston producing wells; buyout of minority interest in one of its wells.
Yes, it's been a bit grim seeing these levels being plumbed yet again but I take encouragement from the fact there has been plenty of buying - unsurprising, as it is bargain basement once again! Patience, patience as ever for those holders who understand the potential here. GLA
I do not want to pour cold water on dealings but 1.6m shares is only 0.1% of the issued capital. Nice to see but not institutional in size (unless it's part of a series where someone is building a much bigger position).
Let's see fingers crossed that the last few days have marked a floor for this share. GLA
Armada: You may be right about the optimal market for ZPHR - but were it to be the US market, most of us would not be here as that's less easy for us to trade!
Chain: Agree your summary. And let's not forget ZPHR needs a wider following, including IIs. IMHO, that will only come when the resource is proven (or at least the first few wells) and the stock can be properly analysed. That time may be soon(ish).
GLA
Elland, well summarised, totally agree. This is a well run company which is slowly but surely delivering on its plans - and sometimes delivering beyond with the surprises it pulls from a hat. This year should see that re-rating, exploration always needs more than a bit of patience. GLA
Shaz: sorry, did not mean to sound too headmasterly!
Giveme: Actually the FS was due by Dec 2022 but was announced as contractually extended to Jun 23 because of the further drilling plans and, I believe, the wish to encompass as much as possible. Ironically, we now learn from ASND that it will not include some of the more recent drill results (so those would provide future icing on the cake).
Shaz, you have been here a long time and you must know that the whole of the 15% is highly unlikely to flow to the company. A deal must be being worked on but may be held up by the absence of the Feasibility Study (now scheduled by end April instead of June). Only the FS will now provide a reasonable value indicator for a seller and buyer to negotiate. Factor in a few percentage points more for MAFL (less the cost of that) by all means but let's be realistic. Realism alongside the usual patience, of course!
And I guess that before taking a decision on the put, we would want to know about the 15% and exercise whatever leverage we have? So that would make your £9m receipt a little contingent/uncertain at this point? I also suspect JV may be in this for the longer game - it looks like there is more to play for.
Florence, the observation about April's new target date for the DFS ( it was due by June) can only help move things along. We might all hope the numbers will surprise on the upside?! I also noted that Brennan referred to certain recently drilled areas being excluded from the DFS, those would be future icing for the cake.
I am unsure how the put option might be valued - and can we be sure it will be exercised (I forget its terms)? Also, if I recall correctly, MAFL's future financial interest is struck excluding the project financing costs (which would remain for ASND's account) so MAFL is only interested in the fact that financing has been obtained and not in the terms of that financing. We also have the 15% interest waiting to be resolved (no doubt being worked upon but perhaps impacted by the imminent DFS?).
An interesting quarter ahead. GLA
Bubble: You keep mentioning expecting BP as taking an interest in Paradox. Forgive me for saying but It is getting a little monotonous. The financial trading arm of BP has indeed participated in a forward sale of ZPHR production - but as others have said that is all. Just as most IIs are unlikely to be investing until there is rather more certainty, so potential acquirers of Zephyr or its resources are IMHO unlikely to be circling yet. Zephyr is a relative minnow today. Nor would a take-over approach be well received by the BOD when it surely feels there is so much more to go for in prove its value. In the future anything is possible - but it is rather early to expect anything soon IMHO. One step at a time and, as ever, patience is required?
TC: Good question. IIs will, by and large, be investing on behalf of their clients whose mandates will have investment objectives and restrictions. Many of the larger firms will "not get out of bed" for a holding of less than a few million, as it is not worth the research and monitoring time to do so. So their screen of potential investee companies filters out many smaller fish depending upon client and their own criteria.
At the moment IMHO, Zephyr has yet to prove the extent of its own resources (=risk/speculation) and has a relatively small market cap with liquidity constraints. But there will be some mandates where these factors are less important. A big subject, somewhat generalist answer!
I fully agree the comments about the lack of realism of those complaining about failure to deliver updates precisely to indicated/estimated dates. In the real world (and particularly in the business world) there are a host of reasons which can explain delay and I doubt I am alone in being bored by the column inches regularly devoted to such complaints. Patience and realism please.
As an additional observation in this context, our board has several times shown to have been working on something else in parallel, such as unexpectedly announcing further land, facility or well acquisitions. All credit to them for everything they have been achieving. I do not imagine there is a big senior staff resource to deal with everything going on.
Ezhik, I understand your caution and do not disagree with that at this point. But what we are looking for is some meaningful data which enables a revaluation (re-rating). Whether the 16-2 drill results or something else enables that, I do not know. Yes, the drill results are anticipated to be good but they are not really "in the price" at the moment. The data must be big and reassuring enough to bring in new sticky investors (ultimately IIs). IMHO, most IIs will want something which is more certain before running their slide-rules over Zephyr and pushing the buy button.
Oilworker, thank you for your remarks. There have been quite a few comments here over time about the BP "deal" leading to "greater things" but, as I understand it, it was a relatively standard forward sale of future production, presumably with BP's trading arm. BP would be doing those deals every day and Zephyr is surely a relative minnow anyway in the global scale of things.
Once ZPHR's new resources are proven, it might be attractive to someone else but I fear we are getting ahead of ourselves at this stage.
Chain, I agree with much of what you say but not with the initial undervaluation point. I follow another "mining" stock (MAFL) where it has been pretty much sideways movements over several years. Much more illiquid and tiny mkt cap by comparison but its main asset is still awaiting a Feasibility Study for its proven mineral resources (now due inside 6 months). I believe that the many non-speculative PIs and most IIs want to be able to assess the assets so, for them, those first need to be proven. ZPHR has been transforming itself only recently and is, we hope, on track to provide the necessary proof. As mentioned here before, that (and particularly IIs) is what will be transformational to the sp in my view. Yes, patience, patience, patience.
GLA