Member Info for TotalTrader

Thanks Oddbod,
For what it's worth these are CB's numbers from GLR on costings - this excludes dig and transport as well as variable overheads - I suggest that these came from BMR originally. These are for Zinc Conc by the way. I would suggest that Copper costs will be higher due to Copper Cathode but and also due to the lower copper grades, we will as well of course only be doing 3rd party Ore as well with copper.
· Milling - 11 $/t ore
· Leaching - 125 $/t ore
· Precipitation - 640 $/t zinc produced
· Process recovery - 91 %
· Zn precipitate - 60%
If you put that into a spreadsheet on 8500T per year I make it a cost per T of Zn Conc of $1,611. A reasonable margin but maybe less than we expect since we know that the Zn needs to enriched with 3rd party Ore.
I do agree with Edzi that there are far too many unknowns to do anything meaningful but we have to start somewhere so a few conservative numbers into the P&L forecast is better than nothing.

Thanks Jammer - great knowledge and insight by the way.
I won't be attending the AGM, 6th Dec is a surprise night away at a Spa from my GF - not so much a surprise now since I said I was booking train tickets to London on the 6th and she had to tell me !! So somebody else will have to ask the questions, pity I was quite looking forward to going!
That said I found this from the RNS on March 28th when JLP announced the full Kabwe deal:
"Jubilee has already secured Zambian ministerial approval for the transaction. The Minister also waived previous conditions placed on the Kabwe mining licences. "
Whether that means waived the license completely or just waived some specific conditions, potentially the renewal dates I do not know. LC is a clever chap and CB is a wily chap so I would be surprised if they left something so important on the table......

Hi Jammer - can you expand on the point? I am not to familiar with the BMR/Kabwe history and apart from remembering somewhere that the Zambian ministers waived some mining rights I do not understand the situation.
I had presumed that with it being tailings and effectively a clean up then it was not a mining operation and as such did not require any licence. I am familiar with GLR Star Zinc and their application for a small scale mining licence but nothing yet as far as Ka****u is concerned - Ka****u realistically looking like it is 4-6 years in the future for GLR.
Thanks.

Hi JLP - I didn't see it as earnings i.e. from operations. It was a release from the balance sheet - of course that ultimately finds its way to EPS but it was not released as revenue. Pretty standard practice when a company wants to make the EPS / P&L appear better than it is they hunt through the balance sheet to release a provision or change asset values. Every FTSE 250 company without fail will play around with these numbers every year, if the P&L is better than expected they will increase the provisions on the balance Sheet and if they wish to inflate the P&L they will release a provision.
What is interesting is the true EPS if you strip out the one offs from this year and it is much lower than the reported EPS - that is OK, it just means that next year if other one offs are not used then it becomes more difficult to surpass the previous years EPS - only time will tell. But you are correct to ask because it is an interesting and unexpected one to release, if I go I will ask for both of us.

I won't take it personally BB, I have thick skin !!

6th Dec in London. have a look on JLP' website below the accounts. Only worth going if LC or CB are there.

Did anyone attend the AGM last year and if so were Colin and/or Leon present?

I did briefly BB2, I also looked at the section on share options - explains why LC & CB are not running to put their hands in their own pockets to purchase any other shares - I wouldn't.
Look forward to your comments & hopefully i will make the AGM as well.

Hi BB2, I have taken some time today to update my JLP numbers and read carefully your numbers. Firstly, you are quite correct in the number of "grey" areas between the summarised numbers and the actual end of year numbers both in terms of £'s and Oz's. Equally if you add up the earnings from the Oz's/T invoiced the revenues match but JLP seems to have found a few extra million in earnings above and beyond the £5m extra found in the impairments - good business if you can get it !!
I have done my summary in the same order as yours for simplicity.
PGM - Inyoni - our numbers are very similar, I have taken a slightly more pessimistic view on the PGM Oz's which also gives me a bit of slack on the PGM price - my numbers are Rev:£16.5m, Earnings £8.6m.
PGM - Windsor - my earnings numbers are quite different to yours. I believe JLP will hit close to the 60,000 Oz per year and that all of that revenue will come into JLP's P&L. In terms of earnings I am less optimistic that you in that we only know that JLP get the Lion's share so I have assumed 51% - my numbers are Rev: £33m, Earnings 9.5m. the important one -Earnings is at the top end of your range.
Chrome - Windsor - we are very similar here - my numbers are Rev: £13.7m, Earnings 3.0m.
Chrome DCM - Again similar - my numbers are Rev: £3.8m, Earnings 400k. (Hardly worth bothering about if it wasn't for the PGM material that we get).
Chrome Hernic - I have used a slightly lower Cr Conc Tonnage but I certainly hope and perhaps expect that you may be accurate. However my costs are higher, I read the £2/tonne costs as feed material rather than Cr Conc produced - my numbers are Rev 4.6m, Earnings 3.09m.
And then we have Kabwe !! Well a slow ramp up really from 2020 but the Cu revenue could be quite high since all of that will go to the P&L, it then depends upon how JLP allocate costs and earnings across the base metals since many of the costs are shared. My numbers are Rev £9.8m and Earnings of £1.5m. It's a bit of a guess but at least a starting point.
All of that totals Rev: £81.5m and Earnings of £26.1m so we are really very close and also similar to AW2414 numbers.
JLP have stated they will pull forward the fine Chrome at Hernic so we may see that come on line in the first 6 months of next year although I don't think we will see too much hit the P&L.
I have not yet checked my actual P&L numbers until I have gone through this years with a little more detail to give my EPS numbers and then it's just a case of what multiplier the MM's want to use.
Hope that helps and please all any input is much valued as well as pointing out any mistakes.

Personally I don’t think LC or JLP intended to release the placing RNS so soon. If you read the format it appears that somebody involved in the placing leaked it early and thus there was no choice but to do an RNS.

Agreed WellOil it is very difficult to work out monthly movements - in fact nearly impossible. We can only take a summary once more information comes out and piece it into the Jigsaw.
For my take on when revenue is realised well it is always at the point of invoice which in miners is usually at the point of delivery rather than despatch and then is adjusted after spike testing of the Conc. So for example:
Production 1st July, Delivered 10th July, revenue recognised 31st July.
Production 20th July, Delivered 30th July, revenue recognised 31st July.
Production 28th July, Delivered 8th August, revenue recognised 31st August.
At the end of the day it should all balance out apart from the end of the year and when we expect to see revenue from a new operation i.e. PGM's @ Windsor.

I don't think so HTC, I think it is just the confusing terminology that miners often interchange, in this case earnings (gross profit) against operational earnings (gross profit less operational costs). We don't yet know the Windsor PGM % of earnings to JLP unless i have missed something - we might be able to work it out from the fine detail in today's RNS but I have not yet gone through it in detail. I believe the earnings to be circa £5.9m and its the operational earnings of £3.38m that are listed. Thus the operating costs were £2.52m which gives a current running rate of £10.08m against last years of £8.4m.
Very much to be expected with the extra costs coming on board at the various sites.

Indeed it does Share 4 - a very healthy set of accounts for JLP that will only improve throughout the year. It is now GLR's time !!

Indeed they did Bluebelly and well done to them for that.
In my defense the numbers were pretty much as I expected on an ongoing basis. The big jump was due to a one off £5m reversal of impairments. Without that JLP profit was £2.6m against my forecast of £2.3m. I shall sleep soundly at night knowing that my financial model is pretty accurate.
I shall now update it for the great news at Windsor.

I wish it was 6p per share that would be good - looks like a picked a few good days not to comment !!
The financials are pretty much known from the information already out there. There will naturally be variations for exchange rates and the impairments, finance costs and dep/am can vary as can what the final tax will be due to offsetting losses and tax rules in the various countries.
Earnings for H1 - £4,040m (I think they were written down slightly after).
Earnings for H2 - £5,640m.
Operational costs not known but I estimate £6,000m.
I estimate a PBIT of £2,330.
Now where the other costs come in is very much open to how JLP wish to play the numbers - I see an full EPS for the year of 0.090 to 0.13p.
A profit - not wonderful but we must remember that most of the really good news came after July 2019 from a financial perspective.

Hi Zeb, the offtake is a standard industry agreement whereby one company commits to purchasing an agreed amount of Ore at an agreed price over an agreed time frame and the other party agrees to sell it.
In other words JLP decide on the quantity.
There are penalty clauses for a lack of Ore, Ore at a lower grade and impurities, but also upsides for better grades at the agreed Ore supply rates and also credits (payments) for an valuable minerals that are also contained as long as the refiner can separate and sell them.
there is then a whole host of clauses that we will never see on market rates, sales revenues, refining costs, inflationary measures etc etc.

It's impossible to know which trades are buys and which are sells, the spread is too narrow and the prices on offer are not necessarily reflecting the "shown" bid and ask. In theory the trades should show on NEX and LSE at roughly the same time but their appears to be a disparity in timings - no idea why.
The point really is that all of the "Shown" sells cannot be sells otherwise the price would tank and both myself and Oiltap are buying but our trades are showing as sells.
I never take too much notice of it, I just don't like seeing a false see of red. We buy shares from the market makers through a broker and LSE etc merely publish what the market makers show to them. LSE do not know if it is a buy or sell just the Bid/Ask at the time and the price paid. If we buy at a very good price that is close to the Bid then it gets recorded as a sell. That is what is happening with myself and OilTap at the moment with the ability to buy at circa 0.50p.
We could then have the never ending argument of does that then mean the Market Makers have an oversupply of shares and want to sell them cheap or have positions that they need to fill at a certain time at a certain price - and we will never know what hand they hold !!

I have also added over the last few days Dave and will continue to do so - the opportunity seems too good at these prices. Worst case scenario is a JV that funds the company and puts more cash in the bank than probably the current mCAP - best case the whole lot is sold for multiples of £5m - certainly worth a few more.
The issue with the PSNI will be resolved at some point and will be seen as a blip on the horizon.

The two trades reported earlier today as sells are buys. Now that the placing shares are out of the way and the subsequent lack of drop to the placing price in the SP it is difficult to see anything but a very good upside potential ahead.

Thanks for that LK505 - only one question - why enter from that side? To get entry from there means the chaps have climbed a fence - no logic in it to be honest if the gates are open and no need to walk all the way around.
And the redundant machinery and cars - come on please behave - I agree the housekeeping is not the best but I am sure you remember this was an open cast site for many years - and miners do not scrap equipment that may have useful spares - even that 1990's nice red piece of kit in your opening sequence.
For a redundant mine we also see the pumps running in your opening few seconds - why would you pump water from a redundant site? So come on lets be honest and open up to whom you are..
By the way I walked into a tin mine last week quite easily all the way the to the mining area - you may also find you can do the same to the largest salt mine in England.
As I have said previously, an issue with mining i have no problems with, an issue with site security I have no problems with, but your absolute rubbish that may damage peoples lives I do have an issue with - so please come forward and put some debate on the subject to find the real issues.
By the way have you done a FOI request on the Dalradian debt or on the Galantas issues with PSNI - no I thought not. But if you have then put your findings on here and I will compare it to mine. Let us let the facts decide in place of misleading information - that is a challenge to you.