Member Info for Skeletor

I’ve never seen a placing before where shareholders (like you lot) are left guessing the next day what the money is for. Surely the use of the funds is one of 3 essential pieces of info in a raise along with the price and qty??!

Seems crazy that you now don’t know what the money was for.

What is even more alarming is that there wasn’t a precise target. They needed a minimum of $10m but then placed $16m!! So presumably they only needed $10m why have you unnecessarily been diluted by a further $6m? It’s not a charity collection where you have a totaliser and get more excited the more you raise!

The dilution is nothing really in fact the company is now valued at £40m less than yesterday despite having £11m in the bank so in the sense of dilution no one should be too bothered by this. The issue is one of underlying concern on the competence of the management from a corporate sense (I’m sure they are very good at finding gold) and a sense of mistrust.

How was it correct at the time??? It was only yesterday and those brands say they have never had an agreement and have no reason to lie about this. Surely this gets investigated? For the sake of all AIM investors the directors here need tough punishment to show other directors they won’t get away with it.

Clarification Statement: We lied. Ends

Can someone help me understand...

Why would talks of phasing out coal in the future have any effect on coal price today? I understand why it would effect the SP of a coal miner as you would now see a limited timescale for return etc but the actual physical price of coal should not go up and down based on predictions/long term forecasts.

X amount of coal is needed to be burnt tomorrow and Y amount of coal has been mined and is ready to be supplied. That should be the only driver of coal prices. In fact, if anything, the news that coals is to be phased out should strengthen short term prices ("You may not need us in the future so whilst you DO need us now we are going to squeeze every penny"), New coal mines and operations will be less appealing to venture capitalists so supply should stagnate and maybe fall.

My point is that announcing in the future there will be less demand does not alter demand today and if anything supply my reduce faster than demand in the medium term.

In summary - I don't take issue with a coal miner being valued less off the COP announcement that makes sense - there is a finite time period to return on investment but I struggle with the commodity price being effected - This is not logical supply and demand which a commodity whose value is being burnt every day should be.

Appreciate counter views.

Thanks

Thanks Glengarth. Using this it is at least possible to value the graphite production side of the business - much harder to value the other potential revenue streams - I guess somewhere between £0 and £a lot.

Cheers

Hi - Any good sources to track graphite price per tonne? It seems to vary hugely on size of flake. We get a lot of forwrad looking statements from the board re production levels - I think 30,000 tons by early next year and aiming for 84000 by 2024. It feels it should be quite easy to translate that into a potential revenue figure (excluding other revenue sources such as Graphene etc). Any thoughts on what price we would be looking to get per ton?

TIA

Wow. This is a synairgen 1st…. Not only on time but on day 11 of a 30 day window when I reasonably expected this to drift to December. Exciting times.

I personally see it as a positive. It is not as though Novacyt were previously a pub chain who "happened" to get a PCR contract so I can't see our contract being identified as one of the "dodgy" ones but it is a reassuring reason for not being paid yet and gives hope that post court case we will be... Also our DHSC dispute could be entirely unconnected - and this is prime example of what no official news can do to a chat board!

ATB

GLP = Good Law Project. I might be mistaken but thought it was them who had taken the government to court over shady covid contracts? Either way it is that court case that I was referring to. We know (because ABDX have told us unlike NCYT) that this is why ABDX have not been paid on a contract....

Interesting though that he has "Primer Design" under his name as opposed to Novacyt? I have not researched this or read the article I literally stumbled over it on Twitter, recognised our ex CEO and as I have had my own theory (not by any means confident) that we are tied up in the case against the government contract giving I quickly jumped on here and posted link to se what others thought.

https://twitter.com/jolyonrubs/status/1458486031498555396?s=21

Obviously no context to this tweet or backing but anyone on here know why graham is appearing as someone who private eye thinks has benefited here….

https://twitter.com/privateeyenews/status/1458389567212490756?s=21

In my opinion this adds weight to the theory that we are caught up in the GLP trial. Hopefully payment thereafter.

Who else thinks that 55p target in 2024 for directors to get granted 100% of options is a bit low? It is significantly lower than my target SP for next May so am I being too ambitious or are they giving themselves an easy ride??

True dat. It definitely makes no difference to ODX’s LFT demand…. It was 0 before and it is still 0 so definitely don’t need to worry about Pfizer.

Come on.... Hands up if you sold in the 160s earlier today!

Interesting that they believe the SP is not at its true value. I would challenge why we are not seeing more director deals if this is the case?

Can I ask pro ODX investors why you think that at this point the government are going to turn around and enact the contract when up to now they have chosen not to? Surely they would have done by now? They seem happy with what they have got (Surescreen) and I don’t understand the confidence that some have that there is any need for this to change?

The good news is that not being able to sell any tests is not a material change to current sales. Phew.

Potentially a stupid question incoming but....

When we report net Rev, EBITDA etc are we reporting the £/$ we have made when selling BTC or are we allowed to record the BTC mined and now held as revenue? If the former (which would seem correct accounting) then I am not sure how we have such high revenue when my understanding is we hold most of our BTC? If the latter (surely not) then we run the risk of double counting when reviewing revenue ant BYC held on account.

TIA

Thanks Dradrianc1.

Using H1 and $57 coat per tonne of coal produced I looked at net profit vs rev and knowing that $57 X 7.5MT (assumed) was some of the cost I deduced the balance to be fixed cost which came to approx $250m or $33 per tonne so in working out avg coal price and free cashflow I have been using $88 as total cost. Basically we are cash generative over $88 - I suspect that may be a pessimistic view as there are probably fixed costs we would reduce in a lower price market. At $140 we are hugely undervalued and I have based my target SP at a steady/avg price of $115.

Just realised that it is now showing $140 so actually aligned but this morning it was at $235 which did not match.

Can I be ignorant and ask what source you all use for coal price? I have been using the below but a huge disconnect between what’s quoted on the link and the prices mentioned here. I am sure that the prices mentioned here are correct so why is there varying sources and which one is a good one to bookmark?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price