Member Info for safetyman

Hi GUG,
Thanks for your response 06:58 this morning. That’s quite a concerted effort, so thanks ( I thought you were not invested here, but clearly you must be).
Your numbers make sense mostly, but I think your wrong in the on the interest payment.
On your point (3) you quote figures using my scenario, albeit with your adjuster for tin content: which comes out at $1,314,359.
Then in your penultimate paragraph you say this would not cover interest before other costs. So in effect you’re saying $1,314,359 X 12 =$15,772,302 is the minimum interest per year. I thought we were at approx 12% for $55,000,000 which is $6,600,000 per year or $550,000 per month.
So if my interest payment is nearer to the correct figure ( can’t see how it isn’t) then we have ( my scenario) revenue $1,314,359
Less interest of $550,000 = $ 764, 359 which I think should cover costs.
It may be that we disagree on that overall, however, I think it’s fair to say your interest payment figure is far too high.

I think Mullins comment to be the most accurate.

Please correct me if you think me wrong, I am sure someone will, but it now looks to me as though:-
if its the case when we are quoted shipments of say 20 tonnes, they are not 20 tonnes tungsten concentrate or 2000 mtu of concentrate at 66% purity.
Instead, in the instance where we are told a shipment of 20 tonnes has gone out. it could be that it is a 20 dry metric tonnes load that contains within it WO3 concentrate at 61 % (albeit with its purity 67% cut off) . Hence making it a 20 dmt tungsten concentrate load (at 67%) of 20 x 61= 12.2 tonnes or 1220 mtu.
Thus the FID and Shard ARC report remain correct in that they are describing the numbers in mtu (67%purity tungsten concentrate) , which we get 80 % of the going APT price for. (this also explains why the numbers do not seem to readily reconcile with figures produced in reports). However, the figures we are given publicly on videos, interviews etc are not, in fact, tonnes of tungsten concentrate at 67% and are not being fully described for what they are, dmt, with a component of tungsten concentrate.
So yep, I give up on the obstinancy there.. That would explain what I thought was getting on for a missing million in the first half.
So fag packet correction is due: if the mtu APT price is $250
We get 80%= $200
excluding tin credit, according to FID production cost $110 per mtu leaves : $90 per mtu
if we produce 100 tonnes dmt per month containing 61% concentrate thats 61 tonnes = 6100 mtu
(I would point out the FID refers to a production of in excess of 200 tonnes of concentrate per month, so were we to achieve that its more than 3 times this.)
6100mtu X $90 = $549,000
we would have to add an amount for tin , say a ratio of 8 to 1, then 61 tonnes X .125= 7.625 tonnes
total revenue tin = 7.625 X $25000 = $190,625
revenue per month becomes $190,625 + $549,000= $739, 625 per month and for a year X12 = $8,875, 500 which should be enough to pay interest of 12 % on $55 million = $6.6 million
so we should have lose change of $8,875,500 - $6, 600, 000 = $2,275,500.
So that might put us in a position to refinance at lower interest rate and so leave more lose change
all providing the opex stands, or the mtu concentrate in the dmt goes up or down or any other variable
well so i still think 100 tons tungsten per month (even if dmt) gets us across the line. AIMHO
or i couuld be wrong of course.

L200, you’re lucky you know where you stand with cattle. Very reliable creatures cows and they are unambiguous. It must be a reassuring life you lead.

Hi Superflo,
In the Q4 production report.The 31% and 57% refers to tin (Sn). In fairness with regard to tin, there may be other pricing arrangements and not the same as tungsten which is contractually agreed under the offtake agreement.
The Q4 report referred to WO3 purity as being 67%. (Which hits the required purity level to paid 80% of the APT price- my understanding). The quoted 67 % tungsten purity produced indicates to me that Wres processed ore, finings etc until it achieved that level. It smacks of a target quality- why not 2% less or 10 % higher? - because that is the required purity!
The tin was always priced in as a credit to costs for tungsten concentrate- which at the time of the FID quoted as gross cost $110 per mtu reduced to $94 with tin credits. This may well have an adjusted figure for different purities.
So, I think we need further clarification. Whilst it might seem that I am suffering from a bad case of severe obstinacy, I am holding to: we sell in mtu s, 67% purity of tungsten concentrate for 80% of the given APT price.
MM had also said this at presentations, if I recall correctly, I cannot provide or cite reference on that - but, my memory must be failing if I am wrong.

AND FROM THE FID
? Investment Analysis: Based on an APT price profile incorporating a long-term price of
US$300/mtu (66% WO3 product, realising 80% of the APT price 2017 dollar terms) and a EURO
dollar exchange rate of US$0.91.
The La Parrilla Project has the potential to deliver

From the ARC Report, page 34 it says:
? Quality concentrate. La Parrilla will produce a high-quality tungsten
concentrate, which the company expects to grade 66-67% WO3, and tin
product of >60% Sn. Typically, a 66% WO3 concentrate receives approximately
80% of the prevailing APT price. The concentrate does not contain high levels
of deleterious elements, the existing product produced by WRES in late 2016
was well received by customers. Two major long-term off-take agreements
accounting for approximately 80% of La Parrilla’s production are in place.

.......so for me that is categorically what I have understood to be the case. IF i am wrong its because I have read the reports and believed them to be correct. So someone lied in an official document to mislead investors.....where's me solicitor?

In my assumption of jan Feb, I am estimating a 4 week down time.

If we make the assumption that not all shipped in March does not come from March; and that the shipments up to 8th March relate to production in Jan and Feb; I think it’s the case we were down with no production in that period so we must have been producing 20 tons of metal a week; which in a normal month would be 80 tons;
Hence; this means before we have finished improvements and efficiencies to plant and machinery, before we move to more working days, before improved ore into processing; before the very high quality Regua ore we are producing 80 tons a month!
QED
If that’s the case crackerjack and the milky bars are on me.
If we can show 80 tons in anyone month in this quarter the higher levels of production are clearly sign posted wether that’s before March or during March.
Having pondered on this, I reckon we might be seeing a wholly positive RNS soon.

Toungston, such succinct argument had made me think Santa most likely must exist.

Tell you what. I wouldn’t want to
Be out of these over the weekend.

GUG, wrong allegorical portrayal of Michael Masterman. He is an individual that is demonstrably not fictional, mythological or otherwise the invention of man, as is the case for Santa Claus.

And Christine Lagarde was going on about her package for the EU yesterday. She is increasing her envelope. She said she wanted stimulation.
And longer term Boris ways to drill a thirty mile tunnel user the Irish Sea, they are going to need a lot drill bits, it’s rocky down there.

Clearly we need to see the figures. We do not know what the production levels are. We are told they are increasing.
We are told that his will the best quarter so far which requires it to be in excess of 135 tons. I think that means we can reasonably expect that March should be about 80 tons.
We are told that we are increasing production through improvements and the ore used. We are told we will be icing to 7 days a week. Therefore, if we get near 80 tons in March, it would be a very easy to get to over 100 tons.
At the end of the day the measure we should have in April is the March production. That can then reasonably be multiplied by 7 and divided by 5 for the seven day working figure. If we are given the improved quality for ore figures we should also have a reasonable multiplier to use.
We are told there are other improvements too.
So in my opinion, in which there are ifs, getting to 70-80 tons in March is the production level that sign posts us to success.

Blimey ponfers. That means Tin is more than doubled since last year. That’s financially better than producing twice as much. Now if tungsten could do the same!

I think 110 tons a month of Sn and Wo3 combined would see us clear. ( I have thought less than this, but in line with Troajan in this case). However, I don’t know, could be less could be more. We will need to see production figures and finance figures; these both should be available about June time. Unless we got informed earlier through a RNS.
What we do have is an operational mine, we are not an explorer. Wr have started production. We have one step left full production.if get GUGs production figures we will be in clover imho. If we get MMs 200 tons per month, I will pay for the meal.

I fully agree the mkt cap remains the same. My point is the RNS and the video by the CFO refer to perception, marketability, ii, etc and that the below decimal SP and number of shares have a negative effect on that sentiment and the purpose is to improve on that. Any new financial requirement needs positive perception.
With regard to OPEX, the more time we spend producing the more that should be produced ( iflevel of output per unit of time is constant) Generally the more production the greater the economies of scale and a to some extent a virtuous circle is achieved. ( caveat There can be a point where diminishing returns can occur. )
So yep if we get 7 days a week as a precursor and we are told productivity is improving, then all should be well in the garden.

You both make good points on that.
Taking an optimistic option in addition to both yours, say there is world where we are moved to 7 days a week ( Troajan s prerequisite) the news for this comes through at or just after consolidation, the SP starts at 9.5p. Wres then moved to more or improved finances, with demonstrable production and a ‘respectable’ 9.5p SP ( as opposed to an not respectable) 0.095 it may be possible to refinance at lower rate than current- a 6% reduction would be a significant sum.
There are, of course, other options as you say potentially including a placing, but if that’s what is required it’s better than not having anything or more CLN.
Well that’s my opinion, and I could be wrong. However, the consolidation has had to come along only if solely due to reasons pointed out by Troajan or L200- I think we might agree perhaps that we are better with it than without it.

Scorpio, where do you get the 90% down for GIT and his holdings? Have you access to his accounts?
I would like to think I know him quite well (in fact we have been in pubs at the same time , I mention that to validate my comments with regard to him) but, do not think he is down by that much.

In my view, whatever is best for the company is also the best for the PIs. If something is done that improves sentiment and brings other benefits then that has to be good.
However, it could be seen that the consolidation is a prelude to a placing and brings concerns about dilution and thus perceived as a negative. Then again if a placing is required it’s no bad thing to be in position to do. I think if the BOD wanted to take advantage of getting shares cheap, then now is not a bad time to do it. Perhaps they should to inspire confidence.
For me the consolidation is something that should happen, I am told that no ii, bank for loans or other big investor is going to look at shares below 1p.
As our deemed price changes our respective holding in cash terms remains the same. So for me my view is we are strengthening our position.
Mind you best of all would’ be good production figures.