Member Info for richam

1. Re-visit Wolf's old presentations. What's the annual production mentioned there? 2. That was on a 5,5/7 basis. Now re-calculate that for a 24/7 operation. 3. Go figure the difference between a metric tonne and an MTU.

You're the only one doing your homework, Processguy. Q4 GTP shipments amount to roughly 42k MTU assuming another 3 containers have left the country before year end. That's a plus of 50% over Q3 and assuming similar deliveries to our second offtaker, this takes Wolf from 34% to 50% nameplate output. That's real world numbers as opposed to the bunch of stupid rubbish that we hear from the Three Stooges' corner.

How about those who "only post 1 dimensional positive" (can't call it news since it's mindless pushing accompanied by childish name calling and personal attacks)? IMO that's much worse than postings of negative opinions based on facts like future need for additional funding aka dilution. Why is it that I can't see you complain about these? Recovery according to the BFS is planned to be 58% in soft material and 65% in hard rock. Unfortunately actual recoveries during 2017 came in at 27%, 29% and 36%, respectively. Wolf reacted by mining hard rock material earlier than originally planned in order to improve the ore mix and thus improve recoveries. This resulted in some improvement but still recovery is far cry from where it is supposed to be. On the positive side though, as I had said earlier, US import data suggests a significant improvement in production. Both throughput and recovery improvements should have contributed to it. I expect Q4 production figures of 50%-60% of nameplate (in an optimistic case scenario, data still incomplete, and keep in mind significant uncertainty stems from the fact that deliveries to Wolfram Bergbau und Hutten are totally unkonwn) which would mark a significant improvement over Q3 but still would be far too little to achieve positive cash flow, even at Q4's improved tungsten price. It takes another very significant improvement to get us close to break-even.

When I research a company or sector, I continue to follow this company/sector independently from whether I own stock at a certain moment or not. The reason is the considerable amount of time that I have invested into this and the knowledge that I have accumulated during the process. Even when I decide to research another sector I keep myself up to date with the sector that I am familiar with already. While one sector might appear unattractive at a given moment it could very well become attractive again when circumstances have changed. I keep following the sectors that I am familiar with and don't stop posting when my opinion regarding the sector's outlook changes. Any why should I? What's the benefit of reading 100% positive opionions watching one poster patging the other one on the back for owning the best stock in the world? That would be perfectly pointless IMO. There are always two sides to the coin and I want to consider positive as well as negative aspects in my decision making. Like it or not, the people who have expressed a negative opinion re Wolf's outlook a year ago turned out to be 100% correct. If only people holding stock would post, you'd never read about any negative aspects, risks, etc., ever. I enjoy reading positive as well as negative postings provided they are based on fact and reasonably founded. BTW, you don't have to agree with all of them. Just take what you want and leave the rest as it is. But don't question people's motives just because they don't share your view. In the end they might turn out to be correct!

While you're certainly correct on dilution and other negative influence, I believe these things are basically old news and priced in. What the market at the current stage does not know is whether or not Drakelands can become a viable, self-sustaining business, ever! Currently this uncertainty weighs on the share price heavily. Should the situation be resolved in such a way that Wolf can demonstrate its ability to run the plant profitably, I would expect the share price to increase massively. So far Wolf's track record casts serious doubt on whether they can achieve that since the plan was to ramp up production to nameplate within 12 months. As a matter of fact Drakelands delivers 32% of nameplate output, 24 months after hand-over! US import data suggests a significant improvement during Q4 over Q3 numbers but whether or not this will be enough to post a profit (or at least near nameplate production) in Q1 remains to be seen. Should that happen, I would expect the share price to easily double or triple from its current level.

I don't believe he filters anybody. But then, I couldn't care less. Should he indeed filter all knowledgeable posters it would only improve the quality of the board since we would no longer have to wade through his childish hate postings. Just don't pay any attention to his nonsense.

My numbers could be imcomplete. I can see December shipments arriving on the 12th, 19th and 28th. Is there another one during the first week of December that I am missing?

Thanks, Mate! So depending on whether the 2017-10-16 shipment belongs to Q3 or Q4, improvement would come in at +34% or +87% vs. Q3. That's just GTP and we don't know the quantities that have been delivered to Wolfram Bergbau. Assuming a similar growth rate for both customers, neither the +34% nor the +87% would take Wolf to "nameplate territory". However, if the 58t per week rate could be sustained (which I do not expect but would love to be proven wrong!), that would mean a plus of up to 245% vs. Q3 which I believe WOULD take Wolf into positive territory, indeed. So Q4 should show a significant improvement over Q3 and Q1-2018 will be the make-or-break one.

Processguy, was the shipment that arrived on 2017-12-19 for 58t, too?

What I wrote was supported by facts and numbers whereas the "other guys' nonsense" was supported by nothing but whishful thinking aka tedious perma pumping.

How much money did 2M Wolf shares lose since we talked when the stock was at 6p?

I suggest you read the post again. What I said was this: "Even the tungsten price is meaningless since no tungsten price is going to save our company AT RECENT PRODUCTION RATES." Got it? Production rates as recently reported are 1/3 (!) of nameplate so in order for the tungsten price to fill the gap it would have to hit $750/MTU which is utopistic. Obviously a 0.34% price increase as it was reported last week won't help. Even if we saw the same price increase every week for the next two years Wolf could not reach break even without production increase. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY than getting the plant's performance fixed!

So after 17/18 months "the turnaround is very CLOSE"? In other words, it has NOT BEEN ACHIEVED BY NOW! This is nothing but a full-blown WARNING, my dear! And BTW, false accusations won't help. Neither you nor Wolf's share price. Even the tungsten price is meaningless since no tungsten price is going to save our company at recent production rates. Only when the mine operates close to nameplate this will change.

"the turnaround is ON TRACK with one month to go....." You've got much to learn with regard to how comments like these have to be read. You take management comments at face value... When Lucas says the "turnaround is on track" he refers to Wolf's installation/upgrading programs proceeding on time and on budget. What he does NOT refer to is OUTCOMES of these measures! The "turnaround program" officially started during the summer of 2016, hence is ongoing for 17+ months already. These 17 months of repairs, upgrades, reconfiguration yielded very little to write home about! With 1 out of 18 months to go the plant should be operating at >90% of planned output. Rest assured, if it did, the company would have announced such great news with much fanfare! The simple fact that they didn't announce ANYTHING so far foreshadows disappointment. And the share price simply reflects this. No "conspiracy theories" or silly "shorts stories" needed to explain the stock's poor peformance!

You's tell's em's.

LOL. Beware the experts. OMG

Your posting only displays your limited imagination. You fail to mention the most obvious possibility of all. I am a Wolf shareholder. And I give a monkey's shit whether you believe it or not. In stark contrast to you I do not turn a blind eye to the facts. I express my disappointment with the many broken promises, projections and forecasts and criticize management for not coming clean. I do not mistake this forum for a cheerleader exercise room like you and the Three Stooges do. Last Friday you stated "Maybe Monday we will sit back and watch the stinking little shorters run for cover and clear their positions." Again, how did this one play out? The quarterly report has been released in the meantime, the market has taken the new information into consideration and acted accordingly. It appears the market agrees with me, doesn't it?

daytrader13, as I said, I will give due consideration to your suggestion. But then, my investments are none of your business, are they? When the December quarterly reports recoveries of below 50% and production below 60% of nameplate, will you concede defeat or will you change horses and come up with "Turnaround Plan No. 3" that will take another 2, 3 or 4 quarters? If the company announced another round of financing at an even lower conversion price before spring, what would you say? Is there anyhting the company could say, short of declaring bankruptcy, that would make you admit you have been wrong? How many financing rounds and additional debt are you willing to take? Currently we are at 55 Million Pounds. How much is too much?

bs269, I fully agree with what you have said. And I confess the 2017 September quarterly report is the first one where I can find signs of improvement worth mentioning. However, these improvements are far from what they have to be in order to make this a self sustaining operation. The problem with Drakelands is this: Even if it became self sustaining eventually, it could still result in massive shareholder losses. There is late, and then there is too late. During the latest financing round RCF provided another 10 Million Pounds. What the permabulls ignore is this comes at a price to shareholders. These 10 Million Poulds will be converted into shares at a price of A$ 0.055 (or less, depending on future issuance of shares) and with AUD/GBP as it is today, it means roughly 315 million additional shares on issue. And that's just the lastest 10 Million. We already had another 45 Million Pounds that will also be converted into shares. To the same extent the number of shares increases, future profit per share declines. Accordingly, the fair value of the shares declines in parallel. Any financing round directly translates into share price declines, aka losses for existing shareholders. The most recent quarterly report hints that improvements - while existent - are too small to prevent the necessity of additional financing rounds. It states: "The Company will continue to review its long term capital requirements as the operating turnaround plan progresses". That's company parlance for "we will need additional financing rounds in the future". And that's the bad news, barely hidden in between all the optimism and "excitement". Bottom line: While at some point in the future Drakelands could indeed reach the point of self sustainability, it could still mean hefty losses for shareholders from last Friday's perspective. Management, at that future point in time, will brag about a great "success". But that is very much dependent on your point of view since such "success story" would strike today's shareholders as pure cynicism.

Thank you very much, daytrader13. I will give your suggestion due consideration. However, facts will always prevail over fiction. The facts have been published in the quarterly report. Production sits at 32,4% of nameplate. Fact. Another 10 Million Pounds have been made available and the company's own cash flow forecast suggests this will be spent during the December quarter. What is going to happen once the cash has been spent? Recoveries are half of what they had been predicted. Does this suggest the company will be able to cover its expenditures from product sales in the new year? Nope. Of course management will always pretend it was encouraged, optimistic, enthusiastic, etc. They want to keep their jobs, don't they? If they publicly stated they were not optimistic, what would happen, in all likelihood? Have you ever seen any company report where management did NOT state it was optimistic? Shareholders always just have to wait a little longer (besides making available more money) and everything will be fine. Eventually. Until management is fired. Then the next guy takes over and guess what, he is encouraged, optimistic, enthusiastic. Does the name Russell Clark ring any bells? Last Friday you stated "Maybe Monday we will sit back and watch the stinking little shorters run for cover and clear their positions." Do you ever do any reality checks? How did this one play out?