Phoenix Copper Share Discussion Threads

[andydaf] 27/1/2024 16:53

Looked again at pxc because i can well believe there is potential at the empire mine and i like copper as a commodity.However even if they get the bonds over the line surely the bond holders will only allow money to be drawn for mine construction and not general company expenses.As a application to open the mine has not even been applied for yet surely this raise is the first of many to keep the lights on.Best of luck to all holders but it seems to me lots more dilution is on the cards.

[jbravo2] 27/1/2024 15:18

You can’t see it going any lower?
Are you drunk?
Did you read the RNS about needing more money in March?

[klondykejohn] 27/1/2024 14:35

Another positive is that Martin Hughes participated in the raise.
This alone is a major positive in my opinion and shows that he is fully committed to the success of PXC.
I cannot see the share price going any lower, so this may be the last chance to buy on the cheap before potential good news on the bond sale finalisation which must be very, very close

[klondykejohn] 27/1/2024 14:19

seems to me that the book was closed very quickly.
There must still be a lot of interest in PXC.
Good news for shareholders.
A smallish committment from the Board, which always shows they care, but what about the other board members? have they bought in again? I have not checked so maybe someone can update me.

[williamcooper104] 27/1/2024 13:08

£16k !!!!! Agreed they ought to be putting in six figures each

[klondykejohn] 27/1/2024 11:48

Very interesting article from The Oregon Group/Goldman Sachs. ://theoregongroup.com/commodities/copper/metals-inventories-we-have-a-problem/
If their report comes to fruition then copper is going to be in heavy demand in the next 2 years.
PXC may be having problems in its` bond sale at the moment, but by end April, the Bull run will be about to happen. Interest rates and bond rates reduced and commodity prices rising can only help the Company to get over the line and get the bonds signed off.
The shares are now as cheap as chips and I am considering another purchase here.
Well worth a punt at these low prices.

[saucepan] 26/1/2024 19:41

I note that Marcus Edwards-Jones, Ryan McDermott, and Richard Wilkins each subscribed for 140,582 shares today, at 11.5p: £16,166.93 per person. It seems a derisory amount in relation to their salaries and hardly a show of faith.

[williamcooper104] 26/1/2024 15:26

And It was a gold mine until they sunk the first shaft PXC hasn't made it that far

[kooba] 26/1/2024 15:20

Well if you want a find a citation ..think there are a few variables.Maybe this quote is more fitting?"A mine is a hole in the ground. The discoverer of it is a natural liar. The hole in the ground and the liar combine and issue shares and trap fools."Detroit Free Presshttps://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/07/19/gold-mine/

[saucepan] 26/1/2024 14:54

Note quite, kooba; but if you are interested in the etymology, here is a good and entertaining source:



The gist remains valid, however :-)

[kooba] 26/1/2024 14:41

The definition of a mine is .."a hole in the ground with a liar standing next to it. "Mark TwainSome things don't tend to change.

[saucepan] 26/1/2024 13:43

The critical analysis today has all been high quality and spot on, in my view. I don't have anything further to add. I also have no wish to gloat for being in the bearish camp myself of late, but I do wish to say how sorry I am for those who are experiencing painful losses. I have one investor in mind, particularly.

There were times when it did seem reasonable to believe the narrative put out by the Company, or at least give the Board of Directors the benefit of the doubt. However, the dissonance between what was promised and what has been delivered has consistenly been so terribly disappointing. I increasingly anticipate a death spiral situation from here. If the Company does find a white knight to come to the rescue, I also fear it will not be existing shareholders who are the significant beneficiaries. Again, I could be wrong. No investment advice is given or intended; just how I see it.

[jbravo2] 26/1/2024 13:19

Not needing to apply for permits on public land. Why was that important? Feedback it was going to be a no go?
As for “significant cost savings”, I’m really not sure how one works out that building an expensive plant gives significant cost savings?
The company was saying “equipment and supply pricing, are fluctuating wildly as we pivot back toward pre-covid norms” so adding a processing plant to the list of stuff to be bought seems to not make much sense unless you HAVE to buy one.

[trader465] 26/1/2024 13:10

🤣🤣🤣🤣9315;

[the don of dons] 26/1/2024 12:56

well that didnt last long


donald pond26 Jan '24 - 07:16 - 10275 of 10310
0 0 3
As we are in an offer period now I cannot make any comment until that period is over

[donald pond] 26/1/2024 12:52

jb,
I can honestly say that to the best of my knowledge and belief, environmental feedback had nothing to do with the decision to go to tank leaching.
The key factor was when our consultants went to site and saw that with a bit of clever design all of the equipment for processing ore could be situated at the edge of the pit. That gave significant cost savings but also meant that we would not be needing to apply for permits on public land (which is where any heap leach pads would be).
The mine is 12,000ft up a mountain in idaho. Not needing to transport ore down the mountain is a big advantage. Instead of loading trucks, building and keeping roads clear and having them tiptoe down them in ice and snow for 6 months of the year, they'll just be tipping ore into the plant.
There is a lot that has not gone to plan and timescales have not been adhered to. But this wasn't an environmental decision but an operational one.

[jbravo2] 26/1/2024 12:23

Thing is, cos it probably wasn't written down and handed to them as an outright "you're heading for a decline" they can get away with saying they came to their own conclusions about "best route", even though they were being led to it.
The guff about getting to metal return faster is just that... guff.
You only have to wait a few months extra to get the metal out of heap leach and it's tens of millions of pounds cheaper.
It's quite common to start with heap leach and move away to tanks as you get cash from the heap.

They just don't want to come clean about how the environmental permitting is so much harder at BLM nowadays.

[copper copper] 26/1/2024 12:19

That last paragraph is exactly how I see it. I asked this directly and DP said it was entirely their choosing to change to tanks and ATS. A decision that has now possibly costed earlier permitting, and therefore also possibly costed earlier funding. Both of which are the key things. Either they made a terrible decision (IMO), or they are misleading us.

[jbravo2] 26/1/2024 12:10

They've got so many questions to answer here.

eg
So they've now done a cash raise just before publishing the PFS just because it hasn't had a signature? That it wasn't worth paying to expedite the sign off?
You shareholders decide whether that rings true.
That signature would have seen a strong rise to 30 or 40p. Perhaps more.
A cash raise could then have been done at 25p? 35p?
How about publishing the data in non-official form? c.f. non-JORC estimates of resources. Anything better than nothing and raising at 11p... with a warning that they'll be raising again in March.


donald pond
"All I can do is emphasise that we (PXC) are based in the US and so have to follow US regulations and if we do not have the formal sign off from the accredited person to publish data, we cannot publish the data. We have seen the data, we are absolutely certain that it isn't going to change by more than a very small amount, but we cannot publish it until we are permitted to. It really is as simple (and as frustrating) as that. We are a small junior and while we have a great relationship with the laboratory, we are not in a position to throw them cash to expedite their final, formally signed off report. That's really all I can say."


I won't even get on to another of my bugbears... the consistently misleading timescales they allude to for permitting, and therefore the production timescales deduced by some of the cheerleaders here. It really, really, really won't take a few months, or even 12 months. That's far too optimistic.

Will they finally come clean that they were led to withdrawing their previous applications and plans due to environmental feedback. That the heap leaching with cyanide was ruled out rather than moved away from for metallurgical reasons?

[kooba] 26/1/2024 10:10

Raised £16m+ march 2021 ..no PFS , no finance in fact very little progress to show accept now the cash has all been used up and there is some horrible suicide debt in place. Large ones all round.

[neo26] 26/1/2024 10:03

Bonds look the concern

[kooba] 26/1/2024 10:03

And it's not like any of that advice has put the company in anything but a distressed position!