Altyngold Share Discussion Threads

[jc2706] 16/10/2019 15:55

Ok great. Thanks chipperfrd. Accumulation it is!

[chipperfrd] 16/10/2019 14:07

Sorry JC.

I understand what you mean.

It would have taken an inordinate amount of time to factor in all the smaller trades and it was relatively easy to estimate the relevance and daily balance without doing so. I really doubt that the effort would have changed the overall figures beyond the margin of error that I was aiming for as the block trades were so large. Also, much of the daily totals included 'AT' trades which I had already counted. So I really just needed to scan for 'O' trades that could meaningfully move the dial.
Chip

[jc2706] 16/10/2019 13:39

Sorry, you mistake me.

I meant that the sells generally being a small number of large blocks and the buys a larger number of smaller blocks.

[chipperfrd] 16/10/2019 13:16

JC

The net balance of 'O' trades by month was as follows:

Jan & Feb trivial.
March +11.2m
April -186.8m
May -157.8m
June +4.9m
July -317.2m
August +37.1m
Sept +54.7m
Oct +48.9m

In contrast to your impression, I found Aug - Oct overwhelmingly net positive re buys to sells.

[jc2706] 16/10/2019 13:03

Interesting. Thanks.

One point on this methodology for 'O' trades, in the circumstance that you have a few larger sellers and more smaller buyers, you would catch the former but not the latter. Did you get any impression whilst doing this that we were seeing larger sells and smaller buys? The last few weeks have suggested so to me but I couldn't guarantee it. I confess that I am struggling with a market maker running such an unbalanced book on a small gold miner!

[chipperfrd] 16/10/2019 12:40

Hi JC,

I waded through all the daily trading reports for 2019 and recorded all the 'AT' volumes and prices.

I then recorded all the significant (1m+) 'O' volumes and prices disregarding obvious rollovers, et al.

It was sometimes difficult to clearly differentiate Ordinary buys and sells because of delayed reporting and so on. But frankly the relatively few occasions that this occurred is unlikely to change the end result by any significant degree.

The numerous large blocks are clear to see and make up most of the trading imbalance.

I would put my margin of error at c. +/- 1% for AT trades and, perhaps, c. +/- 5% for Ordinary trades.

[brasso3] 16/10/2019 12:14

0.35p to 0.6p with an overhang is still very impressive.

[jc2706] 16/10/2019 12:03

chipperfrd,

Where are you getting those trading volumes from? Are the buys/sells reliable? I find it hard to believe that a market maker would go long to such an extent.

That said, it is clear that there is indeed a significant overhang based on the preponderance of buys over sells recently combined with a static price (at best).

If the overhang really is that big then it will take some time to clear even with positive production news. Perversely this is quite good news as it means that we are unlikely to see a spike which so often wrecks peoples portfolios!

[tightfist] 16/10/2019 09:29

Hi HBR,Thanks for the reminder of their production aspirations: I am interested in their detail activity Plans/timing to deliver these results - I tend to look under-the-bonnet and especially with these guys and their questionable track record......Cheers, tightfist

[tightfist] 16/10/2019 09:25

Hi Chrisis,I have been taking a look back through RNS's relating to T-S (Kara) and located two which are very relevant:04/10/2013 RNS:Karasuyskoye Ore Fields Transaction Hambledon Mining plc (AIM: HMB), the gold mining and development company, announces today that it has entered into an agreement with Hydrogeology LLP, a Kazakh corporation active in exploration and geological research ("Hydrogeology"), to acquire certain historic geological information pertaining to the Karasuyskoye ore fields (the "Karasuyskoye Ore Fields") for a total consideration of US$27.5 million (the "Consideration") (the "Transaction").19/01/2015 RNS:In October 2013, the Company acquired historic technical information from Hydrogeology LLP pertaining to the Karasuyskoye Ore Fields, an area of approximately 198km(2) adjacent to the Sekisovskoye concessions and production facilities. This geological data indicates that there are several mineralised zones and leads the Company to believe that Karasuyskoye has the potential to contain significant gold resources. The Company plans to validate this geological data by twinning previous drill holes and undertaking additional metallurgical test work. This work will facilitate the preparation of an independent competent persons report (CPR) to international standards, and the Company will work on this programme throughout 2015. On completion of the CPR, GoldBridges plans to progress towards mining from the Karasuyskoye Ore Fields, primarily using cash generated from existing operations. There is also the potential to use the Company's existing mining fleet at Karasuyskoye when Sekisovskoye progresses from open pit to a solely underground operation.-----------I was hoping that the T-S CPR would be larger in scope; that is yet to come but seems to be JORC-compliant analysis of existing comprehensive data (underwritten by some confirmatory twin drilling?).However the gem is that my hunch from yesterday is borne out in the last paragraph: Potential redeployment at T-S of the existing idle Seki OP mining fleet.....Cheers, tightfist

[goldfund] 16/10/2019 08:41

Where is the Seller? Gone?

[chrisis33] 15/10/2019 22:28

just noticed this comment amongst the RNS ...
Altyn CEO Aidar Assaubayev commented:
"Following the updated CPR on Sekisovskoye released last week we are pleased to announce the company's first CPR on Area # 2 of the Teren-Sai exploration and development project.The momentum from this initial step in Teren-Sai will be maintained as we intend to continue the exploration of the project, by analysing the 15 remaining targets of this significant project. "

[tightfist] 15/10/2019 21:23

Hi Chip,Thanks - the overhang will eventually get mopped-up. I am actually a lot more interested in seeing THE PLAN!

[chipperfrd] 15/10/2019 21:17

tightfist,

No, I can only go by the trading record as I have posted up.

[tightfist] 15/10/2019 20:33

Hi Chip,According to post #872, FactSet reported that on 10th September that DWS still had 141m shares.Can you make any sense of that versus trading patterns over the last 5 weeks?Cheers, tightfist

[tightfist] 15/10/2019 20:28

While looking through the last AR I came across this commentary at the foot of P5/P6:"Test production was achieved with 500t of ore processed from TerenSai (one of the contract areas in Karasuskoye). A mine and beneficiation plant plans have been designed, and initial procedures drawn up to start resources exploitation in 2021- 2022. The initial capex requirements have been incorporated into the budget"Presumably this is easily accessible OP material and it is budgeted within "ore handling" within the high level budget just below? But the reason why remains.....Cheers, tightfist

[chipperfrd] 15/10/2019 20:17

Hi Tightfist,

According to the Altyn website, Goldman had 3.3% some time ago (c. 82.5M shares).

Hence, the GS and DB holdings would account for c. 220M alone if they had dumped all their stock this year.

The net balance of 'O' trades in April was c. -186m. In May it was c. -157M and in July it was -317M.

The tide turned in August with net balance of 'O' trades at c. +37M, September was c. +54M and October is currently c. +49M.

After taking account of the 'AT' trades through the order book the possible overhang could still be c. 249M shares. It would certainly explain the apparent iceberg which is keeping the share price at c. 0.6p.

Chip

[homebrewruss] 15/10/2019 20:11

Tightfist, maybe, although looking back through previous news they already had/have a plan to increase production to 60,000 and then 80,0000 tonnes per month from the underground mine so presumably they will stick to this as that's what they wanted the funding for.

Happy to be corrected by any longer term holders that know better though..

[tightfist] 15/10/2019 20:04

Hi Chip,According to #872, DWS (suspected off-loader) had 141m shares then (about 19 days ago). Can you make any projections of the remaining overhang based on that extra info?Cheers, tightfist

[tightfist] 15/10/2019 19:52

Hi All,I just wonder if they have some redundant dedicated OP equipment (from the exhausted Seki OP operation) and they were/are looking to deploy that on a new OP operation on T-S?Now they have the funding maybe we are in a different scenario? Or maybe an interim fast-start OP operation with existing equipment remains part of the plan?Intriguing! tightfist

[chipperfrd] 15/10/2019 18:43

JC and Jerrypike,

An alternative view is that their plant, although only running on part capacity, is better utilised for the increasing Seki UG ore as opposed to the fresh costs of initiating OP mining at the T-S Area#2 and transporting to the Seki mill.

eg.
Seki UG reserve grade is 3.61g/t against a (breakeven) cutoff of 1.5g/t. Simplistically, a target profit/t of 2.11g/t.

T-S Area#2 OP reserve grade is 1.71g/t against the (breakeven) cutoff of 0.5g/t.
Simplistically a target profit/t of 1.21g/t.

Hence, better value/t from the UG ore than from the T-S OP site. Although clearly if the plant has spare capacity whilst the UG is running up there might well be an economic case for topping up the plant until the Seki UG reaches full capacity (850ktpa).

Either way, Altyn will require far more processing capacity available going forward. The current plant had originally been planned to upgrade to 1Mtpa by year 4 of the Seki plan in order to reach an average 100koz Au pa. Ore from T-S will obviously require additional processing capacity of at least another 1.3Mtpa according to today's CPR.

Re Seki OP: as far as I am aware there is no further near surface (ie open pittable) ore.
Chip

[jc2706] 15/10/2019 17:23

jerrypike,

I couldn't agree more. Open pit mining would be an easy win considering that there is a huge amount of available capacity at the processing plant and as regards Teren-Sai I am with you on this.

[jerrypike] 15/10/2019 16:24

Jc...I agree with your comments re Seki....Its purely a hunch of mine....Time will tell.
My thoughts re open pit mining at Teren and possibly Seki are that if they werent successful with the bank finance they may have been able to start immediately at either of those places.....with a much lower required capex.