Hummingbird Resources Share Discussion Threads

[fsjamescampbell] 09/2/2018 19:52

Dear me.some fannys in here none of the information I obtained is in any way price sensitive. It's called "communication" a couple of weeks back it was reported that we was above 75% production, it is inevitable that has moved on 10 or 15% since reported. Regarding 95% recovery as zeberdie points out this was reported a while back. I was impressed by the response and very happy to share because it shows that fundamentally this is the best investment on AIM at the moment and the current dip can kiss my stinky hole.....roll on the clock some weeks or a month or two and we will be sat high looking back at these darker days with a lovely wry smile on our faces.....

[pecker1] 09/2/2018 19:44

Darola,zeberdie,

Agree with you completely. The company's RNss have said all is going well and according to plan if not better. Probably saving the next RNS for the official opening by the President of Mali.

What would be price sensitive is if they had hit a serious snag with the commissioning which would have effected production/cash flow etc. And no sign of this.

[zeberdie] 09/2/2018 19:29

Rns 21 DEC
"All major elements of the plant are working to specification; including the crushing, milling and detox circuits, with early recoveries from the CIL circuit showing around 95%, which is excellent in terms of start-up performance.

[darola] 09/2/2018 18:29

Not unprofessional at all. As a Shareholder you can ask the company any question you want - and why shouldn't you? You own part of the company. Where the information is non-price sensitive the company is obliged to answer questions. I don't see that HUM have stated any material information other than what is already in the public domain.

[cockneytrader] 09/2/2018 14:42

I have mentioned this before. Very unprofessional to give information to just one or small group of private investors - if they have something to say, then the medium is an rns or via social media.

[charles clore] 09/2/2018 13:21

Plas - thanks for sharing that LSE post. It does seem odd to have a company giving important information to an individual rather than saying it publicly. However, it is credible and, I hope, true. I would like to see it backed up by an RNS or tweeted. We really should be higher than this and perhaps the price is being held down for one of those new institutional buyers from the South African event! Drop much further and I would have to buy more myself!

[ukgeorge] 09/2/2018 12:40

That was my thoughts as well.....very price sensitive information

[bittorrent] 09/2/2018 12:37

Plasybryn, I would like to believe that post but would Bert really reveal throughput and recovery figures, surely they are price sensitive?

[plasybryn] 09/2/2018 12:11

Great post on LSE
Morning all, it is certainly a frustrating time knowing how amazing the HUM journey has been so far from all the high risk funding to procuring contracts at the right price to commencement of mine / plant construction, commissioning, gold pour, ramping up production and so on........We all had visions of us being in the 40's or even 50's as we neared and then executed gold pour but we have had an ii selling down / derisking. Which actually appears to have alleviated somewhat this week so maybe they are all done and a few positive trading days will see us climb back and restore some faith and momentum,

Regardless of all that, i composed an email to Bert last night asking him to outline some positives that could be reported back to the PI's. A really encouraging response came back which i hope will give us all some much needed encouragement.

First of all i was just mulling over the operations and i recalled from previous reports from HUM that in the first weeks of production the lower grade stock piles would be used, i think off memory that was in the region of 1.8g/t. As we near nameplate and 100% production the higher grade ore will be fed into the system 3 - 3.5g/t and then the numbers will really begin to fly through.

The main element which i found particularly encouraging on the email was that they are currently operating at over 90% throughput and getting 95% recovery (which is better than dfs)! HUM always promised that they would ramp up production by the end of Q1 and they are very much on track!

The conference in Cape Town was very encouraging and we could see some new investors coming in over the coming weeks.

All in all we are in a dip at the moment, likely due to the recent ii selling, it has hindered the growth of the share price but not the skill, enthusiasm, drive and direction that Hummingbird are heading, i know its a cliche but patience will prevail and the numbers / production target are being met, it is an inevitable rise that we will see as the potential is realised. Maybe this is our cooling off phase following the rise through 2017 as the mine and plant was being successfully built and commissioned. We are probably 6 or so weeks from the end of Q1 and as each week passes more and more gold is produced, sold and cash banked, the numbers cannot lie and we will see the rise as the next few weeks steam on. Sometimes the value of a company and its share price do not work in tandem but as sure as night and day there will come a time when the correction happens and the value will rise, sentiment will be full steam ahead and the company will grow in strength and so will our investment!

Keep the faith, top up on the dips and reap the rewards as Africa's newest gold producer ramps up through the gears!

[casual47] 09/2/2018 12:05

And we have a tick-up already, nice.

Lots of gold miners seem to be turning a corner today. Fingers crossed it's same for HUM.

[qs99] 09/2/2018 11:46

low volume, no news, drifting, unless anything underlying has changed that you know about or rumours, then chill time....president opening mid-Feb, ongoing GP above $1,300 should mean plenty of cash for HUM.....hopefully the next Qtr will start to show the earnings potential...DYOR

[bittorrent] 09/2/2018 11:41

Need an update RNS soon.

[bsharman3] 09/2/2018 11:39

the chart doesn't look good. Perhaps we will see 25p again soon...

[casual47] 09/2/2018 11:28

The 15,625 @ 32p was mine. A buy. Nice price.

[ukgeorge] 09/2/2018 11:23

Well if these drop much more 28p looks likely imo

[darola] 08/2/2018 13:39

Why? AISC is based on 107 average production. Weekly costs will be pretty consistent - wages, diesel, 3rd party services etc, why would it cost more than £1.54m a week when not at full production?

[sleveen] 08/2/2018 13:05

Darola, once steady state production has been reached then the use of AISC will be appropriate.

However, breakeven has not yet been declared so therefore costs must be exceeding revenue currently.

[westmoreland lad] 08/2/2018 12:57

for those not familiar with AISC -------->

Use of the "all-in sustaining costs" (AISC) measure of gold production is on the rise, as it provides a more comprehensive look at costs than the traditional "cash cost" approach.

The AISC measure, finalized in June and supported strongly by the World Gold Council, includes other expenses such as general office spending and capital used in mine development and production to create a benchmark of a company's operating efficiency.

"The economics of gold mining have not been as well understood as they could be by a broad range of people including governments, communities and even employees,” said Terry Heymann of the WGC.

Goldcorp was among the first to alter its reporting standards, doing so at the beginning of 2013. The company's 2013 cash costs were forecast at $525 to $575 per ounce, and all-in sustaining cash costs were $1,000 to $1,100.

Earnings reports from some of the other big gold companies indicate an AISC of between $1,200 – $1,400/oz, the Financial Times reports. In some cases AISC has even crept up over $1,400.

Barrick recently reported an AISC of $919, very much on the lower end of the AISC spectrum.

Goldfields checked in at $1,280/oz and African Barrick was up high at $1,416/oz.

Not all are in favour of the new measure, however. Randgold CEO Mark Bristow called the measure irrelevant, pointing out that companies could get away with reporting "positive margins between sales price per ounce of production…yet, because of writedowns or impairments, still register losses."

[darola] 08/2/2018 12:39

If our AISC on 107k a year average is $750, that equates to $1.54m a week in expenses/costs. So we'd need to be producing 1.2k oz a week to break even, or 60% productivity. As we are now above that I expect us to be cash positive.

[sleveen] 08/2/2018 12:15

UKG correct.

During the ramp up phase the cost of production will be more than the revenue received. Thus being cash flow negative until breakeven is achieved. Thereafter cash flow positive.

[darola] 08/2/2018 12:11

That's why we use an AISC. The above figures are after costs. I'm still sure the bulk of recent spend is contract milestone payments - timed for the end of the build.

[ukgeorge] 08/2/2018 09:55

Producing gold is not free......The mine is likely still cash flow negative.

[croasdalelfc] 08/2/2018 09:51

FCF must be up to a run rate of $5m a month by now.132000/12 x 0.85 x 600 and rounded down to nearest million

[darola] 07/2/2018 21:00

Not enough to cover the balance of building a $100m mine. 7 weeks production is probably worth around $7m to $10m depending on how well ramp up has gone.

[charles clore] 07/2/2018 20:22

So would they not have sold any of their gold produced yet?