Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Ken Armstrong - Interim CEO - went through the presentation given to investors a few days ago after the AGM - which I guess we have all already seen.
AND added the big news that the company is in negotiations with finance providers to bring forward the financing of the process plant . This would enable an earlier start to production.
My view on that is that it would reduce the time that establishment costs are incurred without any revenue from tin production coming in - i.e. reduce unrecovered overhead costs, AND importantly would increase the NBV of the project I estimate by 4-8% on an after tax basis, assuming a production start could be brought forward by 6-12 months.
Whether or not financiers are prepared to do this, depends on how reliable they consider the inferred resources to be.
Given SC's long history and that closure was caused not by running out of resources but by a tin price collapse, suggests that it is a pretty good risk to take - question is what the price of taking that risk will be...........
Meanwhile the tin price continues to be supportive, closing yesterday approx 10% above the PEA assumptions, this adding 30% to the NBV.
Ken Armstrong appears to have got to grips with the CEO role quickly and diligently let us hope he can be persuasive in his talks....................
What is it going to take to get this moving forward?
Assuming financing could be arranged, and the processing plant timescales brought forward, would the speed of dewatering need to be increase or is that not a hurdle to production at this stage?
Gingy, I am in no way qualified to offer advice but in my opinion this should be a long term position, have confidence that you made the correct decision as I’m guessing you researched and invested in the potential seeing as there is a lack of profitability.
Whilst one would expect to see a little movement due to the rising tin price there is still significant risks (that are allowed for within planning) but not yet mitigated in practice.
Mining is a volatile sector at the best of times but this project has some great management/expertise behind it. Everything could still fail which is why there are not many institutions involved yet unless they are sector specialists, they like to see a balance sheet for returns today, not in the future. Aside from this the rise in interest rates last year means institutions are not investing as they once were, they are sat on billions waiting for the anticipated rate drops. There are many factors to consider and the current economic climate is not favourable to see significant growth at this time, however, news is always evolving.
This is the first time I’ve checked this price in 6
Months but I do keep up with the news it could well be another 6 months before I check again.
In my opinion the last rounds of selling were by Osisko developments as they have seen significant financial difficulty in covering their current liabilities and also significant drops in share price.
I’ll be here for as long as vision blue, Mick Davis is no fool and he’s very well connected in the sector.
VERY strong sell for me this one now, confidence at an all time LOW.
Are you having a bad day?
I'm interested as to why you have such a lack of confidence? Care to clarify?
I suggest you read their posting history.
It's all abuse of others and look at me, I know it all posts. Looks to be trying to scaremonger people to sell on other boards and buy into another stock. Safe to ignore imo
@croqman.
Thanks, I see. I'm pretty new at this so trying to learn as much as possible
HoylesFitness "Assuming financing could be arranged, and the processing plant timescales brought forward, would the speed of dewatering need to be increase(d) or is that not a hurdle to production at this stage?"
The company has said in the past that 18 months would be required to de-water the mine at a rate of 25,000 tonnes per day. Approx. 6 months of that time line had been achieved when the pumping was slowed. So there is about 12 months worth left to do and may be a little less.
If the production start date was brought forward from early 2027 to Summer 2026, there would be 24 months before production was scheduled to start. So if dewatering finished in 11-12 months time, that would give about 12-13 months time after de-watering to ready the mine for production i.e. for installing ramps, crushing equipment, ventilation etc.
So I think that de-watering could proceed at the previously envisaged rate 25,000 tonnes per day without causing a hold up. as the kit could be ordered/delivered in the next 12 months, and installed in the 12 after that. Better to ask IR at the company though.
Saving 6 months probably increases the NBV of the project from around $201m to around US $209m and possibly more as purchasing could be done earlier at lower costs - perhaps a $2m saving. There would be a saving too , in not having to complete a FS. Perhaps $0.5m. Offsetting those savings there would be an increased electricity cost - perhaps $2.5m. An earlier start would also save on establishment costs as well. - possibly another $6m. A total $14.0m possible benefit is not being ignored.
The bringing forward of financing will partly depend on whether finance providers can be confident about the 1990's mining records which cause some of the resources to be categorised as inferred rather than indicated. My view is they should have the confidence in those records and treat them as indicated for investment assessment purposes. The long production history of the mine and in particular its ability to keep going for years after the tin price collapse in the 1980s, should give finance providers great confidence to bring forward financing . The record makers were not trying to make an attractive investment case when they wrote the records, back in the 1990s, they were just trying to keep accurate data.
If news of confirmation of an earlier start co-incides with the completion of one? shareholder's forced? selling of their holding, then we may see extreme volatility of the share price on the upside. Let us hope so. Also, those few people holding short positions/CFDs have reason to be extremely nervous.
We may get taken over before we get to production stage.
Vii, evening am starting end of month buying up into my isa as I think I’ll not get my under 6p prediction and a want a substantial holding before production
Hi Bubble2021 Good to see you back! Your timing has been superb.
Make sure you read pages 37 last para and page 38 of
https://cornishmetals.com/site/assets/files/5681/cusn_2024_mgmt_proxy_circular.pdf
It was passed in the vote. What will come of it and the preceding proposal is unknown, but is a negative for me.
Lithium article.....https://ftseaim.co.uk/lithium-1
Vii, evening many thanks am sure am rejoining a board very knowledgeable like yourself , I intend to buy shares on a regular basis building up a nice holding , nice to see Troajan posting on here shows confidence
You just don’t know what they gonna do with nominee accounts whichever government so buying them up in a isa account is safest option imho
Bubble2021
The problem with nominee a/cs - (required for ISAs) is that the company doesn't know who the shareholder is. Unless the shareholder proves to the company or ts registrar that they have a holding in the nominee name, it is difficult to include that shareholder in a placing for example. That is my understanding anyway.
I think it is well worthwhile voting against disapplication of pre-emption rights - but that is another story. It is well worth asking how to register your (nominee held) interest in the company with the company, I think.
I post on everthing linkable bubbles.....that's me job,posting links at £5 a time.lol.