Member Info for sheps8

Tobin "Any thoughts on worst case scenario vs best case"

Well I'd say you have pretty much surmised (not summarised) the worst case scenario yourself!!!!.
Given the reply's to your 00.27 post and the amount of opinions and links to the evidence and research including the Take or Pay and Sales agreements already in place for 8.5million tons I rather feel your "niche product." comment underlies a very large degree of misunderstanding about this project it's product and by far the most important point you chose to either ignore or simply not see the basis of this huge undertakings progress so far in all aspects of the financing from the first drill core sample to the Tunnel Boring Machine shortly to start its underground journey towards Woodsmith mine.

Forgive but it seems that the answers and all the evidence laid out for your consumption in answer to your questions you have chosen to largely ignore not least the price differential between MOP v Non Chloride fertilisers and the make up of the other nutrients within Polyhalite and method of delivery and application in the markets that Poly4 has and will continue to pursue it what could hardly be described as niche in any sense of the word.

However, non so blind as those who don't want to see, I say this only in reply to the very nature your 10:36 response and summary.

Sheps8.

I'm not going to argue your wrong... "in numbers" but I would like to point out a sirius flaw in your calculations which you actually address yourself in the beginning of your post before you then go on to compare Apples to Pears!!!

Chloride or the distinct lack of it in both SOP and Polyhalite and its premium product Poly4 which is the reason for the downturn in demand and price of MOP other than the cyclical low reached in 2016 for MOP which is now back on a steady upward trend, the scope for Chloride sensitive crop fertiliser is massive throughout different regions of the world with demand predicted to grow exponentially over the next 10/20 years (more food to feed a a growing population with less arable land) with the demand for Chlorine sensitive crops following suit.

So with this in mind and given all the research crop study's and trials that have supported the structure and build of this mine so far I'd say your calculations are based on a flawed structure not a mathematical one.

ATB Sheps8.

Oh for goodness sake GK take that fkn shovel off him before he burys himself with it.

Sheps8, on second thoughts!!!.

Guys you are perpetuating SL's agenda, I had written a response to his question to me last night, it wasn't difficult, indeed the very basics of understanding why Sirius have engaged with the IPA in the first place to help guarantee an element of ST2 makes his No1 item absolutely ridiculous on any level, the rest didn't take long to dismantle facts from his pure fiction, I do read my own balance sheets yearly as a Director of my Limited Company, as such I know he does not have a clue what he's talking about, it's pure invented fiction, however I soon realized I was simply perpepetuating his title agenda, no one, absolutely no one should not understand the implications of dilution on the scale he has suggested, he even said the more dilution the better the other day, if that don't set off great big alarm bells then you really fail to grasp the degree of absolute nonsense some will come out with on this board to suit their agenda, I'd rather be called a straw man than give him further oxygen.

We are taking about the most historically disruptive member of this board over a long period here, he will be delighting in the attention he so obviously craves!!!, end of from me.

Scotty, I don't see that any responsible company would increase its debt liability to pay shareholder a dividend, I do see that company's allocate a percentage of net profit to both debt repayment and shareholder dividends to create a balance as deemed appropriate by the financial diligence of the Directors on an annual basis, to increase debt purely to satisfy shareholder dividends because the company's underlying profits do not allow such would be an act of folly IMO, it has to be repaid at some point in the future and doing so is simply kicking a can down the road, however increasing debt to fund expansion whilst paying a responsible level of dividend is how most company's progress and expand, its all in the balance that needs careful diligence from a shareholders perspective as well as the company.

Sheps8.

Nice try SL, I'm most certainly not going to get reeled in on this anymore, even the most elementary basic understanding of Maths let alone Balance sheets can see that either you haven't a clue what your talking about or as intimated by so many on this board you are simply talking your book, perhaps both but I'm certainly not falling for your game any further, I have absolutely no doubt you understand the meaning and implications of dilution and are playing a game here, it's insulting that you think many on here are stupid enough to fall for it.

Sheps8

SL "You have an amusingly benighted way of distorting things. No matter, your audience love it lol."

Oh dear, do you have any idea of your hypocrisy in both the written meaning and your sentiment behind that statement SL, of course you don't LOL.

Sheps8.

Oh dear SL you seem to have taken exception to my changing of the headline title from Roulette to your self acclaimed title, seems you can't differentiat between my playfully patronising you and me actually patronising you, (see what I did there) LOL.

Well you did ask a simple question that does actually require a full assessment of the situation to give an honest answer, the background of which includes a remarkable knowledge of the history relating to Sirius itself and not a generalisation, I have to say that in all the years I've avidly followed this board and previously on III I have never come across anyone who has said that dilution as a way of financing this mine is preferable to debt, indeed the fall out from such a situation during St1 finance where far more dilution occurred than the vast majority of people contributing to these boards ever expected is still being felt today I believe, indeed I'd say the very reason that the SP is sat in the range it is today is a direct consequence of what happened in St1, you are the only person ever to suggest that the degree of dilution you are talking about would be good for the company, shareholders and the future of this company, it may very well be a necessity for some dilution given the circumstances but it most certainly is not beneficial and I repeat that I'm certain that the company and its financial directors will be seeking the least dilutive option available.

It's one thing to see this from the financier's point of view it's quite another to suggest that 'if' they decided their risk profile requires alternative means of raising finance that dilution would be good for the company, that's simply not true.

I'll give you one thing SL when I say you are the only one to suggest dilution will be a good thing, I mean anyone not even the most ardent derampers, rampers, agenda posters or just genuine posters here that follow the company, so you most certainly think outside the box, a bit like you have on previous occasions here, like Nuclear Depositary or ToP's having no value, ummm you will have to differentiate here between a micro aggressive remark and my growing tendency for me to think you gain far more satisfaction from the attention you receive here than any answers to the 'simple questions' you pose.

For my own sake I could quite happily chose to block you on this board, history tells me you offer very little valuable contribution and far too much playground childishness but feel that would be an injustice to any potential newcomers, your propositions do definitely deserve to be answered for the sake of others, I genuinely believe you are playing games here to the detriment of this board, the company, shareholders and potential shareholders.

BTW Your: "Re: your jibberish" and "I've got to say it Shepsy, you sound particularly naive."

Bye Gum lad your really stepping up to the mark as per Sunday's suggestion, no more that I expected though.

Sheps8.

There that's a much more appropriate title to the thread than using someone else's moniker, indeed depending on how you view SL's purported opinion on the make up of ST2 finance I'd say it's a very appropriate title indeed of his own making!!!.

Oh and in answer to your simple question SL: In relation to where this company now stands and where it is going to be on the eve of production taking in all the considerations of the company from Permission, Product, Mine Build and future "wall of cash" projections 100% debt without a shadow of doubt, I have little faith that my percentage will be forthcoming but as close to it as is feasibly possible and I'm dam certain that is what the company and its financial directors will be aiming for.

I'm genuinely struggling to see any logic in suggesting any other ratio is rational thinking.

Sheps8.

Sheps8

SL, your "Debt financiers won't like the specter of an ever-increasing gearing ratio on the way to production. Substantial dilution will reduce said gearing and give us a fiscally stronger, less leveraged, and less vulnerable company on the way."

I will state that your statement is driven purely from an aspect of someone who has sold the majority of his holding here and makes no logical sense whatsoever either from the Company's perspective or and current shareholders, however what is also apparent that you, I, or anyone else outside the direct finance ST2 negotiations could in any way whatsoever qualify your statement, you simply have no idea what the financiers criteria for assessment of the overall lending is or will be so it's a deramp statement of the highest order.

Indeed if I tried I doubt I would be able to produce such a unqualified and ridiculous statement to suit the direction I wished the share price to go, it's simply off the scale of any reasonable logic from the company's future value perspective.

No personal insult in any of the above SL I say that as fact IMO.

Sheps8.

Paaa, you certainly seemed to have got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning, whilst not wishing to guide you at all if I where I might allude to an old saying given the nature of your last post: "If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all" perhaps!!!.

Sheps8

Paaa, LOL.

I passed Woodsmith and Lockwood Beck at 7:30 to 8:00am this morning, both sites in full swing, LB car park full inc Stabag logos on a few vehicles, was hoping to get to Wilton to get a picture of TBM TROOPER but my business dictated otherwise, I got the feeling of huge activity more so than any of my previous visits.

Sheps8

jessell, "Surely any positive benefits will be balanced by the obvious detrimental effects of the project itself?"

Oh if only the projects environment costs was due to balancing positive to detrimental effects on a pro rata basis, this project overall costs are substantially more than they could have been by this environmental balancing, the amount of money the NYMNP will receive over the life of this mine is many multiples the cost of balancing the detrimental effects, this mine and it's transport system is like nothing else ever built before in the world environmentally and the money the National Park asked for and got as a condition of passing planning permission is massive, however my very real concern is that they put it to good use and don't squander it on 'administrative overburden' which is so prevalent amongst organisations administrating other people's cash these days rather than the sum they will receive.

Sheps8.

Cherokee101, "Do you believe we are delaying stage 2 because of the IPA situation?
Splitting from 2 to 3 tranches has sorted that out has it not?"

No I don't believe it's being delayed I believe it's been restructured because the IPA for whatever reason will only take a far lesser part in the ST2 finance than originally thought or intended and planned and the clue for me was our local MP Robert Goodwills timing of asking the PM about the support of the IPA at question time the other week when parliament has a huge situation on its hands dealing with Brexit, I feel there was significant pressure leading to this questioning because he was aware of a change in the IPA situation and someone had been bending his ear!!!.

Sheps8

Superleggera, I would dearly love for us to agree a mutual truce to the personal insults, as as already stated by many on this board it serves no purpose whatsoever, it's tiresome particularly when my recent posts are me genuinely offering my thoughts up for genuine debate/ response, you seem to have a infinate ability to disregard the actual purpose of this board by your schoolchild playground jibes, so in the best interest of the majority on this board I am offering a truce, would you step up to the mark and accept my suggestion?.

Regards, Sheps.

It seems to me RU that you give no weight to the IPA element of involvement to the restructuring of ST2 finance, although we will never know who ultimately holds the responsibility for the of overestimating their degree of their support I see it as a fact that this is the reason Sirius are now revisiting to make up of ST2!!!.

However you've never been shy of holding CF to the coals over anything that may or may not be within his control and I doubt you ever will, its as though you get some therapeutic satisfaction from repeating it over and over.!!! glad this board is a conduit for you letting off steam.

Sheps8.

Dog Star, it would appear that all the evidence about the right time to apply nitrogen for optimum plant uptake and avoid leaching runs absolutely contrary to your "For cereals, osr and many crops they are applied to get her in a compound. Phosphate and potash are well held by soils so timing of application is not critical. Pre planting is fine as is anytime with nitrogen and sulphur." any of the trials that I've studied not only from Sirius but from the only current source of Polyhalite ICL themselves, indeed I rather think you are trying to make a square peg fit a round hole here to suit your total anti stance about Sirius Minerals, no matter you have been banging your drum for many a year now, meanwhile a mine is being built with clear evidence of very substantial demand for Poly4 in Sirius's patented format which clearly show outstanding results across a broad variety of commercial agricultural plant nutritional requirements indeed its journey so far is built on it, your comment "marketing" in reply to Scottys facts about the make up of micro nutrients in Polyhalite simply shows you would say anything to undermine the facts, still I'm sure you putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA will not any way slow or stop their trajectory as much as you'd try and have us believe it's the other way around I'm happy to accept the mountains of evidence to support my investment based on the veracity of the product contrary to your attempts to undermine them.

Sheps8. ;-)

Chilting, this is where we will hopefully agree to disagree, from the multiple SXX crop trials to CPL's Polyhhalite product range I've yet to see anything that leads me to believe that Nitrogen application at the initial Crop fertilization stage would be of any commercial benefit to growers of any plants that I've seen so far, hence my asking if you had any specific information relating to such and my belief there would never be a tie up with CF Fertilizer for that specific reason as you stated, I'm not claiming to be an expert as my agricultural background stems from the 1970s and things have moved on a whole lot since then but so has soil science at a remarkable pace in recent years, I believe that there's a very current shift if nutrient application techniques and very recent shifts are just being understood and practiced.

Have a good weekend.

Sheps8

Dogstar, as a side note to your 2012 remark and your history of posting here set against the period from drilling core samples all over the NYMNP to today where the first TBM is being maneuvered into position to start boring the tunnel towards Woodsmith and all that's encompassed to get to this point I'm content to accept which side of the fence I'm camped on between their and your take on the project :-))

Sheps8.

Dog Star, Chiltling despite the inbetween background noise from SL could either of you point me to any information relating to ICL providing a compound mix of their Polyhalite products blended with Nitrogen because my study of their Polyhaile range indicates that they do not, indeed from their own website this is their words: "allows P and K to be separated from N application, thus N can be applied after germination at the right time for the crop, in the right form, and in the right weather conditions, avoiding N overdosing or leaching.

The link: http://www.polysulphate.com/icl-pkplus/

Sheps8, if only we could get rid of that background hissing noise it's such a distraction from the actual purpose of this board :-/