Member Info for Valuation-it-is

Https://investors.cornishmetals.com/activity-updates

Https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1127306605300877&set=ecnf.100040646453601

No Clue- Most interesting to see a ChatGPT response.

Whilst it is right in some respects I think it is a bit muddled in others. It states "While the $31,000 per tonne estimate used in the original feasibility study might have been based on a conservative or uncertain resource estimate,.......................... "

The $31k per tonne used in the PEA is not based on a resource estimate - it is the best estimate of the world tin price for the project period, and nothing to do with South Crofty's resource estimate.

The project has a high fixed cost base. So the possibility of putting more material through the processing plant would reduce the fixed cost per tonne and make the project more profitable - so Chat GPT is helpful on that score.

The other point is that it is the Wide Formation and the Splay, rather than the Great Flat Lode, which is the big unknown and because the former is district scale i.e. huge in extent, it will be the assay results from that which could take the net present value of the project up from $201m. Quoting from the most recent RNS.............

"The mineralization style in the Wide Formation, comprising pervasive tourmaline and quartz (termed 'blue peach'), is similar in character to that associated with No. 8 Lode, one of the most prolific tin producing lodes in the latter years of operation of the South Crofty mine. The drill program tested an area measuring 2,500 meters along strike (northeast to southwest) and 800 meters downdip (north to south).

Drill results from the first six holes (refer to news release dated February 4, 2024) confirm the Wide Formation structure over a 1.6km strike length, a downdip extent of at least 525 meters and thicknesses ranging from 1.8 meters - 4.8 meters. The structure remains open. Notable tin intercepts from the Wide Formation include 1.21 meters grading 0.87% Sn in CB23_004."

If the resources are considerably increased, the processing plant could be enlarged. So not only would the LOM be longer but the throughput could be raised, both of which would have a very significant impact on the NPV.

I hear that the Chinese have added antimony to their list of metals for which an export licence is required. They are gradually cranking up their ability to cause havoc in supply chains if they wish.

This is a reminder of why the West needs companies like Pensana, and can only help Pensana raise funding from Governmental sources.

See:-

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-curbs-exports-strategic-minerals-2024-08-15/

What sort of cheese?

As it is a concern for Aiminvestor, I suggest it is a cheese with holes in it. And perhaps a hard cheese. Touch of the blues as well.

TornadoTony

Thanks for the post. Do you have a link or would you be happy to copy and paste the article?

Aiminvestor.

If there was a false rumour that CUSN was going to start mining on the Moon would you expect an RNS to deny it?

The company has done the equivalent of stating in an RNS that they are content with mining on the planet earth, but did not mention the moon. You would object because the moon wasn't mentioned in the RNS.

Unexpected / problematic water ingress has been denied by RNS........... You want a comment on a non existent 7b

IMHO you are just trying to distract all commentators on this platform from the real issues and outlook and are wasting everyone's time if we bother to read your posts. Please move on to your next "concern".

I have referred to the RNS of 11 July already to answer your query. But in case you overlooked my post here is an extract from it, which addresses the supposed issue with rumoured water ingress from other mines through a non existent 7b:-

"South Crofty is not hydrologically connected to neighbouring historic mines and natural groundwater inflows are exactly in-line with pre-dewatering predictions, which were modelled using historic dewatering rates, the known volume of underground voids and the groundwater rebound that was measured after the mine closed in 1998;"

Perhaps its time to think about another "concern"?

It looks as if finance costs are going to tumble. There is talk of an emergency Fed rate cut after a hiring slowdown.

With China and Germany also in the doldrums, global interest rates look as if they are going to come off their peak fast.

This is great news for CUSN, in the run up to the signing of financing agreements for mine development and process plant construction.

BBN

Thanks for the post. Re " A large-scale rollout of rented vanadium removes the pricing spike issue from the table."

I don't understand your point. How does the method of finance used by the customer impact the price IES pays for the vanadium? Surely if demand for mistral comes through rented units, rather than outright purchases, IES will still have to buy the same amount of vanadium ?

Probably one person with two different pseudonyms, possibly on a retainer from a hedgie. Came on the CUSN scene round about the same time as our other tedious poster, which if I remember correctly was just before the big dump of shares. i.e. signs of an organised activity.

The hedgie must be getting concerned as the company has just raised funding for many months ahead, and has other means to fund itself other than equity issues, to consider. When this penny drops we may see an end to the shorting, and better still a reversal. Remember an uncovered short i.e. one not made against borrowed stock, leaves the shorter vulnerable to an unlimited loss.

The amount of potential profit for a hedgie is pretty limited in the case of CUSN, so perhaps the bigger picture with reds under the beds - i.e. trying to stop one of the Western tin miners nearest production, coming into production,- through capital constraints,- may be the motivation. I don't think that will work. Major shareholders are supportive, the Government/ GB Wealth fund probably will be too as CUSN ticks a number of important boxes -1.Critical metal, 2.electrification aims and 3.employment in a needy area, to say nothing about it having a very attractive IRR / NPV for the major project and a number of other means of financing the project.

I think hedgie's pal will have to come up with a new line of attack - a different "concern" to drone on about.

For anybody who has any concerns about water ingress please read the RNS of 11 July 2024. (All of it) That followed the subject being raised at an open Q & A session which was recorded and made available publicly afterwards.

Whojamaflip Re : 11 Jul 2024 09:37

Reds in uncomfortable beds?

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/china-hedge-funds-brace-upheaval-tough-new-rules-2024-07-21/

NCJR 10.17 Ans:- Uncovered in more than one way

NCJR 9.30am

I would doubt a shorter will want / or be able to hold their short position that long. Which suggests tens of millions of shares may have to be bought by a forced buyer over the next few months. I don't know, but it looks likely to me..

I suggest voting against resolutions 5 and 6, as if passed they can act as an invitation to hedge funds to short the shares prior to a fund raise, hoping to drive the price down, and later to fill in with shares they try to get from a placing. Best to keep pre-emption rights in my view, (its is a legal right there for a reason) so then existing shareholders get first offer of any discounted shares.

We only need 25% of the votes cast to turn this down.

More stock please..................

Https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/alternative-financing-in-mining

Shareholders in SML have just voted down the proposals to disapply pre-emption rights. Their BoD now has to refer to shareholders rather than dilute their interests by going to new investors with a discounted share offer. Great news.

The special resolutions got voted down. i.e. the proposal to disapply pre-emption rights. The risk of dilution has gone down. The risk of being a target for a shorting hedge fund has massively reduced. The BoD will have to refer to shareholders first - as it should be. If only more shareholders in other companies did this.