Member Info for Valuation-it-is

RW said in his Pro-active talk

".......we believe there is potential to not only grow the mineral resource base, but also to potentially expand production rates......"

I think that could raise the project NPV significantly.

Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwdwz5d8gxt

Good luck. I hope you are able to add the the knowledge brought to bear to get the show on the road.

Ian

If you go through the normal channels it would be

Tel 01752 278500, and arrange a call.

Ian Gordon " I discovered the Wolf Minerals error after the plant had been shut down by reading the 2007/2008 Australian laboratory reports and the Tungsten mineral is Ferberite and not Wolframite …. However Wolf built the plant for Wolframite recovery and not Ferberite !!!! The fatal error in that they designed the plant for the wrong mineral and the result was low recovery during the 3 years of operation ( 2025-2018)"

My understanding is that both Ferberite and Wolframite are present in differing percentages dependent on host (killas / Granite) and depth.

Since Wolf there have been at least two main iterations of the processing plan - the first to overcome the Wolf problems, and the second to address the massive inflation encountered in the price of steel, diesel and gas, etc and the loss of red diesel. Like you I am out of the picture as to the final version.

I suggest you ask to speak to David Cather (Chmn) to discuss your ideas - talk can do no harm! However, as the operating permit application result is imminent, I guess a change to the proposed process sheet is unlikely.

I Gordon welcome to the board.

Re your comment "....and the present management needs to be pushed and persuaded into making the necessary changes to a much simpler plant design using less energy and getting much better metallurgical results …. Keep it simple ..............."

The current management have already done what you suggest and redesigned the flow sheet taking out much of the energy intensive work. I think, but do not know for sure, that it has been this re-design which has necessitated a delay for re-submission of the operating permit application.

Onshell

My understanding re number of employees is that management were getting existing plant up and running i.e serviced ready to re-start, whilst planning some changes to the process plant and ordering plant, so that when the permits came through they would be ready to go without delay. However delays to permitting co-incided with a big jump in prices of energy/plant etc and a re-assessment of the process plant plans had to take place. Hence further delay, some wasted expenditure and I guess, change to the operating permit application. Hopefully that turmoil has settled down and Gawthorpe will make progress rapidly especially with the Environment Agency.

Itsa

What is wrong with the current management structure?

HMG please take note. Difficulties like this are popping up everywhere. Too much regulation, too slow responses from Government agencies,and inability to perform essential functions all combine to make projects uneconomic or run out of finance.

Https://audioboom.com/posts/8368469-john-meyer-on-chinese-stimulus-plus-arc-bushveld-cornish-metals-empire-metals-tertiary-min

I like the sound of

.................................substantially improved mineral processing ....................................

Croqman

If you reckon on 30-35m a day per drilling rig, that would give you an idea of the length of time involved. I would guess that up to three drilling rigs might be involved, so perhaps 100m per day - 90 days worth of drilling. The time to get results will be determined by how long results take to come through from lab analysis. There have been significant delays over the last 2 years, but I expect the labs have now geared up to respond on a more timely basis.

Was it in the plan?

The Wide formation was only discovered this year, so my view is that it was not in the PEA of 2017, i.e. not in the NPV for obvious reasons, so represents a potentially huge increase in the value of CUSN. Well worth spending a million or two to find out.

Itsa

What stupid ideas was money wasted on?

Croissant

As there is a serious risk that either an operating permit will not be obtained or that sufficient lorry movements will not be permitted, no finance provider would want to provide more money than is needed to get the company through to the point of decision. If funders provided more and the decision goes the wrong way, the extra cash as well as the minimum necessary would be wasted. It has taken a lot longer than expected to go through the permitting process, so confidence and funding has run low; all made worse by a huge burst of inflation and an explosion in financing costs.

Stanaccy " Previous business cases seemed sensible, so why do they keep failing? "

Getting the funding, required achieving a number of "conditions precedent" in the loan agreement.

Amongst these requirements were the gaining of a permit to operate the plant, and gaining of permission to run a number of lorries in and out of the site. The company is still waiting for news on whether an operating permit will be given. In the past, low frequency noise has affected the lives of people living a mile away. The process of showing that problem can be cured is taking a long time. Complexity and under-funding/under-staffing of the Environment Agency appear to be at the root of the delays. Meanwhile, the delay, at a time of massive inflation in plant costs and the drying up of finance, is putting the project at grave risk. HMG needs to step in to help.

Also"Why have they not gone with an organic solution - start the mine on a smaller scale and up size with profit and turnover."

They have done just that. Re-vamped the plan for smaller production, cutting back on energy usage and reducing the up front capex. But without a permit to operate the plant who would put up the money to build it?

Fingers crossed.

Croissant

Having looked quite closely at the UKIB's first equity investment - into Cornish Lithium,- I dread its future involvement in any of the companies in which I am invested. Indeed I tried to sell my shares in CL when I got the details. What has been billed as the UKIB investing at the same price per share as Crowdcube investors, existing and new, is true, it is not the whole truth. In reality the financing is a highly skewed deal in UKIB's favour. The full truth starts to emerge when shareholders look to see how many new shares CL have sought permission to issue to the new investors UKIB and EMG. Take a look. Up to 813m shares will be issued in return for the £53.6m raised from UKIB, EMG and TechMet. Price per share? Perhaps as low as 6.7p versus the Crowdcube price of 20p. Worse still options for further shares are being made available to the big three.

This situation has been made extremely difficult to discover. Try it and see how far you get.

It is not unexpected that initial investors do not achieve success. But if more funding is required, they should at least be allowed to participate in that funding on the same terms as new investors.

The UKIB is supposed to be participating in the drive to level up. In its first equity deal, up to £46m of existing shareholders' value - many of those shareholders being Cornish pensioners - is being transferred to the 3 new investors - a US based private equity fund "EMG", Techmet - a fund with big US connections and UKIB. It is a case of the resource curse revisited- the opposite of levelling up.

HMG needs to re-set UKIB's operating guidelines. At least the UKIB should not invest where the finance deal is different for existing shareholders. Equity should mean equitable for all shareholders.

Great work MO, Thanks, Vii

LB - another cracking find!

I would think this may mean an RNS beforehand. Given that the RNS has not already been issued (as RNSs should be issued promptly if anything price sensitive becomes known), it suggests that they are expecting some news in the intervening period. I haven't worked out the dates, but I guess feedback from the EA and council are due in the next few weeks. There is also the possibility of news of funding from the US Department of Defense or others..................

LB

Good spot! If I remember correctly Techmet secured marketing rights over CL production when it invested its first £9m. This time, it seems to me that Techmet has secured rights to supply the chemicals needed to produce the Lithium Carbonate. One wonders if the supply will have to be at an arms length price, or if this is a way of giving a superior return to a large investor.

Apart from the Mining conference in Falmouth this week, CUSN appears later this month to be about to do a roadshow/number of presentations with Hannam & Partners.

The company has just produced a new fact sheet which has appeared on their website:-

https://cornishmetals.com/investors/fact-sheet/

The graph on the RHS of page two is particularly interesting. It shows the potential to increase just the South Crofty resource 5 fold to 20m tonnes or around 325,000 tonnes of contained tin. At the current $25,000 per tonne that is a lot of potential value! Compare the NPV of that after expenses, with the market cap of £68m !

MO

Good morning.

I posted on CUSN about my visit to British Lithium/ Imerys yesterday. There might be the odd useful point there for you.