We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Woodburne Sq | WSAG | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 3.75 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.75 | 3.75 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 20/3/2012 21:10 by rodez Thanks StephanieOut of interest I recently sent these extracts to a friend. Jo Jo- 9 Mar'12 - 11:51 - 940 of 985 If the boys are in Madagascar, I can only assume they are negotiating an increase in our stake, which hopefully will be done soon, pre-production. Based on earlier valuations in this thread by engelo and others our existing investment is 'really' worth perhaps £8m (over 3x current market cap on its own!). So we need to exercise the option to take this stake up to 45% or more on the same terms, liquidating old Silver holdings and/or Brady, if necessary to do so. It's already been encouraged on this thread, and it looks like it may be happening. Great news - increasing this holding to one which has a fair value of £25m+ (AND from existing funds, so no cash raising required). A clever bit of business on the part of Sahney/Marvin. Well done boys. 10p looking very likely now, over the coming week or so. xcap - 10 Mar'12 - 13:52 - 985 of 985 Engelo yes have done so. I initially started my reading (twice!) from 12 Jan (the RNS release of strategic review), but last night went back to 1 Jan. I hadn't realised that ConsMin only entered the register on 5 Jan, there I was assuming they were there from the TW days. The level of research you guys have done is unbelievable. I have no views presently regarding the RTO idea. I need to understand it a bit more before forming a view. I appreciate that is what Nat Rothschild has done with GENL and BUMI, and look at their mcaps! The ConsMin connection: 1.Clearly a strategic holding 2. With a 21% holding a seat on the Board has to follow, this would then provide formal strategic direction and operational execution not to mention the vast resources WSAG would have access to (human and otherwise), and this is what the market will like it would be the formal stamp of approval and will add a serious amount of value to our mcap 3. Remember also that with AUM's 4.82% (if they are aligned with ConsMin) they would have over 25% voting power which means much greater rights in calling for special resolutions (which I suppose does/could add to the RTO idea) 4. I think ConsMin must have been in the background supporting GS for sometime before the shake up. You don't just get the 5 Jan RNS and a week later issue another announcing a stake in a graphite operation in MAD without the confidence and support of a stakeholder such as ConsMin, infact I think they would have unofficially "rubber stamped" it. GS is no doubt very bright and has taken a crash course on commodities, but you cannot make material operational investment decisions of this nature without a whole team involved assessing a. quality of asset and its operations b. the management c. assessment of off take agreements - no point in producing 12k tons if they have not secured a market d. geological reserves and resource, grade, cut off and all the other technical and engineering aspects of the mining operation and investment..... (would GS honestly know or have the skills and expertise to sign off the resource as being verifiable on behalf of the WSAG Board and its shareholders - i think not, i think there would have been a team of helpers on hand from ConsMIn) d. obviously the list is not exhaustive edit: apologies, engelo your post 981 address' this point But, having written the above, I am asking myself, if ConsMin have done all this to support WSAG where's the benefit to them, why not just deal directly with Graphmada. I've stopped dead in my tracks because it lends much more credence to the RTO idea or their ultimate goal of creating a company with subsidaries operating in critical and strategic metals to list them separately with controlling interests. ....... JoJo_- 11 Mar'12 - 02:06 - 986 of 986 I'm still totally convinced ConsMin (poss. c/w Global Gold) have big plans for StratMin. However even ignoring this, a 45% stake in Grafmada would produce around £10m in turnover for us. Not sure what margins will be like, but assuming they will be at least 30%, we should get £3m pa in profit on the holding. At 6x, the Grafmada investment alone should add nearly £18m to WSAG's (StratMin's) market value. Production due to start Q2 2012 (ie very soon). Let's hope they can build the stake up to 45% or higher, and that is the reason for the directors visit to Madagascar, and possibly South Aftica where Bogolyubov has a few operations. We have a ready-made buyer for the graphite in the form of Abramovich's EVRAZ (where Bogolyubov sits on the board). Apparently Bogolyubov, who is based in London, also intends listing his Privatbank on the LSE this year. Oil producer Ukrnafta, in which Bogolyubov holds a 10% stake, is also preparing to IPO. Personally I think he'll be quite keen to ex-patriate some of the proceeds. Clearly funding will never be a problem for any venture he chooses to get involved in. -------------------- Jo Jo 17 Mar'12 - 11:45 - 1170 of 1171 Although the subject wasn't broached precisely, I presume there was very good reason for the Madagascar visit (ie. more than just GS meeting the management down there). I bet documents were signed while they were there. They would want to tie down a decent size stake, say 30% - 45%, before the price and interest in graphite takes off. Judging from the original statement this was loosely agreed at the start. Graphmada may need some more cash soon for transportation etc, so hopefully the mechanism for increasing this stake, etc, has now been agreed in writing. As already noted, a lot of this could be funded from the sale of the BRDY/Silver stakes. Graphmada are contemplating a listing down the line, and could use the expertise we can provide. It could be valued at over £60m by that time, providing an attractive part-exit strategy for us and the current owners. -------------------- GRAPHENE. EXTRACTS . Traditional demand for graphite in the steel and automotive industries is growing 5% annually, and graphite prices have tripled. New applications such as heat sinks in computers, lithium-ion batteries, fuel cells, and nuclear and solar power are all big users of graphite. These consumers are beginning to place substantial demands on existing production-and over 70% of that production is from China, which is no longer selling this resource cheaply to the rest of the world as the country's easy-to-mine, near-surface deposits are becoming exhausted. Graphite's criticality and potential scarcity has been recognized by both the United States and the European Union, which have each declared graphite a supply-critical mineral. Recently, the British Geological Survey ranked graphite right behind the rare earths and substantially ahead of lithium in terms of supply criticality. Clearly, there is much more to graphite than pencils. ......Only flake and synthetic graphite, which is made from petroleum coke through a very expensive process, can be used in lithium-ion batteries, the current demand driver for this crucial substance. 321energy.com owner Bob Moriarty recently commented, "If you believe in lithium-ion batteries, you would do far better by investing in a good graphite company than a good lithium company. . .With demand for graphite growing at 50% per year and prices reaching $2,500-3,000 a ton, the future for graphite companies with actual projects is excellent." ... Countries known to have reserves of highly valuable flake or crystalline graphite include Austria, Norway, Germany, Italy, MADAGASCAR, Sri Lanka, Russia and Canada. "Graphite and Rare Earth Metals for the 21st Century: Jack Lifton TICKERS: FMS, NGC; NGPHF, SER Source: The Critical Metals Report Editors (2/7/12) Complete text posted by xcap WSAG thread 11 Mar'12 - 09:44 - 992 of 995 |
Posted at 16/3/2012 14:40 by marab xcap - many thanks for finding the info. So many stocks - so little memory cells left :) Bit embarrassing though that I can't remember my own posts. I quote me from post 791'An advantage of subsidiaries was that dilution could be absorbed at this level', my guess would be that WSAG will help the likes of Grafmada to raise cash where required. The beauty of that system would be that there will be no need for WSAG to put in any more cash unless they feel inclined to do so, and I would expect funding to be at a level that would enhance WSAG's share holding where possible. Obviously as the companies being targeted are likely to be close to production or about to ramp up production any investment cash at that point should add value to the WSAG holding. |
Posted at 16/3/2012 14:23 by marab From the pre AGM circular, 'Distinct operating subsidiaries will be created andorganized along specific mineral class.' Unless I am getting confused (a very real possibility) was there not some talk here earlier about money being raised through those companies being invested in rather than through WSAG. The idea being that WSAG would help companies like Graphmada to raise funds. I can't remember whether it was in some other document or whether someone had been talking to one of the directors at the AGM. |
Posted at 11/3/2012 07:20 by xcap JoJo from the Northern Graphite website, Feb 12 Presentation Project Parameters: CDN$70-80 MM capital cost 2,500 tpd processing rate 19,000 tonnes of graphite produced per year less than0.50 waste-to-ore ratio Cash cost of $1,000 per tonne 40 year life-of-mine with expansion potential From Focus Metals Website, Presentation Targeting ~20,000 tonnes annual production (95% - 97%) Cash costs expected to be ~$350/t Versus $800 to $1,500/t for most competitors Potential to add ~3,000 tpa high purity (99.99%) graphite 99.9% and 99.99% purity graphite needed for battery use Sells for an average of $20,000 up to $40,000 per tonne depending on customer specific requirements Simple graphite ore processing Crushing, flotation, screening, drying, and bagging Pit limits extend to 125 metres JoJo (re above) Cash costs at FMS are projected to be $350 per ton! @ $3000/ton that's an operating margin of 88%. Plus note where large flake purity hits 99% the price/ton can be as high as $40,000 Graphmada: Truth is we simply don't know what our cash costs are, according to the above , these could be $350/ton to $1,000/ton, but even if conservative at say $1500/ton that's a 50% op margin! We (shareholders) have no clue what our resources are, they are probably be much bigger and no doubt further exploration will happen, sourced through internal cashflows (it would be nice to know the LOM, that would give us a clue about current resource) The mineralistaion is likely to be open in all directions and at depth We already have high quality flake so may hold very high flake purity (up to 99.99%) selling between $20,000 and $40,000 per ton We DO KNOW that our operation will be in production in Q2 ramping up to 12,000 tpa 2 years ahead of Northern Graphite and Focus Metals. They have yet to raise finance and in these difficult capital markets (while the capex is small relatvley speaking) is going to be difficult and I suspect put projects back 6-12 months. A positive for Graphmada. What we do know is that we are looking to increase our stake in Graphmada and that can only suggest that a very sound and promising outlook in respect of resources and mine life quality of flake off take cash costs, especially if we are able to increase production to 15 or 18,000 tpa in a few years If, as we all agree, ConsMin, are very much involved here, all the above is very and highly likely as part of the investment outlook WSAG have for Graphmada. EDIT: Oh, and I forget, NGC mcap £41m (not yet in production), and FMS £52m (not yet in production) and they both have much higher TP set in the broker notes. This means at an av mcap of £47m, our 15% interest should equate to an mcap of £7m = 11p just for starters (remembering FMS/NGC are not near term (2 months away) producers, and the 11p only relates to the 15% stake in this single asset, which is is to be increased and takes account of no other asset on our balance sheet, the possibility of future investments and of course whatever ConsMin have in store!). I really hope WSAG will do a Co Presentation and give us much more detail about this operation. We need to know the structure of the current deal and what we have to do to increase our stake in Graphmada to 45%. I am so glad I am in. What a fantastic prospect we have here. I wonder what next week has in store for us. The above are my personal views and please dyor. regards |
Posted at 10/3/2012 13:52 by xcap Engelo yes have done so. I initially started my reading (twice!) from 12 Jan (the RNS release of strategic review), but last night went back to 1 Jan. I hadn't realised that ConsMin only entered the register on 5 Jan, there I was assuming they were there from the TW days. The level of research you guys have done is unbelievable. I have no views presently regarding the RTO idea. I need to understand it a bit more before forming a view. I appreciate that is what Nat Rothschild has done with GENL and BUMI, and look at their mcaps! The ConsMin connection: 1. Clearly a strategic holding 2. With a 21% holding a seat on the Board has to follow, this would then provide formal strategic direction and operational execution not to mention the vast resources WSAG would have access to (human and otherwise), and this is what the market will like it would be the formal stamp of approval and will add a serious amount of value to our mcap 3. Remember also that with AUM's 4.82% (if they are aligned with ConsMin) they would have over 25% voting power which means much greater rights in calling for special resolutions (which I suppose does/could add to the RTO idea) 4. I think ConsMin must have been in the background supporting GS for sometime before the shake up. You don't just get the 5 Jan RNS and a week later issue another announcing a stake in a graphite operation in MAD without the confidence and support of a stakeholder such as ConsMin, infact I think they would have unofficially "rubber stamped" it. GS is no doubt very bright and has taken a crash course on commodities, but you cannot make material operational investment decisions of this nature without a whole team involved assessing a. quality of asset and its operations b. the management c. assessment of off take agreements - no point in producing 12k tons if they have not secured a market d. geological reserves and resource, grade, cut off and all the other technical and engineering aspects of the mining operation and investment..... (would GS honestly know or have the skills and expertise to sign off the resource as being verifiable on behalf of the WSAG Board and its shareholders - i think not, i think there would have been a team of helpers on hand from ConsMIn) d. obviously the list is not exhaustive edit: apologies, engelo your post 981 address' this point But, having written the above, I am asking myself, if ConsMin have done all this to support WSAG where's the benefit to them, why not just deal directly with Graphmada. I've stopped dead in my tracks because it lends much more credence to the RTO idea or their ultimate goal of creating a company with subsidaries operating in critical and strategic metals to list them separately with controlling interests. I think I have lost my train of thought now and am rambling on a bit... forgive me if the above no sense at all. All I know, and I am merely reflecting what has been said already: this is a hell of a fascinating story that is unfolding. And one thing I am confident about is that we have a very able CEO and there is clearly something (good) going on in the background viz vie ConsMin. I copy Engelo post 790 - All directors are shareholders and share the same interests in the share price going forward, and - By the end of the year GS expected shareholders would be extremely pleased with the developments currently envisaged All imho |
Posted at 10/3/2012 11:05 by backwoodsman Sorry, I must be suffering from information overload - what is the connection with Gennadiy Bogolyubov?Is this to do with Consolidated Minerals PTE Limited's holding in WSAG? According to Bloomberg this company was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Singapore. According to the Australian Group 'Consolidated Minerals' website there is a subsidiary Consolidated Minerals Pty Limited as well as other unnamed subsidiaries but how can we be sure that the WSAG shareholder is linked with this group? |
Posted at 02/3/2012 09:25 by marab engelo - excellent write up and very much appreciate the work that went into it. I'm glad that you seem to share my opinion of GS, and the next few weeks will give us an idea of how sincere he was (ie. new website).The Consmin connection looks good to me for future funding of projects, and I can now see why they have not been picking up all the loose shares in the market as I would have expected of a 20% share holder looking to reverse into WSAG. 'An advantage of subsidiaries was that dilution could be absorbed at this level', my guess would be that WSAG will help the likes of Grafmada to raise cash where required. The beauty of that system would be that there will be no need for WSAG to put in any more cash unless they feel inclined to do so, and I would expect funding to be at a level that would enhance WSAG's share holding where possible. Obviously as the companies being targeted are likely to be close to production or about to ramp up production any investment cash at that point should add value to the WSAG holding. I am very encouraged by the general picture and while I have sympathy for you missing out on tea and biscuits it's nice to see the cash isn't being wasted. Thanks again for taking the time and trouble both to go to the meeting and sharing your experience with us. |
Posted at 28/2/2012 16:46 by marab engelo - No detail other than that which I have already posted. Looking at their positions and career info I would guess that GS would be the man that finds the funding and perhaps decided when to cash in. JM/Consmin may well be the ones supplying the candidates for investment. It may be cheaper for Consmin to have WSAG front investments, but there has to be some connections between Consmin and the directors of WSAG for them to have bought 20% of the company. I wonder if the current directors brought Consmin in.GS didn't sound like the type of person who would go into detail with a punter calling out of the blue so all chat was general. He did phone me back even though I hadn't said how many shares I owned so for all he knew I could have owned 20 shares or even none at all, so I give him brownie points for that. |
Posted at 28/2/2012 12:45 by marab Re reading the recent circular I don't feel it is likely that Consolidated Minerals will be reversing anything into WSAG, but I do wonder what the relationship is. Could it be that CM is a potential customer for whatever WSAG turns up, or perhaps a funding partner? Either would be fine for me and might explain the size of their share holding, enough to influence decisions but not enough to take control. |
Posted at 07/1/2012 15:19 by engelo Jo-Jo: Many thanks for your excellent research and your willingness to share it! Had formed the same opinion that there was some concealment at work. For example the WSAG holding in BRDY was issued under BRDY and is shown on the BRDY website as 'Rivington St stockbrokers'. Although this is petty, it seems that Bogul likes to sail close to the wind: this is a quote from the bid battle with Pallingshurst for control of Consmin in 2007: "Most important, Bogolyubov was able to regain the confidence of the board of Consolidated Minerals after he and his business partner in Ukraine, Igor Kolomoisky, were cleared last week of any links to a group of independent Ukrainian brokers who were revealed to have amassed a combined 17.7% stake in the firm. Bogolyubov holds 14% of Consolidated Minerals through his wholly owned investment company, Palmary, of which 2.76 million shares it held through ING Bank (nyse: ING - news - people ) in Ukraine attracted suspicions initially but later proved to have been already reported to Australia's securities regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. More than two weeks' investigation launched by both Consolidated Minerals and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission traced the paper trail of the 17.7% stake to three Ukrainian stockbrokers who appeared to be operating independently of each other. At one point, confusion arose as to whether either Kolomoisky, Bogolyubov's business partner in an Ukrainian bank, PrivatBank, or Bogolyubov himself might have made mischief with Australia's securities rules by owning undisclosed shares through PrivatBank. (See: " Secret Dealings Cloud Billionaire's Bid For Aussie Miner")" It seems to me to be clear that WSAG and Bogul are actively cooperating and the only question is how long this has been going on. Sahney may have been appointed on a short term basis to earn a few quid helping to clean up the shell. The Rivington position is interesting: useful to know that T1PS were cleared out at 3p which was OK for TW's purposes at the time. Now it's even more useful as it serves to put a floor under the WSAG sp!! Going back to Brady, perhaps someone wants to build a stake there on the quiet and has found 2 helping hands (VIR and WSAG) to warehouse the holdings for a time. |
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
Hot Features
Premium
