Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full video here.
Nevergonnaretire: "doesn't the loan (interest free) have to be repaid first before Vast begins to receive any monies".
I read it differently. The loan comes before dividends - but that's entirely standard. Vast's interest will only take the form of dividends if they elect to convert to equity share in Gulf, about which there's no hurry.
In the meantime, the operators (including Vast) will only be subtracting loan repayments on the basis of net operating surplus, otherwise the project would go bust. (Compare Mercuria settlement via BPPM: creditors do need to let the operation function...)
IMO.
Urai5: "your estimate of $1m annual net value".
Read again if you want to put words and figures into my mouth. I wrote (now third time): "somewhere in the ballpark of towards $1m".
Your calculation of my calculation of costs ($300k) is not a figure I gave or suggested.
Have a good day.
Urai5: read more carefully.
I ran the ballpark monthly calculation as $107,738. You will be pleased to know that there are 12 months in a year. 12 X that figure = $1,292,856.
But I scaled that down when I said: "I'd estimate the immediate annual net figure to be somewhere in the ballpark of towards $1m".
Some numbers for once.
"Vast will be entitled to a 10% share of the earnings before interest and tax that Gulf receives from its 49% interest in Aprelevka;"
i.e. Vast receives a 4.9% share.
In the immediate term:
"Aprelevka holds four active operational mining licences located along the Tien Shan Belt that extends through Central Asia, currently producing approximately 11,600oz of gold and 116,000 oz of silver per annum."
(Also: "It is the intention of the Company to assist in increasing Aprelevka's production from these four mines closer to the historical peak production rates of approximately 27,000oz of gold and 250,000oz of silver per year from the operational mines." Though that will take time.)
In other words, in the *immediate* situation, 4.9% share of revenues on *current production* of 11,600oz of gold and 116,000 oz of silver per annum.
That's an average *monthly* production of approx. 966oz of gold and 9,666oz of silver.
LME ceased gold and silver contracts in 2022 so one turns elsewhere for a ballpark valuation. Current market valuations that I am seeing around are ~$2,046 per ounce (gold) and ~$23 per ounce (silver). I'm open to correction, of course.
(966 X $2,046) + (9666 X 23) =
$1,976,436 + $222,318 = $2,198,754
of which Vast's 4.9% = $107,738 (gross), subject to any adjustments for terms of contract (shipping, impurities, tax, etc.).
I'd estimate the immediate annual net figure to be somewhere in the ballpark of towards $1m, with upside as indicated from project optimization. (I'd anticipate a year or two, easily, for the upside but it's then potentially in excess of doubling.)
Not a bad little earner. It's not exactly a game-changer for the Profit & Loss report, but it's helpful even as it stands.
***
Not immediate but foreseeable:
"Aprelevka has three existing tailings dams that can be reprocessed containing high gold values of which two tailings dams can be exploited in the near term."
Obviously Alpha would themselves need to agree to that solution as it could not otherwise be mortgageable.
Obviously, I am wondering first of all if the shareholder who provided the Bucharest real estate collateral - very possibly a boutique hotel as Firwood's research plausibly found - would mortgage it. The asset is worth over €9m so easily enough to cover the $4.8m due to Alpha.
Aimgambler123: "They've had ample opportunity to call it a day, the fact they keep extending suggests they are expecting the loan to be paid off from the recovery of the diamonds."
They are calling it a day. They have indicated that they are reserving the option to litigate as of 1 March.
The issue now, in the absence of diamonds, is what other strategy the directors will employ. Litigation, if it materializes from March, will take a good while IMO - as I've said before. So they can potentially put something else in place.
The line breaks in my previous post are formatting glitches, where I copied in the company's text from the PDF of their AGM notice, downloadable these last several weeks from the website.
Nevergonnaretire: indeed, the last AGM gave headroom for another 1.1 billion shares. One or two posters have missed that. It won't solve the debt situation at this SP but, for the record, they do not need an EGM to raise.
The website contains the Notice of AGM from November 2023. Item 8, which passed, states:
"That the Directors be and they are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised pursuant to
the Act, to exercise all the powers of the Company to allot shares in the Company or grant rights
to subscribe for or convert any security into shares in the Company (“Rights”) up to an aggregate
nominal amount of £1,100,000".
The nominal SP is 0.1p, so £1.1m aggregate nominal amount is 1.1 billion shares.
The authority stands (unless varied) until AGM 2024.
ASI: "As an aside i have been reading up on the insolvency and bankruptcy legal framework in Romania in relation to defaulting on debts and Alpha starting insolvency proceedings and to be honest its well and truly drawn out and could take longer than just awaiting payment."
It's Vast Resources Plc, i.e. UK jurisdiction, that was indicated as the debtor to Alpha. Alpha have security by means of an asset in Bucharest but they did not lend finance to a Romanian entity, so far as we know. So Romanian insolvency law would not apply. It would be a matter of contract enforcement in Romania against a third-party asset only to collect security.
In turn, if in theory the Bucharest asset were lost - which, as you know, I've repeatedly said would take about two years in court IMO - then the party that stumped up that collateral could duly seek to enforce against BPPM. But that again would be an asset seizure, not insolvency.
ASI: "Wasn't aware VAST BP being back in court again, it's not that long ago they were in court last time. Is there a date set?"
They are perpetually in court. It's how they run the business. Essentially, the subsidiary doesn't settle third-party bills until ordered. It's been going on for years and hasn't stopped yet.
ASI: "A placing won't happen unless we have a EGM to vote on increasing the allotted shares in the Company or grant rights to subscribe for or convert any security into shares in the Company, as currently the shares allotted for a placement only equals 10,607,408 and at the current price won't produce much in the way of funding and if discounted even less."
I'm baffled by your comment. The recent AGM gave authorization for raising a further 1.1 billion shares. No?
Xcoder: "Maybe someone could enlighten me but it says that buys and sells combined equate to just over £200k. With an mcap of 5 million - how do they justify 10% drop in price?"
Happy New Year. Hope you're keeping well.
Come on, Caroline. You surely know by now it doesn't work like that, right?
Zac: I referred to the context as well as the content, and also the poster's history. Stockportedd has repeatedly suggested at times over months that either Manaila or Blueberry is a solution to the current situation. Neither possibly can be. Pecten's post did not only say that he didn't think it would happen soon. It also posed useful and appropriate questions (to which Stockportedd will not have good answers) to highlight *why* it won't happen soon.
Realism isn't popular on the BB but the issues that Pecten raised are real issues.
Zac: not quite sure why you're having a go at Pecten so rudely. You say you looked for 20 minutes for any post in which Stockportedd suggested that Blueberry could be up and running soon. It took me seconds only:
Stockportedd posted on 21 Dec at 11:05 a new thread titled 'Blueberry' saying:
"If all else fails just get Blueberry up and running."
In context, that was clearly intended to imply that Blueberry could solve the current company situation. As such, Pecten was right to call it out as a ramp. He is also right to mention that Stockportedd has mentioned Blueberry before without any realism about the investment and work needed to monetize that asset.
Not sure why my upper case letters didn't come out as such. Also, "sparest" data for Tajikistan.
august was the best recent month at bppm for which we have data. 230 dry metric tons at about 21% purity would be worth a ballpark of $400k, plus gold/silver credits, minus tolling/refinery fees and shipping. operating costs at the mine (not counting exploratory work-up) seem to have been axed to a ballpark of $300k/$350k per month. they're now working in a payment plan to repay mercuria from the operating surplus margin. q4 figures are needed (january or february) to have a clearer up-to-date view. quantity of copper concentrate ought to rise further + they mentioned start of commercial production of lead/zinc concentrate. to be confirmed...
we've had only the sp****st data for a single tajikistan shipment. i calculated then that the 12.25% participation to vast was probably worth a ballpark of slightly under $20k. a piddly start but will presumably grow.
$1m revenue monthly is probably still very optimistic unless there's a surge happening. (previously not: it's been incremental.) but the issue is not really revenue; it's surplus. they need to generate surplus to gradually become more able to pay for the many other things besides the immediate operating costs at bppm. corporate overhead is pretty hefty and manaila is in care and maintenance, etc.
if they can reach solvency via surplus operating revenue in 2024, then you'll actually have a business and i'm sure the market cap would respond.
Equally, as the Bucharest-based collateral is not even held by Vast but has been proffered under contract, enforcement on that asset would have to proceed through the Romanian courts.
Muck: yes, BPPM is formally held by a Romanian subsidiary, Vast Baita Plai SA, so action to enforce would ultimately be served on that entity in its home jurisdiction. This would be true even if the Plc were litigated against in the first instance. A UK court could order the parent Plc (which is the debtor) to hand over a Romanian asset but that would still need to be translated into a Romanian legal process as the entities are of course formally distinct and the jurisdictions are different. Both processes could be appealed along the way. It would be a pretty long road to reach a final, enforceable judgment.
PS. Mercuria also has an option to buy up to 20% of the Plc. Worth noting for the future.