Member Info for Tornadotony

This should be on 13p instead of the 11 handle. At some point Shanta will get a rerating against other precious metal miners.

Once this is fully connected to the grid, spikes in oil should not have less impact on the AISC.

As I thought, the share price has not given Shanta Gold credit today on the pour which was welcomed this morning. A lot of miners not getting an expected pick up in price. Shanta has significantly de-risked on production and not all miners are in that position.

RareEarther,
I hope you are right as I have stood my ground today. It is not all about a Chairman of the company here that some make out is all of the issue. A lot of people have been involved. I find it nuts that the Government will send a few dozen tanks to Ukraine, but ignores the supply lines that build RAF jets and our ships in the navy including subs, and every missile and new tanks all have rare earths and NdPr magnets in them. I just wish to God someone in Whitehall had a brain and had some handle on logistics and supply chain dynamics that impact on all of our economy and did something to get this project over the line. this is outside of all the climate protection agenda as if somehow it will all happen by magic. The best things down in previous generations was to take the lead. The Nation is desperate for leadership at this time. Hopefully Lady Northover will get that point across to a few people.

Happy Dazes when the company had 180M shares and Saltend was not in the plans at all back in July 2020 and the company had no reserves and only 1/3 of the resources the share price was 21p. The company has around $12M cash.

When it had the resources and reserves it has now the shares were around 186M cash was $10M or so and the price was 70p. Adjusting for share dilution gives 50p. Adjusting for debt owed and cash existing previous takes PRE to 44p. So in essence you are correct this was a low price share to start with because of funding uncertainties.

The danger here is that a Chinese rare earth miner will buy the asset. A Chinese bank was more than happy to fund the project in principle 2 1/2 years ago to deliver a mine in which it could import all the rare earth oxides and use for themselves or control the global market.

SP you know exactly what I mean. If there was nobody on the other side it would have been 80% down from the start.

Someone is heavily buying into this.

FK I have taken a similar view.

A lot of people are in the company astro. You are not the only one. A key decision is being made in early April.

When we saw pictures of Singida it revealed lots of rain had fallen. It may have delayed tailings relining completion and they want to confirm that it was all complete with gold pour announcements. It was always going to be a close call to hit 31 March and any delay is probably very short. They may also want to line up staff near the said poured gold for photo shoots and the rest. If a Mining Minister wanted to be present it could result in a minor delay as well.

Buy back was probably around 20.2p and averaged off with previous is 21.3p area. Followed LOAM last time, but I have to cap Nanoco percentage in the portfolio. In the coming months, various investors will want safe havens to put cash. The Samsung payment in February 2024 makes Nanoco a small port in a storm.

Sundrum how can a 14 year old know somebody aged 60 odd for 30 plus years?

Bwana

AAZ are not ramping the share price at all. I welcome the change to provide an investment story. I certainly did not say they were the source of ramping. I have given folks here an opinion of how AAZ moves with gold prices and any pull back on AAZ is not a negative reflection of what the story would be in 2024 and beyond if it is gold doing the retreating. Tony

Expart

We are in for a chaotic spring, especially in May. Whatever happens to AAZ on the downside, will happen across the commodity sector and other precious metal miners. The issue with AAZ is that it already had a marvellous run and it has been carried by both the price of gold and copper. The current production profile is modest and the stock price valuation at $1650 gold price is just 70p, $1715 gold is 80p, $1780 is 90p, $1845 is 100p, $1910 is 110p and $1975 is 120p. The Q1 average is around $1894 on futures gold prices. So the correct buy in price is around 107-108p based on the entire Q1 average. AAZ is running to hot on the asking price. It is still following gold rather than copper and that will not change until 2024. Buying a share on a ramp racing ahead on the average Q2 price which many think will be lower is possibly not a good idea. For those who believe gold goes on a blast off in Q2 then by all means buy. AAZ is likely to correct to the average sold prices now in 2023 and it will behave like a British stock on earnings. Tony

It is the ramp up schedule being confirmed and Singida is fully operational on 1 July. We have a sky high gold price and have production this year likely to increase by 35% over last year. Mine construction Capex will not be absorbing all the earnings. Last year the share struggled around 8-9p with huge risks that are being removed. Next year it could be earning $60M after tax and this year all debt included in the enterprise value is getting wiped out, divis paid and more reserve and resources are being added then mined out. Removing debt equates to 2p per share increase. At the present time Shanta should be well above 12p on a $1900 plus gold price.

Kooba

You are going back to a 2021 presentation to the investor group where Tenner gave 2 outcome extremes.
By the way he did pump how wild it could get on the high side. However he gave the low side model which is exactly what transpired in being US only, historical and not future sales, component only and not the whole TV and was agreed not to be deliberate which reduces liability by around 1/3. The legal payout model on that scenario he gave was 50% on an initial trial conclusion. To get 80% an entirely different set of metrics were applied, but in both those models there was no mention of an appeal process. I have just listened to what he said back in October 2021. This goes back to what I have said before Brian Tenner gave a high pitch as he knew Samsung lawyers would hear it, but he gave Nanoco shareholders a lower case model as well. Brian Tenner is no idiot, but he now has to really deliver on getting something into production as repeating an output that you were hoping to achieve 12 months earlier that is now back end of 2023 does not impress at all. Brian Tenner needs to seal the deal this year and get something coming out of Runcorn earning the numbers. What was wrong today was that he low balled the outputs for this year perhaps to give himself an opportunity to deliver a positive surprise later on and also knowing he has not much control over another CEOs priorities. The pressure both are under is however the overall market opportunity and hopefully the partnership is genuine so that both will succeed in what they intend to sell.

Kooba as you have said in different scenarios the legal cost take is higher. As a result of agreeing a term sheet it was 40% not 50% if it went to trial. Secondly, a jury trial can be unpredictable in outcome and also what is recommended as a reward for damages. Brian Tenner did say what you wrote, but it was also followed on with other risk statements. They all have to be taken together and not cherry picked by themselves which a lot of people keep doing.

troublesome

Without seeing the fine detail of the contract we do not know. However, nobody makes themselves a hostage to fortune. They would have been clauses in those original contracts to give them a greater share of damages if it involved years of appeals. All costs to an original jury trial I am sure would have been covered on a win or lose basis. So both sides probably wanted a term sheet result.

For those who missed the presentation;

1. At 35-36 minutes; Brian Tenner revealed the contracted legal team was operating to an agreed budget. (There was a clear risk that extensive appeals would have resulted in greater percentage of the award covering legal costs and these could amount over a 4 year time frame.) In response to one of the questions Brian Tenner said the Edison figures did not formulate an outcome to Nanoco that would be delivered after years of appeals. Any agreement not involving jury appeals was also not covered by Edison reports as it involves two parties having to compromise.

My comment ------ It is probably likely that Samsung knew Nanoco had such a limitation to consider on legal budget as they have experience in settling other patent disputes with other companies.

2. Two products will complete validation by 31 October 2023. One of these will be in production in December 2023 possibly on low initial volumes.
3. The future market size is one of high growth for nanoco products in development so the company is well placed. Some licence income from non-Samsung TVs that are increasing their market share by 500% between now and 2030 (6% of the total to 34%).
My comment... this could be several million dollars in licence fees a year overall now that IP is validated.
4. The total UK tax over the next two years from the tranches is around £5M. This leaves £68M cash plus £6M cash to off set cash burn rate of around £3M.
5. The 118 patents strategically reduced had a book value of £400,000.
My comment: The book value of what is retained is far greater and would be far more value than £1.2M if it was equal pro rata to what was dropped.
6. Next year it will be decided if a share buy back or dividend will go to shareholders.

Overall the company has to consider timing issues of what is happening in the market and they were in a good position to achieve future sustainability and growth.

Overall I strongly suspect the share price is near a bottom. Brian Tenner came out and gave some straight answers and I can understand why some disagree on here. However, I think there is a promising future for Nanoco. The money from Samsung at a time of a recession will mean they will remain in the supply chain when many others could be shutting up shop.


Tony

Now at $1892 per ounce. 2 more days to improve average further.