Member Info for wwguk

Hope this is not an old picture. In the widened tunnel, it is wide enough to place both the conveyor and the train on the ground. This is a safer solution. The space below and above them is enough to place the components needed for other services.

Just seen a new picture of the MTS design with both the conveyer and train on the ground :)
https://twitter.com/tunnel_journal/status/1065150676962066433?s=03

All the posts on the "Critical questions at this stage" dialogue on this board have disappeared. Do we did anything wrong or system error?

9:38 first brief mention of Sirius Minerals's polyhalite project and investment in relation to the revival of previous Teeside steelwork areas.

9:41 a longer mention of SM, particularly on the importance of gov guarantee to fund the project.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/greg-wright-the-sirius-minerals-story-shows-it-pays-to-have-courage-and-vision-1-9440382

Q4 18 "•Contingency assessment • Revise financing plan • Obtain initial bank commitment letters."
Q1 19 • Obtain remaining bank commitment letters • Financial close"

My initial impression was that commitment letters from individual banks had already received, and that the commitment letter to be received by the end of the year would be an integrated one on the overall deals (and their conditions) prepared by all the banks. Now it seems that commitment letters from individual banks are still to arrive. Given that working out a combined one needs some time and effort, and then to go through the gov guarantee approval process would also take time, the remaining time in Q1 alone looks already quite challenging to close st2 on time. It looks more and more likely that we may see st2 finally closed in next Q2.

The expected date of the Euro TorP came from the house broker Liberum, not directly from SM:
Broker Liberum said the “key drivers” going forward would be a European off-take, expected before the end of October, and the finalising of that stage-2 financing package.
( see https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/205876/sirius-minerals-project-and-funding-timelines-put-under-city-microscope-205876.html)

SM said in their recent presentations that both the Euro TorP and the st2 package are "well advanced".

Myo, WHI term as worst case is made on the assumption that among the needed 3.6b, 3b will be senior debt. If this will be the case, then we will have better cases with a combination of the four possible fund raising methods mentioned by SM. It could be increasingly worse if the assumption is partly wrong: i.e., if the senior bond lenders want a deeper equity cushion or the gov covers less than 1.5b (as it already became clear that the gov would not cover 2b as SM initially brought into negotiation). I made a point in a post last week that the current low SP is actually helps us to get the part of senior debt covered by the gov (although this SP is not a happy one for us as the moment).

casapinos, NPV has an assumption that the business will run in the next 50 years. No company can guarantee their company in next 50 years. Therefore, it only be used as an estimate. This assumption for SM could be large made if the money needed to built the mine is secured and if planned amounts of products will be sold successfully. These conditions for SM could be largely met at least for the foreseeable future if st2 will be successful (in whichever ways). I believe that 3.6b should be enough for the first polyhalite. When the first polyhalite is appeared, even if more funding is needed to ramp up the mine, at that time fundraising would become much easier. The estimates I have tried to provide are based on the a-e worse cases to get the required funds. You mentioned multiple times that the PIs cannot take much then what they current have had, this for many PIs might be true. However, IIs have much large capacity, e.g., in st1, they took the majority as firm placement, with only 10% to existing share holders). I am not very clear what basis I used was wrong (I did used 25p, but also used 20p; given the progress made by SM, I do not believe the replacement will be below 20p). There could be endless possible ways to estimate, using 20p in scenario A is one of them. It would provide very similar best case result (among the worse cases).

The 50% risk discounted rate of course is the re-rated rate after the successful completion of st2. All the projections in the previous post assume that st2 will be successful (with different ways to raise the needed £3.6b).

Hopefully, this time there are no calculation mistakes:
shares before st1: 2.31b
st1 added new shares 1.851b (1,665,805,761 Firm + 185,089,529 Open Offer = 1.85089529b)
shares after st1: 4.1645b
$400m convertable at $0.40 (30.76p) = 1 billion shares
$50m gina subscription at $0.26 (20p) = 0.1923 billion shares
Total number of shares (including the additions from st1 convertable bonds, gina subscription, shares to be issued to Cibra 95m):
2.31 + 1.851 + 1 + 0.1923 + 0.095 = 5.4483b
Suppose the 3.6b is to be raised by taking 1.5b senior debt from banks, and the rest of 2.1 billion in the follow ways:
a) 1.5b senior debt garranted by the gov + 0.6b firm placement at $0.33 (25p): add 1.82b new shares (total shares: 7.27b)
b) 1b senior debt garranted by the gov + 1.1b firm placement at $0.33 (25p): add 3.33b new shares (total shares: 8.7783b)
c) 0.5b senior debt garranted by the gov + 1.6b firm placement at $0.33 (25p): add 4.45b new shares (total shares: 9.9b)
d) 0b senior debt garranted by the gov + 2.1b firm placement at $0.33 (25p): add 6.36b new shares (total shares: 11.81b)
e) 0b senior debt garranted by the gov + 2.1b firm placement and open offer at $0.26 (20p): add 8.08b new shares (total shares: 13.53b)
Total cost (i.e., the total sum of the raised funds) 5.055 billion U.S. dollars (pre-stage1 0.3b + stage1 1.155b + stage2 3.6b). Cost per share after stage 2 (i.e., without any added value of the mine, at exchange rate £1= $1.31), NPV per share in 2018 and NPV per share in 2021 at both 13mtpa and 20mtpa:
a) $0.695 [53p], (13mtpa: £1.03 [52p], £1.63), (20mtpa: £1.58, £2.35)
b) $0.576 [44p], (13mtpa: £0.86 [43p], £1.35), (20mtpa: £1.31, £1.95)
c) $0.511 [39p], (13mtpa: £0.76 [38p], £1.20), (20mtpa: £1.16, £1.73)
d) $0.428 [33p], (13mtpa: £0.64 [32p], £1.00), (20mtpa: £0.97, £1.45)
e) $0.374 [29p], (13mtpa: £0.56 [28p], £0.88), (20mtpa: £0.85, £1.27)
The above NPV per share values were based on the latest Investor Presentation, at 13mtpa, the NPV in 2018 is $9.766 billion (£7.51 billion), and the NPV in 2021 will rise to $15.422 billion (£11.86 billion). While at 20mtpa, the NPV in 2018 is $14.899 billion (£11.46 billion), and the NPV in 2021 will rise to $22.257 billion (£17.12 billion).
NPV normally takes the money in and out in 50 years into account. The planned 20mtpa in 2029 is within this range, therefore, we normally should use the numbers relating to 20mtpa as basis to make the projections.
As my purpose is to see what are the minimum values of the project at the moment, I focused on the NPV at 13mtpa level and placed the 50% their values in angle brackets as a risk discounted price projection. **We can see that such estimated share prices are very close to the cost per share values!!!** These indicate that we can use the cost per share as the estimated minimum value of the project and the minimum value of the share price. If st2 is successful, more value derived from the mine can be added to the cost per share

Myo, sorry for the mistake; the corrected are as follows:
shares before st1: 2.31b
st1 added new shares 1.851b (1,665,805,761 Firm + 185,089,529 Open Offer = 1.85089529b)
shares after st1: 4.1645b
400m convertable at 0.3076 = 1.30039117b shares
50m gina subscription at 0.2 = 0.25 b
Total number of shares (including the additions from st1 convertable bonds, gina subscription, shares to be issued to Cibra):
2.31 + 1.851 + 1.30039117 + 0.2 + 0.095 = 5.9095b

Suppose the 3.6b is to be raised by taking 1.5b senior debt from banks, and the rest of 2.1 billion in the follow ways:
a) 1.5b senior debt garranted by the gov + 0.6b firm placement at $0.33 (25p): add 1.82b new shares (total shares: 7.73b)
b) 1b senior debt garranted by the gov + 1.1b firm placement at $0.33 (25p): add 3.33b new shares (total shares: 9.24b)
c) 0.5b senior debt garranted by the gov + 1.6b firm placement at $0.33 (25p): add 4.45b new shares (total shares: 10.36b)
d) 0b senior debt garranted by the gov + 2.1b firm placement at $0.33 (25p): add 6.36b new shares (total shares: 12.27b)
e) 0b senior debt garranted by the gov + 2.1b firm placement and open offer at $0.26(20p): add 8.08b new shares (total shares: 13.99b)

Total cost (i.e., the total sum of the raised funds) 5.055 billion U.S. dollars (pre-stage1 0.3b + stage1 1.155b + stage2 3.6b). Cost per share after stage 2 (i.e., without any added value of the mine, exchange rate £1= $1.31), NPV per share in 2018, NPV per share in 2021:
a) $0.65 [50p], (20mtpa: £1.93, £2.21), (13mtpa: £0.97 [49p], £1.53)
b) $0.55 [42p], (20mtpa: £1.24, £1.85), (13mtpa: £0.81 [41p], £1.28)
c) $0.49 [38p], (20mtpa: £1.11, £1.65), (13mtpa: £0.72 [36p], £1.14)
d) $0.41 [32p], (20mtpa: £0.93, £1.40), (13mtpa: £0.61 [31p], £0.97)
e) $0.36 [28p], (20mtpa: £0.81, £1.22), (13mtpa: £0.53 [27p], £0.85)

Based on the latest Investor Presentation,
at 13mtpa, the NPV in 2018 is $9.766 billion (£7.51 billion), and
the NPV in 2021 will rise to $15.422 billion (£11.86 billion).
While at 20mtpa, the NPV in 2018 is $14.899 billion (£11.46 billion), and
the NPV in 2021 will rise to $22.257 billion (£17.12 billion).
NPV normally takes the money in and out in 50 years into account. The planned 20mtpa in 2029 is within this range, therefore, we normally should use the numbers relating to 20mtpa as basis to make the projections.
As my purpose is to see what are the minimum values of the project at the moment, I focused on the NPV at 13mtpa level and placed the 50% their values in angle brackets as a risk discounted price projection. **We can see that such estimated share prices are very close to the cost per share values!!!** These indicate that we can use the cost per share as the estimated minimum value of the project and the minimum value of the share price. If st2 is successful, more value derived from the mine can be added to the cost per share values.

Alan, if st2 is successful, the share price can be re-rate to 50% of the NPV per share price, which is largely the same as you estimated (65p-70p, i.e., if st2 include 3b senior debt - the best scenario).

The per share prices listed after the per share cost are current NPV price per share and NPV price per share in 2021 (first poly), as the Project net present value (“NPV”) in 2016 was $15 billion (£11.6 billion) at a 10% discount rate, and the NPV in 2021 will rise to $27 billion (£21 billion) upon commencement of production.

I think the WH Ireland worst case scenario estimate (49p/share) is almost the best result we can hope for.
It largely reflects the cost per share (i.e., without any added value of the mine) after st2 successfully closed with 1.5b senior debt from the banks and 1.5b from the debt covered by gov guarantee. Other scenarios would not be a bit worse. But whichever is better than the current SP, as the current SP assumes st2 is still uncertain.

The following is an estimate of cost per share:

shares before st1: 2.31b
st1 added new shares 1.851b (1,665,805,761 Firm + 185,089,529 Open Offer = 1.85089529b)
shares after st1: 4.1645b
400m convertable at 0.3076 = 1.30039117b shares
50m gina subscription at 0.2 = 0.25 b

Total number of shares (including the additions from st1 convertable bonds, gina subscription, shares to be issued to Cibra):
2.31 + 1.851 + 1.30039117 + 0.2 + 0.095 = 5.9095b

Suppose the 3.6b is to be raised by taking 1.5b senior debt from banks, and the rest of 2.1 billion in the follow ways:
a) 1.5b senior debt garranted by the gov + 0.6b firm placement at 0.25p -> add 2.4b new shares (total shares: 8.21b)
b) 1b senior debt garranted by the gov + 1.1b firm placement at 0.25p -> add 4.4b new shares (total shares: 10.21b)
c) 0.5b senior debt garranted by the gov + 1.6b firm placement at 0.25p -> add 6.4b new shares (total shares: 12.21b)
d) 0b senior debt garranted by the gov + 2.1b firm placement at 0.25p -> add 8.4b new shares (total shares: 14.21b)
e) 0b senior debt garranted by the gov + 2.1b firm placement and open offer at 0.20p -> add 10.5b new shares (total shares: 16.31b)

Total cost (i.e., the total sum of the raised funds) 5.055 billion U.S. dollars (pre-stage1 0.3b + stage1 1.155b + stage2 3.6b)

Cost per share after stage 2 (i.e., without any added value of the mine, exchange rate £1= $1.31):
a) $0.62 (47p), £1.41, £2.59
b) $0.50 (38p), £1.14, £2.06
c) $0.41 (31p), 95p, £1.72
d) $0.36 (27p), 82p, £1.48
e) $0.31 (24p), 71p, £1.29

If st2 is successful, more value derived from mine can be added to it gradually.

To get the needed 3 billion, IPA guarantee is essential. It is important to note that the guarantee only covers the part of funding that is not possible to get in other ways. As the banks, SM, IPA (and possibly a potential strategy partner, junior debt lenders, and many IIs) are all involved in the negotiation, when the bank commitments are announced before the end of the year, their conditions (i.e., including the amount of risk cushion (about 0.6b) from the four options, possibly including the number of shares to be added), the potential amount of guaranteed part) should be announced at the same time. This means that a tentative offer from IPA should be included. For SM to get this tentative offer (<=1.5b) from IPA before the announcement of bank commitments (>=1.5b), SM has to be in crisis (i.e., no other ways to get the other 1.5b and remaining in uncertainty as an on-going concern). Then later, for the IPA guaranteed part to be approved in next Q1 by the gov officials, SM has to be in such situation again. Two lows are necessary requirements for getting the IPA covered part, but there are not sufficient requirements. This is tough job for CF and his management team. The timing of every movement (i.e., the appearances of good and bad cards) is very critical. If SP grows continuously without a drop from the beginning to the end of year, and everything is rosy, why IPA has to be got involved to help?. Qualified by in my option of course.

Mr.dt, thank for pointing us to the latest fact-sheet of the MTS.

Myo and gofer, I believe that the 5.7m ID in the planning document must have been a typo.
It should be 4.7m ID, as it is not possible to have wall as thin as 10 cm (plus some lining) within 6.0m ED.
In the planning document, the conveyor had two options: 1.2m or 1.4m wide.
In the current design, 1.2m wide conveyor (i.e., a smaller) is chosen.
If this is the case, then 4.9m ID should be enough for placing both the conveyor and the maintenance vehicle placed on the ground (as 4.7m ID could do that).

Although the current design as shown in the latest diagram is still a suspension system, I still hope this may change when the detail of the fit out contract is announced. Sure, a suspension system should also work (given the consulting service provided by Arup), this may not be as safe and easy to maintain as the one on the base.

Golfer70, I also prefer the original design (with both the conveyor and the maintenance train placed on the ground) as presented in the Planning Stage documents and in the company video demonstration (still accessible on the website).

A history of the design changes are listed as follows:
Planning October 2015: 6.0 meter ED, 5.7m ID, both the conveyor and the maintenance train placed on the ground
DFS March 2016: 6.0m ED, 4.3m ID (thickness 0.25m), train on ground, conveyor suspended on roof
AGM May 2018: 6.0m ED, 4.7m ID, train on ground, conveyor suspended on roof
2018 September: 6.0 ED, 4.9m ID (thickness 0.35m), train on ground, conveyor suspended on roof (see a picture in the most recent conference presentation by Simon)

The layout change (i.e., to suspend the conveyor on the roof) was made when the ID was narrowed to 4.3m (as this was thought could work and cost less). It seems that the ED is always 6 meters (it would be 6.5m at joining sections). All the changes are made on ID and the thickness of the wall, this is a bit strange.
Given now that the ID is increased to 4.9m, I hope that both the conveyor and the maintenance train can be placed back on the ground.

"the mystery as to why the tunnel was made wider was answered (in the bar afterwards) - Simply, that’s how big the TBM is."

OldRascal, this is indeed a good consideration: to use a read-made standard sized TBM. The TBMs are to be hired, rather than brought. There should be quite lot of different sized TBMs available or customizable. Adding about 600m own cost just to save the contractor's money may not just be nice to the contractor. A solid and spacious MTS transporting at least 20 mtba for over a hundred years will be one of the best infrastructure asset of SM. I gather another secret reason might be a hint/feedback from the gov that only the cost of the tunnel (and port) will be covered by the gov guarantee. So why not to have a better MTS, which is actually also a need.

Chrisatbirdies, although all the shafts, tunnel, processing facilities, and ports are infrastructure to SM; only the tunnel and ports might be considered infrastructure at national level. The tunnel is a transport system and it is built due to the national environment concerns. The revival of the port and its nearly areas is also significant at national level. Therefore, funds to be spend on the tunnel and ports are easier to be covered the gov guarantee; while the extra funds may not. This might be the reason why the gov did not want to cover 2b, and may be willing to cover 1b to 1.4b as seen in the current plan for these two parts.

LostInTheCasino, I agree among the 3b senior debt, the part covered by gov guarantee is the key in case the bank committed part is less than 3b. It seems obvious that gov did not intend to cover 2b, if otherwise, there is no need to postpone st2 to next Q1. In case, the banks committed parts are more than 1.5b, say 1.7b, I don't believe that the gov guarantee would still be difficult (due to the significant local and national economic interests and the pressure to allow a partly built mine to complete).