Member Info for Visitor

Yes very positive wasn't expecting it so quick after 23 November. Does this confirm our suspicions that for this FY there will be 2 dividends? So ultimately the yield for FYE June 2019 could be anywhere from 3 - 5%, if there's another payment in 6 months time.

Darola - we may have to take into account the Trade Payables remains elevated whilst the historic mine Capex is being paid down. This will have to be normalised and therefore means Net Debt changes could be muted, as the balance sheet is improved elsewhere.

As others have said here recently and what other miners provide, for full transparency HUM will have to start including working capital movements and Capex in its quarterlies, as Net Debt changes do not capture the full picture. However on Capex HUM have been very transparent and of the 2 only main items outside of AISC (exploration of $8m and ball mill of $13m), they just need to start confirming spend on these 2 items by quarter so all the values stack up.

Hi Shareminator - depends where you look! I've done well in SLP and AAZ, not so much in HUM and SHG as yet. But long-term I have confidence in HUM, SHG it's more political so who knows there! I may revisit AAZ after ex-div date when yield hunters sell out and also after quarterlies are released, as I don't think this quarter will show as much cash build-up as last time.

I'll have to do bit of research on KEFI, have taken a look at that for long time.

I've had some good times with Majedie. They have been in another share I'm in, SLP for long time. I started buying at 8p and increased my holding on way up with avg. of 12p. It's now 22p and commencing payment of a dividend. Majedie was in before me and did the same increasing their stake at the lower levels, nearly doubling their position on way.

I have no doubt the same will happen here and I've been adding a lot at sub 25p, albeit I'm in no rush and turn-around may not happen until Q4 18 results are released in Jan 2019. As I also expect round this time the more "meaty" drilling results will come of JORC and mine plan update, formalising LoM and production increases.

In fact I just sold out of my large AAZ holding and rotated it into here. When AAZ has £75m market cap and HUM is only £87m it's an absurd situation. In short-term AAZ could continue to do nicely up until it's ex-div date of 12 Oct, but I can see it back-tracking after, probably more than the 3% dividend yield it's currently at. I'm not a trader and so haven't tried to time my exit/ entry points perfectly. But after AAZ has nearly doubled on me in few months, wont look a gift horse in the mouth. Long-term by 2023 AAZ's production will suddenly half and revert to the Government.

Well likewise I don't know what you 2 are getting at. It's simply a bizarre question to ask at such an early stage. Why and how do any small players make a success of any early stage project before the big boys or inspite of the majors? Why do majors wait until a project is de-risked and then pay over the odds for it? Why did the EPA and DoJ settle all historical lawsuits and indemnify BH if the project is as risky as you infer? Why are small miners flocking back to these brownfield mining sites in Idaho on the silver belt, snapping up projects? We can all ask open-ended questions. It resembles the rise in US shale plays when new technology unlocked huge potential in US with small players driving the way, next medium players and now finally big players getting in at the peak paying over the odds.

60% of BH is owned by management and equity funds. HUM had an inside track and had opportunity to get in early and commence DD. If it isn't as good as the major % zinc grades + silver byproduct imply, no biggy, we move on.

There always has to be a beginning to a project and with complex projects (be it complex technically or commercially) it normally starts with a minnow who naturally has more risk appetite. Majors naturally aren't keen on brownfield projects, overly bureaucratic and slow to see potential. Bunker Hill Company happens to be the Canadian company that took the risk on the asset. Most would not touch this at all before March/ April 2018, before the decades long historical law suits and liabilities have been settled and formalised in writing with both the EPA and DoJ, before you go on your Pruitt/ Trump tirade. Maybe now more attention will come its way, its extremely early days indeed and only 5 months since this major event.

Some projects are just better suited to juniors and the majors know it. Gold Fields knew it with Yanfolila, hence why they sold it to HUM for a song.

Even before a full DFS is released, on current info it looks a heck of a lot better than Dugbe, in location, risk profile, Capex, tax regime and IRR.

I have a "feeling" Bunker Hill Mining Corporation may itself be... Canadian. Why have they stayed away?! Oh wait...

In terms of consistency I do feel they need to update the reporting so the Revenues, AISC, cash costs and EBITDA all "marry up" so to speak. The refining fees needs to be accounted for somewhere. To solve this:

a) "Sales Price" per Oz reported should be basket price minus refining fee, so it matches Revenue number.
b) Alternatively increase cash costs to include for the refining fee. After all, it's a cost. However I think the former a) is cleaner.

Shareminator - since integration of Lesedi (Phoenix) it has changed marginally:

Pt 62.6%
Pd 24.7%
Rd 12.5%
Au 0.2%

Hi Darola - when you add the 2016 Capex costs which were just shy of $10m, you get to the official figure of $88.6m which was stated in the 2017 Accounts.

My issue comes with regard to the trade payables of $33m. This is an increase to an already very high payables end of 2017 of $28m. 2017 figure was fine as we had just come out of a period of high Capex and supplier invoicing + payment is always delayed after work completed. However some 6 months later I was expecting the payables to be less 1H 2018 Interims than at the end of 2017. In my mind I had roughly $20m figure, not an increase to $33m. This will eventually hit the balance sheet in terms of reducing cash pot and so they're about 4-5 months behind where I thought they were in terms of their overall Net Debt position. There are 2 possible reasons for such high payables:

1) Delays in supplier invoices + payments related to Capex. This is most likely and therefore behind us now, but this means final Capex is higher than the $88.6m and more likely $100m+.

2) Delays in HUM paying suppliers for working capital costs, making Net Debt position look better than it really is. However this would then be hard to reconcile with the AISC and EBITDA calcs, so whilst the payables are obviously a mixture, I believe it's more weighted to delayed Capex costs.

A normal trade payables balance would be 30-60 days of working capital costs (2 months Opex). Considering AISC for 6 months was $884 x 51,304 Oz, total cost in this period was $45m, so per month costs $7.6m. So payables should be around the $15m mark (2 months arrears). Eventually it will have to revert to a more normal balance, so to work through the circa $16m in delayed payments, this will of course impact Net Debt over the next 6 months, as it's drawn down from cash.

Edit: first 6 months I meant is fine and would agree 26p should be very good point to progress from here on out.

CD - I assume you're responding to me from the other thread? When I say poor performance, I'm of course talking about the share price, which none of us can deny. One of the main reasons I highlight is retrospective (higher Capex than expected) and therefore hopefully behind us. It was not until today we had a full picture of the balance sheet. Q3 production is now flagged, so this is partly now "baked in" too. It will take time to pay down the sizeable Trade payables to a normal level (30-45 days working capital delay), which will feed into the Net Debt position.

On newsflow, investors these days are less trusting (which is good) and an update on drilling wont cut it as we've seen, unless it truly is some bonanza grades. So it will not be until drilling formally confirms extension to LoM and increase production that will move the dial. These things take time and people need to be patient. I doubt this will occur until earliest Jan 2019. AAZ started their major drilling Q1 2018 and only released the bulk of results now.

I would agree performance for the 1st year is indeed "fine". Better days should now be ahead and I would say we're 6-9 months behind the AAZ type move. In 6 months, like AAZ, HUM should be in a position to confirm extension but also confirm increase in production (double whammy). 9 months time I would say HUM should be in a position to provide a dividend policy. For those gunning for a dividend or buyback now, they obviously do not understand the balance sheet.

So I completely agree better days are ahead of us and dependant on gold price, we should be double this sp this time next year, but lets not pretend the share price at present is some aberration. It is where it is because of present circumstances and future major positives are most definitely not priced in yet.

For me the poor performance is down to 2 things:

1) Q3 production forecast as TBTT highlights.

2) Capex & Overall cash/ debt position not as great as publicised when you look under the bonnet. The Trade Balance has worsened by $7m since Dec-2018. Trade Payables have increased. Really not sure how this is possible when Capex should have been behind us and we should have been paying down the historic trade payables. It comes down to 1234567mz point regarding $20m+ in Capex for 1H 2018. What was this for? And if it's not Capex in traditional sense, what the hell was $22m "Purchases of Property, Plant and Equipment" in 1H 2018? It starts to look like whilst the mine was indeed delivered on time, it was not under the original budget of circa $80-88m. Going by historic plant costs + pending trade payables it's well in excess of $100m.

Some of the items in the Accounts really deserve a footnote as standard, otherwise it simply raises needless questions. We will now likely be in limbo for 6 months until the Q4 update in Jan 2019 and drift with the gold price, bearing in mind Q3 production results are already flagged as lower production.

Having said all that it does seems like all the gremlins are out of the closet, but I don't anticipate this re-rating until we potentially have a raft of news all at once in 6 months time (formal JORC update, LoM + production increases on drilling results, true turnaround in financial terms including trade balance + Net Cash etc.)

Rhodium continues its march upwards. In Asia market it has now leaped to $2,560.

Basket price now $1,094

Hi Ragnar - I'm trying to get my head round it too, but ultimately in terms of company communications, are such figures not already baked into the SDO cash costs (as a by-product, it is a credit and reduces the cost) and therefore EBITDA figures? Of course the further increases in by-product sale prices you detail since last presentation will continue to push down reported SDO cash costs, thereby increasing revenue, margin and EBITDA.

I know these major movements will have positive impacts to overall revenue, but would assume it is captured in the above?

I'm not in many shares as I'm picky, but too of my favourites SLP and AAZ that I have sizeable holdings in are now both paying dividends. For those that stay in the precious metals miners shares the next few years, I think we should be well rewarded. Whilst I'm pessimistic on industrial demand for Platinum outpacing supply, I believe in long-term PGM prices should increase and follow gold movements if gold increases. Investment demand should pick up. In illiquid and small markets like Rhodium, maybe we would even see major increases from here.

It may be a bit choppy in the short-term with US Fed Interest Rate rises, however hopefully in hindsight we will look back on Q4 2018 as a good chance to have topped up.

Based on the HUM presentations, it is expected the Yanfolila drilling is not just to firm up resources to extend life of mine from 7 to 12yr, but also to increase production to over 125K+ per annum compared to 100K per annum base case.

This is why if/ when they achieve this, it's a double-whammy and will be huge news.

The incorporation of Gonka resources would only achieve 140K Oz in Year 3 and 6 (for other years it's at the 125-130 Oz per annum mark out to 12yrs). So to consistently achieve 140K Oz more resources would have to be incorporated.

On the "by-products", whilst SLP report on a "4E" metals basis (Plat, Palladium, Rhodium and Gold), on quarterly basis they also provide info on "6E ounces" which includes the more obscure Iridium ($1,460 per Oz) and Ruthenium ($265 per Oz).

Whilst SLP treat these as by-products (credits to reduce cash costs), the likes of JLP and THS actually report on 6E basis and have slightly different make-up:

1) JLPs additional "2Es" are iridium and osmium ($400 per Oz).
2) THS is same as SLP: ruthenium and iridium.

Not sure about chrome tailings, but would assume for SLP it's negligible.

I find this website pretty good for daily updates on all the 6E spot prices: https://apps.catalysts.basf.com/apps/eibprices/mp/

In fact just checked it and in US markets Rhodium finished up $2,445!

Hi Ragnar thanks for this very detailed analysis much appreciated! Numpty that I am I missed refining toll fee so agree with all your numbers below. As per your final values on free cashflow, SLP really start making heaps of cash after these next 2yrs once Capex for Project Echo is behind us. Capex goes from $12m this year, $11m next year to low single digits the 2 years after, hence why free cash will balloon.

If anyone wanted to test SLP's EBITDA calcs, based on current basket price and ZAR:

a) SLP PGM basket currently $1,042 (12.5% Rhodium $2,410, 62.6% Plat $795, 24.7% Palladium $975 & 0.2% Gold $1,193).

b) SLP costs are est. at ZAR 6,849 per Oz (similar to last year, so no reason to doubt it) which in USD terms is $460 per Oz. With SA inflation and wage demands due to weak currency, costs in ZAR could go up.

c) The margin per Oz at present is therefore $582 per Oz x production target of 76,000 to 78,000 Oz is $44-45.4 million.

d) Capex is est. at $12million this year which I believe needs to be deducted from above, which leaves you with circa $32million. SLP have likely been conservative, there may be other minor costs, hence $30m at current basket price and ZAR looks correct.

So reverse engineering the figure, the EBITDA stated by SLP in its slides looks very accurate and based on Management's track record, looks to be trusted and conservative, with potential to exceed expectations. So even on this basis and assuming no improvement to PGM spot prices, SLP is on a measly PE of 2.6 (Based on £61 market cap and GBP Forex of 1.3). Crazy when you take into account their cash + trade balance and sustainable dividends moving forward.

On this small pull-back it's worth remembering the strong value proposition SLP has which I posted on PAF thread but more appropriate here:

- As per SLP's last accounts for FYE Jun-18, SLP's EBITDA was $22.2m. SLP have no debt and therefore no interest costs, so "EBITDA" is perfect measure to work out P/E. For other miners with high debts, the "I" for Interest needs to be taken into account as it can be a major cost.

- Even this EBITDA for SLP is misleading for forecasting purposes as the FY gone included the one-time cost of acquiring Phoenix for $6.3m and therefore underplays future EBITDA.

- SLP's own forecast EBDTA for this FYE Jun-19 is $26m (as per slides with Accounts). However this appears conservative and based on ZAR of 14 (ZAR now just shy of 15) and Basket Price of $1,009, which has now trended upwards to $1,040. Based on today's market EBDTA is more like $30m now.

- SLP Forward PE is therefore 2.6 based on the current basket price of $1,040. So SLP is very attractive even at these prices. Imagine what an increase of platinum at these lowly levels would do.

In addition to this:
- SLP had cash of $14m FYE June 2018, no debts.
- a huge trade balance in its favour of $20m owed to it by refiners (rolling 4-month delayed payment cycle from refiner).
- Dividend of 1.75% (0.035p per share) annouced and to be discussed/ approved 23 Nov at AGM.
- est. production this FY of 76-78K Oz compared to last year's 71K. This then rises to 80K+ following years.
- Life of Production of anywhere 15yrs, EBDTA rising with Capex falling dramatically after next 2yrs, production rising.
- SLP really should be trading on a PE of at least 5.

On Assets, I will be frank and say when it comes to most Mining companies, I honestly don't care too much about Non-current Assets. At the end of the day, such assets revert to Zero once the mine is depleted or no profit can be realised (Evander), so I never share your concern regarding intangibles and the like.

All that matters is how much the company can earn through the life of the mine. All I care about on Financial Statements are:

a) Current Assets (cash, trade receivables, inventories etc.)
b) Liabilities (debt, trade payables, tax liability etc.)

SLP is in a far superior position in terms of financial health in that it is cash rich and due to its unique tailings business, has a huge trade receivables balance of money owed from refiners due to the delayed 4-month payment cycle. PAF not only has a large Net Debt position, but also has negative trade balance too.

If yesterday shows anything, "Assets" can be marked as "Zero" in a blink of an eye if the company cannot earn anything from it. All infrastructure and assets to support Evander which cannot be repurposed and used for lets say Royal Sheba or Elikhulu, have become worthless.