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% | 4.50 | 00:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| MINING |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 22/12/2024 14:57 by klondykejohn DP, why did you mention exploration costs in answer to my questions?I never wrote about exploration costs as I had believed that those costs were solely up to PXC to pay, not exgen I appreciate that you would like to take the whole of the agreement as a single linked agreement. It is not. Clause 1 of the agreement as written by your goodself states as follow: (a) ExGen will hold 20 per cent. of the issued shares of Konnex on a carried basis until the completion of the delivery and receipt by the parties of a BFS following which Konnex may make a call on its shareholders to provide production funding (“Cash Call”). If ExGen does not provide its 20 per cent. of the amount of a Cash Call and the Company provides the amount not paid by ExGen, ExGen’s percentage shareholding of Konnex will decrease and the Company’s percentage shareholding in Konnex will increase, on a proportional basis; Now I would have thought that clause 1 is the basis point for the whole of the agreement. Renege on this clause and one would therefore invalidate the rest of the agreement subject to a bfs being produced. Surely PXC could have created this long awaited bfs and then proceeded to act on clause 1, require exgen to fund their 20% cost of manufacture or lose their shareholding in Konnex and then pursue the full 100% loan facility as the new full 100% owner of Konnex and thereafter full 100% ownership of PXC. As exploration is winding down for the near future,minimal monetary amounts only would pass to exgen,and the bfs could have been produced from the savings accrued. I am sorry, but I cannot see the logic in a 20% loan to exgen. It just doesn`t fit into my management head. You have still not answered my questions concerning directorships and salaries in Konnex and exgen. Apart from JR and RW, are there any further crossovers of directors within the three companies and what salaries are paid out. I know what the directors are paid within PXC, but as exgen and Konnex are partner linked, I believe that more openness should be highlighted here. Finally, where and what has the massive loans to Konnex been spent on and what salaries have been paid to Konnex directors? over to you DP |
Posted at 22/12/2024 14:50 by donald pond jb: "So PXC have given up their right to claim over 80% ownership of Empire/Konnex (if ExGen didn't come up with funds) in order to save 100k/yr direct payment to ExGen and to avoid 500k/yr spend on site."No, PXC have 80% of Konnex and ExGen have 20%. If PXC had jumped through the hoops then ExGen would have been required to put up 20% of the funding or be bought out. But in that event PXC would have to find 100% of the funding anyway. And the general belief was that if someone was willing to provide 100% to PXC, then when we went to ExGen with our 80% funding they would go to the same lender and ask for the remaining 20%. In other words, the risk that PXC would be able to fund 80%, and ExGen would be unable to get the final 20% was regarded as minimal. The challenge is getting the funding, not in how it is split between the parties. But it does make it easier to discuss the project with lenders if they only have to deal with a single counterparty. Trying to raise (say) $60m for a $75m project and saying that someone else has to find the other $15m but if they can't we will need another $15m leads to the question "so how much do you actually want to borrow?" |
Posted at 22/12/2024 11:25 by donald pond The second is in response to bravos question.There are several things the agreement covers. To pick out one of them and say "who wanted that" misses the point. PXC no longer has to pay $100k a year to ExGen, spend $500k a year on the site or produce a BFS and proof of 80% funding. In return, ExGen no longer has to provide 20% towards the construction of the mine when PXC produced a BFS and proof of funding to them. Instead PXC will obtain all the funding and on-lend the 20% to ExGen. It is an arm's length negotiated agreement. You can't take the pieces out individually. As a whole, both sides are happy with the entire agreement. If you remove any part, that would probably change. |
Posted at 21/12/2024 15:09 by donald pond There is a lot of disinformation/total lies on this BB.ExGen originally owned 100% of Konnex. At IPO Phoenix acquired 80% of Konnex for a relatively low price, in return for guaranteeing a minimum annual payment of $100k to ExGen, a minimum annual spend of $500k on the Empire property, and some shares in PXC. It was, and remains, an arms length relationship. It is technically a related party transaction because ExGen has a single director, Jason Riley, on the board of PXC. But ExGen are an independent company with their own activities. This is relatively common in the mining world. X owns a site but for whatever reason isn't developing it, so partners up with Y, who promises to do so, and X gets cash, certain guarantees, and an interest in the property being developed, and may put a director on the board of the JV to keep an eye on progress. These are not the same people negotiating among themselves. It's simply wrong to suggest otherwise. As for PXC now funding the whole of the mine... Prior to this RNS, PXC were required to fund 80% of the mine, and if they produced a bankable feasibility study, accompanied by two offers of funding for the full 80% from banks, then ExGen would be required to fund 20%. The problem with that is that a BFS costs a lot and takes a lot of time, and anyone willing to fund 80% of a mine is almost certainly going to be willing to fund 100% of a mine. Or to put it another way, nobody will fund 80% without knowing where the other 20% will come from. So it is simply more practical for PXC to borrow the full 100% than require the BFS, 2 formal offers, and then either Exgen gets 20% or PXC has to find the other 20% anyway. So this is a very positive RNS that simplifies the obligations between PXC and ExGen and provides a clear foundation for funding. Whether funding can be obtained is the key challenge. Nobody disputes that. But recent posts on this thread have simply been factually incorrect, and those making them should ask themselves why they feel the need to go onto a bulletin board about a company they have no financial interest in to post lies. It's not a good look. |
Posted at 21/12/2024 10:47 by kaos3 jbravo2 - it is difficult....imagine a desk with 4 chairs. two on each side. on one side it stands Phoenix - on the other Exgen. 2 man talk for PXC... then stand up.... go around the table ...sit where it says Exgen.. and answer for Exgen .... then stand up, go around the table and sit for PXC ... and stress the PXC point once again and make further argument for PXC... than stand up again and go around the table and so on it is very difficult imho respect |
Posted at 20/12/2024 10:48 by klondykejohn Greyingsurfer. I think you are missing the point here.Exgen cannot afford the 20% cost of production at this moment in time and will certainly not be able to afford the 20% of $80m dollars to complete the production. It is a private company owned by JR and RW and maybe some other players.(Are other PXC board members shareholders too in exgen? I do not know) There are no shares traded in this company which makes me think that they have been part of the stumbling block all along. Unable to get a sizeable loan at decent rates of interest and lenders prefer to lend to one party, not two anyway. PXC state that by lending them funds and creating a single loan source (bonds), this will make it easier to fund the proposed production. Agreed, this will make it easier, but what have exgen given in return. Absolutely nothing. As I have tried to state previously, what are they putting on the table for this deal? Seems to me that they are not giving up any of their 20% holding, and the risk is now entirely with PXC and its shareholders. Did PXC board require some form of guarantee from exgen to cover potential losses? I do not know, but PXC board should have insisted that exgen either help in funding or simply lose their stake in Empire. This is what running a business is all about. This agreement has meant that PXC shareholders have lost an additional 20% ownership which in itself might have sparked the market into some positivity. As I stated, RW and JR are big players in both exgen and PXC and may have had a big input in PXC not demanding that exgen stump up or lose their interest in the mine. Perhaps the PXC board can shed some light on this, as it seems to me that PXC shareholders are losing out. This is just my take and if you have read some of my previous threads, you will note that I have repeatedly asked about exgen, their ability to provide production cost funds and why on earth did PXC not buy them out, absorb them or just enact the clause that gives the exgen part of the mine to PXC. To date, I have never had a satisfactory reply on any threads and this bee in my bonnet has just been brushed under the table every time. Perhaps Marcus can offer some form of clarification over my issues. |
Posted at 16/12/2024 10:01 by dougmachin FWIW, my take on NIU:I still think it's in NIU's interest to have a successful relationship with PXC: - They've committed 5 million, which is still a sizable amount. - If they don't uphold the 75m, that would reflect negatively on their reputation. - If NIU tried to get more shares (to takeover) then the share price would rocket anyway. - NIU hold 18%, but it's a %age of "nothing" if PXC goes to the wall. - Then the only other option would be to buy the company out of the administrators... which could be full of issues. For example, maybe all the important information, such as Ryan's model of where to drill could still be kept confidential. This would be a significantly different prospect for NIU to actually run the company, rather than just taking the bond interest and increase in share price if/when that started to take off. - After all this work, I imagine the BoD wouldn't go down without a real fight. The BoD have still got something to prove and they've been in this a long time too. Salary is 1-thing, but they're really not just here for the salary. - After coming all this way, it does make sense for NIU to continue (of course things sometimes don't make sense), but things take time. The AIM market in particular is not patient and PXC is illiquid. Maybe just a little more patience is needed. - Also, maybe it's good that NIU are forcing PXC to run an even tighter ship. If/when NIU commit the next 5 million, there could be a good re-rate from here. Going in with (just!) another 5m would show they're serious. It's either going to the wall or there could be a (minimum) 10 bagger from here. DM |
Posted at 14/11/2024 12:50 by london07 And then you have PXC Vice President of Investor Relations saying the following about PXC on AAZ board! Totally flabbergasted, speechless tbh, absolute shot show, just dont know what to say..""My view is that PXC owns a project that is likely to have very significant upside. The question is whether existing shareholders will benefit. That's the challenge. I have never pretended otherwise": donald pond10 Oct '24 - 10:46 - 69484 of 70703 0 2 1 Bumpa, You have made your position clear on PXC. But its the next step in your thinking that makes no sense. If I shared your view that PXC was worthless, how would I be saving investors by telling them that? It would just become worthless a little bit quicker, perhaps. I don't think it is worthless. I think the open pit is a decent, low-risk starter pit. The bigger asset is likely to be in the sulphides below, as has always been the case. The big questions are, as they have always been, can the company fund the starter pit, and how big is the sulphide deposit. We don't know the answer to the latter question, but we do know that it produced 20,000 tonnes of high grade copper in the past, and the copper sulphides stretch for over 5kms and are open at depth and barely explored. As for the funding, that's all out in the open. My view is that PXC owns a project that is likely to have very significant upside. The question is whether existing shareholders will benefit. That's the challenge. I have never pretended otherwise. My aim is to have better informed investors that can understand the project, the risk and the opportunity is better detail so they can make a more informed decision. |
Posted at 16/9/2024 06:39 by london07 A brilliant post from LSE, clearly shows why PXC should be worth multiples of todays price. Absolutely no doubt price will catch up very soon. Share price is NOT the company. PXC should be nearer 50p................. PXC is totally disconnected to FV = HUGE Opportunity14 Sep 2024 08:21 Market Cap 2020 - ~£30m 2024 - ~£30m That doesn't make any sense at all right 🤔 Let's see just some of the major intervening news and events which has seemingly added not £1 of value to the market cap in the last 4 years! Aug 2020 - Drilling results high grade results ✅️ Sept 2020 - Drilling shows high grade gold mineralization tick ✅️ Nov 2020 - Significant potential at Red Star 🔥 Apr 2021 - Land holding increased at Empire ✅️ May 2021 - Earn in agreement with First Cobalt Idaho ✅️ July 2021 - Empire deep sulphide drilling programme ✅️ Sept 2021 - Deep sulphide drilling intercepts 8.38% copper 🔥 Oct 2021 - Acquisition of Empire Mine royalty & Mining claims ✅️ Nov 2021 - Drilling intercepts High grade polymetalics 🔥 Jan 2022 - Red Star drilling, further copper, Gold, Silver, zinc 🔥 Jan 2023 - Further drill results ✅️ Sept 2023 - Empire Metallurgical Results from Empire ✅️ Oct 2023 - Navarre Creek drilling results ✅️ Mar 2024 - purchase of Empire Processing Equipment ✅️ May 2024 - Mineral reserve statement 🔥 May 2024 - $80m Bond Subscription 🔥🔥&# May 2024 - NC drilling intercepts consistent gold 🔥 Also, location should carry a premium in todays world. Huge shift to domestic production, and classed as a critical metal by the US. PXC has the highest level ESG credentials. Metal prices are alot higher now. With EV/GREEN revolution, future demand now looks explosive. And only 220m shares, unique on AIM. For PXC, everything has changed in the last 4 years, one thing that has stayed EXACTLY the same is the market cap 🤯🤯&# If ever there was proof that the markets were totally broken. Totally derisked, funding sorting, clear path to production, and from the rumours maybe an acquisition in the pipeline, who knows could be a producer alot quicker than many think 🧐 Let this all sink in, and just think for a decond about the opportunity the market is giving. Always DYOR |
Posted at 30/5/2024 13:24 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. |
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
