Botswana Diamonds Share Discussion Threads

[atlas1234] 25/8/2021 14:10

Speaking of JC.https://twitter.com/BotswanaDiamond/status/1430517277590495234?s=19

[perroverde] 25/8/2021 09:37

As I said, I don't necessarily disagree re Vast, but personally i believe it may have something to do with the fact that Vast have indeed previously looked at funding diamond operations in Southern Africa and although kicked back for Zimbabwe, were told that funds are available for Botswanan projects, and who knows, maybe Vast in a better position to develop that than (even smaller) BOD with no operational infrastructure or real experience of raising debt in capital markets. James C/Teeling would have been mindful of that.
Also 'ambitions' elsewhere in Southern Africa (specifically Zimbabwe) but who knows. Also, there could be an interesting situation if Vast were to fail...

Anyway meanwhile I gather we're drilling the 'connect' section at TR in the next few days, fingers x'd!

[tigerbythetail] 25/8/2021 09:01

Hi Perroverde!
But why Vast?
What is it? - A tiny loss-making AIM outfit with big debts and truly terrible management. It's not like Vast have any money or really the ability to raise much.
If you want to be taken seriously in business, you just don't associate with such people. The jury isn't out on Vast. It has spoken.
I've got to say, it would probably be easier for BOD to raise the cost of the mine and the start-up capital required than for Vast. So why didn't they go down that route?
I remain puzzled and concerned.

[perroverde] 25/8/2021 08:48

TBTT - hi hope all well with you.
While I concur with your concerns re Vast's credibility, I have to disagree re Ghaghoo (which I happen to know a bit about). In Ghaghoo BOD has a 10% share (with possibility to increase to 30%) in one of the last large available diamond deposits in Southern Africa (if not the World). It enhances the commercial viability of KX36 and BOD's other stuff in the Kalahari - remember that KX36 is the only serious diamond discovery in Botswana post the hey days of Orapa and Jwaneng etc and now we have Ghaghoo right next door. The operational benefits of having both KX36 and Ghaghoo within such close proximity of each other (60kn) cannot be understated, the synergies of having the two together are going to be considerable. Ghaghoo isn't without its issues - but those main issues ie sand and (counterintuitively!) water - are issues faced by anyone mining in the Kalahari, and can be and have been successfully overcome by others - and in this sector if anyone can, I believe James C can.

Regarding funding, whether Vast is capable I have no idea. However, Ghaghoo was previously debt funded by international institutions led by Nedbank, so has previously been assessed and approved as bankable - and repaid in full (I gather). The amounts needed now are a fraction of what was borrowed previously. A lot of boxes already ticked.

I also happen to know Burgundy, I believe they'd have preferred Ghaghoo over Ellendale but they were already committed (and BOD already had exclusivity). They remain in the background.

So for me, this looks like a great deal - not without challenges and my jury is out re Vast - but the risk/reward is huge and I believe that one way or another Campbell will make a huge success of it. Just my view, obviously!

[atlas1234] 25/8/2021 07:40

Tbtt - it is a little confusing but I read it as coming up at short notice and having to act swiftly so as to not lose the opportunity. If I recall correctly Gaghoo had been sold previously but this must have fallen thru, and there would have been other suitors at the price. So it gives a leapfrog to mining which will give sustainability to the business. Gem's reports made no mention of any special or large stones from Gaghoo, which is odd for a kimberlite, and herein I suspect lies the opportunity. I suspect the choice of jv partner was also driven by a need for swift action, but we will see how that plays out. This transaction would have been resource demanding for them with all d/d required, so focus would have been taken off the main thorny river show. Now the acq is done we will probably get some mainstream updates along with how gaghoo fits in to their strategy.

[tigerbythetail] 24/8/2021 22:03

I've got to say this Ghagoo deal is not convincing me at all.
I assume that JC arranged the deal and offered it to Burgundy first, and they passed on it. Perhaps it should have been left there.
Vast will be a nightmare as a partner. Atrocious management, almost no technical knowledge, very limited funds and ability to raise them. In Romania they are being sued in court by a whole list of their supplier for non-payment - that's how close the whole operation is to bankruptcy.
I also wonder what it says about Thorny River. Going off on a tangent like this is hardly a big vote of confidence in the exploration potential there.

[currypasty] 24/8/2021 10:31

 


Vast Resources PLC (AIM:VAST)'s Andrew Prelea and Botswana Diamonds PLC (AIM:BOD)'s James Campbell speak to Proactive's Andrew Scott following the news they've agreed to buy Gem Diamonds Ltd's Botswana subsidiary, owner of the Ghaghoo diamond mine, for US$4mln (£2.9mln) in cash. The acquisition will be made through Okwa Diamonds (Pty) Ltd, a joint venture between Vast, which has a 90% interest, and Botswana Diamonds. Prelea says the acquisition of Ghaghoo will provide them with a high quality and previously producing diamond asset benefiting from world-class infrastructure and capable of generating material revenues in the near term.

[atlas1234] 23/8/2021 19:13

Send some to JC from Hardy's of Pall Mall. I am sure he will appreciate the quality of their brand.

[atlas1234] 23/8/2021 19:11

Sounds like something out of Herge's Tintin or Indiana Jones!

[dodge_city] 23/8/2021 18:33

There is no doubt that the flooded mine is now infested with crocodiles and snakes.

[1teemore] 23/8/2021 18:19

You need wellies if it is flooded to keep the feet dry!

[fenners66] 23/8/2021 18:06

Or maybe you believe that since the "mine" has been offered for sale , they deliberately left it flooded , so they could command a better price.....

(that is sarcasm by the way )

[fenners66] 23/8/2021 17:42

Like say a deliberate decision not to rebuild someone's house after an earthquake ?
Because....
They did not have the money , because the house was in danger of collapse, because there was a possibility of further earthquakes .....

Deliberately flooded , after " a rupture of the underground water seal leading to a large influx of water into the underground workings."

You guys CAN just make it up, it seems.

The RNS tells us the mine was loss making , they had liabilities and probably could not afford otherwise ... deliberate indeed!

[perroverde] 23/8/2021 15:32

Exactly Atlas, thank you.

[atlas1234] 23/8/2021 15:23

The point is dewatering was stopped by decision - so the mine was deliberately flooded. This conversation is absurdly low level rubbish, so as before - no help needed thanks. Usual half empty stuff.

[fenners66] 23/8/2021 15:08

"perroverde
23 Aug '21 - 14:17 - 6626 of 6630
...
Yes it is currently flooded. Deliberately."


It's comments like this , that need correcting.

perhaps perroverde cannot actually be bothered to read the RNS , perhaps he would rather mislead....

From today's RNS

"A rare large earthquake with an epicentre approximately 40km east of Ghaghoo in 2017 resulted in the rupture of the underground water seal leading to a large influx of water into the underground workings."

So they deliberately started a rare earthquake 40km away to deliberately flood the mine ? !!

Shocking what some think they can write on BB's

[1teemore] 23/8/2021 14:31

The troll is back, blaming everyone for his/her own mistakes

[atlas1234] 23/8/2021 14:23

Likely nothing else better to do.

[atlas1234] 23/8/2021 14:22

Hehehe - the troll was drawn out. As before no help needed thanks. Usual half empty stuff.

[elmfield] 23/8/2021 14:19

Why does he bother. Probably trying to save us from ourselves, ?

[perroverde] 23/8/2021 14:17

Yes it took four years. They usually do. And they spent $250m+, about half of that on kit which is part of the deal.
Yes it is currently flooded. Deliberately.
There is a sink hole problem. James says he knows how to deal with it.
The costs are largely not BOD'S problem, but should be largely capable of being debt-financed given the history.
So back under your rock Fenners old chap. It wouldn't be the same round here without you!

[fenners66] 23/8/2021 13:45

I suspect with all the caveats it may not happen anyway.

But if it did Campbell would be a busy man in support of the 2.5% interest in a loss making venture.

It took 4 years to get it to being a mine in the first place.
Its now flooded
It has a sinkhole problem and commercially they say its not fit for purpose.

Any kind of production would likely be years away but divert all the attention away from BOD's own trial drilling .... which would mean years more of fundraises before getting around to doing anything with that , just to support admin costs ... and more dilution to come...

Tea break over , back on your heads....

[perroverde] 23/8/2021 13:43

Atlas - same here!
Not just the press release either, I don't profess to be any kind of sector specialist but I do happen to know a reasonable amount about Ghaghoo and have discussed it with James Campbell in the past, even then I recall his enthusiasm for the asset, in his view he clearly harboured ambitions to 'rescue' it and mine it using different, more modern and efficient techniques, armed with his world-class experience and encyclopaedic knowledge of the sector. If anyone can make this work it's James. Yes there will be not-insignificant costs involved to get it working James's way, but given the size of the asset and the fact that it has previously been debt funded by major institutions (in amounts many times that likely to be needed to get this up and running) gives grounds for major optimism here. The synergies with the other Botswanan assets are likely to be a major benefit too.

And for those moaning that 'ooh why has Gem sold it?' I suggest they take a longer harder look at Gem's recent history, yes it's doing OK now, but not long ago it was in serious difficulty having geared up hugely - not least due to the $115m or so spent developing this very asset (and previously another $100m+ proving it up). They have other fish to fry and this just no longer fitted their strategy.