Shaft Sink Share Discussion Threads

[pugugly] 12/1/2014 17:38

Gentlemen

May I wish you all a prosperous and successful New Year and also (with respect) ask you to keep to the original purpose of this thread which is (IMO) to BRIEFLY advise/inform on the merits and risks of Mining and (may I suggest) Oil services companies as in some areas they overlap.

[hedgehog 100] 12/1/2014 15:51

Please note that I have just started a 'sister' thread to this one, which may be of interest to readers:

BASE METALS & INDUSTRIAL MINERALS: Shares & Sector (BASE)


Please feel free to contribute your ideas, info., charts, & discussion.

[noirua] 06/1/2014 15:48

An asset freezing order is usually given if a court feels, even if in another domain to the court agreeing the freezing order, that the party has a very strong case. A strong case would be that the other party refused to go ahead with a legally binding contract and that there was a risk of such party selling or transferring all or part of the same.
Nb: Bayan v White Energy to be dealt with in Singapore. A court in Western Australian froze the interests of Bayan in Kangaroo Resources Limited.
The court felt, and stated, that White Energy had a strong case.

The basic weakness in SHFT's case is whether they carried out the work properly and whether they should have turned to freezing as the best option at the start or at some stage when they realised, or should have realised, that there would not be a successful outcome.

Eurochem's weakness on the mammoth claim is that Russia does not accept cases for loss of future profitability. They would have known this, or should have known this, and a court in another domain would also be aware.

Generally there will be difficulty in Eurochem being able to prove that SHFT were not faced with an impossible task that could not be foreseen.

SHFT will have difficulty in their claim to be paid for work done. As it was not complete and would have to prove they could have, if allowed to, or whether they really could not, and if Eurochem were responsible in anyway.

It is likely, if not certain, that a court will appoint its own surveyors. As they are unlikely to have the expertise to know and understand what occurred.

[sjc] 06/1/2014 10:13

Thanks Hedgehog 100 I do my own thing. Far too early to start shouting. As 50 and 200 m/a converge 3-6-9 months etc and gold X is imminent will be time to post.

[hedgehog 100] 04/1/2014 15:46

SJC 23 Dec'13 - 09:11 - 257 of 258 1 0
"This chart is developing a saucer imo. When the 50 day m/a Crosses the flat 200 m/a poss. in next 2 months, supported by RNS dir. buys or other positive statement this could attract the volume to start and continue driving the price....up. All IMO. DYOR."


SJC,

I agree - SHFT's chart certainly looks like it could be doing just that:




Incidentally, there is a specific ADVFN thread on bowl chart formations (a.k.a. saucers)-
'FIND ME A BOWL FORMING' (BOWL)



Some other info. -

"Rounded Bottoms are elongated and U-shaped, and are sometimes referred to as rounding turns, bowls or saucers."

[hedgehog 100] 04/1/2014 12:42

muckshifter 30 Dec'13 - 15:40 - 2361 of 2362
" ... I won't bother posting here again until I see something of significance in terms of the arbitration ( but not journalist's opinion based on unsubstantiated spin), unless provoked by Hedgehog as usual.
Regards."


I'm sorry to hear about that, Muckshifter my old mate.

I'm going to miss our little chats ...

[hedgehog 100] 02/1/2014 23:10

Ladies & gentlemen (& Muckshifter),

A Happy New Year to one and all!

I hope that 2014 will deliver mining services gains to all deserving shareholders.


In the 24th. December issue of "Shares" magazine, there is a six page 'sector report' article by Dan Coatsworth on the mining sector, entitled as follows:
"Miners offer fresh rich seam
Metal and coal diggers need to rebound from long losing streak"

The article is generally quite good, and is moderately bullish on the sector.

It says that after three bad years in 2011-2013, 2014 could be good, and that the sector could be worth a look.

Here is an extract:
"Investment bank Macquarie reckons some mining companies will be 'itching' to push ahead with projects now many commodity prices are stabilising after the gradual downtrend of 2011 to 2013."

[koolio] 02/1/2014 15:37

I don't hold SHFT at present, but based on the order book I consider they offer some value. The price of platinum must surely separate further from the price of gold in 2014, at least if the FED have got it right the industrial metal will pull away from the safe haven hedge. SHFT have most of their experience working in SA for the platinum industry and should benefit indirectly.
The Eurochem claim is concerning and is the main reason I haven't taken a few in to the portfolio. I work for a civil contracting company and would state that typically (not always) we would offer a proposal to a scope of work. There would normally follow a client clarification meeting prior to any award. One of the earliest milestones would be the client approval of the method statement and risk assessment. I keep asking myself if SHFT would have ever said to Eurochem in the method statement documents that shaft freezing would be a part of the process they would/were prepared to employ to advance the shaft. I know that other contractors said the shaft freezing would be the solution to the flooding encountered but I assume the SHFT had no expertise in that method and perhaps if they had attempted it would have compromised their position.
It will be interesting and I will follow news closely.

[sjc] 23/12/2013 09:11

This chart is developing a saucer imo. When the 50 day m/a Crosses the flat 200 m/a poss. in next 2 months, supported by RNS dir. buys or other positive statement this could attract the volume to start and continue driving the price....up. All IMO. DYOR.

[hedgehog 100] 19/12/2013 14:44

An extract from Wikipedia about asset freezing:

"A freezing order will usually only be made where the claimant can show that there was at least a good arguable case that they would succeed at trial and that the refusal of an injunction would involve a real risk that a judgment or award in their favour would remain unsatisfied (Ninemia Maritime corporation v Trave Schiffahrtgesellschaft m.b.H und Co.K.G [1983] 1 WLR 1412). It is recognised as being quite harsh on defendants because the order is often granted at the pre-trial stage in ex parte hearings, based on affidavit evidence alone."



That test, i.e. showing a good arguable case that they would succeed at trial, looks to me to be the same test as proceeding to trial rather than having it dismissed beforehand due to extreme weakness. I.e. it's not a very high bar to cross.
Note the comment about it being quite harsh on defendants.

Being able to argue a case is one thing: being able to prove it in court, with sufficiently strong evidence, is quite another.

In summary, I don't consider that IMR's assets being frozen is any more of an indication of the strength of EuroChem's case against them than the fact that it is proceeding to arbitration hearings.

[muckshifter] 17/12/2013 18:43

Your real problem here Hedgehog is that you still haven't grasped that there were no "unforeseen ground conditions" at Eurochem. The difficult ground conditions were entirely foreseen – hence the cost plus contract. What wasn't foreseen by shft, was that their method would not get them past those bad ground conditions. They got it wrong, thinking that it would work like it had done the last time they were faced with similar problems, forty years earlier. I've explained that many times, but of course it suits you to ignore that fact.

So, no I most certainly didn't suggest that HZ was in any way a similar problem.

I'm really not interested in Melnichenko's antics with statues and boats, but the newspaper reports – for whatever credence you give them, you usually like them, I take them all with a pinch of salt – say that the art dealer "settled with Melnichenko" which to me means he paid something to settle, and the newspapers said that Akzo Nobel had repainted the boat after the first paint coatings failed.

And in terms of IMR / shft, there wouldn't be much point in freezing shft's assets, would there. But if you have a good case for proving corrupt behaviour has caused you a big loss, and two companies as closely entwined as shft / IMR were involved, you would of course treat them as effectively one.

P.S. 19th. Just had a quick look at shft's RNSs, and sure enough, they do not use the key word, "unforeseen" which occurs in clause 12 of the FIDIC conditions I have to hand, when describing "difficult" ground conditions at Eurochem, (and a very similar clause, which is the clause most commonly invoked for extra payment and extensions of time, using the same word, exists in most civil engineering Conditions of Contract I've worked with).

[hedgehog 100] 17/12/2013 18:37

What you don't seem to grasp is basic business or economics - and indeed you've never actually read a book on investment.

Because you can't grasp the fact that flooding an unreceptive market with a vast amount of new potash will hit the potash price. That's why you can't understand Helmer's analysis.


And SHFT is such a bad investment, on a forward P/E for the year ending imminently of barely 2, then what should we be buying instead?
Because your investment message seems to consist of one thing only: don't buy SHFT!!

If you're 98% fully invested, then what are those shares??!!


But maybe I should stop responding and just put you on filter, in case you're employed by a bashing organisation and get paid per response.


Also, unlike you, I don't really have time for these time-wasting exchanges.

[muckshifter] 17/12/2013 18:23

Wriggling as usual hedgehog – perhaps utilising your complete ignorance on the subject of civil engineering, its contract forms, dispute procedures, tender methods, etc to pretend that you didn't understand the points that I have made.

Never, at any time have I suggested, in any way, that I have expertise in mining or shaft sinking. The expertise that I claim to have after a lifetime working in civil engineering, is a good understanding of contract terms, tendering procedures, negotiation of variation orders, claims, dispute procedures, etc. All of which are common to every form of civil engineering ie, in case you still don't understand FIDIC conditions are FIDIC conditions, whether used for the construction of a dam, motorway, airport platform, jetty, sewage works, tunnel or shaft etc. etc. The other area of expertise that I have is an understanding of soils, after decades of reading site investigations, interpreting them and then shifting those soils, ie muckshifting.

So, yes I do think your constant attempts to discredit me by suggesting that I had some sort of association with shft, or its competitors, was either absolutely dishonest, or a sign of absolute stupidity.

And as far as Helmer is concerned, he is either dishonest or stupid, if he writes drivel such as the article you love, but now seem completely unable to defend effectively.

What poor call would that be about Hindustan Zinc, which is well behind programme according to shft RNSs, and Kibali, where shft acknowledge that they have made great efforts to get back on track? Six months behind programme and still going backwards after eighteen months is a serious situation, which has been acknowledged several times by shft at HZ. HZ is a rates contract, iirc, so those problems and the efforts to get back on programme will be reflected in terms of a poor profit margin at this stage. I believe, as previously stated, that shft have the resources, ie, people coming off SA contracts, to put this one right. Kibali will currently probably not be showing a loss because, iirc, it is a target cost contract, unless shft fall foul of a milestone, which would be painful. Again they should be able to catch up as they are saying they are nearly there now, and with luck they will not suffer serious losses because of the problems, but if they do, those losses would show up at the end of the project. I suspect that shft have had an extension of time awarded at Kibali, but none of us will see that information, or be told whether or not that EOT attracts extra overhead payment.

What you just don't seem to grasp, Hedgehog, is that being behind programme on any form of civil engineering contract is a serious matter, particularly if your operation is a critical part of a big expensive scheme with many other contracts running concurrently and often dependent on your progress.

[hedgehog 100] 17/12/2013 16:50

From post 1893 on the "SHFT" thread:

muckshifter 30 Apr'13 - 11:16 - 1898 of 2357 1 0
" ... The Hindustan Zinc project and the Kibali Goldmine project are both potentially company makers, or breakers, because of their significance in terms of overall project development costs and critical path. The Hindustan contract has already experienced delays caused by, I suspect, the muckshift subcontractor (unforeseen ground conditions anyone?), and the Kibali job mentions logistic problems which they believe have been overcome. Such things, at the start of a major project, do not bode well for programme float. ... "


Now Muckshifter you say on his thread, above:

muckshifter 16 Dec'13 - 18:14 - 246 of 247 0 0
"Changing the subject as usual hedgehog?
"Didn't you insinuate, Muckshifter, that SHFT's Hindustan Zinc Rampura Agucha Mine project had similar problems to the EuroChem project, LOL?"
No, I didn't Hedgehog. ... "


Well, the EuroChem project was hit by unforeseen ground conditions, so by referring to such a problem with the Hindustan Zinc project in the way you did, you WERE clearly insinuating that the Hindustan Zinc project was going the same way, in a smear of supreme idiocy.


And as regards SHFT's EuroChem legal dispute, your idiocy is seemingly never-ending.

Any intelligent person would immediately notice the discrepancy between Melnichenko claiming £2.6m in damages for a sculpture he paid £423,000 for, and would not assume that an out-of-court settlement meant that he had won - on the contrary.

Similarly, his claiming $100 million for paint on a boat. Give me a break!!
And there's no indication that Akzo Nobel paid for a repainting.


Finally, IMR is not Shaft Sinkers!! The freezing of IMR's assets, when SHFT's haven't been frozen, serves to underline that IMR, not SHFT, is Melnichenko's main target in this dispute.

[hedgehog 100] 17/12/2013 16:15

Muckshifter,

You have droned on seemingly endlessly about what a supposed (self-proclaimed) expert you are on SHFT's type of work, through your work experience.

So how is thinking that your paths may have crossed professionally being dishonest?

It isn't. You are simply showing that you have a screw loose.


But you have also repeatedly suggested that the journalist John Helmer is a dishonest liar, despite his outstanding reputation and experience, so I am in good company.


I accept that many investors may occasionally disagree with a journalist, e.g. in the IC or Shares magazines, but I've never elsewhere heard of one being repeatedly condemned as a dishonest liar.


The real issue of integrity here is your continual false scaremongering about SHFT, and I note that you have ignored my point about your poor call on SHFT's Kibali and Hindustan Zinc projects.


Also, why not try to explain why, if you are 98% invested as you claim, you never post about those investments (at least not under the Muckshifter username), but rather make the large majority of your posts on a company (SHFT) that you claim not to be interested in buying or shorting?

[wylecoyote] 17/12/2013 13:07

Thought I would pop along and see what is happening.... Still HH and muckshifter are moaning at each other. No change then. Although it should be stated that I would side with Muchshifter in most cases.