|Thanks for the comprehensive summary Steve, a very accurate reflection as to what has taken place the last few years.We ve not heard from YT yet, I wonder what he will make of the announcement?I personally have not lost as much as many, however I am reluctant to sell and will see what happens.Can anyone advise me on what will happen to the shares if still holding, come the departure from AIMThanks|
|Why is anyone still holding? I'm out at a massive loss but some cash is better than being a private investor. Very very rare one can get their cash back once that ship sails|
|I got caught as well and only yesterday "averaged down" thinking I had made a clever move. DOH! Fortunately not a large investor so hopefully will make some profits somewhere else for a bit of off-setting of loss.|
|This as been a write off for a long time now, despite what some here claim.
The board bled us dry, I am sure they will move on to new lucrative opportunities in the future though.
I really feel for those who put a large amount into NRRP. It had potential. I lost a reasonable amount too, but refused to 'top up', 'average down' or throw good money after bad, so it isn't as bad as it could have been for me.
How I wish I had got out at just short of 1p, our last dead cat bounce. I was in profit, why oh why didn't I sell!?|
|How untimely can one get!? Obviously todays RNS changes everything and in my view confirms they should have got out of Namibia long ago. Now it is all too late.|
|Interesting quote from CATO on China :
today, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the economic forces that were really transforming the Chinese economy in the first decade of reform were private farming, township and village enterprises, private business in cities, and the Special Economic Zones. None of them was initiated from Beijing. They were marginal players operating outside the boundary of socialism. For these marginal forces, the Chinese government was happy to leave them alone as long as they did not threaten the state sector or challenge the Party’s political power. This created a room for what we called the “marginal revolutions” that brought entrepreneurship and market forces back to China during the first decade of reform.
|Final bit of clarity on the project.
1. It is by no means a dead duck. The NPV is good as is the DFS.
2. There is certainly geographic proofs of alot more resource. (at least elsewhere)
3. ZINC is storming as the deficits have forecast in the past.
4. Bigger projects have come offstream, others are getting less lucrative.
5. Licence on whichever terms still gives this project a possible big boost.
GS wont have necessarily written this off, it is simply as we have been reporting on various forums that there seems to be a deficit of RNS on the latest.
However if they cant report progress with government yet then I suppose there is nothing to add.
Finally, if we at least get this one pulling off some profits down the line GS might at least get their investment back & we can use NR as the vehicle for probably some buys in better jurisdictions elsewhere ?
James is quite well travelled & is now becoming accustomed to how bad Southern Africa is !
|Specifically Howesp, read my points about GS & James hopefully reassessing the market NPV of the EPL 2092 & looking at if we could still make a go of it, at least in the meantime whilst this issue rumbles on... ?
Perhaps the company has already done the math, but a significant improvement in the ZINC price cant have done any harm recent, wonder if they have a target figure ?
1. They are less enthusiastic than Martin French (former Dir) about Resource.
2. Building and executing mines are not plane sailing. (note this government)
3. GS have to satisfy their shareholders that they are not making mistakes.
4. Company predicts huge expense on more JOURC because of the nature of the drill.
For more on the last point, they have dried up on surface drilling & most likely a whole campaign for significant more resource would be expected to come from Net Cash Flows... the company has already bust the shares limit over the years with capex spend so far.
GS intimated that the last fund raise 'must' be spent on the pre-construction. They cannot be seen as a bottomless pit without results.
Lets hope they can afford to flutter on us & we are not a future business write-off against their more fruitful acquisitions !!
|If that means the economics/finances don't stand up then I'm afraid we have to call it a day and try somewhere else.
This is perhaps what Greenstone are considering at the moment mate, as the conditions on which they saw this as a great opportunity has changed. I know it is more personal to their shareholders than ours, but their take on their own book about whether or not River is still important to them is nice for us to know.
Clearly other successful projects they have invested in are working and are worth more of their current risk capital.
We tried the stamping feet routine and it seems like the government wont learn. They may be able to get away in the short term with existing big projects down the road with the likes of Rio. However down the line who is going to invest in their assets in order to achieve their perceived 'value' if it isn't 'risky' investment from a speculative market ?
If it was me i'd be forecasting inflation ahead for Namib.
|China's a massive state funded bubble full of capital that is desperate to leave but isn't allowed too. Bubbles in stocks and property etc etc...
It is trying to modernise rapidly, turning away from your Keynesian government spend theory in order to survive.
Namibia nowhere near in the position to use state spending to boost their growth according to extensive analysis by a former poster here, FLU's.
Refusing projects has cause unemployment for those that would otherwise be engaged with activity at North River. Pay packets for skilled jobs improve equality not hand outs from states.
Keeping it River, the workforce are under-skilled and under-employed and that's why a non-market economy is not appropriate.
Step forward huge FDI that is on hold into the country due to this idiotic new policy.
Venezuela and Zimbabwe have tried your methods.
|I am a new reader of this BB, although a long standing shareholder of NRRP. Having read the comments above about the requirements of the Namibian Government, it seems to me that in these circumstances companies have to either put up or shut up. African Governments are often a law unto themselves and are not Western style democracies (it's about time we accepted that) and have their particular requirements particularly about benefits that accrue to the indigenous population.
If that means the economics/finances don't stand up then I'm afraid we have to call it a day and try somewhere else.|
|"You only reduce inequality through thriving free markets." Not so. You only arrange competition through free markets, and they are probably the best way to enable efficient firms to thrive through competition, though (see the Apple story) much fundamental modern invention has been driven and funded by governments and of course universities.
Once the cake is baked, equality - or at least a fairly small move a little way towards it, but not very far - is achieved only by redistributive taxes.
But I guess you meant that the only way for Namibia to move in this whole general direction is by free markets - whereupon I would suggest that the early stages of China's resurgence, for example, relied on their protectionist stance.|
|Oh & in the meantime all those promising jobs at NRRP have not materialised for the workers as we cannot construct the Bleeping Mine!!!
|The requirement for businesses to accommodate 25% shareholding for previously racially disadvantaged individuals, under the empowerment component of the NEEEF will weigh on investor sentiment, according to BMI.
“There have been mixed statements from the Namibian government regarding the 25% NEEEF clause and this will add to investors’ concerns over investing in the country.”
The African Monitor newsletter advises entrepreneurs and foreign investors to refrain from setting up new businesses until uncertainty surrounding the requirement for racially disadvantaged persons to receive 25% shareholding in businesses, is resolved.
According to local news sources, BMI quoted the Chairman of the Law Reform and Development Commission who stated that the provision for businesses to sell a mandatory 25% of their businesses to ethnic black people may be reconsidered. By way of response, the President, HE Dr Hage Geingob indicated that NEEEF is a SWAPO party initiative and that the party would not move away from the principle of alleviating inequality in Namibia.
Amount of intra-Africa trade and WTO Trade Facilitation Agreements being enacted all the time makes me despair at Namibia and South Africa. Why on earth r they going to get help on their infrastructure with this continuing position ?
You only reduce inequality through thriving free markets. This will have a devastating knock on effect into Tech & Finance industries as well.
The other thing I thought of was a Namibian listing of 25% of the stock, so ordinary folks can purchase that way in an offer, but no doubt the company will tell us that that is not feasible or too expensive ?
But with Namib attitude to FDI I could agree that hot money will be departing, I guess it is who blinks first but might be too late for tiddlers awaiting licences ?
James did say in that recent RNS that the company hopes for something in the shorter term, but we have heard that before on AIM havent we.... TICK TOCK.
|Doesn't look like NEEEF is going to be dumped or enacted any time soon: hxxps://economist.com.na/22560/general-news/neeef-bill-keeps-investors-waiting-on-the-sidelines/|
|The latest RNS (12 Dec 2016) about the completion of the resource expansion drilling programme includes the following statement:
"Cash preservation remains a priority and the Company has further reduced corporate overheads and put next step resource development and drilling plans on hold until there is clarity on the timing of moving the project forward to a construction decision."
What I struggle to understand is why that drilling programme wasn't curtailed much sooner to preserve cash?
I remember that there was a question from a PI along the lines of "why not mothball the project until the licence is awarded?" on one of the conference calls.|
|The second point I would like to make is over the value of the project and Greenstone's own personal internal investment measures of determining favourable conditions.
I wonder if GS feel that their own internal bar has been increased by the change in ROR? We havent for some time now had any new metrics performed on the new scenarios that we have seen to give us a current and prospective NAV. The main inhibitor presumably is the lack of full details about the Namibian involvement.
However it would surely be easy enough to speculate on the new metrics of say the company only getting 80% of the profits, surely then the amount of taxes the firm pays will be even less that current in the perceived?
Throw in the JOURC being at say $3000 for ZINC and then it would be quite interesting what the new metric actually is ?
Is the reason for the delay the fact also that the company does not think that the project will get the go-ahead at financing level by banks and debtors because 80% of the revenues and profits is not a sufficient ROR ?
I share Steve's and others frustrations that the advent of GS and the new directors seems to have inhibited NR from mining alot more of the ground to discover more of an investable resource.
All I would say is perhaps... who is going to provide the monies for further investigation of what is basically 'A hole in the ground'.
Clearly internally GS has to make domestic decisions on where it allocates its further resources, but hopefully they wont just write off $10mn plus ?
Some thoughts from the company on new scenarios would be nice.
High level news on the NEEEF is in short order as well, interminable waiting is annoying even for me who is looking at this a bit more from afar now. A nice bit of some monies back would still be nice and salvage something out of this mess.
It isnt as if I havent had the idea that there are newer investors here as well waiting to put some money into ZINC investments what with the 'skyhigh' price !
I might even put some in myself on any blinking good news! (chance would be a fine thing)
Yes, I agree it makes sense to get cracking asap, but, as LTHs all we can do is guess what's happening from (largely historic) reports.
On the one hand there is NRRP's RNS on 12 August 2016 stated "Certain obligations under the draft Bill are inconsistent with those laid down under the terms & conditions to the Notice of Preparedness to Grant. The extent to which the NEEEF Bill would place additional obligations on the Namib Project remains unclear. It is an area on which the Company and Namibian mining industry as a whole will seek and need further clarity in due course."
Whilst, on the other hand, there are the media reports of Namibian ministerial comments in the trail above suggesting that:
no licence award until NEEEF/NEEEB passed; &/or
no licence until NRRP accept all the conditions.
As shareholders we're being kept largely in the dark.|
|When you have a one party state with quite so much seeming Socialist leaning tendencies it is very hard to throw them from their desired will. I wont make this too political as relating to western ideals, but clearly it is next to impossible to change the countries will on this one.
I wont go on about if it is Tory / Labour or make any comparisons to UK or Europe is what I mean. It is purely and simply that Namibia with their one party state have decided to go full on nationalism with the accent on copying extremes of South Africa and some of Zimbabwe.
What NRRP needs to recognise therefore is that this decision appears to be not for turning and refusing terms is now seeming to be 'cut off nose to spite face'. I understand Greenstone might personally see this one as a bad investment and look more to funding its ones that are doing well. Is it really worth them as Steve says, writing off $10mn as part of their portfolio ?
Wouldn't any sort of licence now and recovering of monies be seen as sensible as surely the project is unsaleable without the licence and the capex spend on getting it to operation ?
Ive written a long post, when simply I perhaps should have said... this has gone on for months and no-one seems to be able to change government minds so with the favourable ZINC price why dont we just blinking get on with it ?
Is is really that much of a deterrence to project financing that Namibians might have to own 20-25% of the mine ?
Does it boil down to the fact that they want 25% for no input whatsoever and GS are really baulking at taking all the risk and putting all the money in to see the government take a large percent for no risk etc. ?
We talk about taxes and royalties but at this rate no taxes will be paid for X years as we wont presumably be making enough profit against the capex and opex expenditure ?
IT would be nice to have some frank opinions from the company on what they feel ?
Wonder what James is thinking as he bought a chunk of shares and has been senior in business and is now seemingly kicking his heels on a bust project ?
BTW its not as if we cant get this one to production and get some NET cash flow and then use it maybe to buy a project outside of the now uninvestable Namibia ?
Finally with ZINC so high I cant see if it really isn't worth just mining it ? Is it because this delay and lack of financing other than GS has crippled the financial incentives elsewhere in view of the no of shares ?
EDIT : Is it because GS will be feeling like they are throwing good money after bad and especially in regards the fact that Namib wants all the say and employment but their staff and businesses seem to be well below the required standards ?
|The article also says that the new rules will come into force for existing licences when they come up for renewal.|
|When Martin French left back in January 2014 the NRRP share price (adjusted for the July 2016 1/250 share consolidation) at the close of that day was £1.25
It's now 9 pence.
I'm obviously aware that the company is an innocent victim of timing and Namibian politics . . . but . . . it was clearly stated in the March 2015 conference call that they were working on a new investor relations strategy. There has been one RNS in the last 4.5 months and their commitment to hold quarterly shareholder conference calls has proved risible. Can't say that impressed with their investor relations strategy.
Under Martin's leadership shareholders also had the advantage of being kept well informed about what was happening.
Probably a forlorn hope but could we have Martin back please?|
|This is the first time - admittedly belatedly - I've seen it explicitly stated that there would be no licence until the law was passed, but I'd sort of assumed that was the likelihood.
It would seem to cast some light on the NRRP RNS comment 'talks with the Ministry are ongoing.'
An NRRP RNS on 23 March 2015 said "North River is committed to maintaining a regular and constructive dialogue with its shareholders and accordingly it will hold shareholder conference calls on a quarterly basis moving forward, in addition to supplementary communications as appropriate".
The last conference call was SEVEN months ago on 8 July.
While NRRP's management must be tearing their hair out over the lack of licence, I am becoming increasingly disenchanted by their failure to keep shareholders adequately informed about what's happening.|