Member Info for stokey12

Rebess - While I agree that it is not unreasonable to assume that the fall is due to ST2 terms and conditions. In this case it is to be noted that the FTSE 250 is down around 2% as well. I would therefore argue as I have done before that the movement in the share price may be down to more than one factor. Which is the predominant factor is hard to tell.

AlanG - Assuming that there is a leak of information what makes you think that it has to be from Sirius? With all the other parties and their advisers involved keeping information from leaking would I strongly suspect be hard if not impossible. However, to assume a leak has to of come from any particular party in the absece of hard evidence would be counterproductive.

Kingrav - In relation to your 22.01 post yesterday while I would not discount the possibility of a placing I do not believe such a move is imminent. My reasoning is that the BoD would probably have known about the need for extra funding in July so it would have been arguably better to have done the placing then and rolled in the announcement with the ST2 funding announcement. Also why has a placing not been done by now if a placing was going to be done you could have then tied up the st2 funding on the original timetable. My reading is that the extra funding will come from a mix of subordinated debt, strategic partner and possibly new equity. I do not think that the majority of the extra funding will come from equity.

AndyG - You say that you will come in when the dillution comes. However, if I am right in my suspision that there might not be any dillution what will you do.

Chrisatbirdies - You ask if you are the only person who is concerned at a cheap takeover bid. That depends on what you call cheap. My back of a borrowed fag packet calculations is that even at these low prices a takeover including the cost of completing the mine will cost $5bn. I would not call that cheap especially as you would not be able to obtain any revenue for three years.

I note that the FTSE250 was down as well today. It looks like the sp will be following the main index in which case we might be having ome more red days.

PAAA -Thanks but what both me and you do not have as it is still some way off is the detail of how any freeport would operate. Would it be just free of import and export duties or as you imply other duties and regulations. Thursday's debate would be interesting if for nothing else but to see how the government responds to it.

Myosotis - Did you notice the liberal use of the permissive may as opposed to the mandatory must in the Act. The Secretary of State does not seem to have to do much does he.

I suppose you noticed the reason for the bill.

in Parliament this week is the Westminster Hall debate on Thursday on Freeports. Depending on what time it is I might watch it online. As I said in my post yesterday the Freeport idea brings with it a number of opportunities that might have a positive impact on Sirius Minerals' finances. Also it has the possibility of making ADM's proposal to build a starch factory near the MHF more feasible by the elimination of duties.

I hope the BoD will be lobbying hard for the whole area from RBT to Brans Sands to be a Freeport.

causal - I assume that was a typo and he meant stokey

Those of you who saw and read my 16.31post yesterday will note it made reference to the second reading of the Agriculture Bill on Wednesday. ( PLEASE NOTE what follows is based on the assumption that part 1 of the Agriculture Bill remains largely as is.)

Part 1 on my reading, and you can download a copy of the bill and judge for yourself from this page https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/agriculture.html, and subject to the final form of the regulations under clause 1 gives the possibility of two possible basis for Sirius to obtain financial assistance under these provisions. Firstly, a case can be made for financial assistance to help with the required CAPEX to ramp up to 13mtpa. The reason for the expediting of the ramp up is to allow the domestic market to be serviced earlier than would be the case. Almost all of the current 10mtpa is covered by existing agreements. Secondly, assistance could be sought to allow Sirius to offer Poly4 to farmers at a subsidised price. The argument for doing this is that the increased yields from the crops grown with Poly4 would mean less food would have to be imported thereby reducing the balance of payments deficit. In addition there would be the environmental advantage coming from reductions of leaching.

The regulations, subject to the Bill passing, would not come into force until January 2021 at the earliest. This is due to technical issues.

Thoughts anybody?

This week there are two debates which may be of interest as they could have a potential impact on Sirius the first is on Wednesday with the second reading of the Agriculture Bill. Part Three might impose something of an administrative burden on Sirius as it contains provisions to provide information. My reading of s.13 is that Sirius will be covered by these provisions by virtue of being a fertiliser business. This is offset by Part One which I must confess not to have read but it may allow Sirius to claim financial assistance. If I get a chance this week I will read it.

The second debate is on Thursday and is on Freeports this proposal would assist as depending how it is worded and if the idea goes ahead then ADM would not have to pay import duty on the starch if RBT and the neighbouring Brans Sands can be designated a freeport. Also if the starch is used in Poly4 depending on the wording it might be exempt from export duty reducing costs. Worth keeping an eye on.

skier1 - While you mention some possibles you have not mentioned/evaluated how probable they are. Taking the last two for instance fracking hysteria and green fanatics. Of these the green fanatics are the more probable of the two. However, the company has mitigated this risk by its community engagement work and the care to minimise the damage to the environment by using the costly MTS. The probability of tunnel or cash surprises are less than if HMG were running this because of the nature of the construction contracts which have largely passed these risks on to the contractors. I doubt that even a Labour Government would risk over £100,000 in tax revenue and seats in the North East. So in short while the risks you mention are possible they are not probable. In fact your 10-15p share price estimation is improbable mainly because the risks you mention are over two years away.

Myosotis - Thank you for your 11.30 post. When you look at the construction schedule as I read it the prep work is not shown as being due this year. So it would seem that the MHF construction schedule may be running slightly ahead of schedule. With the RBT deal would we need as long to get the harbour facilities in place as the schedule allows?

If you look at the construction schedule TalygarnTom has provided the link in his 07.27 post then the work on the MHF appears to have started earlier than planned. The schedule does not show any work on the MHF starting before next year. In fact the only area that does not have any work going on is the harbour facilities.

I have just come across this tweet https://twitter.com/SM_POLY4/status/1048168627818700804 sounds promising. Hopefully we will have a FTA in place by the time Poly4 goes into production.

MrAngel - As I am from London perhaps you can enlighten me how do you propose to get the Poly4 to the Rail at Ruswarp without using large numbers of lorries.

SSFC - As has been said on this board on annumber of ocassions and by SXX on their twitter account the company would simply not get planning permission due to the large number if vechile journeys that would be required everyday.

This seems to be more or less inline with the drop in calue in the FTSE250 this afternoon allowing for the lower share price and the effect of a small change in the price.

Mr.dt - an interesting read. I note all the coulds and shoulds when talking about Boulby. Obviuosly they did not do much in the way of research.