We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anglesey Mining Plc | LSE:AYM | London | Ordinary Share | GB0000320472 | ORD 1P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 1.40 | 1.30 | 1.50 | - | 0.00 | 01:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metal Mining Services | 0 | -961k | -0.0023 | -6.09 | 5.88M |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
04/9/2014 20:29 | Certainly looking like metals may start edging up, with zinc being the star, the non-ferrous metals have been drifting for a month or so. | noccer | |
04/9/2014 08:28 | we have improving economic conditions in the US and China, the biggest metals consumers, this supports the upside in zinc prices. Zinc has probably one of the biggest exposures to residential construction activity of any of the metals Is parys to be mined in 2015? they will need investment... my understanding a roadshow may be on the cards later this year as directors did say A continuation of this improvement in zinc will allow us to take a far more positive view on the development of Parys Mountain than we have been able to do for some years | laserdisc | |
20/8/2014 14:54 | He posted a chart at the time the share price would go to 94p over the ensuing months. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. | silverbackalpha | |
18/8/2014 09:34 | Nothing happening at Parys. | littlemadam | |
03/8/2014 22:57 | Where are our bod's? sitting on Anglesey,or doing nothing over in Lim land...they are supposed to be looking after their parent company,bumping up our shareprice over here.. or just drawing good salaries ,weakening the shareprice all the time....bahhh | abergele | |
30/7/2014 15:44 | Annual Report - I'll try and get more funs here - looks very cheap indeed. | tomboyb | |
24/7/2014 13:44 | There was a GMPV column on the original sources, and I think the table got truncated in some of the secondary sources. So I just had a look on the AYM website - and BINGO !! They have not only updated the table under the Parys Project section to remove the confusing GMPV values and include a footnote about recovery rates being 65%, but they have given a direct link to the Micon report in the footnote - which I have never seen before : Its worth a look as it shows the effect of the cut-off grade on the resources. The table that has the GMPV values is table 1.22 in the report. This was the table originally on the AYM website (excluding the columns after GMPV). Its the one my calculations are based on. Edit : It shows cut-off grade having minimal effect in White Rock (probably due to nature of 3D modelling), still interesting especially some of the higher grades they found here and there. | noccer | |
24/7/2014 12:16 | Hiya Al, When the resource estimates were posted I put them in a speadsheet so I could calculate how GMPV values moved with metal prices. However the GMPV values they published fell way short of my calculations - so I e-mailed Cuthbertson at AYM (and I have just looked this up as it was Dec 2012). He stated : "Your calculations are almost the same as mine (maybe you used ordinary ounces not Troy for the gold and silver?) the difference is a 65% overall recovery factor used by Micon in their estimates. When we get to the next stage of more detailed mining resource calculations this will be improved and refined to get closer to a net smelter return figure. We (perhaps confusingly) called it a gross metal product value, to try to distinguish it from an NSR value." The confusing thing was that they didn't mention the recovery factor at all in the RNS, they didn't publish the Micon report, just a table out of it. And you know - he was right - I have just corrected on the basis that Gold and Silver prices are quoted in Troy Ounces (not regular ounces), and I make it that the hidden recovery rate factor was 64%, near enough to the 65% he quoted. So now with updated calculations, at current prices and 65% recovery we are just 1% shy of the GMPV values quoted in the resource statement, something that todays metals price moves could easily reach. Feel free to do your own calculations - don't trust mine, I have already screwed up the ounce calculations once ! | noccer | |
24/7/2014 10:16 | You are dead right Al, zinc is about 50% of the ore value in white rock indicated by my calcs. Copper grades are very respectable in other zones (anything over 1% appears quite exciting for copper ores). I have been casting my mind back to the JORC resource estimate discussions, and I remember the published GMPV values didn't make sense because they forgot to include in the RNS that there was an assumption of a 60% recovery rate (I have no idea how realistic that number is, but my calculations match if I plug it in). So the white rock indicated was $134/t GMPV at $80/t GMPV cut-off. As of today I calculate $207/t * 60% = $124/t at current valuations, so about 7% short (gold was $1700/oz and silver $33/oz back then, which accounts for all of the difference and some). The white rock inferred ore is currently just 4% short of the GMPV in the resource statement. So we have a little way to go before the GMPV hits target, at which point the tonnage at the $80/t cutoff is 'correct'. Above that GMPV the ore is obviously more valuable, and the viable tonnage should increase as more ore falls within the $80/t cutoff. I don't think any details of that aspect were ever published. That 60% recovery rate sounds a guesstimate, and I would assume should be different from metal to metal as well as depending how much you spend on the ore processing. Looking at a Feasibility for an Xtierra Zn/Ag/Pb mine I can see they are calculating based on recovery rates of 76.7% Zn, 90.2% Pb, 73.4% Ag. | noccer | |
24/7/2014 08:38 | China manf data boosting warmer sentiment for copper/lead/zinc today, but zinc best of the lot. Not long ago we were waiting for it to hold above $1/lb, now $1.08, and trend looks good. Broadly warmer sentiment to investing in metals showing in stocks like Glencore. Parys resource valuation will also be helped if copper comes up, as previous resource valuation estimates were based on $3.50 copper ($3.23 now), $1 lead (99.6c now), 90c zinc ($1.08 now). | noccer | |
24/7/2014 07:34 | hope so hyper al now added oex to the oilers so we got lgo hur & oex oex some say another cairn in the making we will see dyor on this one | laserdisc | |
08/7/2014 10:34 | Nice reading on zinc, and minor miners buying into zinc assets. Good to see copper recovered from its recent slump. | noccer | |
02/7/2014 22:04 | i have put these on a backburner for now anyone in hur | laserdisc | |
02/7/2014 16:42 | Good job this is not an LIM thread, I have already written that off, though happy if it rises from the dead. Great to see metals prices jumping up today (Cu, Zn, Pb), lets hope Zinc stays above the $1/lb mark and continues to rise. From the AYM RNS today .. The company (AYM)said that a detailed review of the mineral potential at its Parys Mountain zinc-copper-lead property in North Wales, is near completion, which will enable it to better plan its development strategy for Parys Mountain. It said it continues to review the status of base metals markets to ensure that the commencement of production at Parys Mountain coincides as closely as possible with the expected resurgence in demand for base metals concentrates particularly in the European environment. "There are now positive signs that the long expected future shortfall in zinc concentrate supply related to major mine planned closures is coming closer to fruition," the company said And I think they are right - zinc was priced at 90c/lb in the JORC study, lead at $1/lb. The roles have reversed as zinc supply gets tight, but with positive signs of global recovery in demand things are looking better for metals again. There's £440M of metal in White Rock (at refined metals prices), sure you have to get it out, separate it, refine it, but maybe it is getting worth it. | noccer | |
02/7/2014 15:52 | almost forgotten about this company and todays rns prompted a quick check up ... good grief. LIM might as well have not even been open for business this year. What a disaster in terms of profitability ... $72m loss before adding in the write down for Depn & Depln. Iron Ore mining seems a largely thankless task in current environment. They could with finding some other mineral on their estate. The Labrador Iron Ore Royalty fund would have been a much better long term investment, as I recall saying yonks ago. Pays a nice divi and reliable revenue stream. LIM looks like it will never be profitable until such time as it becomes a monster in terms of scale or, Iron Ore goes into global shortage, which seems highly unlikely. | mattjos |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions