Shaft Sink Share Discussion Threads

[hedgehog 100] 16/6/2013 21:14

muckshifter 30 Oct'12 - 13:18 - 1606 of 2047
"Exactly, WylieCoyote,
but I have a feeling that this will be down below 10p within the next six months.
Hope not, for the sake of holders.
Regards."


For the first time, I'd like to examine exactly what that 'prediction' would have required to have succeeded -


Well, SHFT has 47,500,000 shares in issue, so 10p equates to a market cap. of just £4.75M.

In comparison:
SHFT made £3.4M. of pre-tax profit in 2012, and is forecast to make £6M. of pre-tax profit this year.
SHFT had revenues of £192.5M. in 2012, and is forecast to have revenues of £193M. in 2013.
SHFT's net tangible asset value per share: 83.94p.
SHFT's net asset value per share: 92.06p.

I.e. a SHFT fall to sub 10p would have required a fall to a market cap. equating to no more than about:
1.4 times 2012 pre-tax profit, and substantially less than forecast 2013 pre-tax profit.
2.5% of either 2012 revenues or 2013 forecast revenues.
12% of latest published tangible NAV.

[Compare to CAPD: 134,592,800 in issue, so 10p equates to a market cap. of £13.46M.]


Assuming that Muckshifter was posting honestly, then he was apparently expecting something dramatically bad (that didn't materialise) in SHFT's final results, although by mid April he seemed to be backtracking slightly -

muckshifter 13 Apr'13 - 22:36 - 519 of 627 0 0
"...Yes, I did say that I had a feeling shft would be badly down in about six months - based on the expected date of the next results announcement, so we'll see what happens, if the results do get announced, without delay, next week...."



I just don't see how such a sub 10p outcome was ever on the cards.

However, I will agree to a 'gentleman's agreement' not to mention that 'prediction' again, if Muckshifter agrees to make no more troll-like statements like the one I have considered above, or any similarly extreme and unlikely scenario that appears to me simply designed to scare people.
Is that a fair deal?

[hedgehog 100] 16/6/2013 20:09

HEDGEHOG 100'S 2013 SHFT AGM (7.6.13) REPORT

[N.B. Sections 1 - 6 are from the formal meeting itself, whereas sections 7 & 8 are from discussion after the formal meeting itself.
This report is only of things that were actually said, i.e. no thoughts from myself are added into the report.
I have generally tried to make the wording as 'verbatim' as possible, but to aid clarity I have sometimes substituted "SHFT" for personal pronouns or otherwise changed personal pronouns.
All the statements in the report are either from SHFT management, or (in respect of some of the discussion after the formal meeting) a SHFT advisor, and all the questions are from outside retail shareholders (these questions have been placed in inverted commas to further distinguish them).]


1. EUROCHEM CLAIM & COUNTERCLAIM

No provision has been made for it in SHFT's accounts, because they believe EuroChem's claim is totally without merit.
"But EuroChem must believe it has merit, to have brought the claim?"
SHFT are restricted on what they can say because of the terms of the arbitration.
But people have different motives for bringing claims.
There are people round the world who like to do this; to hurt other people by doing this.
SHFT's auditors KPMG have had to study the claim very deeply, and say that no provision is required.
EuroChem's claim is against a subsidiary company of SHFT, not against the group as whole; if this subsidiary goes bust, then the rest of the group continues as a going concern.

£9M. is due to SHFT from EuroChem that SHFT haven't written off.
Under contractural obligations, EuroChem DO owe them the money.
SHFT cancelled the contract in April 2012, but after EuroChem suspended operations in December 2011.
SHFT took view that it wasn't in their interests to let the company continue in a suspended contract.

If the dispute isn't resolved in advance, it's likely to be resolved by the end of 2014.
It costs a lot in legal fees; if SHFT win the arbitration claim, they're likely to get a large proportion of those back.
These legal costs are accounted for in full in SHFT's forecasts, as near as they can estimate them.
"How much are these lawyers' fees?"
SHFT can't say how much it's costing in legal costs because of arbitration confidentiality.
Early settlement is always possible, and discussions are ongoing with EuroChem, but they're not very active at the moment.

"EuroChem are also claiming $800 million against International Mineral Resources?"
SHFT are aware of that and don't think that claim has any merit either.
"It seems strange that EuroChem should try to claim the same money against two different companies?"
SHFT agreed.

"What are the implications of EuroChem's claim on the due diligence on Shaft Sinkers by potential clients?"
The Rangold Resources contract was signed after the EuroChem claim was announced.
Rangold studied the claim closely beforehand, because they wouldn't want their project being hit by their shaft contractor going bust and not fulfilling their contract.


2. BANKING FACILITIES

SHFT are still in discussions with Standard Bank; they're trying to get best deal for SHFT; they'll sort it out over next couple of months.
"Do you have a fallback position if you can't reach acceptable terms with Standard Bank?"
SHFT are talking to several other banks, who are showing keen interest; they're trying to get best deal for SHFT.


3. PLATINUM PROJECTS

Impala Platinum No. 17 Shaft Project: they have stopped work on one of three shafts, but it is not at this stage a material impact on SHFT.
And it is balanced by the fact that the Impala 16 Shaft Project, which had reached the end of contract, has been renewed; SHFT will make an announcement about this renewal if necessary.

The rest of the work, with Anglo Platinum / Royal Bafokeng Resources, and Lonmin, is continuing as expected.
SHFT's platinum clients NEED shafts to get platinum out of the ground to make them money.


4. EMPLOYEE PAY RISES

"Your prospectus suggests that your employee pay rises are passed on to your clients. Is that the case?"
That is still very much the case.
SHFT's contracts allow for costs escalation.
They agree pay rises with clients first, and make sure that they can pass them on.


5. BROKER FORECASTS AND COVERAGE

SHFT are still on-track to meet the forecasts.
No half one / half two split has been published by their broker.
SHFT have engaged with a second broker, but they haven't started coverage yet.
SHFT can't comment upon the level of an interim dividend: it depends upon earnings.


6. WINNING NEW CONTRACTS

Alon Davidov, SHFT CEO, said: "That's all I live for".
Especially as SHFT needs to continue diversifying away from South Africa.
SHFT are awaiting contract news, but it's out of their hands.

There's plenty of work for everyone. There's not too much competition; it's not like construction.


N.B. SECTIONS 7 & 8 ARE REPORTAGE FROM DISCUSSION AFTER THE FORMAL MEETING ITSELF:


7. OPERATIONAL ISSUES WITH PROJECTS

"You often seem to have operational issues with your projects: is this normal?"
Yes. SHFT will drill down a narrow section in advance, but the shaft itself is far wider, therefore until they work downwards they can't be sure what they'll encounter, e.g. an underground stream they may miss. – Which they'd use grouting for.

And SHFT get client variations, e.g. clients may want the shaft deeper or wider.
Last year SHFT had a lot of variations: it's complicated to collect the money.


8. MINING SERVICES; OPEN-CAST/UNDERGROUND MINING

There is no proper mining services sector in London, unlike Australia.
Apart from SHFT there is only really CAPD, but CAPD are riskier, because of their exposure to exploration.
CAPD are also linked to Centamin; Centamin is a good company, but is being hit by legal uncertainties and the gold price.

SHFT's competitors are all subsidiaries of larger companies.
It used to be similar in the oil services sector.
The mining sector tends to follow the oil sector a decade or so later, so maybe these companies will be spun-out.

A Rio Tinto open-cast copper mine in North America collapsed two months ago. You can only go so deep with open-cast mining.
There are opportunities for SHFT in Australia - it's mainly open-cast at the moment.

[muckshifter] 16/6/2013 14:21

cocomac0
In terms of the journalists daft contention that the intention of the arbitration was to "cover up" in some way bringing the project to a halt because of the current potash price, just think about the following few points;-

Firstly, they are now continuing the shaft using a theoretically more expensive method, as well as continuing with the other works, presumably to suit the new programme. On the original programme, the shaft that shft were constructing would have been the major component of the project critical path. I would expect that the whole thing has now been reprogrammed, with a new critical path based on the new expected completion date for the cage shaft after the changeover to freezing – they have probably diverted Thyssen over onto this shaft to get freezing underway and will then let them have two teams for the two shafts from the point at which they are approximately one year apart in programme terms. In a nutshell, you don't spend huge amounts of money then sit and wait a couple of years for first income because a critical component is way behind everything else in the programme if you can help it, you keep construction progress / spend in keeping with a realistic programme if you can. It is now perhaps a case of mitigating the cost of delays to this plant while bringing the other potash scheme, where the shafts are already close to completion, to commissioning as quickly as possible.

Secondly, the whole crux of his argument comes from a remark made by Strezhnev (Eurochem) mentioning that the mine would still be profitable at $500/tonne. Helmer attributes ( by being economical with the truth I think) that remark to announcements made in 2008, but gives the game away by also quoting S's next sentence saying that Eurochem don't expect prices "to go lower than $700 - 800/tonne", which seems to indicate that the statement was made in 2009 after the peak of $900 / tonne was reached at the end of 2008. So, what "S" says would be an acceptably profitable price, becomes in our demented journalist's head, breakeven. But there are two relevant points here. Would you expect "S" to give out accurate cost information publicly (although it's not "cost" he gives), to assist his rivals presumably? The initial costing / planning and the pushing of the button on this project took place in 2007 when the potash price was under $200/tonne, so yes, I should think they would make a very, very acceptable profit at $500/t, with a breakeven probably close to $300/tonne.

Thirdly, although our demented journalist suggests that Eurochem expected to start producing 2.3mt of potash / yr in 2012 – how would they have done that without the work being completed even on the original programme, in 2012, I wonder? It now looks likely that first output will be in 2016 rather than end 13. Presumably he thinks Eurochem consulted a gypsy with a crystal ball and now know that the current world financial struggles, which have drastically reduced the price of all commodities, will still control commodity prices and keep them low in 2016. Helmer perhaps thinks they have the gypsy on the payroll, looking constantly into the future so that they know when to push the resume button about 3 years before a huge price rise. (Apologies, getting a bit facetious there).

Fourthly, the bulk of the cost of the plant has almost certainly been spent or committed, probably $1.5 – 1.75billion. Over the last three years (which according to our journalist have been terrible years for the fertiliser industry) Eurochem have reported an average EBITDA of 34% on their phosphate and nitrogen operations. So does it make sense that they sit there indefinitely with $1.5billion spent and no income to even pay the interest bill? I believe that production at anything above $300 / tonne for potash will make a very significant positive contribution to their financial situation, as opposed to a significant negative if they just sit there, without taking account of any benefits to be obtained from their original concept of an integrated facility for all their fertilizer products at their new shipping terminal .

Finally, another pivotal part of his argument, leading to his daft conclusion that the arbitration was entered for reasons other than poor performance, is that everything on the contract was going "swimmingly" (his term not mine- to do with the water?)until end of 2011.
The contract was let on the basis of an estimated value of $270m with completion in 2012. At the end of 2011 after at least 75% of the contract period, shft had reached a shaft depth of 94metres out of the contracted 1100m (8.5% approx), at a cost of $120m (44% of anticipated contract value), and had not managed to sink the shaft through even the first of three well defined, difficult, and thick, waterbearing strata. In contrast, Thyssen were already through the first two water bearing strata and looked to be about on programme at 455m. At the end of August 2011 shft effectively acknowledged that they couldn't complete on time and began trying to agree new contract terms with Eurochem. Until then, all shft's comments in updates and reports are talking about making up lost time, the CEO making the job his top priority, etc. And don't forget that shft had a "cheerleader" working for them within the Eurochem organisation, who presumably maintained the job could still meet programme, right up to the August 2011 confession (I don't think anyone is now denying that either IMR or shft were paying a Eurochem employee to push their case – they are just denying that any corruption was involved, but I wonder if the top people at Eurochem knew of the arrangement).
Regards.

[hedgehog 100] 15/6/2013 22:12

muckshifter 15 Jun'13 - 10:38 - 2042 of 2044
"... based on his interpretation and re-writing of my posts ..."



Muckshifter,

A serious allegation ... but where's the beef? I.e. provide specific, quoted examples, with post numbers and links.

I don't believe that you can.


Actually, I like to be very accurate ... I'm almost a bit 'OCD' like that!

Hence, when I referred to your 'sub 10p by end April' prediction on the newer SHFT thread, I quoted it in full, between double inverted commas:
Hedgehog 100 8 May'13 - 18:06 - 28 of 44



But you didn't like me calling it a prediction, did you:

muckshifter 1 May'13 - 23:00 - 1917 of 2044 0 0
"Hedgehog,
I rarely make predictions in terms of share prices. The actual wording in the post you frequently quote, no doubt in an attempt to discredit me, was, iirc, "but I have a feeling that this will be down below 10p within the next six months." And that comment was addressed specifically to Wylie Coyote, rather than attempting to address all readers as you normally do.
That does not constitute a prediction in my book.... "


It was not a private message to WC, but a public posting everyone could see.

Should we not have taken it seriously?

If so, how much else of what you say should we not take seriously?


You accuse me of ramping, but I have never made a statement like 'above £1 in 6 months'.

[hedgehog 100] 15/6/2013 20:34

HEDGEHOG 100'S 2013 SHFT AGM (7.6.13) REPORT

[N.B. This report was recently posted as a triology over three consecutive evenings on the main "SHFT" thread, but is being posted here in a combined form for ease of access.
Sections 1 - 6 are from the formal meeting itself, whereas sections 7 & 8 are from discussion after the formal meeting itself.
This report is only of things that were actually said, i.e. no thoughts from myself are added into the report.
I have generally tried to make the wording as 'verbatim' as possible, but to aid clarity I have sometimes substituted "SHFT" for personal pronouns or otherwise changed personal pronouns.
All the statements in the report are either from SHFT management, or (in respect of some of the discussion after the formal meeting) a SHFT advisor, and all the questions are from outside retail shareholders (these questions have been placed in inverted commas to further distinguish them).]


1. EUROCHEM CLAIM & COUNTERCLAIM

No provision has been made for it in SHFT's accounts, because they believe EuroChem's claim is totally without merit.
"But EuroChem must believe it has merit, to have brought the claim?"
SHFT are restricted on what they can say because of the terms of the arbitration.
But people have different motives for bringing claims.
There are people round the world who like to do this; to hurt other people by doing this.
SHFT's auditors KPMG have had to study the claim very deeply, and say that no provision is required.
EuroChem's claim is against a subsidiary company of SHFT, not against the group as whole; if this subsidiary goes bust, then the rest of the group continues as a going concern.

£9M. is due to SHFT from EuroChem that SHFT haven't written off.
Under contractural obligations, EuroChem DO owe them the money.
SHFT cancelled the contract in April 2012, but after EuroChem suspended operations in December 2011.
SHFT took view that it wasn't in their interests to let the company continue in a suspended contract.

If the dispute isn't resolved in advance, it's likely to be resolved by the end of 2014.
It costs a lot in legal fees; if SHFT win the arbitration claim, they're likely to get a large proportion of those back.
These legal costs are accounted for in full in SHFT's forecasts, as near as they can estimate them.
"How much are these lawyers' fees?"
SHFT can't say how much it's costing in legal costs because of arbitration confidentiality.
Early settlement is always possible, and discussions are ongoing with EuroChem, but they're not very active at the moment.

"EuroChem are also claiming $800 million against International Mineral Resources?"
SHFT are aware of that and don't think that claim has any merit either.
"It seems strange that EuroChem should try to claim the same money against two different companies?"
SHFT agreed.

"What are the implications of EuroChem's claim on the due diligence on Shaft Sinkers by potential clients?"
The Rangold Resources contract was signed after the EuroChem claim was announced.
Rangold studied the claim closely beforehand, because they wouldn't want their project being hit by their shaft contractor going bust and not fulfilling their contract.


2. BANKING FACILITIES

SHFT are still in discussions with Standard Bank; they're trying to get best deal for SHFT; they'll sort it out over next couple of months.
"Do you have a fallback position if you can't reach acceptable terms with Standard Bank?"
SHFT are talking to several other banks, who are showing keen interest; they're trying to get best deal for SHFT.


3. PLATINUM PROJECTS

Impala Platinum No. 17 Shaft Project: they have stopped work on one of three shafts, but it is not at this stage a material impact on SHFT.
And it is balanced by the fact that the Impala 16 Shaft Project, which had reached the end of contract, has been renewed; SHFT will make an announcement about this renewal if necessary.

The rest of the work, with Anglo Platinum / Royal Bafokeng Resources, and Lonmin, is continuing as expected.
SHFT's platinum clients NEED shafts to get platinum out of the ground to make them money.


4. EMPLOYEE PAY RISES

"Your prospectus suggests that your employee pay rises are passed on to your clients. Is that the case?"
That is still very much the case.
SHFT's contracts allow for costs escalation.
They agree pay rises with clients first, and make sure that they can pass them on.


5. BROKER FORECASTS AND COVERAGE

SHFT are still on-track to meet the forecasts.
No half one / half two split has been published by their broker.
SHFT have engaged with a second broker, but they haven't started coverage yet.
SHFT can't comment upon the level of an interim dividend: it depends upon earnings.


6. WINNING NEW CONTRACTS

Alon Davidov, SHFT CEO, said: "That's all I live for".
Especially as SHFT needs to continue diversifying away from South Africa.
SHFT are awaiting contract news, but it's out of their hands.

There's plenty of work for everyone. There's not too much competition; it's not like construction.


N.B. SECTIONS 7 & 8 ARE REPORTAGE FROM DISCUSSION AFTER THE FORMAL MEETING ITSELF:


7. OPERATIONAL ISSUES WITH PROJECTS

"You often seem to have operational issues with your projects: is this normal?"
Yes. SHFT will drill down a narrow section in advance, but the shaft itself is far wider, therefore until they work downwards they can't be sure what they'll encounter, e.g. an underground stream they may miss. – Which they'd use grouting for.

And SHFT get client variations, e.g. clients may want the shaft deeper or wider.
Last year SHFT had a lot of variations: it's complicated to collect the money.


8. MINING SERVICES; OPEN-CAST/UNDERGROUND MINING

There is no proper mining services sector in London, unlike Australia.
Apart from SHFT there is only really CAPD, but CAPD are riskier, because of their exposure to exploration.
CAPD are also linked to Centamin; Centamin is a good company, but is being hit by legal uncertainties and the gold price.

SHFT's competitors are all subsidiaries of larger companies.
It used to be similar in the oil services sector.
The mining sector tends to follow the oil sector a decade or so later, so maybe these companies will be spun-out.

A Rio Tinto open-cast copper mine in North America collapsed two months ago. You can only go so deep with open-cast mining.
There are opportunities for SHFT in Australia - it's mainly open-cast at the moment.

[hedgehog 100] 15/6/2013 19:33

Thanks TechnoFiend, yet again!

"Traders revived their interest in platinum miner Lonmin on word that progress had been made in calming union tensions in South Africa.

Shares in the group spiked in afternoon trade to rise as much as 7.5pc, before closing 15½ higher at 287.8p, a 5.7pc gain and the first time they had finished in positive territory all week, on news that South Africa's deputy president, Kgalema Motlanthe, had helped negotiate a draft agreement that it is hoped could pave the way towards an end to the violent strikes that have shaken the mining sector.

Lonmin's shafts have been at the centre of the trouble, which last year forced the company into an $817m (£521m) rights issue to shore up its balance sheet. The unions, mining companies - including Lonmin - and the government will work towards reaching a definitive agreement by June 26, a development that also sent Anglo American shares up 26p at £14.26, despite industrial action at one of its South African mines. ..."




Great news for the people of South Africa ... and also for SHFT.

A relevant extract from SHFT's recent final results:

29/04/2013 07:01 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Final Results
"Most of our clients in South Africa were severely impacted by labour disputes throughout 2012 and we were unable to escape the effects of the disputes. In most instances our contracts provide cost recovery of work interruption caused by the client but typically it excludes or limits recovery of profitability and does not cover low efficiency work restart and ramp-up period, the latter often having a bigger impact."



I was hoping and expecting that sanity would prevail, as I set out in this post I made on iii about two & a half weeks ago:


28-05-13 Buy Likely To Return To 50p Over Summer Hedgehog100

"'Buyduds2',

Arduous negotiations sound a lot better to me that arduous fighting and arduous killing.

In the second half of last year the labour relations situation in South Africa was far worse than now, with 34 people tragically killed in one incident in August.



But despite this, SHFT still made second half 2012 earnings of 3.28p/share, more than double the first half earnings of 1.6p/share.

So as long as the current sanity prevails, I will be doubly happy: for the people first, and secondly for Shaft Sinkers.

As Winston Churchill said: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Anyone hoping otherwise in my opinion must have a sick mentality.


And a lot of the past pressure for higher wages has come, in my opinion, from workers seeing the huge profits that their employers were making, and wanting a bigger slice. Now that their employers aren't doing so well, it makes sense that demands will be moderated considerably. Especially as workers in the South Africa mining industry are actually paid very well compared to the average for that country.


And with your typical dishonesty, your silly, stupid redefinitions of dictionary meanings discredits you.
I.e. arduous does not mean expensive, and difficult to predict doesn't mean that you can't still have a very good general idea.


Remember also that SHFT is actually listed in the support services sector:

FTSE sector Support Services



Mining services companies aren't exposed to metals and minerals prices to the same degree that mining companies are. They are contractors engaged to do a job, and paid to do that job. And SHFT's services to the platinum miners in South Africa are not discretionary.

In addition, SHFT is expanding internationally, and is not restricted to Africa.

hxxp://www.shaftsinkersgroup.com/

Finally, with the SHFT share price just 30.25p, I think that forward P/Es (on new and undemanding forecasts) of 3.6 for 2013 and 2.6 for 2014 more than compensate for any concerns."

[technofiend] 15/6/2013 13:26

Does Lonmin's news on Friday represent a positive for SHFT?

I can only think an end to industrial strife in South Africa in SHFT's main market is a plus.

[buywell2] 15/6/2013 09:11

The harder rampers try to push this POS

The more the share price falls

SHFT chart says it all

[cocomac0] 14/6/2013 18:34

Hey, muckshifter

But it's the main thust of the article that you should refute, if that is in fact the case. Just to be clear, to me the main thrust is eurochems difficulties regarding potash prices which they would have to sell at, and it is alleged that would be a loss making price. Hence major difficulties bashing on with what shaft sinkers were working on, as well as problems in other ventures in Khazakstan.

So setting aside taking issue with the journalist himself, would you agree or disagree with potash prices and hence major eurochem problems.


...............................................................................................................
Just to set the stage a little........... this is my worst ever stock buy, I've taken a heavy loss, and it's wiped out my profits which I could have used to buy a nice big flat screen tv. I'm starting to feel much more confident that the eurochem claim is far from kosher, though am sure there's a good chance any arbitration decision is likely to find both parties guilty to some extent, and this would then have to be apportioned percentage wise which would then be applied respectively to arrive at financial figures for both eurochem's claim, as well as shaft sinkers claim of not being paid money owed to them for work done. So I am holding my shares and waiting to recover losses, feeling more and more confident I will at some point be able to do this.

Cheers
Peace out

[wylecoyote] 14/6/2013 17:06

muckshifter, you mean like a few posters on here??? lol

[muckshifter] 14/6/2013 11:56

Sorry cocomac0 nearly missed your post,
Life expectancy for a journalist would be dependent on whose side Putin was on, surely! And I've no idea how the Eurochem guy stands with him. Seriously though, if you read the whole article, the journalist is definitely anti the Eurochem guy, but keeps it reasonably subtle.

But if you have the time, it's well worth reading the whole article rather than chosen extracts. I'm sure you will then realise just what rubbish it is. You will see quite a few clear factual mistakes (normal for a journalist) and lots of wild suppositions based on cherry picked quotes, followed by the crazy conclusion many here have seized upon. To me, it looks as if he wrote the "answer" then made up the "facts" to suit that answer.
Regards.

[muckshifter] 14/6/2013 08:56

TechnoFiend,
That article is copied from the original one you found. It even makes the same factual mistakes!
Regards.
PS. Looks like the original writer is desperate to get his knife in if he's allowing other journalists to copy his stuff and publish it elsewhere.

[technofiend] 14/6/2013 08:13

Some more from a new article:

"He allocated $2.2bn to the project and his team reckoned the product would be profitable at a price as low as $500 a tonne, which it was confident wouldn't be seen. It got that horribly wrong. Potash peaked at $900 a tonne, collapsed to $300 and is currently trading at around $400. Back in 2008, Eurochem CE Dmitry Strezhnev said they didn't expect prices to go lower than $700-$800.

In the five years that Shaft Sinkers worked on the project, the price of potash never reached Eurochem's estimated break-even and prices for sales to China in the first six months of this year were negotiated at $400, setting a floor price for the global potash market.

This was not at all to Melnichenko's liking. He then claimed that the technology Shaft Sinkers was using had failed. Shaft Sinkers says the technology works perfectly well elsewhere. In June 2011, Eurochem reported that Shaft Sinkers' work was going well and production would commence in late 2013."

hxxp://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/06/13/stumbling-into-its-own-stalingrad

[cocomac0] 13/6/2013 18:25

Ha, christ....... that would take balls, to be a western journalist based in russia and blast a massive powerfull oligarch type company just coz u have an axe to grind against them.

hmmmm, me thinks that would end in a body bag, or maybe even several different body bags for the same person!!! Journalists have been killed over there in recent years! Not to mention the fact that that kind of thing is the reason the likes of Ibramovich are now living over here where they feel safe.

Would like to say I do appreciate the response muckshifter. Tho I would echo technofiends sentiment regarding eurochem's having to sell potash at a loss, hence the arbitration.

[muckshifter] 13/6/2013 13:00

TechnoFiend,
It is absolute rubbish by an idiotic journalist with an axe to grind, writing an article with more holes than a cullender, imho.

Regards.

[technofiend] 13/6/2013 12:55

muckshifter, what is your opinion on the suggestion that Eurochem may be using their arbitration claim against SHFT as an excuse to halt production at their loss making potash mine until potash prices recover?

[cocomac0] 13/6/2013 01:49

errrrrr......... funny how there's no comment on the vast amounts of new info about the arbitration claims by any of those posters who've been saying it's last chance saloon for shaft sinkers!!!!!

All we get is:-

"30p retest on the way

What additional costs will wage negotiations place on the strained cash pile of SHFT

Should find out soon"


Absolutely ridiculous given all the months of speculative posts and arguing over this very issue. Maybe their silence speaks volumes!!

Cheers, peace out

[buywell2] 12/6/2013 19:46

30p retest on the way

What additional costs will wage negotiations place on the strained cash pile of SHFT

Should find out soon

[hedgehog 100] 11/6/2013 22:08

TechnoFiend,

These extracts from John Helmer's article are particularly encouraging and exciting:

"Vladimir Torin, Eurochem's spokesman, added: "We searched the global market for a company specializing in what we needed, and found Shaft Sinkers by ourselves. We then negotiated directly, sending Alexander Tugolukov, our technical director, to South Africa to study their previous and pending projects. They are the largest shaft constructors in the world, so the choice was obvious.""

""The technology is not experimental, having been used successfully in many mines around the world and it did not fail in this case. However deep shafts are clearly complex engineering projects where delays can happen due to a wide range of factors. In the case of Eurochem, the ground conditions were difficult and Shaft Sinkers were in the process of refining the specific application necessary for the shaft when Eurochem suspended the project. Whilst the exact details of the contract are covered by commercial confidentiality and are subject to legal restrictions, I can say that as Shaft Sinkers has – so far – not failed in its mining efforts, provision for failure was from Shaft Sinkers' point of view unnecessary.""

hxxp://www.businessinsider.com/eurochem-suffers-from-low-prices-2013-6


I knew that Shaft Sinkers were big (i.e. turnover of £192.5M., and about 7,500 employees), but I wasn't aware that they were the global leader (assuming that the above quote still applies) ... and in a global growth market!!