Member Info for Visitor

Leas - regarding SA politics, it's also looking likely Zuma will leave sooner rather than later, allowing Cyril Ramaphosa to take control and accelerate his efforts to stamp out corruption and restore investor confidence in the economy. Hopefully in long-term, this should help with sentiment and business climate in SA, but there are some serious issues to overcome. On Wesizwe and SLP, afraid I'm not sure of the connection. I looked through a few of each of their Annual Reports and no mention of either one in the other's respective reports. Google didn't help either...

Hi leas - don't get me wrong I haven't been frustrated so far and think management have done a great job. However it is now reaching that point that unless they update us on other potential growth opportunities in this Q1 18 to utilise the cash, it needs to be put to use and distributed back to shareholders. I own a substantial amount of shares and getting taxed on something (i.e. CG tax on dividends) is better than getting taxed on nothing! I'm sure the board would agree. I'm not adverse to more share buybacks either, but I now think dividends would not only provide a yield, but also provide huge exposure and demand for SLP, thereby also increasing the undervalued share price, a double whammy

All - existing thread was getting bit long so I thought would start a new one specifically on dividend. YTD the avg. basket price has been over $1,000, so it has been more than sustained. Now we're at >$1,100, so plenty of headroom even if things cool off to sustain over $1,000 still. I thought Phoenix acquisition was a great move, so most certainly didn't mind cash pot being used for growth opportunities like that. However unless we're notified of how the cash pot will be used this quarter, I will be pretty frustrated if there is no dividend announcement. I assume we will be back up to a cash position of $15m Q4 17 and at this basket price, going forward probably a free cashflow of $7-8m ish per Quarter, before Capex and tax. Based on Aug Investor presentation, total Capex is est. $10m for 2018, less in 2019 and pretty much nothing thereafter. SLP can easily fund this from cashflow, pay generous dividend and have money left over for a rainy year. Not only would a div reward long-term investors, but it would correct what I see is a severely under-valued market cap. It will get SLP noticed. Look at the likes of CMCL who pay a div and have a larger market cap than us, even though cash position is same and our production is more than double (as they only own 49% of asset). Just my 2cents. CEO now has 5m shares so his interests are aligned with shareholders.

Whilst I'm very bullish on SHG, a few things to note from this thread: a) Taxes on revenues were actually increased by 3% to 7%, once you include new export clearing fee of 1%. Now good news is this is calculated as part of SHG's AISC, but compared to other countries, with lower royalties of avg. 3%, this makes Tanz very uncompetitive. b) SHG would not make that much Profit. First of all Gold sales minus AISC of circa $50-55m per annum does not take into account some $16m of Capex in 2018, nor financing costs, non-sustaining costs etc. We need to expand and finance Singida, expansion to New Luika etc. Shareholders have spent huge sums ($100m) on infrastructure and the underground mine to be depreciated over coming years, for the benefit of the company, the region and ultimately revenues to Government in taxes. Additionally we have net debt position of $40m which needs to be paid down and $14m of VAT rebates due. c) We most certainly could not afford to give the Government a 51% stake. It would be end of the company as we know it and the end of mining industry in Tanz if they take this approach. We are only starting to see a semblance of a recovery in sentiment. The Oil & Gas majors have been scared into delay after delay and sure soon the likes of Shell will pull out all together. Mozambique now looks to win the race to untap their huge offshore reserves before Tanz, helped in part to the political uncertainties caused by the Government. A severe blow for Tanzania and unless they change course, it will impact on growth. SHG has operated on fair and reasonable terms, has not operated under a MDA where the likes of Acacia have enjoyed preferential tax arrangements. We are completely different from Acacia, much better safety record and relationship with the communities. Tanz Government needs to show Acacia is an exceptional case and improve confidence in the country, such as for example, releasing VAT rebates and monies due to the likes of SHG. d) As net debt reduces significantly, so will the risk mitigations and hedging. Already SHG are now hedging 22k Oz up to May (just over 50% production). Previously this would have been over 75% production, so it's already coming down and now far more exposure to spot price. In any event, SHG's hedging strategy last year meant it actually just achieved a better sales price compared to avg. spot. Based on SHG's cashflow, operating margins and if VAT rebates are received, this could be a transformational year.

Adam - good to know on the 1.65m Oz, therefore for me would just need assurance on the "integrity" to allay any investors fears suspension of main site could not happen again, due to drop-off in grades or the like. I look forward to exploration and drilling update which I believe is expected sometime soon and may re-invest back in at that time. And you are of course correct HUM would need to pay royalty on their revenue plus corp tax on their income. However the royalty in Mali is only 3% (pretty standard threshold), with 30% Corp Tax. Now not only do AAZ fall under the PSA where Government will eventually get 51% (currently stands at only 12.75% whilst AAZ recoup costs), but AAZ then get hit for Corp Tax on their income too (believe this could be 32%). It's a double whammy and the PSA structure really doesn't work for mining like it does for Oil & Gas Industry. On HUM reserves I believe they have 6.4m Oz: 2.2m Oz at the current South Mali mine Yanfolila and 4.2m Oz in Liberia Dugbe Mine. That doesn't include their potential "earn in" 50% interest in the Kobada Gold Project (2.2m Oz)

Adam - you are correct the figure I gave is "All-in" which takes into account even more than the AISC definition (i.e. all costs, financing, capex, non sustaining investments etc.), so you are correct the AISC will be less. However really as investors what we really care about is free cashflow/ margin after all costs - at least I do. No point having a low AISC, if there are other hidden costs. The good thing about AAZ for this quarter is that an all-in margin of $300 per Oz is very good and have meant paying off $7m of debt! My concern on AAZ is more on: a) Life of Mine and Reserves: this time last year was very uncertain time for investors when main pit Gadir was suspended and a switch to Ugur to plug shortfall. The gamble paid off with great team at the helm who have done a stellar job, but long-term Ugur is a short-term fix (200K Oz resource only, not sure how much recoverable) and need more clarity going forward. b) As many have alluded to, once AAZ costs paid off (someone mentioned as soon as mid-2019?), as per PSA reverts to 51% Government 49% AAZ. So long-term investors need to consider this when working out forward P/Es and production Oz in comparison to other miners etc. I saw recently a discussion on HUM versus AAZ and this didn't even come into the equation (believe HUM owns 80% of their mine?), let alone life of mine, reserves, AISC or 50% interest in the Kobada Gold Project adding 50K Oz to production.

AAZ are now reporting on GEO terms so the AISC is very out of date. In fact they have never produced an up to date GEO AISC. However based on the 23K Oz produced and debt paid down of $7m you can actually work out a "back of the fag packet" all-in cost. Their margin is effectively $300 per GEO so based on approx $1,260 gold price in Q4 17, all-in cost was $960

Ducatti - your recollection is not exactly correct. There was a placing in mid 2016 for $10m at 6.5p and one mid 2017 for $14m at 6p. 2015 through 2017 has been a time of huge Capex at New Luika and $10m was required. The $14m directly matched the outstanding VAT rebates and filled that funding gap. In last 3 years Shanta has spent circa $100m on Capex at New Luika to update the infrastructure, power supply, equipment and Underground mine. 2018 projections for Capex halves to $15m and going forward even less (based on current mine plan). If Q4 report is strong and we have pushed through the final Q of large Capex, the likelihood of a future placing for New Luika is extremely low. For Singida I would hope this can be funded from free cashflow, VAT rebates returning to SHG, restructured Investec debt facility which lowers financing costs but I believe also increases amounts available etc. etc. The New CEO is finance/ accounting background which sometimes is not great in a key Project Development phase, however we are now entering a "steady state" operations phase where the focus has correctly turned to "rightsizing" (sorry hate that term), optimising/ cost reductions etc. The new COO is very experienced and can focus on Ops, exploration, Singida so theCEO can focus on the purse strings, PR and shareholder returns. Let's hope the VAT rebates return in due course, which would be a major boon for both SHG, the Singida region and tax revenues, as it should mean SHG can get on and start pilot plant, exploration, expediting mine plan etc. etc.

Thanks for comments everyone. Ragnar - thanks for basket breakdown of Phoenix again. I assume to keep it simple and only report on the 3 main PGMs, for accounting purposes SLP may choose to treat the Ruthenium, Gold and Iridium as "by-products" (i.e. factored into cash costs) and overall the reported basket % split may not change all that much with incorporation of Phoenix, but guess time will tell how SLP report it all. Share - thanks for comments and agree, but even $3k Rhodium would be huge boon. From current $1,725 to $3,000 would be the equivalent of raising the SLP basket price by circa $175. Wuffle - even a slight change in sentiment could cause this shift. If for example, a few car manufacturers shift some of their Gasoline/ Unleaded Autos from Palladium based catalytic converters to Platinum (there are news snippets that some are already looking into it), this would not only increase industrial demand, but I'm sure investor/ speculator demand would jump on the bandwagon. Should be very interesting quarter with quarterlies released late Jan then the interims 26 Feb

Ragnar - you are right it's a different beast from 2013 and why I am so bullish on SLP. Back in 2013 versus now: a) Production: 44K Oz versus 70K+ Oz now, moving to 80K Oz with Phoenix b) Cash Costs: $708 versus circa $500 now c) Basket Price: $867 versus circa $1,050+ d) Cash: $6.6m versus circa $14m by time Q4 '17 report released

Even with Rhodium only some 14% of basket (not sure how Phoenix impacts overall Basket), with Rhodium now $1,725oz, it's punching well above its weight. Even though below link is from Oct, it highlights Rhodium reserves have dwindled with a 4th year of deficit. Wasn't long ago in 2008 it ballooned to $10,000oz. Not saying it will ever get to those levels again, but the squeeze on Rhodium reserves bodes well for continued price rises, although will could no doubt be volatile up and down with Rhodium being such a small market. http://www.mining.com/rhodium-price-surges-six-year-high/ Even with Platinum at $937, if rises in PGMs continue we must nearly be at $1,100 basket price due to strength of Palladium and Rhodium. Happy New Year and thanks to Ragnar and Shareminator for continued updates - much appreciated.

Good start to the year. If Q4 results out 3rd week of Jan shows a positive "turning point" in terms of declining Capex, cost optimisations factored into AISC negating increase royalties and steady production, with implications for steady reduction in net debt, this could be the start of a solid turnaround. Hopefully coupled with more VAT rebates coming back to SHG and more political certainty specific to SHG (Acacia different beast and not a good case study), we should see double figures again later in the year. VAT rebates due would not only improve sentiment, but of course free up cashflow which could put Singida back on track. It should also provide certainty to Investec and allow due diligence and conditions on restructuring to be completed, thereby lowering long-term financing costs and again freeing up more funds for expansion.

Hi Ragnar - yep I'm also expecting a good quarter, however external to SLP could be in for some choppy times for precious metals, with US stock market euphoria over passing of the tax reform bill and then potential Interest Rate hike later this month by Fed. Even if gold struggles once again in Dec like it did for the last 2 decembers, would be good to see Platinum decouple from the ups and downs of gold and make up some of the $300+ discount!

Good RNS on Fri. Over last few months SLP have bought back and cancelled nearly 7m shares, or some 2.3% of total shares. If they continue to buyback & cancel shares when they consider the SP low, it should always provide a "floor". Board now have some 2.5% shareholding, with the bulk of this with CEO Terry McConnachie having 5million shares. He's grown this from only 500,000 in 2011 to what it is today and shows the Board have a lot of skin in the game. Rhodium is $1,540, Palladium $1,020 and Platinum $940. So despite Plat languishing the SLP PGM Basket Price will still be over $1,000. With $11.2million still in bank after Phoenix Acquisition, I would guess this should rise to circa 14million by end of Dec (depends how much is spent on Project Echo and Working Capital etc.). I would hope unless there is another growth prospect or acquisition, they would announce an updated Dividend Policy. It would be good to see continued buybacks from now through end of Q1 '18, with divided policy announced in Jan in next Quarterly Update, with dividend to be paid out in Q2 18 and another in Q4 18. In total would be good to see a yield of at least 10% per year based on current market cap, which amounts to USD 5m. This should easily be sustainable, unless there is a better use of the money through growth/ acquisitions/ purchases etc.

What is JLP's overall PGM production and cash costs? What is their debt position in comparison to SLP's cash rich position? Which company is most likely to continue share buybacks and potentially commence dividends in 2018, giving huge lift to SP and a yield? Would have to be crazy to move money from SLP to JLP

Denby - I agree with most of what you have written. It's not fair and it's not pretty, but Governments are entitled to change their own laws and rip up contracts particularly related to natural resources. The risk of this varies depending on the country. Companies have recourse through International Arbitration, but must weigh up what is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. 5+ yrs through arbitration or trying to reach a new agreement with the Government. Barrick obviously have gone down the latter route. The export ban was baseless and no doubt ACA would most likely have won it's case through International Arbitration. But again you're looking at 5+ yrs for decision then another 5+ yrs to try and confiscate assets worth $1-3bn, as by that point all of ACA's in-country assets would have been confiscated. And then ACA would have to rely on the global political will for countries to follow through on such asset confiscations. It is not a "slush fund" in the legal sense as the sum is known and intended to be paid to the state, not individuals. It is effectively another new one off tax. It is not a secret sum of brown envelopes to be paid to individuals, but it makes it no less palatable. I don't know how I would put it, but I would not say it's unconstitutional or any basis for SFO investigation. It's a messy and poor commercial settlement for ACA and short term Magufuli can claim a battle won, but long term the reputational damage to Tanz and opportunity losses will be huge. All Governments change the goal posts, such as the UK's constant tax hikes and windfall taxes on North Sea resources in the good times. But this raid by Magufuli has been particularly extreme and the consequences to Tanz will be just as extreme. In one fell swoop Tanz has become one of the most reliable African countries to invest in, to one of the least. The jury is still out on whether such extreme treatment is to "right past wrongs" specific to ACA and it's perceived overly generous MDA, or if such treatment will now be applied to all other companies

Right back at you Denby. With statements like "unconstitutional", I'm guessing you are no legal professional. Which part of the UK Bribery Act do you believe Acacia have breached or is it another "constitution" you believe they're in breach of? There is a difference between a Sovereign State acting as a whole through its elected Government, passing new laws and playing hardball in commercial negotiations, and Government Officials acting in their own self interest to enrich their own bank accounts. Suggest you do some research on the difference. If Acacia are paying monies in to the State apparatus through taxes, royalties or one-off commercial negotiated settlements of $300m, again I ask what "constitution" has been breached by Barrick/ ACA? Is the deal bad and does it stink for shareholders based on the limited understanding of the terms to date? Yes. In the long term is the deal bad for the State and people of Tanzania, scaring off future investment, revenues, tax streams and constraining growth. Yes. Has Barrick broken any "constitutions" by entering into commercial negotiations and agreeing new terms with the Government? No

It may be a bad deal and harm both ACA and Tanzania in the long term in terms of foreign investment, but there is nothing currently "unconstitutional" about it. Exactly what will the SFO be investigating and what laws are you claiming have been broken? This has become a commercial negotiation and if the majority shareholder deems this deal better than the alternative of dragging this issue through International Arbitration, that is their prerogative.

To spend this amount of Capex and only increase net debt by $2m is very good achievement - what happens when they only have $3m of Capex in Q4 17 and $15m for entire 2018, which is less than half of the $33m Capex for 2017...

When they spend $10m of Capex no. But now going forward Capex drops off a cliff and so for anyone that follows the Mine Plan, the Capex outlay coming to an end, the Gross Debt reduction profile in Sept presentation, it's clear from here on out the Net Debt position will start to reduce considerably.