Bluejay Mining Share Discussion Threads

[lovewinshatelosses] 03/12/2020 16:22

I remember buying around those white-knuckle lows and considering myself to be quite mad. I alluded to it at the time on this board.
I would be lying if I said that I considered it to be a no-brainer/never in doubt - my sentiment at the time of hitting the buy button was quite the opposite!
I do not want to put the mockers on things, but I agree that it feels like things are getting moving. It has felt like that for a couple of weeks, but it just takes that extra push sometimes. Hopefully this is it now and we long-suffering holders can get to enjoy a sustained rise back to historic share price levels over the next 12 months. But I have got ahead of myself now...GLA.

[perfect choice] 03/12/2020 16:11

And this has a long way to go yet, its just warming up!

[xclusive2] 03/12/2020 16:06

I'm getting richer by the day👍 Only issue is, i wish i'd bought more at 5p, hindsight a luverly thing. Good to see LTH's having some fun as the share price trends north.

[lovewinshatelosses] 03/12/2020 15:56

Well, this is most pleasing to witness!
Cannot be bothered to be on multiple threads for the same company, even though one or two have deteriorated. This is not one of them, to my mind.
If we suddenly get a bunch of new posters ramping or de-ramping, I will quite enjoy it, because it will likely mean that we are going to really motor then :)

[perfect choice] 03/12/2020 15:55

Tomorrow I would say if its a RNS pending leak driving buying and push north today. Just wonder if OTCQB is tomorrow not Monday, so want to start with a good RNS? All guess work of course.

[dhb368] 03/12/2020 15:41

RNS later? Significant buying at 12+ and SCAP top of the offer at 11.75

[midasstingray] 03/12/2020 15:22

I feel positively poor against that 1.4m figure. 128k for me. I'm in the black so onwards and upwards. Thanks to all for the informative posts.

[johnveals] 03/12/2020 13:02

Re separate threads.

I do not log on to see posts. I go to



where all JAY posts are listed. I only log on to post and it is only then that I can see which thread I am posting to.

Thanks to the regulars for a steady flow of informative posts, JAY looks to have a very promising future.

[squiresquire] 03/12/2020 12:59

City snowy

Thanks for that, i had thought hed changed his name

[squiresquire] 03/12/2020 12:58

In the long run ime sure we are all going to be very happy with JAY

[perfect choice] 03/12/2020 12:41

Definitely more than me then! However I'm already sitting on a good profit and expect more so happy!

[drmaccers] 03/12/2020 12:23

I've 1.4mill. Reasonable enough but I'm sure many bigger

[snowyflake] 03/12/2020 12:22

squiresquire - post 8869 - 02.12.20. In case you have not noticed, Dr Maccers has started his own thread. I agree that it would be unfortunate to lose him from your thread.

Mirabeau - many thanks for the Tribunal decision.

And so OTC trading starts for our fungible shares tomorrow or Monday. Irrespective of the effect on the London price, it will be interesting to see what the demand is from the US of A.

[perfect choice] 03/12/2020 11:20

Yes this looks different, JAY about to go on a charge upwards? With OTCQB about to become fully active either Friday or Monday depending on your interpretation of 30 days, I'm expecting some news next week myself most likely the controllable element, e.g. could be Dundas cost optimisation results, which can be reviewed and "adjusted" until you happen to be ready to issue. Definitely feels something is building up and that continuing chart trend as well.

[citytilidie] 03/12/2020 11:18

Just a quick note Squiresquire, Dr Maccers isn’t the one with the large holding. That honour goes to Maccamcd, who is a totally different person.

[citytilidie] 03/12/2020 11:02

Decent volume all day so far. It looks like the chart breakout has now started as recent sellers have had no effect on the price, and their shares have been snapped up by buyers in the wings. News now looks to be imminent.

[perfect choice] 03/12/2020 10:33

Its without question Ilmenite pricing is on an upward trend right now and that is forecast to continue for the next 2 years, making the introduction of Dundas supply ideally timed.

On Kenmare's specific price, not all Ilmenite is equal and Kenmare's is higher grade. Worth a look at the last Hannam & Partners flash note (10th November) and top of page 3 to see the varying price trends for different grades of Ilmenite. share price Angel's note also highlights the variation.

Dundas Ilmenite is below 50% TiO2 so at the lower end of the scales. In fact if you go to page 4 of that flash note you will see the assumed Ilmenite selling price for Dundas starting at $180/t at FY19E but then growing as expected. In fact right now I think spot prices are actually above that forecast trend right now, plus remember not all Ilmenite of the same TiO2 content is the same. Dundas Ilmenite has specific benefits to other Ilmenite sands of the similar % TiO2, and that commands some level of premium on top.

[archie222] 03/12/2020 09:18

Kenmare's H1 results 19th Aug state an ilmenite selling price of 269 USD on P9. Quite a hike over current BJ assumptions even assuming a "pay or take" discount. What was the share price Angel assumption for every +10 USD on the ilmenite sell price = an extra 2p on the BJ share price?

[mirandaj] 03/12/2020 07:20

A couple of comments I would highlight from Kenmare's update on Pilivili today:

"It's been encouraging to see that spot prices for ilmenite, our primary product, have increased strongly in Q4, after a marginal softening in Q3."

and

"The ilmenite product market has been robust in Q4 2020, supported by strong pigment demand and lower ilmenite production, particularly in China."

[mirabeau] 02/12/2020 18:41

The FTT supports input VAT recovery on a holding company’s provision of technical services

LinkedIn (opens new window)

Twitter (opens new window)
By Jan Garioch CA

2 December 2020
Main points:

HMRC tried to deny VAT recovery to a holding company in the mining industry which provided technical services to its subsidiaries.
The holding company’s invoices were charged to loan accounts, so HMRC argued that the services were not provided to generate a flow of income.
The FTT held that at the time the services were provided there was a clear expectation that payment of the loans would be made.

Jan Garioch CA discusses a recent case, Bluejay Mining plc v HMRC where the FTT has to consider practices in the mineral exploration and mining industry.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) published their decision on Bluejay Mining PLC (Bluejay) v HMRC in November 2020. Bluejay’s appeal arose because HMRC had refused to repay over £800,000 of input VAT on the grounds that Bluejay was not making taxable supplies to its subsidiaries for consideration and/or it was not carrying on an economic activity.
The agreed facts

There was no dispute over the basic facts. Bluejay is a holding company listed on the Alternative Investment Market which operates in the mineral exploration and mining industry. It identifies possible mining projects and raises funds, typically from shareholders. As it is frequently a requirement that exploration licenses are held by a body incorporated in the local jurisdiction, Bluejay ensures that the licence is held by a locally resident subsidiary. Bluejay assembles a team to carry out an initial assessment and, if that shows promise, moves on to test whether the original assessment is borne out by exploration. This phase spans a number of field seasons when geological, environmental and infrastructure matters are considered, with Bluejay providing technical services to its subsidiary and loaning it the funds to pay for these services.
Did an accounting description create a legal provision?

Bluejay’s company accounts state these loans are only repayable ‘when sufficient cash resources are available in the subsidiaries’. Therefore, HMRC contended that effectively means there is an unwritten provision to the loan agreements that they are only repayable in such circumstances. Their argument failed to convince the FTT which denied that the wording in the accounts created any additional legal provision. It was merely a description of the commercial reality of these loans. In reaching their view, the FTT felt that it was important that where the subsidiary held more than one licence, any impairment review on whether loans were to be forgiven was carried out with reference to all of the assets of the subsidiary. It concluded that at the time the services were provided there was a very clear expectation that the payment of the loans would be made.
Are the contract for services and the loan agreement separate?

HMRC challenged again with the argument that the contract for services and the loan agreement should be considered as a single agreement providing that the invoices would only be payable if the project is successful. Following that argument, Bluejay’s provision of services is not to generate a flow of income but merely to enhance the value of the subsidiary, and hence the value of its investment. Bluejay’s counter to this argument was that having raised the external funds, it could have advanced them into the subsidiaries in a number of ways, for instance as additional share capital. Since charging an invoice to a loan account is well established as the equivalent of payment, the subsidiary was paying the invoices out of funds in its possession. Again, the FTT came down on the side of Bluejay, accepting that the payment for services was not contingent upon the success of the project.
Further findings

On reaching the above conclusions, the FTT recognised that it could have concluded its considerations and upheld the appeal. However, in case it was wrong in its findings, it continued to consider all of HMRC’s further arguments. Therefore, it considered the implications if the payment of invoices was in fact contingent on the project succeeding. Despite HMRC putting forward cases where the necessary link between services provided and consideration paid was not established, the FTT gave weight to evidence from a Bluejay director that it would be a dereliction of duty if the company continued to supply its services to the subsidiaries after a point when it did not expect the loans to be repaid. FTT’s conclusion was that at the time the services were provided there was a very clear expectation that the payment of the loans would be made, so again Bluejay would succeed.

Finally, the FTT turned to deciding whether Bluejay was conducting an economic activity. HMRC’s contention was that Bluejay was not carrying out an economic activity because its end objective was not to make a profit from the provision of technical services but instead from the ultimate sale of the exploration licences. Again, the FTT was unconvinced. In its view it was clear that Bluejay did obtain an income stream from its provision of technical services, and indeed it generated an income over a number of years considering the time taken for its projects to come to maturity. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

[squiresquire] 02/12/2020 18:16

PC

NO ONE....NO ONE...has any chance whatever of getting into JAY without passing.... Firstly Rod McIlree then the Board, then the Greenlandic Govt, then the Danish Govt, then, dare i say it, the US Govt. Why the US ?, well Thule is a strategic US aircraft base covering that part of the world and its close to Dundas. The US would pull the plug on anything less than Blue Chip getting close to Thule. You are dead right when you say OTCQB will help when its up and running, to whit the bloody great American flag at the bottom of the home page. May we all meet up at some time in the future to swap JAY stories and, hopefully to celebrate its success.

[perfect choice] 02/12/2020 17:37

I agree DrMaccers may have been a "direct" on his terms, which I think could be justified for some dubious characters that turn up on these BB now and again. I do have to say he has been marginal on comments ridiculing RM for example so he's not that "innocent". I certainly consider he is fixated on his own "dream" and will not let anything get in the way of that, including JAY share holder interests. That is his game and so be it, you just have to be aware of that IMHO.

I do see a potential "wolf in sheep's clothing" situation here though. Motive is to gain access to something (namely Ilmenite) to pursue another purpose (a future smelter yet to have a planning application submitted), even if that threatens planned operations so the value JAY shares, which is secondary to "the dream". However as previously posted, I actually feel the opportunity to do anything "disruptive" on Dundas has already passed, he just doesn't realise it yet.

Now onto the other point of price, definitely agree, that is a great trend chart and going in one direction, upwards! OTCQB should be fully up and running this Friday or Monday as well, now that the 30 day period is better understood (see previous post on this subject)

[squiresquire] 02/12/2020 16:53

BBB Thanks for that, and youre right Kemismelt has never been rude, he has though had plenty of provocation.


i really would like to see the board hold together as the herd are about to arrive and we all have very serious business ahead of us. the news could go on for some time, certainly a couple of months of some very high quality releases indeed, then we are going to be getting the survey results and they will hopefully be spectacular given what we know about the density of polymetallic samples in the geology reports so far. Of course I am refering to Disko, but then we have a lot of other news coming in too. A hard core of staunch supporters of JSY on this board would deal with the 'Herd' rather well, .


Hi DrMACCERS It would be very sad to see you depart, your holding here is i guess perhaps the largest if i have it right, and you could help keep us up to speed with events once the main news is out, Kemismelt may well have his own rather narrow agenda but he has kept the board going for a long time when nothing else much has been happening, and he honestly has always been very polite.

[squiresquire] 02/12/2020 16:44

This price simply cannot hold, the chart is like some Cobra ready to spring, greased lightning wont catch this when it goes.

[perfect choice] 02/12/2020 14:35

Post 8848 includes advice to this individual and he should take it.

Lets consider where JAY will be in Q2 2021. Exploitation licence will have been granted to Dundas Titanium A/S which is 100% owned by Bluejay Mining plc, Dundas Titanium may be registered in different locations but in terms of control (and so future Dundas operation), that is only through JAY. Now what do you think the JAY share price will be Q2 2021? I would conservatively put it near to 20p and could easily be higher? Now to attempt a takeover of JAY would require a premium price to that to even be of remote interest to holders and even then such a theoretical scenario would generate competitor bids IMHO. FWIW I have now seen cases made for a JAY price around 60p, be it that includes Disko viable initial discovery results being issued, so not just related to Dundas but progress with other JAY exploration assets.

That's just the JAY share price situation. Dundas itself has a long way to go to prove up all resources and remember the 10 year mining licence about to be gained only covers 17% of the Dundas licence area. So Dundas itself has a much higher implied value to what is purely covered in the PFS.

Furthermore, Dundas Titanium will have signed legally binding contracts for both construction (for full planned operations) and offtake supply (at prices above $200/t I fully expect and driven by at least 1 major market player who we are about to find out) by Q2 2021. Any controlling party of Dundas will be obliged to retain them or pay heavy penalties. The granting of the exploitation licence will also generate IBA obligations for local community investment and jobs as a condition of the licence. Do not underestimate the obligations to meet the SIA in particular which will be built into the IBA. Any change to these by changing planned Dundas operations will invalidate the licence.

There are more points to make including the interest of expert parties in the construction and operation of Dundas, plus additional value of Dundas specific sourced Ilmenite to smelter operations, which is all driving the current construction and operational plan.

The above information shows how the destiny of Dundas is already fixed and highlights its dependancy to the investment and operational plan as already published. So if anybody thinks they have even a remote chance of changing that, they will be very disappointed IMHO. Any thought of takeover can only be matched by a very expensive bill to acquire JAY, well beyond the funds of smaller groups. Also, major players are after all the planned output (so any start up initiatives yet to progress planning applications will not get a look in at this stage) and Greenland authorities want to maximise the benefit to "local" communities (so local jobs and income generation is key) to Dundas, as previously posted. Those factors alone have already ringfenced the future of Dundas here.