Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Kibo Mining LSE:KIBO London Ordinary Share IE00B97C0C31 ORD EUR0.015
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.125p +2.56% 5.00p 4.75p 5.25p 5.125p 4.875p 4.875p 503,333 09:27:42
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Mining 0.0 -3.6 1.0 5.0 18.20

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Latest News

More Kibo Mining News
Kibo Mining Takeover Rumours

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Share Charts

1 Year Kibo Mining Chart

1 Year Kibo Mining Chart

1 Month Kibo Mining Chart

1 Month Kibo Mining Chart

Intraday Kibo Mining Chart

Intraday Kibo Mining Chart

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Discussions and Chat

Kibo Mining Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
20/11/201711:07kibo 5.25p to 50p by 2017?4,190
20/11/201711:06KIBO MINING - Tanzania - Coal - Gold - Nickel - Uranium42,576
19/11/201707:46Good news or Bad?161
19/11/201707:40Financial Side of Kibo Closing239
19/11/201707:39Gone Mad30

Add a New Thread

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
09:33:214.9050,0002,448.15O
09:27:370.0550,00025.13O
09:27:375.0350,0002,512.50O
09:07:165.21100,0005,214.80O
08:53:465.15250,00012,875.00O
View all Kibo Mining trades in real-time

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
20/11/2017
08:20
Kibo Mining Daily Update: Kibo Mining is listed in the Mining sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker KIBO. The last closing price for Kibo Mining was 4.88p.
Kibo Mining has a 4 week average price of 4.25p and a 12 week average price of 4.25p.
The 1 year high share price is 8p while the 1 year low share price is currently 3.75p.
There are currently 363,976,596 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 937,937 shares. The market capitalisation of Kibo Mining is £18,198,829.80.
27/9/2017
21:55
daddy warbucks: A concerted effort to short the share in the hope of buying back at a lower price, accompanied by people paid to spread fear and imply a placing would be needed at that lower price. But the Board of Directors were wise to it and get a high net worth investor to come onboard, defer a share allocation for the directors and re-Organise some of the loan facility provided by Sandersons, with a minimum share price set at 5p and could be a lot higher.A normal placing in the market would have left the Kibo share price around 3.5 to 4 pence, so all in all the Kibo directors have done very well.Oh and no interest charge and a three month time limit on the convertible loan notes, seems to indicate that those participating have confidence that the MCPP is going ahead and quite soon.For those who were panicked into selling, I am sorry. You may still get in at a reasonable price before the shorters are forced to buy back the shares that have gone into LTH's hands.
02/9/2017
04:09
guitars4stars: Aim Chimp here's the post that you don't remember:AIMChimp - 30 Aug 2017 - 16:48 - 61 of 63 - 0It worth refreshing the thread here for the other view which some are trying to bury under non sense."And that other source of fantasy ? Doh!fort's bogus share price targetKibo shares falling today (Aug 22) after latest RNS - Selling by the knowledgeable could have been predicted. The mooted 'equity' funding package will, at last, show the fantasists that outside investors will be taking their overwhelming share of MCPP's returns, and that their 'projections' based on Kibo keeping all to itself will be exposed for the idiocies they are. Especially exposed will be Dohfort's 'target' share price in its latest (Aug 9th) puff - which is just a re-hash of its bogus 'targets' in 2015. So Why republish them Now ?Kibo's (Doh!-fort's) tame analyst is a petroleum geologist, probably steeped in oil exploration stocks. For those, to account for uncertainty how much oil, and how much investment (and share dilution) is needed to get it out of the ground, oil analysts use the 'risked' discount concept - they calculate their best estimate of the probable value of oil in the ground, and apply a discount (often plucked out of the air) to arrive at the shares' target value.That approach uses the current shares in issue to calculate per share value. The 'discount' is supposed to allow for the unknown new shares that will have to be issued to raise the development funds. The method therefore doesn't match what will happen in practice, but is the only one that can be used when there is so little information. But by plucking a 'discount' out of the air, an analyst can arrive at almost any value he likes, for which reason seasoned and institutional investors pay no notice unless they trust him to make an honest assessment of the appropriate 'discount'Doh!fort's analyst has used the same concept for Kibo, despite that, unlike for an uncertain oil (or other early stage mining) project, there is sufficient information from feasibility studies as to the upfront capex needed to build the MCPP, and, once built, its value in the form of its cash flows. So a fairly accurate calculation can be made as to the equity shares needed to be issued to raise the build funds (usually 30% of the capex by way of equity- the rest in loans), and the price investors will pay for them.But Dohfort hasn't done this for Kibo because it would highlight the unwelcome fact that it will have to issue many, many more shares to fund its share of the capex and retain any reasonable share of MCPP than the "50% discount" it has used implies.It makes no difference whether shares in the subsidiary MCPP project are issued to outside investors, or whether Kibo itself raises the funds to pay for its share (or indeed if an infrastructure fund buys the whole project from Kibo). The end result for Kibo shareholders and therefore the value of their shares, will be the same, regardless how many Kibo shares will then be in issue.With a build capex around £700m, compared with Kibo's current market cap around £20m (the same as its only real asset - the coal mine - and therefore almost fair value) the £210m equity needed for Kibo to retain 100% of MCPP would involve a 10-fold increase in its issued shares (9-fold at 7p - a higher price won't be warranted as shown later) - a near 90% discount instead of the 50% Dohfort uses - which would produce a '.target' of 6p instead of Dohfort's 28pIt is rather more complicated than that. Providers of the 70% loan will want a spread of strong 30% equity investors to bear the risk should anything go wrong, and Kibo having no other assets, they will want the bulk of the equity funding to come from stronger investors who will take their proportionate share of MCPP. So Kibo never could retain 100% or anything like it.These large complications are ignored by Dohfort. While keeping as its 'headline' the bogus target arrived at with a 50% discount on the Project NPV, it weasels out of responsibility for that fraudulent puff in its small print, which says its valuation is 'unrisked and 'ungeared' - terms the average investor won't understand but which mean that Doh-fort knows full well (as experienced investors also will) that there will be dilution (unknown) and execution risk, that it hasn't allowed for.It is this evasive language and bogus calculation that has misled a coterie on the bulletin boards (who won't brook any dissent or sensible discussion) to think (unrestrained by Kibo's CEO) that the whole (or a large part) of the project's NPVs will 'belong' to Kibo, at a share price which can never be remotely approached once the reality of its funding is taken into account.In practice there are numbers of other complications that Kibo has not shared with its investors. The Mbeya coal mine could perhaps be operated and owned separately from the power plant - which would lead to a probably better outcome for shareholders. However, all pointers are for the two being 'integrated' - probably because lenders will want the certainty of a 27 year coal supply - and calculations here assume this. And although global coal prices have risen, the Tanz government like all others will limit via its tariffs the profits it will allow MCPP to make to just enough to attract investors, so rising coal prices will not benefit Kibo. Any ability to sell coal outside the power station will depend on finding more reserves than set aside so far for the power plant, and will have extra cost.On the slightly plus side Kibo has the value of feasibility studies it has partly paid for to add to its $20m mine value in the balance sheet, as a non-cash contribution to the approx $700m MCPP project cost, which would give it around 4% - or perhaps 13-14% of the £219m equity - without issuing shares to pay for it. That would give it a share of the project's gross PV once built and financed worth in NPV10 terms about $60m - or 15p per present share against the 29-30p Dohfort 'targets'.That $60m coincides with what the 2.5% Sanderson stake in the MDC (not in Kibo) is said to be 'worth' and which some think points to Kibo's value. Unfortunately it doesn't, not only because the MDC isn't listed and so doesn't have a share price that Sanderson can sell into, but because it will be a totally different economic entity than Kibo itself with a different share and borrowing structure. So there is obviously some other route not disclosed to Kibo shareholders by which Sanderson can monetise its interest.And although Kibo says MDC has 100% of MCPP now, it won't have anything like that once it is financed by banks and he other necessary outside investors. In other words Kibo shareholders will definitely have their share in MCPP diluted. But Sanderson's share in MDC might not be - depending on how it is financed.Such 'NPV' based share values can only ever be a crude guide in any case, and for all sorts of good reasons are never approached in practice. At the 10% discount rate used for MCPP, most mining projects equity shares are rated by the market at only about half the theoretical NPV, even for fully financed projects. So Kibo's shares would only warrant about 7.5p, but not before MCPP is fully up and running in what looks like 4-5 years time.We don't have any of the detail necessary to estimate how MDC and MCPP will be fully financed, and the latest RNS promises some info soon. But before financial close, its funding partners will probably want Kibo to significantly bolster its balance sheet before accepting it as an equity partner, which would considerably dilute even that theoretical 15p. Last year Kibo expanded its authorised, unissued, share capital nearly 3-fold - so is obviously planning a large capital raise which will dilute its own shareholders, but won't necessarily dilute Sanderson's 2.5% in the MDC.But because Kibo would still be such a weak partner, my guess is that it will be encouraged to rid itself of the whole MCPP project and return to its roots as an explorer. It seems possible an interested infrastructure investor (such as AES) could buy it for its current value, which is about $30m or 7-8p per share, giving Kibo the cash to explore properly its Haneti nickel prospect.But the BB coterie can forget dreams of £1, 50p, or even 20p per share. These rely on a total misconception of what a project NPV is. They seem to think Kibo can sell MCPP (or a part of it) for its 'NPV'. That is nonsense because an NPV doesn't exist until a project has been built and fully funded, at which stage the shares will have been diluted by the necessary capital raise. Their dream is tantamount to thinking someone is going to give current Kibo shareholders around $250m 'for free', and demonstrates a dire lack of understanding of a balance sheet and its connection with a share price and a P&L account.Some also think Kibo will 'retain' 30% of MCPP. It may well have the chance to take up that share, but it will have to pay for it and raise the funds (around £65m) to do so - diluting existing shareholders some 3-fold. There is no way Kibo will be 'given' a 'free' 30%, because at the irr we have been told for the integrated project (21-22% - the 'norm') the other investors and lenders would see no return for themselves whatsoever or cover for the loan interest. The most 'free' share Kibo might get is to recognise the value of the mine and feasibility work. But they are non-cash, which will have to be made up through more equity.As for Katoro, See my explanation reposted below (written in April before its placing document) on how Dohfort also bumped up its 'target' price by using another fraudulent argument. But, as ever will be the case, the market now has Katoro more correctly valued - at 3.5p vs the 10.7p Dohfort 'projected' before its listing.So why the latest Kibo puff (and 'promise of news re funding) now ? - It's obvious. The latest Dec 2016 balance sheet showed Kibo running out of cash and remaining loan facilities from Sanderson by about now. Just as the Katoro 'research' was aimed (and failed) at puffing Katoro at its listing, so a two year old puff is being wheeled out again before an inevitable Kibo fund raise. (or maybe a 'partner', or another Sanderson, funding). Shareholders will be diluted either way.And although we have been promised news soon of equity funding, it's impossible to see how it can be finalised before any PPA agreement and subsequent financial close. The new interested investors can't have had time yet to vet the BFS, yet alone come up with their terms. So expect yet another fluffy bit of news with no useful detail.Reposted re Katoro share value.Previous post on Katoro (in April some time)Katoro Value - Someone (on the BB) askedFothcoming float (if it happens) won't be worth much to Kibo holders (if based on what has been published so far)Value to Opera of Kibo's gold assets as already annouced as £3.6m. ie 1p per Kibo share. Reflects low grades, open-ended funding requirement, and low standard of resource which is mainly inferred. Paid for by 61m Opera / Katoro shares at 6p.Existing Opera shares total 17.25m. On float at 6p, and placing to raise £1.7m, another 28.3m will be added taking Katoro shares initially in issue to 106.6m. of which Kibo will have 57.2%.The initial placing is only enough to fund float costs, new company costs, and studies necessary to plan a mine start up. As already announced, there will be a later, larger fund raise, where past announcements by Kibo and Lake Victoria Goldfields for their now abandoned merger indicated at least another $5m for drilling and technical studies before any mine could be developed, and another $8m to start up the then mooted joint Imweru/Imwelo venture.Assuming that applies for Katoro, the further fund raise (assuming 6p) would add another 133m shares, further diluting Kibo's holding to 25% - its maximum share of profits once up and running provided no more funding. By then Kibo's own shares will have significantly expanded if its going to take any share of MCPP, so expect Kibo to offload all its Katoro to its own shareholders beforehand.Before that don't expect experienced investors to show much interest in what is a small low -grade operation . Instead, expect Kibo to 'offer' participation to its own shareholders. Sensible ones will politely declineNo wonder Doh!-fort has been trying to ramp a value for Imweru higher than will be in the prospectus (which the FCA requires to be 'fair') by using blatantly exorbitant 'in-ground' values.Its March report purports to base an Imweru value on the '$35.6/oz average' of a set of pre-production 'peer' miners. But these are all much more advanced and have almost all their finance, while the exceptionally large and high grade Hot Maden prospect distorts the average skywards. Not only that, all Doh!fort's 'peers' are much larger, have resources measured to a higher standard than Imweru which is 80% inferred, and have much better gold grades. Any mining analyst should know that price per gold ounce for an 'in-ground' resource declines sharply the smaller the resource and the lower the grade. Imweru is well below the bottom of Doh!-fort's chart on both measures, so a fair value would be under $20/oz - taking what should be its own 'estimate' down to below even the $3.6m Opera/Katoro is paying. One wonders why Doh!fort is publishing such an unprofessional and biassed report unless it has been 'leaned' on to do so by someone desperate to get anyone to buy Katoro when listed."
30/8/2017
15:48
aimchimp: It worth refreshing the thread here for the other view which some are trying to bury under non sense."And that other source of fantasy ? Doh!fort's bogus share price targetKibo shares falling today (Aug 22) after latest RNS - Selling by the knowledgeable could have been predicted. The mooted 'equity' funding package will, at last, show the fantasists that outside investors will be taking their overwhelming share of MCPP's returns, and that their 'projections' based on Kibo keeping all to itself will be exposed for the idiocies they are. Especially exposed will be Dohfort's 'target' share price in its latest (Aug 9th) puff - which is just a re-hash of its bogus 'targets' in 2015. So Why republish them Now ?Kibo's (Doh!-fort's) tame analyst is a petroleum geologist, probably steeped in oil exploration stocks. For those, to account for uncertainty how much oil, and how much investment (and share dilution) is needed to get it out of the ground, oil analysts use the 'risked' discount concept - they calculate their best estimate of the probable value of oil in the ground, and apply a discount (often plucked out of the air) to arrive at the shares' target value.That approach uses the current shares in issue to calculate per share value. The 'discount' is supposed to allow for the unknown new shares that will have to be issued to raise the development funds. The method therefore doesn't match what will happen in practice, but is the only one that can be used when there is so little information. But by plucking a 'discount' out of the air, an analyst can arrive at almost any value he likes, for which reason seasoned and institutional investors pay no notice unless they trust him to make an honest assessment of the appropriate 'discount'Doh!fort's analyst has used the same concept for Kibo, despite that, unlike for an uncertain oil (or other early stage mining) project, there is sufficient information from feasibility studies as to the upfront capex needed to build the MCPP, and, once built, its value in the form of its cash flows. So a fairly accurate calculation can be made as to the equity shares needed to be issued to raise the build funds (usually 30% of the capex by way of equity- the rest in loans), and the price investors will pay for them.But Dohfort hasn't done this for Kibo because it would highlight the unwelcome fact that it will have to issue many, many more shares to fund its share of the capex and retain any reasonable share of MCPP than the "50% discount" it has used implies.It makes no difference whether shares in the subsidiary MCPP project are issued to outside investors, or whether Kibo itself raises the funds to pay for its share (or indeed if an infrastructure fund buys the whole project from Kibo). The end result for Kibo shareholders and therefore the value of their shares, will be the same, regardless how many Kibo shares will then be in issue.With a build capex around £700m, compared with Kibo's current market cap around £20m (the same as its only real asset - the coal mine - and therefore almost fair value) the £210m equity needed for Kibo to retain 100% of MCPP would involve a 10-fold increase in its issued shares (9-fold at 7p - a higher price won't be warranted as shown later) - a near 90% discount instead of the 50% Dohfort uses - which would produce a '.target' of 6p instead of Dohfort's 28pIt is rather more complicated than that. Providers of the 70% loan will want a spread of strong 30% equity investors to bear the risk should anything go wrong, and Kibo having no other assets, they will want the bulk of the equity funding to come from stronger investors who will take their proportionate share of MCPP. So Kibo never could retain 100% or anything like it.These large complications are ignored by Dohfort. While keeping as its 'headline' the bogus target arrived at with a 50% discount on the Project NPV, it weasels out of responsibility for that fraudulent puff in its small print, which says its valuation is 'unrisked and 'ungeared' - terms the average investor won't understand but which mean that Doh-fort knows full well (as experienced investors also will) that there will be dilution (unknown) and execution risk, that it hasn't allowed for.It is this evasive language and bogus calculation that has misled a coterie on the bulletin boards (who won't brook any dissent or sensible discussion) to think (unrestrained by Kibo's CEO) that the whole (or a large part) of the project's NPVs will 'belong' to Kibo, at a share price which can never be remotely approached once the reality of its funding is taken into account.In practice there are numbers of other complications that Kibo has not shared with its investors. The Mbeya coal mine could perhaps be operated and owned separately from the power plant - which would lead to a probably better outcome for shareholders. However, all pointers are for the two being 'integrated' - probably because lenders will want the certainty of a 27 year coal supply - and calculations here assume this. And although global coal prices have risen, the Tanz government like all others will limit via its tariffs the profits it will allow MCPP to make to just enough to attract investors, so rising coal prices will not benefit Kibo. Any ability to sell coal outside the power station will depend on finding more reserves than set aside so far for the power plant, and will have extra cost.On the slightly plus side Kibo has the value of feasibility studies it has partly paid for to add to its $20m mine value in the balance sheet, as a non-cash contribution to the approx $700m MCPP project cost, which would give it around 4% - or perhaps 13-14% of the £219m equity - without issuing shares to pay for it. That would give it a share of the project's gross PV once built and financed worth in NPV10 terms about $60m - or 15p per present share against the 29-30p Dohfort 'targets'.That $60m coincides with what the 2.5% Sanderson stake in the MDC (not in Kibo) is said to be 'worth' and which some think points to Kibo's value. Unfortunately it doesn't, not only because the MDC isn't listed and so doesn't have a share price that Sanderson can sell into, but because it will be a totally different economic entity than Kibo itself with a different share and borrowing structure. So there is obviously some other route not disclosed to Kibo shareholders by which Sanderson can monetise its interest.And although Kibo says MDC has 100% of MCPP now, it won't have anything like that once it is financed by banks and he other necessary outside investors. In other words Kibo shareholders will definitely have their share in MCPP diluted. But Sanderson's share in MDC might not be - depending on how it is financed.Such 'NPV' based share values can only ever be a crude guide in any case, and for all sorts of good reasons are never approached in practice. At the 10% discount rate used for MCPP, most mining projects equity shares are rated by the market at only about half the theoretical NPV, even for fully financed projects. So Kibo's shares would only warrant about 7.5p, but not before MCPP is fully up and running in what looks like 4-5 years time.We don't have any of the detail necessary to estimate how MDC and MCPP will be fully financed, and the latest RNS promises some info soon. But before financial close, its funding partners will probably want Kibo to significantly bolster its balance sheet before accepting it as an equity partner, which would considerably dilute even that theoretical 15p. Last year Kibo expanded its authorised, unissued, share capital nearly 3-fold - so is obviously planning a large capital raise which will dilute its own shareholders, but won't necessarily dilute Sanderson's 2.5% in the MDC.But because Kibo would still be such a weak partner, my guess is that it will be encouraged to rid itself of the whole MCPP project and return to its roots as an explorer. It seems possible an interested infrastructure investor (such as AES) could buy it for its current value, which is about $30m or 7-8p per share, giving Kibo the cash to explore properly its Haneti nickel prospect.But the BB coterie can forget dreams of £1, 50p, or even 20p per share. These rely on a total misconception of what a project NPV is. They seem to think Kibo can sell MCPP (or a part of it) for its 'NPV'. That is nonsense because an NPV doesn't exist until a project has been built and fully funded, at which stage the shares will have been diluted by the necessary capital raise. Their dream is tantamount to thinking someone is going to give current Kibo shareholders around $250m 'for free', and demonstrates a dire lack of understanding of a balance sheet and its connection with a share price and a P&L account.Some also think Kibo will 'retain' 30% of MCPP. It may well have the chance to take up that share, but it will have to pay for it and raise the funds (around £65m) to do so - diluting existing shareholders some 3-fold. There is no way Kibo will be 'given' a 'free' 30%, because at the irr we have been told for the integrated project (21-22% - the 'norm') the other investors and lenders would see no return for themselves whatsoever or cover for the loan interest. The most 'free' share Kibo might get is to recognise the value of the mine and feasibility work. But they are non-cash, which will have to be made up through more equity.As for Katoro, See my explanation reposted below (written in April before its placing document) on how Dohfort also bumped up its 'target' price by using another fraudulent argument. But, as ever will be the case, the market now has Katoro more correctly valued - at 3.5p vs the 10.7p Dohfort 'projected' before its listing.So why the latest Kibo puff (and 'promise of news re funding) now ? - It's obvious. The latest Dec 2016 balance sheet showed Kibo running out of cash and remaining loan facilities from Sanderson by about now. Just as the Katoro 'research' was aimed (and failed) at puffing Katoro at its listing, so a two year old puff is being wheeled out again before an inevitable Kibo fund raise. (or maybe a 'partner', or another Sanderson, funding). Shareholders will be diluted either way.And although we have been promised news soon of equity funding, it's impossible to see how it can be finalised before any PPA agreement and subsequent financial close. The new interested investors can't have had time yet to vet the BFS, yet alone come up with their terms. So expect yet another fluffy bit of news with no useful detail.Reposted re Katoro share value.Previous post on Katoro (in April some time)Katoro Value - Someone (on the BB) askedFothcoming float (if it happens) won't be worth much to Kibo holders (if based on what has been published so far)Value to Opera of Kibo's gold assets as already annouced as £3.6m. ie 1p per Kibo share. Reflects low grades, open-ended funding requirement, and low standard of resource which is mainly inferred. Paid for by 61m Opera / Katoro shares at 6p.Existing Opera shares total 17.25m. On float at 6p, and placing to raise £1.7m, another 28.3m will be added taking Katoro shares initially in issue to 106.6m. of which Kibo will have 57.2%.The initial placing is only enough to fund float costs, new company costs, and studies necessary to plan a mine start up. As already announced, there will be a later, larger fund raise, where past announcements by Kibo and Lake Victoria Goldfields for their now abandoned merger indicated at least another $5m for drilling and technical studies before any mine could be developed, and another $8m to start up the then mooted joint Imweru/Imwelo venture.Assuming that applies for Katoro, the further fund raise (assuming 6p) would add another 133m shares, further diluting Kibo's holding to 25% - its maximum share of profits once up and running provided no more funding. By then Kibo's own shares will have significantly expanded if its going to take any share of MCPP, so expect Kibo to offload all its Katoro to its own shareholders beforehand.Before that don't expect experienced investors to show much interest in what is a small low -grade operation . Instead, expect Kibo to 'offer' participation to its own shareholders. Sensible ones will politely declineNo wonder Doh!-fort has been trying to ramp a value for Imweru higher than will be in the prospectus (which the FCA requires to be 'fair') by using blatantly exorbitant 'in-ground' values.Its March report purports to base an Imweru value on the '$35.6/oz average' of a set of pre-production 'peer' miners. But these are all much more advanced and have almost all their finance, while the exceptionally large and high grade Hot Maden prospect distorts the average skywards. Not only that, all Doh!fort's 'peers' are much larger, have resources measured to a higher standard than Imweru which is 80% inferred, and have much better gold grades. Any mining analyst should know that price per gold ounce for an 'in-ground' resource declines sharply the smaller the resource and the lower the grade. Imweru is well below the bottom of Doh!-fort's chart on both measures, so a fair value would be under $20/oz - taking what should be its own 'estimate' down to below even the $3.6m Opera/Katoro is paying. One wonders why Doh!fort is publishing such an unprofessional and biassed report unless it has been 'leaned' on to do so by someone desperate to get anyone to buy Katoro when listed."
28/8/2017
07:29
aimchimp: And that other source of fantasy ? Doh!fort's bogus share price targetKibo shares falling today (Aug 22) after latest RNS - Selling by the knowledgeable could have been predicted. The mooted 'equity' funding package will, at last, show the fantasists that outside investors will be taking their overwhelming share of MCPP's returns, and that their 'projections' based on Kibo keeping all to itself will be exposed for the idiocies they are. Especially exposed will be Dohfort's 'target' share price in its latest (Aug 9th) puff - which is just a re-hash of its bogus 'targets' in 2015. So Why republish them Now ?Kibo's (Doh!-fort's) tame analyst is a petroleum geologist, probably steeped in oil exploration stocks. For those, to account for uncertainty how much oil, and how much investment (and share dilution) is needed to get it out of the ground, oil analysts use the 'risked' discount concept - they calculate their best estimate of the probable value of oil in the ground, and apply a discount (often plucked out of the air) to arrive at the shares' target value.That approach uses the current shares in issue to calculate per share value. The 'discount' is supposed to allow for the unknown new shares that will have to be issued to raise the development funds. The method therefore doesn't match what will happen in practice, but is the only one that can be used when there is so little information. But by plucking a 'discount' out of the air, an analyst can arrive at almost any value he likes, for which reason seasoned and institutional investors pay no notice unless they trust him to make an honest assessment of the appropriate 'discount'Doh!fort's analyst has used the same concept for Kibo, despite that, unlike for an uncertain oil (or other early stage mining) project, there is sufficient information from feasibility studies as to the upfront capex needed to build the MCPP, and, once built, its value in the form of its cash flows. So a fairly accurate calculation can be made as to the equity shares needed to be issued to raise the build funds (usually 30% of the capex by way of equity- the rest in loans), and the price investors will pay for them.But Dohfort hasn't done this for Kibo because it would highlight the unwelcome fact that it will have to issue many, many more shares to fund its share of the capex and retain any reasonable share of MCPP than the "50% discount" it has used implies.It makes no difference whether shares in the subsidiary MCPP project are issued to outside investors, or whether Kibo itself raises the funds to pay for its share (or indeed if an infrastructure fund buys the whole project from Kibo). The end result for Kibo shareholders and therefore the value of their shares, will be the same, regardless how many Kibo shares will then be in issue.With a build capex around £700m, compared with Kibo's current market cap around £20m (the same as its only real asset - the coal mine - and therefore almost fair value) the £210m equity needed for Kibo to retain 100% of MCPP would involve a 10-fold increase in its issued shares (9-fold at 7p - a higher price won't be warranted as shown later) - a near 90% discount instead of the 50% Dohfort uses - which would produce a '.target' of 6p instead of Dohfort's 28pIt is rather more complicated than that. Providers of the 70% loan will want a spread of strong 30% equity investors to bear the risk should anything go wrong, and Kibo having no other assets, they will want the bulk of the equity funding to come from stronger investors who will take their proportionate share of MCPP. So Kibo never could retain 100% or anything like it.These large complications are ignored by Dohfort. While keeping as its 'headline' the bogus target arrived at with a 50% discount on the Project NPV, it weasels out of responsibility for that fraudulent puff in its small print, which says its valuation is 'unrisked and 'ungeared' - terms the average investor won't understand but which mean that Doh-fort knows full well (as experienced investors also will) that there will be dilution (unknown) and execution risk, that it hasn't allowed for.It is this evasive language and bogus calculation that has misled a coterie on the bulletin boards (who won't brook any dissent or sensible discussion) to think (unrestrained by Kibo's CEO) that the whole (or a large part) of the project's NPVs will 'belong' to Kibo, at a share price which can never be remotely approached once the reality of its funding is taken into account.In practice there are numbers of other complications that Kibo has not shared with its investors. The Mbeya coal mine could perhaps be operated and owned separately from the power plant - which would lead to a probably better outcome for shareholders. However, all pointers are for the two being 'integrated' - probably because lenders will want the certainty of a 27 year coal supply - and calculations here assume this. And although global coal prices have risen, the Tanz government like all others will limit via its tariffs the profits it will allow MCPP to make to just enough to attract investors, so rising coal prices will not benefit Kibo. Any ability to sell coal outside the power station will depend on finding more reserves than set aside so far for the power plant, and will have extra cost.On the slightly plus side Kibo has the value of feasibility studies it has partly paid for to add to its $20m mine value in the balance sheet, as a non-cash contribution to the approx $700m MCPP project cost, which would give it around 4% - or perhaps 13-14% of the £219m equity - without issuing shares to pay for it. That would give it a share of the project's gross PV once built and financed worth in NPV10 terms about $60m - or 15p per present share against the 29-30p Dohfort 'targets'.That $60m coincides with what the 2.5% Sanderson stake in the MDC (not in Kibo) is said to be 'worth' and which some think points to Kibo's value. Unfortunately it doesn't, not only because the MDC isn't listed and so doesn't have a share price that Sanderson can sell into, but because it will be a totally different economic entity than Kibo itself with a different share and borrowing structure. So there is obviously some other route not disclosed to Kibo shareholders by which Sanderson can monetise its interest.And although Kibo says MDC has 100% of MCPP now, it won't have anything like that once it is financed by banks and he other necessary outside investors. In other words Kibo shareholders will definitely have their share in MCPP diluted. But Sanderson's share in MDC might not be - depending on how it is financed.Such 'NPV' based share values can only ever be a crude guide in any case, and for all sorts of good reasons are never approached in practice. At the 10% discount rate used for MCPP, most mining projects equity shares are rated by the market at only about half the theoretical NPV, even for fully financed projects. So Kibo's shares would only warrant about 7.5p, but not before MCPP is fully up and running in what looks like 4-5 years time.We don't have any of the detail necessary to estimate how MDC and MCPP will be fully financed, and the latest RNS promises some info soon. But before financial close, its funding partners will probably want Kibo to significantly bolster its balance sheet before accepting it as an equity partner, which would considerably dilute even that theoretical 15p. Last year Kibo expanded its authorised, unissued, share capital nearly 3-fold - so is obviously planning a large capital raise which will dilute its own shareholders, but won't necessarily dilute Sanderson's 2.5% in the MDC.But because Kibo would still be such a weak partner, my guess is that it will be encouraged to rid itself of the whole MCPP project and return to its roots as an explorer. It seems possible an interested infrastructure investor (such as AES) could buy it for its current value, which is about $30m or 7-8p per share, giving Kibo the cash to explore properly its Haneti nickel prospect.But the BB coterie can forget dreams of £1, 50p, or even 20p per share. These rely on a total misconception of what a project NPV is. They seem to think Kibo can sell MCPP (or a part of it) for its 'NPV'. That is nonsense because an NPV doesn't exist until a project has been built and fully funded, at which stage the shares will have been diluted by the necessary capital raise. Their dream is tantamount to thinking someone is going to give current Kibo shareholders around $250m 'for free', and demonstrates a dire lack of understanding of a balance sheet and its connection with a share price and a P&L account.Some also think Kibo will 'retain' 30% of MCPP. It may well have the chance to take up that share, but it will have to pay for it and raise the funds (around £65m) to do so - diluting existing shareholders some 3-fold. There is no way Kibo will be 'given' a 'free' 30%, because at the irr we have been told for the integrated project (21-22% - the 'norm') the other investors and lenders would see no return for themselves whatsoever or cover for the loan interest. The most 'free' share Kibo might get is to recognise the value of the mine and feasibility work. But they are non-cash, which will have to be made up through more equity.As for Katoro, See my explanation reposted below (written in April before its placing document) on how Dohfort also bumped up its 'target' price by using another fraudulent argument. But, as ever will be the case, the market now has Katoro more correctly valued - at 3.5p vs the 10.7p Dohfort 'projected' before its listing.So why the latest Kibo puff (and 'promise of news re funding) now ? - It's obvious. The latest Dec 2016 balance sheet showed Kibo running out of cash and remaining loan facilities from Sanderson by about now. Just as the Katoro 'research' was aimed (and failed) at puffing Katoro at its listing, so a two year old puff is being wheeled out again before an inevitable Kibo fund raise. (or maybe a 'partner', or another Sanderson, funding). Shareholders will be diluted either way.And although we have been promised news soon of equity funding, it's impossible to see how it can be finalised before any PPA agreement and subsequent financial close. The new interested investors can't have had time yet to vet the BFS, yet alone come up with their terms. So expect yet another fluffy bit of news with no useful detail.Reposted re Katoro share value.Previous post on Katoro (in April some time)Katoro Value - Someone (on the BB) askedFothcoming float (if it happens) won't be worth much to Kibo holders (if based on what has been published so far)Value to Opera of Kibo's gold assets as already annouced as £3.6m. ie 1p per Kibo share. Reflects low grades, open-ended funding requirement, and low standard of resource which is mainly inferred. Paid for by 61m Opera / Katoro shares at 6p.Existing Opera shares total 17.25m. On float at 6p, and placing to raise £1.7m, another 28.3m will be added taking Katoro shares initially in issue to 106.6m. of which Kibo will have 57.2%.The initial placing is only enough to fund float costs, new company costs, and studies necessary to plan a mine start up. As already announced, there will be a later, larger fund raise, where past announcements by Kibo and Lake Victoria Goldfields for their now abandoned merger indicated at least another $5m for drilling and technical studies before any mine could be developed, and another $8m to start up the then mooted joint Imweru/Imwelo venture.Assuming that applies for Katoro, the further fund raise (assuming 6p) would add another 133m shares, further diluting Kibo's holding to 25% - its maximum share of profits once up and running provided no more funding. By then Kibo's own shares will have significantly expanded if its going to take any share of MCPP, so expect Kibo to offload all its Katoro to its own shareholders beforehand.Before that don't expect experienced investors to show much interest in what is a small low -grade operation . Instead, expect Kibo to 'offer' participation to its own shareholders. Sensible ones will politely declineNo wonder Doh!-fort has been trying to ramp a value for Imweru higher than will be in the prospectus (which the FCA requires to be 'fair') by using blatantly exorbitant 'in-ground' values.Its March report purports to base an Imweru value on the '$35.6/oz average' of a set of pre-production 'peer' miners. But these are all much more advanced and have almost all their finance, while the exceptionally large and high grade Hot Maden prospect distorts the average skywards. Not only that, all Doh!fort's 'peers' are much larger, have resources measured to a higher standard than Imweru which is 80% inferred, and have much better gold grades. Any mining analyst should know that price per gold ounce for an 'in-ground' resource declines sharply the smaller the resource and the lower the grade. Imweru is well below the bottom of Doh!-fort's chart on both measures, so a fair value would be under $20/oz - taking what should be its own 'estimate' down to below even the $3.6m Opera/Katoro is paying. One wonders why Doh!fort is publishing such an unprofessional and biassed report unless it has been 'leaned' on to do so by someone desperate to get anyone to buy Katoro when listed.
23/8/2017
09:59
lurker5: And that other source of fantasy ? Doh!fort's bogus share price target Kibo shares falling today (Aug 22) after latest RNS - Selling by the knowledgeable could have been predicted. The mooted 'equity' funding package will, at last, show the fantasists that outside investors will be taking their overwhelming share of MCPP's returns, and that their 'projections' based on Kibo keeping all to itself will be exposed for the idiocies they are. Especially exposed will be Dohfort's 'target' share price in its latest (Aug 9th) puff - which is just a re-hash of its bogus 'targets' in 2015. So Why republish them Now ? Kibo's (Doh!-fort's) tame analyst is a petroleum geologist, probably steeped in oil exploration stocks. For those, to account for uncertainty how much oil, and how much investment (and share dilution) is needed to get it out of the ground, oil analysts use the 'risked' discount concept - they calculate their best estimate of the probable value of oil in the ground, and apply a discount (often plucked out of the air) to arrive at the shares' target value. That approach uses the current shares in issue to calculate per share value. The 'discount' is supposed to allow for the unknown new shares that will have to be issued to raise the development funds. The method therefore doesn't match what will happen in practice, but is the only one that can be used when there is so little information. But by plucking a 'discount' out of the air, an analyst can arrive at almost any value he likes, for which reason seasoned and institutional investors pay no notice unless they trust him to make an honest assessment of the appropriate 'discount' Doh!fort's analyst has used the same concept for Kibo, despite that, unlike for an uncertain oil (or other early stage mining) project, there is sufficient information from feasibility studies as to the upfront capex needed to build the MCPP, and, once built, its value in the form of its cash flows. So a fairly accurate calculation can be made as to the equity shares needed to be issued to raise the build funds (usually 30% of the capex by way of equity- the rest in loans), and the price investors will pay for them. But Dohfort hasn't done this for Kibo because it would highlight the unwelcome fact that it will have to issue many, many more shares to fund its share of the capex and retain any reasonable share of MCPP than the "50% discount" it has used implies. It makes no difference whether shares in the subsidiary MCPP project are issued to outside investors, or whether Kibo itself raises the funds to pay for its share (or indeed if an infrastructure fund buys the whole project from Kibo). The end result for Kibo shareholders and therefore the value of their shares, will be the same, regardless how many Kibo shares will then be in issue. With a build capex around £700m, compared with Kibo's current market cap around £20m (the same as its only real asset - the coal mine - and therefore almost fair value) the £210m equity needed for Kibo to retain 100% of MCPP would involve a 10-fold increase in its issued shares (9-fold at 7p - a higher price won't be warranted as shown later) - a near 90% discount instead of the 50% Dohfort uses - which would produce a '.target' of 6p instead of Dohfort's 28p It is rather more complicated than that. Providers of the 70% loan will want a spread of strong 30% equity investors to bear the risk should anything go wrong, and Kibo having no other assets, they will want the bulk of the equity funding to come from stronger investors who will take their proportionate share of MCPP. So Kibo never could retain 100% or anything like it. These large complications are ignored by Dohfort. While keeping as its 'headline' the bogus target arrived at with a 50% discount on the Project NPV, it weasels out of responsibility for that fraudulent puff in its small print, which says its valuation is 'unrisked and 'ungeared' - terms the average investor won't understand but which mean that Doh-fort knows full well (as experienced investors also will) that there will be dilution (unknown) and execution risk, that it hasn't allowed for. It is this evasive language and bogus calculation that has misled a coterie on the bulletin boards (who won't brook any dissent or sensible discussion) to think (unrestrained by Kibo's CEO) that the whole (or a large part) of the project's NPVs will 'belong' to Kibo, at a share price which can never be remotely approached once the reality of its funding is taken into account. In practice there are numbers of other complications that Kibo has not shared with its investors. The Mbeya coal mine could perhaps be operated and owned separately from the power plant - which would lead to a probably better outcome for shareholders. However, all pointers are for the two being 'integrated' - probably because lenders will want the certainty of a 27 year coal supply - and calculations here assume this. And although global coal prices have risen, the Tanz government like all others will limit via its tariffs the profits it will allow MCPP to make to just enough to attract investors, so rising coal prices will not benefit Kibo. Any ability to sell coal outside the power station will depend on finding more reserves than set aside so far for the power plant, and will have extra cost. On the slightly plus side Kibo has the value of feasibility studies it has partly paid for to add to its $20m mine value in the balance sheet, as a non-cash contribution to the approx $700m MCPP project cost, which would give it around 4% - or perhaps 13-14% of the £219m equity - without issuing shares to pay for it. That would give it a share of the project's gross PV once built and financed worth in NPV10 terms about $60m - or 15p per present share against the 29-30p Dohfort 'targets'. That $60m coincides with what the 2.5% Sanderson stake in the MDC (not in Kibo) is said to be 'worth' and which some think points to Kibo's value. Unfortunately it doesn't, not only because the MDC isn't listed and so doesn't have a share price that Sanderson can sell into, but because it will be a totally different economic entity than Kibo itself with a different share and borrowing structure. So there is obviously some other route not disclosed to Kibo shareholders by which Sanderson can monetise its interest. And although Kibo says MDC has 100% of MCPP now, it won't have anything like that once it is financed by banks and he other necessary outside investors. In other words Kibo shareholders will definitely have their share in MCPP diluted. But Sanderson's share in MDC might not be - depending on how it is financed. Such 'NPV' based share values can only ever be a crude guide in any case, and for all sorts of good reasons are never approached in practice. At the 10% discount rate used for MCPP, most mining projects equity shares are rated by the market at only about half the theoretical NPV, even for fully financed projects. So Kibo's shares would only warrant about 7.5p, but not before MCPP is fully up and running in what looks like 4-5 years time. We don't have any of the detail necessary to estimate how MDC and MCPP will be fully financed, and the latest RNS promises some info soon. But before financial close, its funding partners will probably want Kibo to significantly bolster its balance sheet before accepting it as an equity partner, which would considerably dilute even that theoretical 15p. Last year Kibo expanded its authorised, unissued, share capital nearly 3-fold - so is obviously planning a large capital raise which will dilute its own shareholders, but won't necessarily dilute Sanderson's 2.5% in the MDC. But because Kibo would still be such a weak partner, my guess is that it will be encouraged to rid itself of the whole MCPP project and return to its roots as an explorer. It seems possible an interested infrastructure investor (such as AES) could buy it for its current value, which is about $30m or 7-8p per share, giving Kibo the cash to explore properly its Haneti nickel prospect. But the BB coterie can forget dreams of £1, 50p, or even 20p per share. These rely on a total misconception of what a project NPV is. They seem to think Kibo can sell MCPP (or a part of it) for its 'NPV'. That is nonsense because an NPV doesn't exist until a project has been built and fully funded, at which stage the shares will have been diluted by the necessary capital raise. Their dream is tantamount to thinking someone is going to give current Kibo shareholders around $250m 'for free', and demonstrates a dire lack of understanding of a balance sheet and its connection with a share price and a P&L account. Some also think Kibo will 'retain' 30% of MCPP. It may well have the chance to take up that share, but it will have to pay for it and raise the funds (around £65m) to do so - diluting existing shareholders some 3-fold. There is no way Kibo will be 'given' a 'free' 30%, because at the irr we have been told for the integrated project (21-22% - the 'norm') the other investors and lenders would see no return for themselves whatsoever or cover for the loan interest. The most 'free' share Kibo might get is to recognise the value of the mine and feasibility work. But they are non-cash, which will have to be made up through more equity. As for Katoro, See my explanation reposted below (written in April before its placing document) on how Dohfort also bumped up its 'target' price by using another fraudulent argument. But, as ever will be the case, the market now has Katoro more correctly valued - at 3.5p vs the 10.7p Dohfort 'projected' before its listing. So why the latest Kibo puff (and 'promise of news re funding) now ? - It's obvious. The latest Dec 2016 balance sheet showed Kibo running out of cash and remaining loan facilities from Sanderson by about now. Just as the Katoro 'research' was aimed (and failed) at puffing Katoro at its listing, so a two year old puff is being wheeled out again before an inevitable Kibo fund raise. (or maybe a 'partner', or another Sanderson, funding). Shareholders will be diluted either way. And although we have been promised news soon of equity funding, it's impossible to see how it can be finalised before any PPA agreement and subsequent financial close. The new interested investors can't have had time yet to vet the BFS, yet alone come up with their terms. So expect yet another fluffy bit of news with no useful detail. Reposted re Katoro share value. Previous post on Katoro (in April some time) Katoro Value - Someone (on the BB) asked Fothcoming float (if it happens) won't be worth much to Kibo holders (if based on what has been published so far) Value to Opera of Kibo's gold assets as already annouced as £3.6m. ie 1p per Kibo share. Reflects low grades, open-ended funding requirement, and low standard of resource which is mainly inferred. Paid for by 61m Opera / Katoro shares at 6p. Existing Opera shares total 17.25m. On float at 6p, and placing to raise £1.7m, another 28.3m will be added taking Katoro shares initially in issue to 106.6m. of which Kibo will have 57.2%. The initial placing is only enough to fund float costs, new company costs, and studies necessary to plan a mine start up. As already announced, there will be a later, larger fund raise, where past announcements by Kibo and Lake Victoria Goldfields for their now abandoned merger indicated at least another $5m for drilling and technical studies before any mine could be developed, and another $8m to start up the then mooted joint Imweru/Imwelo venture. Assuming that applies for Katoro, the further fund raise (assuming 6p) would add another 133m shares, further diluting Kibo's holding to 25% - its maximum share of profits once up and running provided no more funding. By then Kibo's own shares will have significantly expanded if its going to take any share of MCPP, so expect Kibo to offload all its Katoro to its own shareholders beforehand. Before that don't expect experienced investors to show much interest in what is a small low -grade operation . Instead, expect Kibo to 'offer' participation to its own shareholders. Sensible ones will politely decline No wonder Doh!-fort has been trying to ramp a value for Imweru higher than will be in the prospectus (which the FCA requires to be 'fair') by using blatantly exorbitant 'in-ground' values. Its March report purports to base an Imweru value on the '$35.6/oz average' of a set of pre-production 'peer' miners. But these are all much more advanced and have almost all their finance, while the exceptionally large and high grade Hot Maden prospect distorts the average skywards. Not only that, all Doh!fort's 'peers' are much larger, have resources measured to a higher standard than Imweru which is 80% inferred, and have much better gold grades. Any mining analyst should know that price per gold ounce for an 'in-ground' resource declines sharply the smaller the resource and the lower the grade. Imweru is well below the bottom of Doh!-fort's chart on both measures, so a fair value would be under $20/oz - taking what should be its own 'estimate' down to below even the $3.6m Opera/Katoro is paying. One wonders why Doh!fort is publishing such an unprofessional and biassed report unless it has been 'leaned' on to do so by someone desperate to get anyone to buy Katoro when listed.
30/7/2017
10:42
aimchimp: An extract from the often reposted notes with some comments in CAPS. THE COMMENTS ARE OBSERVATIONS BASED ON WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED AND BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE COMPANY SINCE EARLY APRILSandersons -Can you give the exact repayment date of the current 2.9m loan facility?There is no set date and this is a very fluid arrangement. The distinct impressions I got was that there is alot more commitment between all these parties towards eachother than we give them credit for. Sandersons are not there to screw KIBO over for missed dates etc. From what LC said it seems very fluid and flexible. He seemed relaxed to the point of dismissing this as any issue whatsoever.I UNDERSTAND THE ANNUAL REPORT STATES THAT REPAYMENT IS ON RECEIPT OF CASH FROM SEPCO. SEEMS VERY STRANGE RESPONSE WITH THAT IN MIND> OF COURSE I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE ISSUE WOULD BE DISMISSED BUT IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION WHY BE VAGUE... OR COULD IT BE THAT THE NOTES GOT A BIT BEFUDDLEDHow much currently of the facility has been drawn?I found it hard to believe they didn't know the answer to this but felt it was more a point of not wanting to give any shareholders privileged information, therefore, as it stands we received no figure on this.ODD THAT THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED PRIVILEDGED INFO... DRAWAING ON A FACILITY WHICH HAD NO PENALTY FEES PER DRAWDOWN OR INTEREST OTHER THAN THOSE ALREADY PAID (IN SHARES) PERHAPS IT COULD BE THE NOTES GOT A BIT MESSED UP AND THE REPORT WASNT ACCURATE?Given the slippage in timelines for FC what contingencies have you in place for settlement of monies drawn under the current Sandersons agreement and how can we best expect you to negotiate a solution to this?See above. Totally unworried, I suspect an alternative cash injection possibly from selling part of this his he MCPP down, potentially GE appeared the favourites imo.WHY WOULD CASH INJECTIONS FOR SETTLMENT AHEAD OF FC BE REQUIRED? I UNDERSTAND IT THE ANNUAL REPORT SHOWS THE REPAYMENT OF THE FACILITY IS WHEN KIBO IS IN RECEIPT OF THE CASH FROM SEPCO>> WHICH IS POST FINANCIAL CLOSE... PERHAPS THE NOTES MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED OR THE NOTE TAKER WASNT LISTENING MAYBE AND WROTE WHAT HE THOUGHT COULD HAVE BEEN SAID!Do you conceed that where Sandersons has the right to convert up to £1.5m of amount drawn down on the Facility into Kibo Shares at the 30 day VWAP prior to the repayment date of the total Facility amount that there is an interest in the KIBO share price being low going through this period for them?LC seemed to be of the opinion this wasn't in Sandersons interest to have a low share price. I asked him if maybe it was in their favour for a short time i.e the 30 day VWAP period at least to get the max shares for the upto 1.5m but LC seemed to say the it was at our discretion whether upto max 1.5m of the facility was repayable as shares.HOW VERY STRANGE THAT LC WASNT CLEAR ON THIS POINT.... THE RECENT DETAIL STATES THAT THE OPTION FOR SETTLMENT IN SHARES IN NOT AT KIBOS CHOICE BUT AT THE OPTION FOR SANDERSON.. AGAIN IT SEEMS THAT THE REPORT OUT DOES NOT ACTUALLY REFLECT THE FACTS... WHY WOULD LC TELL AN INVESTOR THIS? PERHAPS WHOEVER WAS LISTENING MISHEARD THESE ALTERNATIVE FACTS?I assume that as the deal and a repayment date seem flexible this maybe isn't a problem as previously explained but also I feel he has access to an alternate funding to eliminate this problem. I.e selling down a small stake in the MCPP possibly.AND THEN BACK TO THE SELLING DOWN OF A STAKE IN MCPP WHICH KEEPS BEING ROLLED OUT AS A POSSIBILITY>>> JUST FEELS LIKE A PLATFORM FOR SOMEONES HOPES AND THOUGHTS... PERHAPS IT WAS NOISY AND STRAINING TO HEAR RESPONSES MADE SOME POINTS FOGGY...
22/6/2017
15:59
aimchimp: electrick12 Jun '17 - 16:24 - 4107 of 4110 0 0An extract from the often reposted notes with some comments in CAPS. THE COMMENTS ARE OBSERVATIONS BASED ON WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED AND BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE COMPANY SINCE EARLY APRILSandersons -Can you give the exact repayment date of the current 2.9m loan facility?There is no set date and this is a very fluid arrangement. The distinct impressions I got was that there is alot more commitment between all these parties towards eachother than we give them credit for. Sandersons are not there to screw KIBO over for missed dates etc. From what LC said it seems very fluid and flexible. He seemed relaxed to the point of dismissing this as any issue whatsoever.I UNDERSTAND THE ANNUAL REPORT STATES THAT REPAYMENT IS ON RECEIPT OF CASH FROM SEPCO. SEEMS VERY STRANGE RESPONSE WITH THAT IN MIND> OF COURSE I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE ISSUE WOULD BE DISMISSED BUT IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION WHY BE VAGUE... OR COULD IT BE THAT THE NOTES GOT A BIT BEFUDDLEDHow much currently of the facility has been drawn?I found it hard to believe they didn't know the answer to this but felt it was more a point of not wanting to give any shareholders privileged information, therefore, as it stands we received no figure on this.ODD THAT THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED PRIVILEDGED INFO... DRAWAING ON A FACILITY WHICH HAD NO PENALTY FEES PER DRAWDOWN OR INTEREST OTHER THAN THOSE ALREADY PAID (IN SHARES) PERHAPS IT COULD BE THE NOTES GOT A BIT MESSED UP AND THE REPORT WASNT ACCURATE?Given the slippage in timelines for FC what contingencies have you in place for settlement of monies drawn under the current Sandersons agreement and how can we best expect you to negotiate a solution to this?See above. Totally unworried, I suspect an alternative cash injection possibly from selling part of this his he MCPP down, potentially GE appeared the favourites imo.WHY WOULD CASH INJECTIONS FOR SETTLMENT AHEAD OF FC BE REQUIRED? I UNDERSTAND IT THE ANNUAL REPORT SHOWS THE REPAYMENT OF THE FACILITY IS WHEN KIBO IS IN RECEIPT OF THE CASH FROM SEPCO>> WHICH IS POST FINANCIAL CLOSE... PERHAPS THE NOTES MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED OR THE NOTE TAKER WASNT LISTENING MAYBE AND WROTE WHAT HE THOUGHT COULD HAVE BEEN SAID!Do you conceed that where Sandersons has the right to convert up to £1.5m of amount drawn down on the Facility into Kibo Shares at the 30 day VWAP prior to the repayment date of the total Facility amount that there is an interest in the KIBO share price being low going through this period for them?LC seemed to be of the opinion this wasn't in Sandersons interest to have a low share price. I asked him if maybe it was in their favour for a short time i.e the 30 day VWAP period at least to get the max shares for the upto 1.5m but LC seemed to say the it was at our discretion whether upto max 1.5m of the facility was repayable as shares.HOW VERY STRANGE THAT LC WASNT CLEAR ON THIS POINT.... THE RECENT DETAIL STATES THAT THE OPTION FOR SETTLMENT IN SHARES IN NOT AT KIBOS CHOICE BUT AT THE OPTION FOR SANDERSON.. AGAIN IT SEEMS THAT THE REPORT OUT DOES NOT ACTUALLY REFLECT THE FACTS... WHY WOULD LC TELL AN INVESTOR THIS? PERHAPS WHOEVER WAS LISTENING MISHEARD THESE ALTERNATIVE FACTS?I assume that as the deal and a repayment date seem flexible this maybe isn't a problem as previously explained but also I feel he has access to an alternate funding to eliminate this problem. I.e selling down a small stake in the MCPP possibly.AND THEN BACK TO THE SELLING DOWN OF A STAKE IN MCPP WHICH KEEPS BEING ROLLED OUT AS A POSSIBILITY>>> JUST FEELS LIKE A PLATFORM FOR SOMEONES HOPES AND THOUGHTS... PERHAPS IT WAS NOISY AND STRAINING TO HEAR RESPONSES MADE SOME POINTS FOGGY...
16/6/2017
11:33
bionictwat: UKIS 2017 KIBO NotesPolicy Changes -Can you explain the difference between the Tanzanian Energy and Policy Procurement Review that is underway, as per the recent presentation and the MEM Policy Review that is completed as per 23/3/17 RNS?These are two completely diffrent reviews. It's hard to put a linear %, in terms of how much of the TEPPR is completed but it's believed the main components have been completed and these aren't really a dealing factor to the ultimate delivery of the project. There is a gazetting process to ensure any changes don't conflict with any other laws etc before being made official.In your assessment how long will the Tanzainan Energy And Policy Procurement Review take to complete?Unable to accurately say but see above that the main bulk of the work has been completed already. So we should be on the home straight.As discussed last year, can you tell me of which, if either, KIBO have had direct input too?Yes they have had input into both of these. Therefore, I read they must have reasonable knowledge of the processes and there shaping of the future.Overall how do you expect all policy changes to benefit the MCPP?Kibo will be benefit for a more robust, solid and sustainable set of rules within the overall framework of reliability within Tanzania. I.e it will ensure all payments etc will be made as agreed which is important for a project like the MCPP which is going to, run for over 25 years.ESIA -What does the ESIA Certification process involve?Literally just a final check and a signing off process. There could be the odd question that may come back to KIBO or a confirmation of certain elements but basically it is what it is, a signing up process.Given the timelines for ESIA certification acquired by other companies, the ESIA certification for KIBO should be imminent. Is there anything else that is holding this up i.e hanging on outstanding policy changes and should we expect this any day now, by that reasoning?Yes KIBO are awaiting this to drop anytime now with nothing else holding this up.SML -Given the timelines for SML approval acquired by other companies, the SML approval for KIBO should be imminent. Is there anything else that is holding this up i.e hanging on outstanding policy changes and should we expect this any day now, by that reasoning?Again, yes KIBO are awaiting this to drop anytime now with nothing else holding this up.PPA -Given the phrases used in the RNS of the 23/3/17 of 'ensuring that a final PPA can be concluded ASAP'. Can we verify that preliminary PPA tariffs were applied to the facilitate the production of the IBFS and Financial Model?The conversation quickly negated this section of questions. LC explained that we have no figures to plug in anywhere and this method of thought is the direct opposite to what is actually happening in reality in this process. We are working this completely the other way around. We are saying what the tariff figures should be, driven from the independently produced figures via the feasibility studies completed. We have control and push negotiations to where we want them to be not the other way around. To me, this means we guarantee a profitable outcome for the project. If so, we're these preliminary PPA tarriffs agreed with Tanesco?N/AAgain, and if so, are the accuracy of these tariffs still withstanding given the policy reviews?N/AFC -Can we assume once we have an ESIA, SML and PPA we can advance straight to FC or are there any other workstreams that need completing that will hold up going to FC? Yes, although some parallel work means part of FC can already be in progress. It is possible to call a scenario of being in a Preliminary FC.Are SEPCO bound to pay you the $3.6m on entering FC or at the completion of FC?This will be on competition of FC but this is not seen to cause any problems in anyway.Will there be a news blackout during FC due to its sensitive nature?Once we reach FC, or more accurately on signing the PPA, that is when the real figures and detail can be released. LC seemed to allude on more than one occasion to look at the figures for the coal that you can workout to give a good pointer to the value that lies ahead. Therefore I don't see FC as requiring a suspension or news blackout.MCPP General -How our partners feel about the delays induced by the Government?They seem pretty understanding of the region and it's development. Obviously they have huge budgets and can outside these types of delays, so no issue here.Did Sandersons acquisition of part of the MCPP surprise you, especially vs their usual MO?LC agreed that obviously it isn't there normal line of business and that it probsbly surprised Sandersons themselves more than it did himself when they got so deeply involved. They have made a huge commitment that the believe they will benefit from.Are you any closer to knowing whether the project will be separated or integrated?No comment.What is your gut feel on which route you prefer to go down?No comment.Do you feel a 30% retention as previously alluded to is realistic or had that changed +/-?Yes this is entirely still possible and and therefore valid figure to base any calculations on.When Sandersons took their 2.5% valuing the MCPP at a discounted $100m, what was the agreed discount valued at?Although he couldn't recall the discounted figure he interesting said this value was based only on the figures from the mine. This took me back a touch as it was the complete opposite to what I expected. In fact, it may well, give rise to the fact my recent 25p a share figure for u the mine for each 300MW is too low. It puts it back to being more 35p and discounted at that !!! He must be expecting a much better price than $32.7mt for the coal being sold into the plant, imo.Can you confirm this 2.5% of the MCPP includes the mine. N/AHow does the MEN's statement that 30% of Tanzanian Mining Companies Share holding must be floated on the DSE affect all of our projects especially the MCPP?This would only affect projects that require an SML. Therfore only affect the MCPP. That said, LC was of the opinion that this would in all likelyhood NOT apply to us due to the National Strategic Importance of the project. Make of that, what you will.Can we still expect the MCPP to be spun out ala Katoro?It will either be spun out or in all likelyhood hood, Hanetti will be spun out leaving the MCPP on its own with KIBO.If so at what point would you need to initiate this?N/A. As an aside Noel seemed very excited about Hanetti. I had the feeling more work had been going on there than they have let on possibly.Sandersons -Can you give the exact repayment date of the current 2.9m loan facility?There is no set date and this is a very fluid arrangement. The distinct impressions I got was that there is alot more commitment between all these parties towards eachother than we give them credit for. Sandersons are not there to screw KIBO over for missed dates etc. From what LC said it seems very fluid and flexible. He seemed relaxed to the point of dismissing this as any issue whatsoever. How much currently of the facility has been drawn?I found it hard to believe they didn't know the answer to this but felt it was more a point of not wanting to give any shareholders privileged information, therefore, as it stands we received no figure on this.Given the slippage in timelines for FC what contingencies have you in place for settlement of monies drawn under the current Sandersons agreement and how can we best expect you to negotiate a solution to this?See above. Totally unworried, I suspect an alternative cash injection possibly from selling part of this his he MCPP down, potentially GE appeared the favourites imo.Do you conceed that where Sandersons has the right to convert up to £1.5m of amount drawn down on the Facility into Kibo Shares at the 30 day VWAP prior to the repayment date of the total Facility amount that there is an interest in the KIBO share price being low going through this period for them?LC seemed to be of the opinion this wasn't in Sandersons interest to have a low share price. I asked him if maybe it was in their favour for a short time i.e the 30 day VWAP period at least to get the max shares for the upto 1.5m but LC seemed to say the it was at our discretion whether upto max 1.5m of the facility was repayable as shares. I assume that as the deal and a repayment date seem flexible this maybe isn't a problem as previously explained but also I feel he has access to an alternate funding to eliminate this problem. I.e selling down a small stake in the MCPP possibly.How you you feel about this, as lot of investors feel uncomfortable with it and suspect some share price manipulation?They have and our investigating but so far have not found how or who is//could be causing any manipulation.Beaufort -Given the significant progress made with the MCPP, how do you feel when your house broker cannot upgrade their stock recommendation, despite your best efforts? Also how do you feel this looks to new or potential investors from the outside?Very small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.Government of TanzaniaWhat actually tangible evidence can you show investors as to the government being completely behind this project at this point?Look there isn't a letter or anything assigning KIBO any such special privileges. It's something that needs to happen and KIBO have got themselves to the front of the queue in terms of project development They have great relationships in terms of being completely transparent and honest with the Government and this extends both ways.Can we have some insight as to how KIBO benefits from a supposedly 'special' relationship with the Government?See aboveHave you any agreement with the government in any form that the MCPP will provide Stage 2 and 400MW for export via the ZTK?Yes this seems obviously where this second stage is going to go, however LC also and passionately pointed out this was not the only option. Only 300MW or Stage 1 can be evacuated into the grid as it stands now. However as an IPP'S he can sell Power to whomever he likes. It need not only be to Tanesco or into the ZTK. He can deal directly with the EAPP too for example or sell as to cement factories etc etc.Sepco III -:-) Can you confirm that KIBO initiated the revision to the original JDA agreement with SEPCO III for their best interests and not that Sepco the JDA was revised as they were not prepared to commit funds due to low IRRS of the Power side of the project.Emphatically and rightly pointed out by LC. Why would SEPCO enter into a deal for 1.8m plus 3.6m just for backcosts and nothing else when the original deal was $3m for 15%. There was no need for further discussion.NPV -Who verified or confirmed the RNS'D NPV figures?Tractebel, MINXCOM etc plus these were again independently assessed, produced and verified.Can you 100% confirm the NPV figures quoted of just shy of $500m per 300MW configuration are figures post debt interest, as I expect them to be.See above, do you really think these companies don't know how to calculate NPV that relates to the rest of the business world? Institutional Investors -You been on record as saying approx 50% of calls into you were from Investors wanting to get in on the MCPP. How come - barring Sandersons, we have no institutional investors notifiable in Kibo?LC was of the opinion that we are under the radar of serious II's. At a 30m cap they will become inerested and can invest. He has had alot of interest, so imo, on the back of significant news we won't possibly retrace next time we go past 10p, we might have bigger buyers buying into the price at the level for the reasons stated.Do you see this as an issue and are you attempting to address it?See above.Diversified Mining - What is the minimum mining permission needed for Kibo to start selling coal locally or will we be waiting for an all encompassing SML?It will be covered under the SML, already applied for.If less than an SML what is the minimum period to get it and can it be converted to an SML later?It will be covered under the SML already applied for.We know the Capex of the mine with regards the MCPP is $17m, what is the CAPEX for getting the mine into early production and how do you intend to raise this amount?The mine is the mine, it will take $17mWhat ia the current sell price per tonne of Tanzanian coal in local market?Amazingly $60/ $70 per mtWhat is the profit margin per tonne?No commentWhat is the nitial and potential sales potential for local domestic market?A lot of interest has been shown so far and still feeling out its full potential.Is there much competition in local market?Not much only one company he mentioned, he didn't seemed to know quite who Edenville would have as customers. Most other mines will have high transportation costs where as at Mbeya they are right on the train track therefore will be able to keep their costs down and provide coal still a lower price than other companies. LC was adamant no one would beat them for price.Is exporting of this coal feasible and being explored?Not impossible but for internal use only for now.CSR Program -What else will this entail and under what conditions were you required to run this?This was triggered via the ESIA but nothing else significant is planned for now.
12/6/2017
15:24
electrick: An extract from the often reposted notes with some comments in CAPS. THE COMMENTS ARE OBSERVATIONS BASED ON WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED AND BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE COMPANY SINCE EARLY APRIL Sandersons - Can you give the exact repayment date of the current 2.9m loan facility? There is no set date and this is a very fluid arrangement. The distinct impressions I got was that there is alot more commitment between all these parties towards eachother than we give them credit for. Sandersons are not there to screw KIBO over for missed dates etc. From what LC said it seems very fluid and flexible. He seemed relaxed to the point of dismissing this as any issue whatsoever. I UNDERSTAND THE ANNUAL REPORT STATES THAT REPAYMENT IS ON RECEIPT OF CASH FROM SEPCO. SEEMS VERY STRANGE RESPONSE WITH THAT IN MIND> OF COURSE I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE ISSUE WOULD BE DISMISSED BUT IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION WHY BE VAGUE... OR COULD IT BE THAT THE NOTES GOT A BIT BEFUDDLED How much currently of the facility has been drawn? I found it hard to believe they didn't know the answer to this but felt it was more a point of not wanting to give any shareholders privileged information, therefore, as it stands we received no figure on this. ODD THAT THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED PRIVILEDGED INFO... DRAWAING ON A FACILITY WHICH HAD NO PENALTY FEES PER DRAWDOWN OR INTEREST OTHER THAN THOSE ALREADY PAID (IN SHARES) PERHAPS IT COULD BE THE NOTES GOT A BIT MESSED UP AND THE REPORT WASNT ACCURATE? Given the slippage in timelines for FC what contingencies have you in place for settlement of monies drawn under the current Sandersons agreement and how can we best expect you to negotiate a solution to this? See above. Totally unworried, I suspect an alternative cash injection possibly from selling part of this his he MCPP down, potentially GE appeared the favourites imo. WHY WOULD CASH INJECTIONS FOR SETTLMENT AHEAD OF FC BE REQUIRED? I UNDERSTAND IT THE ANNUAL REPORT SHOWS THE REPAYMENT OF THE FACILITY IS WHEN KIBO IS IN RECEIPT OF THE CASH FROM SEPCO>> WHICH IS POST FINANCIAL CLOSE... PERHAPS THE NOTES MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED OR THE NOTE TAKER WASNT LISTENING MAYBE AND WROTE WHAT HE THOUGHT COULD HAVE BEEN SAID! Do you conceed that where Sandersons has the right to convert up to £1.5m of amount drawn down on the Facility into Kibo Shares at the 30 day VWAP prior to the repayment date of the total Facility amount that there is an interest in the KIBO share price being low going through this period for them? LC seemed to be of the opinion this wasn't in Sandersons interest to have a low share price. I asked him if maybe it was in their favour for a short time i.e the 30 day VWAP period at least to get the max shares for the upto 1.5m but LC seemed to say the it was at our discretion whether upto max 1.5m of the facility was repayable as shares. HOW VERY STRANGE THAT LC WASNT CLEAR ON THIS POINT.... THE RECENT DETAIL STATES THAT THE OPTION FOR SETTLMENT IN SHARES IN NOT AT KIBOS CHOICE BUT AT THE OPTION FOR SANDERSON.. AGAIN IT SEEMS THAT THE REPORT OUT DOES NOT ACTUALLY REFLECT THE FACTS... WHY WOULD LC TELL AN INVESTOR THIS? PERHAPS WHOEVER WAS LISTENING MISHEARD THESE ALTERNATIVE FACTS? I assume that as the deal and a repayment date seem flexible this maybe isn't a problem as previously explained but also I feel he has access to an alternate funding to eliminate this problem. I.e selling down a small stake in the MCPP possibly. AND THEN BACK TO THE SELLING DOWN OF A STAKE IN MCPP WHICH KEEPS BEING ROLLED OUT AS A POSSIBILITY>>> JUST FEELS LIKE A PLATFORM FOR SOMEONES HOPES AND THOUGHTS... PERHAPS IT WAS NOISY AND STRAINING TO HEAR RESPONSES MADE SOME POINTS FOGGY...
12/6/2017
13:59
bionictwat: UKIS 2017 KIBO NotesPolicy Changes -Can you explain the difference between the Tanzanian Energy and Policy Procurement Review that is underway, as per the recent presentation and the MEM Policy Review that is completed as per 23/3/17 RNS?These are two completely diffrent reviews. It's hard to put a linear %, in terms of how much of the TEPPR is completed but it's believed the main components have been completed and these aren't really a dealing factor to the ultimate delivery of the project. There is a gazetting process to ensure any changes don't conflict with any other laws etc before being made official.In your assessment how long will the Tanzainan Energy And Policy Procurement Review take to complete?Unable to accurately say but see above that the main bulk of the work has been completed already. So we should be on the home straight.As discussed last year, can you tell me of which, if either, KIBO have had direct input too?Yes they have had input into both of these. Therefore, I read they must have reasonable knowledge of the processes and there shaping of the future.Overall how do you expect all policy changes to benefit the MCPP?Kibo will be benefit for a more robust, solid and sustainable set of rules within the overall framework of reliability within Tanzania. I.e it will ensure all payments etc will be made as agreed which is important for a project like the MCPP which is going to, run for over 25 years.ESIA -What does the ESIA Certification process involve?Literally just a final check and a signing off process. There could be the odd question that may come back to KIBO or a confirmation of certain elements but basically it is what it is, a signing up process.Given the timelines for ESIA certification acquired by other companies, the ESIA certification for KIBO should be imminent. Is there anything else that is holding this up i.e hanging on outstanding policy changes and should we expect this any day now, by that reasoning?Yes KIBO are awaiting this to drop anytime now with nothing else holding this up.SML -Given the timelines for SML approval acquired by other companies, the SML approval for KIBO should be imminent. Is there anything else that is holding this up i.e hanging on outstanding policy changes and should we expect this any day now, by that reasoning?Again, yes KIBO are awaiting this to drop anytime now with nothing else holding this up.PPA -Given the phrases used in the RNS of the 23/3/17 of 'ensuring that a final PPA can be concluded ASAP'. Can we verify that preliminary PPA tariffs were applied to the facilitate the production of the IBFS and Financial Model?The conversation quickly negated this section of questions. LC explained that we have no figures to plug in anywhere and this method of thought is the direct opposite to what is actually happening in reality in this process. We are working this completely the other way around. We are saying what the tariff figures should be, driven from the independently produced figures via the feasibility studies completed. We have control and push negotiations to where we want them to be not the other way around. To me, this means we guarantee a profitable outcome for the project. If so, we're these preliminary PPA tarriffs agreed with Tanesco?N/AAgain, and if so, are the accuracy of these tariffs still withstanding given the policy reviews?N/AFC -Can we assume once we have an ESIA, SML and PPA we can advance straight to FC or are there any other workstreams that need completing that will hold up going to FC? Yes, although some parallel work means part of FC can already be in progress. It is possible to call a scenario of being in a Preliminary FC.Are SEPCO bound to pay you the $3.6m on entering FC or at the completion of FC?This will be on competition of FC but this is not seen to cause any problems in anyway.Will there be a news blackout during FC due to its sensitive nature?Once we reach FC, or more accurately on signing the PPA, that is when the real figures and detail can be released. LC seemed to allude on more than one occasion to look at the figures for the coal that you can workout to give a good pointer to the value that lies ahead. Therefore I don't see FC as requiring a suspension or news blackout.MCPP General -How our partners feel about the delays induced by the Government?They seem pretty understanding of the region and it's development. Obviously they have huge budgets and can outside these types of delays, so no issue here.Did Sandersons acquisition of part of the MCPP surprise you, especially vs their usual MO?LC agreed that obviously it isn't there normal line of business and that it probsbly surprised Sandersons themselves more than it did himself when they got so deeply involved. They have made a huge commitment that the believe they will benefit from.Are you any closer to knowing whether the project will be separated or integrated?No comment.What is your gut feel on which route you prefer to go down?No comment.Do you feel a 30% retention as previously alluded to is realistic or had that changed +/-?Yes this is entirely still possible and and therefore valid figure to base any calculations on.When Sandersons took their 2.5% valuing the MCPP at a discounted $100m, what was the agreed discount valued at?Although he couldn't recall the discounted figure he interesting said this value was based only on the figures from the mine. This took me back a touch as it was the complete opposite to what I expected. In fact, it may well, give rise to the fact my recent 25p a share figure for u the mine for each 300MW is too low. It puts it back to being more 35p and discounted at that !!! He must be expecting a much better price than $32.7mt for the coal being sold into the plant, imo.Can you confirm this 2.5% of the MCPP includes the mine. N/AHow does the MEN's statement that 30% of Tanzanian Mining Companies Share holding must be floated on the DSE affect all of our projects especially the MCPP?This would only affect projects that require an SML. Therfore only affect the MCPP. That said, LC was of the opinion that this would in all likelyhood NOT apply to us due to the National Strategic Importance of the project. Make of that, what you will.Can we still expect the MCPP to be spun out ala Katoro?It will either be spun out or in all likelyhood hood, Hanetti will be spun out leaving the MCPP on its own with KIBO.If so at what point would you need to initiate this?N/A. As an aside Noel seemed very excited about Hanetti. I had the feeling more work had been going on there than they have let on possibly.Sandersons -Can you give the exact repayment date of the current 2.9m loan facility?There is no set date and this is a very fluid arrangement. The distinct impressions I got was that there is alot more commitment between all these parties towards eachother than we give them credit for. Sandersons are not there to screw KIBO over for missed dates etc. From what LC said it seems very fluid and flexible. He seemed relaxed to the point of dismissing this as any issue whatsoever. How much currently of the facility has been drawn?I found it hard to believe they didn't know the answer to this but felt it was more a point of not wanting to give any shareholders privileged information, therefore, as it stands we received no figure on this.Given the slippage in timelines for FC what contingencies have you in place for settlement of monies drawn under the current Sandersons agreement and how can we best expect you to negotiate a solution to this?See above. Totally unworried, I suspect an alternative cash injection possibly from selling part of this his he MCPP down, potentially GE appeared the favourites imo.Do you conceed that where Sandersons has the right to convert up to £1.5m of amount drawn down on the Facility into Kibo Shares at the 30 day VWAP prior to the repayment date of the total Facility amount that there is an interest in the KIBO share price being low going through this period for them?LC seemed to be of the opinion this wasn't in Sandersons interest to have a low share price. I asked him if maybe it was in their favour for a short time i.e the 30 day VWAP period at least to get the max shares for the upto 1.5m but LC seemed to say the it was at our discretion whether upto max 1.5m of the facility was repayable as shares. I assume that as the deal and a repayment date seem flexible this maybe isn't a problem as previously explained but also I feel he has access to an alternate funding to eliminate this problem. I.e selling down a small stake in the MCPP possibly.How you you feel about this, as lot of investors feel uncomfortable with it and suspect some share price manipulation?They have and our investigating but so far have not found how or who is//could be causing any manipulation.Beaufort -Given the significant progress made with the MCPP, how do you feel when your house broker cannot upgrade their stock recommendation, despite your best efforts? Also how do you feel this looks to new or potential investors from the outside?Very small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.Government of TanzaniaWhat actually tangible evidence can you show investors as to the government being completely behind this project at this point?Look there isn't a letter or anything assigning KIBO any such special privileges. It's something that needs to happen and KIBO have got themselves to the front of the queue in terms of project development They have great relationships in terms of being completely transparent and honest with the Government and this extends both ways.Can we have some insight as to how KIBO benefits from a supposedly 'special' relationship with the Government?See aboveHave you any agreement with the government in any form that the MCPP will provide Stage 2 and 400MW for export via the ZTK?Yes this seems obviously where this second stage is going to go, however LC also and passionately pointed out this was not the only option. Only 300MW or Stage 1 can be evacuated into the grid as it stands now. However as an IPP'S he can sell Power to whomever he likes. It need not only be to Tanesco or into the ZTK. He can deal directly with the EAPP too for example or sell as to cement factories etc etc.Sepco III -:-) Can you confirm that KIBO initiated the revision to the original JDA agreement with SEPCO III for their best interests and not that Sepco the JDA was revised as they were not prepared to commit funds due to low IRRS of the Power side of the project.Emphatically and rightly pointed out by LC. Why would SEPCO enter into a deal for 1.8m plus 3.6m just for backcosts and nothing else when the original deal was $3m for 15%. There was no need for further discussion.NPV -Who verified or confirmed the RNS'D NPV figures?Tractebel, MINXCOM etc plus these were again independently assessed, produced and verified.Can you 100% confirm the NPV figures quoted of just shy of $500m per 300MW configuration are figures post debt interest, as I expect them to be.See above, do you really think these companies don't know how to calculate NPV that relates to the rest of the business world? Institutional Investors -You been on record as saying approx 50% of calls into you were from Investors wanting to get in on the MCPP. How come - barring Sandersons, we have no institutional investors notifiable in Kibo?LC was of the opinion that we are under the radar of serious II's. At a 30m cap they will become inerested and can invest. He has had alot of interest, so imo, on the back of significant news we won't possibly retrace next time we go past 10p, we might have bigger buyers buying into the price at the level for the reasons stated.Do you see this as an issue and are you attempting to address it?See above.Diversified Mining - What is the minimum mining permission needed for Kibo to start selling coal locally or will we be waiting for an all encompassing SML?It will be covered under the SML, already applied for.If less than an SML what is the minimum period to get it and can it be converted to an SML later?It will be covered under the SML already applied for.We know the Capex of the mine with regards the MCPP is $17m, what is the CAPEX for getting the mine into early production and how do you intend to raise this amount?The mine is the mine, it will take $17mWhat ia the current sell price per tonne of Tanzanian coal in local market?Amazingly $60/ $70 per mtWhat is the profit margin per tonne?No commentWhat is the nitial and potential sales potential for local domestic market?A lot of interest has been shown so far and still feeling out its full potential.Is there much competition in local market?Not much only one company he mentioned, he didn't seemed to know quite who Edenville would have as customers. Most other mines will have high transportation costs where as at Mbeya they are right on the train track therefore will be able to keep their costs down and provide coal still a lower price than other companies. LC was adamant no one would beat them for price.Is exporting of this coal feasible and being explored?Not impossible but for internal use only for now.CSR Program -What else will this entail and under what conditions were you required to run this?This was triggered via the ESIA but nothing else significant is planned for now.RNS -General feedback is that RNS' need more proof reading, could include more numbers for the market to correctly value us on, along with maybe a little shine when we do things well, although I do think we attempt to hide not so good news well.It was noted but felt most issues were not related to the real material news.Q & A -Given the amount of mails sent into you that must take up valuable time, can we schedule a monthly Q & A through Vox Markets, as this seemed to be a great way of investors being able to interact with you on current issues and may not only cut down on your email inbox but act as great PR.Dedicated email address to be set up with a monthly Q and A sessions as previously conducted via Vox.SP Value -As much as we can see progressions on all project fronts and especially the MCPP, do you conceed that there is only a material increase in share price value when the share is consistently worth more this year than it was last year?Although I didn't ask this the general conversation regarding the share price led to the opinion there will be several significant catalysts for share price improvement coming over the next 2/3 months.To that end, what do you think will be the trigger for realising solid share price value with regard the MCPP, bar an offer being made for the project.See above.I have a value of approx $150-175m for selling a 300MW config with the coal, if retained being worth 25p at the 32.7mt price. Do you feel this is accurate?Approached the his in a slightly more round about way. They certainly didn't argue and I felt this wasn't far off of what they were thinking either.If sold, how do you I tend to make sure we don't end up selling a 1000MW plant for the price of a discounted 300MW plant.This was probably the most significant part of the his home day for me. Each 300MW will be sold as as separate company. Different level of ownership could be assigned over each stage. Therefore KIBO can benefit and realise from the full 1000MW. This IMO, significantly raises the value of the total investment we could realise given a longer term view. Assuming this does reach FC then alot more is at stake than a 300MW value. This alone as the most revealing part of the day. There is an absolutely massive value waiting to be unlocked. I also asked if now relationships between all parties had been established if a rinse and repeat of the whole project could be on the cards? LC just smiled and said, "Yes, of course it could".How do you best expect to materially realise value back to all share holders, would a special dividend vs income be your preferred method of distribution?A special dividend would always be a way to go, when realising share holder value.
Kibo Mining share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:30 V: D:20171120 11:33:21