Atalaya Mining Share Discussion Threads

[iankn73] 12/1/2017 10:40

Spoke directly with Alberto many months back and asked question regarding gold tailings and I'm sure he said that gold would need to be around $2k per Oz to make economically viable, so a bit to go before even thinking about extracting the gold.

[sirmoori] 12/1/2017 10:13

In answer to the quesiton about MM behaviour and the current spread and to state the obvious, an MM will up the offer if they have a limit buy order. I can't see why they would commit to a trade above any house limit they have if they were unable to move the stock, particularly if the stock in question is as thinly traded and tightly held as this one.

[husbod] 12/1/2017 09:36

Shortarm - I have been wondering for a while whether it is one particular mm who is consistently low on the bid and if so why? anyone with L2 and more knowledge of mm behaviour able to comment?

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 12/1/2017 09:18

Applying man maths to the old 'what should the share price be' with not much in the way of supporting evidence for the theory apart from wishful thinking and optimism..!

$2.00 Copper, zero profit, 80p achieved
$2.50 Copper, $50M EBITDA, 160p achieved
$2.75 Copper, $75M EBITDA, 240p rough estimate
$3.00 Copper $100M EBITDA, 320p wild estimate
$3.50 Copper $150M EBITDA 480p ..?
$4.00 Copper $200M EBITDA 640p ..?

Sorted.. :o)

[shortarm] 12/1/2017 09:16

Selling at 154.2 anyone??Why do they keep the bid artificially low???

[qs99] 12/1/2017 09:06

nudging up now

[bewise2] 12/1/2017 08:58

Copper now 2.64, every tick up adds more to our gross....finally could the stars be aligning for us...I do think so....once Astor is successfully resolved the brakes are off :)

[shortarm] 12/1/2017 08:55

Anybody remember at what gold price the tailings reprocessing JV for gold becomes a winner?

[iankn73] 12/1/2017 08:55

copper @ $2.65 must be due another leg up soon.

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 12/1/2017 08:48

Yes Shortarm, .. Copper $2.625/lb a tick up coming our way soon..!

[shortarm] 12/1/2017 08:35

They are RP.Gold and copper flying today, tailings processing for the 1million oz plus??

[rougepierre] 12/1/2017 08:35

All those $1.51ish bargains look like sells to me...?

[husbod] 11/1/2017 20:26

Hmm need more than 190p - that's only just over 6p real money just to keep it in perspective. It would reduce some of our losses though.

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 11/1/2017 18:19

Thanks Acamas, I saw it there too, but not the full report, and the details of why they have made the upgrade from 175 to 190p, I wanted to know the mechanics of what was behind it, and if it was all FX related..?

Meanwhile, we have now had 2 full months selling into $2.50+ Copper, @ $5/6M EBITDA per month.. which will plug a few gaps in the balance sheet..!

Q4 update this week...?

[acamas] 11/1/2017 17:21

llb,

Try StockMarketWire.com/companynews I found it there timed at 8.50 this morning

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 11/1/2017 17:09

I see Peel Hunt have reiterated their 'Buy' rating on ATYM this morning, and raised their share price forecast from 175p to 190p..

I've not found a link to it yet, but it's quoted on II news..

Onward and upwards.. :o)

[husbod] 11/1/2017 15:12

LLB - the answer to your question is "no". Directors and anyone else are entitled to rely on their lawyers in complicated legal documentation unless the lawyer has a file note that he advised on a certain course of action and the client ignored him. So, if Astor's lawyer's have a file note or waiver letter showing that they had bought the directors attention to the possibility of a placement or rights issue as a means of raising the funds and the direct6ors had said "don't be silly who would put money into a dog like that so there's no need to cover that contingency" then the lawyers would be off the hook. I would suggest this is an unlikely scenario.

[shortarm] 11/1/2017 13:49

MM's have managed to bore people out of 4k shares at 151.xx

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 11/1/2017 13:48

Interesting to spark debate on this, I'm not a lawyer, so if anyone on here is, please contribute.., but as far as I'm concerned it's black and white, we didn't use senior debt / bank loans to fund the project - period... that is a non negotiable fact..

Whether the judge, will say to himself, I can see what you tried to cover off there Mr Astor, but you made a very careless oversight, so you lose.., please refer your case to your lawyers insurers.

Or he might say here's another chance to renegotiate sensible terms..?, but that's not his job is it.., he simply reads the contracts, and upholds the companies case on the words in the contract signed by both parties and they get Zip..?

Lawyers will carry insurance in case of a backlash on their advice for sure, but.., when a director signs off accounts for example, you rely on them doing their work and diligence properly, once signed off, the ultimate responsibility falls onto the directors shoulders, not the accountants if they make mistakes..?

Applying this logic to legal contracts, does this exonerate their Lawyers..?

[superbobtaylor] 11/1/2017 12:17

I have not seen the contract but wording as given on here is 100% clear and there is, in my opinion, no room for misinterpretation. ATYM have not taken senior debt and are therefore not liable to make this payment.

Judges are normally used to rule when wording is unclear, ambiguous or using jargon. I don't see this here. In B2B contracts a judge cannot strike or amend a clause just because it is "unfair". Astor signed the contract and that is that. I am not sure what case they will be making?

Would be nice to get this settled though as currently ATYM could never take on any debt without the threat of the clause being triggered.

SBT

[husbod] 11/1/2017 12:10

As far as I can see - it's black and white. Either we win, in which case we get off "Scott Free" or we lose in which case we have to make the payments (subject to appeal). There is no middle ground.

Not sure what our continuing relationship with Astor will be like if we win - maybe it will be agreed that on the basis of mutual loathing we will buy them out of the continuing arrangements.

Must be getting closer to a "look what we've bought" RNS unless everything is on hold pending the Astor case decision.

[saintb] 11/1/2017 12:04

Some interesting and well informed articles following my post.Thank you all those who responded.

As mentioned by LLB and as I previously stated, I find it difficult to believe we will get off "Scott Free" so 30th.January could be an interesting day.

[husbod] 11/1/2017 11:46

True - the one thing mms are supposed to do is create a market. There is no point in having a bid price that mean no-one sells or indeed an offer price where no-one buys. That's the theory anyway.

[acamas] 11/1/2017 11:41

shortarm,

Then as you infer the "bid" price has to rise to induce sellers to appear