We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phoenix Copper Limited | PXC | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 20.50 | 08:00:05 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20.50 | 20.00 | 20.50 | 20.50 | 20.50 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| MINING |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 30/5/2024 19:15 by investorman33 KoobaAs I tried to illustrate (calling it Plan A) the publishing of a full PFS using 'priced as new' capex would potentially be almost catastrophic to PXC - whilst PXC might be able to explain to shareholders than capex would drop by say 50%, it would be impossible/impractic Hence the sensible course is to wait say 3 months to finalise and document the purchase of pre used equipment - NI 43 101 does not allow any other course of action (although if they were using JORC, it does not have the same rules). In terms of other timelines : - The Plan of Operations submitted in say September, and it then takes however long US Permitting body wishes to take. - In parallel construction of the mine can go on , building it on patented (ie PXC owned land not leased from US government). - When the permitting process is concluded with all necessary permits awarded, there should be relatively few major milestones to hit to do to get mine into operation, although from experience there will be a lot to do whether its sorting out offtake agreements or whatever. Whilst Empire Open Pit mine getting into production is Ryan's first priority, there will be in parallel other exploration/drilling of Sulphides, Red Star, Navarre Creek etc. Whilst there will be a budget allowed for within the $80m bond money, its possible another bond investor may take up more bonds to enlarge the exploration budget - the bonds were listed with up to an authorised limit of $300m, which whilst its unlikely that will be used in full, there is a further £30m which is best described as being 'in treasury and available to be sold'. Whether another bond holder turns up is in the lap of the gods. |
Posted at 30/5/2024 18:25 by investorman33 KoobaThought it might be helpful if I try to explain a little more why PXC want to buy the 2nd hand equipment rather than using new by illustrating this using some numbers which are just guesses but likely to be correct within say 25% or so). Lets assume the capex required is Civil Works $40m plus New Equipment $60m (total $100m). So Plan A – Publish PFS today with new equipment will need to show Capex as $100m plus NI 43101 requirement of 25% contingency on equipment not already bought = $100m plus 25% x $60m = $115m Plan B – Ryan buying 2nd hand equipment before publishing PFS, and remembering AR says $1.1m spent to day saving around $7m which for simplicity I’ll call an 80% discount or paying 20% of new equipment cost. So capex used in PFS becomes Civil works $40m plus 2nd hand equipment priced at 20% of new price of $60m (ie $12m) and total capex in PFS becomes $52m If PXC follow Plan A and publish PFS with a capex of $115m having said we have a bond facility of $80m ……. Some Private Investors say PXC is NOT funded, share price crashes, blame BoD for lying when they say bond money can build mine. However if PXC follow Plan B and publish PFS with capex of $52m, then with a bond facility of $80m everyone says ‘wow we even have a contingency on top of money to build the mine’ So, yes Plan B may take 3 months to buy equipment but the PFS when published will be VERY acceptable versus ‘shooting ourselves in the foot’ by following Plan A ! I hope that better illustrates why buying 2nd hand equipment is good for everyone, even if it means an extra 3 months before publishing NI 43 101 compliant financial/economic information in a PFS or indeed outside a PFS ! |
Posted at 30/5/2024 14:24 by investorman33 I went to AGM yesterday and met up with more than a dozen other Private Investors for a beer afterwards.Lots of detailed feedback posted on Telegram from those attending, but other than one person who felt he should be given price sensitive information in advance of it being released via an RNS by the company, which seemed to be driving a horse and cart through AIM regulations, insider trading laws etc(!!), everyone was very positive after the AGM. We know the broad timescales for production (as posted previously maybe late 2025, H1 2026, its really in the hands of US permitting guys), equipment buying and most construction going on in parallel with permitting process, so once permitting done there will not be a long delay before production. Permitting involves getting maybe 80 possible permits, but PXC may not need them all - as an example the biggest issues for permitting is water (surface, rivers, groundwater etc plus effect on fish), but PXC has no rivers passing close to mine, its drilled for water but closest water is 2,000 feet down below ground level, there are no fish ..... so PXC gets a clear pass, its using dry tailings so no issues with tailings dams or water pollution, pretty much everything except dry tailings will be on land owned by PXC, not leased ...... so permitting should not be an issue other than timing. NGO's can object but PXC have already taken most of the important ones to site and explained the whole mining process to them, so everything is being very transparent. For me the highlight was the unexpected attendance of the Bond Holder who stood up and gave a short speech ( 5 or 10 minutes) on why he invested (he wants to get into the 'green space for metals - PXC is first of a couple of investments he's looking at), he's in for the long haul (unspoken but he only makes real money by holding for a couple of years, he can't easily sell the number of shares he has and even bonds are not saleable if PXC does not get into production), he likes and trusts BoD hence no Board seat, he will support PXC if needed but if another investor takes more bonds, he has no objection ...... etc. He received an impromptu round of applause. Overall, probably one of the best AGM's, if not the best, I've ever been to. |
Posted at 22/5/2024 14:10 by roysterboyster The strategic partner NIU-Investments seems committed enough to the deal to be broadcasting it to the investment world through Linked-in. Please see the link here, just posted in the last hour or so.hxxps://www.linkedin Bearing in mind their business model requires deal-making on an ongoing basis, this would be a stupid thing to advertise if the intention is to stuff PXC shareholders, as has been suggested by some (no names!). I for one am sleeping easy in the knowledge this finance deal is done and the mine is being built and, more importantly, I own PXC shares! Highly competent people are at the PXC helm and the short journey to production is one to just enjoy. |
Posted at 21/5/2024 16:57 by roysterboyster Kaos and KoobaThe range of circumstantial evidence you provide is fascinating. There are actually only 2 possibilities: 1. This investor has put their costs, time, effort and opportunity cost to enter into a deal with PXC to somehow engineer the demise of the company. But, that would clearly be daft because: (a) they will have several million shares in said company and (b) they have purchased copper bonds from said company Both (a)and (b) would be worthless in the event of the PXC failing. They will have spent more on the copper bonds than the market cap of PXC and then some. I am fairly sure the investor could work that out, or at least one of his henchmen. 2. They have identified a company where there is a solid path to copper production and they believe that is a good place to deploy their money for a multiple return. I believe option 2 is far more likely and aligned with my expectations. of course, those who believe in option 1 should sell their remaining stock as soon as the market opens. I for one will buy them! |
Posted at 21/5/2024 10:06 by zb27 Wow the manipulators still at it.Why oh why would you keep on typing on a company chatboard when you don't hold a single share LOL A PE firm just gave $80m to a less than £30m market company. Obviously all "non holders" have some sort of an agenda here, they always do. Negative posts will evaporate when PXC starts flying upwards. I bet the FUD crewe will be bashing there heads here when say PXC start producing, probably saying the copper grades could be better LMAO You just can't make this xxxx up. Why not do something useful in your lives, just let go. Life is simply too short. I bet some of you must be eating living dreaming about PXC. What are you going to achieve in life, all this posting for a few pennies for whatever you are 'trying'to do here. Lol |
Posted at 20/5/2024 16:39 by investorman33 KoobaThe article you posted was 2 years old and refers to events before then. As I understand it there was a court case again about 2 (or maybe more) years ago when Caner found not guilty. Caner has not been found guilty of anything as I understand it (I've looked at everything I can find on the internet) and nor are there cases pending so he's innocent He's not taking any part in the management of PXC either, so he's pretty remote to PXC anyway, just providing finance in the form of a bond. Your opening para is incorrect btw. Its only banks who demand you hedge your production (typically at a discount to today's price, so copper might be at $3.80/lb for example) plus raise a chunk of new equity before they will provide a mining finance deal who demand a 'bankable study' is produced at great cost. Having been there before with those banks, their chief interest is in the money waterfall which ensures most money goes to them quickly to pay off the loan asap. And until the 'mining finance loan' is fully paid off its like being in a financial straightjacket - any unexpected issues crop up and it can get very difficult.- bonds do not put you into a straight jacket, gives you lots of flexibility to deal with most unexpected events until its repayment time (but that's years after being in production, so plenty of time to get cash together to repay. There are now (thankfully) more options to avoid traditional bank mining finance deals which are better for shareholders of smaller mining companies such as PXC - one one of the advantages of the bonds is they may not require repayment for 10 years (bondholder can redeem after 6 years I think). |
Posted at 17/5/2024 13:06 by investorman33 Rainy rainFor someone who claims to have read many texts on processing ATS etc, one thing that comes as a surprise to me is that nowhere do you seem to have read that PXC is employing 2 stage processing (as fully detailed in Annual Report). The first stage is flotation which is a very standard process which will result in metal recoveries (in the form of a concentrate sent to a refinery)of copper, gold, silver and probably other metals such as zinc (nb some mines use ONLY flotation as a processing technique, so it obviously recovers enough metal to generate decent revenues). The 2nd stage is the leaching where PXC has yet to announce whether it will use ATS or sulphuric acid - both are proven work as the metallurgical test work announced in an RNS months ago by PXC - with ATS and sulphuric acid producing different metal recoveries for gold/silver and copper depending upon which is used. No doubt the decision as to which to use is a mix between economic, technical and other factors as to which is chosen to be used. So PXC has 2 bites of the cherry to maximise the economic extraction of the metals. Good job the metallurgists know what they are doing ! |
Posted at 16/5/2024 09:55 by klondykejohn As the bond sale is now complete, I will once again ask the question about the 20% of Empire that is owned by EXgen.Are they also included in the bonds or will they now lose that 20% and it reverts to PXC ownership. The bond sale is for getting the mine into production. Will Exgen now stump up their $20m or have PXC worked together with EXgen to jointly acquire the bonds. PXC is independent to EXgen, and it is my hope that this is a bond solely for PXC and not for EXgen which would make Exgen either stump up that 20% extra money or walk away. That 20% is a massive portion of costs, and also profits and this ultimately should be benefitting PXC shareholders. Perhaps DP will now confirm one way or the other about EXgen involvement in the bond agreements. |
Posted at 07/5/2024 10:22 by investorman33 Kao3The Nominated Advisor would not allow PXC to publish an RNS which was not NI 43 101 compliant - and all RNS's have to go through Nomad to get onto the LSE system. So none of your fears could happen to PXC or other AIM listed company - an RNS has to be one which the company and Nomad believe to be a 'reasonable statement' when its published ...... and 'reasonable statement' has to stand up in a court of law. The Reserve statement published today is a giant step up for PXC as opposed to other mining companies who only have resources - the difference is whilst resources are a statement of 'metal in the ground', reserves are stated net of estimated mining and processing losses which are from a not yet published NI 43 101 compliant PFS which has been worked on for a year or more with expert input (all signed off) by maybe a dozen organisations (environmental experts, metallurgical experts, mining engineers etc). Its a document which is said to be about 960 pages long ....... so a very substantial piece of work |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
