Member Info for Visitor

For those not impressed just look at bottom line which is all that matters. In space of 1Q even with some constraints on production they've gone from Net Debt of $89m to only $5m.

Even if you normalise for the $23m lifting paid in Jan, that is some insane cashflow in 1Q for a £164m market cap company

You also have to remember with Altyn there is potential in mid-term to double production w/ increase of Seki from 1MT processing to 2MT, not to mention if we proceed with an open pit mine at Teren Sai. But on latter we really do need an update on mining licence - I thought it was due to expire/ be renewed this month in March?

Not that it helps too much on gas side, but the current EPL thresholds are:

"The ESIM threshold prices for reference periods ending in the financial year to 31 March 2026 are:

· oil: $76.12 per barrel

· gas: £0.59 per therm"

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/oil-taxation-manual/ot21815

Those were the original EPL floors, they are revised each FY based on inflation: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/oil-taxation-manual/ot21815

Not that it helps much but the floors are now:

"The ESIM threshold prices for reference periods ending in the financial year to 31 March 2026 are:

· oil: $76.12 per barrel

· gas: £0.59 per therm"

It's been a while since I was invested in AAZ, I went all in across the Caspian in Altyn Gold instead. However taking an interest again, especially as it may have IHT incentives (AIM listed only, not dual listed) and so should attract 20% IHT rather than full 40%.

However from memory AAZ do not receive the copper spot price being copper concentrate and sold to refiner in Switzerland. You have to apply a discount to the copper when estimating revenues and is quite hefty, but can normally be extrapolated from the Accounts.

Ilja - that's a key clarification you've made but are you able to expand?

At present the Open Pit "Stay In Business" (SIB) Capex is around $80m p.a. Are you saying that figure of OP SIB Capex and UG Development Capex will remain around $78M in total, with exception of years 2028/2029/2031? I'm trying to understand how that is possible which effectively means reduction in OP SIB capex costs going forward, if the total Capex at THS SA will remain $80M p.a.

I'm more aligned with KS numbers quoted from capital access - how do you get to £46-50m net?! Which in itself is still impressive.

We know AISC is $1,350, if you took a gold price of $3,550 and 55k oz that would be EBITDA of $121M. You have some financing / interest costs, but not much ($4M), some non-cash items like D&A ($7-10M) and taxation of 20%, I get circa $85M Net Profit or £64M, so a PE of only 4 when gold is actually now >$3,800, mine life of 20yrs, many opportunities for expansion to 100k oz p.a. and what is now most likely a Net Cash position.

Edit - I give up!

Karo - payback of less than 4yrs based on $475M capex (of which $137m sunk capex). To add to PGM revenues you have 2,200tn copper (73% payability) and 2,500tn Nickel (70% payability) adding another $42m revenues p.a. Not to mention cobalt.

THS SA - PGM basket circa $2,150oz (before discounts) and Chrome $278tn

Edit - not sure why it cut off half my message:

The updated Karo CPR was only released in Apr 2025 with all updated costs - there really hasn't been huge inflation since then. From the various cost tables you can produce an AISC of circa $1,042 (undiscounted, excl. the dev capex, but incl sustaining capex and other costs) and whilst excl tax, tax should be minimal for first few years being in Zim SEZ, large D&A to utilise and other benefits. Tax is also shown in CPR for ease.

Now with the Karo basket of $1,900 you would have to apply the discounts as they don't achieve full spot price. "Payability" is circa 85% on the PGMs and Gold, with Iridium and Ruthenium "payability" estimated at 60%. Think at present the "payability" basket price should be circa $1,600oz, so gross profit $600 oz x 220k = $132M p.a. How the worm has turned - is it still the white elephant everyone was saying on here? Even with the increased capex, that's a

The updated Karo CPR was only released in Apr 2025 with all updated costs - there really hasn't been huge inflation since then. From the various cost tables you can produce an AISC of circa $1,042 (undiscounted, excl. the dev capex, but incl sustaining capex and other costs) and whilst excl tax, tax should be minimal for first few years being in Zim SEZ, large D&A to utilise and other benefits. Tax is also shown in CPR for ease.

Now with the Karo basket of $1,900 you would have to apply the discounts as they don't achieve full spot price. "Payability" is circa 85% on the PGMs and Gold, with Iridium and Ruthenium "payability" estimated at 60%. Think at present the "payability" basket price should be circa $1,600oz, so gross profit $600 oz x 220k = $132M p.a. How the worm has turned - is it still the white elephant everyone was saying on here? Even with the increased capex, that's a

Very close to already being in a Net Cash position, an amazing result considering era of high capex and commissioning only ended circa 6 months ago.

Including Trade Receivables and Payables, Net Debt is around only $8M Jun-25... they're probably already in Net Cash position now.

From 4-Sept but only just noticed this from IC. You may have to be a subscriber, but sometimes you can view 1 article before it pushes you to subscribe:

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/5922bcfe-ff56-489f-b9c0-a18c9b7b7ef3

Some snippets;

"Tharisa’s so-called basket price, which captures the value of the various PGMs it mines, has gone from $1,574 (£1,175) per ounce (oz) for the June quarter to $1,934 per oz as of last week."

"It is trading at an enterprise value of just two times 2026 Ebitda. This compares with Jubilee Metals Group (JLP) at 3.2 times, although this was before a share suspension due to it selling its South African chrome and PGM business, and the much bigger Valterra on more than seven times."

"The June quarter saw the highest rates of ore mining in four years (as per Peel Hunt), with relief from heavy rainfall that affected the mine earlier in the year. Throughput (how much ore is processed) and recoveries also stepped up.

The challenge now is to lift the grades.

“With improved flexibility in our open pits and increased mining volume, we are forecasting improving head grades,” chief executive Phoevos Pouroulis said in July. Peel Hunt analyst Peter Mallin-Jones said at the time there was “a distinct sense that the Tharisa mine is nearly back to firing on all cylinders”, after a troubled few years."

"The company is also developing the new Karo PGM project in Zimbabwe. Once built, the mine is forecast to produce 220,000 oz of PGMs a year, compared with 145,000 oz at Tharisa. Getting there will take some serious spending, however. Karo did have a forecast cost of $475mn in a previous mine plan, but Tharisa has spent a fair chunk of this already. The company is currently working on financing the operation, with a large export credit line the most probable route. This type of funding is often government-backed, and interest rates are therefore lower than a company like Tharisa could achieve from commercial lenders. Tharisa has also just added nickel and copper resources to the mine plan, with these previously classified as ‘waste rock’ that would be removed before it would hit the ore. That move is still subject to technical work, and will cost more as it means building another processing plant that can handle the nickel and copper ore. Mallin-Jones said in a July note that it would improve the economics, however. “By bringing the second process line forward, management can capitalise on the base metal ore, improving phase 1 Ebitda from $100mn without the second plant to $180mn including it,” he said. “The base metal ore, lying directly above the [main ore zone], is mined anyway, so the incremental costs are the investment in the second plant plus processing costs.”

"Despite the market having being flat for some time, PGMs remain in supply deficit. Total supply from mining and recycling was 1.5mn oz in Q1, against demand of 2.3mn oz. This latter figure was up from 1.8mn oz in

FOIM at Karo is due 15 months after financial close (as explicitly stated in last presentation on THS website, pg.14 https://www.tharisa.com/pdf/investors/presentation/2025/unlock-the-stock-final-2025.pdf).

In CPR of April 2025 it stated a potential financial close of Q3 2025, but let's assume this could be pushed back to Q4 - it all depends on whether they can get financing. Where PGM prices currently are, this now looks promising.

PGM prices are once again strong and far above the recent Independent Competent Persons' Report released in April 2025. The CPR had the following PGM prices for 2026 versus current:

Plat: $1,200 versus $1,400

Pall: $1,000 versus $1,150

Rhodium: $5,000 versus $7.100

Gold: $2,500 versus $3,470

Iridium: $4,611 versus $4,650

Ruthenium $384 versus $925

6E PGM Basket $1,200 versus $1,440 (applying "payability" % as per pg.245 of CPR)

It should be noted in the CPR the discounted NPV is based on an incredibly low PGM per oz value of only $733 oz + $139 oz for base metals by-products versus all-in cost of $828 oz. This is what produced the $83.3M project cashflow post-tax in the CPR (pg.214 of CPR and various other sections), payback in 7yrs. If you base the cashflow on the actual basket assumed of PGM $1,200oz + $230.9oz base metals in CPR (undiscounted) versus all-in cost of $1,238 oz (all-in cost stripping out pre-prod Capex is $1,037 oz), the cashflow is $335M (pg.212 of CPR). If you were to base it on the current $1,440oz basket, you're looking at an additional undiscounted $445M on top of the $335M, so suddenly at today's basket price undiscounted $780M (subject to some change in post-tax adjustments) and a payback period that is slashed.

Open pit 10yrs at 220k oz p.a., 150k oz p.a. net to THS. That's not to mention the significant Nickel, Cobalt and Copper base metal by-products. It could have incredibly long-life and with higher grades via underground, forecast underground mining after open pit, Karo could produce circa 450k oz p.a. excluded from payback workings in CPR.

At peak pessimism on this board from usual suspects, the share price was in the 50s. I have of course cherry picked key data from the CPR which provides a potential positive outcome, to counter the overly one-sided negative post - so taken together they should produce a more balanced overview of Karo. Don't read one on its own, including mine. Would also suggest for PIs to look at the most recent presentation and the CPR of April - don't need to read all 375pgs, just go to the parts that may be of interest to you.

Viable - thank you for info. Your post prompted me to check on how Nornickel production was going over in Russia and as of yesterday they've just lowered their PGM guidance in their 1H 2025 production report. Not by huge amount, but every little counts and feels like sanctions after 3yrs are finally impacting production in long-term. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but sounds like the equipment they're purchasing from "third countries" like China might not be as reliable:

"In 1H 2025, the output of all key metals decreased compared to the same period of last year. The decrease in production was driven by the high base effect of previous period, increase of work-in-progress material due to logistics adjustment and improvement in the quality of our products, as well as the decrease of ore output owing to the gradual transition to new mining equipment as a part of the import substitution program. We are planning capital repairs for the second half of the year to improve the reliability of the equipment and transition to new import-substituting samples. As a result, we slightly decrease our current production guidance for nickel and copper and practically reiterate our previously announced production guidance for PGMs."

Previous 2025 Guidance:

Palladium 2.7 - 2.8M oz revised to 2,677–2,729k oz

Platinum 0.6-0.7M oz revised to 645–662k oz

https://nornickel.com/news-and-media/press-releases-and-news/nornickel-announces-consolidated-production-results-for-1n-2025/

With Oil so low I had to remind myself of what the "ESIM" looked like, which terminates the EPL early if Oil AND Gas average below certain thresholds over a 6 month period. As per the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 amended in 2024 with Section 17A and 17B, as of 1 April 2024 the thresholds for early termination of the EPL:

1) Oil $74.21 per barrel or less over 6 month period; AND

2) Gas £0.57 per therm or less over 6 month period.

These thresholds were for 1 April 2024 and they get amended based on the prior December Consumer Price Index, which for Dec 2024 I think was 2.5% (lazily took that from Google AI, I don't know the exact sub-index Government may use for ESIM), so as of 1 April 2025 these thresholds should now be $76.07 for oil and £0.58 for Gas.

Even though the EPL is already absurd and counter-productive, in turn the ESIM is not fit for purpose in that it is not "either or", it is "AND" and so both Oil and Gas need to both be below their respective thresholds for 6 month period. I can see Oil being below the $76 threshold for 6 months and we have been since 1 April - depending on how the 6 month period is captured, since late Feb we've been below Oil's ESIM threshold. The wording in the Act is rather clunky so not sure if 6 month periods are fixed at 1 April and so on. However Gas remains well above its threshold at circa £0.75/therm.

Market Cap of £93M is absurd. If ALTN's commissioning of expanded plant & processing went accordingly to plan should be running at annualized 50k oz p.a. Even if you stick to a conservative $1,200 AISC, that's an EBITDA of $100M at these gold prices.

It's a bit of a circular reference, as a publicly traded company's share price and associated Market Cap will already in theory take into account all factors, including Net Cash/Debt position, so wouldn't agree it's more accurate as a valuation tool to then factor this in again. The "market" as a mechanism in short-term isn't always right, but without doubt the SQZ and ENQ share prices already take into account their respective Net Debt positions.

As others have stated here SQZ's market cap is £504M (67%) and ENQ £244M (33%). Yes this changes day-to-day and you need to average out the market caps over whatever period agreed, but anything less than 65-70% for SQZ shareholders of a merged entity (either via equity or equity and cash), on paper, will be a bad deal for SQZ.

Despite everyone's warnings on here about how bad the Tailwind deal was at the time, majority of SQZ shareholders including Hardys were the turkeys that voted for Christmas. Let's hope it doesn't happen again - Mercuria showed how astute they were at negotiating last time on behalf of TAIL, so let's hope they do it again now they're in the SQZ driving seat. If it's not a good deal, then something fishy may be going on behind the scenes that benefits Mercuria but not other SQZ shareholders.

D220 - it's my understanding the 100% business relief is available for the first £1 million of qualifying business property assets (e.g. unlisted ltd company as just one example), but this combined allowance for business property and agricultural relief will not apply to AIM shares. So no matter the size of an AIM portfolio, it will be subject to IHT (after you've utilised your other tax free IHT allowances) from April 2026. We're of course all waiting for the fine detail from the Labour Government and Treasury and they've intentionally made it as opaque as possible.

No offence meant of course - it's hard enough managing your own portfolio let alone those of loved ones. I'm in similar position with my 80yr+ Mum with dementia. For better or worse, I will stick with the stock as any potential upswing at this lowly sp level may dwarf any other volatile AIM share that may or may not have 20% IHT in 2yrs time compared to 40% IHT, not to mention the very few dividend paying AIM shares - SQZ may no doubt pay out at least 20% dividends over 2yrs.

This time round ENQ M&A could actually be good for all shareholders, particularly if Tailwind now running the SQZ show pull another blinder like they did against the prior SQZ "useful idiots" management. That's even if it goes through. I guess the up and down swings of AIM shares are far more volatile in % terms than a potential 20% IHT saving that would be realised after 2yrs.

But as you highlight, everyone has their own set of personal circumstances, financial considerations, timelines and not to mention analysis and opinion on individual stocks...

Why do you feel you have to sell out prior to completion (if indeed such a deal goes ahead)? No matter what, the clock starts ticking again and you have to invest in a new eligible AIM share for 2yrs. Come April 2026, it will also be subject to IHT of 20%, if you're lucky. By time Labour are through I doubt they will be exempt from IHT at all.

Ultimately I don't think it's wise to invest in specific AIM shares on basis of IHT exemption, due to volatility in AIM stocks.

No it's not and forward PE and FCF is what matters, rather than rearview mirror.

At 50,000 oz p.a. x 1,700 margin (assuming $2,900 gold minus $1,200 AISC) = $85M (£70M). Even if you assume some G&A and Financing Costs/ Interest outside of this, as well as taxation (albeit they have accumulated losses to offset taxes), we're looking at a Forward PE / FCF of < 2. I know non-cash items like D&A will reduce the "Profit" portion, but I'm more interested in the net FCF.