Bens Creek Share Discussion Threads

[purchaseatthetop] 02/2/2023 13:43

Seagreen.
You see a “phased start up” with slow early months and then gradual rise to higher than higher output levels. Which would be nice but the RNSs say anything but that.

As previously proven, according to their owns RNSs mined clean coal in September 22 was just 8k tons. We know it was around 20k tons in June to August each month because of earlier RNSs.

You may not like it but this is their data and is quite clear. The “phased start up” collapsed at the end of the summer. I think that They had mined the easily accessible seams. They had to move. This is the problem with having to remove a mountainside to create a 20m wide contour bench on which the place the HWMer.

But it will be fascinating when they have to release proper data. Which they will. Eventually.

[seagreen] 02/2/2023 10:29

"We know"

Is that the royal "We" per chance?

Your majesty "We" have a severe and stuborn mental mathmatical block over the use of simple averages in a phased start up and the majority of people of sound mind think your positon is untenable.

[seagreen] 01/2/2023 19:35

Classic Pinnochio Patt

Both the versions that suit your negative spin are right

Then you simply can not help youself putting a negative spin on even RNS to try and convince people your negative interpretation is correct

The RNS:

Never mentions "by the cleaning wash plant"

Complete absence of "by the cleaning wash plant"

Not even a tiny sugestion of "by the cleaning wash plant"

Total silence of "by the cleaning wash plant"

No wonder you are regarded as the idiot on the bulitin board

The RNS says

Bens Creek Group plc (AIM:BEN), the owner of a metallurgical coal mine in North America supplying the steel industry, is pleased to announce that from 26 October 2022 to the end of November 2022, the Company has produced a total of 43,736 clean tonnes. This production came from the newly permitted seam. Despite closing for the American Thanksgiving Holiday, the production in November 2022 is the highest monthly production to date and exceeds by 18% the Company's original peak annual production target at the time of the Company's admission to AIM, details of which are set out on page 24 of the Company's Admission Document published on 13 October 2021; 'to reach peak annual production at 0.44 million (444,000) tonnes in 2025.' which equates to 37,000 tonnes per month.

Adam Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of Bens Creek, commented:

"For the first time we have produced c.40,000 tons in a month. The past month has been a busy transitional period as we moved from mining contractors to an owner operator model for earth removal. Armed with our fully operational fleet and the deployment of our 2(nd) High Wall Miner, we look forward to 2023 with confidence. We remain on track to meet our monthly production targets and achieving in excess of 70,000 clean tons per month."

[purchaseatthetop] 01/2/2023 15:53

Seagreen. The 2/12/22 RNS is completely accurate. It says that 44k clean tons were processed by the cleaning wash plant between 26/10 and 30/11/22. It does not say that 44k clean tons were mined and processed between those dates.
I think it was clearly written to be open to different interpretations. You know how that has confused you before so be careful. I do like your “there is a huge possibility that it is kosher”. Why? Nothing written before has been kosher.

The best thing though is everybody is accepting that bearded blokes video from the mine saying that four trains have now arrived and then him singing “country roads, take me home”. Fricking love it! RNSs are so last year.

[seagreen] 01/2/2023 15:48

I realise and am fully on board with the logic you have applied as I said....

I am simply querrying the term total production of clean washed coal in the specific 6 month period as you are not including the oppening unprocessed ROM stock.

However, you then mock the RNS of 2/12/2022 stating record total production of circa 44K is rubbish and mock the CEO as you believe it includes unprocessed ROM to inflate the total production OF CLEAN COA from a previous period........

It is a subtle point .....

Its called having your cake and eat it without any proof to present the worst case scenario.

I am not saying which is correct but I sugest:

If your logic is correct (in all probability) on the interim production then you have no reason to deride the RNS of 2/12/2022 and there is a huge possibility it is kosher and relates to the production of clean coal specificly mined in that very specfic period.

Anyway onwards and upwards.

(Of course I understand oppening and closing stock I have audited more stock takes than you have made accurate forecasts, mind that would not be hard. LOL)

[seagreen] 01/2/2023 12:20

The other confusing thing I note is there is no 6 month total for ROM coal mined in the six month interim period or any RNS.

So having highlighted the diference between production of washed coal and ROM coal mined in a specific period in your criticism of the recent RNS stating 44K of production in a very specific time period it also highlights how frail your forecasts might possibly be by combining assumptions on ROM vs production of the performance of the HWM.

This is further confused by my above post which appears to show moreproduction in the interim.

Mindful of the fact that the interim accounts are not audited per se and there is no difinitive guidance on the latter months and the 6 months output capability of the HWM:

As I have implied in the trading outlook 30/08/2022 I believe this sentence is open to interpretation:

"ü 184k raw tons of coal have been stockpiled"

What does this mean?

In the absence of clarification it is open to interpretation?

For example at 30/08/2022 does this mean the total amount of ROM that has been recorded as reaching the pre wash collection point (unaudited at a point some days prior to 30/08/2022 when the RNS was written and submitted), but for example the only reliable record of ROM through put to the wash plant?

Should this be the case there is a potential argument that this could well be inclusive of the oppening ROM stock as the wash plant was being tested at the end of the previous period?

This would give a strong implication that there was considerably more ROM coal mined in the last week of August and the first weeks in September?

You appear to be using fully washed production as an estimate/implication/indication to show a lack of mining ROM output as opposed to using a total mining output for the interim period which is information not stated or available?

I am sure you will disagree and say it includes openning stock (no clarification available) but there is a case for arguing the output of the ROM mined in September was significantly higher in the later part of August and September should this be the case.

One could argue

ROM mined including opening stock at say 26/08/2022 totaled 184K

versus

shipped clean coal and closing clean coal = 108,230 is the equivalent of 216.460 ROM

Which may imply the HWM produced an additional 32,460 tons of ROM in the last say 5 weeks before being moved to its next site?

All I am saying is that at the data from interim accounts and accompanying RNS is insuficinet and not clear enough to be dogmatic about the productivity of the HWM.

I remain baffled why there was not a simple statement stating the total ROM mined in the interim period.

Although I completely understand the logic of switching to reporting the production levels as opposed to the ROM mining output, which is dependent on the operational performance of the wash plant as that is real sales revenue for the future.

In the absence of clarification you can not be sure about your estimates you maintain are 100% fact and it might be advisable not to ne quite so dogmatic especially if the production quoted was potentially understated in the operational update.

Perhaps at the year end a simple analysis of

Oppening stock ROM and Washed (per stock take)
Total output and production ROM and Washed
Closing stock ROM and Washed (per stock take)

Would prevent further attempts to both overstate and understate progress.

Too much to hope for monthly analysis but that would put matters beyond doubt.

[purchaseatthetop] 01/2/2023 12:19

Seagreen. I am surprised.
Total output is
Minus Opening stock
Plus sales in period
Plus closing stock

Therefore
Opening stock 10k
Sales inperiod 89k
Closing stock 19k
-10+88+19= 98k tons. So very close.

These are basics for beginners Seagreen. Do you work for Darktrace?

[penstocks] 01/2/2023 12:12

FYI High Ridge is a mine site at Johns Creek with stockyard and also a washplant if required, but most importantly a fast flood loadout for CSX trains. They have washed 3rd party coal in the past for Jim & Jay Justice apparently. OK bye, leave you 2 ADVFN buddies to arm wrestle.

[seagreen] 01/2/2023 11:17

Patt

When you have finished running around waving your CFC top in the air and rolling your hand into a fist and pumping the air as you think your production and output guesses are correct perhaps you could help me with a mathmatical problem as I know you enjoy mathmatics:

What baffles me and I am sure you will point out the errors of my ways as in theory it only clouds the picture further:

As at 1st April there was stock of ROM 22.8M whilst it says clean coak and ROM the wash plant was only commissioned at the end of March per th eRNS and was due to undergo testing per RNS.

So I would be as bold to say that we can assume with high conviction that the 22.8M of oppening stock was substantially and mainly ROM?

You have been at pains to sugest production means total clean coal washed output in a period as opposed to relating to a specific periods mining output of ROM washed in that period. (Makes sense to me as production implies the finished product produced in a period using any available ROM irespective of the period it was mined and is a very good point.)

As part of my review of what seems a potentially proposterous lowball claim with regard to production in September 2022 and is way below your well vocalised average monthly estimates you had insisted were spot on previously, (although of course as you point out production is not the same as mining output of ROM) I came across this mathmatical conundrum:

Total Production for the interim 6 months per RNS = 99.928K tonns of clean coal

Yet if you add up the RNS information you get an additional 8,302 tonnsof production?

Shipped washed coal (2 trains) = 22.00K tons
Shipped washed coal (6 trains) = 67.00K tons
Closing stock washed coal = 19.23K tons

Total Production for the interim 6 months = 108.23K tons


Perhaps you could explain as you seem so sure of your numbers and no doubt I have just made an error thank you in advance.

[seagreen] 01/2/2023 08:38

Dear oh dear Richard that is your weakness you assume what you want to believe and then post it as fact.I said I worked for a Nomad I never said I was a Nomad (QE) big difference. I am not a lawyer.You said you were an accountant, worked in corporate finance and had an MBA.We all had a good giggle over those 3 whoppers.

[penstocks] 01/2/2023 08:27

Just popping in to say I got it wrong. Not 55KT. It was 54KT sold last month.
4 NS trains = 44KT and the CSX coal express took just 10KT. I guess CSX only had 100 hoppers cf NS having 110.
It was indeed unfortunate that Adam once again gave a timeframe now past for the HWM. In fact 6 months late if you want to nit-pic, lol, but as the pit coal is readily picked up as a bi-product of blasting and is clean enough to load straight into the 18 wheelers to haul out for shipment via CSX at High Ridge point then the HWM arrival was not an immediate requirement. No point paying Mega to extract what Bens staff can do themselves with their own equipment.
Sections of the 77 have arrived onsite to assemble into a big yellow HWM300. Might call it Bumblebee as it will transform BEN into a full production mine by summer if not sooner. Anyway, train shipments and news on the 77HWM have not been released in RNS yet so fire away with your disbelief.
I was told my name appeared here again so that is only reason I am gracing you with my presence, short as it will be. No feelings hurt, I enjoy the banter. I know what I know, you believe what you want people to believe. I try to look at positives and negatives but you only seem focussed on trying to find or create the latter. No point getting into a slagging match. Like I have said before, in a year or so we should meet up and grab a Wethers' breakfast pint and reminisce. BEN will either be bankrupt if you have winning cards or will be a multi-bagger dividend player if I have the best deck. My research notes put my deck better than that put together by WHI so am all in ;)
Now stop mentioning my name, I'm like Beetlejuice, lol. I don't like this board as it gets my back up and seems like a personal bashing field. PATT and other aliases have their agenda, Seagreen and others respond (including me) but we should stop and leave PATT to run a monologue, assuming it wasn't already one until I popped back this morning ;) Has PATT created Seagreen so he can argue with himself to get points across much like I did with Sellatthetop? All fun and games in what seems to be a totally non moderated chatboard. GL to all investors and read what you want to in these boards, but always DYOR if you have the time and friends across the Pond.

[seagreen] 31/1/2023 21:08

Richard

On a point of order:

I never said I was a NOMAD (QE) and I never said I was a CFO and would never impersonate such lofty seniority or hate you to think I had.


Best
SG

[purchaseattgetopp] 31/1/2023 18:37

Everyone is laughing at you talking to yourself Patt lol

[purchaseatthetop] 31/1/2023 10:38

Looks like the second HWMer has not arrived in January 23. Let’s see if it arrives in February 23.