Norseman Gold Share Discussion Threads

[mark of the rushes] 20/11/2012 17:30

It's worth reading tw's company chat, link above, for those wishing to grasp onto threads of hope.

A snippet for those who can't be bothered...."I now understand that the Chinese investor has received regulatory permits in both China and Oz to invest in Norseman. Under this scenario shareholders can expect to be diluted (perhaps by 20%) but the administrator returns the asset to Norseman PLC as it is deemed viable. And so shareholders in effect own, say, 80% of a company with cash and generating cash. If Norseman can for once "get it right" there is real upside here."

[orado] 20/11/2012 16:43

What a prat

[atlantic57] 19/11/2012 14:01

Which means with the share price where it was before suspension would surely mean massive dilution if they are ever coming back from suspension.

Surely on the balance of probability prospects here look bleak.

[ad1967mc] 19/11/2012 13:09

There's little staff synergy between Harlequin and North Royal. Very different types of operation. An old contact (who still lives in the goldfields) told me that the best miners saw what was happening and moved on, some got poached. These narrow high grade veins need skilled operators. Production fell as the quality of the workforce plummeted.

To make matters worse, the company culled development and exploration spend in an attempt to conserve cash. That usually catches up several months later. The fact is the lack of new discoveries meant NGL were forced to mine lower grade zones. Which just added to problems.

Perhaps a fresh approach can rejuvenate Norseman. But I suspect they will need a long and successful multiple million Dollar exploration campaign first.

[richgit] 19/11/2012 12:46

ad1967mc

Only Mr Cahill knows the answers,however.....

I tend to disagree,as figures for 30/07/2010
show Harlequin at 9641 ozs & Bullen at 4170.

I suspect there was a huge gamble in crossing fingers for Harlequin
as their best staff were transferred for the gamble of OK and then North royal.

By 27/04/011 Harlequin was 6186 ozs & Bullen 4944 with OK finally
seeing the light of day at 2889.

Arguably at this point taking their eye off the ball at Harlequin and
praying for the concentration on on North Royal just wasnt paying off considering the reduction at Harlequin from 9641 down to 6184 and OK just
about making it up.

I agree that North Royal and gambling so much on that was the nail in the coffin
to the saccrificing numbers at Harlequin.

So by 28/04/2011
We see the numbers as Harlequin 5368 Bullen 3508 & Ok 1815,so overall they have dropped 4,300 ozs at Harlequin from July 2010 and
barely made the figure up with Bullen & Ok with north royal still fairly hopeless.

From my armchair it would like like they should have concentrated on
Harlequin & Bullen.

In their own words we can partly see what may have really happened,and its similar to the consequences of diverting most of your best sales staff
from your Major Customers in the hope they would uplift your smaller Customers.

If it doesn`t work -its double damned.



"While the North Royal Open Pit has continued to ramp up and
produce ore broadly in line with schedule, the underground mines,
Bullen, Harlequin and OK have underperformed during the quarter
and failed to achieve forecast tonnage and grade levels as a result
of production falling behind schedule. One of the key issues affecting
production has been a general lack of experienced underground
operators, support staff (such as engineers and geologists with
underground experience), and mechanical fitters."

[ad1967mc] 19/11/2012 07:54

For all its hype as a potential saviour, it was North Royal that undid Norseman. The gold price and workforce issues were irrelevant. Put simply, the mine massively under performed. It didn't get close to producing sufficient ounces to operate at positive cashflow, never mind paying back the tens of millions spent developing it. The same thing happened to previous operator Croesus Mining at the Scotia open pit and ultimately led to it defaulting on it's gold hedging.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect the scale of the deficit would have dragged the company down even if Harlequin had been operating at potential.

[noirua] 18/11/2012 22:13

ASX Announcement concerning last Friday's update:

[richgit] 18/11/2012 15:43

Atlantic

I suppose we can say,they have done it before........

Going back to the results of the year reported June 2009.
80,000 ozs produced.

This was Harlequin & Bullen,yet what a difference to those results
if Gold had been a steady average of the past 12 months.

That year included the Market rout period,so their average realised
was just ............. A$1,179 per ounce.




Of course figures can be juggled many ways,with all the ifs and buts,and
how in hindsight everything would have changed "if" Gold had held a
steady $1900 equivalent and that is so often the luck or bad luck for
any CEO.

If We take all Market predictions for 2013 it could be assumed that
$1800 oz will be seen.

I am sure Mr Cahill has sleepless nights about whether He should have
part hedged at equivalent to $1900oz,as He was spending and gambling relative to that,
with what has since been admitted,an overstretched,and
insufficiently experienced work force to bring on both extra mines.



June 2009

The gold price received during the year increased, ranging from A$914 to A$1,519 per ounce,with an average price achieved of A$1,179 per ounce.



30 June 09
Group revenue from continuing operations 96,685
Profit before tax from continuing operations 22,210

[atlantic57] 18/11/2012 09:10

Richgit i still get the sense that many posters are basing their predictions on the number of ounces produced and the potential gold price.

The Consistent experience of the the last 18 months is that the geology of the ore bodies simply will not support the kind of production ounces that are needed.

[atlantic57] 17/11/2012 08:45

Noira i hope you are correct as i am sitting on a big loss.
However my concern remains that Management do not understand the geology of the mine.

How can you run any business even a corner grocer shop if you don't understand it!

[noirua] 16/11/2012 22:17

Norseman Gold PLC NGL is an unsecured creditor of Norseman Gold Limited with others in a similar position.

NGL has heavy losses that would be useful against future profits in the UK. So Tulla must have an interest in seeing they survive and their recent $25m loan book bought from Red Kite repaid.

So NGL look certain to survive and Norseman Gold Limited as well, but how they quite engineer this remains uncertain without Chinese help.

[atlantic57] 16/11/2012 15:19

a 100% on the balance of probability looks likely to me.

[p3dr036] 16/11/2012 14:58

It does not look good!! Are shareholders looking at a 100% loss?? Or what? It seems very likely but we'll see what the 10th of December brings.

[jockblue] 16/11/2012 12:22

..and then go on to say there's no news and unlikely to be any this side of Xmas. As you were then...

[giant steps] 16/11/2012 12:16

What a mess "complexity of the issues involved",
why did Maloney get involved here ?


RNS 16th November 2012

[fangorn2] 16/11/2012 12:04

Company Update

The directors of Norseman wish to provide an update to shareholders following the announcement of 3 October 2012 relating to the appointment of an Administrator to Norseman Gold plc's ("Norseman" or "Company") principal operating subsidiary Central Norseman Gold Corporation Limited ("CNGC").

[atlantic57] 13/11/2012 14:50

AD1967 Has proved to be a fairly reliable commentator.
The key question is the one that he addresses but which is not addressed by the Company or other tipsters.

That question is whether or not the geology of the mine will support the production of the ounces promised.

I am staggered that the due diligence has been of such a poor standard thus far.

t1ps.com and now tom.winnifith.com are still supplying buy notes on the premis that ngl will produce x ounces at y price and therefore are cheap.

The evidence suggests that the Company has no idea what it will produce and on that basis prospects look bleak !

[andy] 05/11/2012 08:21

pabloiom 31 Oct'12 - 17:4




Hi Tom,

Yet ANOTHER id?

[christianf12] 05/11/2012 08:14

Take a look at CGNR at 1.35p

1m+ ounces JORC gold resource, could be up to 20m ounces.

Broker has a 9.6p target. Max you can buy is 185k = £2.5k worth currently.

I have started a thread for them as they are silly cheap capped at just £3.5m, when other gold co's listed on AIM have no JORC resource and are capped at multiples of CGNR.