The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Mb1. Please look at your original quote. You misunderstood the word 'expects' in that quote.
Only £115m to find...
That's going to make things interesting in the short term. Pity they couldn't wait till the next dividend announcement to give more certainty to the buyers.
Another thought: that dividend policy doesn't look like Board preparation for a lowball takeover. Wouldn't they cut the divi if they wanted to prepare that path?
Of course Barrick or ANO might be preparing a takeover bid ...
The latest presentation says" Board intend to distribute a FY21 minimum total dividend of US$105m ".
That looks like at least maintaining full year payout of 9c.
Hope 3bear is practising the cartwheels lol.
See it here:
https://bmo.qumucloud.com/view/2022-gmm-centamin
Interesting comments on capital structure building on previous presentations. Thus outline strategy and possible numbers on a credit facility.
For those interested in M&A, a teaser given on possible project/asset acquisition once Doropo is further advanced.
Centamin are trying to divest to themselves of Batie West. Asset divestment is one of the areas of expertise mentioned.
Darryl clarified the position of Tandy within the PFS when answering a question about it. Tandy is not technically far enough advanced to be included in the PFS. But it will be highlighted as giving options for development, and likely included within the detailed FS to follow.
All good points.
Yes, the board include people present when previous management made bad decisions. Guess I'm happy with current management (why I stayinvested) until I see a mis-step.
Many thanks to Cowichan for highlighting the seismic survey. I've enjoyed following the links and looking at the company and other case studies. I was a researcher into seismic rock properties for about 10 years and their applications to interpretation of borehole and surface seismic surveys.
My take on what I've read:
The survey undertaken ( under previous managent) was well designed as a test of the methods (by HiSeis). Representative rock types were collected and seismic properties measured. 2-d lines over known geology were collected and the seismic response 'inverted' (technical term) into rock properties. The test showed that imaging was good, and inference about rock types consistent with reality.
Management decided not to go to a (expensive?) 3-d survey, which is likely a reasonable decision. Given the need for direct drilling to prove reserves, it is likely a reasonable decision by the new management to prioritise the current drilling and put any 3-d imaging on a back-burner.
Or they might be trying to pull a fast one on investors ... I don't get that impression, but I might be an innocent about company politics.
Interesting question about justifying the cost of the waste clearance. Need to re-read what was said about it to justify it at the time.
But how about a back of the envelope sum? Say waste clearance leads to 80000 more oz of gold a year. Say $500-800 profit on each oz. Then $40-60m a year benefit of the waste strip contract, and payback over 4-6 years. I think my assumptions are 'worst case' on the benefits. We are told the waste strip sets up Sukari to produce for at least another 10 years at over 500000 oz a year.
Martin Horgan answered a direct question about the pit wall movement at one of his presentations. He said that the danger to the pit wall had been addressed and was no longer an issue. From memory this was within six months of the movement being detected.
The pit wall danger did cause higher grade ore in the open pit to become inaccessible for mining and so hit production forecast. As I understand it, it was the impact on production which highlighted the need for the massive waste clearance so as to reintroduce flexibility and predictable continuity of production zones for the future. Waste clearance was not to remediate the pit wall movement.
One of the features of Horgan's manager to date has been to have a thorough review of the mining practice and mining team. Being a former academic geologist/geophysicist I am particularly impressed by the bottom up geological evaluation of Sukari and surrounds presented late last year. Tough decisions have been made and a clear production plan laid out for the mid-term. The plan flags up potential for upside.
So my take on it is no they did not make a big deal of the pit wall movement. The market quite rightly did make a big deal of the expensive waste stripping, and management have been clear about the consequences of that decision.
Management have been clear about a sea change to reliability of production forecasts following the change to production drilling - another important change made by Horgan's management.
Personally I see the RNs and presentation on production planning we had recently as much more important than some specific detail about whether production has resumed below the site of the pit wall movement. Though perhaps an enquiry might get an answer?
As I have learnt more about events under previous management, I share concerns highlighted here esp. by Cowichan about legacy issues from that era.
Cowichan,
What is your view of the slide showing exploration capex for next couple of years. It is shows a capex on Batie West of several million dollars in 2022, more than doubling 2021 capex on BW. Then nothing in 2023 implying it is off the books by then. Any thoughts on what sort of capex could make BW a more profitable disposal? The capex commitment argues against planning to just walking away from Batie West.
Trading on OTC gave it a lift. First sign of things to come ...